Blogs

A Heckler Threw a Shoe At Hillary Clinton. She Dodged It. Here's the Video.

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 4:30 PM PDT

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton gave a speech before a meeting of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Nevada. Just after taking the stage, an as-yet unnamed woman rose from the crowd and threw something at her. Thankfully, Clinton was unharmed, ducking and joking, "Was that a bat?...Is that somebody throwing something at me? Is that part of Cirque de Soleil? My goodness, I didn't know that solid waste management was so controversial. Thank goodness she didn't play softball like I did."

Here is a video, courtesy of ABC:

The would-be assailant was taken into custody and is said to have later revealed that the item in question was a shoe, naturally.

Clinton and Bush: Just more of the same.

(Don't throw shoes at people.)

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Wiretapping Advocate Condoleezza Rice Joins Dropbox

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 3:27 PM PDT

The internet is not pleased that Condoleezza Rice will be joining the board of the filesharing service Dropbox. A lot of the concern has to do with the fact that she'll be helping Dropbox navigate "international expansion and privacy" issues. As Ars Technica notes, the former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State isn't exactly the kind of person you'd trust to defend your data from Uncle Sam: In 2003, she authorized NSA wiretaps of members of the United Nations Security Council at the behest of George W. Bush, and later defended them. Of course, to be fair, maybe having an insider like Rice onboard will allow Dropbox to push back against would-be government intrusions. Still, the news is likely to give a boost to Dropbox competitors that now market their cloud services, convincingly or not, as "NSA-proof."

Two French Unions Ban Work Email After 6 pm

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 1:41 PM PDT

Huh. A couple of white-collar unions in France have signed a new labor agreement:

The legally binding deal, signed by employers' federations and unions representing almost one million workers in the digital and consultancy sectors, stipulates that employees should be left alone when they are out of the office.

Staff will be ordered to switch off their professional phones and avoid looking at work-related emails or documents on their tablets and computers. Businesses will be required to ensure that workers are under no pressure to check their messages.

The ban takes effect at 6 pm each night. Remarkable.

WATCH: In the United States of John Roberts, the Billionaire Minority Are Opressed No Longer [Fiore Cartoon]

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 12:59 PM PDT

Mark Fiore is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist and animator whose work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Examiner, and dozens of other publications. He is an active member of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, and has a website featuring his work.

GOP Senate Candidate: "I Have Big Boy Pants on Every Day”

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 12:12 PM PDT
 

At a closed-door meeting last year at the North Carolina General Assembly building, Thom Tillis, the state speaker of the house and frontrunner in the GOP primary to take on Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan in November, clashed with Republican activists and legislators who claimed that Tillis was blocking conservative legislation to bolster his chances in the Senate race. In a contentious exchange that was caught on tape, Tillis and a fellow Republican tried to put their disagreements behind them before stumbling into an argument over whether Tillis was wearing "big boy pants":

Unidentified speaker: Sometimes in the heat of the moments things are said that maybe could be better stated had we had time to think about what we’re gonna say. But sir, I think it’s time now for us to put this behind us, put our big boy pants on and say okay we—

Tillis: I understand that, I understand that, but I have big boy pants on every day, with all due respect. That's why I'm sitting in this room trying to solve this problem. That was fine up to this point, I think that kind of comment’s not really showing respect.

This is funny, because who says "big boy pants"? (Besides Florida Dem Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who used the term to diss Mitt Romney.) But the context is significant. At one point, according Chuck Suter, a North Carolina conservative activist who was in the meeting and posted the clip, Tillis slammed his chair into the table and began to walk out of the room before returning to finish a point. The chair-slam can be heard on the tape.

Tillis, whose campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment, held the meeting to clear the air after Republican state Rep. Larry Pittman, who was also in attendance, criticized Tillis in a speech. The question of whether Tillis is conservative enough hasn't gone away. Heavyweights including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Americans for Prosperity have endorsed one of Tillis' rivals, Greg Brannon, an OBGYN who runs a chain of crisis-pregnancy clinics. The most recent survey of the primary from Public Policy Polling showed Tillis well short of the 40-percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff.

Stephen Colbert Is Replacing Letterman. Here Are His Best—and Worst—Political Moments

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 11:27 AM PDT

On Thursday, CBS announced that Stephen Colbert will replace the retiring David Letterman as host of Late Show. (Mashable reported last week that Colbert was the network's top choice to take over for Letterman.) When Colbert leaves for CBS, he'll be leaving behind The Colbert Report at Comedy Central, where he has played the part of fake conservative cable-TV commentator since 2005.

We're assuming that once he starts his gig at Late Show he'll be doing less left-leaning political satire than he's used to. So here's a look back at his very best—and very worst—political moments over the past few years. And no, #CancelColbert does not make either list:

THE BEST:

1. Colbert slams the Obama administration's legal justification for killing American citizens abroad suspected of terrorism: "Trial by jury, trial by fire, rock, paper scissors, who cares? Due process just means that there is a process that you do," Colbert said in March 2012. "The current process is, apparently, first the president meets with his advisers and decides who he can kill. Then he kills them."

"Due process just means that there is a process that you do" is pretty dead-on:

 

2. The Colbert Report's incredibly moving, stereotype-smashing segment on the openly gay mayor of Vicco, Kentucky: "To get your point across, sometimes you just gotta laugh," Mayor Johnny Cummings told Mother Jones, after the segment aired. "That's how I look at it. So I thought, OK, The Colbert Report would be perfect."

"If God makes 'em born gay, then why is he against it?" a Vicco resident asks in the clip's moving final moments. "I can't understand that. I've tried and tried and tried to understand that, and I can't."

 

3. Colbert on The O'Reilly Factor: Bill O'Reilly still seems to think that Colbert, the satirist, is doing great damage to this country.

 

4. Colbert's roasting of President George W. Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner:  "Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating," Colbert said. "But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias."

For a transcript, click here.

 

5. Colbert's surreal congressional testimony: He testified (in character) before a House hearing in 2010 on immigrant farm workers. He offered to submit video of his colonoscopy into the congressional record:

 

6. Colbert was a two-time presidential candidate who used comedy to highlight the absurdity of the post-Citizens United election landscape. Here's his recent letter to the IRS, in which he requests the opportunity to testify at a public hearing:

Stephen Colbert Comment to IRS

 

THE WORST:

1. That time he used Henry Kissinger as a dance partner: The former secretary of state and national security advisor has been accused by human rights groups and journalists of complicity in major human rights violations and war crimes around the globe: In Chile (murder and subversion of democracy), Bangladesh (genocide), East Timor (yet more genocide), Argentina, Vietnam, and Cambodia, to name a few.

So it's odd that Colbert would feature him in a lighthearted dance-party segment last August. The video (set to Daft Punk's hit "Get Lucky") also includes famous people whom no one has ever accused of war crimes, such as Matt Damon, Jeff BridgesBryan Cranston, and Hugh Laurie:

 

2. The other time he made Kissinger seem like a lovable, aging teddy bear: Kissinger was also on The Colbert Report in 2006 during the Colbert guitar "ShredDown." The following clip also features Eliot Spitzer and guitarist Peter Frampton:

 

Colbert's apparent coziness with Kissinger is even stranger when you consider how Colbert has blasted "the war crimes of Nixon," and has said that he "despair[s] that people forget those." Perhaps he forgot that "the war crimes" he spoke of were as much Kissinger's as they were President Nixon's.

Anyway, viewers can hope that when he's hosting on CBS, there will be fewer musical numbers featuring war criminals.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Watch Harrison Ford Fight Climate Change In a Fighter Jet

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 11:17 AM PDT

Any film that opens with Harrison Ford buckling into a fighter jet for the sake of science can't be all bad. Especially when that's followed by Don Cheadle tromping through Texas cow country, followed by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman strapping on a flak jacket and pushing into the heart of Syria's civil war. It's almost enough to make you forget you're watching a show about climate change.

But in fact, the new Showtime series Years of Living Dangerously is about just that, traversing the warming globe alongside an A-List cast that, as the season progresses, will include Matt Damon, Jessica Alba, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The show premieres Sunday (but the first episode, above, is already online), and counts Hollywood kingmakers Jerry Weintraub and James Cameron as executive producers, and Climate Progress founding editor Joe Romm and Climate Central scientist Heidi Cullen as science advisors.

If you already follow climate change, many of the stories here won't be new—deforestation in Indonesia, drought in Texas, conflict in Syria. But Years is a rare, big-budget effort to put the issue squarely in front of an audience more accustomed to Dexter and Homeland, and it does so with spectacular cinematography and compelling, interwoven plot lines that help to propel you through the basics of climate science to arrive at... aw, don't listen to me, just watch the thing.

Some Follow-Up Notes on Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century"

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 10:47 AM PDT

I'm a little reluctant to dive ever deeper into the weeds of Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century since I'm woefully unqualified for the task. But I have a couple of follow-up comments that might be worthwhile. These are things I alluded to in my post on Tuesday but didn't elaborate on.

First: As you know by now, Piketty's primary argument is that, historically, r > g. That is, the return on capital is higher than economic growth, which means that owners of capital see their incomes grow faster than ordinary laborers. Since the rich own most of the capital, this means that the incomes of the rich naturally increase faster than the non-rich unless proactive steps are taken to stop it.

That's fine. But take a look at the highlighted region in the chart on the right. The first set of points is for 1950-2012, a period in which r was about 0.5 percentage points less than g. The next set of points is a projection for 2012-2050, a period in which r is roughly 0.5 percentage points greater than g. This is not a big difference, especially considering the inherent noise in the data. Even if it's correct, it means the next 40 years will see only small changes in the relative returns to capital and labor.

The real action is in the period 2050-2100, and it's almost entirely dependent on Piketty's projection that g will plummet by two full percentage points. Now, this might be correct. But keep in mind what's going on here. Piketty's main conclusion is (a) based on a projection more than 50 years in the future, which is inherently unreliable, and (b) primarily a guess that economic growth will plummet. So everything boils down to this: will global economic growth plummet during the period 2050-2100? I'd like to suggest that this is a very different question from the one most people are addressing in their reviews of Piketty.

Second: Another thing I mentioned on Tuesday is that if economic growth slows and capital stocks increase, then the return on capital should go down. Piketty acknowledges this—though not in the chart above—but contends that r will fall less than g. In technical terms, this all depends on the elasticity of substitution between capital and labor. However, over at Tyler Cowen's blog, Matt Rognlie argues that Piketty is confusing gross and net production functions. If you account for depreciation, then the elasticity is such that r is likely to fall much faster than Piketty thinks as capital stocks increase and economic growth slows down.

I want to be clear that I can't assess this independently. But it sounds plausible, and Cowen thinks it sounds plausible too. I'd very much like to hear Piketty or someone else address this.

Behind the Scenes on Those Enormous Medicare Billing Numbers

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 8:53 AM PDT

Yesterday's data dump of how much Medicare pays doctors has generated predictable outrage about the vast amounts some of the top doctors bill. Obviously there are a lot of reasons for high billing rates, but Paul Waldman points to an interesting one: the way Medicare reimburses doctors for pharmaceuticals is partly to blame. The #1 Medicare biller on the list, for example, was a Florida ophthalmologist who prescribes Lucentis for macular degeneration instead of the cheaper Avastin. Since Medicare pays doctors a percentage of the cost of the drugs they use, he got $120 for each dose he administered instead of one or two dollars. That adds up fast. (More on Avastin vs. Lucentis here.)

In the LA Times today, a Newport Beach oncologist who's also near the top of the Medicare billing list offers this defense:

For his part, Nguyen, 39, said his Medicare payout is misleading because all five physicians at his oncology practice bill under his name, and much of that money overall is reimbursement for expensive chemotherapy drugs on which he says doctors make little or no money. Other high-volume doctors voiced similar complaints about the data.

Anyway, Waldman wonders why we do this:

If nothing else, this story should point us to one policy change we could make pretty easily: get rid of that six percent fee and just give doctors a flat fee for writing prescriptions. Make it $5, or $10, or any number that makes sense. There's no reason in the world that the fee should be tied to the price of the drug; all that does is give doctors an incentive to prescribe the most expensive medication they can. That wouldn't solve all of Medicare's problems, but it would be a start. Of course, the pharmaceutical lobby would pull out all the stops trying to keep that six percent fee in place. But that's no reason not to try.

The backstory here is that Medicare used to set the reimbursement rate for "physician-administered drugs" based on an average wholesale price set by manufacturers. This price was routinely gamed, so Congress switched to reimbursing doctors based on an average sales price formula that's supposed to reflect the actual price physicians pay for the drugs. Then they tacked on an extra 6 percent in order to compensate for storage, handling and other administrative costs.

I don't know if 6 percent is the right number, but the theory here is reasonable. If you have to carry an inventory of expensive drugs, you have to finance that inventory, and the financing cost depends on the value of the inventory. More expensive drugs cost more to finance.

However, this does motivate doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs, a practice that pharmaceutical companies are happy to encourage. I don't know how broadly this is an actual problem, but it certainly is in the case of Avastin vs. Lucentis, where the cost differential is upwards of 100x for two drugs that are equally effective. And the problem here is that Medicare is flatly forbidden from approving certain drugs but not others. As long as Lucentis works, Medicare has to pay for it. That's great news for Genentech, but not so great for the taxpayers footing the bill.

MAP: In 31 States, Daycare Is More Expensive Than College

| Thu Apr. 10, 2014 7:20 AM PDT

Last month, Shanesha Taylor, a homeless single mom in Phoenix, Arizona, was arrested for allegedly leaving her two children in her car while she went to a job interview. Taylor's story, and her tearful mug shot, have attracted national attention and an outpouring of donations. Debate the morals, but one thing is clear: child care is expensive. As the Washington Post reported Wednesday, infant daycare costs more than in-state college tuition in about two-thirds of the nation.

In 31 states, parents have to shell out more annually for infant child care than for a year of tuition and fees at a mid-priced state college, according to a report released last fall by Child Care Aware America, a national organization of child-care resource agencies. In New York, daycare for young children costs $8,000 more than in-state college tuition. Infant child care in Massachusetts, Maryland, Colorado, Wyoming, Alaska and Oregon also costs thousands of dollars more per year than a state college education. Check it out, via the Post. (In red states, daycare costs more):

The difference in the cost of daycare and higher education among states is due to variances in costs of living, differing state regulations, and disparities in state spending on higher education.

Child care costs have jumped over the past couple decades. In 1985, the average weekly cost of daycare in the US was $87 in 2013 dollars. In 2010, child care cost $148 a week. That may help explain why more moms are choosing to stay at home today than at any point during the past 20 years. According to a Pew Research report released Tuesday, the share of stay-at-home mothers rose from a low of 23 percent in 1999 to 29 percent in 2012.