Blogs | Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/Blogs/2013/12/%3Cscript%20src%3D http://www.motherjones.com/files/motherjonesLogo_google_206X40.png Mother Jones logo http://www.motherjones.com en Health Update http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/health-update <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Ha ha. Just kidding. It will be several months before we know how effective the new chemo meds are. However, I can tell you that (a) so far I'm suffering no side effects, (b) my routine lab tests are all fine, and (c) I feel pretty good. I'm sleeping OK, my energy level is nearly back to normal, my stomach has finally recovered, and my hair is growing back.</p> <p>And speaking of hair, that's the real purpose of this post. My hair has now grown back to the point that I have a decision to make: keep it as is, or let it grow to its old length? It's not like my old hair was any great shakes, but still, after 55 years you get accustomed to things. On the other hand, the new do does have advantages. Easy upkeep. No worries about wind or hat hair. Cheaper haircuts.</p> <p>Comparison photos are below. Anyway, feel free to vote in comments. Old hair or new?</p> <p><img align="left" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_kevin_head_2004.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 4px 5px 60px;"><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_kevin_head_2015_0.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 5px 4px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:52:49 +0000 Kevin Drum 282981 at http://www.motherjones.com Inflation Is Low? Let's Tighten Monetary Policy Anyway. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/inflation-low-lets-tighten-monetary-policy-anyway <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer comments on <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-fischer-good-reason-to-think-u-s-inflation-will-move-higher-1440865560" target="_blank">inflation and monetary policy:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The Federal Reserve&rsquo;s No. 2 official said <strong>there is &ldquo;good reason&rdquo; to think sluggish U.S. inflation will firm and move back toward the U.S. central bank&rsquo;s 2% annual target,</strong> touching on a significant assessment facing the Fed ahead of its September policy meeting.</p> <p>....When the time comes to raise rates, Mr. Fischer said, &ldquo;we will most likely need to proceed cautiously&rdquo; and with inflation low, &ldquo;we can probably remove accommodation at a gradual pace. <strong>Yet, because monetary policy influences real activity with a substantial lag, we should not wait until inflation is back to 2% to begin tightening.</strong>&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>A lot of people think the big problem with Fischer's statement is the first bolded sentence. There's been "good reason" to think inflation will increase for a long time. And yet it hasn't. Why are we supposed to believe that this year's good reason is any better than previous ones?</p> <p>That's fair enough. But I think the real problem is in the second bolded sentence: Fischer is intent on tightening monetary policy well <em>before</em> inflation shows any sign of hitting 2 percent. This illustrates a serious asymmetry in the Fed's decisionmaking. If inflation goes below the 2 percent target, they're willing to wait things out. But if it shows even the slightest sign of maybe, someday going a few basis points above the 2 percent target, then it's time to tighten. The net result of this is that inflation won't average 2 percent. It will swing between 1 and 2 percent, maybe averaging 1.5 percent or so.</p> <p>That's a bad thing, and it's especially bad if, like me, you think our inflation target should be more like 3-4 percent anyway. But that's the way it is.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_pce_2006_1H2015.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 5px 10px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:42:34 +0000 Kevin Drum 282996 at http://www.motherjones.com Question of the Day: With Friends Like This.... http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/question-day-friends <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_trump_iowa_state_fair.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">Last month, Donald Trump said he didn't consider John McCain a war hero because "I like people who weren't captured." <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/08/26/leaked-emails-show-iowan-sharply-criticized-trump-before-joining-his-campaign/32432755/" target="_blank">Who said this afterward?</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Mr. Trump's remarks were insulting to me as a veteran and as a person whose family sacrificed for 25 years as I missed anniversaries, birthdays, holidays, Christmases and Easters....I was offended by a man who sought and gained four student deferments to avoid the draft and who has never served this nation a day &mdash; not a day &mdash; in any fashion or way.</p> <p>....Why should I not be suspicious of an individual who was pro-choice until he decided to run for president? Why should I not be suspicious of a person who advocates for universal healthcare? Why should I not be suspicious of someone who says he hates lobbyists and yet has spread millions of dollars around to Republicans and Democrats to enrich himself? Why should I not be suspicious of someone who cannot come to say that he believes in God, that he has never asked for forgiveness and that communion is simply wine and a cracker.</p> <p>....[Trump] left me with questions about his moral center and his foundational beliefs....His comments reveal no foundation in Christ, which is a big deal.</p> </blockquote> <p>If you answered Sam Clovis, the conservative Iowan who is now Trump's national campaign co-chair, give yourself a gold star! The <em>Des Moines Register</em> says dryly that this raises questions about whether Clovis was motivated to join Trump's campaign "less by ideology and more by the promise of a big paycheck from a business mogul who has said he is willing to spend as much as a billion dollars to get elected."</p> <p>I guess it does. You really think that might have been in the back of Clovis's mind?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sat, 29 Aug 2015 20:12:38 +0000 Kevin Drum 282991 at http://www.motherjones.com GOP Hauling Out Tired Old Weapons to Sink Iran Deal http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/gop-hauling-out-tired-old-weapons-sink-iran-deal <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>The <em>Wall Street Journal</em> reports that as the Iran deal looks increasingly impossible for Republicans to defeat, they're thinking of <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/foes-try-new-ways-to-attack-obamas-iran-nuclear-deal-1440802995" target="_blank">new ways to undermine it <em>after</em> it goes into effect:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>As their chances dim, they are preparing to push a rash of new legislation for the fall to increase sanctions on Tehran for its role in supporting terrorist organizations and militant groups active across the Mideast, which could cause Iran to back out of the deal. These politicians also are devising new ways to target the finances of Tehran&rsquo;s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.</p> <p>....The fresh sanctions push has the potential to put the White House and leading Democrats, such as the party&rsquo;s presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton, in a quandary. Those supporters of the deal could later face a tough decision over whether to back increased sanctions against Iran.</p> </blockquote> <p>It's possible that Republicans can scrounge up enough Democratic support to overcome a filibuster and force an Obama veto on some of these measures. But I assume they don't really care about that. Obama's coming up on his last year in office and probably doesn't care much if he has to veto a few bills. Rather, as the <em>Journal</em> suggests, this is just normal election-year game-playing. Republicans want to introduce bills that will force Hillary Clinton to take a stand that will hurt her no matter how she responds. Oppose the sanctions and she's a Hezbollah lover. Support the sanctions and she's an AIPAC stooge.</p> <p>There's nothing very original about this. Both parties do it whenever they can, and if Hillary Clinton is even a half-decent politician she'll be able to maneuver her way through without any big problems. As long as Republicans don't threaten to shut down the government over this, it probably won't be a very big deal.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sat, 29 Aug 2015 19:00:18 +0000 Kevin Drum 282986 at http://www.motherjones.com Palin Ponders the Infinite: Does the Lamestream Media Ever Ask Hillary About Her Favorite Bible Verse? http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/palin-ponders-infinite-does-lamestream-media-ever-ask-hillary-about-her-favorite- <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p><iframe align="right" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="258" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oeju2SG7UMA" style="margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;" width="400"></iframe>Huh. I almost forgot about the Palin-Trump lollapalooza. But it's all on YouTube, and it was pretty boring. Palin's word salad was subpar and it was just the same-old-same-old from Trump. My favorite part was this bit from Palin:</p> <blockquote> <p>So you get hit with these gotchas, like most conservatives do. For instance, asking what's your favorite Bible verse. And I listen to that going, what? Do they ask Hillary that?</p> </blockquote> <p>Indeed they do! On August 27, 2007, in a nationally televised debate, Tim Russert asked every Democrat on the stage to <a href="http://www.cfr.org/elections/democratic-debate-transcript-new-hampshire/p14313" target="_blank">share their favorite Bible verse:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>RUSSERT: Before we go, there's been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values. I want to ask you a simple question.</p> <p>Senator Obama, what is your favorite Bible verse?</p> <p>OBAMA: Well, I think it would have to be the Sermon on the Mount, because it expresses a basic principle that I think we've lost over the last six years.</p> <p>John talked about what we've lost. Part of what we've lost is a sense of empathy towards each other. We have been governed in fear and division, and you know, we talk about the federal deficit, but we don't talk enough about the empathy deficit, a sense that I stand in somebody else's shoes, I see through their eyes. People who are struggling trying to figure out how to pay the gas bill, or try to send their kids to college. We are not thinking about them at the federal level. That's the reason I'm running for president, because I want to restore that.</p> <p>RUSSERT: I want to give everyone a chance in this. You just take 10 seconds.</p> <p><strong>Senator Clinton, favorite Bible verse?</strong></p> <p><strong>CLINTON: The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I think it's a good rule for politics, too.</strong></p> <p>RUSSERT: Senator Gravel?</p> <p>GRAVEL: The most important thing in life is love. That's what empowers courage, and courage implements the rest of our virtues.</p> <p>RUSSERT: Congressman Kucinich?</p> <p>KUCINICH: I carry that with me at every debate, this prayer from St. Francis, which says, Lord, make me an instrument of your peace, and I believe very strongly that all of us can be instruments of peace. And that's what I try to bring to public life.</p> <p>RUSSERT: Senator Edwards?</p> <p>EDWARDS: It appears many times in the Bible, What you do onto the least of those, you do onto me.</p> <p>RUSSERT: Governor Richardson?</p> <p>RICHARDSON: The Sermon on the Mount, because I believe it's an issue of social justice, equality, brotherly issues reflecting a nation that is deeply torn and needs to be heal and come together.</p> <p>DODD: The Good Samaritan would be a worthwhile sort of description of who we all ought to be in life.</p> <p>RUSSERT: Senator Biden?</p> <p>BIDEN: Christ's warning of the Pharisees. There are many Pharisees, and it's part of what has bankrupted some people's view about religion. And I worry about the Pharisees.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hillary Clinton's choice wasn't very original, I admit, but neither was Obama's. Biden, as usual, provided the most entertaining answer: "I worry about the Pharisees." I guess we all do, Joe. In any case, the lamestream media had no problem asking, and the Democrats all had no problem answering. See? It's not so hard.</p> <p>What's <em>your</em> favorite Bible verse? I'd recommend Mark 12:38 "Beware of the scribes." I think Palin would agree that it's good advice for any era.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Sat, 29 Aug 2015 16:37:47 +0000 Kevin Drum 282976 at http://www.motherjones.com Quote of the Day: "Love, Fidelity, Devotion, Sacrifice and Family" http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/quote-day-love-fidelity-devotion-sacrifice-and-family <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>This is becoming a favorite prologue to wedding vows <a href="http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-couples-justice-kennedy-20150828-story.html" target="_blank">across the nation:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_same_sex_marriage.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">two people become something greater than once they were.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's from Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in <em>Obergefell vs. Hodges</em>, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. At the time, Antonin Scalia mocked Kennedy's writing for its "straining-to-be-memorable passages," and it turns out he was more right than he knew. Both gay and straight couples around the country have begun incorporating it into their wedding ceremonies:</p> <blockquote> <p>The night the high court's ruling was announced, Sandy Queen of Weddings by Sandy called Craig Lamberton and David Ermisch, whose wedding she was performing in Rockville, Md., the next morning. She suggested including Kennedy's opinion in their ceremony.</p> <p>The couple immediately agreed. "We thought it was perfect," said Lamberton, an administrative officer at USAID. He and Ermisch, a cartographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, have been together 15 years.</p> <p>....She isn't the only one. "Honestly, in the 14 years I've been ordained, there has not been a passage that struck a chord as quickly as Justice Kennedy&rsquo;s statement," said the Rev. Pamela Brehm of Berks County, Pa. "Perhaps there may never be another quite so touching."</p> </blockquote> <p>Who knows? This may just be a passing thing. But if it's not, Anthony Kennedy could end up as the most famous Supreme Court justice of the early 21st century, quoted in hundreds of marriage ceremonies every day. Kinda nice.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Interactives Sat, 29 Aug 2015 15:35:58 +0000 Kevin Drum 282971 at http://www.motherjones.com Here Is a Video of Sarah Palin Interviewing Donald Trump. It Is Bonkers. http://www.motherjones.com/contributor/2015/08/starts-chanting-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-stops-chanting <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Hahahahaha.</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Oeju2SG7UMA" width="630"></iframe></p></body></html> Contributor Education Top Stories Donald Trump Sarah Palin Sat, 29 Aug 2015 14:01:39 +0000 Ben Dreyfuss 282966 at http://www.motherjones.com Judges Give NSA More Time to Suck Up Your Data http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/dc-appeals-court-lifts-injunction-against-nsa-bulk-collection-program <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, on Friday <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/us-usa-court-surveillance-idUSKCN0QX1QM20150828" target="_blank">tossed out</a> an injunction over the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of American's phone records, but left open the question of whether the program itself is legal.</p> <p>From&nbsp;<a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/court-overturns-injunction-against-nsa-bulk-data-collection-program-213123" target="_blank"><em>Politico</em></a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>The three appeals court judges assigned to the case splintered, with each writing a separate opinion. But they overturned a key ruling from December 2013 that critics of the NSA program had used to advance their claims that the collection of information on billions of calls made and received by Americans was illegal.</p> <p>That ruling, issued by Judge Richard Leon in Washington, sent shockwaves across the legal landscape because it was the first in which a federal court judge sided with critics who questioned the legality of sweeping up data on vast numbers of phone calls--nearly all of them completely unrelated to terrorism.</p> <p>The new decision Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not kill the lawsuit brought by conservative gadfly Larry Klayman. The appeals court voted, 2-1, to allow the lawsuit to proceed in the district court, but the judges left doubts about whether the case will ever succeed.</p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 24px;">In June, Congress</span>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-passes-house-bill-overhauling-nsa-surveillance-program-1433277227" target="_blank">phased out</a> the NSA's controversial program with the passing of the USA Freedom Act. The new law&nbsp;forced the NSA to obtain private phone records for counterterrorism&nbsp;investigations on a case-by-case basis through a court order.&nbsp;After the&nbsp;law <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-moves-ahead-with-retooling-of-us-surveillance-powers/2015/06/02/28f5e1ce-092d-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html" target="_blank">mandated</a>&nbsp;a six-month transition program for the new program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKCN0PA2G220150630" target="_blank">ruled</a> that the NSA could continue its existing bulk collection program&nbsp;through November.</p> <p>The American Civil Liberties Union <a href="http://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/14/aclu-slams-secretive-court-renewing-illegal-bulk-surveillance/" target="_blank">has also filed</a> an injunction to&nbsp;block the program, arguing that the surveillance court should not have reinstated the program after a federal appeals court in New York <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/nsa-bulk-metadata-collection-federal-judge" target="_blank">found it to be&nbsp;illegal</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p></body></html> MoJo Civil Liberties Tech Top Stories Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:18:37 +0000 Edwin Rios 282901 at http://www.motherjones.com Friday Cat Blogging - 28 August 2015 http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/friday-cat-blogging-28-august-2015 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>This is how we roll around here in August: stretched out to maximum length for maximum cooling power. Plus it might lure someone over to give Hilbert a tummy rub. Pretty often it does, in fact.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hilbert_2015_08_28.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 40px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:00:11 +0000 Kevin Drum 282931 at http://www.motherjones.com "Political Correctness" Is Mostly Just Code For Not Insulting People http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/political-correctness-mostly-just-code-not-insulting-people <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>S.E. Cupp says that Donald Trump's rise can be laid at the feet of liberal political correctness. <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_08/tell_us_what_you_really_mean_b057337.php" target="_blank">Ed Kilgore isn't buying:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Is that the source of all this hysteria? Conservative media accounts of random college speech code incidents and the occasional dumb move by a school principal? Something that <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_political_correctness.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">affects maybe a tenth of one percent of the population?</p> </blockquote> <p>Well....maybe. When it's on a 24/7 loop on Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, it probably seems like an epidemic. I can see it raising a lot of hackles. But let's continue:</p> <blockquote> <p>I'm sorry, I don't buy it. The Trump supporters and proto-Trump supporters I know are upset by things like having to listen to Spanish-language messages on customer service lines, not being able to call women "chicks" without someone frowning at them, and having to stop telling racist jokes at work. That's what "political correctness" is code for: having to worry about the sensitivities of people who were invisible or submissive not that very long ago.</p> <p>If Cupp is right and I'm not, then let's all cooperate in convincing Republican politicians and conservative pundits to stop using the term "political correctness" and come right and and tell us what the beef is about. Is it really "trigger warning" requirements at scattered liberal arts colleges? Or is it this whole new world we're in where people have to question old habits? When Ben Carson calls inhibitions about torturing terrorism suspects "political correctness," it's pretty clear he's yet another apostle for the Church of the Day Before Yesterday, when America was never wrong and dissenters kept their mouths shut.</p> </blockquote> <p>I could do with a little less speech policing from all sides, frankly. It gets a little tiresome sometimes. Still, the truth is that Ed is right: for the vast, vast majority of us, it leaves our lives entirely unaffected as long as you can avoid flat-out slurs against women, blacks, gays, Jews, and so forth. Really, that's about 99 percent of it. Is that really so hard?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:41:51 +0000 Kevin Drum 282926 at http://www.motherjones.com Man Is the Irrational Animal http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/man-irrational-animal <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Mark Kleiman points out that most of us need to hold more or less rational beliefs about our professional lives. "Even people whose stock-in-trade is deception&mdash;con artists, stockbrokers, lobbyists&mdash;have to observe the rules of arithmetic when it comes to totting up the take." <a href="http://www.samefacts.com/2015/08/elections/52349/" target="_blank">But that's only half the story:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Most of the time, though, people aren&rsquo;t at work, and much of what they think and talk about has little if any relevance to practical decisions in their own non-working lives. Freed of the need to think rationally, most people seem to prefer the alternative.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yep. This is why, say, it costs nothing to claim that evolution is nonsense and shouldn't be taught in schools. For the 99.9 percent of us who don't work in fields that require it, evolution doesn't affect our daily lives in any way at all. Believing or not believing is affinity politics and nothing more. This explains how Donald Trump gets away with being a buffoon:</p> <blockquote> <p>The deepest mistake is to regard someone who acts as if he doesn&rsquo;t give a damn whether anything he says is true, or consistent with what he said yesterday, as stupid....As far as I can tell, Donald Trump simply isn&rsquo;t bothered by holding and expressing utterly inconsistent beliefs about immigration, or for that matter denying obvious facts in the face of the crowd that witnessed them. And it doesn&rsquo;t much bother most of his voters, either....And if we deal with it by imagining that Trump, or Trump voters, are &ldquo;stupid,&rdquo; we&rsquo;re going to make some very bad predictions.</p> </blockquote> <p>We forgive a lot in people we like. Liberals forgive Hillary Clinton for her lawyerly and incompetent defense of her email practices. Trump fans forgive the fact that he makes no sense. But forgiveness is a virtue, right? I guess that makes Trump's supporters the most virtuous folks on the planet.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:55:00 +0000 Kevin Drum 282921 at http://www.motherjones.com Sarah Palin: No Bible Verses for You! http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/sarah-palin-no-bible-verses-you <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Great news! <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/08/sarah-palin-interview-donald-trump" target="_blank">Sarah Palin will be interviewing Donald Trump</a> at 10 p.m. Eastern on her brand new show, <em>On Point</em>, which started Monday and airs on the One America News network. It will be the greatest, classiest, rogue-iest interview ever!</p> <p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_sarah_palin_on_point.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">Wait. What's that? You don't get OAN on your cable system? Me neither. Bummer. Maybe it'll be on Palin's Facebook page eventually.</p> <p>What makes this whole thing a little weirder than even the normal Palin weirdness is that she announced her upcoming interview with a standard-issue blast on the lamestream media for asking Trump a gotcha question about his favorite Bible verse. "By the way," she writes, "even with my reading scripture everyday I wouldn't want to answer the guy's question either... it's none of his business; it IS personal." What makes this weird is that Palin has been happy to talk about this before. For example, <a href="http://billygraham.org/story/sarah-palin-draws-strength-from-scripture/" target="_blank">in this interview:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>In dealing with her daily challenges, Palin leans on the Bible verse that says, &ldquo;God hasn&rsquo;t given us a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and might and a sound mind.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>That's 2 Timothy 1:7 (close enough, anyway), and Palin has mentioned it on other occasions too. It really does seem to be one of her favorites. So why is this suddenly so personal that she doesn't think anyone should have to talk about it? Are we now all keeping our favorite Bible verses a deeply held secret?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:38:23 +0000 Kevin Drum 282911 at http://www.motherjones.com It Turns Out That Those "Full and Unedited" Planned Parenthood Videos.... Aren't http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/it-turns-out-those-full-and-unedited-videosarent <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>I gave up on the Planned Parenthood sting videos a long time ago. It's pretty obvious there was no criminal behavior unmasked, or even any unethical behavior.<sup>1</sup> The claims of the producers never matched the reality of the videos, so I stopped watching when new ones came out.</p> <p>But Sarah Kliff soldiered on! She not only watched them all, she watched the full, unedited versions. And she discovered something after reading a forensic analysis of the videos from Planned Parenthood: they aren't actually full and unedited. The folks who ran the sting claim that they did nothing more than edit out bathroom breaks, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217323/planned-parenthood-tapes-edited" target="_blank">but Kliff isn't buying it:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Take the first example I wrote about here, the meeting with the Texas Planned Parenthood clinic where the tape appears to jump forward a half-hour. In that case, nobody suggests a bathroom break. There's no change in meeting; when the video jumps forward, they're still sitting in the exact same seats.</p> <p>Meanwhile, the longer videos show lots of small-talk footage that isn't especially relevant to the argument over fetal body parts. I know because I watched all of it. There are moments in a car, where directions are being given and all the camera footage is totally blurry, where people stand around in hallways, where they talk about the relationship between caffeine and headaches. Those moments weren't cut from the tape &mdash; and it's hard to know what would make those different from the bathroom breaks and other moments deemed irrelevant to the audience.</p> </blockquote> <p>I guess we need a chant for this. <em>Release the video! We demand to see the bathroom breaks! Explain the timestamps!</em> Or something. As far as I'm concerned, Planned Parenthood has long since been exonerated in this episode, so I don't really need to see anything. But I am curious about just what they decided to leave out.</p> <p><sup>1</sup>Standard caveat: If you think abortion is murder, then everything on the video is unethical and immoral.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:52:07 +0000 Kevin Drum 282906 at http://www.motherjones.com Have Plans Tonight? Cancel Them. Sarah Palin Is Interviewing Donald Trump. http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/08/sarah-palin-interview-donald-trump <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Fed up with media bullies attacking Donald Trump's purported Bible fanaticism, Sarah Palin announced she will be interviewing the GOP front-runner and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/28/politics/donald-trump-church-member/index.html" target="_blank">nonactive church member</a> for what's sure to be a circus of a conversation. In a Facebook post today, the former vice presidential candidate and <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/06/fox-news-has-apparently-had-enough-sarah-palin" target="_blank">fired</a> Fox News host explained her plans:</p> <center> <div id="fb-root">&nbsp;</div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10153596970878588" data-width="500"> <div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"> <blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10153596970878588"> <p>WTH, LAMESTREAM MEDIA! STAY OUT OF MY BIBLEWTH? Lamestream media asks GOP personal, spiritual "gotchas" that they'd...</p> Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin">Sarah Palin</a> on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10153596970878588">Friday, August 28, 2015</a></blockquote> </div> </div> </center> <p>What exactly is One America News? Unclear, but here's <a href="http://www.oann.com/wheretowatch/" target="_blank">how to access it. </a></p> <p>It's all happening.</p> <p><em><strong>Update: </strong></em><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/contributor/2015/08/starts-chanting-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-kiss-stops-chanting" target="_blank">Here is a link to the interview.</a></p></body></html> Mixed Media 2016 Elections Media Top Stories Donald Trump Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:41:52 +0000 Inae Oh 282891 at http://www.motherjones.com Blaming Culture Is a Liberal Thing? Seriously? http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/blaming-culture-liberal-thing-seriously <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p><a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423221/hypocrisy-culture-kills-crowd-charles-c-w-cooke" target="_blank">Over at <em>National Review</em>,</a> Charles Cooke writes about the gruesome murder of WDBJ reporters Alison Parker and Adam Ward on Wednesday:</p> <blockquote> <p>As I have written over and over again during the last few years, I do not believe that we can learn a great deal from the justifications that are forwarded by public killers....Mine, however, is not the only view out there. <strong>Indeed, there is a sizeable contingent within the United States that takes the question of what murderers purport to believe extremely seriously indeed.</strong> It is because of these people that we had to examine &ldquo;toxic masculinity&rdquo; in the wake of the Isla Vista shooting....[etc.]</p> <p>....Half-joking on Twitter, the <em>Free Beacon&rsquo;s</em> Sonny Bunch reacted to this news by observing that, &ldquo;instead of going on a killing spree, this guy should&rsquo;ve gotten a columnist gig at the <em>Guardian</em>.&rdquo; As with all humor, there is some truth at the root of this barb....For what reason is this <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_jesus_moral_decay.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">guy exempt? Why do we not need to have a &ldquo;national conversation&rdquo; about hypersensitivity?</p> <p><strong>The answer, I imagine, is politics, for this instinct seems only to run one way.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Generally speaking, I agree with Cooke. Crazy people are always going to find something to justify their worldview, and they're going to find it somewhere out in the real world. The fact that any particular crazy person decides to have it in for the IRS or Greenpeace or women who laughed at him in high school doesn't mean a lot. It only becomes meaningful if some particular excuse starts showing up a lot. Beyond that, I even agree that the culture of hypersensitivity has gotten out of hand in some precincts of the left.</p> <p>That said....is Cooke kidding? This instinct only runs one way? After the Columbine massacre in 1999, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/12/gingrich/" target="_blank">Newt Gingrich denounced</a> the "liberal political elite" for "being afraid to talk about the mess you have made, and being afraid to take responsibility for things you have done." Conservatives have been raising Cain about the pernicious effects of Hollywood liberalism, video games, and the decline of religion for decades. Hysteria about the counterculture and liberal moral decay goes back at least to the 60s. I could go on endlessly in this vein, but I don't want to bore you.</p> <p>Complaining about the effects of liberal culture&mdash;whether on shooters specifically, crime more generally, or on all of society&mdash;has been a right-wing mainstay for as long as I've been alive. The left may be catching up, but it still has a ways to go.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:11:19 +0000 Kevin Drum 282896 at http://www.motherjones.com The Real Lesson From Emailgate: Maybe the State Department Needs More Secure Email http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/maybe-state-department-needs-more-secure-email <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>David Ignatius talked with "a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers" and concluded that <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html" target="_blank">the Hillary Clinton email affair has been overblown.</a> No big surprise there. Click the link if you want more.</p> <p>But here's the curious part. Part of Clinton's trouble stems from the fact that sensitive information was sent to her via email, which isn't meant for confidential communications. However, as Ignatius points out, this is a nothingburger. Everyone does this, and has for a long time. But why?</p> <blockquote> <p><strong>&ldquo;It&rsquo;s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn&rsquo;t used,&rdquo;</strong> said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn&rsquo;t normally lead to criminal cases.</p> </blockquote> <p>Why is the classified system so cumbersome? Highly secure encryption is easy to implement on off-the-shelf PCs, and surely some kind of software that plugs into email and restricts the flow of messages wouldn't be too hard to implement. So why not build more security into email and ditch the old system? What's the hold-up?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:11:35 +0000 Kevin Drum 282886 at http://www.motherjones.com Clarence Thomas Can't Catch a Break http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/clarence-thomas-cant-catch-break <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Yesterday <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/justice-clarence-thomas-rulings-studies.html?_r=0" target="_blank">the <em>New York Times</em> ran a story</a> saying that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas hoisted language from briefs submitted to the court "at unusually high rates." I was curious to see the actual numbers, so I opened up the study itself. <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574451" target="_blank">Here's the relevant excerpt from Figure 2:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_supreme_court_briefs.jpg" style="margin: 15px 0px 15px 15px;"></p> <p>I dunno. Does that look "unusually high" to you? It looks to me like it's about the same as Sotomayor, and only a bit higher than Ginsburg, Alito and Roberts. It's a little hard to see the news here, especially given this:</p> <blockquote> <p>Since his views on major legal questions can be idiosyncratic and unlikely to command a majority, he is particularly apt to be assigned the inconsequential and technical majority opinions that the justices call dogs. They often involve routine cases involving taxes, bankruptcy, pensions and patents, <strong>in which shared wording, including quotations from statutes and earlier decisions, is particularly common.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>So at most, Thomas uses language from briefs only slightly more than several other justices, and that's probably because he gets assigned the kinds of cases where it's common to do that. Is there even a story here at all?</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:47:00 +0000 Kevin Drum 282881 at http://www.motherjones.com "They Would Have Killed You All" http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/how-do-poor-black-women-view-post-katrina-recovery <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>Ten years after Hurricane Katrina displaced 40,000 people in New Orleans, opinions about the recovery can be traced along racial lines. A pair of new studies underscores that&nbsp;African American women, particularly those who lived in public housing, faced some of the biggest hurdles after the storm.</p> <p>Nearly four in five white residents in New Orleans say their state has "mostly recovered," while nearly three in five African American residents say it has not, according to <a href="https://sites01.lsu.edu/wp/pprl/files/2012/07/Views-of-Recovery-August-2015.pdf" target="_blank">survey results</a> released Monday by the Louisiana-based Public Policy Research Lab. More than half of all residents, regardless of race, said the government did not listen to them enough during the recovery, but African American women struggled more than any other group to return to their homes in the months and years after the hurricane, PPRL noted.</p> <p>On Tuesday, a <a href="http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/get-to-the-bricks" target="_blank">study</a> by the Washington-based Institute for Women's Policy Research found that recovery policies in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina largely ignored the needs of African American women who lived in four of the city's largest public housing complexes. These women<strong> </strong>were forced to move into more expensive housing, and some had to relocate to areas where they faced racial intimidation.</p> <p>The study, based on interviews with 184 low-income black women, offers a look at how redevelopment efforts affected some of the city's most vulnerable residents. A majority of the women interviewed said they wanted to move back to their homes but were unable to do so because city and federal officials demolished the buildings in the years after the storm.</p> <p>The demolition plan, announced in 2006 by the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), aimed to deconcentrate poverty in the city by replacing the public housing complexes with mixed-income housing. However, the new developments included fewer low-income apartments, which meant many people had to pay more for housing.</p> <p>The decision to raze the public housing complexes seemed odd to some former residents because HUD had found them to be structurally sound after the storm, the IWPR reported. Here's what a 70-year-old retired grandmother told the research group:</p> <blockquote> <p>The buildings were good, strong buildings. Now, if they say they couldn't be renovated, well, that's a different story, but they had some buildings in worse shape and they're doing them over&hellip;I'm very disappointed with our elected officials. They turned their backs on us.</p> </blockquote> <p>Many of the women interviewed by the IWPR said that even though public housing hadn't been ideal, they felt safest in their former homes. There, they had known all their neighbors, and the brick apartment buildings had withstood the hurricane's winds and subsequent flooding. There had even been a saying among poor residents in the city that if a storm ever came, you should "get to the bricks."</p> <p>One woman who had lived in the C.J. Peete housing project believed the razing of her building was unjustified.</p> <blockquote> <p>Bad as the waters were, it did not go into our houses. That was one of the projects that I think they just wanted to tear down. They could have left that project there&hellip;They had people coming from other places to come stay in the projects, but they never came down because they are brick.</p> </blockquote> <p>After nearly three decades living in the C.J. Peete complex, another elderly woman with diabetes and arthritis told researchers that she was forced to move temporarily to a community known for Ku Klux Klan activity.</p> <blockquote> <p>In Baker [where the emergency trailer park for displaced people was], [the crosses] was all over. Ah, Baker was the main headquarters of the Ku Klux Klan&hellip;This white man walked up and he said, ah, "If you all would've came here in the '60s&hellip;I'm so glad you all didn't come&hellip;Oh, you all would've been dead&hellip;They would've killed you all." They put us in a pasture where the cows and horses was living. That's where the trailer was.</p> </blockquote> <p>To read more of of these stories, check out the report by the IWPR <a href="http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/get-to-the-bricks" target="_blank">here</a>.</p></body></html> MoJo Race and Ethnicity Top Stories Hurricane Katrina Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:00:17 +0000 Samantha Michaels 282661 at http://www.motherjones.com Either 35, 36, or 39 Percent of Psychology Results Can't Be Replicated http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/either-35-36-or-39-percent-psychology-results-cant-be-replicated <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/" target="_blank">The <em>Washington Post</em></a> informs me today that in a new study, only 39 out of 100 published psychology studies could be replicated:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_psychology_replication_wapo.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 50px;"></p> <p>I wonder if I can replicate that headline? Let's try the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html" target="_blank"><em>New York Times</em>:</a></p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_psychology_replication_nyt.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 50px;"></p> <p>Huh. They say 35 out of 100. What's going on? Maybe <a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/psychology-results-evaporate-upon-further-review" target="_blank"><em>Science News</em></a> can tell me:</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_psychology_replication_science_news.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 15px 50px;"></p> <p>Now it's 35 out of 97. So what <em>is</em> the answer?</p> <p><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716" target="_blank">Based on the study itself,</a> it appears that <em>Science News</em> has it right. It's 35 out of 97. Using a different measure of replication, however, the answer is that 39 percent of the studies could be replicated, which might explain the <em>Post's</em> 39 out of 100. And it turns out that the study actually looked at 100 results, but only 97 of them had positive findings in the first place and were therefore worth trying to replicate. But if, for some reason, you decided that all 100 original studies should be counted, you'd get the <em>Times'</em> 35 out of 100.</p> <p>So there you go. Depending on who you read, it's either 35, 36, or 39 percent. Welcome to the business of science reporting.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 28 Aug 2015 05:04:52 +0000 Kevin Drum 282876 at http://www.motherjones.com Joe Biden Isn't Sure He Has the "Emotional Fuel" to Run for President http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/joe-biden-note-sure-he-has-emotional-fuel-run-president <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>This is the first hard evidence we have that Joe Biden is <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/biden-may-not-have-emotional-fuel-for-2016-run.html" target="_blank">seriously thinking about a presidential run:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>On Wednesday he made his first public comments on his potential 2016 run &mdash; though not intentionally. CNN posted audio recorded during what was supposed to be a private conference call for Democratic National Committee members in which the vice-president confirmed that he's actively considering entering the campaign....<strong>"We're dealing at home with ... whether or not there is the emotional fuel at this time to run," Biden responded.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>I've got nothing but sympathy for what Biden is going through right now, but the fact remains: If you're not sure you have the fuel for a grueling presidential campaign, then you don't.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum 2016 Elections Top Stories Joe Biden Fri, 28 Aug 2015 03:10:37 +0000 Kevin Drum 282871 at http://www.motherjones.com Undercover Video Exposes the Dark Side of Chicken McNuggets http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/08/undercover-video-exposes-dark-side-chicken-mcnuggets <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-UWcQLtpAKU" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>Back in 2013, a proposed law that would have criminalized the act of secretly videotaping&nbsp;abuses on livestock farms&mdash;known by critics as an "ag gag" bill&mdash;<a href="http://grist.org/news/ag-gag-bill-chokes-in-tennessee/" target="_blank">failed in Tennessee</a>. A least one of the state's chicken operations has reason to lament that defeat. An undercover investigator with the animal-welfare group <a href="http://www.mcdonaldscruelty.com/" target="_blank">Mercy For Animals</a> managed to record the above footage at T&amp;S Farm in Dukedom, Tennessee, which supplies chickens for slaughter to poultry-processing giant Tyson&mdash;which in turn supplies chicken meat for McDonald's Chicken McNuggets.</p> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">For those too squeamish to watch, the video opens with a worker saying, "You don't work for </span>PETA<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">, do you?," before proceeding to pummel a sickly bird to death with a long stick&mdash;which, for good measure, is outfitted with a&nbsp;nasty-looking spike attached to its business end. More beatings of sickly birds proceed from there.&nbsp;</span></p> <p>Both the poultry giant and the fast-food giant quickly cut ties with the exposed Tennessee poultry farm, <em>The Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/mcdonalds-tyson-sever-ties-to-poultry-farm-over-alleged-animal-abuse-1440696266" target="_blank">reports</a>.&nbsp;</p></body></html> Tom Philpott Food and Ag Thu, 27 Aug 2015 21:44:53 +0000 Tom Philpott 282851 at http://www.motherjones.com Donald Trump: The Bible Is Great, But, Um, Let's Not Get Into Specifics http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/donald-trump-bible-great-um-lets-not-get-specifics <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>As a blogger, it's hard not to love Donald Trump. Here's the latest, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-08-26/donald-trump-the-full-with-all-due-respect-interview" target="_blank">in an interview with Mark Halperin and John Heilemann:</a></p> <blockquote> <p><strong>I'm wondering what one or two of your most favorite Bible verses are and why.</strong></p> <p>Well, I wouldn't want to get into it because to me that's very personal. You know, when I talk about the Bible it's very personal. So I don't want to get into verses, I don't want to get into&mdash;the Bible means a lot to me, but I don't want to get into specifics.</p> <p><strong>Even to cite a verse that you like?</strong></p> <p>No, I don't want to do that.</p> <p><strong>Are you an Old Testament guy or a New Testament guy?</strong></p> <p>Uh, probably....equal. I think it's just an incredible....the whole Bible is an incredible....I joke....very much so. They always hold up <em>The Art of the Deal</em>, I say it's my second favorite book of all time. But, <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_god_sistine_chapel.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">uh, I just think the Bible is just something very special.</p> </blockquote> <p>OK, it's not only Trump I love. Props also to Heilemann for asking Trump if he's an OT guy or an NT guy. Who talks about the Bible that way?</p> <p>We've seen this schtick from Trump before, of course. He's stunningly ignorant, and routinely refuses to answer whenever someone asks about a factual detail more than an inch below the surface. Needless to say, he refuses because he doesn't know, but he always pretends it's for some other reason. "I don't want to insult anyone by naming names," he'll say, as if this isn't his entire stock in trade. Or, in this case, "It's personal," as if he's a guy who leads a deep personal life that he never talks about.</p> <p>The interesting thing is that this schtick also shows how lazy he is. It's been evident for several days that someone was eventually going to ask him for his favorite Bible verse, but he couldn't be bothered to bone up even a little bit in order to have one on tap. Ditto for everything else. Even when he says something that's going to raise obvious questions the next day, he never bothers to learn anything about the subject. I guess he figures he's got people for that.</p> <p>Of course, there is an advantage to handling things this way. By shutting down the Bible talk completely, he guarantees he'll never have to talk about it again. I mean, today it's Bible verses, tomorrow somebody might want him to name the Ten Commandments. And since it's pretty obvious that he hasn't cracked open the Bible in decades, that could get hairy pretty fast. Better to shut it down right away.</p> <p><strong>POSTSCRIPT:</strong> So which <em>is</em> Trump? OT or NT? I expect that he admires the OT God more. <em>That's</em> a deity who knows what he wants and doesn't put up with any PC nonsense about it. Plus they built a lot of stuff in the Old Testament: towers, walls, arks, temples, etc. That would appeal to Trump. On the other hand, the New Testament has all those annoying lessons about the meek inheriting the earth, rich men and needles, turning the other cheek, and a bunch of other advice that Trump has no time for.</p> <p>So: Old Testament. Definitely Old Testament.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Aug 2015 21:30:04 +0000 Kevin Drum 282861 at http://www.motherjones.com Monsanto Halts Its Bid to Buy Rival Syngenta—For Now http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/08/monsanto-not-buying-syngenta <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p>After four months of hot pursuit, genetically modified seed/pesticide giant Monsanto formally ended its bid to buy rival Syngenta Wednesday&mdash;at least for now. Earlier in the week, Monsanto had <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/24/us-syngenta-m-a-monsanto-idUSKCN0QT1UR20150824">sweetened its offer</a> for the Swiss agrochemical behemoth&mdash;most famous for its controversial <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/11/tyrone-hayes-atrazine-syngenta-feud-frog-endangered">atrazine</a> herbicide and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/25/syngenta-exemption-neonicotinoid-insecticide-ban-oilseed-rape">neonicotinoid</a> pesticides&mdash;to $47 billion, in an effort to convince Syngenta's management and shareholders to accept the merger. They balked, and Monsanto management opted to halt the effort, declaring in a <a href="http://news.monsanto.com/press-release/corporate/monsanto-reaffirms-opportunity-standalone-growth-plan-and-ability-lead-next-">press release</a> that it would instead "focus on its growth opportunities built on its existing core business to deliver the next wave of transformational solutions for agriculture."&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">However, Monsanto may just be pausing, not fully halting, its buyout push. The company's press release states that it's "no longer pursuing [the] </span><em style="line-height: 2em;">current</em><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;"> proposal" (emphasis added) to buy its rival, and quickly added that the combination "would have created tremendous value for </span>shareowners<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;"> of both companies and farmers." And as Dow Jones' Jacob </span>Bunge<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;"> </span><a href="http://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_201508269083/monsanto-drops-46-billion-bid-for-syngenta-3rd-update.html" style="line-height: 2em;">notes</a><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant "has coveted </span>Syngenta<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;"> since at least 2011, and said in a June interview that he viewed the effort as 'a long game.'"&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">The logic that has driven Monsanto's zeal for a deal remains in place: It wants to diversify away from its reliance on seeds by buying </span>Syngenta<span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">, the world's biggest purveyor of pesticides (more on that </span><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/05/monsanto-syngenta-merger-45-billion-pesticides" style="line-height: 2em;">here</a><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">).&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">Meanwhile, Monsanto has been </span><a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/540136/the-next-great-gmo-debate/" style="line-height: 2em;">actively hyping up</a><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;"> a new generation of pesticides, still in the development stage, which work by killing crop-chomping pests by silencing certain&nbsp;genes. But the company doesn't expect the novel sprays&nbsp;to hit the market until 2020&mdash;a timeline that may be overly optimistic, as I show </span><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/08/coming-farm-field-near-you-gene-silencing-pesticides-RNA-RNAi" style="line-height: 2em;">here</a><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 2em;">.&nbsp;</span></p></body></html> Tom Philpott Food and Ag Thu, 27 Aug 2015 20:17:13 +0000 Tom Philpott 282826 at http://www.motherjones.com How Much Is 1.6 Months of Life Worth? http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/08/how-much-16-months-life-worth <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/27/cancer-drugs-arent-just-really-expensive-theyre-a-bad-value/" target="_blank">From Carolyn Johnson at Wonkblog:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>With some cancer drug prices soaring past $10,000 a month....</p> </blockquote> <p>Hey, that's me! A friendly FedEx delivery person just delivered this month's $10,000 supply to me an hour ago. So, what's up?</p> <blockquote> <p>With some cancer drug prices soaring past $10,000 a month, doctors have begun to ask one nagging question: Do drug prices correctly reflect the value they bring to patients by extending or improving their lives?</p> <p>A study published Thursday in <em>JAMA Oncology</em> aims to answer that question by examining necitumumab, an experimental lung cancer drug....in a clinical trial, researchers found that <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_drug_cost.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">adding the drug to chemotherapy extended life by 1.6 months, on average.</p> <p>....In order to estimate what the price of this drug "should" be based on its value to patients, the research team modeled various scenarios....one additional year in perfect health in the U.S. is worth somewhere between $50,000 and $200,000....Based on their calculations, the drug should cost from $563 to $1,309 for a three-week cycle.</p> <p>....There are many variables that go into the price of a drug, but mounting evidence suggests that the value it brings to patients is not the biggest factor. <strong>"How they price the drug is they price it at whatever the market is willing to bear," said Benjamn Djulbegovic, </strong>an oncologist at the University of South Florida.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well, sure, but this raises the question of <em>why</em> the market is willing to bear such high prices. Why would an insurance company approve a large expenditure for a drug that has only a tiny benefit?</p> <p>There's a lot that goes into this. Obviously some people benefit from necitumumab by a lot more than 1.6 months&mdash;and there's no way to tell beforehand who will and who won't. And it costs a lot to develop these drugs. And patients put a lot of pressure on insurers to cover anything that might help. And, in the end, insurance companies don't have a ton of incentive to push back: if drug prices go up, they increase their premiums. It doesn't really affect their bottom line much.</p> <p>There's also the size of the total market to consider. The chemo drug I'm currently taking, for example, is only used for two conditions. There's just not a whole lot of us using it. In cases like that, a drug is going to be pretty expensive.</p> <p>But here's something I'm curious about: who puts more pressure on insurance companies to cover expensive drugs, patients or doctors? My doctor, for example, was totally gung-ho about my current med. I was much less so after I read some of the clinical studies online. Why? Because most chemo drugs have unpleasant side effects (though mine has turned out OK so far), which means that, like many patients, I'm reluctant to take them unless the benefit is pretty clear cut. Doctors, on the other hand, just want to do whatever they can to help, and have no particular incentive to hold back. So maybe it's doctors who need to be in the forefront of pushing back on expensive drugs. They're the ones in the doctor-patient relationship who know the most, after all.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:04:33 +0000 Kevin Drum 282821 at http://www.motherjones.com Trump: "This Isn't a Gun Problem, This Is a Mental Problem." http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/donald-trump-gun-control-mental-health <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd"> <html><body><p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="354" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SfKMh0E4sUI" width="630"></iframe></p> <p>A day after two journalists in Virginia were fatally shot on live television, Donald Trump is rejecting calls to strengthen gun control laws. Instead, he told <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-virginia-shooting-mental-health-gun-laws/index.html" target="_blank">CNN's Chris Cuomo</a> today that mental health issues are to blame for gun violence in America. This isn't a gun problem, this is a mental problem," the presidential hopeful said.</p> <p>"You're not going to get rid of all guns," Trump added. "I know one thing: If you try to do it, the bad guys would have them. And the good folks would abide by the laws but be hopeless." The real state mogul defended the Second Amendment, which he said he was "very much into."</p> <p>Trump's opposition to stricter gun legislation in favor of focusing on mental health problems is not new. But many experts argue such thinking is <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/myth-vs-fact-violence-mental-health-jeffrey-swanson" target="_blank">flawed</a>. "Consider that between 2001 and 2010, there were nearly 120,000 gun-related homicides&hellip;Few were perpetrated by people with mental illness," psychiatry professor Richard A. Friedman wrote in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0" target="_blank"><em>New York Times</em></a> after the Newtown shooting in 2012.</p> <p>Trump is just one of the 2016 candidates to weigh in following the murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward on Wednesday morning. Speaking at a press conference in Iowa, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/26/verbatim-hillary-clinton-reacts-to-shooting-in-virginia/" target="_blank">Hillary Clinton</a> told reporters that she was "stricken" by the shooting. "We have got to do something about gun violence in America," Clinton said. "And I will take it on."</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Heartbroken and angry. We must act to stop gun violence, and we cannot wait any longer. Praying for the victims' families in Virginia. -H</p> &mdash; Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/636562456618381312">August 26, 2015</a></blockquote> <p>Speaking to Fox News' Megyn Kelly on Wednesday night, the father of one of the victims vowed to fight for increased gun control measures. "Whatever it takes to get gun legislation, to shame people, to shame legislators into doing something about closing loopholes and background checks and making sure crazy people don't get guns," <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/father-of-slain-journalist-vows-to-fight-for-gun-control" target="_blank">Andy Parker said</a>.</p></body></html> MoJo Top Stories Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:24:26 +0000 Inae Oh 282806 at http://www.motherjones.com