Morning Ed: Politics {2016.06.27.M}
“We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.” -Donald Trump, 2013
More than ever before, I have a feeling it might be handy to know what happens if a party loses a presidential candidate near election day.
Sometimes, just sometimes, it’s smart to be stupid.
Science conservatives can get behind: In the Age of Obama, men are weaker than they were in the Age of Reagan.
Phoebe Maltz Bovy argues that Trump is pretty invulnerable to accusations of racism and it’s futile to try to make an issue of it. I agree to an extent, though it’s helpful to remind people from time to time. And while it won’t do much to dissuade those in the Trump camp, they aren’t really the target audience.
The description of the plot of Neon Genesis Evangelion here is off, but I do kind of think that Asuka might actually be a Trump fan if they existed in the same universe. What say you, Kim?
Trump+Reddit=Yick.
I will say, though, that as tempting as it may be this does a disservice to politics, science, and political science.
The Phoebe Maltz Bovy article seems to ignore the people on the margins. Does it affect Trump’s core supporters? Obviously not (just like Bill Clinton’s problems with women did not affect his support from core supporter feminists). However, for those on the fence, that aren’t necessarily allies, but are uncomfortable with racism in 2016, it could nudge them away.Report
Yes. I think it’s really valuable to remind blacks and Latinos about his racism, but in ways artful enough not to trigger a doubling-down by those particularly responsive to his message.Report
That’s mighty white of you.Report
I’m curious if Racism=Sexism?
The Bovy article is about Sexism with maybe a dash of Racism thrown in. Maybe it’s the old case of the author not writing the title, but are we maybe dealing with a different issue? You can’t get people to take Sexism seriously unless you call it Racism?
The opening paragraph – and the supporting links point to Sexism, not Racisim… even the referenced 24 quotes (actually 29) quotes are mostly about Sexism.
Perhaps the logic is this: Trump is Sexist, sexism is bigotry, Trump is a bigot – just like your Racist Uncle?
The reason I ask is because when the discussion turns to Racism and why certain groups are becoming immune (or perhaps inured) to the term, this might be relevant. If everything is racist, then racism doesn’t mean what you think it means.
If, on the other hand, sexism doesn’t play without linking it to racism, well see above first, but then… what exactly is the plan vis-a-vis sexism and who is the audience?Report
I’m curious if Racism=Sexism?
As far as I can tell from actual usage, they’re both equal to “disagreement with left-wing orthodoxy,” so per the transitive property, they are equal to each other.Report
You’re not supposed to say that in the first response; we’re supposed to haggle… “Ten for that, you must be mad…”Report
Yeah but things go faster when you assume bad faith. Think of all those comment threads we dont need to waste time onReport
Only one side in this argument consistently shows bad faith and it isn’t mine.Report
Statist!Report
Depends on the state.Report
Now that’s more like it… though I didn’t expect the bad faith line – what with the premise and context right there in the 5th paragraph.
I mean, not like Jaybird who waits 3 or 4 posts until you are fully vested in your position before springing the *real* point of his posts. 🙂Report
I’m also skeptical abotu the PMB article. Trump seems to be sinking and sinking fast. Articles from the weekend show that 2/3rds of Americans think he is unfit for President.
Of course this could be because 2/3rds of Americans are not okay with a racist, vulgar demagogue as President. Or they think his policies will damage the United States beyond repair.Report
How many are “not okay” with Hillary Clinton as president? It’s the gap between these two numbers that is the real determinant of the election.Report
Oh, you slay me.
Powers that Be don’t think that anything matters except their propaganda, ya know.Report
He’s sinking -too- fast. If he too obviously implodes the GOP can still replace him at the convention. Damnit donny hold it together for another month, then you can implode.Report
High times in river city if they replace Clinton too.
That’d be an election to watch, no?
(Spoiler: they will not, under ANY circumstances, replace Clinton with the Grumpy Deli Guy).Report
Yeah you’d have to be high if you think there’s any shot of her getting replaced right now.Report
I do. Biden’s parading around like there’s no tommorrow. Someone’s worried about her, and from what i hear, it’s not just one person.Report
Huzzah for Liberty, The Supreme Court strikes down two key provisions of the Texas anti-Abortion Law:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Report
They also unanimously overturned McDonnell’s graft conviction:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-bob-mcdonnell-virginia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos must be happy.Report
This seems the right thing to do, under the circumstance: reverse the conviction and send it back down to be retried.Report
As should have been done for Don Siegelman, but appellate courts rule on points of law, not rampant misconduct by prosecutors.Report
Interesting. I didn’t know it had even gone before the SCOTUS.
1) Never-the-less, mission accomplished, Terry McAuliffe sends his regards.
2) Channeling my inner Kim (we all have one), this was orchestrated by the Clintons… vacating McDonnell’s conviction is a small price to pay for breathing room for the Clinton Foundation. 🙂Report
I do know someone who works for the Clintons. When I say “this was Clinton’s doing”, there’s someone who actively has reason to know (and a financial interest in knowing) backing it up.Report
So am I right? Was McDonnell an inside job by the Clintons via McAuliffe first to implicate – then to vacate? Please say yes.
{edit: realized the last sentence might seem meaner that I mean… I just mean that I’d love for it to be true, not that your affirming it means anything more than that. See what I mean?}Report
I don’t know. I could ask, but probably won’t. If I hear something, I will let you know.Report
I remember, way back when, reading about that and going ‘This guy seems to have sold the entire governor’s manor and platform, but none of this seems to talking about any *laws* he was bribed to sign or veto.’.
I assumed that was because stuff like him shilling quack medical stuff sold newspapers, and I’m a bit shocked to find out they didn’t bother actually *proving* any of that.
It is a bit distasteful for a governor, essentially, to turn the governor’s manor into a rentable public venue with all profits going to him, but I’m not entirely sure it’s *illegal*, nor am I sure it is ‘graft’, per se. I mean, it *could* be illegal, and probably should be, but that doesn’t mean it is.Report
I’m reminded of the 90s, when I was supposed to be more offended that the Clintons were giving their donors stays in the Lincoln Bedroom than that Newt was letting his write legislation.Report
Mike,
Newt Gingrich was a statesman. He may not have made policies you liked, he may have been a philandering asshole and a pompous windbag — but at least he knew how to compromise.
Giving your donors stays in the Lincoln Bedroom is one thing — sinecures on petty ambassadorships is another (and don’t tell me clinton didn’t do that — they ALL do that). Putting your donors in charge of “actually important shit” like FEMA is a different story.Report
James Lee Witt was a highly qualified FEMA director. And he ended up doing disaster recovery consulting afterwards.Report
Of course. I was referencing bush’s appointment to that post.
Clinton knew which positions matter, and which ones don’t.Report
It’s like sports, most of the rules are there because no one thought there was a possibility for abuse until some bright dude found an angle. King Kelly substituting himself while a pop-up was in the air, or the cricketers who realized that, at the time they were playing, there were no explicit rules about (a) the size of the bat, and (b) the composition of the bat – that kind of thing.
Almost all the other rules are like Megan’s Law – something bad happened to Megatron, so they amended a rule, and it’s now the “Calvin Johnson” rule.Report
A kind of trivial thing, but one of the companies he was accused of consorting with is Star Scientific. That name probably doesn’t mean anything to you. As a “health products” (woowoo snake oil stuff) company, it doesn’t mean anything to me, either.
However, they used to be in the cigarette business. They made “Sport” cigarettes.
Those were, without a doubt, the worst cigarettes on the market. It tastes like air. One does not suck in poison for the taste of air.Report
There a real person named Phoebe Maltz Bovy? The name sounds like a rival of Rosie M. Banks. Though there are apparently also people named Teachout, which sounds like a gathering academic ex-hippies would organize, and Tushnet, which sounds like a porn site that specializes in butts.Report
Well, yes, but “back in the day” and it was all text.Report
Baby Got Back in the day.Report
word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltjbnyvq_SIReport
I posted from her blog in the past. She also subbed for Sullivan for a time. She’s a Jewish academic that specializes in French studies.Report
And author of Jacques Duquesne, BoulevardierReport
The “men are weaker” article actually says that “young people” are weaker. According to the article, women are weaker also. So why single out men in the link? That seems — I dunno, not false, but misleading.
From the article:
Evidently men decreased more, but from the article we don’t know the mean of either group, nor the standard deviation, so we don’t know what these numbers mean. I see no link to the study.
This is crap even by the normal crappy standards of bad science journalism.
Also the “Obama” versus “Reagan” is naked partisan bullshit. I mean, again it is true, but the President didn’t invent video games and the iPhone. If we look at this slightly better article, we see the suggestion that these changes are due to lifestyle changes from the growth of technology, not the presidency. So why talk about Obama versus Reagan, other than to be a petty jackass?
From the slightly better article, we have something that looks like data:
Still no standard deviation, but at least we have the mean. It’s looks to me like the proportional loss between men and women are roughly equal, which would make singling out men seem silly.
Note also that this article measures grip strength and only that. This tells us some things, such as we do less manual labor, but it does not tell us about general physical fitness. A person could be a runner or dancer and not have substantial grip strength.
This article was misleading and needlessly partisan garbage. The link to the article was sexist bullshit.
Blah.Report
The entire notion that strength can be tied to the identity (or partisan alignment) of the president is, in my mind, transparently absurd. I do appreciate your clarification on the precise nature of the absurdity. (The focus on men instead of young people was my bad, though.)Report
The other thing is, while I don’t feel like digging the number us right now, I bet if I played the right games with the Flynn Effect data, I could say that “Kids are smarter under Obama compare with Reagan.” But I mean, that would be transparently silly. No one thinks the US president has any material influence on the Flynn Effect. This is “big culture” stuff (assuming it is not an illusion or whatever).
But still, I’d rather have a population with high levels of abstract intelligence. After all, we can build robots with grip strength far beyond any human.Report
We can also build better stock exchange analysts and lawyers — far better and faster than any human.
An intelligent computer passes the Turning Test.
A smart computer convinces everyone that he’s autistic, and enlists help in refining his ability to pass.Report
@kim — Kudos. Only a truly confident AI would reveal her own secrets.Report
I’ll bet it could be argued convincingly that listening to Obama speeches makes you smarter while listening to Reagan speeches makes you dumber. (Likewise that watching The Wire makes you smarter while watching superhero movies makes you dumber.)Report
It’s pretty clear that the author had lost his grip.Report
OMG that alt-right Reddit article. It’s just — these people. Yeesh.Report
I’m not exactly sure what it means that I knew who /u/GayLubeOil was before reading that article, except that I make bad choices about what to read online.Report
Since we’re being all linky, best headline ever:
President Obama hints at supporting unconditional free money because of a looming robot takeover
http://www.businessinsider.com/president-obama-support-basic-income-2016-6Report
Maybe the Brits got out just in time.
European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations ‘to be morphed into one’ post-Brexit
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683739/EU-referendum-German-French-European-superstate-BrexitReport
Eh, good for them. If Brexit prompts them to actually move towards a political union instead of the half measure stuff they’ve been wrassling with then they’ll owe the UK a debt of gratitude.Report
Some people are less than sanguine about the 4th reich.Report
All we know for sure is that it also won’t be Holy, Roman, or an Empire.Report
The HRE was the government of Central Europe for about a thousand years, and for most of that it was the same kind of multi-national, inefficient, bureaucratic mess as the EU.Report