The real reason for the war on voting

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

16 February 14

readersupportednews.org

 
he invaluable Rick Hasen has noticed something about the conservative reaction to the report of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. Among its other recommendations, the commission suggested expanding the opportunities for early voting, and Hasen notes that the reaction to this suggestion on the right is based in something more profound than a simple fight for partisan advantage.

But conservative critics of early voting runs don't just mistrust early voters; they mistrust voters in general. As I explained here, there is a fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives about what voting is for: Conservatives see voting as about choosing the "best" candidate or "best" policies (meaning limits on who can vote, when, and how might make the most sense), and liberals see it as about the allocation of power among political equals. Cutting back on early voting fits with the conservative idea of choosing the "best" candidate by restraining voters from making supposed rash decisions, rather than relying on them to make choices consistent with their interests.

Right on cue, Jonah Goldberg thunders in with his contribution to the debate, and there is nothing I would like more in the world than to have Jonah stuck in an elevator with, say, John Lewis so he could explain to Lewis his theories on limiting the franchise. Either that, or I hope he runs out of gas sometime on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Consider how Jonah Goldberg put it in a 2005 Los Angeles Times column: "Voting should be harder, not easier-for everybody. ... If you are having an intelligent conversation with somebody, is it enriched if a mob of uninformed louts, never mind ex-cons and rapists, barges in? People who want to make voting easier are in effect saying that those who previously didn't care or know enough about the country to vote are exactly the kind of voters this country needs now."

File that one away for the next time he writes something stupid about liberal elites. "Uninformed louts." Like these people, I guess.

Lawmaker: End felony charge for pot possession

Rep. Mark A. Cardenas, D-Phoenix, wants to remove felony charges for possession of marijuana without the intent to sell. “I don’t believe they should go away to prison and face hefty fines and possibly have their civil rights taken away,” he said. (Cronkite News Service Photo by Moriah Costa)

By MORIAH COSTA Cronkite News Service
PHOENIX – Saying harsh penalties for marijuana use do more harm than good, a state lawmaker wants to remove felony charges for possession without the intent to sell.

“I don’t believe they should go away to prison and face hefty fines and possibly have their civil rights taken away,” said Rep. Mark A. Cardenas, D-Phoenix. “We shouldn’t have people that are being sentenced to long prison terms for simple possession of marijuana.”

Cardenas authored HB 2474, which would subject those carrying less than 1 ounce of marijuana without intent to sell to a civil penalty of no more than $100. Possession of less than 2 pounds without intent to sell would be a petty offense, while possession of greater amounts would be a misdemeanor.

Currently, possession of up to two pounds is a class six felony, punishable by up to two years in prison and a $750 fine.

The bill would reduce the charge for growing marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor if the amount is less than 2 pounds.

Cardenas said he was against legalization when he served in the Army and National Guard but that his views changed after taking an Arizona State University class on drugs and justice.

“It took being willing to learn from facts and figures to say, I was wrong,” he said. “Let’s change that. Let’s try to change my corner of the world.”

His bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee but hadn’t been scheduled for a hearing.

Cardenas also signed onto a bill that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana. HB 2558, authored by Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, had yet to be assigned to a committee.

While Cardenas is for marijuana legalization, he said “the next best option would be to decriminalize small amounts.”

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said reducing marijuana possession penalties would undermine efforts by counties to rehabilitate first- and second-time offenders who aren’t facing other charges. Those successfully completing the diversion program avoid criminal records.

“The irony is that if you try to reduce those penalties, you are going to wind up with people who are going to have maybe an ostensibly lower level offense, but they’re going to have more of a conviction record than people who could initially be charged with a felony and be offered diversion and have no record,” he said.

Montgomery said that in 2013, 63 percent of the diversion cases in Maricopa County were for marijuana possession, and 85 percent of those in the program successfully completed it.

Nine other counties have similar diversion prosecution programs, according to the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council.

Montgomery said the idea that Arizona’s prisons are full of marijuana-possession offenders. According to the 2011 Arizona Sentencing Report from the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, about 95 percent of inmates in Arizona’s prison system have committed multiple or violent felonies.

“If that’s the motivation of this bill, it’s a solution in search of a problem,” he said.

Carolyn Short, chairwoman for Keep AZ Drug Free, a committee that opposed the 2010 medical marijuana ballot initiative, said the idea of reduce sentences for marijuana possession isn’t rational and ignores scientific fact.

“It’s just another way of communicating to kids that its not that big of a deal and it really is a big deal,” she said. “We already have two substances now that are legal, alcohol and tobacco, that are creating damage economically and socially to our society.”

Dennis Bohlke, spokesperson for Safer Arizona, a marijuana advocacy group that approached Cardenas about HB 2474, said he believes that current drug laws are harming youth.

“I can’t think of any reason why we should charge young people for using marijuana,” he said.

The group is trying to collect enough signatures to put a marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot in November.

Cardenas thinks it’s time to rethink how marijuana possession is viewed in Arizona.

“The amount of money that we’re spending hasn’t dropped the number of people that are caught with possession, it hasn’t done anything to reduce cartel violence, and I would say it’s a victimless crime,” he said.

 PENALTIES UNDER THE BILL 

Possession without intent to sell
Proposed:
• Less than 1 ounce: civil penalty of up to $100.
• Less than 2 pounds: petty offense.
• 2 pounds or more: class three misdemeanor.
Current law:
• Less than 2 pounds: class six felony.
• Between 2 and 4 pounds: class five felony.
• 4 pounds or more: class four felony.
Growing marijuana
Proposed:
• Less than 2 pounds: class three misdemeanor.
• 2 and 4 pounds: class six felony.
• 4 pounds or more: class five felony.
Current law:
• Less than 2 pounds: class five felony.
• 2 and 4 pounds: class four felony.
• 4 pounds or more: class three felony.
Possession with intent to sell
No proposed changes.

ADOT issues alert about Beeline repaving

Work affects AZ 87 between AZ188 and Rye 

Lane restrictions expected next week during work hours

 

Work continues on the pavement improvement project on State Route 87 between Rye and State Route 188, between mileposts 235 and 241, and requires the highway to be restricted to one lane in each direction starting Tuesday, Feb. 18.

During the restriction, which will be from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday over the next two weeks, the existing pavement on the roadway will be milled and then repaved with asphalt.

Drivers are encouraged to be aware of increased volume of truck traffic as milling and paving work occurs.  The speed limit will be reduced to 55 mph and minimal delays are expected.

ADOT advises drivers to proceed through the work zone with caution, slow down, and be alert for construction equipment and personnel.

For more information, email projects@azdot.gov or call the project information line at 1.855.712.8530. To stay up-to-date with the latest highway conditions around the state at any time, visit the ADOT Traveler Information Center at www.az511.gov or call 511.

ACA enrollment increases 53 percent in January

27 percent of new enrollees are young adults – 
up 3 percentage points from previous report

Enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace continued to rise in January, with a 53 percent increase in overall enrollment over the prior three month reporting period, with young adult enrollment outpacing all other age groups combined, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.

Nearly 3.3 million people enrolled in the Health Insurance Marketplace plans by Feb. 1, 2014 (the end of the fourth reporting period for open enrollment), with January alone accounting for 1.1 million plan selections in state and federal marketplaces.  In January, 27 percent of those who selected plans in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace are between the ages of 18 and 34, a three percentage point increase over the figure reported for the previous three month period.  Young adult enrollment grew by 65 percent in January, from 489,460 at the end of December to 807,515 as of Feb. 1, while all other age groups combined grew by 55 percent.

The report for the first time also includes information on the type of plans selected (Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc.) distributed across demographic factors such as gender and age.  For example, it shows that 81 percent of young adults ages 18 to 34 selected plans at the Silver metal level or higher (Silver, Gold and Platinum plans). 

“These encouraging trends show that more Americans are enrolling every day, and finding quality, affordable coverage in the Marketplace,” Secretary Sebelius said. “There is still plenty of time for you and your family to sign up in a private plan of your choice, so visit HealthCare.gov to learn more and sign up. Open enrollment ends March 31.”

Key findings from today’s report include:

·         Nearly 3.3 million (3,299,500) people selected Marketplace plans from Oct. 1, 2013, through Feb. 1, 2014, including 1.4 million in the State Based Marketplaces and 1.9 million in the Federally-facilitated Marketplace.

·         Of the almost 3.3 million:

o   55 percent are female and 45 percent are male;

o   31 percent are age 34 and under;

o   25 percent are between the ages of 18 and 34;

o   62 percent selected a Silver plan, while 19 percent selected a Bronze plan; and

o   82 percent selected a plan and are eligible to receive Financial Assistance, up from 79 percent during the Oct. 1 through Dec 28, 2013 reporting period.

Today’s report details state-by-state information where available.  In some states, only partial datasets were available. 

The report features cumulative data for the four-month reporting period because some people apply, shop, and select a plan across monthly reporting periods.  Enrollment is measured as those who selected a plan. 

To read the report visit: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2014/MarketPlaceEnrollment/Feb2014/ib_2014feb_enrollment.pdf

To hear stories of Americans enrolling in the Marketplace visit: http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/mystory/index.html

10 reasons to raise minimum wage above $10.10

February 14, 2014

By Richard Eskow

ourfuture.org

President Obama signed an executive order on Wednesday raising the minimum wage for some federally contracted workers to $10.10. This move illustrates the fact that we need a higher minimum wage for all workers. It also promotes the bill by Sen. Tom Harkin and Rep. George Miller that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2015.

Make no mistake: The President’s gesture was a good one, and the Harkin/Miller bill is very important. But, as is so often the case nowadays, strategists on the left run the risk of prematurely accepting preconceptions about what is “politically possible.” If economic debate becomes strictly a defensive game fon the left, the “Overton window” of acceptable debate will keep shifting toward the right.

The minimum wage is an excellent case in point. There are strong arguments for raising it even more – perhaps considerably more – than is currently being discussed, and the independent left should be making them.

Here are ten reasons why “$10.10” should be a floor, not a ceiling, in discussions of the minimum wage. 

1. It keeps up with inflation – but not entirely.

Compared to the 1968 minimum wage, $10.10 is enough to keep up with inflation – more or less. But it doesn’t make up for the many years in which minimum wage workers fell behind. Those years often led to increased debt, lost educational opportunities, and other forms of deprivation. 

2. We’re lagging behind other industrialized countries.

The U.S. minimum wage is well behind that of most other industrialized countries. Even at $10.10, we would be laggards compared with most of our peers. (But not all of them. To use the vernacular: In your face, Slovak Republic!)

Our current minimum wage is roughly 40 percent of the median national income. We would have to raise it to roughly $10.88, effective immediately, to equal France’s. And don’t we want to do even better than that? (Source: International Labor Organization)

Where’s that American exceptionalism when we need it? 

3. If the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity, it would be $21.72 today.

The Harkin/Miller bill would peg the minimum wage to inflation in future years. But there’s a very strong argument for tying it to productivity instead. That’s what the minimum wage did in the years between 1947 and 1968, as economist Dean Baker regularly points out. (Source: Dean Baker, CEPR)

If the minimum wage were based on productivity increases from 1968 to today, it would be more than $21 per hour. (Source: John Schmitt, CEPR)

Corporations would have us believe that even a modest minimum wage tied to inflation would stifle growth and lead to increased joblessness. And yet, during the decades that the minimum wage rose even higher, with productivity, we experienced an average of 4 percent annual GDP growth and 4 percent unemployment. (Source: Baker and Kimball, CEPR)

In fact, the official unemployment rate in 1968 was less than half of the rate today, and the actual employment figures were even better.

Productivity measures the wealth produced by an economy. One percenters want us to believe otherwise, but a system in which most new wealth goes to them is the exception, not the rule. Why are we deliberately preserving this harmful situation? 

4. If the minimum wage had kept pace with the incomes of the top 1 percent, it would be more than $28 per hour today. 

Minimum-wage workers to America’s wealthiest citizens: We’ll take it! (Source: Economic Policy Institute) 

5. A single parent will still need federal assistance. 

With a minimum wage of $10.10, a parent raising a single child will no longer qualify for food assistance. But a single parent with two children will still need the help, since a full-time minimum wage won’t lift them far enough above the poverty threshold.

A full-time worker earning $10.10 per hour makes $21,008 per year. The cutoff level for educational aid through the TRIO program is $23,595 for a household of two. The cutoff level for food assistance is $25,392 (annualized) for a three-person household.  (Sources: Office of Postsecondary Education, USDA/SNAP) 

6. Corporate profits are at or near record-high levels. 

They’re so high, in fact, that management is reportedly getting nervous about it. A $10.10 minimum wage might not do enough to re-balance wages and profits, and thus to put their hearts at rest. 

7. It’s what the public wants. 

Two-thirds of voters want to see the minimum wage increased to at least $10.10, according to recent polling. Forty-three percent of them would like to see it raised even higher – and that’s without anybody making the case for that higher number.

Why not make that argument to the American people? We would be more likely to wind up with a minimum wage they’ll like even better. 

8. A higher minimum wage will do even more to spur economic growth and widespread prosperity. 

They’ll probably like their economy better, too. So much of our national income is flowing to the wealthiest among us that they literally don’t know what to do with it. Spending and investment have dropped among high earners, and more of their income is sitting idly in bank accounts.

Minimum-wage workers spend what they earn. That leads to increased economic growth – the kind that benefits all wage-earning employees. 

9. All sorts of Republican presidents have signed bills increasing the minimum wage.

Eisenhower did. (Source: Miller Center, University of Virginia)

So did Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. (Source: Bill Scher, The Week) 

10.  Newt Gingrich’s Congress raised the minimum wage, too. 

In fact, Gingrich’s Republican Congress raised it by more than 21 percent back in 1996. So why can’t John Boehner’s Congress be pressed to do the same thing?

One difference: Democrats hammered the GOP relentlessly with procedural maneuvers, not unlike this reported move from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Another difference: The AFL-CIO ran ads back in 1996 targeting Republicans for resisting a popular measure.  (Source: New York Times via Scher)

Why did these Republicans finally do the right thing? In many cases it was because the “Overton window” was facing in the right direction, thanks to some hard work and effective communication.

There’s a lesson in that: Make the case for what is right – and do it fearlessly, because it is right. When the time for expediency arrives, you may find that the limits of the possible have changed.

Rand Paul discovers Lewinsky affair

February 11, 2014

Hillary Could Be Derailed by Little-Known Affair

Posted by Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Potential Republican Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) said today that he believes he has a “secret weapon” that will derail Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House bid: “A little-known affair between her husband and a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.”

 

Appearing on the Fox News Channel, Paul told the host Sean Hannity, “Sean, when the American people find out about this scandal, they are going to be shocked, truly shocked. It didn’t get a lot of coverage at the time.” 

 

Asked by Hannity how the scandal could have remained under wraps for so long, Paul replied, “You’ll have to ask Bill and Hillary that. Let’s just say they’ve pulled a lot of strings to keep this story out of the mainstream media.” 

 

“Unfortunately for them, Sean, I have the details on this juicy scandal and I’m prepared to share them with the American people,” he said. “I think it’s going to be a game-changer.” 

 

While he believes that the shocking revelations about President Clinton’s Oval Office dalliances will be enough to destroy Hillary’s 2016 ambitions, Paul confirmed that he has other arrows in his quiver. 

 

“It turns out that Hillary was involved in a business deal called Whitewater,” he said. “When the American people find out about this, it’s going to blow their minds.”

Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty.

Can your dog read your mind?

ASU professor Clive Wynne is the director of research for Wolf Park in Indiana. 

Written by Diane Boudreau
ASU Office of Knowledge Enterprise Development 

Have you ever felt like your pet dog was reading your mind? If you have, you certainly aren’t alone. Stories abound from people whose dogs give them extra attention when they are feeling down. Other dogs grow anxious when their owners are preparing for a trip, and some dogs show hostility to people their owners dislike.

Dogs’ ability to perceive human feelings and intentions is remarkable. Dogs can even follow a person’s pointing finger, which is no small mental feat. Scientists have been unable to train even chimps to do that.

It’s no surprise, then, that dogs are considered “man’s best friend.” And it’s no surprise that many people consider their behavior unique among animals. Clive Wynne, a psychology professor at Arizona State University, disagrees.

“I don’t deny that dogs have a remarkable ability to know what people are up to. But I do deny that they have new, special skills,” says Wynne, who is also director of ASU’s new Canine Science Collaboratory and the proud adoptive “parent” of a shelter mutt named Xephos.

Wynne recently came to ASU from the University of Florida, where he studied dog behavior and human-dog relationships for more than a decade. He is the co-author, with Monique Udell, of “Animal Cognition: Evolution, Behavior and Cognition” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). He is also director of research for Wolf Park in Indiana.

Wynne’s work with wolves led him to challenge conventional wisdom about differences between dogs and their lupine ancestors.

“I study wolves that have been hand-reared by people. They’re really responsive to humans. Wolves are every bit as good as dogs at following what people are up to,” he explains. “You don’t see it in a typical wolf because they don’t grow up around people.”

He adds that truly feral dogs that reach adulthood without meeting humans will be just as skittish around people as any wolf. But if wolves are as trainable as dogs, why are they rarely kept as pets, while dogs are toted to dog parks and hiking trails, garbed in Halloween costumes and photographed peeping from celebrity purses? Wynne says it’s partly due to differences between how dogs and wolves develop.

“Wolves grow up quickly. There is only a short period in which there is a willingness to learn who you can be friends with,” he says. “Dog development is slowed down, so it’s easy to tame them. Any dog that is around people is easy to tame – we don’t even think of it as ‘taming.’”

Wynne will discuss these differences and the origins of the human-dog bond in a public talk on Feb. 25. He will be joined by two other noted canine researchers: Gregory Berns and Matthew Breen.

Do dogs love?

Berns is a neuroeconomist at Emory University who has spent decades using MRI technology to study how the human brain works. But a different question also nagged at him: What is my dog thinking? To answer that, he and his colleagues figured out how to teach dogs to lie still in an MRI scanner, using only positive training methods. The dogs even wear earmuffs to protect their ears from the machine’s noise.

“He has cracked the holy grail in dog science,” Wynne says of Berns’ accomplishment.

Whether dogs love their human guardians the same way we love them is a subject of lively debate. Berns’ research, which explores what happens in a dog’s brain at the smell or sight of its owner, offers interesting new information to the discussion.

Berns will talk about the findings he has presented in his book, “How Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain” (New Harvest, 2013), and a widely shared New York Times article, “Dogs are people, too.” 

Berns argues that new evidence about canines’ capacity for emotion forces us to reconsider how we treat them. He questions whether we should continue to view dogs as possessions if they have emotions similar to our own.

Canines contribute to cancer research

Matthew Breen is a professor of genomics at North Carolina State University. He studies a different aspect of the human-dog relationship – our mutual vulnerability to certain diseases.

For hundreds of years, people have bred dogs to display specific traits. These could be physical attributes like size and coloring, or behaviors like retrieving and herding. Unfortunately, such breeding unintentionally selected for less desirable traits, as well. Certain breeds of dogs have a higher risk of developing health problems like hip dysplasia, seizures and some types of cancer.

Genomic studies have revealed a silver lining, however. Research on dogs can accelerate our understanding of cancers that also affect humans. Because dogs have gone through such tightly controlled breeding, scientists can study their genetics with less “background noise” than they find in the human genome. Identifying the genes involved in disease is likely to be simpler as a result.

Breen’s work shows that to be true. In studying a particular form of brain cancer, he and his colleagues narrowed the number of genes that are potentially involved from 500 to fewer than 10. They have also identified genetic signatures that predict how well a dog with lymphoma will respond to two of the leading types of chemotherapy. Breen will discuss these and other results, which could lead to better treatments for both humans and their canine companions.

Happily ever after

Wynne notes that not only are certain dog breeds more susceptible to diseases, but they can be more likely to develop behavioral problems such as separation anxiety.

He says that psychologists have developed numerous behavioral techniques for handling problem behaviors in humans, largely using rewards to get people to behave better.

“Why do people misbehave? Often it’s because they experience some positive consequence for doing so, even if it’s only the attention of their caregivers. We are applying these behavior modification techniques to dogs for behaviors like extreme thunderstorm phobia, or excessive tail-chasing,” he says.

One area where such training might reap enormous benefits is in animal shelters. Studies show that certain characteristics of dogs can help or hinder their chances of being adopted. For instance, puppies are more popular than adult dogs, and certain breeds – such as pit bulls – are considered less desirable. Behavior is important, too.

“If you’re a cute dog, you can get away with anything,” Wynne explains. “For ugly dogs, lots of behaviors matter. Keep your kennel clean. Don’t lick yourself or your cage.”

Wynne has been working with animal shelters to improve the odds that dogs will be adopted. He and his colleagues have trained dogs in certain behaviors to assess whether those behaviors increase their adoptability. Now he is focusing his efforts on ensuring that the adoption will stick. Return rates of shelter dogs can be high – sometimes more than 30 percent.

“It’s one thing to get adopted, but many dogs that are adopted get returned. We are looking at what to do to help form a bond between people and the dog so they can live happily ever after,” Wynne says.

He is collaborating with faculty in ASU’s Exercise and Wellness Program, along with the Arizona Animal Welfare League & SPCA, to find out if exercising with a newly adopted dog increases retention.

"There is a health benefit to owning a dog – people who have dogs exercise more,” he explains. “We invite people to exercise with their newly adopted dogs. We want to know, do they have lower return rates?”

Cross-bred research

Wynne is enthusiastic about working with researchers in a different field and hopes to continue such interdisciplinary efforts in the future. For example, learning what influences people’s adoption decisions would benefit from expertise in marketing. He notes that ASU offers excellent opportunities for these types of collaborations.

“A lot of institutions talk an interdisciplinary talk, but the standard university structure in the U.S. is not suited to interdisciplinarity,” he says. “The resources flow through departments, and people naturally don’t want to share. But it’s clear that something is happening at ASU that is allowing that crossover to happen.”

In creating his new research group, the Canine Science Collaboratory, Wynne deliberately avoided using terminology from his own discipline (psychology) in the name. He welcomes collaboration with anyone interested in studying dogs, whether they are faculty from other departments within ASU or outside organizations.

“Going to the Dogs – an Evening of Canine Science” will take place from 5-7 p.m., Feb. 25, at the Tempe Center for the Arts. The event will feature presentations from Wynne, Berns and Breen about their research and discoveries. Afterward, the speakers will be available to meet the audience and sign copies of their books. Admission and parking are free.

Check out these ten things you probably didn’t know about dogs. 

The Department of Psychology is an academic unit of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Wynne’s research is funded by the Canine Health Foundation, part of the American Kennel Club.