Andrew Sullivan's Blog, page 341

Quote For The Day II

“Overall this needed to be a lot better than it was. The document has almost no vision, only a marginal command of the scholarly literature, and it is a good example of how the conservative movement is still allowing the poverty issue to defeat it and tie it up in knots,” – Tyler Cowen, on Paul Ryan’s attempted use of mainstream social science in his new budget proposal.

Chait piles on merrily and mercilessly, as is tradition.

Will Pot Shops Be Kind To Patients?

Sullum is concerned over how the legalization of recreational pot in Washington state actually limits options for those who use it medically:

The cannabis strains that best meet patients’ needs may not appeal to recreational consumers. They may be low in psychoactive THC, for example, but high in cannabidiol (CBD), which shows promise as a treatment for a wide range of disorders, including epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. … H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both would offer “medical marijuana endorsements” to pot stores that choose to serve patients, either exclusively or in addition to recreational users. The endorsements would allow registered patients to benefit from a higher purchase limit (three ounces rather than one) and an exemption from the standard sales tax. But patients worry that they will still be treated as an afterthought and may have trouble obtaining the specific varieties that are tailored to their symptoms.

Meanwhile, Nora Caplan-Bricker notes that the feds are still prosecuting pot-shop workers in states where medical marijuana is legal:

Obama’s administration brought 153 medical marijuana cases in its first four years, according to a June 2013 study from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Bush brought 163 in eight years. At the time of the study, Obama had not granted a single pardon or clemency petition to a medical marijuana defendant. Over 335 defendants had been charged with federal medical marijuana crimes in states where its sale was legal, and 158 had gone to jail.

But support for cannabis continues to grow - now in New York, set to become the 21st state to permit pot for patients:

State Senator Tom O’Mara, a conservative Republican from Western New York, is the fourth Republican lawmaker to come out publicly in support of a plan to legalize medical marijuana. ”I have carefully considered the facts, and after meeting with patients and their families I have come to the conclusion it’s time for New York to offer a highly restrictive, tightly regulated network to provide patients access to treatment that will improve their quality of life,” O’Mara said in a statement released today.

1914, 2014, And Putin

A reader writes:

I am really struck this morning with the difference between US and German newspapers in their handling of the situation in Ukraine. The reporting of the facts is the same, essentially. But the editorial voice couldn’t be more distinct. Echoing through the German papers is an admonition, during the centennial of the beginning of the Great War, to be mindful of the conditions that led to its launch: hysteria, rabid nationalism, thoughts of the pride and glory of great nations, elements of personal vanity, militarism. These are forces that have historically led to great misery for humanity and that have clouded the history of Europe. They are all also things that can be found in some measure in the current controversy.

The Germans find much frightening in Putin, and in particular they see in his dealings unpleasant echoes of the predatory practices of the Hitler regime. But they are also sharply critical of the US, of the hyperventilation coming out of the Beltway, and even of Kerry’s desire to push promptly to isolate Russia, when they sense that post-Putin Russia is more likely to be a responsible part of Europe and relaunching a Cold War would only tend to strengthen the reactionary elements in Russian society.

They favor a response that is more incremental, cautious, measured, and one that avoids absolutely demonizing Russia. They prefer one that will bolster over time the more positive elements in Russian society. They are focused on extending a strong helping hand to Ukraine.

But beyond this, there is both a lack of a clear prescription of what to do next and a strong distrust of America. Obama is a big improvement over his predecessor, they reason, but he is still far too beholden to the toxic voices of neo-conservatism that sound so loudly within the Beltway.

It says a lot that Germans see this current moment as redolent of the folly of 1914, while Americans see it through the prism of the 1930s. The Germans, it seems to me, are more on point. Yes, there are some tactics that Putin is using with respect to diaspora Russians the way Hitler did with diaspora Germans, but the parallel, like all such Godwin-like parallels, can be dangerously misleading. Putin does not have a massive, modern industrial state behind him, and a unified mobilized citizenry; he has a faltering petro-oligarchy, atop a fragile Potemkin “democracy”; Putin claims no global ideology except the preservation of Russian power in its sphere of influence; Putin could only fight or occupy Ukraine at huge costs to his own power and the stability of his regime. When you consider all this, he is a problem to be contained or, so far as is possible, ignored.

What worries me about some of the signals coming from the White House is that they are repeating some of the errors of the past. They seem to have a solid grip on a realist and sober foreign policy, and then they have a spasm of relapse: intervening in Libya, declaring a “red line” in Syria. Putin needs to be contained and there need to be costs if he doesn’t retreat from Crimea. But grandiose threats and polarizing rhetoric can be deeply counter-productive. He’s made a huge blunder. The core task right now is to ensure we don’t make an even bigger one.

(Photo: Russian troops awaiting a German attack, 1917)

Quote For The Day

“We were supposed to bring POW’s back to the base. But instead we gave them a cigarette to calm them down, and told them to get on their knees. One of our guys was 240 lbs, and he’d taken this shovel we’d been issued, and he’d sharpened one of the sides until it was like an axe, and he could take off somebody’s head with two hits,” – a “human of New York“.

“The Likeliest Republican Nominee”

Both the GOP & Dem establishment hates him, and that’s good enough for me.http://t.co/YA0mRBYunZ #tcot #StandWithRand pic.twitter.com/3jLdXMDtKq

— Garrett Humbertson (@G_Humbertson) February 26, 2014

Cillizza thinks it’s Rand Paul because “the establishment conservative field is packed with potential candidates while the movement conservative field is relatively sparse”:

Simply put, Paul is more likely to emerge victorious from the movement conservative primary than any of the potential candidates seeking the establishment conservative banner. At the start of the year, we would have said Christie would have had a leg up in that establishment primary — and hence an edge to be the nominee since the party’s pick traditionally comes from the establishment wing. But Christie’s struggles to get out from under the lane closures scandal that reaches high into his administration has reduced him to just another member of the pack. Walker and Kasich both have the potential to break out but first need to get by real reelection races this fall. Jeb Bush would quite clearly be the establishment frontrunner if he ran but no one has any idea if he wants to or will. Ditto Paul Ryan. And, while Jindal seems to be gaining a bit of steam, he remains second tier in this group.

But Weigel thinks the senator is overrated as a candidate:

As long as Paul’s in the Senate, as long as he’s a fascinating, quotable, and potentially successful libertarian iconoclast, stories about his associations and his movement will be relegated to the think-piece pile. If he’s a credible presidential candidate? The jackals run loose, and they know where to hunt. Years of experience and evidence tell us that Paul can be rattled by that. His potential opponents know this.

Henry Olsen points out that movement conservative candidates usually don’t appeal to the crucial “somewhat conservative” subset of Republicans:

This group is the most numerous nationally and in most states, comprising 35–40 percent of the national GOP electorate. While the numbers of moderates, very conservative and evangelical voters vary significantly by state, somewhat conservative voters are found in similar proportions in every state. They are not very vocal, but they form the bedrock base of the Republican Party.

They also have a significant distinction: they always back the winner. The candidate who garners their favor has won each of the last four open races. This tendency runs down to the state level as well. Look at the exit polls from virtually any state caucus or primary since 1996 and you will find that the winner received a plurality of or ran roughly even among the somewhat conservative voters.

Apathetic Atheism vs New Atheism, Ctd

A reader sighs:

Wow. These last few letters get to the heart I think of what drives so many of us non-believers crazy. Here we have Christians telling an atheist that he should make a mockery of the priest’s exhortation by essentially lying in a house of worship. Then we have another insinuating that non-believers aren’t welcome at church. I would remind those readers that it wasn’t the atheist who couldn’t handle the call for affirmation; it was the family who couldn’t handle his respectful honesty. The right answer here isn’t for the priest to change his tradition nor for the atheist to stay home or pretend he’s something he’s not. The right answer is for Christians like this reader’s in-laws to grow up and realize that atheists are everywhere, they’re not boogeymen, and being in the presence of one isn’t a reason to be upset. Ever.

Another assents:

What exactly did the brother-in-law do wrong? This isn’t a simple mid-week mass where it can be reasonably assumes that all attendees are Catholic. This was a funeral. Is it reasonable for the priest to think that all her friends and family share the same religion? Is it unreasonable to think that some non-coreligionists would want to pay their respects to the deceased or support her surviving family? It’s not okay for an atheist to skip the funeral of a loved one just because it’s held in a house of worship, and by the same token it’s not okay for the minister to ignore the fact that, at such times, not everyone will be members of their faith.

The story resonates for another reader:

Your readers’ less-than-sympathetic responses to the atheist who chose not to stand up to “affirm his belief” at his wife’s sister’s funeral reminds me of my mother’s experience with her church.

She is not very religious, but a believer of sorts, and someone who really enjoyed attending church at Christmas and Easter. (She liked the music and the singing and the space and time to get in touch with god.) But about five years ago at a Christmas service, during the hymn where the congregation sings “We will raise him up, we will raise him up, we will raise him up in the highest,” the priest gestured in such a way as to indicate that everyone should raise up their hands while singing. Most everyone did this, but my mother was uncomfortable with this kind of outward expression and chose not to participate. She mentioned her discomfort to the priest as she was walking out of the service, and, as she tells it, he icily smiled at her and said, “There are plenty of other churches in the neighborhood at which you would not have this problem.” Or something to that effect. “I’ve just been excommunicated from my local church,” she thought. And she hasn’t attended that – or any other – church since.

These kinds of public expressions feel very coercive, if not downright creepy. Not just to atheists like me, or wavering believers like my mother, but, I would think, to everyone. If you don’t participate, or participate fully, you might be looked down upon, ostracized. In the case of my mother, its practical effect was to weed out the less devoted members of the congregation. I can’t help but think this is part of the ritual’s appeal. The true believers would rather not have the less-than-true-believers and non-believers around – not even at a Christmas service, or at funerals of their close relations.

Update from the earlier reader who spurred backlash from the in-tray:

I’m the “dickhead” atheist who wrote about my experience at the Catholic funeral for my wife’s sister. You printed some critical responses, which I read with interest. However, a few remarks smacked of the kind of religious arrogance that turn non-believers like me into “dickhead” atheists. One wrote:

Perhaps one could argue that a funeral (or a marriage), bringing together many disparate friends and relatives of the deceased should be a more neutral occasion than a regular church service, but just how sensitive to the feelings of the irreligious do we need to be in our own houses of worship? Atheists who cannot deal with calls for affirmation of belief in a church probably need to think very hard about going into them in the first place.

Perhaps a funeral or marriage should be a more neutral occasion than a regular church service? Why “perhaps”? Is it vitally important in a house of worship that all who enter must believe and act accordingly? In a church I bow my head during prayers, I open the hymnal to the page of the song, I kneel when everyone else kneels. I do this out of respect, and every atheist I know does the same. Is respect in a house of worship a one-way street? All I asked was that when there are two ways to ask those in attendance to affirm their belief in Jesus’s love, pick the one that doesn’t offend or embarrass.

Many atheists are still in the closet for practical reasons. I find it offensive that religious folks suggest that maybe atheists should just stay away from weddings or funerals in houses of worship if we’re worried that the priest or minister might force us to out ourselves, or lie instead.

My wife needed me at that service. Even if I had known what was going to happen, I would have gone. By remaining seated I outed myself to people who didn’t need to know I’m an atheist any more than they need to know I’m uncircumcised. If I had stood I would have lied. There were other options that wouldn’t have put non-Christians on the spot, but then, as some assert, why should religious people give a damn about the irreligious in their house of worship?

To the writer who asked, “How would a better understanding and acceptance of atheism among the general populace have changed that moment?”, the “dickhead atheist” responds:

I don’t believe the priest in question meant to embarrass non-believers; he just lives in a religious bubble most of the time. A better understanding that there are a lot of atheists in the world, some of whom will likely attend funerals and weddings in his church might have spurred him to change how he asked people to show their love for his God.

Read the entire discussion thread here.

Shooting A Digital City

Yannick LeJacq praises the work of Duncan Harris, who produces artistic “photographs” by taking screenshots from video games. His latest series, including the image above, is from Grand Theft Auto IV:

GTA IV is set in Liberty City, a lightly fictionalized version of New York. Fans of the series have always admired Rockstar’s unmatched ability to capture the mood of different American cities down an intensely granular level of detail. Looking at the new Dead End Thrills series, you can see why. Taking the color out of the cityscapes, Harris recasts Liberty City in a crystalline, nihilistic light. These don’t evoke the quirky humanism of street photographers Bill Cunningham or Henri Cartier-Bresson. Rather, they seem to channel the frenetic energy of the legendary crime photographer Weegee, who developed his signature style (and his pseudonym) by chasing ambulances and police cars around Manhattan throughout the 1930′s and 40′s.

(Image via Dead End Thrills)

The Creationist Won

Creation Museum founder Ken Ham claims he has raised the money he needs to build his “Ark Encounter” theme park, thanks in no small part to the publicity generated from his debate with Bill Nye last month:

Ham’s Ark project was in danger of collapsing without investor support of $29 million in municipal (or, as Slate described them, “junk”) bonds by February 6. The debate took place on February 4, which is great timing (Ham does not mention the possibility of raising funds for his Ark project in his column on why he decided to debate Nye). Now the project, which was announced in 2010 and will receive “generous tax incentives” from the state of Kentucky, is going forward. Ham told the AP that his widely-publicized debate “helped encourage more of our ministry friends to get involved in the past few weeks.” It will cost $73 million and take several years to build.

Jerry Coyne, who predicted this exact scenario, rips into the Science Guy:

Nye said he was “heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky” after learning that the project would move forward. He said the ark would eventually draw more attention to the beliefs of Ham’s ministry, which preaches that the Bible’s creation story is a true account, and as a result, “voters and taxpayers in Kentucky will eventually see that this is not in their best interest.”

Well, he’s heartbroken and sickened because of his own actions. By agreeing to show up and debate Ham—something I suspect Nye did (at least in part) to keep himself in the media spotlight—he’s allowed Ham to further his project. The result, even if you think Nye gained a transitory victory in the debate, is that Ham will build yet another popular tourist attraction, one designed to promulgate lies to kids. Nye, of course, devoted his career as The Science Guy to precisely the opposite: teaching and exciting kids about science. In other words, Nye scuppered himself.

The Dish covered the Nye/Ham debate here.

It Pays To Be Weird

At least if you’re an artist:

A new study shows that because of this widely held stereotype [that creative people are eccentric], people infer that work made by an eccentric person is better and more valuable than work produced by a conventional character. …

Students rated the unconventional art of Joseph Beuys (“The Pack”) more positively if they were told that Beuys was eccentric in that he had a habit of carrying roadside stones on his head. However, the same yarn about Andrea del Verrocchio did not lead to higher ratings for his conventional art (“Lady of Flowers”). Similarly, seeing a photo of Lady Gaga crouching in an usual outfit (tight, all black, with shiny mask) led student participants to rate her as more highly skilled compared to seeing her seated in a conventional black dress; unless, that is, the students were told that Gaga’s eccentricity is fake and no more than a marketing ploy. In other words, eccentricity of the artist leads to more positive ratings of their work, unless that work is conventional, and/or the artist’s unusual behaviour is seen as contrived.

(Photo of “The Pack” by Joseph Beuys, 1969, by Jerzy Kociatkiewicz)

The Madison Avenue Color Line

Continuing his series on how liberalism failed black Americans, Tanner Colby explores the development of our segregated ad industry and the role affirmative-action policies played in encouraging it:

Culturally, legally, and economically, the industry settled into a pattern which ensured that “white” advertising happened over here and “black” advertising happened over there. White agencies did little more than token hiring and recruiting.

Meanwhile, the few black hires who did make it in the door at white agencies now had a very strong incentive to turn around and walk back out to a black agency, because that’s where the short-term benefits were. Life at a black agency offered decent money, a likelier shot at promotion, and a chance to join in the Black Pride movement that was taking hold in the 1970s. By the mid-1980s, black employment at general market agencies fell from 3.5 percent back to 1.7 percent, with high-profile black defectors frequently leavingwhitefirms to hang out their own shingles on the other side of the color line. Which might have been an acceptable outcome had the black agencies flourished and become a thriving industry of their own. They didn’t. In 2000, the top 20 black-owned ad agencies combined accounted for 0.5 percent of total industry revenues. Integration on Madison Avenue failed. Black solidarity and empowerment failed as well. In trying to split the difference between the two, we wound up with neither.