Comments by martin horn

Anakha82, I believe, is referring to polling that's been posted on this blog.

I think the questions were, 'Do you approve of the job Congress is doing?" and "Do you approve of the job your Congressman is doing?"

Very few said yes to the former, but a majority said yes to the latter.

Of course, when you put those numbers in context by looking at polling showing (I think) less than 1/4 of Americans can correctly identify their Congressman....yeah, you get the idea.

1. I'm aware that different factors can affect the same thing in differing ways.
I'm just stating he's wrong largely because first off, the data he cites doesn't really back up his argument, and second, his assertion in my opinion is a huge stretch. Are we to believe that 16 year old girls are basing the decision to get pregnant on prevailing economic trends, making a calculation that if their neighbors are significantly richer than them, then they might as well get pregnant instead of going to college?
2. And it's possible that 200 years ago, being white and being a slave owner are linked. It doesn't change the fact that I'm interested in what's going on right now. If you have to use data from over 20 years ago to explain what you believe is happening right now, that's not a great sign in favor your argument.

My opinion, having trained at a safety net hospital in Boston as well as in a medical center in a rural area of Maine is that it's all about what's considered "normal."

At age 17, in some areas, getting pregnant is considered an option as viable as going to college for some women. They're not all "accidents" that resulting from failed contraception efforts. I'll always remember an unmarried 16 year old patient in Maine, on Medicaid and foodstamps, who came into clinic asking for advice on prenatal supplements since she was trying to get pregnant. When queried about her choice, it was simply that she didn't want to try to go to college, and she always wanted to be a mom, so she just figured she might as well get started.
She had a sister in nursing school, so it wasn't an issue of her being so discouraged by income inequality that she didn't believe it was possible to do anything to get ahead financially, as Yglesias suggests. It was simply, "Never enjoyed school, might as well start making babies."

I've had similar experiences in Boston. These are young women making (what they consider to be) rational decisions.

Mr Yglesias then concludes that "family life seems to follow real economic opportunities. Where poor people can see that hard work and 'playing by the rules' will reward them, they’re pretty likely to do just that. Where the system looks stacked against them, they’re more likely to abandon mainstream norms."

Wow, way to see what you want to see there, Yglesias. I get it, you don't like income inequality. I'm not a fan of it either, but when the evidence and longstanding trends (inequality has gone up as teen pregnancy has gone down) go against what he claims, it's pretty clear he's being blinded by ideology.

Like how Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney's healthcare reform in Massachusetts made people responsible for their healthcare costs by forcing them to buy private insurance?

You're right. If only Obama would do something like that, to make people responsible...

Ugh, as Democrats and Republicans scramble to get out of the deal to cut social and defense spending they agreed to just months ago, it becomes harder and harder to read these posts supposedly drawing contrasts between these two parties.
In the past decade, the Republicans have expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs and expanded government funding for public schools. Enough of this, "Who favors cradle to the grave government involvement?" nonsense. Both sides do.

Man, journalists are bored.
This is what happens when Presidential campaigns begin over a year before election day, despite the fact that one party's nominee is locked in (Obama) and the opposition party's candidate was the presumptive nominee the entire time (Romney).
People get bored. I'm willing to bet a solid 95% of American voters won't know the "Story of Julia" between now and election day.
A cartoon illustrating the government policies of a ruling party is going to HEAVILY FEATURE government programs. The End. There's nothing deeper here. Those of us who either like or dislike Obama can look to his POLICIES rather than these cartoons to make arguments for and against.

"Supposedly religious America values education? Really? Why is the rest of the world, not just catching up, but surpassing the USA?"

....
How does the rest of the world catching up to America show America doesn't value education?

The world catching up to America isn't evidence of American apathy. It's evidence of renewed global interest in education.

Fantastically put.

Yeah, I know.
It's like, despite the fact that Lugar voted against major Democratic initiatives like the healthcare reform law and other expansions of government benefits, Democratic senators still respected him and his willingness to occasionally compromise, and with Lugar gone, they see even less of a chance for either party to ever accomplish anything in the Senate without controlling 60 seats...

To address this post directly - it makes no sense to (correctly) state that everybody knew Barack Obama was pro-gay marriage deep down, and THEN argue that because he's openly pro-gay marriage, Christian conservatives will suddenly remember they're Christian conservatives and not support gay marriage. People truly on the fence on this issue aren't going to take their cues from Barack Obama one way or another. North Carolina just banned gay marriage, and that was without Barack Obama endorsing gay marriage.
Put another way, tomorrow, Barack Obama could HEARTILY endorse a nationwide ban on abortion, and religious conservatives won't suddenly do an about-face and open abortion clinics just to spite the President.
It's important to remember that it's been Principles leading to Opposition to Obama, not Opposition to Obama leading to Principles when it comes to social conservatives.

What you just described is what I would call, "The smart Republican move." Have the government issue couples certificates classifying them as "Civil Unions" or "Adult Partners" or "Best Friends with Benefits" (last one is a joke). These certificates entitle the couples to "bland and reasonable" legal benefits like hospital visitation rights and other spousal benefits. This leaves churches and other places of religious worship with dominion over the term "marriages," with each religion free to practice as they wish.

The question is, will the hardcore Christian conservatives that form a solid 30-40% of the Republican party go along with it?

You'd really think the millions of dollars spent "protecting marriage" by banning gay marriage would be better spent on couples' counseling and other psychological services to be offered to married couples under stress...

"Simply that you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults."

Nobody wants to.

The mainstream pro-gay marriage thought is that gay people should have the right to marry IN THE EYES OF THE STATE. That is because married couples in America get LEGAL benefits from being married.

Notice the words I've capitalized? I wholeheartedly agree that religious institutions should be allowed to refuse to recognize or perform gay marriages. As a Catholic, if I want a Catholic wedding, I have no right to go to a Synagogue or Mosque and demand that they perform a religious ceremony they don't endorse.

However, nobody serious is advocating that. Most bills legalizing gay marriage include religious exemptions. That's because the issue is the LEGAL definition of marriage, which has nothing to do with the Christian or other God's view of marriage.

"Why hasn't anyone asked Romney straight-out whether he has ever had a change of heart that did not advance his political ambitions?"

That would be devastatingly effective question in a debate - to ask him to name an example of changing his beliefs at political cost to himself, rather than gain.

I guarantee you that never gets asked.

Yes, out of thousands of dissidents in China, one fairly prominent one managed to gain media attention, so we helped him out.

I wouldn't give ourselves a pat on the back for that. I would shrug and say, "Alright, what about all of his brother and sister dissidents who are languishing in anonymous suffering?"

1. Stephen King, really? What if Kim Kardashian posts a tweet on Twitter saying that, "Like, I totally think that rich people should, like do more to help the deficit, like supporting an increase in the capital gains tax?" Will that get a post in DiA?
2. I don't agree with King, but the idea that "volunteer citizens" donating extra revenue will help the deficit is ludicrous. Do you have any idea what it takes to close a $1.4 trillion deficit?
What we'd need to do is start with those rich Democrats "donating" extra money come tax time. Then, rich Republicans will have to be forced to pay more. Then, middle class Americans of all political persuasions will be forced to pay more. Then, government services will be cut, at a horrible time to be poor. Then, the military will be cut at a time of war. Then, aid to college students will be cut at a time of high unemployment even among young college grads. THEN, then, maybe we'll only have a $400 billion deficit.
So can we stop talking about raising taxes OR cutting spending as a means of reducing the deficits??? We'll have to aggressively do BOTH to put a dent in this deficit, and even then, we'll have to do both some more.

Meh.
I disagree with the uproar over using the word crucify, but I also disagree with the sentiment being expressed by the guy saying it.

Punish all those who violate the rules equally, instead of trying to "make examples" out of a few. It's not justice to punish one guy more because you're unable to punish all the other guys violating the rules.

I favor making election day either a national holiday or moving it to a weekend. I never understood why we choose a day of the week which is inconvenient to the vast majority of voters who have to be at work.

I'm against mandatory voting because I feel like people who don't vote are mostly people who don't care about or follow politics closely (so either they're apathetic or ill-informed), with the remainder being those who can't leave work to stand in line to vote (see my proposal above about making it a holiday) or those who consciously decide they don't support anyone (I don't see the value in forcing someone to abstain.)

Oops, the Supreme Court is 77% white.
Clarence Thomas (an African-American) and Sonia Sotomayor (a Hispanic-American) supposedly represent the "Horde of Minorities" overrunning our country's positions of power...