This Looks Ugly

by hilzoy From the Institute of Southern Studies: “As we covered yesterday, N.C. residents have reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be “Lamont Williams.” The caller says that a “voter registration packet” is coming in the mail, and the recipient can sign it and mail it back to be registered to vote. … Read more

The Larger Lessons of the Gas Tax Pander

by publius Steve Benen says it perfectly, so I’ll just let him take it away: It’s one thing for a good presidential candidate to embrace a bad idea. It’s worse when the candidate knows it’s a bad idea. It’s worse still when the candidate attacks her rival for failing to embrace a bad idea. And … Read more

Speaking Of Health Insurance…

by hilzoy

Check out these figures from a new Kaiser poll (Kaiser is a foundation that does incredibly good work on health policy):

“The poll also found that in the past year, 23% of U.S. residents said they or a member of their household had either decided to stay with a current employer, instead of accepting a new job, or had switched jobs because of health insurance coverage. In addition, 7% of respondents said that they, or someone in their household, had decided to get married to obtain health insurance through their spouse. (…)

According to the poll, 37% of U.S. residents reported at least one of six financial troubles over the past five years as a result of medical bills:

20% had difficulties paying other bills;

20% were contacted by a collection agency;

17% had used all or most of their savings;

12% were unable to pay for basic necessities, such as food, heat or housing;

10% had to borrow money; and

3% declared bankruptcy (Kaiser Family Foundation release, 4/29).”

The 17% who used all or most of their savings, the 12% who were unable to pay for basic necessities, and the 3% who declared bankruptcy, are stunning. But I was also appalled by the 7% who said that they or someone in their household got married during the past year to get health insurance. (To be clear: I’m not appalled by those people: under the right circumstances, I might well do the same. I’m appalled that it’s necessary. I take marriage seriously, and the idea that people have to marry for health insurance seems awful, in something like the way that having to marry someone to get your family out of debt would.)

I’ve argued for a while that universal health insurance would free people to change jobs, take risks, and be entrepreneurs in a way they might find it much harder to do if they had to risk not just their money but their health — or, worse, the health of their kids. But I’ve always based this on a combination of common sense and anecdotes — I know people who have stayed with jobs they hated instead of taking great new offers either because those new offers didn’t come with health insurance or because they were worried that they wouldn’t be insurable because of a preexisting condition. But I wouldn’t have imagined that 23% of respondents would say that they or someone in their household had either stuck with an existing job or switched jobs because of health insurance. That’s a pretty serious distortion of the labor market.

The most important reason to provide health insurance to everyone is basic decency and fairness. But not providing health insurance has serious costs to our economy and our society. If significant numbers of people are not taking the best jobs they can find, let alone deciding whether or not to marry, because of health insurance, things are badly broken.

Read more

McCain On Health Insurance

by hilzoy

The NYT on John McCain’s health care speech:

“Mr. McCain’s health care plan would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals, to foster competition and drive down prices. To do so he is calling for eliminating the tax breaks that currently encourage employers to provide health insurance for their workers, and replacing them with $5,000 tax credits for families to buy their own insurance. (…)

Some health care experts question whether those tax credits would offer enough money to pay for new health insurance plans. The average cost of an employer-funded insurance plan is $12,106 for a family, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy group. Paul B. Ginsburg, the president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan research organization financed by foundations and government agencies, said, “For a lot of people, the tax credits he’s talking about would not be enough to afford coverage.””

Not everyone has an extra $7,106 just lying around, waiting to be spent on health insurance premiums. What, I wonder, would happen to them? And wouldn’t you think that eliminating tax breaks for employers who offer health insurance might make some of those employers decide to stop offering it altogether? I would, and I’m not even a member of the party whose entire economic platform is designed around the thought that people are so exquisitely sensitive to tax rates that even a relatively small cut in the capital gains tax will unleash great raging torrents of entrepreneurial energy. McCain is; and yet, curiously enough, he doesn’t consider this possibility. Here’s what he says about employer-based health insurance: “Many workers are perfectly content with this arrangement, and under my reform plan they would be able to keep that coverage. Their employer-provided health plans would be largely untouched and unchanged.” Except for the ones whose employers stopped offering health insurance, ha ha ha.

Besides, you might be thinking …

Read more

Obama And Wright, Redux

by hilzoy

Here is his statement:

Brief excerpt:

“The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I might not know him as well as I thought, either.

Now, I’ve already denounced the comments that appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church, he’s built a wonderful congregation, the people of Trinity are wonderful people, and what attracted me has always been their ministry’s reach beyond the church walls.

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the US government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the United States’ wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me, they rightly offend all Americans, and they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally today.”

Here’s the Q and A:

Excerpt:

“In some ways, what Rev. Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I’ve done during my life. It contradicts how I was raised, and the setting in which I was raised; it contradicts my decisions to pursue a career of public service; it contradicts the issues that I’ve worked on politically; it contradicts what I’ve said in my books; I’ve; it contradicts what I said in my convention speech in 2004; it contradicts my announcement; it contradicts everything I’ve been saying on this campaign trail.

And what I tried to do in Philadelphia was to provide a context, and to lift up some of the contradictions and complexities of race in America, of which Rev. Wright is a part and we’re all a part, and try to make something constructive out of it. But there wasn’t anything constructive out of yesterday. All it was was a bunch of rants that aren’t grounded in truth. And I can’t construct something positive out of that. I can understand it; people do all sorts of things. And as I said before, I continue to believe that Rev. Wright has been a leader in the South Side, I think that the church he built is outstanding, I think that he has preached in the past some wonderful sermons, he provided valuable contributions to my family, but at a certain point, if what somebody says contradicts what you believe so fundamentally, and then he questions whether or not you believe it, in front of the National Press Club, then that’s enough.”

Watch the whole thing. If you can’t watch it, and are wondering whether this is just some sort of pro forma statement, trust me on this: it isn’t. He is outraged and angry, and (I think) genuinely saddened by what Rev. Wright said.

As for me…

Read more

The Gas Tax Hoax

by hilzoy From the NYT: “Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season. But Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the … Read more

Eugene Volokh — Polygamist Raid is “Child Abuse”

by publius Eugene Volokh sure spends a lot of mental energy discrediting the efforts of the state to protect young children from a life of systematic statutory rape. There are several good nuggets, but this was my personal fav: So many of the 17-year-olds may have gotten pregnant with no law being broken, and in … Read more

If You Change Your Sex, Are You Still Married?

by hilzoy

The NYT has a story about a married couple who became New Jersey’s first same-sex marriage when, 25 years after their wedding, Donald, the husband, became Denise. They stayed together: ““We’re one of the few of our friends who are still in our original marriage,” Denise Brunner said.” But they face some legal problems, since no one seems to have a clue what to make of their marriage:

“The Brunners say they have no interest in obtaining a civil union — they consider it a downgrading of their relationship — but they do worry about their status.

What if the Internal Revenue Service questions their joint tax returns? What if they retire to North Carolina, a state that they say is less legally friendly to transsexuals and same-sex couples? What if they were taking their daughter Jessica to college in Pennsylvania, and were in a car wreck that left Denise unconscious — would the authorities accept Fran as her wife?

“Are they going to recognize that she can make the decision for me?” Denise asked. “We don’t know that, and that’s not the time I want to contest that in court.””

Read more

Green Light for Voter ID Laws

by publius A split Court today upheld Indiana’s blatantly partisan law requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls (background here). The upshot is that Republican-controlled legislatures just got the green light to enact requirements that disproportionately affect people without valid state-issued photos (e.g., elderly, poor, college students). The 6-3 coalition (pdf) upholding the … Read more

A Note On Wright

by hilzoy

An addendum to publius’ post: yesterday, I was eating dinner, and flipped on CNN. There was Jeremiah Wright, just starting his speech before the NAACP. I watched it, and thought it was very, very funny, but intellectually sort of vapid, in an unexceptionable kind of way. (Repeated theme: “Different does not mean deficient.” True enough, but not exactly startling.) There was nothing angry about it, except for a couple of little digs at the media, which were more funny than angry anyways.

I hadn’t planned to write about this, since I didn’t think it was all that interesting. But this morning I fired up Memeorandum, and what was at the top? Michelle Malkin, with a post on “Jeremiah Wright, racial phrenologist”. Wtf, I think, and click over: there I learn that Wright is today’s Leonard Jeffries. (Ice people, Sun people; remember that idiocy?) I wonder: Did he make some other speech? Apparently not: the same speech that struck me as blah with humorous bits seems to have sent people on the right round the bend. Ed Morrissey:

“One of the stranger aspects of Jeremiah Wright’s speech came in the supposed neurological explanation of the differences between whites and blacks. Wright claims that the very structure of the brains of Africans differ from that of European-descent brains, which creates differences rooted in physiology and not culture:

““Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality,” he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. “Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style,” he said. “They have a different way of learning.” And so on.”

This sounds oddly similar to claims made in The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein, a book that created a firestorm of controversy with claims that race made a difference in IQ scores, among other claims.”

I don’t know what Morrissey is quoting (he doesn’t say), but it’s a reasonably accurate summary of the relevant part of Wright’s speech. Note, though, that it provides precisely no support for Morrissey’s claim that Wright was talking about neurological differences. None. Wright did note that Africans and Europeans have different musical scales, and use different rhythms. This is obviously a claim about their musical traditions, not the structure of their brains; it’s no more a “neurological” claim than noting that Europeans tend to render perspective differently than African artists.

Likewise, Wright claimed that black and white children tend to have different learning styles. I have no idea whether this is true or not, as a generalization, but suppose, for the sake of argument, that it is: it would not begin to imply any differences in brain structure. By the time kids arrive at school (and Wright was talking about school kids), they have, obviously, absorbed a lot from the people around them. In particular, they have gotten used to learning from the people around them in different ways, to paying attention to different sorts of cues, and to different kinds of activities. These are the sorts of things that go into a “learning style”: are you a kid who learns best by silently reading? by talking things through with other people? by trial and error? by putting things in your mouth, taking them apart, turning them over so you can see what you can do with them?

There is no earthly reason to think either (a) that kids from different cultures might not have very different learning styles, or (b) that if they did, this would reflect some sort of neurological difference. None at all. In a culture in which children are taught that they should be seen but not heard, they are probably less likely to learn by talking things through, at least with adults. In a culture in which children are expected to be very quiet and not cause trouble, they are less likely to learn by seeing what they can do with things. This is obvious. And it’s what Rev. Wright was talking about.

I suppose that what sent Ed Morrissey off on this tangent was this: “Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style,” he said. “They have a different way of learning.” If you just focus on the adjective “right-brained”, and leave out what that phrase is supposed to modify (“learning style”), I suppose it can sound neurological. But a right-brained learning style doesn’t have to involve any neurological difference; it’s just a learning style that tends to draw more on right-brain capacities than on left-brain ones. There’s no reason that I can see to assume that the reason someone ends up with a given learning style has to be the structure of that person’s brain, as opposed to the ways in which the people around them act. Likewise, I suppose you could call computer programming a left-brain career — linear, symbolic, logical — and architecture a right-brained one — spatial, heavy on seeing things as wholes rather than as collections of parts, etc. But that would be completely different from claiming that what makes someone decide to be a programmer or an architect is the structure of their brain, as opposed to, say, parental pressure, financial reward, getting to know an inspirational person in one or the other profession, etc.

This was a pretty anodyne speech. It had a lot of funny moments, and a few little digs at the media, but nothing that could even remotely be construed as politically controversial.* Or so I thought, before I found out that Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed had decided to construe a relatively minor point about learning styles as a claim about neurological difference, one that (Morrissey) “sounds oddly similar to claims made in The Bell Curve.” Other people take it even further: Sister Toldjah thinks he made “remarks about white brains versus black brains”, and Rachel Lucas says that his point was “that black people and white people are, in fact, genetically different.” (So it’s not just neurological; it’s a neurological difference explained by genetics!)

It’s almost as though they were trying to make him sound strange and scary…

Read more