Show StoriesRSS
NYT editorial board calls for end to pot 'prohibition'
The New York Times' opinion section has taken some curious steps in recent months when talking about marijuana. Last month, for example, Maureen Dowd wrote about a terribly unpleasant incident in which she ingested far too much pot and ended up "in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours ... panting and paranoid."
It followed a David Brooks column from earlier this year in which he noted his own experimentation before concluding that he wants a society in which "government subtly encourages the highest pleasures, like enjoying the arts or being in nature, and discourages lesser pleasures, like being stoned."
One of the problems with Brooks' piece, of course, is that the United States doesn't just "discourage" the use of marijuana; we spend billions to fight it, imprisoning many of those who embrace the "lesser pleasures." It is, in other words, a prohibition -- which the editorial board of the New York Times now wants to end.
It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished. It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.We reached that conclusion after a great deal of discussion among the members of The Times's Editorial Board, inspired by a rapidly growing movement among the states to reform marijuana laws.
On the surface, it may not seem especially important to think a newspaper ran an editorial on legalizing marijuana. Lots of newspapers run editorials on all kinds of issues every day.
But in practice, the New York Times isn't just any paper, and the editorial board's willingness to adopt a bold stance on drug policy is emblematic of a national conversation has fundamentally changed -- and may never be the same.
Congress reaches preliminary deal on veterans' aid
As of Thursday, a pending bill to expand veterans' benefits appeared to be just about dead. What had been a bipartisan issue had turned into yet another partisan food fight, with House Republicans rejecting multiple compromise offers and walking away from the negotiating table. The Senate Democratic caucus, led in this fight by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was apoplectic, blasting House GOP lawmakers for killing legislation that should be approved easily.
If the goal of the Democratic outrage was to force House Republicans to reconsider, the apoplexy worked. GOP lawmakers, reluctant to get blamed for killing another veterans-aid package, were shamed into renewing talks, and last night, negotiators struck a deal.
According to a summary of the agreement obtained by CQ Roll Call, the negotiators agreed to $15 billion in emergency mandatory spending -- $10 billion for a new private care option for veterans and another $5 billion for improvements within the VA, like hiring doctors and nurses and upgrading facilities. That's $5 billion more than Miller offered on Thursday and about $10 billion less than Sanders sought.To qualify for the private care option, veterans would have to be experiencing long wait times or be located more than 40 miles from a VA facility. They would be able to access providers who already participate in Medicare.
Sanders, chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, will reportedly join House Veterans' Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) at a Capitol Hill event this afternoon to unveil their compromise.
If the price tag is any indication, Sanders compromised quite a bit -- the Senate bill, which passed in June on a 93-to-3 vote, had a price tag of $35 billion over 10 years. This new agreement with the GOP-led House has reduced the aid package to $15 billion, less than half the original total.
It's worth adding a note of caution: just because the relevant lawmakers agreed to a compromise does not mean that the process is over. Congress will still have to pass the deal and neither chamber will be able to amend the agreement. That said, the odds of success appear high.
So, good news, right? For veterans and their advocates, the announcement is obviously encouraging, but before anyone starts using the "maybe Congress can function effectively after all" talking point, I'd recommend keeping the praise to a minimum.
House GOP leader leaves presidential impeachment on the table
House Republicans recently had to elect new leaders, and rank-and-file conservatives insisted that at least one far-right Tea Partier join the team. They succeeded: Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), a fan of debt-ceiling crises and a lawmaker who believes President Obama may be trying to create a "dictatorship," was chosen as the new House Majority Whip.
Yesterday was something of a coming-out party for the Louisiana Republican: Scalise sat down with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," his first Sunday show appearance of this Congress. It didn't go especially well. As Adam Serwer noted, the congressman, recently chosen as the third-ranking GOP official in the House, refused to take presidential impeachment off the table.
Wallace: Will you consider impeaching the president?Scalise: This might be the first White House in history that's trying to start the narrative of impeaching their own president. Ultimately, what we want to do is see the president follow the laws. But the president took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of this land, and he's not. In fact, the Supreme Court, unanimously, more than 12 times, unanimously said, the president overreached, and actually did things he doesn't have the authority to do.
First, that's not even close to what the Supreme Court said, and the fact that a member of the House Republican leadership team would repeat such nonsense on national television -- in response to a question he was no doubt prepared for -- is alarming.
Second, and perhaps more important, was the fact that Scalise didn't answer the question. To his credit, Wallace followed up, asking, "So if he overreaches again on executive action to defer more deportations, what will the House do?" Again, the new House Republican leader dodged. So Wallace asked again whether or not impeachment is "off the table."
Scalise responded, "The White House wants to talk about impeachment and ironically they're going out and trying to fundraise off that, too." Once more, the host said, "I'm asking you, sir." The GOP lawmaker again refused to answer, saying, "The White House will do anything they can to change the topic away from the president's failed agenda."
Of course, Congress won't approve the president's agenda, making the criticism rather odd, but even putting that aside, Wallace gave the new House Majority Whip multiple chances to answer a straightforward question. In each instance, Scalise refused.
Which is exactly what Democrats wanted to see.
Vets bill deal reached and other headlines
Senate and House negotiators reached a deal on the veterans bill over the weekend. (Washington Post)
In the House's final week before recess, Republicans want to show they can govern. (The Hill)
U.N. Security Council calls for Gaza cease-fire as Eid-al-Fitr begins. (Reuters)
U.S. says images show direct Russian role in Ukraine fighting. (Wall Street Journal)
The trial of fmr. VA Gov. Bob McDonnell begins today. (Richmond Times Dispatch) And his former AG, Ken Cuccinelli, may be called as a witness for the defense. (AP)
New York Times editorial board comes out in favor of legal pot. (NY Times)
Two Americans stricken with deadly Ebola virus in Liberia. (NBC News)
This Week in God, 7.26.14
First up from the God Machine this week is a story out of New Orleans, where opponents of abortion rights decided to hold an impromptu protest in an unusual place: inside a church, during church services, while the congregation was in the middle of a moment of silence.
Flip Benham's group Operation Save America disrupted the services of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of New Orleans on Sunday while the congregation was honoring a member who had died. The organization framed their action as simply an effort to "present the truth of the Gospel in this synagogue of Satan" as part of their efforts "to defeat the culture of death."
Apparently, hundreds of activists who oppose abortion rights gathered in New Orleans this week to hold a series of protests, but Operation Save America members took it upon themselves to interrupt this church's worship service, telling members of the congregation they don't have the "true faith," presumably because Unitarian Universalist churches are pro-choice.
Operation Save America's name may not sound familiar, so it's worth noting the group used to be called Operation Rescue National, an organization that developed a reputation for extremist, sometimes violent, activism.
In this case, members of the First Unitarian Universalist Church of New Orleans, no longer able to hold a moment of silence to honor a congregant who recently died, sang while the anti-abortion activists disrupted their services.
The Rev. Deanna Vandiver, the UU speaker during Sunday's service, later argued, "No one should invade the sanctuary of another’s faith to terrorize people as they worship."
It would appear Operation Save America disagrees.
Also from the God Machine this week:
Cocktail Moment: The Prescription Julep
Adapted from the Rachel Maddow Show transcript
Other than not containing any bourbon, the Prescription Julep is pretty similar to a regular Mint Julep.
Start with the sugar. You can use simple syrup where the sugar and water are already combined into a syrup, but for this drink, I like to just use a teaspoon of granular sugar and then add the water right in the glass - an ounce of water. Use more sugar if that's your taste. It doesn't need to be perfectly dissolved but you want that to dissolve at least a little bit.
Then you need good fresh mint - a half dozen leaves or so. Don't use the whole sprig because the stalk of the mint isn't the flavor or the texture that you want.
Smoosh it around a little bit. You don't need to go crazy with the muddling. Just use the back of your bar spoon. Get the mint, the sugar, and the water incorporated with each other.
Add 1½ ounce of cognac or brandy. The better the liquor the better the drink!
Add a ½ ounce of delicious rye whiskey.
Add as much ice as you can to the drink. A proper julep would have ice that was crushed so finely that it was basically turned into powder, but plain old crushed ice also serves.
Stir it up. Stir it for as long as you can stand to without drinking this thing.
Add a sprig of mint as a garnish.
As juleps go, this is bogus but it works and it is delicious!
Video after the jump.
Aaand, scene. RT @ryanjreilly: Mitt Romney apparently mixed up Donna Brazile and Gwen Ifill http://t.co/kChjqA5pO0 / #headdesk
— Joy Reid (@JoyAnnReid) July 26, 2014