Indiana Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers

Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, speaks on a motion to fine absent Democrats at the Statehouse in Indianapolis, Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012.

I couldn’t agree more that lawmakers across the country who want to issue drug testing on welfare recipients should be tested as well.  Having said that, I find it hilarious how quickly the Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill when a Democrat amended the bill so that the legislators would be included in the testing…

The Huffington Post

A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers.

“There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill,” said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill .

The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law . McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster.

“I’ve only withdrawn it temporarily,” he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare.

McMillin’s bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse “reasonable suspicion,” either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office.

In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials . Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday.

“After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill,” Dvorak said. “If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. … If we’re going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money.”

Continued here…

West Wing Week: 1/27/12 or “The State of the Union Edition”

The White House

This week, the President prepared for and delivered his State of the Union Address, welcomed the Boston Bruins to the White House, and took his message West to Iowa, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado.

The week in one-liners: Brewer, Newt, Palin

The week’s top quotes in politics …

“We could see an October surprise a day from Newt Gingrich.” — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney taking aim at Newt Gingrich

“It used to be pious baloney, now it’s desperate baloney.” — GOP White House hopeful Newt Gingrich‘s new nickname for Romney’s rhetoric.

“…well, you kind of get your panties in a wad, and you may say things that you regret later.” — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin advising Chris Christie.

“He didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially.” — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer talking about a tense encounter with President Obama.

“Seems a little bit like I was being detained.” — Sen. Rand Paul discussing his run-in with airport security. (TSA disputed that Paul was “detained.”)

“It reminded me a little of Saturday Night Live, I guess.” — RNC chairman Reince Priebus reacting to Obama’s State of the Union address.

“Eagles… next year. Love Brady, think @Giants.” — Vice President Joe Biden tweeting about who will win the Super Bowl.

Study Connects Low IQ with Conservatives

I didn’t reproduce this article to disparage all conservatives.  The article and the scientists make it clear that this was not their intent either…

Daily Kos

This article appeared on Yahoo today via, which draws a link between low-intelligence and socially conservative ideologies.  I guess in my mind I pretty much already knew this fact as well as most of you out there, but it is nice to have some science to back up that claim.

See this link to the full article at LiveScience.…

or at Yahoo… 

Key quotes from the article include:

The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found.

In addition, the article added:

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

As I stated above, none of this surprises me or should surprise anybody out there, but it should be interesting to hear the backlash from the conservative community, after this article gets out on the internet.

What is funny to me though is that the authors of the article have the need to provide the following disclaimer:

Hodson was quick to note that despite the link found between low intelligence and social conservatism, the researchers aren’t implying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives stupid. The research is a study of averages over large groups, he said.

“There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals,” Hodson said.

I guess such a disclaimer is needed for the less educated conservatives out there, but the rest of us understand what the word averages mean!  In any other type of study, do you really believe that a researcher would have to provide such a disclaimer?  Was it really necessary to add that not all conservatives are idiots and not all liberals are intelligent?

Ultimately, you all know how much belief conservatives put into actual scientific research and study (i.e. global warming, evolution, etc), this will just be another study that they will find some irrational, illogical manner to dispute or ignore.