October 7th, 2011

Via Sullivan, Jon Stewart’s take-down of multiple-choice Mitt is as good a short summary of the GOP’s front-running chameleon.  But I can’t help but think that Romney’s transparent hypocrisy would help him in a general election campaign.  Democrats should avoid making it the center of their 2012 anti-Romney strategy.

First, it would detract from any substantive attack on the GOP agenda: attack on his lack of core beliefs would obscure the fact that we elect parties, not individuals, and a Romey Administration will essentially enshrine the Tea Party in the executive branch.

Second, voters think that all politicians are hypocrites: the question is which hypocrite they want.  So attacks on Romney’s lack of sincerity won’t do much damage anyway.

Third, and perhaps most important, when it comes to the wingnut Republican base, Romney’s whole general election strategy will be one huge wink: don’t worry, guys, you know I’ve got to say this, but I don’t really believe it.  Attacking Romney for hypocrisy thus will this reinforce his attempt to move to the center.

At the end of the day, a President Romney will essentially be George W. Bush redux.  Hypocrisy doesn’t enter into it.  If you loved what George W. Bush did to the country, you’ll adore the Romney Administration.  That’s the message, which will not only be politically more effective in my view, but does carry the additional merit of being true.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 7th, 2011

Did he just make a major foreign policy speech that didn’t mention al-Qaeda? And promised to reverse “massive defense cuts” that haven’t actually been made?

It’s mostly a long list of scare stories, unaccompanied by any actual plans other than chest-thumping and sabre-rattling.

And yet this empty suit – in Charlie Cook’s phrase, a man who “still looks like he could be a Haggar slacks model” – is the pundits’ idea of a “serious” Republican. Has there ever been a major party so utterly devoid of talent?

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 6th, 2011

My colleagues at Johns Hopkins have a new paper out, reporting that psilocybin, the “magic mushroom” chemical, can bring about significant and lasting changes in a key aspect of personality. This is big news for academic psychology:

A large body of evidence, including longitudinal analyses of personality change, suggests that core personality traits are predominantly stable after age 30. To our knowledge, no study has demonstrated changes in personality in healthy adults after an experimentally manipulated discrete event. Intriguingly, double-blind controlled studies have shown that the classic hallucinogen psilocybin occasions personally and spiritually significant mystical experiences that predict long-term changes in behaviors, attitudes and values. In the present report we assessed the effect of psilocybin on changes in the five broad domains of personality – Neuroticism, Extroversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Consistent with participant claims of hallucinogen-occasioned increases in aesthetic appreciation, imagination, and creativity, we found significant increases in Openness following a high-dose psilocybin session. In participants who had mystical experiences during their psilocybin session, Openness remained significantly higher than baseline more than 1 year after the session.  [from the report's abstract]

The five domains named above constitute the widely embraced Five Factor Model of personality.  Openness, the factor showing increases in the Hopkins studies, is described as curiosity, creativity, openness to unusual ideas, openness to emotion, openness to adventure, appreciation for art, and variety of experience.  Its poles are described as ”inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious.”

Surely there can be too much of a good thing: so “open” as to be awash in fantasy, for example, or continually overwhelmed by emotion.  But for more than a few of us, doesn’t a judicious increase in Openness sound appealing?

Read the rest of this entry »

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 6th, 2011

ABC News ran an article on the recent Johns Hopkins psilocybin findings.  It ends with this doozy of a quote from Dr. Daniel Angres, associate professor of psychiatry at Rush University Medical Center, who argued the use of psilocybin is “too risky”:

“Character can and will deteriorate with the use of substances that have abuse potential over the long run,” he said, “even though initially there may sometimes seem to be ‘positive personality adaptations.’”

Excuse me?  Where is the evidence that psilocybin has “abuse potential over the long run” – if by that the professor means compulsive use – or that psilocybin “can and will” lead to character deterioration?  Can Dr. Angres point to a single peer-reviewed study supporting his statement as applied to psilocybin, or to any of the classical hallucinogens?

Read the rest of this entry »

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 6th, 2011

Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail reflects on the latest harm-minimization victory in Canada: the decision of the Supreme Court that the national government can’t shut down Vancouver’s safe-injection site. But the column is a really a meditation on the sheer venom and unreasonableness that characterizes drug-policy debates.

Wente credits me with something I have no memory of having said or written, but will gladly endorse:

Sometimes I think that the legalizers and the drug warriors have a secret arms-control treaty, in which each side renounces the use of factually and logically sound arguments.

Update Link to Globe and Mail added, thanks to commenter Dave Empey. And commenter hilker finds the source of the quote, from this very website.

That should tell you what you need to know about the validity of eyewitness testimony. Presented with that quote cold, I would have cheerfully sworn that I never said it. “Sorta sounds like me, but I didn’t say it.”

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 6th, 2011

Last night criminologist David Kennedy came to Stanford Law School accompanied by East Palo Alto Police Chief Ron Davis to discuss innovative strategies for reducing shootings and homicides in low income neighborhoods. David said he constantly faces scepticism that violence can be diminished in the inner city unless drug use and dealing are first eliminated. His response:

We have lots of communities in America that have drug use, drug dealing and no violence. They’re called ‘suburbs’

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 5th, 2011

Jon Caulkins, Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer, and I just sent the manuscript of our cannabis-legalization book to Oxford, which promises to have physical books available in June. Same concept as Drugs and Drug Policy: question-and-answer format, minimal scholarly apparatus. We wind up breaking somewhat more new ground this time, just because we found more things to say that hadn’t already been said. There’s a voluminous literature on cannabis policy, but it’s overwhelmingly legalization advocacy rather than analysis.

During the month or so the Oxford copy-editor is fixing our prose, we’ll be sending out copies of the manuscript for comment. Let me know if you’d like one.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 5th, 2011

For the third time this year, Republicans in Congress seem to be angling for a government shutdown.  Not only will there be disagreements on funding levels, but the House will insist on attaching riders to appropriations bills preventing agencies from doing various things.  I realize that this may come as a shock, but the House GOP, which has already declared climate science to be a hoax, will attempt to forbid EPA from using any funds to promulgate carbon dioxide regulations.  President Obama has threatened a veto.

The problem with this scenario is that it plays into the hands of the Republicans.  If Congress passes a bill with a rider and the President vetoes, great: then EPA has no funding and must shut down completely.  Just what they want! So the task for those who support EPA’s mission is to find a mechanism whereby an agency shutdown could inflict political damage on Republican constituencies, thus making the GOP see the need for a compromise.

Several months ago, I suggested that if EPA shuts down, then it couldn’t issue any Title V permits under the Clean Air Act or NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act, and that would put business in a position of really wanting to keep the agency open.  But then Professor Holly Doremus, who has forgotten more about EPA than I am ever going to know, gently reminded me that these two system are currently administered by the states: an EPA shutdown would not affect states’ ability to issue permits.  So I am still looking for the poison pill.

Well, here’s another try: the 404 permit under the Clean Water Act, required in order to discharge any dredged of fill material into the waters of the United States (and thus required to fill any wetlands).  This permit, of course, is not given by EPA, but rather by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  But EPA has authority here: it comments on applications, and most importantly, under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, it can veto proposed permits.  EPA has used this authority very sparingly: the Corps has granted upwards of 80,000 permits each year, and since 1972, EPA has issued twelve vetoes.  (One might argue that EPA has vetoed too sparingly, but that’s another question). 

Nice Little Wetland You Got Here: Too Bad If Something Were To HAPPEN To It...

So what if, the day before EPA’s budget authority is to expire, the Agency issued blanket vetoes of all pending 404 permit applications?  Or how about only those permit applications from firms of particular importance in Republican congressional districts?  EPA materials suggest that then there would be a public comment period, and afterwards the relevant regional administrator would have to make a determination as to whether to let the permit go ahead.  But of course if the budget impasse is not resolved by then, the regional administrator couldn’t make that determination, because she wouldn’t have the authority to do anything.

It’s not clear to me whether this strategy could work, or whether there are circumstances in which lack of responsiveness by EPA would give the Corps the authority to just move ahead.  But it is worth exploring, not for its substantive value, but rather for its procedural worth in what I have called the Age of Dysfunction.

Obviously, this is no way to run a railroad.  But that’s what the Tea Republican Party wants nowadays: constant hostage-taking and threats to destroy the basic working of the government.  At some point, someone will have to communicate to the GOP that there are costs to plutocratic nihilism.

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 5th, 2011

It’s often said that terrorist groups, are, compared to plain old states, a relatively minor threat to the security of the U.S. and other Western countries. That’s true. But due to their unique interest in failed rather than strong states, they’re a profound threat to the people who live where they’re based.

I thought of this while reading a reflective and thoughtful article  (therefore pushed quickly off the front web page) in today’s L.A. Times. The article was less about the latest horrific bombing in Somalia than about what it means about the Shabab’s factions and their strategies.  I’m sure that smart political scientists had thought of this already (consider this a bleg for citations), but I hadn’t.

The money quotes:

A suicide truck bombing that killed an estimated 70 people, including students hoping for foreign scholarships, underscores the intent of an Islamic militant group to ensure that Somalia remains ungovernable and a secure base for its global struggle against the West.

 

Read the rest of this entry »

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
October 5th, 2011

The bargaining game between NBA owners and players is heating up.  The owners appear to have the upper hand. They are aging at a slower rate than the players.  This article merits reading.   Why should you care about this issue? The NBA offers good high paying jobs that are mainly held by Americans.   The income that the players earn is taxed and some of that must come back to the University of California.

 

Share this post:
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook