... you can talk about whatever you want.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
"Some among us (I am one of them) can recall a time when the baseball and the players were the lone attractions, barring a few outfield signboards."
"Nothing more, not even an organist. You watched and waited in semi-silence, ate a hot dog, drank a Moxie, watched some more, yelled when something happened, kept score, saw the shadows lengthen, then trooped home elated or disconsolate. It was a public event, modestly presented, and private in recollection."
The recollection of Roger Angell (on the occasion of the Baltimore game that was played without spectators).
The recollection of Roger Angell (on the occasion of the Baltimore game that was played without spectators).
"... something so risibly quaint that it has come back in vogue: hardcover books..."
A striking phrase from a New Yorker article called "The Viral Wedding Photos That Conquered China" ("Wedding photos often require a cornucopia of performative props....")
"Let�s say a student who received a C grade on a paper asks you to reread it and change their grade because they 'worked so hard on it.'"
8 professors compose a response directed at the student, including one that begins "Dear C Student" and another that begins "Dear Student Who Must Be Out Of Their Mind" and is signed "Sincerely, Dr. 'I know you didn�t just come to me with this foolishness' Amin."
I don't believe this is really how professors respond to student requests. A polite refusal is all that's really needed. But these are letters written not to real students but for publication, and you might find them funny. Myself, I don't find them funny. It's too much the "punching down" kind of humor that really should be avoided by someone exercising power. A student may be thinking it doesn't hurt to try. Maybe it could work. And it's an institutional problem if students feel that way. Is somebody else raising grades in response to mere begging?
(At my school, teachers aren't allowed to change grades unless there's a computational error. You can't reassess the quality of the exams. There's also a required curve, so the grades all exist in comparison to the grades that other students received in that class. In a system like that, it doesn't make sense to redo your thinking for one exam. You should have to redo them all. And if anyone needed a higher grade, it should probably mean someone else should have to get a lower grade.)
I don't believe this is really how professors respond to student requests. A polite refusal is all that's really needed. But these are letters written not to real students but for publication, and you might find them funny. Myself, I don't find them funny. It's too much the "punching down" kind of humor that really should be avoided by someone exercising power. A student may be thinking it doesn't hurt to try. Maybe it could work. And it's an institutional problem if students feel that way. Is somebody else raising grades in response to mere begging?
(At my school, teachers aren't allowed to change grades unless there's a computational error. You can't reassess the quality of the exams. There's also a required curve, so the grades all exist in comparison to the grades that other students received in that class. In a system like that, it doesn't make sense to redo your thinking for one exam. You should have to redo them all. And if anyone needed a higher grade, it should probably mean someone else should have to get a lower grade.)
"Facebook has so much data on its users, 'you could actually target a premium credit card to a businessman you know is traveling all the time'..."
"... said Bryan Wiener, chairman of 360i, a digital marketing agency that works with brands like Capital One, NBCUniversal, Spotify, Oreo and Oscar Mayer. 'That�s the kind of information that�s missing from Twitter... There�s not this rich history of your holistic life.' As a result, he said, many brands are unwilling to commit big money to Twitter ad campaigns."
From a NYT article titled "Twitter Troubles Lie in Marketers� Reluctance to Buy New Kind of Ad."
This rich history of your holistic life... I don't know if that phrase is ludicrous or horribly disturbing. Neither... I guess... because I'm not laughing or quaking. I have a distanced amusement and vague dread. I'll put it that way.
From a NYT article titled "Twitter Troubles Lie in Marketers� Reluctance to Buy New Kind of Ad."
This rich history of your holistic life... I don't know if that phrase is ludicrous or horribly disturbing. Neither... I guess... because I'm not laughing or quaking. I have a distanced amusement and vague dread. I'll put it that way.
"Wisconsin Supreme Court justices have moved quickly to replace longtime Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson with Justice Patience Roggensack."
"David Simon, the creator of the iconic Baltimore-based HBO series The Wire, lashed out in a lengthy interview against Martin O�Malley..."
"... saying in the wake of this week�s riots and curfew that the former Baltimore Mayor and Maryland Governor was the 'stake through the heart of police procedure' in the city."
Click for more �
Speaking with The Marshall Project, Simon traces his wariness back to O�Malley�s time as Mayor between 1999 and 2007, when Simon says he made �mass arrests� of citizens for minor offenses to pad crime statistics. �[W]hat happened under his watch as Baltimore�s mayor was that he wanted to be governor. And at a certain point, with the crime rate high� he put no faith in real policing.�Here's the whole interview. Excerpt:
Simon, a crime reporter at the Baltimore Sun for more than 10 years before he moved to television writing, has been an outspoken critic of O�Malley for years. He has even said that the Wire character Tommy Carcetti, an ambitious politician who manipulates crime reduction statistics, is partly based on O�Malley, a presumed Democratic presidential candidate.
Click for more �
"Nary a 'no' vote in Louisiana House on resolution urging Ginsburg, Kagan recusal in gay marriage case."
Reports The Times-Picayune.
And why Ginsburg and Kagan in particular? What was the "public conduct suggestive of bias"? Just because you can predict in advance where their thinking on a legal issue will lead them doesn't mean they are any more biased and bereft of objectivity than anyone else on the Court. In fact, unpredictability is more suggestive of bias. Consistency in legal reasoning, case by case and in expressions about law, suggests that you are following the norms of constitutional interpretation.
ADDED: A commenter says that the "public conduct" is officiating at same-sex wedding ceremonies. I'm seeing this at The Hill:
Anyway, doing something doesn't mean you believe you have a right to do it, and it would be utterly unworkable to say judges who do something must recuse themselves in cases about whether there is a right to do something. Should a judge who's had an abortion have to recuse herself in abortion cases? Should a judge who has given a speech have to recuse himself in a free speech case?
ALSO: A separate question is: Let's assume that doing something does equal a statement that one has a right to do it. Is belief that a right exists bias? I can't see that. I think the argument is more that a decision about the law was arrived at too early. But that doesn't make sense. Judges are always thinking, writing, and speaking about the law, forming beliefs about the answers. There's nothing wrong with that. I know there's this idea that Supreme Court Justices shouldn't express their conclusions about cases that might later come before the Court. That's the stock answer to every other question at confirmation hearings, though the Senators doing the questioning don't seem to think there's anything wrong with repeatedly inviting nominees to tip their hand.
There was a famous instance of a recusal by a Justice who tipped his hand about a pending case. Back in '03, Justice Scalia dropped out of the case about whether "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause:
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan "have each engaged in public conduct suggestive of bias," reads Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution 85, sponsored by state Rep. Valerie Hodges, R-Denham Springs. In engaging on the issue of same-sex marriage, the justices have "thus demonstrate(d) an inability to be objective," and should therefore withdraw from the Obergefell v. Hodges case, the resolution says.Embarrassing.
And why Ginsburg and Kagan in particular? What was the "public conduct suggestive of bias"? Just because you can predict in advance where their thinking on a legal issue will lead them doesn't mean they are any more biased and bereft of objectivity than anyone else on the Court. In fact, unpredictability is more suggestive of bias. Consistency in legal reasoning, case by case and in expressions about law, suggests that you are following the norms of constitutional interpretation.
ADDED: A commenter says that the "public conduct" is officiating at same-sex wedding ceremonies. I'm seeing this at The Hill:
�Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, knowing full well that unique legal issues regarding the definition of marriage would soon come before them, deliberately officiated at so-called homosexual wedding ceremonies creating not merely the appearance of bias, but an actual and blatant conflict of interest,� [said Scott Lively, president of Abiding Truth Ministries].I don't see how participating in a wedding ceremony is a statement that you think there is a constitutional requirement that states must recognize same-sex marriage. Presumably, same-sex marriage was either already recognized in the place where Ginsburg/Kagan was performing the ceremony or it was a ceremony that wasn't recognized as creating a legal marriage. That probably shows they approve of same-sex marriage, though what Ginsburg did was perform a wedding for a former law clerk. Maybe she just treats all her former law clerks the same.
�In my personal view they have committed an unparalleled breach of judicial ethics by elevating the importance of their own favored political cause of gay rights above the integrity of the court and of our nation.�
Anyway, doing something doesn't mean you believe you have a right to do it, and it would be utterly unworkable to say judges who do something must recuse themselves in cases about whether there is a right to do something. Should a judge who's had an abortion have to recuse herself in abortion cases? Should a judge who has given a speech have to recuse himself in a free speech case?
ALSO: A separate question is: Let's assume that doing something does equal a statement that one has a right to do it. Is belief that a right exists bias? I can't see that. I think the argument is more that a decision about the law was arrived at too early. But that doesn't make sense. Judges are always thinking, writing, and speaking about the law, forming beliefs about the answers. There's nothing wrong with that. I know there's this idea that Supreme Court Justices shouldn't express their conclusions about cases that might later come before the Court. That's the stock answer to every other question at confirmation hearings, though the Senators doing the questioning don't seem to think there's anything wrong with repeatedly inviting nominees to tip their hand.
There was a famous instance of a recusal by a Justice who tipped his hand about a pending case. Back in '03, Justice Scalia dropped out of the case about whether "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause:
According to press accounts, in his talk to the Knights of Columbus, Justice Scalia adverted to the lower court rulings in the Newdow dispute twice -- both in his prepared remarks and in response to a protestor in the audience.Was that recusal required or even advisable? I don't think so. And I'm suspicious. I think the recusal served the interests of conservatives. As it happened, the Supreme Court weaseled out, but if the Court's liberals had not figured out a way to avoid the merits � they used standing doctrine � they might have had to say that "under God" violated the Establishment Clause, and that would have been very useful to conservatives in the 2004 presidential election. It was well-remembered that in the 1988 election, George H.W. Bush had battered Michael Dukakis over the Pledge of Allegiance:
First, Scalia mentioned prior rulings by his own Court indicating that government could not favor any religious sect or religion over non-religion. He observed that such rulings were "contrary to our whole tradition, [and] to 'in God We Trust' on the coins," and said that these rulings had created inconsistencies that lent "some plausible support" to the lower court rulings in Newdow.
Second, when Scalia saw a protest sign in the crowd, he remarked: "The sign back there which says, 'Get religion out of government,' can be imposed on the whole country. . . . I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done." Scalia thus arguably implied that the elimination of the "under God" phrase could not be accomplished by any Court -- even his own.
With President Reagan at his side in a raucous campaign rally here, Vice President Bush intensified his argument with Michael S. Dukakis today over the Pledge of Allegiance. He said he would have signed a bill that Mr. Dukakis vetoed in 1977 requiring teachers to lead their classes in the pledge.Newdow was a rich political opportunity, and I'm sure Scalia knew that. So one could say that his recusal was biased, since he would have voted on the side that would not have leveraged the conservative presidential candidate.
'What is it about the Pledge of Allegiance that upsets him so much?'' Mr. Bush said of Mr. Dukakis, as an enthusiastic crowd roared its agreement. ''It is very hard for me to imagine that the Founding Fathers - Samuel Adams and John Hancock and John Adams -would have objected to teachers leading students in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States.''
"For a time in recent decades, it looked like the reform examples of New York under Messrs. Giuliani and Bloomberg and the growth of cities like Houston might lead to a broader urban revitalization."
"In some places it did. But of late the progressives have been making a comeback, led by Bill de Blasio in New York and the challenge to sometime reform Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. This week�s nightmare in Baltimore shows where this leads. It�s time for a new urban renewal, this time built on the ideas of private economic development, personal responsibility, 'broken windows' policing, and education choice."
A Wall Street Journal editorial titled "The Blue-City Model/Baltimore shows how progressivism has failed urban America." (Pay-wall protected, but if you Google some text, you can go in.)
A Wall Street Journal editorial titled "The Blue-City Model/Baltimore shows how progressivism has failed urban America." (Pay-wall protected, but if you Google some text, you can go in.)
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
"All the time it felt like I was being eaten alive by parasites living under my skin. I couldn't leave my house for several years."
"Sometimes it got so bad I couldn't walk and I'd have to crawl across the floor. My legs would cramp up, just like I was having a polio spasm."
That's from Joni Mitchell's memoir, quoted in a new Daily Mail piece about how Joni Mitchell is not in a coma. She's "alert" and "responsive" we're told.
I was moved to post on this topic after my dear husband responded to the previous post � "Since Hillary never gave us 'closure' by braining the big boy with a frying pan..." � with: "the bed's too big/the frying pan's too wide." For all I know he responded to the post before that � "Scott Walker enters the Republican presidential race with far stronger ties to the party�s biggest fund-raisers..." � with: "He's a walker in the rain/He's a dancer in the dark." And perhaps some earlier post about the same-sex marriage arguments with: "We don't need no piece of paper/From the city hall/Keeping us tied and true/My old man/Keeping away my blues...."
We're thinking about Joni and wishing her well.
That's from Joni Mitchell's memoir, quoted in a new Daily Mail piece about how Joni Mitchell is not in a coma. She's "alert" and "responsive" we're told.
I was moved to post on this topic after my dear husband responded to the previous post � "Since Hillary never gave us 'closure' by braining the big boy with a frying pan..." � with: "the bed's too big/the frying pan's too wide." For all I know he responded to the post before that � "Scott Walker enters the Republican presidential race with far stronger ties to the party�s biggest fund-raisers..." � with: "He's a walker in the rain/He's a dancer in the dark." And perhaps some earlier post about the same-sex marriage arguments with: "We don't need no piece of paper/From the city hall/Keeping us tied and true/My old man/Keeping away my blues...."
We're thinking about Joni and wishing her well.
"Since Hillary never gave us 'closure' by braining the big boy with a frying pan, it was delicious to see another brainy lawyer ding him with a 32-page order and fine."
"The judge dryly mocked Mr. Clinton's tortured definition of his tryst. 'It appears,' she wrote, 'the President is asserting that Ms. Lewinsky could be having sex with him while, at the same time, he was not having sex with her.'"
I'm just reading an old Maureen Dowd column. Clinton v. Jones comes up today in the Conlaw1 readings, and I was looking for something.
Notice the old violent-females-are-funny meme, replete with a frying pan as the weapon. I wonder if younger people today even remember all the ancient humor involving wives hitting their husband with a frying pan.
I'm just reading an old Maureen Dowd column. Clinton v. Jones comes up today in the Conlaw1 readings, and I was looking for something.
Notice the old violent-females-are-funny meme, replete with a frying pan as the weapon. I wonder if younger people today even remember all the ancient humor involving wives hitting their husband with a frying pan.
"Scott Walker enters the Republican presidential race with far stronger ties to the party�s biggest fund-raisers than any other candidate besides Jeb Bush."
Derek Willis at the NYT analyzes Federal Election Commission records and state records:
Roughly half of the nation�s top 250 Republican donors have given money to Mr. Walker in his campaigns for Wisconsin governor.... By comparison, 30 percent have given to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, 20 percent to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and 10 percent to Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey....
Mr. Walker�s previous support from Republican donors... can ease his path to raising money... Beyond money, the support from donors is a sign to other party leaders that he is a serious candidate....
Mr. Walker pulled in many of the top party donors during his 2012 recall contest, which attracted national attention....
"The Court�s twistifications have not come to an end; indeed, they are just beginning.... The First Amendment is not abridged for the benefit of the Brotherhood of the Robe."
Writes Justice Scalia, dissenting from the Supreme Courts decision today in Williams-Yulle v. The Florida Bar (PDF), which upheld the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct prohibition on the personal solicitation of campaign contributions by judicial candidates.
It's notable that the Court applies strict scrutiny. (The Florida Bar had argued that the Court should use a lower level of scrutiny that would only require the limit on speech to be �closely drawn� to match a �sufficiently important interest." That test, the Court said, applies to freedom of political association claims, not to free speech claims like the one presented here.)
But Justice Scalia (who was joined by Justice Thomas) objected to the way the Court applied strict scrutiny:
Click for more �
It's notable that the Court applies strict scrutiny. (The Florida Bar had argued that the Court should use a lower level of scrutiny that would only require the limit on speech to be �closely drawn� to match a �sufficiently important interest." That test, the Court said, applies to freedom of political association claims, not to free speech claims like the one presented here.)
But Justice Scalia (who was joined by Justice Thomas) objected to the way the Court applied strict scrutiny:
Click for more �
"I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex."
So said Chief Justice Roberts, in part of yesterday's oral argument which I discussed in some detail earlier this morning.
I just wanted to write a separate post to beat you over the head with the profound accuracy of the Chief's statement.
The government, in banning same-sex marriage, does nothing to ascertain that couples are sexually attracted to each other.
The Sue that loves Joe could be a lesbian, and the Tom who loves Joe could be heterosexual.
Maybe Joe is a very desirable marriage partner for reasons that have nothing to do with a desire to have sex with him. Maybe he's rich and powerful and has a wonderful circle of friends. This Joe, perhaps, loves to cook and is a great cook, and he's got an extensive wine cellar. Maybe he loves just the kind of movies/sports that Sue/Tom loves, and he keeps up an endlessly entertaining stream of conversation, full of witty observations and howlingly funny jokes. And he's perfectly happy to allow Sue/Tom to pursue sexual adventures. Go right ahead! Have them! And come back home to Joe's delicious late-night supper and drink some of Joe's top-notch wine and you can talk about sex for hours.
The government has no idea, and the government should have no idea.
I just wanted to write a separate post to beat you over the head with the profound accuracy of the Chief's statement.
The government, in banning same-sex marriage, does nothing to ascertain that couples are sexually attracted to each other.
The Sue that loves Joe could be a lesbian, and the Tom who loves Joe could be heterosexual.
Maybe Joe is a very desirable marriage partner for reasons that have nothing to do with a desire to have sex with him. Maybe he's rich and powerful and has a wonderful circle of friends. This Joe, perhaps, loves to cook and is a great cook, and he's got an extensive wine cellar. Maybe he loves just the kind of movies/sports that Sue/Tom loves, and he keeps up an endlessly entertaining stream of conversation, full of witty observations and howlingly funny jokes. And he's perfectly happy to allow Sue/Tom to pursue sexual adventures. Go right ahead! Have them! And come back home to Joe's delicious late-night supper and drink some of Joe's top-notch wine and you can talk about sex for hours.
The government has no idea, and the government should have no idea.
Yesterday at the Supreme Court, struggling over whether the argument for same-sex marriage is better expressed in terms of fundamental liberty or equal protection.
In the same-sex marriage argument yesterday (PDF), the Solicitor General premised his argument entirely on the right to equal protection of the laws, but Justice Kennedy wanted him to talk about the right to marry. Kennedy framed the question on the old right-to-die case Glucksberg (which was getting its first mention):
Later, Justice Breyer, questioning the state's lawyer, gave some indication that he thought the right to marry was a better ground for the decision than equal protection:
Click for more �
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I'm interested in your comments on Glucksberg, which says what we should have to define a fundamental right in its narrowest terms. A lot of the questions that... we're asking your colleague in the earlier part of the argument... had that in mind, I think. What... do we do with the language of Glucksberg that says we have to define it in a narrow way?Verrilli refrains from saying because we thought it was the weaker argument (perhaps because of Glucksberg). He said because "this issue really sounds in equal protection." ("Sounds in" is legal talk.)
GENERAL VERRILLI: Justice Kennedy, forgive me for answering the question this way. We do recognize that there's a profound connection between liberty and equality, but the United States has advanced only an equal protection argument. We haven't made the fundamental rights argument under Glucksberg. And therefore, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me not having briefed it to comment on that.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, can you tell me why you didn't make the fundamental [rights] argument?
Later, Justice Breyer, questioning the state's lawyer, gave some indication that he thought the right to marry was a better ground for the decision than equal protection:
Click for more �
Tonight's game between the Baltimore Orioles and the Chicago White Sox will be closed to the public.
"The unusual decision to play the game before an empty Oriole Park at Camden Yards follows two straight days of postponements."
Lawprof Roger Groves comments:
1. Playing before the empty stands makes a powerful visual statement that is entirely different from a postponement. If there's a postponement, there's nothing to see, and seemingly nothing is lost. Some later game between those 2 teams is turned into a double header. But when a game is played to empty stands, the disturbing spectacle will be on TV and radio. Many people will watch/listen and experience the theater of sadness. Fans will live through hours of What Has Happened to Our Proud City. On TV, there will be none of the shots of kids and weird guys and pretty girls to amuse us during the inevitable longueurs of baseball. You might think it won't matter so much on the radio, but it will. The crowd sound in the gaps in the chatter are integral to the beauty of baseball on the radio.
2. Groves's statement "That does not excuse bad behavior" will, I am sure, sound lame to many of you, but I happen to have my copy of Michael LaBossiere's "76 Fallacies" open to the precisely relevant page: "Confusing Explanations and Excuses":
Click for more �
Lawprof Roger Groves comments:
Some have already blamed the youth who rioted as the sole culprits, the only cause of the problem. That reminds me of those who can�t understand why their weeds continue to grow when their lawn mower only cuts off the leaves. They didn�t see that the root of the problem requires digging deeper than what was on the surface....I'll just add 2 things:
That does not excuse bad behavior.... But as for the baseball aspect of this, playing a game without fans is not the answer.... Yes, a fan-free game minimizes the risk of a lawsuit for having a game in which they could get hurt. But even if it was more expensive to the owners and MLB, sacrificing fans for the profits and logistics is not a good idea. Ticket refunds may ameliorate the problem a bit. But I suspect the fans that paid that hefty ticket price would much rather see the game than have the same money back they already decided to spend.
1. Playing before the empty stands makes a powerful visual statement that is entirely different from a postponement. If there's a postponement, there's nothing to see, and seemingly nothing is lost. Some later game between those 2 teams is turned into a double header. But when a game is played to empty stands, the disturbing spectacle will be on TV and radio. Many people will watch/listen and experience the theater of sadness. Fans will live through hours of What Has Happened to Our Proud City. On TV, there will be none of the shots of kids and weird guys and pretty girls to amuse us during the inevitable longueurs of baseball. You might think it won't matter so much on the radio, but it will. The crowd sound in the gaps in the chatter are integral to the beauty of baseball on the radio.
2. Groves's statement "That does not excuse bad behavior" will, I am sure, sound lame to many of you, but I happen to have my copy of Michael LaBossiere's "76 Fallacies" open to the precisely relevant page: "Confusing Explanations and Excuses":
Click for more �
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
"It was rather refreshing, actually."
Said Justice Scalia after a protester interrupted the same-sex marriage oral arguments with some "burn in hell" anti-gay yelling. I was listening to the oral argument as I was walking to class, and despite being out in public, I was brought to tears. We had just heard some careful argument with decently thoughtful questions from the Justices, and it was just so brutal and crude to shout about hell for homosexuals. And then Justice Scalia said "It was rather refreshing, actually." And I did laugh a little. Because... what did he mean? I think he meant, you know, we've all got to be so sober and appropriately legalistic all the time, and here was a person just shouting out how he really felt. It's refreshing. I don't think Justice Scalia meant: You know, that's how I feel too. I think these gay people are just horribly deluded, they're trying to delude others, and a lot of people are getting sucked into the pit of hell. No... I don't think that. Do you?
The transcript and the audio for this morning's oral argument about same-sex marriage is now available.
Get it at SCOTUSblog.
I'm going to listen, and I'll be back with some comments a while later.
UPDATE: SCOTUSblog removed the needed links from the top of its page. You can get the audio here and here and the transcripts � PDF and PDF � (at the Supreme Court's own page). The case name is Obergefell v. Hodges.
I'm going to listen, and I'll be back with some comments a while later.
UPDATE: SCOTUSblog removed the needed links from the top of its page. You can get the audio here and here and the transcripts � PDF and PDF � (at the Supreme Court's own page). The case name is Obergefell v. Hodges.
"Is Milwaukee County DA interested in pursuing criminal libel prosecutions of his political critics?"
Asks Eugene Volokh, noting that John Chisholm made a bit of a veiled threat toward Governor Scott Walker: "As to defamatory remarks, I strongly suspect the Iowa criminal code, like Wisconsin�s, has provisions for intentionally making false statements intended to harm the reputation of others." That came in response to Walker's saying that the John Doe investigation "was really about people trying to intimidate people," "They were looking for just about anything," and "it was largely a political witch hunt."
Volokh says that Iowa, in fact, does not have a criminal libel law, but Wisconsin does. Is Chisholm serious?
Volokh says that Iowa, in fact, does not have a criminal libel law, but Wisconsin does. Is Chisholm serious?
Is DA Chisholm is trying to signal that he may begin using Wisconsin�s own criminal libel law against political figures � or commentators or journalists � who he claims are lying about him (or other political figures)?Volokh finds "the use of criminal libel law in political disputes... troubling." I'll say. I mean, that was Walker's point � government using its power to intimidate political opponents � and Chisholm's instinct was to threaten to use government power to intimidate political opponents. Of course, that's a despicable chilling of free speech. In fact, it's chilly enough around here that, on proofread, I wondered whether I ought to be writing "threat" and "threaten."
Updates on the oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases.
At SCOTUSblog, here.
"The [petitioners] had said they were looking to 'join the institution of marriage.' The chief objected that perhaps they were not looking to redefine it, not join it. And he emphasized that he had looked up all the definitions he could find, and it was always a man and a woman..."
"Justice Kennedy said he had 'a word on his mind .. and that word is millennia'... He pointed out that the definition of marriage had prevailed for millennia and it seemed a fast change; on the other hand, he noted that the time between Lawrence and this case was about equal to the time between Brown and Loving -- this raised the question for him of whether this might all be too fast to redefine such a long standing institution."
So Roberts and Kennedy are thinking in terms of redefining the word.
Justice Scalia started a discussion about whether "a minister who objects to same sex marriages could refuse to perform a civil same-sex wedding" and seemed satisfied with the argument that First Amendment rights would protect the minister.
The SCOTUSblog writer notes the contrast between the Justices who stressed "the 'millennia long' definition of marriage" and those who forefronted "the relatively new character of egalitarian marriage." Also, there was "a kind of quirky historical dispute about whether ancient societies with their heterosexual definition of marriage could not be trusted (because they generally discriminated against gays and lesbians), or whether they could be, because they were generally more open to homosexuality outside the marriage context (Alito asked this question about Ancient Greece)."
"The [petitioners] had said they were looking to 'join the institution of marriage.' The chief objected that perhaps they were not looking to redefine it, not join it. And he emphasized that he had looked up all the definitions he could find, and it was always a man and a woman..."
"Justice Kennedy said he had 'a word on his mind .. and that word is millennia'... He pointed out that the definition of marriage had prevailed for millennia and it seemed a fast change; on the other hand, he noted that the time between Lawrence and this case was about equal to the time between Brown and Loving -- this raised the question for him of whether this might all be too fast to redefine such a long standing institution."
So Roberts and Kennedy are thinking in terms of redefining the word.
Justice Scalia started a discussion about whether "a minister who objects to same sex marriages could refuse to perform a civil same-sex wedding" and seemed satisfied with the argument that First Amendment rights would protect the minister.
The SCOTUSblog writer notes the contrast between the Justices who stressed "the 'millennia long' definition of marriage" and those who forefronted "the relatively new character of egalitarian marriage." Also, there was "a kind of quirky historical dispute about whether ancient societies with their heterosexual definition of marriage could not be trusted (because they generally discriminated against gays and lesbians), or whether they could be, because they were generally more open to homosexuality outside the marriage context (Alito asked this question about Ancient Greece)."
"We become cynics because we desperately don�t want to be moralists, and because earnestness is boring, and because skepticism is a hard and elusive thing to master."
"American education, by and large, has become an education in cynicism: Our Founders were rank hypocrites. Our institutions are tools of elite coercion. Our economy perpetuates privilege. Our justice system is racist. Our foreign policy is rapacious. Cynicism gives us the comfort of knowing we won�t be fooled again because we never believed in anything in the first place.... This is the America that the Clintons seek to enlist in their latest presidential quest. I suspect many Democrats would jump at an opportunity not to participate in the exercise... But they will go along with it, mostly because liberals have demonized the Republican Party to the point that they have lost the capacity for self-disgust.... As for the rest of the country, Mrs. Clinton�s candidacy offers a test: How much can it swallow? John Podesta and the rest of Mrs. Clinton�s campaign team must be betting that, like a python devouring a goat, Americans will have ample time to digest Mrs. Clinton�s personal ethics..."
From "Hillary�s Cynical Song of Self/The Clintons are counting on America to digest their ethical lapses the way a python swallows a goat," by Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal.
Stephens asks many good questions, but since I pounced on Lanny Davis's animal analogy yesterday � the rooster crowing and the sun rising supposedly explained away Hillary's "Clinton Cash" problems � I've got to take a closer look at that python devouring a goat. Davis's analogy was bad because it didn't do what he needed it to do: illustrate coincidence. Does Stephens's analogy function properly? He isn't saying Americans will be able to do the equivalent of slowly digesting the a goat, only imagining that Clinton's people must be hoping that will happen. But the slow digesting can only occur if the goat is swallowed. The python performs 2 tricks: swallowing the goat and digesting the goat. The swallowing must come first. Without the swallowing, the devastating evidence is preserved.
I will not take one more step down the metaphorical path established in the previous paragraph. And to refresh your brain, I offer this story about a captive python named Houdini who swallowed a queen-size electric blanket (including the cord and control box). The blanket was there to keep the cold-blooded creature warm, and he was provided with rabbits to eat, but somehow he decided he'd have the blanket. (Oh, I always take the rabbit. Tonight, I'll try the blanket!) Was the python able to slowly digest the electric blanket? We'll never know, because the blanket was surgically removed. I'd like to think of a political predicament for which that could be an apt analogy.
From "Hillary�s Cynical Song of Self/The Clintons are counting on America to digest their ethical lapses the way a python swallows a goat," by Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal.
Stephens asks many good questions, but since I pounced on Lanny Davis's animal analogy yesterday � the rooster crowing and the sun rising supposedly explained away Hillary's "Clinton Cash" problems � I've got to take a closer look at that python devouring a goat. Davis's analogy was bad because it didn't do what he needed it to do: illustrate coincidence. Does Stephens's analogy function properly? He isn't saying Americans will be able to do the equivalent of slowly digesting the a goat, only imagining that Clinton's people must be hoping that will happen. But the slow digesting can only occur if the goat is swallowed. The python performs 2 tricks: swallowing the goat and digesting the goat. The swallowing must come first. Without the swallowing, the devastating evidence is preserved.
I will not take one more step down the metaphorical path established in the previous paragraph. And to refresh your brain, I offer this story about a captive python named Houdini who swallowed a queen-size electric blanket (including the cord and control box). The blanket was there to keep the cold-blooded creature warm, and he was provided with rabbits to eat, but somehow he decided he'd have the blanket. (Oh, I always take the rabbit. Tonight, I'll try the blanket!) Was the python able to slowly digest the electric blanket? We'll never know, because the blanket was surgically removed. I'd like to think of a political predicament for which that could be an apt analogy.
"Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland and possible Democratic presidential candidate, is speaking out on the violence in Baltimore. O'Malley's rival, Hillary Clinton, is not."
Says the Weekly Standard, noting yesterday's tweets from the 2 candidates.
In fairness to Hillary, she was not the governor of the state that is having terrible trouble right now. She was not the mayor of Baltimore. O'Malley, if he is to be a plausible alternative to Hillary, needs to be able to flaunt his achievements as governor and mayor.
He's tweeting things like: "We must come together as one City to transform this moment of loss & pain into a safer & more just future for all of Baltimore's people." I wouldn't give him much credit for self-interested, anodyne statements like that. Baltimore is really hurting him. The man was mayor of Baltimore or Governor of Maryland from 1999 to just this past January. If Baltimore has big problems, he's responsible for them! His expressions of sorrow and hope for the future are fundamentally ridiculous.
Meanwhile, it might be nice if Hillary would show up and contribute something to the national political debate.
In fairness to Hillary, she was not the governor of the state that is having terrible trouble right now. She was not the mayor of Baltimore. O'Malley, if he is to be a plausible alternative to Hillary, needs to be able to flaunt his achievements as governor and mayor.
He's tweeting things like: "We must come together as one City to transform this moment of loss & pain into a safer & more just future for all of Baltimore's people." I wouldn't give him much credit for self-interested, anodyne statements like that. Baltimore is really hurting him. The man was mayor of Baltimore or Governor of Maryland from 1999 to just this past January. If Baltimore has big problems, he's responsible for them! His expressions of sorrow and hope for the future are fundamentally ridiculous.
Meanwhile, it might be nice if Hillary would show up and contribute something to the national political debate.
"Head Start for Jeb Bush Campaign Is Part of Scott Walker�s Plan."
NYT headline. Excerpt:
In emphasizing their long-range strategy, Mr. Walker�s advisers are seeking to lower expectations ahead of the first fund-raising totals for most candidates and their �super PACs,� which will be made public in mid-July. They also want to minimize expectations at this stage for Mr. Walker as a head-to-head competitor against Mr. Bush, who talks about policy with greater ease and confidence.
Advisers to Mr. Walker do not see any choice: Mr. Bush is raising money prodigiously, telling donors at a private gathering in Miami last weekend that his political organization was set to break political fund-raising records. Mr. Walker believes his best shot is to peak as a well-prepared, solidly financed candidate as Iowa, New Hampshire and other states start voting in February and March.
"I�ve tried to explain it this way. God�s looking down, making little Bruce...."
"He says, 'O.K., what are we gonna do with this one? Make him a smart kid, very determined[']� and then, when he�s just finishing, he says, 'Let�s wait a second.' God looks down and chuckles a little bit and says, 'Hey, let�s give him the soul of a female.'"
Bruce Jenner, quoted in a New Yorker piece titled "Bruce Jenner and the Modern American Family."
We're being invited � through a new door � back into an old subject: Whether there is such a thing as a "the soul of a female." Or... actually, those are 2 old subjects: 1. Whether essentialist ideas about the feminine are true/false and useful/damaging, and 2. Whether we have some core being that might be called a "soul."
I don't even know what Bruce Jenner really thinks. I read his quote as a sort of myth he made up about himself, and he's only letting us know that it's something he uses in his presentation to others. I can't tell whether it's something he's found helpful in understanding himself, and I certainly don't believe that he literally believes that God creates us like that.
Bruce Jenner, quoted in a New Yorker piece titled "Bruce Jenner and the Modern American Family."
We're being invited � through a new door � back into an old subject: Whether there is such a thing as a "the soul of a female." Or... actually, those are 2 old subjects: 1. Whether essentialist ideas about the feminine are true/false and useful/damaging, and 2. Whether we have some core being that might be called a "soul."
I don't even know what Bruce Jenner really thinks. I read his quote as a sort of myth he made up about himself, and he's only letting us know that it's something he uses in his presentation to others. I can't tell whether it's something he's found helpful in understanding himself, and I certainly don't believe that he literally believes that God creates us like that.
Founder foundering at CNN.
Here's the teaser in the sidebar...
... for a Jeffrey Toobin piece titled "Supreme Court faces new reality on marriage equality."
The picture is of James Madison, who died in 1836. The 14th Amendment, the source of the rights asserted in the same-sex marriage cases, was adopted in 1868.
Toobin has nothing new to say on the subject of constitutional interpretation. He says things like:
Toobin's column is utterly boring, but I only have something even more boring to say about the cases that are to be argued this morning: Precedent � the cases already decided � will determine the outcome.
... for a Jeffrey Toobin piece titled "Supreme Court faces new reality on marriage equality."
The picture is of James Madison, who died in 1836. The 14th Amendment, the source of the rights asserted in the same-sex marriage cases, was adopted in 1868.
Toobin has nothing new to say on the subject of constitutional interpretation. He says things like:
[W]hen it comes to Supreme Court decisions, it is usually safe to bet that a majority of the justices will come down on the side favored by most of the public. In any case, as we head into the argument, it looks like most of the justices have already made up their minds.The only real problem he sees with that is that "the justices have imperfect instincts when it comes to measuring public attitudes." Oh, come on. It's not about accurate measuring of public attitudes. It's about glomming onto the best attitudes of the educated, enlightened people (without running into too much resistance from ordinary people).
Toobin's column is utterly boring, but I only have something even more boring to say about the cases that are to be argued this morning: Precedent � the cases already decided � will determine the outcome.
"When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself."
"When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con."
Writes Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Writes Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Monday, April 27, 2015
"If PEN as a free-speech organisation can�t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures, then frankly the organisation is not worth the name."
"What I would say to both Peter [Carey] and Michael [Ondaatje] and the others is, I hope nobody ever comes after them."
Said Salman Rushdie (after whom somebody has come).
Said Salman Rushdie (after whom somebody has come).
"What did the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel know, and when did it know it?"
Asks Elizabeth Price Foley.
The question relates to the Journal-Sentinel reporters� knowledge of a pre-dawn paramilitary-style raid of the home of Cindy Archer, a fo[r]mer aide to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and one of the architects of Wisconsin�s Act 10, which reformed that State�s public sector unions....Much more, including links at the link.
Someone had to tip the Journal-Sentinel off. But under Wisconsin law, disclosure of a search warrant�s issuance, prior to its execution, is a Class I felony and could also violate the judge�s secrecy order of the John Doe investigation itself....
But regardless of Stein�s possible privilege, it seems evident that there is a serious and continuing leak in the Wisconsin John Doe investigation, and that it warrants an investigation of its own.
Indeed, if it hadn�t been for the courage of Eric O�Keefe of the Wisconsin Club for Growth�who has defied the ridiculous gag order imposed on John Doe targets�the only knowledge the public would have today about the investigation would come from these one-sided, pro-investigation leaks.
Lanny Davis uses a bad analogy to push the "coincidence" talking point.
I've got to stay with that Lanny Davis interview for another post. The previous post is about his talking point that the Clinton Foundation is so huge that things that might seem big are actually small. The proportion point. There's also the coincidence point:
I think Davis was striving to sound casual and folksy, what with that barnyard scenario, except that he sounds like an overbearing lawyer, not like somebody tapping into real, everyday life (with everyday people). Davis has no background on farms. His father was a dentist. Farms are just a useful source of American hokum. I'd watch out for nonfarmers using farm bullshit. (Other than the "bullshit" itself, which is a fully dead metaphor.)
Click for more �
WALLACE: Do you think it was a coincidence all these Canadian mining executives are giving millions to the foundation, that a company with close ties to Vladimir Putin's government in Russia is giving half a million dollar speech? Do you think that's a coincidence that's happening while the Russian company that wants to buy Uranium One has business before the State Department? Do you think that's a coincidence?It's not a coincidence that the rooster crows and then the sun rises. It's true that the rooster doesn't cause the sun to rise, but the sun rising causes the rooster to crow. The events are causally related. The mistake is over what caused what. It's not a coincidence!
DAVIS: I don't use the word "coincidence". Of course, it's a coincidence but it's a false inference. It sounds like if two incidents occur side by side, like the rooster crows and then the sun rises, it's a coincidence that the sun rises after the rooster crows. The rooster doesn't cause the sun to rise.
I think Davis was striving to sound casual and folksy, what with that barnyard scenario, except that he sounds like an overbearing lawyer, not like somebody tapping into real, everyday life (with everyday people). Davis has no background on farms. His father was a dentist. Farms are just a useful source of American hokum. I'd watch out for nonfarmers using farm bullshit. (Other than the "bullshit" itself, which is a fully dead metaphor.)
Click for more �
"So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do."
When really big organizations make mistakes, the rules are different. You can't expect them to attend to the sort of details that would get you in trouble in your puny little affairs.
The quote in the post title is from the acting chief executive of the Clinton Foundation. It reminded me of something I heard Lanny Davis say in an interview with Chris Wallace yesterday.
Click for more �
The quote in the post title is from the acting chief executive of the Clinton Foundation. It reminded me of something I heard Lanny Davis say in an interview with Chris Wallace yesterday.
Click for more �
"Six years into my presidency some people still say I�m arrogant, aloof, condescending. Some people are so dumb."
See, that's funny. It uses truth and self-deprecation � traditional attributes of humor � in a fresh enough, edgy enough way.
I also liked:
SEE: "Lessons Learned From A Year Living In A Van":
I also liked:
I have to stay focused on my job. Because for many Americans this is still a time of deep uncertainty. For example, I have one friend just a few weeks ago, she was making millions of dollars a year and she�s now living out of a van in Iowa.He takes a shot at Hillary that minimizes her current "Clinton Cash" catastrophe and relaxes us into laughing by opening up a channel to that dark place in our souls where we harbor disgust for the poor.
SEE: "Lessons Learned From A Year Living In A Van":
Prepare to be judged: By your friends, your family, co-workers. Both past and present. And pretty much everyone you'll meet along the way....
Google does fashion reporting.
The NYT reports:
In its inaugural report, Google distinguishes between �sustained growth� trends, like tulle skirts and jogger pants; flash-in-the-pan obsessions like emoji shirts and kale sweatshirts; and �seasonal growth� trends, or styles that have come back stronger every spring, like white jumpsuits. It makes similar distinctions among sustained declines (peplum dresses), seasonal ones (skinny jeans) and fads that are probably over and done (scarf vests).ADDED: It's so funny to think of weird things becoming fashion trends after Google mistakes searching as an indication that people want to wear something when, in fact, they're curious about it for some other reason. I mean, I'm curious about scarf vests now, just because I don't know what they are, so I'd have to look it up. And if Google's presentation causes people to adopt something that wasn't a real fashion trend, then manufacturers will want to figure out strategies to cause certain words to get searched. Or maybe they'll just notice words that are picking up in the world of Google searching and start making whatever it is � tulle skirts or some such thing. (Aren't people Googling "tulle skirts" just because little girls want them? Maybe not.)
Lisa Green, who heads Google�s fashion and luxury team, said the company had begun working with major retailers, including Calvin Klein, to help them incorporate real-time Google search data into fashion planning and forecasting. �Fast fashion� companies, for example, can take a trend identified by Google and run with it, Ms. Green said....
Do you believe the drone policy really is: "Before any strike is taken, there must be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured"?
That's what Obama said last week, but I don't see how it can possibly be true, and I don't really understand why he would state a policy in terms that are so plainly unbelievable. If that were the standard, how he could use drones at all � let alone carry out hundreds of attacks? And if that's not the standard, why say it's the standard, since (if it's believed) it's encouraging the enemy to defend itself by keeping hostages and other innocents in their midst? If it's not believed � and I think it's on its face unbelievable � it wrecks his credibility.
These questions occurred to me as I listened to the panel discussion on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, which began with a clip of Obama saying the words that appear in the post title:
The drone policy was also questioned because of the way it kills people who could be captured and used for intelligence, which is related to the question of near certainty, because intelligence is needed to get to near certainty. If you keep killing everyone, how do they know whom they're killing? I suspect that after the fact they deem everyone who was there an enemy, at least as far as they can (and they couldn't in the case of the 2 specific hostages). And they don't want the trouble of detainees.
These questions occurred to me as I listened to the panel discussion on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday, which began with a clip of Obama saying the words that appear in the post title:
[AP reporter JULIE] PACE: [W]hen he said that we were not going to take strikes unless there was a near certainty that civilians would not be killed[:] How can you -- how can you be sure of that?...So one answer to my questions is: It depends on what the meaning of "near" is.
[National Journal reporter RON] FOURNIER: ... I think anybody who... has a problem like I do with this drone strategy, still has a problem. And maybe more so, the fact that the president promised that... he was going to be transparent, about how, about why and how we conduct war from a robot in the air blowing people away.... [W]hen the president of the United States says we're going to deal with near certainty, really? How do you come up with near certainty? Is that just a talking point that you say two years ago and then we find out that you can't do it? Let's put some meat on the bones, Mr. President.
[Fox News political analyst BRIT] HUME: It seems to me that they probably had near certainty. What they didn't have was actual certainty. And that's always going to be the case....
The drone policy was also questioned because of the way it kills people who could be captured and used for intelligence, which is related to the question of near certainty, because intelligence is needed to get to near certainty. If you keep killing everyone, how do they know whom they're killing? I suspect that after the fact they deem everyone who was there an enemy, at least as far as they can (and they couldn't in the case of the 2 specific hostages). And they don't want the trouble of detainees.
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Peter Schweitzer � answering the questions about the lack of direct evidence (or a "smoking gun") � makes an analogy to the way insider trading cases are proved.
On Fox News Sunday:
Click for more �
I did not have access to internal memos, but... you see this pattern of benefit.... The analogy I would use [is] like insider trading. I wrote a book a couple years ago on members of Congress who were potentially engaged in insider trading. When you talk to prosecutors, they will tell you, most people that engaged in insider trader don't send an e-mail that says, I've got inside information by this stock. The way that give prosecutors, by looking at the pattern behavior, did somebody who has access to the information conduct a series of well-timed stock trades that warrants further investigation? And that's my contention here, that you see a series of actions that enormously beneficial. In some cases, Hillary Clinton is reversing course on policies that she embraced before for the benefit of Clinton donors and I'm saying, this warrants investigation.... [I]f you look at the case of Governor... McDonnell... in Virginia. You look at Senator Menendez in New Jersey, there's no quid pro quo in those cases. They were simply prosecuted, and I think justifiably so, on the grounds that there was this pattern of gift giving...On "This Week" (with George Stephanopoulos):
Click for more �
"I heard an earful last night [at the White House Correspondents� Dinner] from various Democrats, some who work in the Clinton campaign that said, 'Why is she still taking foreign donations?'"
"Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid..."
"... (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker�s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very �generous� price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the 'pro' in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn�t 'intervened.' The Clinton spokesman wouldn�t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc�d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive�an e-mail, say�the Times doesn�t seem to have it. This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust?"
That's the first of "Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company," by Amy Davidson in The New Yorker. (And of course Davidson means everything that "an e-mail, say" seems to suggest.)
That's the first of "Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company," by Amy Davidson in The New Yorker. (And of course Davidson means everything that "an e-mail, say" seems to suggest.)
"Robin Givhan�s... piece about Lilly Pulitzer was hateful and not worthy of publication."
"Lilly Pulitzer clothing is bright and fun and evokes a carefree attitude, and Givhan took it upon herself to use this as a determining factor as to the socioeconomic background of the wearer."
From a letter to the Washington Post about an opinion piece about why women get so excited about a particular brand of clothing distinguished by bright colors and exuberant patterns like this:
One look at those patterns and you're ready to believe the letter-writer, no? How could a desire to swathe yourself in that mean anything more than lighthearted fun-loving? Givhan instructs:
ADDED: Givhan's argument belongs in the "What's the matter with Kansas?" school of liberal opinion-writing. The common people don't know their own real motives and interests and letting them think and do what they like is a problem.
MORE: I blogged about Lilly Pulitizer once before, at the time of her 2013 obituary, which I presented like this:
From a letter to the Washington Post about an opinion piece about why women get so excited about a particular brand of clothing distinguished by bright colors and exuberant patterns like this:
One look at those patterns and you're ready to believe the letter-writer, no? How could a desire to swathe yourself in that mean anything more than lighthearted fun-loving? Givhan instructs:
Lilly Pulitzer is preppy. It is part of a preppy uniform that announces itself from fifty paces. It is not so much a declaration of wealth as it is a perceived statement about class, lineage and attitude. Anyone can work hard and save up enough cash to go out and purchase a Chanel suit or a Gucci handbag. A devoted student of Vogue can cobble together a personal style that speaks to its public identity. But Lilly Pulitzer suggests an advantage of birth. The clothes stir up scrapbook notions of ancient family trees, summer compounds, boarding school uniforms, and large, granite buildings inscribed with some great-great-grandfather�s name. Lilly Pulitzer represents something that money cannot buy.Too hateful? How can you look at those patterns and feel hate? I know there's this old tradition of country club people wearing really bright colors and stupid patterns, but what was that ever about? Wasn't it lighthearted fun-loving? Why shouldn't people with less money see the fun too? There's a lot of expensive fashion that is adapted from what younger, poorer people are wearing in the streets. What difference does it make which direction fashion trends move? I think Givhan would answer that I'm asking the wrong question, because this isn't fashion � "Lilly Pulitzer is not fashion. It is clothes." � and non-clubby folks who purport to like these things are delusional. The stuff is ugly and so it must be that they only want to look like the rich.
The clothes are, upon close inspection, not so terribly attractive. Actually, they are rather unattractive. And that is part of their charm. They are not meant to be stylish � that�s so nouveau. The clothes are clubby. Country clubby. One-percent-ish....
ADDED: Givhan's argument belongs in the "What's the matter with Kansas?" school of liberal opinion-writing. The common people don't know their own real motives and interests and letting them think and do what they like is a problem.
MORE: I blogged about Lilly Pulitizer once before, at the time of her 2013 obituary, which I presented like this:
Lilly Pulitzer dresses were "really wearable only by the few who were so rich that they could afford to have bad taste."So the Times obituary declared not only that the clothes were in bad taste, but also that only the rich are allowed to act upon such bad taste. Now, 2 years after Pulitzer's death, Target offered a Lilly Pulitzer line that was cheap, and you can see how dissonant that is with the values of elite commentators like Givhan. It wasn't the price that put these clothes out of the reach of the non-rich. They can make the clothes cheap, but still, you have be rich for these clothes to be wearable.
Says the NYT in the obituary for Lilly Pullitzer, who built a "fashion empire" out of "tropical print shift dresses and lighthearted embrace of jarring color combinations like flamingo pink and apple green." Lilly was born into wealth and married into more wealth. She had 3 children and a nervous breakdown.�I went crazy. I was a namby-pamby; people always made decisions for me. The doctor said I should find something to do.�The family estate included citrus groves, so she opened a juice stand with another woman, and juice stains inspired the print dresses....
Why a man in Finland was fined $58,000 for driving 64 mph in 50 mph zone.
Because he's a millionaire, and fines are calculated based on your wealth, so everyone is equally pained by the punishment and equally deterred.
Given the speed he was going, [Reima] Kuisla was assessed eight days. His fine was then calculated from his 2013 income, 6,559,742 euros, or more than $7 million at current exchange rates.
Someone committing a similar offense and earning about 50,000 euros a year, or $54,000, none of it capital gains, and with no young children, would get a fine of about 345 euros, or about $370. Someone earning 300,000 euros ($322,000), would have to pay about 1,480 euros ($1,590).
Saturday, April 25, 2015
"I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor."
"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems."
Said the Pope.
That was back in 2013. I'm noticing it today reading the Twitter feed #ResistCapitalism.
Said the Pope.
That was back in 2013. I'm noticing it today reading the Twitter feed #ResistCapitalism.
"A powerful earthquake shook Nepal on Saturday near its capital, Katmandu, flattening sections of the city�s historic center..."
"... and trapping dozens of sightseers in a 200-foot watchtower that came crashing down into a pile of bricks."
Officials in Nepal put the preliminary death toll at 1053, nearly all of them in the valley around Katmandu... The quake set off avalanches around Mount Everest, where several hikers were reported to have died... [T]he most terrible damage on Saturday was to the oldest part of the city, which is studded with temples and palaces made of wood and unmortared brick.
For many, the most breathtaking loss was the nine-story Dharahara Tower, which was built in 1832 on the orders of the queen. The tower had recently reopened to the public, which could ascend a narrow spiral staircase to a viewing platform around 200 feet above the city.... The police on Saturday said they had pulled around 60 bodies from the rubble of the tower....
.jpg/1024px-KATHMANDU_NEPAL_FEB_2013_(8581665041).jpg)
Artist whitewashes a crappy old motel, including the palm trees that surround it.
"As you walk the western edge of the trendy hamlet of Silver Lake on the city�s storied Sunset Boulevard... you�ll see dozens of people standing precariously in the middle of four lanes of traffic to Instagram the piece, which is about as social-media ready as a public art piece could possibly be...."
A very nice art work. I approve.
Projection, as the work is named, could have been staged at any of the city�s derelict motels, really. But [Vincent] Lamouroux�who lived in the neighborhood years ago�had his eye on this one in particular. The Googie-style sign on top reads Sunset Pacific but everyone here calls it the Bates Motel, partly because it�s on the corner of Bates Street, but mostly because this moniker appropriately conveys its freaky Psycho vibes.No trees were hurt. They were sprayed with an impermanent "shading compound" that is intended to be used on trees. Not for art projects, but to protect them from heat and insects.
Vacant for over a decade, the motel�s ability to attract drug activity and gun violence has turned this stretch of Sunset into a kind of no-man�s land. During his days as a city councilman, LA�s mayor Eric Garcetti tried unsuccessfully to rehab it, sell it, then demolish it, calling it �one of the most troublesome properties in the city.�
A very nice art work. I approve.
"The parents of a girl born with a large birthmark on her leg have got matching tattoos in a show of support for their 18-month old daughter."
"There's not many people with that birthmark, so to us it is really, really unique. We love it and we are going to teach her to love it. We'll treasure it for ever, so even if hers does go she knows what was once on her leg."
ADDED: I ran across that by chance as I was researching the subject of anti-tattoo discrimination. On that topic, see:
ADDED: I ran across that by chance as I was researching the subject of anti-tattoo discrimination. On that topic, see:
"Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?"
"Tattoos are sad and stupid � we should discriminate against people with them."
"Dear fellow tattooed people: Lighten up/Are you really surprised that some people don't like your ink?"
Texts received at 3 a.m. that you have to check again in the morning to make sure weren't part of your dream about rampaging clowns.
"WiscAlert-453 W. Gilman man wearing a multicolored jacket displayed silver handgun and left running towards University Avenue. Avoid area. Police investigating."
"WiscAlert-Suspect described as a male with orange curly hair wearing a reggae style multicolored shirt with white shirt underneath. Continue to avoid the area."
"WiscAlert-Suspect described as a male with orange curly hair wearing a reggae style multicolored shirt with white shirt underneath. Continue to avoid the area."
"What? You think because you sit up there in that little black robe hiding behind the ignorance of the masses like a little b*tch..."
"... that ANYBODY gives a d*amn about you or what you have to say? Well, just in case you haven�t noticed�I couldn�t give two f*cks about you or what you have to say. F*ck you, old man. You�re a joke. Your court�s a joke. You take it up the a*s; and you suck nuts. Lol."
From a motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Notice To F*ck This Court And Everything That It Stands For."
From a motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, "Notice To F*ck This Court And Everything That It Stands For."
"Every weapons system, from the bow and arrow to the intercontinental ballistic missile, sometimes kills the wrong people."
"So why has the revelation that a U.S. drone strike accidentally killed two al-Qaeda hostages �� a U.S. citizen and an Italian aid worker � created such a storm of drone 'rethinking'?" asks lawprof Noah Feldman.
I haven't read his answer yet, but mine is: People aren't good at thinking in the abstract. A problem seems different when you know the story of one individual. That's why Steven Spielberg had the little girl in the red coat, and why Joseph Stalin said: "When one person dies, it's a tragedy, but when a million people die, it's a statistic."
Now, I'm reading Feldman. He observes that there has been a "fantasy of precision has been at the heart of the political and tactical appeal for U.S. President Barack Obama." But:
I haven't read his answer yet, but mine is: People aren't good at thinking in the abstract. A problem seems different when you know the story of one individual. That's why Steven Spielberg had the little girl in the red coat, and why Joseph Stalin said: "When one person dies, it's a tragedy, but when a million people die, it's a statistic."
Now, I'm reading Feldman. He observes that there has been a "fantasy of precision has been at the heart of the political and tactical appeal for U.S. President Barack Obama." But:
The real military advantage of the armed-drone strike over a conventional airstrike... isn't the precision of the hit. It�s the fact that a pilot isn�t being put in jeopardy. Yet somehow the idea that drone strikes are more precisely targeted has lingered, giving the technique greater public appeal....Feldman doesn't directly address why hearing about 2 specific innocent victims causes people to rethink anything. Is it too obvious?
When it comes to drones, the fantasy of precision is just that, a fantasy. Killing innocent civilians, whether they�re Americans or Pakistanis or Yemenis, is an inevitable reality of war....
Woman sues her ex-boyfriend for saying that she was not a prostitute.
An interesting man-bites-dog turnaround from the usual.
Think about when it harms a woman's reputation to say that she was not a prostitute.
Think about when it harms a woman's reputation to say that she was not a prostitute.
"How does he whistle like this? I can't even whistle at all!"
John asks, linking to "The Jazz Whistler - Ron McCroby."
I clicked and played it out loud here at Meadhouse.
Me: "Listen to this. He's whistling."
Meade: "It's not that good. If that was a flute, I'd say, get a better flute."
ADDED: Jay Gilbert sends an important email:
I clicked and played it out loud here at Meadhouse.
Me: "Listen to this. He's whistling."
Meade: "It's not that good. If that was a flute, I'd say, get a better flute."
ADDED: Jay Gilbert sends an important email:
I wish more attention would be given to Ron McCroby's other contribution to American culture: most of the TV ads for Kenner Toys from the 60s through the 80s.
I worked in music for advertising during the latter part of that era, and met Ron a few times. Kenner was based in Cincinnati then, as was its ad agency (Leonard Sive Advertising). Long before his notoriety in whistling, Ron was composing and producing music (and many of the voiceovers, serious $$$) for the latest spots featuring Play-Doh, Easy-Bake Ovens, Baby Alive, etc. He probably could have made a case for being the most consistently-heard talent on Saturday morning TV.
1. "Clinton: 'Deep-seated' beliefs block abortion access," 2. "Hillary On Abortion: 'Deep-Seated Cultural Codes, Religious Beliefs And Structural Biases Have To Be Changed.'"
2 headlines for the same news event in 2 different places. #1 is The Hill. #2 is The Daily Caller.
Here's the raw material. Judge for yourself:
Hillary did say "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone � and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States."
Now, it does sound off to say "religious beliefs... have to be changed." You'd think the speech-writers would have tweaked that into something less easily extracted and denounced. And yet... perhaps it's a trap. Come on, you Hillary haters. Flay her for saying "religious beliefs... have to be changed." Commit. Then she can come back and destroy you. She can tell you about the war against Islamic extremists who have religious beliefs that have to be changed. They're cutting people's heads off for not converting. They are raping and enslaving women. They are throwing gay people off tall buildings. Gotcha!
Of course, there are religious beliefs that need to be changed! That's not even controversial. The question is how to change them � when to use military force, when to use the force of legal sanctions, and when to use speech to persuade people to believe ideas because they are better.
The equality of women � feminism is the radical notion that women are people � is a strong, persuasive idea that is at odds with what many believe as a matter of religion. Hillary Clinton is on solid ground when she says religious beliefs have to be changed, and I assume she means that they can be changed through persuasive speech and appeals to reason and moral sensibility.
If you think she's vulnerable to attack, go ahead and attack. I'll spectate from this overlook.
Here's the raw material. Judge for yourself:
Hillary did say "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone � and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States."
Now, it does sound off to say "religious beliefs... have to be changed." You'd think the speech-writers would have tweaked that into something less easily extracted and denounced. And yet... perhaps it's a trap. Come on, you Hillary haters. Flay her for saying "religious beliefs... have to be changed." Commit. Then she can come back and destroy you. She can tell you about the war against Islamic extremists who have religious beliefs that have to be changed. They're cutting people's heads off for not converting. They are raping and enslaving women. They are throwing gay people off tall buildings. Gotcha!
Of course, there are religious beliefs that need to be changed! That's not even controversial. The question is how to change them � when to use military force, when to use the force of legal sanctions, and when to use speech to persuade people to believe ideas because they are better.
The equality of women � feminism is the radical notion that women are people � is a strong, persuasive idea that is at odds with what many believe as a matter of religion. Hillary Clinton is on solid ground when she says religious beliefs have to be changed, and I assume she means that they can be changed through persuasive speech and appeals to reason and moral sensibility.
If you think she's vulnerable to attack, go ahead and attack. I'll spectate from this overlook.
"One of the joys of being working class is that you get to bypass that traumatic bottle/half-bottle/wine the next day dilemma."
"Box wine just keeps on giving. I imbibe my cardBordeaux while doing counted cross stitch. I figure as long as I can still count, I've not gone over-bordeaux."
Comment on a Wall Street Journal article titled "Drinking Alone: A Bad Idea or a Toast to Oneself? Is imbibing solo pathetic? Antisocial? A sign of �a problem�? Lettie Teague talks to some experts, tips her glass to all the wine drinkers who decline to drink alone and concludes: nope." That title fails to include Teague's main concern: A full bottle of wine is too much for one person to drink, and opened wine supposedly gets significantly worse by the next day.
Comment on a Wall Street Journal article titled "Drinking Alone: A Bad Idea or a Toast to Oneself? Is imbibing solo pathetic? Antisocial? A sign of �a problem�? Lettie Teague talks to some experts, tips her glass to all the wine drinkers who decline to drink alone and concludes: nope." That title fails to include Teague's main concern: A full bottle of wine is too much for one person to drink, and opened wine supposedly gets significantly worse by the next day.
One friend, a middle-aged single male, will open (almost) any wine in his cellar for friends but not a single bottle for just himself. An unshared bottle is a waste of money, he said, likening the act to buying �an entire ham� when he just wanted a sandwich....
As for the notion that an open bottle isn�t quite as good on day two or three, I�ve found this to be both true and false. Many wines will flatten, and the fruit may fade, after the bottle has been opened. But some wines�reds that are big and tannic and/or young�get softer and more accessible with a bit of time and air....
I always drink wine with dinner, even if I�m dining alone.... And I don�t necessarily drink something cheap just because I�m dining alone. I�ll open a good bottle as readily for myself as I would for anyone else. A good wine is likely to be better than a cheap wine on the second day anyway....Teague considers the alternative of buying half bottles but never mentions box wine. "Cardbordeaux," by the way, it old slang. I'd never heard it before, but the Urban Dictionary definition goes back almost 10 years. It's replete with "Simpsons" jokes about a woman who drinks too much. A working-class woman. And that's a hint of how the culture has prevented the better technology from reaching higher-class women like Lettie Teague, women who will spend a lot of money on wine but only want one glass a day. The method of effectively delivering less got associated with drinking more, with lame jokes like Ralph Wiggum saying "You look like my Mommy after her box of wine." That's like something dispensed from a box labeled "Jokes."
Friday, April 24, 2015
Scorched earth.
In Governor Nelson State Park today.
ADDED: Some commenters were puzzled by the scorching, but it's routine and unpuzzling to us. Here's an old post from 2009 � "Smoldering landscape. 'Looks like the day after a battle.' 'Did we just stumble into a forest fire?'":
[W]e ran into the forestry worker who was managing the burning � "prescribed fire" � there in Cherokee Marsh, and he explained how he did it and why. Black cherry trees are always threatening to clutter up the space under the big oaks, and red osier dogwood, if left to their own devices, would turn the marsh into a place where the cranes can't walk.What I wanted people to notice were those humps distributed through the charred field! Those are huge ant hills, and I can verify that the ants did not perish in the fire. They were alive and kicking.
"I am not a traveler. I hate it.... Also I cannot go on airlines because people stare at me, you have to be touched by people. I hate that...I hate bespoke because I hate to be touched by strangers."
From "A Comprehensive List Of Everything Karl Lagerfeld Hates."
"I hate intellectual conversation with intellectuals because I only care about my opinion, but I like to read very abstract constructions of the mind.... I hate rich people when they try to be communists or socialists. I think it�s obscene.... I hate sloppy footwear. What I hate most is flip-flops. I am physically allergic to flip-flops.... And I hate to wear suspenders. I have the feeling I'm wearing a bra...."
To me, the list makes the argument for allowing yourself to use that terrible word "hate." Did your mom teach you not to say "hate"? Do you have friends/relatives in your life who stand ready to meet your deployment of the word with some fussy chiding like "Oh, 'hate' is a very strong word" or "Hate?! Do you really mean hate?"? I hate that.
"I hate intellectual conversation with intellectuals because I only care about my opinion, but I like to read very abstract constructions of the mind.... I hate rich people when they try to be communists or socialists. I think it�s obscene.... I hate sloppy footwear. What I hate most is flip-flops. I am physically allergic to flip-flops.... And I hate to wear suspenders. I have the feeling I'm wearing a bra...."
To me, the list makes the argument for allowing yourself to use that terrible word "hate." Did your mom teach you not to say "hate"? Do you have friends/relatives in your life who stand ready to meet your deployment of the word with some fussy chiding like "Oh, 'hate' is a very strong word" or "Hate?! Do you really mean hate?"? I hate that.
"To single out the Clintons for having wealthy friends who might want favors later, especially in the political context brought to us by the destruction of campaign finance regulations..."
"... is a particularly laughable application of the Clinton Rules which, like the Voting Rights Act and McCain-Feingold, have been rendered irrelevant by Citizens United and its unholy progeny."
Writes Charles Pierce at Esquire in a piece titled "The Return To Mena Airport: It Begins Again/In which we learn that rich people like the Clintons have lots of money."
I copied that sentence because it's such a mess of a sentence, almost as much of a jumble as that title. (Do you remember Mena Airport? Mena-ither.) I don't know how disordered the mind of Charles Pierce really is. I'm sure his style amuses the people it amuses, and I assume those people are people who respond to Citizens United!!!!
But Pierce's invocation of the much-invoked case name comes in a context of very specific misrepresentation of the meaning of that case. Citizens United and its "unholy progeny" involve judges doing judicial work � saying what rights are and putting constitutional law in its proper place in the hierarchy of law, above statutes.
We could talk about whether we agree with the interpretation of the First Amendment in those cases, in which the Supreme Court has invalidated some statutory restrictions on spending money to propagate political speech, but that's not what Pierce is talking about. He's not talking about how statutes and constitutional law are sorted out by judges in court cases. He's talking about the political debate among us, The People. A candidate's wealth and how it was acquired and whether he might be beholden to some interests or even corrupt are going to be issues as we decide whether we want to vote for that candidate. Citizens United and its "unholy progeny" don't say we voters shouldn't concern ourselves with such things. In fact, Citizens United makes a point of upholding disclosure requirements, so that voters get more information about where money is coming from:
Click for more �
Writes Charles Pierce at Esquire in a piece titled "The Return To Mena Airport: It Begins Again/In which we learn that rich people like the Clintons have lots of money."
I copied that sentence because it's such a mess of a sentence, almost as much of a jumble as that title. (Do you remember Mena Airport? Mena-ither.) I don't know how disordered the mind of Charles Pierce really is. I'm sure his style amuses the people it amuses, and I assume those people are people who respond to Citizens United!!!!
But Pierce's invocation of the much-invoked case name comes in a context of very specific misrepresentation of the meaning of that case. Citizens United and its "unholy progeny" involve judges doing judicial work � saying what rights are and putting constitutional law in its proper place in the hierarchy of law, above statutes.
We could talk about whether we agree with the interpretation of the First Amendment in those cases, in which the Supreme Court has invalidated some statutory restrictions on spending money to propagate political speech, but that's not what Pierce is talking about. He's not talking about how statutes and constitutional law are sorted out by judges in court cases. He's talking about the political debate among us, The People. A candidate's wealth and how it was acquired and whether he might be beholden to some interests or even corrupt are going to be issues as we decide whether we want to vote for that candidate. Citizens United and its "unholy progeny" don't say we voters shouldn't concern ourselves with such things. In fact, Citizens United makes a point of upholding disclosure requirements, so that voters get more information about where money is coming from:
Click for more �
"What happens in Las Vegas typically doesn�t last for very long, but Mrs. Willis�s fluorescent sign proclaiming 'Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas, Nevada' ..."
"... designed by her and installed by Clark County, Nev., in 1959 in a $4,000 splurge of civic boosterism, became a beloved and surprisingly enduring symbol of the casino capital�s extravagance."
From the obituary of Betty Willis, who died Sunday at the age of 91.
From the obituary of Betty Willis, who died Sunday at the age of 91.
�We thought the town was fabulous, so we added the word,� Mrs. Willis said in a 2005 interview with The New York Times. �There was no other word to use.�If the image hadn't been freely reproduced, would it have lasted all these years and would we be reading her obituary today?
She never copyrighted the logo or profited from the sign directly. �It�s my gift to the city,� she said, although she later acknowledged: �I should make a buck out of it. Everybody else is.�
The image was freely reproduced on souvenir tchotchkes ranging from snow globes to Las Vegas centennial license plates.
"New computer-driven research suggests that Supreme Court justices are getting grumpier, according to a new study by scholars at Dartmouth and the University of Virginia."
"This analysis was based on the percentage of positive words versus negative words. In addition, modern justices tend to produce more words and have a lower grade level than their predecessors."
Oh, jeez. Here we go again: If you use more periods and fewer semicolons, the computer will conclude that you are writing at a lower grade level. That's garbage. See how I just wrote a sentence on a dramatically lower grade level than the previous sentence? "Computer-driven" doesn't mean sophisticated. It just means that lots of data was crunched. Things that could be counted and that the researchers wanted to count were counted on a grand scale.
I suspect that negative words proliferate when justices indulge in writing long dissenting opinions. That doesn't necessarily mean they are grumpy or unfriendly. It might have more to do with feeling free to express oneself in somewhat emotive language, and that may have become more the style as the years wore on. If we feel free to express emotion, we give the language analysts more emotive words to count, and then they can calculate a ratio of positive to negative. But how can we compare that to what was written long ago, when judges may have favored concealed or processed emotion? There will not only be less to count but also a kind of caginess and subtle sarcasm and irony that the computer can't recognize. To take an example from a famous old case, what would a computer do with "the judges of the State courts are, and always will be, of as much learning, integrity, and wisdom as those of the courts of the United States (which we very cheerfully admit)"? "Cheerfully" is such a positive word, but, in context, it's no, and there's certainly no reason to think that the Justice who wrote it was exuding any sort of friendliness.
But this is the kind of study that gets reported, the kind of is-Scalia-mean stuff the public loves.
Oh, jeez. Here we go again: If you use more periods and fewer semicolons, the computer will conclude that you are writing at a lower grade level. That's garbage. See how I just wrote a sentence on a dramatically lower grade level than the previous sentence? "Computer-driven" doesn't mean sophisticated. It just means that lots of data was crunched. Things that could be counted and that the researchers wanted to count were counted on a grand scale.
The authors included 107 justices through 2008 and ranked them based on negative words (�two-faced,� �problematic�) and positive words (�adventurous,� �pre-eminent�). The high court�s first chief justice, John Jay, ranked number one with a score of 1.55 percent friendliness rating. Numbers 103 through 106 are current members of the court, including Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Antonin Scalia earned the number 98 spot with a score of -0.69 percent friendliness.Quite aside from whether we should assess a judge's friendliness/grumpiness based on which words he puts in the formal justification of his legal decision that we call an opinion, who determined which words should count as positive and which as negative? Why is "adventurous" considered positive � especially as you look at material that was written over a period of 200+ years? Some of the older meanings of the word are negative: "Full of risk or peril; hazardous, perilous, dangerous... Prone to incur risk; excessively venturesome; rashly daring" (OED). If a justice in 1800 called an argument "adventurous," was he saying something nice?
I suspect that negative words proliferate when justices indulge in writing long dissenting opinions. That doesn't necessarily mean they are grumpy or unfriendly. It might have more to do with feeling free to express oneself in somewhat emotive language, and that may have become more the style as the years wore on. If we feel free to express emotion, we give the language analysts more emotive words to count, and then they can calculate a ratio of positive to negative. But how can we compare that to what was written long ago, when judges may have favored concealed or processed emotion? There will not only be less to count but also a kind of caginess and subtle sarcasm and irony that the computer can't recognize. To take an example from a famous old case, what would a computer do with "the judges of the State courts are, and always will be, of as much learning, integrity, and wisdom as those of the courts of the United States (which we very cheerfully admit)"? "Cheerfully" is such a positive word, but, in context, it's no, and there's certainly no reason to think that the Justice who wrote it was exuding any sort of friendliness.
But this is the kind of study that gets reported, the kind of is-Scalia-mean stuff the public loves.
A mother who opts her kid out of standardized testing is condemning him to a life of dismal underachievement.
I'm "reading" the photograph that accompanies a NYT article, "Only Alternative for Some Students Sitting Out Standardized Tests: Do Nothing." The article is ostensibly about the "sit and stare" policy at some schools, which makes kids who opt out sit at their desks with nothing at all to do. You can see the point of the policy: to create pressure not to opt out. That policy seems to be failing because the opters-out were able to make an issue out of the "sit and stare" policy. The idea was to undercut them, not empower them. Unintended consequences. Time for a new policy. The new policy is: Let the kids who don't take the tests leave the classroom and go to the library to do other things.
Anyway, I'm fascinated by the picture they chose to put at the top of the article. It has the caption: "Angie Carnright made shirts for her son Blake, a fifth grader in upstate New York, to wear on test days. They say: 'I refuse NYS Tests. Score Me 999,' the code indicating a student opted out." I'm sure there were many alternative photographs in which the boy showed off the T-shirt, but in this one, he's sitting on the porch step, leaned over, arms crossed, hiding the words on the shirt. I thought that was odd, and it drew me into all the details in the photograph and how it was framed. The mother is sitting next to him, with a complacently smug look on her face. I'll refrain from commenting on her clothes, her hair, and her lack of makeup. The picture seems deliberately framed to draw our eyes to the dilapidated wood of the porch and the mishmash of junk � a trash can, a snow shovel, a pair of boots (not upright or aligned), and...
... what is that? Poop on a scoop?! That's right at the edge of the photograph, and as a framer and cropper of photographs myself, I am virtually certain that edge was chosen. As a reader of journalism, including journalistic photographs, I'm going to opine that the picture expresses an editorial opinion: A mother who opts her kid out of standardized testing is condemning him to a life of dismal underachievement.
IN THE COMMENTS: sydney said:
�They�re being snarky,� Mr. Burns said of some students who refused the test. Saying, �Ha-ha, I don�t have to take the test!� as they�re leaving the room. Or �Good luck on the test!� in that derogatory tone.Oh, no! The new policy also creates opportunities for those whose power was supposed to be undercut. How can we get the non-test-takers to leave the room without expressing any indication that they're pleased to get out? You can't, of course. How dare they manifest snark? Mr. Burns is, presumably, hoping to iron out any flashes of emotion in the rebel kids. The kids who stay in the room and take the tests must not see that the alternative is desirable.
Anyway, I'm fascinated by the picture they chose to put at the top of the article. It has the caption: "Angie Carnright made shirts for her son Blake, a fifth grader in upstate New York, to wear on test days. They say: 'I refuse NYS Tests. Score Me 999,' the code indicating a student opted out." I'm sure there were many alternative photographs in which the boy showed off the T-shirt, but in this one, he's sitting on the porch step, leaned over, arms crossed, hiding the words on the shirt. I thought that was odd, and it drew me into all the details in the photograph and how it was framed. The mother is sitting next to him, with a complacently smug look on her face. I'll refrain from commenting on her clothes, her hair, and her lack of makeup. The picture seems deliberately framed to draw our eyes to the dilapidated wood of the porch and the mishmash of junk � a trash can, a snow shovel, a pair of boots (not upright or aligned), and...
... what is that? Poop on a scoop?! That's right at the edge of the photograph, and as a framer and cropper of photographs myself, I am virtually certain that edge was chosen. As a reader of journalism, including journalistic photographs, I'm going to opine that the picture expresses an editorial opinion: A mother who opts her kid out of standardized testing is condemning him to a life of dismal underachievement.
IN THE COMMENTS: sydney said:
My favorite New York Times photo editorializing. The photos completely undercut the premise of the whole article which was from the point of view of the rich woman who was buying the baby, er, renting the womb.Amazing. Porches loom large there too.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
"The 23-year-old Australian bullshitted the entire world about having terminal brain cancer..."
"... and profited from her completely fictional story via her 'natural wellness' app, The Whole Pantry."
On her blog, she claims she cured her terminal brain cancer by avoiding gluten and sugar. Shocking, I know, but: this is not how cancer works. You know what stopped the progression of my cancer? Chemo (derived from exotic plants and fungi, for real!), surgery, drugs, and a shitload of all-natural radiation, delivered via a linear particle accelerator that is even more powerful than my beloved kale juicer....
"Mary Doyle Keefe, who modeled for Norman Rockwell�s Rosie the Riveter painting and became a true figure of 20th century Americana in the process..."
"You seem okay, it's just getting a little Diane Sawyer."
Robert Downey Jr., promoting his new super-hero type film, puts up with questions from Channel 4 Newsman Krishnan Guru-Murthy, up to a point. I love this clip, because Downey is so calm and pretty thoughtful, but when the questions get to his dark past, he shifts to a different, steelier version of calm, and there's just a wonderful subtle anger in his face as he uses his eyes to try to unnerve Guru-Murthy and get him to stop. But Guru-Murthy forces himself to babble into one more question about Downey's dissolute past, and Downey gets up and walks away, with that parting shot � politely and calmly delivered � that I've put in the post title.
"How do I wear bright shorts and maintain a masculine look so the guys I hang out with won�t make fun or me if I wear them to a baseball game, for example."
A question asked of the Wall Street Journal fashion adviser, who tells him stuff like: "Start by pairing your orange shorts with a button-down, short-sleeve shirt in madras plaid and a woven leather belt." That's wackily specific. I'd just tell him it's not masculine to worry in advance about how his guy friends might mock him about what he's wearing. Seems to me, if he fusses with that woven leather belt and button-down madras shirt, they'll make fun of him for that. The best way to come across as masculine is to laugh along with the mockery and make fun of what they're wearing.
Or... do I have to say it? Don't wear shorts!
Or... do I have to say it? Don't wear shorts!
"The only witness was an 86-year-old roommate, Polly Schoneman, who was on the other side of the curtain..."
"... and who agitatedly told nursing home staff members that she had heard noises that made her uncomfortable. Ms. Schoneman testified that she was not certain the noises had been sexual."
Mr. Rayhons testified that he recalled brief instructions to limit �sexual activity� with his wife made during a conference at the nursing home on May 15. At the trial, Mr. Rayhons testified that he considered �sexual activity� to be intercourse.Henry Rayhons is the 78-year-old man who was acquitted of sexually assaulting his wife � who had Alzheimer's disease but was always happy to see him and would initiate sexual play � "She would reach in my pants and fondle me sometimes.�
He told the prosecutor, �I always assumed that if somebody asks for something, they have the capacity� to consent.The link goes to the NYT. One of the comments:
People should choose very carefully who they want as their health proxies or legal guardians. It seems that the husband in this case had very little control regarding his wife's care. It's disturbing to read that even the nursing home had more control and could mandate where the husband could take his wife outside of the nursing home.The woman had chosen one of her daughters as her health proxy.
"As president and as Commander-in-Chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations including the one that inadvertently took the lives of Warren and Giovanni."
Said President Obama this morning.
Al Qaeda leader Ahmed Farouq, who was an American citizen, was also killed in the operation that killed the two innocent hostages....
American officials at the time had "no reason to believe either hostage was present" when the operation was launched on a compound in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. U.S. officials also did not know that Farouq or Gadahn were present at the targeted sites and "neither was specifically targeted," Earnest said.
Kurt Cobain, who said "I like the Beatles, but I hate Paul McCartney"...
"A Bay Ridge couple is having the loudest sex in the city..."
"... and the carnal cacophony is driving their neighbors bonkers, records show."
�I�m not a prude but there are kids in the building, and it was just a ridiculously loud amount of noise being made that the first time another woman yelled out her window, �Shut your f--ing windows you whore!�� the complainant added.
Bus ads in NYC: "'Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah.' That�s His Jihad. What�s yours?"
"On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl ruled that New York�s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) cannot stop the controversial ad from running on scores of subway cars and buses."
The MTA has argued that the ad could incite violence against Jews, but Koeltl rejected that idea.The MTA's argument was premised on the idea that people would misunderstand the ad, which is intended to be pro-Israel. The ad comes from Pamela Geller's American Freedom Defense Initiative.
MTA officials �underestimate the tolerant quality of New Yorkers and overestimate the potential impact of these fleeting advertisements,� he ruled. �Moreover, there is no evidence that seeing one of these advertisements on the back of a bus would be sufficient to trigger a violent reaction. Therefore, these ads � offensive as they may be � are still entitled to First Amendment protection.�
�What matters is not AFDI�s intent, but how the ad would be interpreted,� [said MTA Security Director Raymond Diaz]. The line �What is yours?� could be considered a �call to violence,� particularly because the CAIR posters it was mocking never appeared in New York....
The Wall Street Journal urges the U.S. Supreme Court to take the free-speech case arising out of Wisconsin's John Doe investigation.
You can get to the editorial here:
On Friday the Justices will consider whether to hear O�Keefe v. Chisholm, a Section 1983 civil-rights lawsuit brought by Wisconsin Club for Growth director Eric O�Keefe against Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and other prosecutors. The suit charges the prosecutors with a multi-year campaign to silence and intimidate conservative groups whose political speech they don�t like....The 7th Circuit's decision was based not on the merits but on deference to the ongoing proceedings in state court, which theoretically could have responded to the federal constitutional questions. That is: the Younger abstention doctrine. I discussed the 7th Circuit opinion when it came out last September, saying:
There is an exception to the Younger doctrine, which the plaintiffs tried to use here, that applies when the federal rights claimants show that the prosecutors in state court are proceeding in "bad faith." The question is whether the prosecutors are really attempting to secure a valid conviction or whether they are simply using the legal process to harass the federal court plaintiffs. The 7th Circuit panel found some perplexity in the free speech issues about campaign coordination:Back to the WSJ editorial:The Supreme Court has yet to determine what �coordination� means. Is the scope of permissible regulation limited to groups that advocate the election of particular candidates, or can government also regulate coordination of contributions and speech about political issues, when the speakers do not expressly advocate any person�s election? What if the speech implies, rather than expresses, a preference for a particular candidate�s election? If regulation of coordination about pure issue advocacy is permissible, how tight must the link be between the politician�s committee and the advocacy group? Uncertainty is a powerful reason to leave this litigation in state court, where it may meet its end as a matter of state law without any need to resolve these constitutional questions.This is a nudge to the state judge to shut down the investigation, and yet there is something very disturbing about this ambiguity in free speech law and the leeway it gives prosecutors to stall a political group throughout a campaign season. I'd like to see the Supreme Court make this clear....
Specific injustices aside, the U.S. Justices should also hear the case because it is part of a larger legal effort to subvert their 2010 Citizens United ruling. The game is to use the theory of �coordination,� which allows vast investigations to be instigated on the thinnest evidence, to sweep issue speech back into the regulatory umbrella of campaign-finance law.I agree. The Court needs to take this case. Quite aside from all the substantive problems, the idea of deferring to the state courts is supposed to be based on the ability of the state courts to step up and deal with the substantive problems themselves. The 7th Circuit decision came out 7 months ago. Where's the action from the state courts? If there are indeed free-speech violations, they've been going on for 3 years. It's one thing for federal courts to refrain from jumping into state court proceedings that might do a decent-enough job of enforcing federal rights. But here, these proceedings have worked to suppress political speech for 2 election cycles and beyond. It's quite shocking.
The liberal Brennan Center for Justice is pushing regulations coast to coast that would reduce protections for issue speakers and encourage �coordination� probes. The Wisconsin case is an opening for the Court to tell prosecutors and regulators they must tread carefully when rights of free association are involved.
Wisconsin�s prosecutorial machinery has abused the law to silence disfavored political speech. This one is made to order for Supreme Court review.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)