A posting every day; an interesting idea every three months…
On the cusp of the next exciting debate among the Democrats, rare images of the New England headquarters of the Elizabeth Warren campaign:
(Actually from the deCordova art museum.)
Full post, including commentsFrom “How the Collapse of Local News Is Causing a ‘National Crisis’” (nytimes):
The loss of local news coverage in much of the United States has frayed communities and left many Americans woefully uninformed, according to a new report.
The report, “Losing the News: The Decimation of Local Journalism and the Search for Solutions,” paints a grim picture of the state of local news in every region of the country. The prelude is familiar to journalists: As print advertising revenue has plummeted, thousands of newspapers have been forced to cut costs, reduce their staffs or otherwise close.
And while the disruption has hampered the ability of newsrooms to fully cover communities, it also has damaged political and civic life in the United States, the report says, leaving many people without access to crucial information about where they live.
Who is responsible for what the New York Times calls a “national crisis”? (does this replace the “national emergency” of Trump being President or is it layered on top?) New Republic suggests that it is the New York Times itself that has killed local newspapers by wooing away their audience that had value to advertisers:
In fact, two economists studied this in 2006—at basically the peak of national newspaper ad revenue, just before the collapse—and found that “as Times circulation grows in a market, local newspaper circulation declines among college-educated readers.” In other words: The Times peeled off the elite readers from the local papers, leading them to read less about local news and more about national politics.”
Is it just that the NYT is doing a better job? What about the hysterical tone of the NYT in reporting national politics. The average American reader’s life will be turned upside down depending on who wins an election for President or Congress. Yet this is fundamentally a lie. The laws that affect the typical individual are state laws.
Consider the American who has sex with an already-married dermatologist. Will obtaining custody of the resulting child yield the spending power of a primary care physician’s salary (Massachusetts) or require going to work to supplement the roughly $200,000 in tax-free child support over 18 years (Nevada). The “lifetime of leisure” versus “lifetime of work” outcome following the sex act is entirely a function of state law, decided by state legislatures and officials. Consider what happens when the child of this brief, um, union reaches school age. What will be taught to this child, by whom, and in what kind of building? All questions of local or state law and/or local and state votes. Suppose the child becomes a teenager and is in possession of marijuana? Whether or not that is a crime and results in a prison sentence will be a question of state law (though with laws such as “Trump signs animal cruelty act into law” it is unclear why the entire criminal system isn’t federalized (animal cruelty is not related to interstate commerce or any other Constitutional provision as far as I can see)). What if, despite the dope smoking, the child is ready to go to a reasonably priced university? The funding and direction for that state-run university will be a function of state-level political decisions. The child graduates and, despite holding a degree in Cultural and Gender Studies, vies for a job at the local Starbucks. To the extent that minimum wage is above the local market-clearing wage, that will be a question of state law. After 22 years of life, it is difficult to see how the issues on which the NYT reports hysterically have had a major effect on this person.
Full post, including commentsShocking: Trump has now been impeached by an impartial group of politicians who said, back before he took office, that they would impeach him.
Disturbing: Trump is “an ongoing threat to national security” (Nancy Pelosi, opening the “debate”; is the threat so bad that Pelosi will start converting some of the family’s real estate assets into gold?)
Confusing: The people who impeached Trump because of the “threat to national security” are now packing up for a well-deserved Christmas vacation. Trump, Kim Jong-un, and other nuclear-armed maniacs, should be fine for a couple of weeks without any supervision or advice.
Separately, who has read the 658-page report from the House Judiciary Committee that explains what Trump actually did? Are the crimes so complex that 658 pages of explanation are required? That’s only a little shorter than Anna Karenina. A typical indictment of a Nazi war criminal for the Nuremberg Trials seems to have been roughly 15 pages (examples).
[I forgot to plug in my phone for a quick drive home from a restaurant this evening and therefore wasn’t listening to these geology lectures. Flipping stations, I found out about this from the local NPR station. Massachusetts has nine Representatives in Congress. Which one’s speech did the station choose to broadcast? That of Ayanna Pressley, the only Massachusetts-based member of “The Squad”.]
Given that the votes seem to be entirely along party lines and the Senate does not contain enough Democrats to remove El Presidente, is there any reason to read about this?
Who else thinks it strange that politicians can use the language of crisis and then take a couple of weeks off?
Full post, including commentsThe year is almost over so nearly all of the accomplishments of 2019 have already happened.
Some people are complaining that Greta Thunberg shouldn’t have been chosen as TIME Person of the Year on the grounds that she didn’t accomplish anything (China and India are still growing and burning coal;, American say-gooders are still driving their pavement-melting SUVs, etc.).
If not Greta T, then who? On a planet of 7.6 billion souls, who among us is worthy of this singular honor? (a tougher challenge than what the Nobel Prize committees face since they are able to spread out the honors among 20+ people)
Some possibilities:
Readers: Better ideas? (I hope!)
Full post, including commentsIt seems obvious that people who breathe filthy air would die young. Yet people in Shanghai live 13 years longer than those in poor provinces (source), which are presumably less densely populated and therefore might have cleaner air (but maybe they are breathing indoor smoke from coal used to heat?).
Another possibility is that people in Shanghai are being slowly killed by air pollution, but they’re so smart that their high IQ gives them a longer life expectancy to begin with. (Scientific American) Without the massive welfare state that the U.S. operates, it is tough for a person without a high IQ to move to Shanghai and thrive there (apartments are comparable in price to the most expensive U.S. cities; see Forbes).
There is supposedly a five-year difference in life expectancy in north versus south China due to worse air pollution from heating with coal in the north (source). But, again, how to square that with the 13-year boost in life expectancy in Shanghai, a city that is spectacularly polluted.
Mist or filth?
A BBC interview with the Nobel Peace Laureate, “Barack Obama: Women are better leaders than men”:
If women ran every country in the world there would be a general improvement in living standards and outcomes, former US President Barack Obama has said.
Speaking in Singapore, he said women aren’t perfect, but are “indisputably better” than men.
He said most of the problems in the world came from old people, mostly men, holding onto positions of power.
In other words, Here’s looking at you, Joe and Bernie!
[Also note that Obama gives a Presidential imprimatur to discredited gender binarism.]
“Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is that you’re better than us [men].
“I’m absolutely confident that for two years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything… living standards and outcomes.”
When asked if he would ever consider going back into political leadership, he said he believed in leaders stepping aside when the time came.
“If you look at the world and look at the problems it’s usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way,” he said.
But what stops Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders from identifying as young women? Problem solved!
Related:
“The Impeachment Process Is Barely Functioning” (nytimes) is by Elizabeth Drew, “a journalist based in Washington who covered Watergate” (i.e., she is not in what the French would call “her first youth”).
When the process of impeachment drove President Richard Nixon from office in 1974, there was widespread celebration that “the system worked.” But the 1974 impeachment process may turn out to have been unique, a model for how it should work that has yet to be replicated — and perhaps never will be.
Today, there’s a president who feels free to completely stonewall an impeachment inquiry. Even Nixon did not deem the entire process illegitimate. Yes, he tried to hold back damning recordings of Oval Office conversations, but when he was overruled by the Supreme Court he turned the tapes over to Congress. He also held back some documents from the House Judiciary Committee — an act that formed the basis of an article of impeachment against him. But he allowed his aides to appear before the Senate Watergate Committee, helping to seal his own doom.
In other words, even impeachments were better in the good old days!
(Alternative formulation of the article: A member of the coastal elite does not understand why a non-member would vote differently than she votes.)
Separately, what about the members of the Senate who are themselves running for President in 2020? Do they vote to remove Trump from office because they think the Republicans, in a country of 330 million, can’t find anyone more appealing to the non-elites whose voting rights they forgot to take away? Or do they vote to keep the hated authoritarian in office, for fear that Nikki Haley shows up to ruin their fun from 2021 through 2029?
(Democrats says that Republicans are misogynist, which is why they wouldn’t vote for the obviously superior Hillary Clinton, but have they ever found a Republican who says “I think I prefer Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders to Nikki Haley”?)
Full post, including comments“California official floats a new idea: House homeless on a cruise ship” (USA Today) ties into some of my favorite themes:
If cruise ships could be used as emergency housing in natural disasters, maybe they could be used to help in Oakland’s emergency: homelessness.
The housing crisis in the city that sits across the bay from San Francisco has resulted in a surge of tent encampments across city sidewalks, under freeway overhangs and in public parks. By the latest count, more than 4,000 people are experiencing homelessness in the city of just over 400,000, up 47% in just two years.
After Kaplan floated the cruise ship idea, it didn’t take long for word to spread. She says she’s already been contacted by cruise ship companies and is planning to present a fully fledged proposal that could add up to 1,000 on-board beds to the council early next year.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush came under fire after Hurricane Katrina for fast-tracking a $236 million contract to Carnival Cruise Lines – a big GOP donor – only to house a handful of victims. After evacuees opted for on-land options over the cruise ship cabins, rooms sat empty for weeks.
Former California Rep. Henry Waxman called the incident a “boondoggle” in a letter to Bush sent in 2006, highlighting that for the $240,000 it cost taxpayers to shelter each family the federal government could have built them permanent homes.
I’m waiting for the California social justice advocate who says “As long as they’re on a ship, maybe we could pay some other country to take them in…”
Related:
As previously discussed here, air pollution in China, though it is being cleaned up gradually, is the one problem there that U.S. media is not exaggerating (see below for a good one, though!).
Anecdotally, it was women aged 20-40 who were most likely to be protecting themselves with a mask. Although helicopter parenting is no doubt common in Shanghai, it was uncommon to see children wearing masks. It was much more common to see a mother wearing a mask while the precious toddler inhaled filth than vice versa.
As only two out of 50+ gender IDs are recognized in China, I think I can safely refer to “men” versus “women” in this context. Based on observed mask-wearing behavior, I wonder if it would be possible to quantify, via a careful survey, the extent to which humans with one gender ID are simply more prudent than humans with a different gender ID.
Related:
