Friday, July 17, 2009

 

Free Speech at Berkeley



Bit sad that U Cal Berkeley (yes that U Cal Berkeley) relies on imported protesters from Australia but I love the accents.

Via Glenn Greenwald @ twitter.

posted by Robert permalink and comments2:37 PM

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

 

Broad Tent

The Democratic party has a long history of extreme ideological diversity. Recently Democrats seem to have reached some agreement on some basic principles such as, for example, democracy.

Now leading Democratic Party strategist, spokesman and lobbyist Lanny Davis reopens that debate by lobbying in support of the Honduran Coup claiming overthrow of an elected president by the military was about "the rule of law."

Ah brings me back to my childhood (actually teen age and young adult memories of learning what the hell my country did when I was a child). Lyndon Johnson (who according to some at least one lefty loony brought universal suffrage to the USA in 1965) approved of the Brazilian coup and sent the US army to assist the military dictatorship in the Dominican Republic against an attempted counter coup.

I am tempted to suggest that the Democratic National Committee expell Mr Davis from the party for ideological error and that we then give Mr Davis his own party -- lets call it the Democrat party just to bug the wingnuts, but I remember the words of the founder of the Democratic party who argued that we should allow all speech even arguments against our republican form of government, since truth need not fear error.

posted by Robert permalink and comments1:28 PM

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

 

Life Imitates Art

(I suggest that it's time for Senator Sessions to Take the Money are Run)

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), seeking to discredit Judge Sonia Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, cited her 2001 "wise Latina" speech, and contrasted the view that ethnicity and sex influence judging with that of Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, who "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices."

"So I would just say to you, I believe in Judge Cedarbaum's formulation," Sessions told Sotomayor.

"My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here," Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions's apparent surprise. "We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts."

via Steve Benen. Made my day except commenter Alan at political animal beat me to the comparison

posted by Robert permalink and comments10:40 PM

 

Pay to [read the] play.

Texas Tech Chancellor Kent Hance is a very honest man. His University is paying his "good friend" Alberto Gonzales $100,000 to teach one section of one course.

He argues that, roughly, power is knowledge "“research on ‘the best part of Shakespeare’s play’ isn’t on the same level as the research his university is conducting for the Defense Department.”" and proudly announces that he is for sale, that he is corrupt, that his favor can be bought dismissing complaints about the hiring of Gonzales this way "He said that he received a “substantial number” of supportive e-mails about the hire, and just nine critical ones. He added that “he wasn’t dwelling on the negative ones because they didn’t come from loyal university donors.”"

That's Texas Tech University where money talks and rich people can decide who teaches students and, I guess, what is considered true by Texas Tech faculty.

Look we all know that US Universities are about as corrupt as politicians, but, chancellor Hance, you aren't supposed to admit it in public.

posted by Robert permalink and comments4:56 PM

Saturday, July 11, 2009

 

Trivia Question

Where did Trivial Pursuit get those cute little illustrations ? How many of them exist ? Where were they first published ? Where have they been published most recently ?

posted by Robert permalink and comments3:10 PM

Friday, July 10, 2009

 

Did Matthew Yglesias Just Insinuate that Senator Jim DeMint is a Communist ?

He wrote

"DeMint ... confuses Nazis and Social Democrats ... Communists ... maintaining that there was no difference between the two"

Look I don't like him much either but I totally disagree with Yglesias's assertion that he is a communist.

If I were a communist and aimed to destroy the Republican party I would not act like Senator DeMint at all ... uh wellllll hummmmm

OK OK I admit it. Yglesias is right, he must be a communist. No one could do so much to discredit conservatism by accident.

posted by Robert permalink and comments4:03 AM

Friday, July 03, 2009

 

What is Balance ?

I realize that while I have repeatedly defined Ballance, I have yet to offer a definition of balance. I realized that this was a mistake when Howard Kurtz demonstrated complete ignorance of the meaning and etymology of the word.

In a Post chat Mr Kurtz wrote

Howard Kurtz: My pretense hasn't been very consistent, since I've written lengthy pieces on both Joe and Mika. Morning Joe figured into my calculation, in that it's an opinionated show (with Scarborough balanced a little bit by Brzezinski) that no one would confuse with straight news ...

Then responded to a puzzled inquiry from a Morning Joe fan

Balanced by Mika?: I love Morning Joe and don't watch the evening chatter on any cable. I do not know what Mika's politics are, but I often find her marked by deference to her men (reminds me of a "powerful" woman in '40's screwball company). Today's show featured Mika interviewing noted philanderer Rudy Giuliani regarding Sanford and political affairs. Instead of having Rudy talk about his own broad and deep experience on the subject, including the use of public funds on mistresses, she allowed it to become a discourse on Bill Clinton. Oy.

Howard Kurtz: Look, it's Joe's show, he's a former Republican congressman and an unabashed conservative (albeit one who hasn't hesitated to criticize his party). Mika is a lifelong journalist, not a liberal advocate, with views that are certainly to the left of Scarborough's. All I said is that she added a little balance. It's not set up like Crossfire where their views have equal weight.

So evidently someone well to the right can be balanced, at least a little, by anyone to his left. Thus moderate right would balance far right. Kurtz definitely does not claim that Bzerzinski is, in any way, left of center. The problem is that he seems to think that the concept of "balance" has some meaning separate from the definition of the center.

In origin the word refers to a simple device used to weigh things. Simple balances consist of a rigid bar resting on a fulcrum and two pans of equal weight which must be an equal distance from the fulcrum. To get accurate weights it is not sufficient that the two pans be attached at different points on the bar, nor is it enough that they be on different sides of the fulcrum.

A balance can be "in balance." Consider the bar to be an axis going without loss of generality North South. The balance is in balance when the sum of the weights times how far North of the fulcrum they are is zero. Without a fulcrum the word has no plain English meaning.

This means that to agree on whether something is balanced, we must agree on a fulcrum. We don't. This means that we can agree that a news or commentary program presents a variety of points of view making fruitful debate possible, but there is no chance that we will agree that it is balanced. It is possible that the vast majority of people will agree that both left of center and right of center views are expressed, but there is no hope that we will agree about how far left and right they are. There isn't an agreed center and there never will be one unless and until all political debate ends because we all agree.

This is very important, because, in practice, Kurtz et al define the center as half way between Republicans and Democrats. Thus the view that Iraq did not have WMD was a fringe view to be mentioned briefly if at all. Yet it happened to be true. Thus Bush's and Kerry's records with regard to Vietnam were equally controversial.

I think it is clear that the idea of "balance" is not relevant to the practice of journalism. One can aim for debate for consideration of a diversity of views, but one can't commit to balance without allowing Karl Rove to make you give equal weight to truth and lies.

posted by Robert permalink and comments3:24 PM

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

 

The Absurdity of Hope -- More on French Exams

Matthew Yglesias was recently alarmed by hard questions on the French Bac writing

"Apparently there’s also a question asking if it’s absurd to desire the impossible. I think it is."

I just heard about an English language test for French University students. Started with a reading sample — Obama’s inaugural address. Then questions like “how inspiring was this”, “what made you feel hope as you read this” etc.

Don’t tell David Horowitz, but French students are, evidently, being forced to express (and motivate and explain this is University level) admiration for the President of the USA to pass an exam.

Now I happen to be irrationally nationalistic and long wished (without hoping) to live to see the day in which the French were overwhelmed by enthusiasm for a US President. Was that desire absurd ?

posted by Robert permalink and comments10:51 PM

Friday, June 26, 2009

 

Black Perino Cantor Schoeder

Duncan Black is much amused by Dana Perino's theory that women never cheat.

Perino

While I am not able to explain, I do think I know the answer to all of this: Elect more women. No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one. They’re too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.

Basic set theory seems to support Black's view that Perino must be wrong. Whenever a man has sex with a woman with whom he has never had sex before, a woman has sex with a man with whom she has has never had sex before.

Average lifetime male sex partners per female person divided by lifetime female sex partners per male person must equal the number boys born divided by the number of girls born which is almost exactly one (slightly slightly more boys than girls are born). This is elementary counting (hence the reference to Cantor the top expert on counting in history).

So what could Perino be thinking ? Obviously for Perino some women just don't count. For example, take the case of David Vitter. He was a new sex partner to at least one prostitute. Prostitutes have many many sex partners. Perino doesn't count them. Also there are women, typically young women, who chose to have ses with powerful married men, because they find the men attractive. It is theoretically possible that women commit less adultery on average than men because unmarried women have more male partners than unmarried men have female partners, while wives have fewer male partners than husbands. But I think the key thing is the women who are prominent, famous, rich and/or powerful have many fewer sex partners than men who are prominent, famous, rich and/or powerful.

There just aren't that many men who are attracted to powerful women. Male power is a great aphrodesiac. Female power not so much.

Now it is also true that more women then men aren't tempted by adultery and aren't inclined to cheat. I was puzzled by the fact that male politicians who often pay a very high price for adultery commit so much of it compared to average guys who pay a lower price. I think it is partly that politics attracts narcissists who tend to commit adultery. Mostly, it is a matter of opportunity rather than motive -- most men who are inclined to commit adultery have trouble finding women inclined to have sex with them (single men have similar difficulties relative to single women).

In the end Pat Schroeder said it best (she's the one who first called Reagan the teflon president). She was defending her fellow Coloradan Gary Hart after his monkey business. She said adultery was normal for congressmen and that Sen Hart just got caught. The inevitable question of whether she had committed adultery was asked. She answered IIRC "no but we don't hav 25 year old life guards throwing themselves at us" or, in other (much worse words) "There but for the sake of men's sexist aversion to powerful women (might) go I."

Now why didn't Dana Perino think of that ? What's this about the plates and lack of inclination ? I mean what about her makes her unaware of the fact that most powerful women don't have to dodge 25 year old life guards who are throwing themselves at them ?

posted by Robert permalink and comments12:35 PM

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

 

Now *This* is a Washington Post Headline I Can Believe In

Topless Women, Headless Prime Minister
Mouthpiece Theater | Silvio Berlusconi's signiorinas, dreams of grandeur and a secret.

OK so technically it is a caption to one the rotating videos on the front page of www.washingtonpost.com (after Juarez and before Tehran).

I can only infer that the post below objecting to the reflexive Ballance of Washington Post headlines struck a nerve.

posted by Robert permalink and comments2:57 PM