Morning Ed: Politics {2016.06.27.M}

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

54 Responses

  1. Mo says:

    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

    • Snarky McSnarksnark in reply to Mo says:

      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

  2. Marchmaine says:

    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.

    Like everybody, I read last weekend’s big New York Times Donald Trump feature—on his questionable personal and professional interactions with women—with a special mix of gossipy anticipation and horror. In journalistic terms, it’s an admirable piece of writing: Authors Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey tracked down and interviewed “dozens of women who had worked with or for Mr. Trump over the past four decades, in the worlds of real estate, modeling, and pageants; women who had dated him or interacted with him socially; and women and men who had closely observed his conduct since his adolescence.” And yet something about the piece made me even more pessimistic about the whole Trump thing—which is to say even more convinced that he could win.

    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

  3. Saul Degraw says:

    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

  4. Saul Degraw says:

    Huzzah for Liberty, The Supreme Court strikes down two key provisions of the Texas anti-Abortion Law:

    One part of the law requires all clinics in the state to meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

    “We conclude,” Justice Breyer wrote, “that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”


    • Tod Kelly in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      This seems the right thing to do, under the circumstance: reverse the conviction and send it back down to be retried.Report

    • Marchmaine in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      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

      • Kim in reply to Marchmaine says:

        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

        • Marchmaine in reply to Kim says:

          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

    • DavidTC in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      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

      • Mike Schilling in reply to DavidTC says:

        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

        • Kim in reply to Mike Schilling says:

          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

      • El Muneco in reply to DavidTC says:

        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

  5. 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

  6. veronica d says:

    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:

    The study found that, on average, the hand strength of young males has decreased by 20 pounds of force since the Reagan era, and the hand strength of young women has decreased by 10 pounds.

    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:

    In 1985, men ages 20-24 had an average right-handed grip of 121 pounds and left-handed grip of 105 pounds. Today, men that age had grips of only 101 and 99 pounds, the study found. Men 25-29 posted losses of 26 and 19 pounds.

    Women ages 20-24 showed smaller, but significant losses in their right hand grip. With right-handed grips today of 60 pounds, they’ve lost roughly 10 pounds of force. (The researchers found strength diminished in men 30-34 as well, but there were only four participants in this age group.)

    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.


    • Will Truman in reply to veronica d says:

      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

      • veronica d in reply to Will Truman says:

        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

        • Kim in reply to veronica d says:

          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

        • 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

  7. veronica d says:

    OMG that alt-right Reddit article. It’s just — these people. Yeesh.Report

  8. veronica d says:

    Since we’re being all linky, best headline ever:

    President Obama hints at supporting unconditional free money because of a looming robot takeover

  9. notme says:

    Maybe the Brits got out just in time.

    European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations ‘to be morphed into one’ post-Brexit