"They know that everybody can make it"

>> Monday, November 30, 2009

Southern Female Lawyer watches a Glenn Beck promo in a vain effort to figure out what the fuck The Christmas Sweater is all about:

Unfortunately, despite my rigorous research, I still have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what this is about. I have gleaned only the following:
  • That it is, in fact, about a Christmas sweater.
  • That it takes Glenn Beck approximately 2 minutes, 17 seconds to squeeze out a tear.
  • That Glenn Beck’s eyes are the color of a sweet and innocent summer sky, but that only the very strong can gaze into them.
  • That something happened at some point, or possibly many points, and he hasn’t been able to talk about something for thirty years, but can now. Or will, if you buy something. And even though some event happened decades ago and changed him forever and from that point forward he was forever changed, he was also still simultaneously unchanged until only recently, and has apparently engaged in mucho jackassery for which he is now seeking or perhaps once sought forgiveness (which is free) and redemption (which costs around $549.00).
At $549 I can only hope paying customers will get to watch Glenn Beck drop his pants like David Yow. Otherwise, what's the point?

Read more...

Tragedy, Farce... What Comes After Farce?

Sarah Palin just CANNOT stop lying.

Read more...

Unless you're a glutton for [insert something about silly online debates], I recommend skipping all the links in the second paragraph.

If you're interested in contemporary science fiction, I've reviewed what Kim Stanley Robinson and I agree is the best novel of 2009 period here. I can't recommend it highly enough.

If, on the other hand, you're interested in watching Jeff Goldstein self-implode at the mention of my name (again!), I direct your attention here—sorry, that link goes to his latest (and most specatularly desperate) attempt to emotionally blackmail people into paying him to write. I meant to send you here, where he demonstrates something or other about me, in the course of which he hilariously mistakes a completely unrelated post as a response to something one of his lackeys wrote, and when called out on it, makes fun of me for looking like a standard-issue academic instead of an insecure bodybuilder ...

... all of which is another way of saying I'm re-recommending you skip all the links in the second paragraph.

Read more...

Minaret Ban

I think the ban on the hijab in public schools and other public places in France and elsewhere is deeply misguided at best, thinly veiled racism at (much more likely) worst, but at least in that case, I understood the plausible rationale behind the policy. I've read several discussions of Switzerland's Minaret ban, and have come up completely empty on the reconstruction of a plausible non-bigoted justification. (The closest I've seen is a bizarre, metaphorical 12-year old quote from The Turkish Prime Minister.)

File under "Reasons why unpopular minorities and those concerned with their status remain unenthusiastic about plebiscitary democracy, #43,214."

Read more...

Missing the Trees for the Forest...

Atrios misses out on the key benefit of the electric driverless taxi cab; without taxicab drivers, it would be literally impossible for Tom Friedman to write books. That's an outcome we can all get behind.

Read more...

Greatest Coaching Genius In History Loses Job



I'm sure Notre Dame -- who remain relevant as a major football power! Really! -- will rue the day they let this great coach get away. (Seriously, what gets me is not the hire, which was reasonable, but the ridiculous extension midway through his first year.)

Rumors that Joba Chamberlain -- already having become bored with establishing a new Dow 36,000 Gold Standard in pitching and looking to master another field -- is the frontrunner to replace Weis are unconfirmed at press time. If that falls through, I hear another Genius former Bill Belichick assistant may soon be available...

...Mr. Bogg says it with less.

Read more...

Grumble Grumble Grumble

It's probably not worth bellyaching about this, but when Geoffrey Dunn at HuffPo takes/receives credit for "discovering" that Sarah Palin misquoted John Wooden in an epigraph of Going Rogue, it would be awfully generous of him to give credit to the blog where this embarrassing detail first surfaced, particularly since he finds the actual quotation in a source linked in the original post here.

Just saying....

Read more...

Derek Jeter: Sportsman of the Year

The moment that this blog has been dreading since its creation has come to pass.

In all semi-seriousness, the hero worship athletes elicit is a subject worth studying. As I noted in the Tiger Woods post below, there's a deep and widespread desire to see supremely accomplished athletes as generally admirable human beings, even though if anything there's probably something of a negative correlation between the two things. For one thing, while it's not necessary to be deeply selfish, or egomaniacal, or a narcissistic perfectionist, or a child of parents in the grip of grandiose manias, or some combination thereof, to get to the top of any sport or other competitive enterprise, it often helps quite a bit, as anyone who has had much contact with such people can attest. (In this regard I recommend Gary Smith's portrait of the young Tiger Woods, "The Chosen," from the December 23, 1996 Sports Illustrated issue which named Woods Sportsman of the Year. Another excellent essay on the subject in general is David Foster Wallace's portrait of Michael Joyce, an obscure professional tennis player).

Of course the highest levels of achievement always require those who achieve them to have certain admirable qualities, such as a willingness to work extremely hard in the pursuit of initially distant goals. But it's too easy to extrapolate from that fact all sorts of false conclusions, such as that the people who reach the top of a field have done so primarily because they have worked harder than other people. In a loose sense this is true (for example every major league baseball player or PGA golfer has undoubtedly worked very hard to get where he is), but there is no good reason to believe that Derek Jeter is a superstar while Joe Smith has just been granted his unconditional release from Pittsburgh's AAA affiliate because Jeter works appreciably harder than Smith, or "wants it more," or whatever other cliche sportswriters like to deploy when celebrating Jeter's greatness.

This is a point that has more general ideological significance. It's an article of faith in this country that rich people are rich primarily because they work harder than other people. This is the kind of belief that can and is maintained in the face of all evidence to the contrary, because people want to believe it -- just as they want to believe that being the best golfer or shortstop in the world is primarily a matter of working harder at golf or baseball than everybody else.

Another parallel is that a lot of people believe that a high batting average and a high marginal tax bracket are both good proxies for moral election. This is one of those ideas that is sufficiently idiotic that it usually won't be said in so many words -- hardly anyone, after all, will actually say "I think the fact that Derek Jeter is a great baseball player indicates he's a morally admirable person," but anyone who has ever been stuck in a conversation with an Ayn Rand fan knows this line of thinking can be found well beyond the world of sports.

Read more...

Leverage and Influence

This doesn't seem right to me:

During the Cold War, the United States and Turkey formed a "strategic partnership" based on both countries' fear of Soviet intervention in the Middle East. The Truman Doctrine offered a specific guarantee that both Turkey and Greece would be protected from Soviet aggression - a fear that was quite real in Turkey at the time. In exchange, the United States received access to military bases, support in the Korean War and a strategically advantageous position in the Middle East. Despite serious disagreements - particularly over Cyprus - the relationship worked to each sides' mutual advantage until the Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago.

Today, the United States wants Turkish support on a wide variety of important issues, including stabilizing Iraq, supporting the mission in Afghanistan, preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, moving energy to Europe, serving as a Muslim ally, and providing stability in its neighborhood.

In exchange, the United States offers security guarantees, military assistance, and the benefits that accrue from an alliance with the world' most powerful military. All of these things are very important to Turkey (and to many other countries). The problem is that the United States is not in a position to credibly threaten to withhold these benefits without undermining the international order in which it has invested so much. For example, both Washington and Ankara know that Turkey's stance on Iran's nuclear program will not jeopardize the American security blanket.

Of course, there are red lines that Turkey (or any other country) could cross that would change U.S. policy. But the point is that Turkey has a great deal of running room before those red lines are crossed. Turkey, both because it is a NATO ally and a strategically critical country, knows that it can pursue an independent foreign policy while still enjoying the benefits of American power.

The basic problem identified here is that it's difficult to exclude particular countries from the benefits (such that they are) of hegemony, and consequently that it's much more difficult for the United States to exert influence than it would seem on paper. My response, I guess, is as follows: This is not a new problem, it characterized the Cold War, and in many ways small and medium sized states had more leverage during the Cold War, rather than less.

The central issue is thus: the Cold War granted the US a certain degree of leverage over countries like Turkey because the United States could provide protection against the Soviet Union. However, it simply wasn't the case that the United States could, as a matter of policy, routinely threaten to exclude Turkey from the umbrella of protection. The loss of US influence over Turkey would, during the Cold War, have been understood as a colossal strategic setback for the United States. Indeed, threats of the "loss" of countries far more trivial than Turkey were treated in US strategic circles as harbingers of the Apocalypse, and client states of the US routinely made (usually implausible) threats of realignment in order to cajole more support from Washington. Kenneth Waltz may have been correct in demonstrating that the shift of a few small and medium sized powers could not fundamentally affect the balance of power between the US and the USSR, but Hans Morgenthau was surely more accurate in his prediction that small states could wield inordinate influence over large powers by threatening defection. Consequently, during the Cold War the idea that the United States could "exclude" Turkey, or Japan, or West Germany from the benefits of its umbrella is simply crazy; indeed, the smaller states held a great degree of leverage. Moreover, I'm not convinced that even formal exclusion from the US sponsored system of alliances entitled actual exclusion from the US security umbrella; the Russians probably didn't want to invade Sweden or Yugoslavia anyway, but an effort to do so might well have sparked a general European war even in the absence of a direct NATO security commitment.

As Ben argues, post-Cold War the United States still can't plausibly exclude states like Turkey from the benefits of a US dominated international system. However, small and medium size states generally lack the same degree of leverage that they possessed when the Soviet Union existed. The US became indifferent to the fate of lots of Cold War hotspots as soon as the USSR collapsed; I suspect that if the USSR (and its enmity with the US) had survived, the US would have continued to pay very close attention to happenings in Somalia, Afghanistan, Zaire/Congo, etc. Threats of defection from the US sponsored global system only grant leverage if the US cares, and if such threats are credible; on balance, I'm not convinced that exerting influence is any more difficult today than it was in 1980.

Read more...

"In Poor Taste" Doesn't Begin to Cover It...

Gun Club Gomer:

It is probably a total coincidence, but Parkland is 22 miles down I-5 from Evergreen State College, the radical leftist school that helped create Rachel Corrie and Andrew Mickel, the later of which ambushed a police officer in Nov 2002, and is now on death row. Another radical leftist shot and killed a police officer on Halloween after firebombing four police cars on Oct. 22, and was in turn shot earlier this month.

Yep, Gomer; it probably is a total coincidence.

Read more...

Now, I'm as Critical of Rabid Angry Uncivil Wingnuts as the Next Guy . . .

at least until Michael White goes moderately Over The Top in his latest rambling, expansive Guardian piece on Friday. While LGM readers know that I am highly critical of the Wingnut approach to democracy and debate, and I don't consider it healthy at all, I'm not about to start drawing comparisons to Ft. Sumter in 1861.


While White may largely be correct here:
It is the scale of the irrational, emotional and, dare I add, ignorant, reaction his presidency has unleashed on the American right, some of it understandable in a fast-changing and confusing world, much of it ugly and increasingly violent in tone.
But a latecomer here:
Friends keep saying: "It's changed since you lived there, Mike."
White lived in the US from 1984 to 1988, so, um, duh, of course it's changed. That's a generation. I'm willing to bet that Britain has changed since 1988 as well.

I interpret the present reaction of the right not all that differently from that unleashed by Bill Clinton. Since Reagan, the right views the White House specifically, and governance in general, as a birthright. They're the only true Americans. Fortunately for the rest of us, most of them live in Real America. Therefore the current tone and tenor of debate from the right doesn't surprise me in the least -- if anything they're more scared, because whereas Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the vote, Obama did significantly better. And, Obama's a Muslim Fascist-Communist as we all know, born, where was it? Kenya? Indonesia? That must scare the right as well.

To reiterate, unlike White I do not perceive this wave of wingnut lunacy any differently than the Clinton administration. This isn't new. (Of course, dare I say it, we know how that ended up). Furthermore, while the faults of the United States are legion, this is true of every democracy on the planet -- and hey, we didn't give the world, and the European Parliament, Nick Griffin, who somehow weaseled his way into representing the entire EUP at the Copenhagen climate change conference. His views on climate change are reassuringly similar to his views on race relations.

But perhaps I should have more time for White and his viewpoint: not only was he punched by Alastair Campbell, but he punched him back.

Read more...

Dumond This Isn't

>> Sunday, November 29, 2009

Given Huckabee's gruesome history on related matters, it's tempting to say that he deserves any demagoguery he's on the receiving end of because of this. But it would be wrong. As Matt says, on its face there's nothing unreasonable about granting clemency to a someone given 60 years for burglaries committed when he was 17. Evidently, if you grant parole and clemency (or, for that matter, give out finite sentences) to significant numbers of people some percentage will commit more crimes, but individual cases can't in themselves justify more draconian policies, and also don't mean that Huckabee's judgment at the time was wrong. Putting pressure on the the parole board to release a rapist because some wingers developed some quarter-witted Clinton conspiracy theories, on the other hand...

I also wonder if this might affect Kennedy's vote on the juvenille sentencing cases the court is considering.

Read more...

Brett Favre and the hype machine

Speaking of the culture of celebrity and media saturation, an ironic aspect of the ridiculous levels of worshipful coverage that Brett Favre has gotten over the years is that it has made it eas(ier) to overlook that he's in the midst of one of the most amazing seasons in NFL history. His 24 TD passes, three interceptions, 69% completion percentage, and 270 yards per game passing add up to by far the highest quarterback rating of his career, and one of the highest in history. He's doing this at the age of 40, and today he tied Jim Marshall's record for consecutive NFL starts by a non-kicker (282).

Another aspect of this story I like is that last August all the football insider types were certain that Favre's flirtation with the Vikings would be, if consummated with a contract, harmful to team chemistry and other similarly mysterious alembics, and that indeed the whole soap opera of his second un-retirement was going to harm his "legacy."

Read more...

The Chosen One

The Tiger Woods incident provides an interesting glimpse into the world of celebrity image making, and the corporate and media interests that enable it. Woods got into a minor car accident early Friday morning after he was apparently attacked by his enraged wife. She seems to have smashed in the back window of his SUV with a couple of golf clubs as he tried to flee their home at 2:30 AM. Woods was found lying in the street drifting in and out of consciousness and suffering from facial lacerations, raising questions regarding whether the window was the only thing his wife connected with. Woods is refusing to talk to the police, which isn't surprising, given that a truthful account of the proceedings would probably require his wife to be charged with committing domestic violence.

He did however release this statement on his website, which is a kind of negative masterpiece of botched public relations.

Absurdly, Woods is issuing a fulsome apology to the world in general, while at the same time claiming all that happened is that he got into a fender bender just beyond his driveway. Even more ineptly, he addresses the "many false, malicious and unfounded rumors that are circulating" about him. By doing so, he's practically requiring the mainstream media to report on, and ask him about, a National Enquirer story claiming that he is having an affair -- a story that to this point the more respectable media have refused to even mention, let alone question him about.

The most ridiculous feature of the statement is his whining plea for "privacy." Tiger Woods has become a billionaire by marketing himself so assidiously that he's now the most recognizable athlete, and indeed one of the most recognizable people, in the world. His vast wealth (less than 10% of which has been earned directly through his athletic achievements) is a product of making himself into a kind of human logo, that corporations pay him immense amounts to attach to their products. They find it profitable to do so because of the preposterous yet very widespread idea that athletic excellence somehow reflects well on a person's character and general value as a human being. Tiger Woods alleged adultery has nothing to do with his ability to excel on the golf course, but has everything to do with his ability to market himself as some kind of exemplary person, whose putative preferences in regard to cars and accounting firms and watches should influence your view of these products, and the corporations that produce them.

On one level I do feel sorry for Woods, in that his father was a certifiable lunatic, whose ambitions in regard to his son went far beyond turning him into the greatest golfer in the world. Consider this quote from Earl Woods, from a 1996 Sports Illustrated profile, written when Woods was all of 21 years old, and had yet to win a major golf tournament, let alone transform the course of human history:


Tiger will win because of God's mind. Can't you see the pattern? Earl Woods asks. Can't you see the signs? "Tiger will do more than any other man in history to change the course of humanity," Earl says.

Sports history, Mr. Woods? Do you mean more than Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson, more than Muhammad Ali and Arthur Ashe? "More than any of them because he's more charismatic, more educated, more prepared for this than anyone."

Anyone, Mr. Woods? Your son will have more impact than Nelson Mandela, more than Gandhi, more than Buddha?

"Yes, because he has a larger forum than any of them. Because he's playing a sport that's international. Because he's qualified through his ethnicity to accomplish miracles. He's the bridge between the East and the West. There is no limit because he has the guidance. I don't know yet exactly what form this will take. But he is the Chosen One. He'll have the power to impact nations. Not people. Nations. The world is just getting a taste of his power."


The craziest part of all this is that Eldrick "Tiger" Woods probably on some level believes it -- and very little in his life experience within a media-saturated and celebrity-crazed culture has contradicted this belief.

Read more...

Hooray for Baltimore!

Baltimore displays some guts:

The Baltimore City Council went where no local government has gone before, it seems, in telling crisis pregnancy centers in the city this week that they have to put up signs saying they don't provide abortion or birth control....

In the end, the Baltimore city council's vote protects consumers from false and misleading advertising. That's a position governments often take, and there's a whole branch of law, commercial speech, to explain why false advertising gets less First Amendment protection. The council decided to treat the crisis pregnancy centers differently than other groups because they're pretending to be something they're not (and then lying about the risks of abortion once they've gotten clients in the door). Eliot Spitzer similarly went after the centers for false advertising when he was New York attorney general. He investigated 24 of them and issued subpoenas to 11, saying they were violating a 1995 consent decree in which they'd promised not to misrepresent the services they offered.

The ordinance has not yet been signed by Mayor Dixon, but it strikes me as a no-brainer; if you can't go after these charlatans in Baltimore, then where can you go after them?

Read more...

Bailing on Bin Laden

I should hope that the absurdity of conservative commentary on Afghanistan is self-evident, but to summarize briefly, the Obama administration is currently under wingnut fire for a) under-resourcing the Afghanistan mission, and b) failing to do exactly what Stanley McChrystal wants (even as it, apparently, does pretty much exactly what Stanley McChrystal wants). The patent stupidity of these arguments is manifest, as the Bush administration evidently under-resourced the Afghanistan mission for some seven years before Greater Wingnuttia noticed what was happening, and the Bush administration further overrode the authority of local commanders when those commanders had unpleasant things to say, generally to the loud applause of aforementioned Wingnuttia (see, for example, the Bush administration's decision to push forward with the Surge, in spite of the resistance of the larger US military establishment). There's some risk, of course, in making it All About Bush, but then I suspect we're not yet close to accounting for the lasting damage that the Bush administration (and its cheerleaders) did to US security.

The latest cause for re-examination comes with the utterly unsurprising news that the Bush administration completely botched the hunt for Osama Bin Laden in 2001 and 2002 by failing to deploy sufficient forces to Tora Bora, and by relying on Afghan proxies to fight Al Qaeda forces. The administration was abetted in its ineptitude by Tommy Franks, who apparently didn't believe that capturing or killing the man responsible for murdering 3000+ Americans was very interesting or worthwhile. Franks "genius" went down the memory hole around the same time that Donald Rumsfeld became persona non grata among the Wingnutty, but it bears recollection that Franks was, for a while, the Greatest American Hero Evah for Destroying the Mighty Legions of Saddam Hussein. I actually think that Franks' execution of the early weeks of the Iraq War was more capable than the retrospective judgment allows, but nevertheless it's fair to say that his inclusion in the pantheon didn't last very long.

Jules Crittenden, Standard Bearer of the Knights of Wingnuttia, seizes the opportunity to blame this all on .... John Kerry. Rather than denying the now-consensus position that the Bush administration developed and pursued an utterly disastrous Afghanistan policy (and really, this holds regardless of your larger attitudes about the Afghanistan War), Jules describes examination of the failure in the following terms:

So, eight years later, what’s the point?

The horse is still out, and going forward, the vaguely hinted-at suggestion is that it’s important to stay focused on barn door open-closed operations.

Indeed. It's never worth taking time to examine massive government failures.

Beyond the insinuation that calling the Vietnam War a mistake is somehow similar in criminal degree to the failure to catch Osama Bin Laden, Crittenden also provides this gem:
Give your highly experienced field commanders what they ask for, a counterinsurgency plan to aimed at winning, rather than some fraction of a counterinsurgency plan aimed at exiting ASAP

Right. Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems that the relevant cliche here doesn't involve a horse and a barn door, but rather a pot and a kettle. But then there's always the memory hole...

Read more...

Here's Some Unhappy...

Some interesting bits in this Telegraph report from last week:

Top British commanders angrily described in the documents how they were not even told, let alone consulted, about major changes to US policy which had significant implications for them and their men.

When the Americans decided, in March 2004, to arrest a key lieutenant of the Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr – an event that triggered an uprising throughout the British sector – “it was not co-ordinated with us and no-one [was] told that it was going to happen,” said the senior British field commander at the time, Brigadier Nick Carter.

“Had we known, we would at least have been able to prepare the ground.” Instead, “the consequence [was] that my whole area of operations went up in smoke… as a result of coalition operations that were outwith my control or knowledge and proved to be the single most awkward event of my tour.”

Among the most outspoken officers was Col Tanner, who served as chief of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004.

He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way.

“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians.

“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.”

Broadly speaking, the pendulum of opinion on British participation in Iraq has swung back and forth during the conflict. At the beginning of the insurgency, the British had a (perhaps undeserved) reputation for capability in counter-insurgency conflicts. Senior British officers were not shy about criticizing what they believed to be the incompetence and cultural insensitivity of their American allies. However, as time went by there seemed to be little indication that the British Army was doing any better in its sectors than the Americans were doing in the rest of the country. During the Surge, it became widely believed that the British were having serious problems holding onto what should have been a relatively easy sector. The Iraqi Army offensive into Basra of spring 2008, supported by the United States, embarrassed a British contingent that had essentially conceded the city to a variety of militia groups.

And so these leaks can be read as after-action bitterness on the part of an organization that saw its reputation for counter-insurgency success crushed in Iraq. On the other hand, it's difficult to run competent COIN in one sector while the rest of the country is falling apart, and it's really difficult to do so when directives from HQ are contradictory, incompetent, or simply absent. We know that some of the critiques leveled by the British are undoubtedly true; Sanchez did a poor job of communicating with his own commanders, Americans did display arrogance and cultural insensitivity in the first years of the war, and so forth. The difficulties of communication (PowerPoint and all that) are to be expected when any two organizations work together, and probably shouldn't be blamed on either side. However, I'm not sure that these can fully explain the situation that held in Basra in early 2008.

Read more...

I'm Enjoying This

Senator Lindsey Graham is censured by the mighty Charleston County Republican Party for -- shock and horrors! -- compromising with the opposition on Cap and Trade.

Now, I thought that's what was supposed to happen in legislative bodies -- compromise. Not for the Angry Republicans however. They prefer ideological purity and dictatorial governance.

Where did we last see something like that?

But don't worry, the moderate wing of the Republican Party isn't interested in compromising on their conservative credentials, if Marvin Rogers, 33, is representative at all:
“I’m not asking anyone to be any less conservative — please don’t,” Mr. Rogers said. “But be more civil in communicating that conservative message. Don’t get on TV talking about ‘The president’s a racist.’ Don’t get on the radio talking about Waterloos.”
Civility. A civil right wing in the U.S. Now that would be something.

Read more...

That Could Have Been Me

>> Saturday, November 28, 2009

At least they weren't armed.

Read more...

"Wilding"

>> Friday, November 27, 2009

Dave linked to this outburst below. It's worth noting that when American Thinker Robin from Berkeley describes what she calls the "wilding of Sarah Palin," she fails to mention that the original "wilding" -- the infamous rape of the Central Park jogger in 1989, resulted in the wrongful convictions of six teenage boys, who collectively ended up spending several decades in prison for a crime they didn't commit.

Read more...

Self-Parody is Too Mild a Term

Shorter Verbatim Bernard Henri-Levy: "I am mostly thinking about him: Roman Polanski, who I don't know, but whose fate has moved me so much. Nothing will repair the days he has spent in prison. Nothing will erase the immense, unbelievable injustice he has been subjected to."

I suppose it should go without saying that this alleged Major Intellectual cannot be bothered to advance an argument defending the proposition that apprehending someone who raped a 13-year-old and then fled the jurisdiction to evade his punishment constitutes an "immense, unbelievable injustice." (This kind of rhetoric isn't just silly, it's insulting to actual victims of immense injustices. At this rate, BHL would need about 70 adjectives to describe the Cameron Todd Willingham case.) To the extent that one can infer an argument from the surrounding text, the mentions of his wife and family seem to imply a retread of Robert Harris's apparent argument that if you have a spouse and kids you should get one retrospective child rape for free. I once again take this to be self-refuting...

Read more...

William A. Jacobson likes making my points for me.

Which is unfortunate, because I'm about to call him illiterate. He claims that I argued that Sarah Palin and her supporters are "racist because there were so few non-whites pictured in the available photos." I did nothing of the sort. My claim, as you can tell by the words I used to write it, was that the "images she and her people have decided should represent her mass-appeal on a mock-presidential bid launch" demonstrates that "her own handlers consider her appeal limited to white people." I even emphasized that first statement in the post, which as we all know is the online equivalent of burying it under a rock behind the fire-pit in someone else's backyard. ("Officer, you can search my property, absolutely, but I assure you that you won't find any claims here.") You would think that a law professor would be able to recognize an argument when he saw one, but apparently not, which is why he provides evidence that bolsters mine. He quotes a reporter from MSNBC:

"I can tell you this crowd today was very, very diverse, a lot of people from different races, ages, all coming to see Palin and wanting get a glimpse of who this lady is that says that she's going rogue."
If this is true—and for the moment, I grant that it is—then Palin and her handlers are deliberately not posting pictures of the many non-white people who attend her events. That, Mr. Jacobson, is the sort of evidence that someone like me would use in support of my claim that the pictures posted to her page are designed to appeal to a specific audience. Because I don't trust you with logic, I will draw the obvious inference for you: Palin's people are excluding photographs of the non-white people who attend her appearances because those photographs aren't intended to appeal to a non-white audience.

Which was my original point.

You do realize that you're helping me out here, Mr. Jacobson, don't you?

He also claims that I "maliciously and falsely referred to one conservative blogger as a 'noted racist.'" But—no doubt for some reason other than it demonstrates that Riehl's a racist—he doesn't reproduce the link that I included to a post demonstrating that Riehl is, in fact, a racist. He also makes the classic debating mistake of assuming facts not in evidence when he claims that I only did so "because this is the internet, and no one is held accountable," his assumption being that were I to meet Riehl on the street, I wouldn't call him a racist. Of course, being that these words are also on the internet, I can't prove to his satisfaction that I wouldn't; however, in a different context, he would point out the fact that because I'm an academic who hangs out with folks like this, I spend all day calling everybody I pass on the street a racist, and since Riehl belongs to that category—how about a little freshman logic, Mr. Jacobson?
SEK calls all people who are on the street a racist.
Dan Riehl is a person on the street.
Therefore, SEK calls Dan Riehl a racist.
I would say that syllogism puts him in a bind, but I think we can safely assume that someone who believed my earlier posts were intended "to smear the crowds at Palin book signings" probably never took freshman logic, and thus isn't even aware that he's in one.

...Update (from davenoon): We'd be remiss in not pointing out that Jacobson, in a post complaining about the use of "the race card," approving links to a diaper load in The American Thinker [sic] written by a -- cough, cough -- "former leftist-feminist Hillary supporter" who describes the treatment of Sarah Palin as a "wilding" and explains that she youstabee a feminist Democrat until she realized that left-wing men never protected her from angry black hoodlums. Well, "Robin from Berkeley" has me convinced!

Read more...

Thanksgiving: Arguments Against "Authenticity" Put Into Practice...


Although I regretted missing out regular Thanksgiving meal with the superb hosting of regular readers MJD and JRD, we for the first time hosted Thanksgiving for my girlfriend's family. My feelings on turkey having long been on the record we weren't going to put a lot of weight on traditional Thanksgiving cusine, so instead:

  • Beef Wellington with red wine reduction [or: vegetarian Wellington]
  • Mushroom bread pudding
  • Maple-glazed carrots
  • Cauliflower braised with white wine, anchovy, capers, and garlic
  • Butter lettuce salad with hearts of palm and shallot vinegrette
  • One Girl pumpkin whoopie pies and chocolate cream pie
  • Hors d'oeuvres: tomato and basil bruschetta, goat cheese-stuffed dates, vegetable platter
Best argument against tradition I can muster. Hope everybody's Thankgiving was equally tasty and convivial!

...A commenter reminds us of this Calvin Trillin classic.

Read more...

Friday Daddy Blogging


Elisha and Miriam

Read more...

Overrated

The Guardian published the NME's list of the best 50 albums of the last decade a few days ago, and I've been meaning to comment.


The Strokes are over-rated -- they were highly derivative, rather like Beck was highly derivative ten years prior. My favorite band of the last five to six years is easily The Libertines, and while I think they deserve their spot in the rankings, a mate of mine commented down the pub last night that Karl, Pete, et al. owe a lot to the Strokes, which pretty much put me in my place.

So I guess I'm left with bitching about this. Third? When the Monkeys came out a couple years back, they were heralded as the next big thing. They weren't. Highly over-rated, and just not that interesting, and more critically, they didn't advance pop music one millimeter.

Discuss.

Read more...

You only noticed I'm white because you're a racist, Part II

>> Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Instead of playing "Count the Non-White People!" with Sarah Palin's photographs of her appearance at Fort Bragg, I will present some statistics about the base and surrounding community:

  • White Non-Hispanic (52.9%)
  • Black (25.2%)
  • Hispanic (15.8%)
  • Other race (8.3%)
  • Two or more races (4.5%)
  • American Indian (2.1%)
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (0.9%)
  • Filipino (0.6%)
  • Korean (0.5%)
Having noted that 47.1 percent of the base and the surrounding community are non-white, I will now post a photograph her handlers thought would appeal to her constituents:

Noted racist Dan Riehl notes that "[i]f you're a Democrat [these pictures] have to give you pause," and they do. Riehl just fails to realize what that pause presages. (That would be laughter, Dan.) I'm sure Click and her claque will call me a racist for pointing all this out, but that's how their knees jerk these days.

Read more...

Going Rogue, chapter 5

In the 16th and early 17th centuries, English Puritans developed a method of Biblical and historical interpretation known as "typology." In its simplest form, typology involved the discovery of Old Testament precursors -- events, people, rituals and other elements of scripture -- that foreshadowed or prefigured similar details in the New Testament. According to Puritan interpretation, Old Testament "types" were recycled and fulfilled in the works of Christ, the somewhat awkwardly-termed "antitype." (Puritans also used Old Testament "types" to make sense of their own historical situation, as when they interpreted Native Americans as anti-types for the people of Canaan, heathens whom the Puritans -- as anti-types of Israel -- needed to drive from the new holy land.)

Reading the last few chapters of Going Rogue, we can see how Puritan theology supplies a useful tool for understanding Sarah Palin's political development, and especially her bizarre decision (on my birthday, no less) to leave the governor's office. For instance, here's a "type" from chapter 1, in which a young Palin and her friend Chuck are beleaguered by by a state trooper:

It was Christmas Day; we were out in the middle of nowhere, a couple of kids on a snowmachine up against a big dude with a gun and a badge. I couldn't help wondering about his priorities, if he really didn't have more important things to do, like catching a bad guy, or maybe helping a poor plady haul in her firewood for the night. Looking back, maybe this was my first brush with the skewed priorities of government.
And three decades later, the "anti-type" as Palin whines about the eighteen ethics complaints filed against her since the summer of 2008:
We never imagined our critics would be so unscrupulous as to make a mockery of a serious issue like the ethics act. My state had been rocked by real ethical violations. We had lawmakers taking bribes and going to prison, the former administration's chief of staff pleading guilty to a felony, and oil service executives ready to go to the clink. But now partisan operatives were using the reformed ethics [sic] to level charges against me that were as trivial as they were absurd -- charges that were eagerly reported by the press as though they were actual news.

What a bass-ackward way of doing the people's business.
The book is loaded with similar type/anti-type pairings (e.g., the biased reporting of the local Wasilla paper prefigures the antics of Katie Couric and Andrew Sullivan; her resignation from the oil and gas board prefigures her swan dive from the governor's office; her loss in the 2002 lieutenant governor's race prefigures her loss with McCain in 2008; and so on). But since Palin's book is fundamentally a tale of martyrdom and apotheosis, she's able to ennoble her decision to quit the very job that supposedly qualified her to serve as Vice President. The dozen-plus ethics charges, the heinous fabrications of left-wing bloggers, the endless FOIA requests from reporters -- all of these are merely the stations of the cross as Sarah Palin lumbers toward Golgotha.
Financial hardship is painful but bearable. Loss of reputation I can take. But I could not and cannot tolerate watching Alaska suffer . . . .

I prayed hard because I knew that if I resigned, it might very well end any future political career.

But then I thought, This is what's wrong with our political system. Too many politicians only consider their next career move. They don't put the people they are serving first.
I don't suppose it's worth arguing about the degree of triviality bound up with these complaints (though several of them, including the ones related to the Walt Monegan fiasco as well as the complaint involving travel funds from Palin's kids, are exactly the sorts of problems that state ethics boards should be investigating). Similarly, there's no sense in wondering if the accusations against Palin were more or less flimsy than the campaign-season accusations she herself made about Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (or the ones she explains in the book she wanted to make about Obama and ACORN). It's probably also not worth pointing out that while Palin compares her own ethics ordeal with Netw Gingrich’s during the mid-1990s -- I wish I were making that up -- our maverick savior doesn't pause for a moment to reflect on the much costlier (and less substantiated) investigations launched into the financial transactions of the fellow who happened to occupy the White House at the same time.

At the end of the day, if Palin truly wanted to "put the people [she was] serving first," she would have been a better governor. Instead, she returned from the campaign trail with a chip on her shoulder after ticking off nearly everyone she'd need to work with in the legislature. She embarked on an ideologically-motivated, fact-free campaign to reject federal stimulus funds, resulting in a protracted pissing match that gobbled up time better spent on serious policy questions; she spent months fucking with the people of Juneau, nominating an array of unqualified goofballs to fill our vacant seat in the state senate; and she spent most of her time acting as if the job she had was interfering with the job she wanted. Ethics complaints might have caused the state a bit of hassle and expense, but they didn't stop Palin from wasting valuable time on her own petty obsessions.

As Palin herself might say, what a bass-ackward way of doing the people's business.

Read more...

There's a bathroom on the right

A few years ago I ran into the concept of a mondegreen, which is usually defined as a mis-heard line in a song. The most commonly cited examples include "there's a bathroom on the right," as a mis-hearing of CCR's "there's a bad moon on the rise" and "s'cuse me while I kiss this guy" rather than Jimi Hendrix's original "s'cuse me while I kiss the sky."

Thanks to the wonders of wikipedia, I've learned that the original definition, formulated by Sylvia Wright, is actually narrower and more interesting: "The point about what I shall hereafter call mondegreens, since no one else has thought up a word for them, is that they are better than the original".

It doesn't seem to me that either of the common examples given above qualify. I humbly submit the following as instances from from my own personal history of mis-hearing song lyrics:

Rod Stewart, Maggie Mae:

I suppose I could collect my books and go back to school
Or steal my daddy's cue and make a living out of playing pool.

The correct lyric is "fool." "Pool" deploys a clever pun, and a much more arresting image of the feckless yet suddenly intriguing father.

[Correction: Jim in comments points out that in fact "pool" is the real lyric, and that my subsequent interpretation is the actual mondogreen, except it wouldn't be one by the original definition. As Emily Litella used to say . . . never mind].

Speaking of which, The Kinks, Father Christmas:

When I was small I believed in Santa
Though I knew there was no dad.

Instead of the canonical "though I knew it was my dad." The mis-hearing adds a level of wistful pathos to the proceedings.

Next up, Neil Young, Helpless:

There is a town in north Ontario
With dream comfort memory to spare

The correct line is "With dream comfort memory despair."

I'm of two minds about this one, as the correct version is more disturbingly surreal, while the mis-hearing has a certain homey charm.

Anyway, I like Wright's original definition much more than the contemporary (mis)understanding of what she had in mind, which is rather ironic as Alanis Morrisette did not observe.

Read more...

Social Security

To be clear: Fred Hiatt will never stop trying to kill it, and Democrats shouldn't be scared of facing the issue.

Read more...

"In previous decades people would have laughed about it."

But, Bruce people laughed about a lot of hilarious things in previous decades that turned out, with the passage of time, to not be bloody funny at all.

So when Bruce Forsyth, CBE, so called "national treasure" of Britain (and still on the telly every week hosting the wildly popular and utterly pointless Strictly Come Dancing, the forebear to what I'm sure is the equally popular and pointless Dancing With the Stars in the U.S.), lamely attempts to convince us that Paki is as racist as Limey, meaning it isn't racist at all but just something we should all laugh off, all we can do is sigh and continue to pay our license fee* (£142.50 this year, and I pay mine every December . . . )

Or maybe when you're 81, you may still find things funny that haven't been since Neville Chamberlin was Prime Minister?

* This is one of the more regressive taxes among the western democracies, and one I happily pay every year. Value for money and all that malarkey, Forsyth, Russell Brand, Jonathan Ross, and George fecking Lamb aside . . .

Read more...

You only noticed I'm white because you're a racist.

>> Tuesday, November 24, 2009

In the comments to a long, inaccurate attack on those who consider Palin evidence that the conservative movement is trending stupid, Darleen Click claims that those who point out the extreme whiteness of Palin supporters "reveal a great more about [themselves] than Palin." Because such people notice race at all, they're insufficiently colorblind and therefore more racist than Click, who merely advocates creating and maintaining structural inequalities that disproportionately affect people who just happen to not be white.

Set aside for a moment the fact that Click labors under the delusion that noticing people of color is more racist than harming them and remember that 1) the figure she defends, Sarah Palin, is using her publicity tour as a prelude to a 2012 presidential bid launch, and 2) candidate Palin is posting photographs of the people she meets on her Facebook page, meaning that these are not images produced by a liberal media elite out to make her look like her appeal is limited to white people but images she and her people have decided should represent her mass-appeal on a mock-presidential bid launch. Time to play "Count the Non-White People"!

  1. Image #1: 0
  2. Image #2: 0
  3. Image #3: 0
  4. Image #4: 0
  5. Image #5: 0
  6. Image #6: 0
  7. Image #7: 0
  8. Image #8: 1 (a mall security guard)
  9. Image #9: 0
  10. Image #10: 0
  11. Image #11: 0
  12. Image #12: 2 (but only one identifiably of her own volition)
In all those photographs, there is one non-white person who can be positively identified as having come of their own accord. To Click, pointing out that Palin's own handlers consider her appeal limited to white people makes me a racist. Over in the increasingly diverse place known as the United States, this is why people like Click should hunker down for a long run of political disappointment.

Update. Over at my place, one of Darleen's flock attempts to prove me wrong by being racist.

Update 2. Someone should tell them to quit digging.

Read more...

Yet More on Lieberman

This seems largely correct to me:

So why is he doing this? Because he’s bitter. According to former staffers and associates, he was upset by his dismal showing in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary. And he was enraged by the tepid support he got from many party leaders in 2006, when he lost the Democratic primary to an anti-war activist and won reelection as an independent. Gradually, this personal alienation has eaten away at his liberal domestic views. His staff has grown markedly more conservative in recent years, and his closest friends in Congress are now Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. For Lieberman, the personal has become political, and it has pushed him further to the right.

There are two ways of reacting to this argument. On the one side, you can treat it as an accusation that liberals are "to blame" for Lieberman's lurch to the right. The altogether more sensible way to take it is that the campaign to unseat Lieberman by supporting Ned Lamont had the foreseeable consequence of pushing Lieberman to the right if he managed to win anyway. As Ezra argued, the primary forced Lieberman to find an electoral coalition that was far more right wing than the one he had previously assembled, and it's natural that he'd be more responsive to that coalition after the election. But as Beinart suggests, politicians aren't simply vote-seeking automatons. It's not surprising that Lieberman reacted to harsh criticism with bitterness, and consequently with a shift farther to the right.

None of this means that supporting Ned Lamont was a bad idea. First, it was unlikely that both of the above conditions would hold. Had Lieberman won the primary, he might have been bitter but he would have been responsible to the same electoral coalition. Having lost the primary, it was unlikely that he was going to win the election, but unlikely things do happen in politics. Second, Ned Lamont would have made a much better, and much more progressive, Senator than even the pre-2006 Joe Lieberman.

The institutional failure, I think, was that the Democratic Party didn't fully understand that it needed to put Joe Lieberman's political career in the dirt in 2006. I think they believed that the choice was essentially between two Democrats, rather than between a Democrat and a guy who was going to be elected by Republicans and was going to loathe the party's progressive base.

Read more...

FDR Sick?

This is kind of interesting; the argument is that FDR may have been suffering from cancer during the 1944 Presidential campaign. The evidence of illness, they suggest, was covered up by his doctors in order to make his run for a fourth term possible.

If Lomazow and Fettman are right, Republican Thomas E. Dewey or a different Democrat should have been elected president in 1944. In that case, Harry S. Truman, FDR's vice president, would almost certainly not have been commander-in-chief from 1945 to 1952. The Cold War and subsequent American history might have taken a very different path.

Two questions:

1. If this is true, and if FDR's illness had become widely enough known to preclude a fourth run, who would have taken the Democratic nomination in 1944? I suspect that it would have been very hard for FDR to campaign anyway, given the general undesirability of having a dying President during wartime.

2. If this were true, why would FDR have chosen Truman as his VP? The two men weren't close, and even allowing that FDR had a cavalier approach to his VP choices, it would be odd that he would select Truman if he knew he was quite likely to die in the short term.

The argument is hardly concrete, but it does open up some interesting avenues of discussion.

Read more...

An Easy Question

Ezra is, of course, completely right about the filibuster. While there may be individual exceptions in the long sweep of history, legislative gridlock is far more beneficial to reactionary than to progressive interests. It's not even a close question.

I'd only add that Winship's invocation of Supreme Court justices is pretty feeble given that neither Thomas nor Alito were filibustered; the only recent victory over a reactionary Supreme Court appointment -- Bork -- came on a straight up-or-down vote. But this is par for the course; progressive arguments for the filibuster always rely on hypotheticals and ignore how it's actually been used in practice. Winship's claims about how the filibuster "protects unpopular groups and rights from the tyranny of the majority" is rather strange, since the primary effect of the filibuster has been to thwart attempts to protect unpopular minorities and to protect the status quo. It's not, exactly, that the filibuster doesn't protect minorities; it's that the minorities it "protects" -- primarily small states, very rich people in general and reactionary southern white males in particular -- are 1)already grossly overrepresented in our political system and 2)pretty much never represent progressive values.

Read more...

The Blunder

I will admit that in the immediate aftermath of the election, it wasn't 100% clear that Reid blundered by letting Holy Joe keep his committee chairmanship; it was certainly the most plausible scenario, but there was at least some chance that in exchange for keeping his perks Ried had good reason to believe that Lieberman wouldn't join Republican obstructionism of major Democratic legislation. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Well, the pudding is ready, and it sure tastes like shit.

I wish I could be confident that if Lieberman goes through with making the legislation far worse for reasons that couldn't be more incoherent, at least after the midterms he'll lose all of his perks and be reduced to the lowest-seniority position on a committee determined to have the least possible relevance to the interests of Connecticuit voters. But I don't even believe that. "Please, Sir, May I Have Another?" still seems to be the organizing principle of Senate Democrats.

Read more...

Obama's war

An unfortunate aspect of the nature of politics is that principled opposition to disastrous and/or immoral policies tends to either disappear or at least lose much of its intensity when such policies are adopted by politicians one supports.

Certainly over the last year we've seen this among what passes for the political left in this country, in regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's true that Obama inherited these wars. He was elected to end them.

Yet today it's being reported that, after nearly doubling the US military presence in Afghanistan earlier this year, he has decided to increase that number by 50%, at a direct cost of one million dollars per soldier. The indirect costs are incalcuable.

The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

"We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said.


In short, the next six months will be crucial.

If you haven't yet seen this recent Frontline program on the current situation in that country it's worth your time.

Read more...

This totally would have worked on the "Half Hour Comedy Hour," though...

>> Monday, November 23, 2009

As promised, here are the passages from Palin's book in which she and the "B-Team" make a go at vaudeville. When we join our heroine, she has just agreed to appear on a mid-October episode of SNL as the self-parody to Tina Fey's parody. After musing that a September appearance on the show might have "had a shot at evening the odds with the SNL crew," she recalls her mounting concern that no one from the show had bothered to provide the campaign with a script. "What if it's raunchy?" she wonders. "Worse, what if it's not funny?" Not to fear, of course. This is Sarah Palin we're talking about; she'll write the fucking jokes herself.

So, finally, we B Teamers started brainstorming. What about a skit where I pretended to be a journalist and asked Tina condescending questions: "What do you use for newspapers up in Alaska--tree bark?" "What happens if the moose were given guns? It wouldn't be so easy then, eh?" "Is 'you betcha' your state motto?" We sent our ideas up the line, and somebody smacked 'em down.
See? It's just like the campaign. She couldn't even use her bestest burns on Alec Baldwin.
Alec Baldwin also guested on the show that evening. The big-wigs haggled back and forth over my appearance . . . . We put our heads together and sent the producers a counteroffer. Alec would get his barbs in, then I would say, "Hey, Baldwin, weren't you supposed to leave the country after the last election?"

Uh...no, producers said.

We tried another idea . . . . "Hey, Alec," the proposed line went, "I saw Stephen at a fund-raiser last week and asked him when he was going to knock some sense into you."

Uh...no.

What's that line about being able to dish it out?
It's a good thing that Palin has her unintentional comedy career to fall back on.

Read more...

"And there still would have been the Holocaust..."

Few write on the history of evolutionary theory as compellingly as John Wilkins. (Had his Species: the History of an Idea and Defining Species: a Sourcebook from Antiquity to Today been available in 2002, I could've avoided years of thankless legwork and finished my dissertation with normative time to spare. Not that I'm bitter.) So I can think of no better way to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin than to listen to Wilkins speculate about what would have happened had it never existed. My only qualm is with this paragraph:

Lamarckism, by which I mean the progressivist view of evolution, not the “acquired inheritance” version that has little to do directly with Lamarck and anyway is set up as a contrast with Weismann not Darwin, would have played an even greater role in people’s thinking than it did. It may still be with us now—we would be trying to figure out how progress occurs out of necessity, rather than it being the rather odd view of people like Conway Morris.
I think scholars who focus more on the scientific literature underestimate the popular appeal of what amounts to quasi-Lamarckian thought both then and now ... but then again, as I'm the person who wrote my dissertation, I would.

Read more...

Nuclear Warhead Life Extension Actually Works

Last week, the JASON study on the viability of service life extension for the US nuclear arsenal appeared in several places. The conclusions were reassuring; there is no reason to believe that the US nuclear arsenal will degrade in the next several decades, assuming basic maintenance and life-extension procedures are carried out. This means that the US deterrent is "secure," although the circumstances under which it might have become insecure are highly suspect. This ain't good for those who've been arguing for RRW (Reliable Replacement Warhead), who have by and large put their money on the unreliability argument. This isn't the only argument in favor of RRW, but it sounds better than the alternatives, which include anti-arms control fetishism, the need to continue pouring money into nuclear labs, and the desire to nuke the hell out of countries that piss us off. More on the last, which acquired newfound "respectability" in latest issue of Foreign Affairs, later.

Read more...

Starting to Build Up the Hate...

You know, the world would be a better place if Joseph C. Avery had never left Pennsylvania.

Read more...

WIN 20th Anniversary Celebration

A friend tips me off that the Friday after next (December 4) will be the 20th anniversary of the Women's Information Network, a DC social network organization for young, professional pro-choice women. The anniversary will be celebrated at the K Street Lounge. Details available here, including ticket info. Highly recommended, if you're in the area.

Read more...

Reading the Tea Leaves

The Observer published the new Ipsos-MORI poll on Sunday on voting intentions for the forthcoming British election, and the media are all aflutter about its implications. Specifically, the Tory lead has shrunk to six points down from over 20 this past summer: 37% Conservative, 31% Labour, 17% Liberal Democrat.

This matters not only because of the electoral system writ large, but the way the constituencies are drawn, weighted (Scotland and Wales still have a built in advantage in population : seats ration, even post-devolution), and how partisan support is distributed. Here at the University of Plymouth we are considered experts in the field of British electoral politics with our Local Government Chronicle Elections Center. Two of my colleagues in the Elections Center have produced a handy media guide that breaks down the redrawn constituency boundaries for the 2010 election, with a matrix that predicts the distribution of seats in the new parliament assuming a uniform national swing. When 37% Conservative is compared to 31% Labour, we end up with a distribution of C 283, L 273, LD 62: a hung parliament.

However, let's not get carried away, yet. I do have a few critical comments about how the poll is being interpreted. Ipsos MORI are a highly respected polling firm, but nowhere in their releases, hence nowhere in the media, do we find any explicit information regarding the margin of error. We do, however, have the N: 1,006. This basically equates to an MoE of 3% assuming a 95% confidence interval. In other words, the "true" value of support for the Tories is between 40% and 34%, Labour 34% and 28%, etc., with 95% certainty. The best case scenario for the Tories with these numbers equates to: C 329, L 227, LD 63. A comfortable majority.

But wait, there's more!

The overall N and the estimates reported by Ipsos MORI do not match. The support estimates are based on a rough likely voter model / filter which the firm terms "certain to vote". This reduces the N to 513, and roughly increases the MoE to 4.5%. Meaning, the true value is somewhere between 41.5% and 32.5% for the Tories, and 35.5% and 26.5% for Labour. When matched against UK Polling Report's poll tracker, the 6 point Tory lead is an outlier -- not an egregious outlier as it is at least consistent with the trend from the past month, but an outlier nonetheless. (Anthony Wells at UKPR also has an informative take in his blog on this poll hitting different issues than I have here.)

Interestingly, the total size of the sample offering a voting intention of any likelihood is 799, and those numbers are 34-34-16. This suggests that Labour's best strategy is to mobilize their base, or those that are unlikely voters but if they were to vote would vote Labour.

Considering the above, I'm not going to comment on Nick Clegg's tactics regarding the Lib Dems role in a potential hung parliament, or his own grasp of what democracy is all about, nor am I going to consider all the possible ramifications and political gymnastics leading to a hung parliament, but then I am also not going to boldly come out and proclaim that a hung parliament ain't gonna happen, cowboy.

I recognize that the media have a news hole to fill, and in terms of electoral politics here in the UK, this is the most interesting story in a while. However, let's wait for a few more polls to see if this one is indicative, or merely an outlier, before we get all excited about the prospects of a hung parliament.

Read more...

Atypical Monday Daddy Blogging

Both pictures of Imogen were taken this weekend; the only major political event to temporally intercede was the Senate vote on that silly anti-democratic procedure called cloture allowing debate on health care reform.





With my careful guidance and tutelage, I'm sure she will correctly decide between progressive politics and supporting the BNP by the time she is 18.

It's either that, or she simply thought I was a Nazi for telling her to eat her veg . . .

Read more...

Going Rogue, Chapter 4

>> Sunday, November 22, 2009

Oh, fucking hell. It's the presidential campaign. I'd forgotten about this part.

Fortunately for me, there's not much to say, really, about chapter 4 that hasn't already been written about a thousand times already. We have to endure more bullshit about Bristol's pregnancy, the wardrobe "controversy," Katie Couric, and the teleprompter in Minneapolis St. Paul (oops!), which she continues to insist malfunctioned so badly that she was forced to deliver her convention speech from memory. There are a few moments of levity -- as when Palin groans about not being allowed to give more substantive answers during debate prep, or when she receives a friendly visit from Holy Joe Lieberman before squaring off against Biden. We're also forced to read (for several agonizing pages) about the one-liners that Palin and her campaign staffers submitted -- to no avail -- to the writers of Saturday Night Live prior to Palin's late-October appearance on the show. (If prodded forcefully enough in comments, I will post these "jokes" separately. You have, however, been warned.)

But the essential weight of the chapter, however, centers on the way she was mishandled by nearly everyone around her. From what I gather, a lot of folks expected this section of the book to have something like the following effect on the people who managed the McCain campaign:



Sadly, the chapter merely amplifies grievances about campaign strategy that Palin has either hinted at or voiced directly on numerous occasions since last November. At the bottom of it all, Palin accuses the McCain people of stifling the political instincts that helped her win the governor's race in 2006. Then, as she recounts in the previous chapter, Palin "wanted to shake every hand on the trail" and meet everyone in the entire goddamn state. And because she was driving herself and her kids around in sub-zero weather -- guzzling sugar-free Red Bulls and sticking her head out the window (as any responsible parent would) to fend off sleep -- Palin was able to campaign as she saw fit. But in her account of the 2006 gubernatorial race, she tells a story that effectively sets up the rift that would emerge between her and the McCain team.

On one return trip . . . we stopped late at night in the middle of nowhere to drop off a campaign sign. Todd had spotted the unmarked dirt road we needed to take, and we rumbled down a narrow lane lined by tall, spindly black spruce until we came to a tiny wooden cabin hidden in the woods. The elderly couple who lived there had called in to a political radio show and voiced their support, so we'd looked them up and promised to deliver them a yard sign, even though you wouldn't be able to view it from the main highway.
The old people stuff them with pie, and the Palins drive away, listening to LL Cool J and the Black Eyed Peas as they ponder the "hardworking, unpretentious and patriotic people" who want to see them elected.

When Palin gripes about the way she was hemmed in by campaign officials during the 2008 race -- the fact that she wasn't allowed to hang around on the rope lines for hour after needless hour, "really connecting with voters" who were already going to vote for the Republican ticket, or the fact that she was thwarted in her effort to make a pointless visit to Michigan after the campaign wisely yanked the plug on their efforts in that state -- all we need to remember is that Palin believes that campaigns are defined in no small part by their willingness to deliver yard signs in the middle of the night. Throughout the chapter, Palin relishes the attention of core GOP voters who drag their knuckles through the boglands of America to listen to her speak. She wants to "take the gloves off" and drive the base of the party into a white-hot fury over Jeremiah Wright. She wants to sit down at kitchen tables with millions of people and explain to them that John McCain is "bold" and "thinks outside the box," while Barack Obama consorts with terrorists and doesn't have a child with Down Syndrome.

But the fat, chain-smoking meanies in the campaign won't let her, and on November 3 God shows them who's the boss of whom.

To sum up, here's chapter 4:

Read more...

The Optimistic Take

Lindsay Beyerstein argues that, contrary to the most obvious inference, that reproductive freedom advocates weren't asleep at the switch when the House adopted the Stupak amendment, and that it's likely not to survive the Senate:

The reality is much more complicated. Abortion-rights groups were actually watching and lobbying against stringent anti-abortion restrictions in the health-care bill throughout the process. And, while their strategy failed in the House, the introduction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health-care bill on Wednesday without Stupak-like language indicates that their predictions that they would be more effective in the Senate are being vindicated.

It's hard for me to imagine the World's Worst Deliberative Body improving any legislation passed by a Democratic House, but the reporting is solid, so hopefully Lindsay's onto something...

Read more...

Whining: Still For Losers


Mr. Brian Cowen is the Prime Minister of Ireland


I might be able to forgive saying something dumb in the immediate aftermath of an important game in which an official blew an important call -- maybe even Joe Nathan's recent impulse to bitch and moan about the egregious missed call in a game in which the call wouldn't have happened at all if he had done his job. But it's both hilarious and pathetic that actual political leaders in Ireland still seem, days later, to be advocating the idea of a replay with a straight face. I can imagine some narrow circumstances -- ineligible players, demonstrably corrupt officials -- that could warrant a replay, but I assume that it doesn't require elaborate argument to point out that an honest official making a garden-variety bad call isn't one of them. Bad calls are part of the sport; if every team that loses a close game got a replay because a bad call theoretically could have turned the game in their favor is entitled to a replay, we would just keep replaying close games forever. Moreover, in this case waving off the goal wouldn't have even been decisive from Ireland's perspective. It would be farcical enough to call for a replay in a case in which an official's getting a call right actually, all things being equal, would have handed you a championship (as with Game 6 of the 2004 Stanley Cup finals.) But in this case, getting the call right would almost certainly have given Ireland the opportunity to win a coin flip in the shootout.

To give the point broader applicability, this should also be pointed out:

Wednesday's infamous goal -- Mr. Henry's "Hand of Gaul," as London's Daily Telegraph called it -- overshadowed several complicating realities in the match. Ireland led 1-0 and had at least three very strong chances to add another goal which would have almost certainly assured victory.

But the French goal tied the score 1-1. Since France had won 1-0 in Dublin, with the tie it prevailed, 2-1, on aggregate.

The blame for being eliminated from the World Cup belongs, in its entirety, to the players of the Irish team. They put themselves in the place in which a single bad break could eliminate them by 1)losing the first game and 2)blowing failing to extend a lead in the second game. This is why I have absolutely no patience for, say, Cardinals fans still whining about Don Denkinger. Yep, awful call, no question. But there is actual precedent for teams with a lead in the 9th inning allowing a leadoff runner and still winning the game. Denkinger didn't cause Jack Clark to muff a pop-up, Porter to allow a passed ball, or for the Cardinals to be outscore 12-0 the rest of the Series. If you can't overcome a single bad call, you aren't a champion.

Read more...

I'd have compared her to Edward Gibbon, but then again I'm prone to wild and ignorant exaggeration...

Americaneoclown is seeing starbursts through the pages of his book:

I should add that I'm reading the book now, and I'm finding it as an extremely satisfying account of the everywoman's tale of American exceptionalism. That is, Sarah Palin is our 21st century Frederick Jackson Turner, who was the author of the seminal account of the American political culture, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." With Palin we have our modern-day political scribe of the frontier existence, the rugged pioneer of traditionalism who rejoices in the Alaskan harvest of the great remaining bounty of the nation's magnificent destiny.
Wow. That's a mighty chain of prepositions there. But has Donald even read the Turner essays? I have no idea what a phrase like "the pioneer of traditionalism" is supposed to mean, but Turner's argument -- which historians and political scientists have pretty much rejected for the past half century -- is that "the frontier" destroyed tradition, particularly the cultural inheritances that European settlers brought with them to the perimeter of settlement (e.g., western Massachusetts, the Ohio Valley, the Mississippi Valley, etc.)

In any event, Turner's argument is that the social life of the frontier produces a laboratory of sorts in which democratic ideals can be rejuvenated and then retained as the frontier becomes progressively more "civilized." For the frontier thesis to work, in other words, the frontier in question needs to produce democratic modes of life that are actually worth emulating. Given that Alaska's entire political and social order depends upon gobbling up more federal resources than the state can deliver in tax revenues, I doubt there are altogether that many Americans who would find this an agreeable model. Palin's notion that the state can wean itself from the federal teat by drilling from now until the End of Days is also a decidedly non-Turnerian fantasy, unless I missed the parts in which he celebrated the massive transfer of real estate and political power into the hands of corporate speculators.

Read more...

You don't need to know what the science means to establish what the words mean to scientists.

>> Saturday, November 21, 2009

Global warming skeptics are attacking climate scientist Phil Jones for encouraging trickery in an email recently stolen off the webmail server at the University of East Anglia in which he wrote:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Over at RealClimate, the skeptical response to the word "trick" is to treat it as a colloquial:
Trick:
“a cunning or deceitful action or device; “he played a trick on me”; “he pulled a fast one and got away with it”
“Something designed to fool or swindle; ”
“flim-flam: deceive somebody; “We tricked the teacher into thinking that class would be cancelled next week”
To which one of the hosts, Gavin A. Schmidt, responds:
Wrong. Wrong and wrong.
The skeptics reply:
[S]ince this happens “often”, it would be good to see a couple of examples of the word’s usage from other fields to understand why it is not problematic.
Schmidt obliges:
Sure. It's mostly used in mathematics, for instance in decomposing partial fractions, or deciding whether a number is divisible by 9 etc.etc.etc.
The skeptics rejoinder:
This is nonsense. Both are examples of teaching or explaining concepts to lay people. The first intentionally places “tricks” in quotations marks to emphasize its non-technical use.
The problem with nonspecialists reading the private correspondence of experts is that their ignorance transforms all the technical points into nefarious inkblots. To continue with the example above, skeptical nonspecialists encounter the word "trick" and ask for clarification. Schmidt provides evidence that the word is innocuous, but because nonspecialists can interpret neither the context of the original nor that of the further examples, they redouble their efforts: now the rhetorical situation in which the word "trick" is uttered matters; now the appearance of quotation marks matters, etc. They are convincing themselves that those black blobs represent what they insist they represent, and when experts inform them that those are not Rorschach blots to be subjectively interpreted—that they are, in fact, statements written in a language that skeptics simply do not understand—the nonspecialists look over them again and declare that it could be a butterfly, or maybe a bat.

To my mind, the only way to convince them that the word "trick" operates innocuously in the particular linguistic community of climate scientists would be to demonstrate that the word "trick" operates innocuously in the particular linguistic community of climate scientists. Show the skeptics that on 11 July 2001, Jean-Charles Hourcade wrote:
This passes first through ... a macroeconomic framework insuring the consistency between prices and quantities at any point in time without necessarily resorting to the modeling tricks relying on the conventional neo-classical growth theory; these 'tricks' assume indeed perfect foresight, efficient markets and the absence of strategic or routine behaviours; new conceptual frameworks about endogenous growth theory allow for such a move, but there is a gap between advances in pure theory and empirical modeling[.]
I don't know what that means any more than I know the science behind Phil Jones's statement, but I do know that this email demonstrates that the word "trick" is used both with and without quotation marks in this particular language community. Moreover, I know that even though the information leaked was designed to be do maximal damage to that community, there is still evidence internal to it that resists attempts to mischaracterize the intent of its members. Should skeptics insist that "trick" doesn't mean a quick-and-dirty way to explore some possibility, show them that on 12 January 2008, John Lanzante noted that
a quick-and-dirty way to explore this possibility using a "trick" used with precipitation data is to apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average these, then reverse transform the average. The square root transformation should yield data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data.
If, by some miracle, that satisfies them on the matter of "tricks," they will start complaining about the phrase "hide the decline," which was, of course, the real object of their objection in the first place.

Needless to say, I don't envy climate scientists the tsunami of stupid they're about to suffer.

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger template Simple n' Sweet by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP