Thursday, May 5, 2016
Party Rules and the Electoral College
Although there are a few small states voting between now and June 5, there's really not a whole lot going on until California, New Jersey and some other states vote on that date. This is a good time to take a breather and re-assess the Presidential campaign. While it's easy to go on and on about why this or why that, one thing that many media sources have ignored is how party rules have affected the races.
GOP
The easiest race to discuss, largely because it's over. Everyone's dropped out except Donald Trump, and he'll probably clinch the nomination in the next month. So how did Donald Trump win? It's a combination of factors, including media coverage and "outsider" status, but let's look at GOP delegate rules.
Notably, the GOP doesn't have a national guideline. Instead, all 50 states (plus the territories and D.C.) get to choose their own rules on how the delegates are divvied up. What this means in practice is that many states give bonuses to whoever wins the primary or caucus, even if that person doesn't reach a majority. So in the early part of the race, when there were 17 candidates, the GOP vote was split dramatically. Trump, with his passionate supporters, remained steady at about 35 percent, give or take. However, the delegate rules of most states gave him a cushy bonus even though he had merely earned a plurality. So he got bonus points, even though (by sheer math alone), the majority of people had voted against him. It wasn't until his home state of New York, when his opponents were the increasingly desperate Ted Cruz and John Kasich, that he actually crossed the 50 percent mark.
If the GOP had picked its candidate with the same rules as Democrats (proportionality), we would practically be guaranteed of a contested convention. The race would still be on.
Democrats
The Democratic race is still ongoing, but that's a little misleading. While Bernie Sanders still has a chance, and he has vowed to fight until and through the convention, he's fighting a battle that's already over — he just hasn't realized it yet. Sanders would have to win every remaining state by a 2:1 advantage to catch up. And that includes winning a couple states with minorities, like California, that he simply hasn't won consistently. Yes, he won Indiana this week — but Hillary also didn't spend a dollar on the race because she's saving up for the general election.
The reason why he has to win every state by a 2:1 advantage is because the Democrat rules are set by a national standard — each state distributes their delegates by proportion. So take Wyoming, for instance. The state had 14 delegates. Bernie won the state 55-45 percent. However, his results weren't high enough for eight delegates — at the end of the day, he and Clinton both won seven delegates. Since Clinton racked up a big lead through the big states and the Deep South, she has been kind of coasting the last month or two. A big bone to pick with Sanders fans has been super delegates, but that's also a losing battle. Even if you give her the super delegates that correspond with the states she won, then she'll clinch the nomination after California/New Jersey on June 5. It's over, but Sanders insists on playing out the string.
If the Democrats had picked its candidate with the same rules as the GOP (bonuses for winning states), then Hillary's lead would be three times larger and a nomination nearly clinched without super delegates. The race would be over.
General Election and its effects
Provided she vanquishes Bernie Sanders and picks up a good share of his voters, Hillary Clinton is your next President. She's one of the most disliked candidates ever — but she's also going to be running against THE most disliked candidate ever. To many, she's the lesser of two evils. I've already taken a look at the electoral college in a past blog entry, but let me sum it up here: Not factoring in candidates, Democrats are in good position to win the White House. Donald Trump is not the strong national figure that can unite against the Democratic advantage. (There was one possible strategy I found convincing for Trump: Lose every state from Obama's tenure, except flip four Rust Belt states: Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But PA and MI haven't been red since 1988 and Wisconsin hasn't been red since 1984, so it's an uphill climb.)
One thing to watch is how much Democrats can take advantage of the GOP-Trump ties. GOP senatorial candidates will now have to defend being "the party of Trump." The Democrats only need four Senate seats to flip (or five if they lose the Presidency) to win back the Senate. Of the 10 "toss-up" seats not considered safe, only one of those is currently a Democrat — and that's Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid's seat (he's retiring). On the other hand, the House is probably too much to flip — 34 of 36 "toss-ups" would have to switch parties for the Democrats to take it over.
Summary Judgments
Let's have a moment of silence for the shortest run for vice president in the history of our country: Carly Fiorina! She was a vice presidential candidate for less than a week. • • • You'd think Chris Matthews would know that he's around a hot microphone. But nope. He went and opened his big mouth about how attractive he thought Melania Trump is while he didn't think anyone could hear him. • • • Evie's been taking flash cards with letters on them to her day care teacher and saying what they are. I've been testing her to see which letters she knows, and she knows D, P, K, and A for sure. The others are either intermittent or she doesn't know them. • • • I'm still running as training for a 5K in June. This week, I've run 2.5 miles twice. The two mile mark was all mental. The 2.5 mile mark is more a physical issue. I've made it, but I've had to make stops each time for different reasons. Adding that final mile to 3/4 of a mile has been the most difficult part so far.
Thursday, April 28, 2016
The Pain of Planes Goes Mainly Down the Drain
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called something a "scandal and a tragedy" and also "disgraceful" this week, and he's absolutely right. McCain was talking about the delays and cost overruns of the new F-35 stealth jet. It's the replacement for the A-10 Thunderbolt/Warthog and the F-16 Fighting Falcon/Viper (think: Air Force Thunderbirds).
The cost for nearly 2,500 of these planes was supposed to be a little more than $200 billion. We're now going on $400 billion in costs. They promised more than 1,000 planes would be done by the end of this fiscal year. So far we have 179. The Air Force variant (they have variations based upon the branch of the military) has been delayed until October. The Navy won't have theirs until November.... of 2018. Even worse, the F-35s they have produced are still "not acceptable for combat," according to the Pentagon's chief weapons tester.
We've also got disagreements by people who should know how long it will take to get it fixed. Let's just take the ALIS, which is basically the in-board, high-tech computer. There are a lot of technical issues, but let's just say it's not working yet. The F-35's Air Force program manager said they're only running two months behind, and it'll be working by October. But the Pentagon's chief weapons tester said 2018 is more realistic. So one is saying the other isn't realistic, while the other is giving a still-delayed, yet more optimistic view. These are the people who should know.
When we get into millions and billions of dollars, it's easy to lose track of how much that really means. Let's approximate and say that the F-35 program alone is about $200 billion too much. That's roughly equal to the FY 2016 appropriations of the EPA, the Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, NASA and the Department of the Interior COMBINED. Now, it's not fair to say that the F-35 program is a one-year program — it's not, and has been going since 2007. But let's do the math. Take $200 billion over 9 years, and it's roughly $22.2 billion a year. That's pretty close to the Department of Energy's 2016 budget ($24.6 billion). If the Department of Energy spent twice their annual budget and still didn't have much to show for it, the nation would be in an uproar. People would be fired. The President would be in hot water.
But why isn't this a bigger deal? It seems this should be more upsetting to more people, but it doesn't get a lot of attention. And that's because we have a blind spot when it comes to military spending. There's certainly a "do what you must" attitude when it comes to military/protection costs. The technology for the F-35 is incredible, no doubt, like custom-built $400,000 helmets that give 360-degree views around the plane thanks to camera projections (AMAZING!). But you wouldn't buy the top-of-the-line home security system, then have it continuously delayed and cost twice as much and still consider it a great investment. At this point, they should just rename it the F-35 Albatross, because of the frustrating burden the program has become around the neck of the government.
A quick aside: There's a weird split when you watch the 6-minute TV clip attached to the Fox News story. Their "defense specialist/War Games columnist" spends the entire time talking about how "on track" the program is and how "next generation" the F-35 technology, guns, and helmet are. To be fair to her, that's a clip from November. But it's strange that's the first thing that appears in a story titled "Most expensive weapon ever built limps toward finish line." I'm sure some enterprising editor or reporter thought that'd be a good video to embed, but it tells a completely different story than the story it's attached to.
Debts to Society
At first, I was outraged that a governor (Va. Gov. Terry McAuliffe) would restore the voting rights of 200,000 felons. On its face, it sounds upsetting and ridiculous. That's certainly the impression one gets from reading the headline. But that's why you can't just read the headline. McAuliffe only restored the voting rights of ex-felons who have finished any sort of supervision, probation, or parole requirements. This brings up a broader issue: When has a person paid their debt to society after committing a crime? If the punishment is X years in prison and X years of probation, then have they paid their debt after completing that punishment? McAuliffe says yes. For a long time, the answer has been that felons will never get their voting rights back. And your answer to a person's debt to society brings up another issue: Is the goal of sentencing to be a punishment or to bring about reformation? I'm not sure I know the answer. I do know that if we believe sentencing should cause reformation in the convicted, then we're probably not doing a good job of that.
Summary Judgments
If you haven't seen the winners of the World Photography Awards, take just a few seconds and see how beautiful they are. • • • The campaigns are entering the silly months. The Trump campaign believes Hillary Clinton is just playing "the woman card," while Ted Cruz referred to a basketball hoop as a "basketball ring." Just... sigh. • • • Every time there is a mass shooting, I think about Australia. Here's what Australia did after a national tragedy, rather than nothing. • • • I don't watch Jimmy Kimmel, but this rant about Dennis Hastert is absolutely on point. If you can't get upset about a former national leader admitting to being a child molester, then recalibrate your outrage meter. • • • One of the day care workers who takes care of our kids said that Evie was taking flash cards with letters on them, and bringing them to her and saying the correct letter. I can't speak for Alyson, but that blows my mind. She's 20 months old and knows some of her letters! • • • Roland, on the other hand, has gotten really good at repeating words that you say. I think his vocabulary is bigger than Evie's. It's sad that they're not even 2 years old, and Alyson and I are already resorting to spelling words for fear that they pick up on it and demand it (Almost always food.).
The cost for nearly 2,500 of these planes was supposed to be a little more than $200 billion. We're now going on $400 billion in costs. They promised more than 1,000 planes would be done by the end of this fiscal year. So far we have 179. The Air Force variant (they have variations based upon the branch of the military) has been delayed until October. The Navy won't have theirs until November.... of 2018. Even worse, the F-35s they have produced are still "not acceptable for combat," according to the Pentagon's chief weapons tester.
We've also got disagreements by people who should know how long it will take to get it fixed. Let's just take the ALIS, which is basically the in-board, high-tech computer. There are a lot of technical issues, but let's just say it's not working yet. The F-35's Air Force program manager said they're only running two months behind, and it'll be working by October. But the Pentagon's chief weapons tester said 2018 is more realistic. So one is saying the other isn't realistic, while the other is giving a still-delayed, yet more optimistic view. These are the people who should know.
When we get into millions and billions of dollars, it's easy to lose track of how much that really means. Let's approximate and say that the F-35 program alone is about $200 billion too much. That's roughly equal to the FY 2016 appropriations of the EPA, the Department of Education, Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, NASA and the Department of the Interior COMBINED. Now, it's not fair to say that the F-35 program is a one-year program — it's not, and has been going since 2007. But let's do the math. Take $200 billion over 9 years, and it's roughly $22.2 billion a year. That's pretty close to the Department of Energy's 2016 budget ($24.6 billion). If the Department of Energy spent twice their annual budget and still didn't have much to show for it, the nation would be in an uproar. People would be fired. The President would be in hot water.
But why isn't this a bigger deal? It seems this should be more upsetting to more people, but it doesn't get a lot of attention. And that's because we have a blind spot when it comes to military spending. There's certainly a "do what you must" attitude when it comes to military/protection costs. The technology for the F-35 is incredible, no doubt, like custom-built $400,000 helmets that give 360-degree views around the plane thanks to camera projections (AMAZING!). But you wouldn't buy the top-of-the-line home security system, then have it continuously delayed and cost twice as much and still consider it a great investment. At this point, they should just rename it the F-35 Albatross, because of the frustrating burden the program has become around the neck of the government.
A quick aside: There's a weird split when you watch the 6-minute TV clip attached to the Fox News story. Their "defense specialist/War Games columnist" spends the entire time talking about how "on track" the program is and how "next generation" the F-35 technology, guns, and helmet are. To be fair to her, that's a clip from November. But it's strange that's the first thing that appears in a story titled "Most expensive weapon ever built limps toward finish line." I'm sure some enterprising editor or reporter thought that'd be a good video to embed, but it tells a completely different story than the story it's attached to.
Debts to Society
At first, I was outraged that a governor (Va. Gov. Terry McAuliffe) would restore the voting rights of 200,000 felons. On its face, it sounds upsetting and ridiculous. That's certainly the impression one gets from reading the headline. But that's why you can't just read the headline. McAuliffe only restored the voting rights of ex-felons who have finished any sort of supervision, probation, or parole requirements. This brings up a broader issue: When has a person paid their debt to society after committing a crime? If the punishment is X years in prison and X years of probation, then have they paid their debt after completing that punishment? McAuliffe says yes. For a long time, the answer has been that felons will never get their voting rights back. And your answer to a person's debt to society brings up another issue: Is the goal of sentencing to be a punishment or to bring about reformation? I'm not sure I know the answer. I do know that if we believe sentencing should cause reformation in the convicted, then we're probably not doing a good job of that.
Summary Judgments
If you haven't seen the winners of the World Photography Awards, take just a few seconds and see how beautiful they are. • • • The campaigns are entering the silly months. The Trump campaign believes Hillary Clinton is just playing "the woman card," while Ted Cruz referred to a basketball hoop as a "basketball ring." Just... sigh. • • • Every time there is a mass shooting, I think about Australia. Here's what Australia did after a national tragedy, rather than nothing. • • • I don't watch Jimmy Kimmel, but this rant about Dennis Hastert is absolutely on point. If you can't get upset about a former national leader admitting to being a child molester, then recalibrate your outrage meter. • • • One of the day care workers who takes care of our kids said that Evie was taking flash cards with letters on them, and bringing them to her and saying the correct letter. I can't speak for Alyson, but that blows my mind. She's 20 months old and knows some of her letters! • • • Roland, on the other hand, has gotten really good at repeating words that you say. I think his vocabulary is bigger than Evie's. It's sad that they're not even 2 years old, and Alyson and I are already resorting to spelling words for fear that they pick up on it and demand it (Almost always food.).
Thursday, April 21, 2016
What's the Matter with Brownback's Kansas?
UPDATED: I'm sorry. The more I thought about this article, the more I thought it just wasn't up to my usual standards. I've rewritten the parts of the article that I felt weren't well thought out, which was everything but the Name of the Year portion.
To many, the title of this post won't have much of a meaning. It's the title of a quasi-famous editorial by legendary Emporia (Kan.) Gazette editor William Allen White in 1896. In it, he bemoans the near-stagnant population growth, the departure of money from the state, the development of neighboring states, and the general forgotten nature of the state. It's powerful. So powerful that they used the title for a book a few years back.
So what's the matter with Kansas now? The matter is that its population growth is stagnant, money is leaving the state, neighboring states are developing and the state is being forgotten, unless as a warning to other states.
I had a front-row seat to the show. While I was editor in Pittsburg, Gov. Sam Brownback was elected not once, but twice. As editor, I read state stories and editorials that never made our paper. I spoke directly to state leaders and legislators. I've interviewed Gov. Brownback on two or three occasions, including a one-on-one, as well as covered probably a dozen appearances. I say that to establish some credentials for the following.
Sam Brownback is a true believer. This is his greatest and worst feature. He believes that what he is doing is the right thing, and it's the righteous thing. He cannot admit failure, because he truly believes every choice he's made has the blessing of God and the people. If something goes wrong, then it's still the right choice because the other choice would have gone even worse. There's no such thing as second-guessing.
Brownback passed massive tax cuts mostly for the rich, but that critics said would bankrupt the state. Brownback said that it would be a "great experiment" and a "shot of adrenaline" to the Kansas economy. He thought the tax cuts would spur business so much that the state would be better off than ever before. However, his critics said that the math didn't work.
His critics were wrong, in a way. They said it would be a disaster, but they underestimated how bad it would be. It's worse than even their bad predictions. The state has cut its revenue projections four times, and still managed to miss those projections each time. Right now, the state faces a hole of more than $140 million for this year AND next year.
The governor and his cohorts cut even the most sacred of causes in the Kansas budget. They cut K-12 education past the bone, and the state Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional. They then retaliated by threatening to cut funding for the state courts and have basically played a game of chicken with the courts over how to fund the schools legally. They have tried to keep higher education clear, but now it, too, is facing Brownback-issued cuts. That has pushed costs onto the backs of students. They have cut social services in Kansas. They have cut funds for the disabled and poor, the "least of these" according to a certain Jew from Nazareth. Nothing has been too sacred to avoid the axe — an axe swung only because of the failure of the tax cuts.
But perhaps the worst has been transportation. The first time the budget went short, Brownback "borrowed" several hundred million from the Kansas Department of Transportation budget. Mind you, at the time he came to power, the state was ranked No. 1 in highways according to one measure. This has become a familiar source of relief for budgetary woes, so much so that it became nicknamed "the Bank of KDOT." T-WORKS, a 10-year transportation program passed before Sam came to power, which included many modernization and expansion projects sorely needed, has been delayed. Brownback has said to my face that he would never delay those projects, and yet... here we are.
The matter with Kansas is the state elected someone who refuses to consider that a plan has failed. Even now, facing a budget hole of hundreds of millions of dollars, his budget director says that a reversal of those tax cuts is off the table. Rigidity and stubbornness are virtues if you're right, but they're a millstone around the neck if you're wrong. The matter with Kansas is that its voters were shortsighted. Brownback seemed like the light at the end of the tunnel. But what they really saw was a train.
I didn't leave Kansas because of Sam Brownback. But I, and many others my age are happy to have Brownback in the rear view mirror.
Name of the Year update
Remember how good I did the first round? Let's see about the second round. This is usually where my actual brackets fall apart. I only got 8 of the final 16. BLURGH. I would note, however, that my Final Four is still intact.
Bulltron Regional
I underestimated the strength of 1-seed Tillmann Buttersack. That's a solid two-name combo, and I should have seen that it was better than Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant. However, I did pick Brodarious Hamm to go to the Sweet 16, so that's a win. Looking back, it was obvious that Onno Hoes would win, especially after you learned his name is appropriate. That's another one I missed. But I did pick Furious Carney to continue his roll, so that's something. 2/4 correct
Sithole Regional
This was another split region. I got the advance of Pope McCorkle III and Dick Tips, one a 1-seed and the other an upset. However, a first-round miss cost me in the round of 32. Saint Schwing, who I'd predicted to lose in the first round, continued his march into the Sweet 16. Also, I backed the wrong horse in the Scholastique Koolimo-Cosmo Bjorkenheim matchup. Koolimo won. 2/4 correct
Dragonwagon Regional
I correctly called the Sweet 16 matchup (perhaps the best matchup, tournament long) of Taco Pope and Dr. Shark Bird. I also picked Howdy Goudey right. However, I expected the 2-seed of Inta Mulch to hold serve in the second round, but she fell to Ransom Barefoot. This has been my best regional from the start. 3/4 correct
Chrotchtangle Regional
This is where it falls apart. The only name I got right was 3-seed Sweet Orefice. Mighty Fine upset Bevis Mugabi. Billie-Jo Skeleton continued into the Sweet 16 despite probably the worst name left. Jorja Pound Turnipseed used her three names to beat the synergy of Divine Deablo. 1/4 correct
Summary Judgments
A couple colleagues of mine from OU won a Pulitzer as part of the Los Angeles Times coverage of the San Bernardino shootings. Great job, Mark and Hailey! • • • I didn't listen to Prince much, but I know he was awesome. I still think his Super Bowl performance was the best ever. It's not even a debate. • • • Thanks for all the support from those who read my Facebook post about signing up for a 5K. My training is going according to plan, but now I'm at a tough stage: My next run is a 2-miler, and I'm honestly pretty intimidated by that. • • • The kids had their 18-month checkup this week. They're doing great. They weigh about 22 lbs. and are 30 inches long. Their vocabulary is way ahead for their age. Unfortunately, we've also learned "Mine Now." "Mine Now" is the worst.
To many, the title of this post won't have much of a meaning. It's the title of a quasi-famous editorial by legendary Emporia (Kan.) Gazette editor William Allen White in 1896. In it, he bemoans the near-stagnant population growth, the departure of money from the state, the development of neighboring states, and the general forgotten nature of the state. It's powerful. So powerful that they used the title for a book a few years back.
So what's the matter with Kansas now? The matter is that its population growth is stagnant, money is leaving the state, neighboring states are developing and the state is being forgotten, unless as a warning to other states.
I had a front-row seat to the show. While I was editor in Pittsburg, Gov. Sam Brownback was elected not once, but twice. As editor, I read state stories and editorials that never made our paper. I spoke directly to state leaders and legislators. I've interviewed Gov. Brownback on two or three occasions, including a one-on-one, as well as covered probably a dozen appearances. I say that to establish some credentials for the following.
Sam Brownback is a true believer. This is his greatest and worst feature. He believes that what he is doing is the right thing, and it's the righteous thing. He cannot admit failure, because he truly believes every choice he's made has the blessing of God and the people. If something goes wrong, then it's still the right choice because the other choice would have gone even worse. There's no such thing as second-guessing.
Brownback passed massive tax cuts mostly for the rich, but that critics said would bankrupt the state. Brownback said that it would be a "great experiment" and a "shot of adrenaline" to the Kansas economy. He thought the tax cuts would spur business so much that the state would be better off than ever before. However, his critics said that the math didn't work.
His critics were wrong, in a way. They said it would be a disaster, but they underestimated how bad it would be. It's worse than even their bad predictions. The state has cut its revenue projections four times, and still managed to miss those projections each time. Right now, the state faces a hole of more than $140 million for this year AND next year.
The governor and his cohorts cut even the most sacred of causes in the Kansas budget. They cut K-12 education past the bone, and the state Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional. They then retaliated by threatening to cut funding for the state courts and have basically played a game of chicken with the courts over how to fund the schools legally. They have tried to keep higher education clear, but now it, too, is facing Brownback-issued cuts. That has pushed costs onto the backs of students. They have cut social services in Kansas. They have cut funds for the disabled and poor, the "least of these" according to a certain Jew from Nazareth. Nothing has been too sacred to avoid the axe — an axe swung only because of the failure of the tax cuts.
But perhaps the worst has been transportation. The first time the budget went short, Brownback "borrowed" several hundred million from the Kansas Department of Transportation budget. Mind you, at the time he came to power, the state was ranked No. 1 in highways according to one measure. This has become a familiar source of relief for budgetary woes, so much so that it became nicknamed "the Bank of KDOT." T-WORKS, a 10-year transportation program passed before Sam came to power, which included many modernization and expansion projects sorely needed, has been delayed. Brownback has said to my face that he would never delay those projects, and yet... here we are.
The matter with Kansas is the state elected someone who refuses to consider that a plan has failed. Even now, facing a budget hole of hundreds of millions of dollars, his budget director says that a reversal of those tax cuts is off the table. Rigidity and stubbornness are virtues if you're right, but they're a millstone around the neck if you're wrong. The matter with Kansas is that its voters were shortsighted. Brownback seemed like the light at the end of the tunnel. But what they really saw was a train.
I didn't leave Kansas because of Sam Brownback. But I, and many others my age are happy to have Brownback in the rear view mirror.
Name of the Year update
Remember how good I did the first round? Let's see about the second round. This is usually where my actual brackets fall apart. I only got 8 of the final 16. BLURGH. I would note, however, that my Final Four is still intact.
Bulltron Regional
I underestimated the strength of 1-seed Tillmann Buttersack. That's a solid two-name combo, and I should have seen that it was better than Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant. However, I did pick Brodarious Hamm to go to the Sweet 16, so that's a win. Looking back, it was obvious that Onno Hoes would win, especially after you learned his name is appropriate. That's another one I missed. But I did pick Furious Carney to continue his roll, so that's something. 2/4 correct
Sithole Regional
This was another split region. I got the advance of Pope McCorkle III and Dick Tips, one a 1-seed and the other an upset. However, a first-round miss cost me in the round of 32. Saint Schwing, who I'd predicted to lose in the first round, continued his march into the Sweet 16. Also, I backed the wrong horse in the Scholastique Koolimo-Cosmo Bjorkenheim matchup. Koolimo won. 2/4 correct
Dragonwagon Regional
I correctly called the Sweet 16 matchup (perhaps the best matchup, tournament long) of Taco Pope and Dr. Shark Bird. I also picked Howdy Goudey right. However, I expected the 2-seed of Inta Mulch to hold serve in the second round, but she fell to Ransom Barefoot. This has been my best regional from the start. 3/4 correct
Chrotchtangle Regional
This is where it falls apart. The only name I got right was 3-seed Sweet Orefice. Mighty Fine upset Bevis Mugabi. Billie-Jo Skeleton continued into the Sweet 16 despite probably the worst name left. Jorja Pound Turnipseed used her three names to beat the synergy of Divine Deablo. 1/4 correct
Summary Judgments
A couple colleagues of mine from OU won a Pulitzer as part of the Los Angeles Times coverage of the San Bernardino shootings. Great job, Mark and Hailey! • • • I didn't listen to Prince much, but I know he was awesome. I still think his Super Bowl performance was the best ever. It's not even a debate. • • • Thanks for all the support from those who read my Facebook post about signing up for a 5K. My training is going according to plan, but now I'm at a tough stage: My next run is a 2-miler, and I'm honestly pretty intimidated by that. • • • The kids had their 18-month checkup this week. They're doing great. They weigh about 22 lbs. and are 30 inches long. Their vocabulary is way ahead for their age. Unfortunately, we've also learned "Mine Now." "Mine Now" is the worst.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Look at the Stonecutters
"When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps as much as a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know that it was not that blow that did it — but all that had gone before." -- Jacob Riis
What we often see as the cause of protests (and, yes, riots) related to police shootings is an inciting incident, whether it's Laquan McDonald in Chicago, Michael Brown in Ferguson, or Walter Scott in North Charleston. But what we're really seeing is the 101st blow of the rock. What most of us don't see are the 100 blows that came before.
And it's often easy to dismiss that 101st blow, either by confusion of facts or by distraction. Probably only Officer Darren Wilson knows what really happened with Michael Brown in Ferguson, but it's safe to say that it's not a clear-cut case. With Eric Garner on Staten Island and others, it could be argued (poorly) that police are doing what's necessary to bring an unwilling citizen under arrest. That's where much of the media and the public lose their interest.
What gets far less coverage is the follow-up. The follow-up investigations of the police departments in Ferguson and Chicago have revealed that the protesters have had reason to be upset.
In Ferguson, the report by the Justice Department found, to name a few: 1) In a 2-year period, when people were arrested for "resisting arrest" after a traffic stop, they were black 100 percent of the time. 2) When police dogs had biting incidents, the person who was bit was black 100 percent of the time. 3) Black people make up about 2/3 of the population of Ferguson, but accounted for 93 percent of the arrests. 4) The disproportionate number of arrests, tickets and use of force against black people cannot be explained away by the rate in which the races commit crimes except through racist actions of the police department.
In Chicago, the investigation by an independent task force found "The community's lack of trust in CPD is justified." Roughly 3 in 4 people shot in Chicago were black. About 3 in 4 people tasered by police in Chicago were black. Nearly 3 in 4 people pulled over for street stops that didn't lead to arrest were black. In case you're wondering how many people in Chicago are black, it's about 1 in 3.
And while numbers are one thing, stories are just as powerful: One black man in Ferguson, sitting in his car after playing basketball, was blocked in by a police officer, asked to show ID and give his Social Security number (why?). The officer then accused the man of being a pedophile, patted him down, and wrote him eight violations of the city code, including Making a False Declaration — for saying his name was "Mike" when his driver's license said "Michael." The man lost his job because of the violations.
I've heard arguments from people that try to justify the police in these situations, usually with an argument that amounts to "Black people commit more crimes." This is both untrue and
These are the hundred blows that come before protests. These are the stories and figures that don't get the attention from the media and from the public. These investigations and task force reports often don't come out for months or years until after the "101st blow," but they document the 100 that come before. When it comes to major racial incidents, the media and public often answer "why did this happen?" by pointing at the most recent incident. Instead, the real answer was years in the making.
Jacob Riis — Secret Awesome Journalist
That quote by Jacob Riis hangs in the locker room of the San Antonio Spurs and also next to Kobe Bryant's locker. So who was this guy, who is so quoted by athletes? Turns out, he's not talking about basketball.
A Danish immigrant in the late 1800s, Riis did odd jobs until he got hired as a crime reporter for the New York Tribune, covering areas nicknamed "Death's Thoroughfare" and "Bandit's Roost." (Quick lament: We don't have awesome names for areas anymore.) He became a photographer and a writer documenting crime, tenements and poverty in the slums of New York. He wrote about the bad water supply and probably helped prevent a cholera outbreak. He wrote books on the subject throughout the 1890s, including "How the Other Half Lives" and "Children of the Poor," becoming one of the best-known authors and lecturers of his day.
His other claim to fame is that he befriended a New York City police commissioner in the 1890s. This commissioner asked Riis, who knew the town well by then, to show him the city's crime problems. On their first tour of nighttime patrols, they found 9 of 10 patrolmen missing, which Riis wrote about in the paper. That commissioner then issued a series of reforms for the NYPD, and later said he was tempted to call Riis "the best American I ever knew" and praised him. You might have picked up that I haven't mentioned this NYC police commissioner's name. That's because he was police commissioner in 1895, then New York governor in 1899, and vice president in 1901 before succeeding to the Presidency later in 1901. His name was Theodore Roosevelt.
Quick Thoughts on Tuesday's New York primaries
GOP: Watch to see if and where Donald Trump makes 50 percent of the vote in New York. The state and districts award winner-take-all if someone makes 50 percent. If not, it's proportional. I don't think Trump will make 1,237 delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention, but New York could help him close the gap and make it harder to deny him the nomination at the convention.
Democrats: Bernie Sanders has "momentum," but it's not as good as you'd think. He still has to beat Hillary Clinton in big states and states with a large minority population. New York is one such state. Sanders has only won one state with a black population greater than 10 percent — Michigan. If he really has momentum, he'll win New York with 60 percent of the vote. But don't expect that. Clinton's winning by double digits in all the polls. She'll clinch the nomination, but won't wrap it up until California votes in June.
Summary Judgments
I've highlighted a lot of good journalism in these parts, but sometimes a story is so over-the-top terrible that it needs to be noted. This story on Adam LaRoche (from Fort Scott) is that story. I really liked the takedown by Deadspin's Drew Magary on it, destroying the false mythology that ESPN tried to create. • • • This story is a good reason why I hate voter ID laws. "The right to vote... is not defeated by the fact 99 percent of other people can secure the necessary credentials easily," the judge wrote. Voter impersonation (what's stopped by voter ID laws) almost never happens. One study found 31 possible incidents over 14 years, nationwide. Meanwhile, if you say that the laws only impact 1 percent of the voting population, and there are 4.4 million people in your state, then you're affecting 44,000 people (This example is Wisconsin). If you truly care about the "integrity of the vote," focus on absentee voting, which has far more incidents. • • • Congrats to my Oklahoma Daily colleague Baxter Holmes, who has wrapped up covering Kobe Bryant's final year for ESPN. • • • Roland crawled under their little kid-sized rocking chair this week. He then got himself stuck. Poor kid.
Thursday, April 7, 2016
A Man, a Plan, a Paper Leak.... Panama!
A friend of mine on Facebook lamented the lack of coverage of the Panama Papers in American print and broadcast news. She's right. American journalism was slow to cover the Panama Papers. The next question is why.
Let's summarize the Panama Papers in one paragraph, because that's an easy thing to do (note: it is not). There was a huge leak of papers from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca. The 11 million documents — bigger than Edward Snowden's leaks — over four decades reveal the use of offshore tax havens for the political elite, sports officials and business leaders around the world. In short: Rich people have been getting away with things for years, and now we know it for a fact.
So why isn't it getting the press in America that it has elsewhere in the world? I see four reasons why it hasn't gotten the tread in these United States that it has deserved elsewhere.
First, there's the issue of timing. The Panama Papers came out worldwide on a Sunday morning. Where are most American journalists and people? Church and not working, respectively. If there's a day when people kick back and don't follow the news, it's Sunday. That's not to say the news isn't important on Sunday. Two of the traditional Sunday morning things are the Sunday morning political talk shows (which would have been taping while the Panama Papers were breaking) and the Sunday morning newspaper (which wouldn't have had the news, since they had to go to press early in the morning). The only thing that would have had it was the Web and broadcast — whose A teams were probably off that day.
Second, there's a large degree of America-centrism here, in two forms.
• While there was a consortium of international journalists — literally the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists — they weren't the influential media power players. Notably, they largely weren't American. The New York Times had to defend themselves against their readers when they weren't involved. The only involved American media were McClatchy newspapers (Kansas City Star, Charlotte Observer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram) and Fusion TV. While these are good media sources, they also aren't consumed on a national basis. So the biggest media sources in America didn't know it was coming and were blindsided.
• American businesses and leaders were largely uninvolved. There are about 200 American passports involved in the Panama Papers. While there are a few billionaires involved in America, these aren't big names here. It's not like our President or major political leaders were involved — it's just a few rich guys you've probably never heard of. And there's a reason for that: As lawyers and journalists have pointed out, rich people don't have to go to Panama to set up shell companies, since it's perfectly legal to do that through Delaware, Wyoming or Nevada. We don't have off-shoring in America. We have legal on-shoring.
Third, the Panama Papers are complicated. It involves tax shelters and havens and off-shoring and LLCs and... that's a lot for a person to handle. Particularly in a world where journalists are told to write to an eighth-grade level, the Panama Papers are a slippery bunch of issues that usually need an explainer piece beside them. Further, what's come out has mostly been accusations and has led to very few charges (I'd argue this is because they just leaked and not because everything is legal, but that's where we're at.). So what we've got is confusion and smoke. The task for journalists will be to ferret out the fire and fan away the confusion. And the smoke. This metaphor and paragraph need to end. In short: tax shelters aren't a sexy issue.
Last, I have one more argument here: cynicism. Let's boil these Panama Papers down to their essence: Rich people around the world use complicated tax schemes to avoid paying taxes. What about that statement is surprising or shocking? There are connections to Vladimir Putin and FIFA, two people/organizations certainly not known for their transparency or lack of corruption. Most of the fallout has been to foreign leaders Americans don't know (Iceland's prime minister!) or don't trust anyway (FIFA, Putin, etc.). I'd argue that we assume the most rich people do this sort of thing anyway, so the shock really doesn't set in as deeply. In America, we're more shocked that Alabama's governor said sexy things to someone who works for him and is not his wife.
Name of the Year update
The first round of voting is over, and a few upsets have happened. I didn't pick the two 2-seeds to fall in the first round, but I did pick both to fall in the second round. Out of 32 matches, I predicted 27 (!) of the 32 first-round matches.
Bulltron Regional
As predicted, Tillmann Buttersack and Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant have advanced to face each other. I did call the Burm Snart upset, and he'll go on to face Brodarious Hamm, as I expected. I also called the Onno Hoes-Charol Shakeshaft matchup, as well as Furious Carney pulling off the upset. What I didn't foresee (though did note was the best 15-seed) was Chizu Shimizu Buckalew pulling off the upset of 2-seed sicnarF loopstoK. Altogether, I'm proud of my picks in this region. 7/8 correct
Sithole Regional
Pope McCorkle III and Oozi Cats waltzed past their competition, as expected. However, I did not see Saint Schwing trouncing Dr. Kim Nazi. Snookie Catholique advanced and so did Cosmo Bjorkenheim and Scholastique Koolimo into the Round of 32. Of course, Dick Tips had no problems with the first round. The big surprise was another 15-seed upsetting a 2-seed. Attila Freska was not fresh enough for Rigoberto Uran Uran. 6/8 correct
Dragonwagon Regional
WOW, did I nail this one. I called the upset by 12-seed Lt. Charlene Sprinkle-Huff and correctly called the coin-toss Ransom Barefoot-IV Seacat matchup (I picked Barefoot, who won by just 16 votes!). Looking at the vote totals, I feel great about this round, but feel scared about the subsequent rounds. 8/8 correct
Chrotchtangle Regional
Remember how good I've done so far? The mighty do, occasionally, fall. Just like 1-seed Shuntavyious Primes-Willes to the underdog 16-seed Billie-Jo Skeleton. I don't think anyone saw that one coming. I correctly called wins by Tre McKitty and Divine Deablo, and also picked the 13-seed upset by Jorja Pound Turnipseed over Jasmine Squirrel. However, I picked the wrong horse in the Muna Tuna-Langstaff Dickerson race, and Muna Tuna came out ahead. I did pick the rest of the bracket correctly to round it out, though. 6/8 correct
Summary Judgments
George Mason University renamed their law school after Antonin Scalia, but forgot about acronyms. The Antonin Scalia School of Law is ASSLaw or ASSoL. I can't believe no one thought about that. Anyway, they've already changed it to Antonin Scalia Law School (ASLS). • • • A Wisconsin Representative said after Tuesday's election that voter ID laws will help Republicans in that state. That's the truth about voter ID laws: Although they sound good, they are really a smokescreen to eliminate minority (often Democrat) votes from the general election. I've done the research and the facts are clear. If you want to stop voter fraud in truth, reform absentee voting. Until then, legislators are focusing on the speck of dust instead of the plank in the proverbial eye. • • • Censorship makes me angry. It makes me further angry when legislators — who should know better — cherry-pick lines to make books sound evil and toxic. It really makes me angry when legislators from former Confederate states seek to cherry-pick lines from Pulitzer Prize-winning books written by black authors. • • • The other day, I was picking up the kids from daycare. I've got Evie in my arms, while Roland is crying while the daycare attendant is grabbing our stuff. I said, "Come on, Roland! Be happy!" Evie then leaned into my ear and whispered, "Happy." It was then that I learned that any word, no matter how nice, is made creepy by whispering.
Let's summarize the Panama Papers in one paragraph, because that's an easy thing to do (note: it is not). There was a huge leak of papers from the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca. The 11 million documents — bigger than Edward Snowden's leaks — over four decades reveal the use of offshore tax havens for the political elite, sports officials and business leaders around the world. In short: Rich people have been getting away with things for years, and now we know it for a fact.
So why isn't it getting the press in America that it has elsewhere in the world? I see four reasons why it hasn't gotten the tread in these United States that it has deserved elsewhere.
First, there's the issue of timing. The Panama Papers came out worldwide on a Sunday morning. Where are most American journalists and people? Church and not working, respectively. If there's a day when people kick back and don't follow the news, it's Sunday. That's not to say the news isn't important on Sunday. Two of the traditional Sunday morning things are the Sunday morning political talk shows (which would have been taping while the Panama Papers were breaking) and the Sunday morning newspaper (which wouldn't have had the news, since they had to go to press early in the morning). The only thing that would have had it was the Web and broadcast — whose A teams were probably off that day.
Second, there's a large degree of America-centrism here, in two forms.
• While there was a consortium of international journalists — literally the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists — they weren't the influential media power players. Notably, they largely weren't American. The New York Times had to defend themselves against their readers when they weren't involved. The only involved American media were McClatchy newspapers (Kansas City Star, Charlotte Observer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram) and Fusion TV. While these are good media sources, they also aren't consumed on a national basis. So the biggest media sources in America didn't know it was coming and were blindsided.
• American businesses and leaders were largely uninvolved. There are about 200 American passports involved in the Panama Papers. While there are a few billionaires involved in America, these aren't big names here. It's not like our President or major political leaders were involved — it's just a few rich guys you've probably never heard of. And there's a reason for that: As lawyers and journalists have pointed out, rich people don't have to go to Panama to set up shell companies, since it's perfectly legal to do that through Delaware, Wyoming or Nevada. We don't have off-shoring in America. We have legal on-shoring.
Third, the Panama Papers are complicated. It involves tax shelters and havens and off-shoring and LLCs and... that's a lot for a person to handle. Particularly in a world where journalists are told to write to an eighth-grade level, the Panama Papers are a slippery bunch of issues that usually need an explainer piece beside them. Further, what's come out has mostly been accusations and has led to very few charges (I'd argue this is because they just leaked and not because everything is legal, but that's where we're at.). So what we've got is confusion and smoke. The task for journalists will be to ferret out the fire and fan away the confusion. And the smoke. This metaphor and paragraph need to end. In short: tax shelters aren't a sexy issue.
Last, I have one more argument here: cynicism. Let's boil these Panama Papers down to their essence: Rich people around the world use complicated tax schemes to avoid paying taxes. What about that statement is surprising or shocking? There are connections to Vladimir Putin and FIFA, two people/organizations certainly not known for their transparency or lack of corruption. Most of the fallout has been to foreign leaders Americans don't know (Iceland's prime minister!) or don't trust anyway (FIFA, Putin, etc.). I'd argue that we assume the most rich people do this sort of thing anyway, so the shock really doesn't set in as deeply. In America, we're more shocked that Alabama's governor said sexy things to someone who works for him and is not his wife.
Name of the Year update
The first round of voting is over, and a few upsets have happened. I didn't pick the two 2-seeds to fall in the first round, but I did pick both to fall in the second round. Out of 32 matches, I predicted 27 (!) of the 32 first-round matches.
Bulltron Regional
As predicted, Tillmann Buttersack and Jasmine Albuquerque-Croissant have advanced to face each other. I did call the Burm Snart upset, and he'll go on to face Brodarious Hamm, as I expected. I also called the Onno Hoes-Charol Shakeshaft matchup, as well as Furious Carney pulling off the upset. What I didn't foresee (though did note was the best 15-seed) was Chizu Shimizu Buckalew pulling off the upset of 2-seed sicnarF loopstoK. Altogether, I'm proud of my picks in this region. 7/8 correct
Sithole Regional
Pope McCorkle III and Oozi Cats waltzed past their competition, as expected. However, I did not see Saint Schwing trouncing Dr. Kim Nazi. Snookie Catholique advanced and so did Cosmo Bjorkenheim and Scholastique Koolimo into the Round of 32. Of course, Dick Tips had no problems with the first round. The big surprise was another 15-seed upsetting a 2-seed. Attila Freska was not fresh enough for Rigoberto Uran Uran. 6/8 correct
Dragonwagon Regional
WOW, did I nail this one. I called the upset by 12-seed Lt. Charlene Sprinkle-Huff and correctly called the coin-toss Ransom Barefoot-IV Seacat matchup (I picked Barefoot, who won by just 16 votes!). Looking at the vote totals, I feel great about this round, but feel scared about the subsequent rounds. 8/8 correct
Chrotchtangle Regional
Remember how good I've done so far? The mighty do, occasionally, fall. Just like 1-seed Shuntavyious Primes-Willes to the underdog 16-seed Billie-Jo Skeleton. I don't think anyone saw that one coming. I correctly called wins by Tre McKitty and Divine Deablo, and also picked the 13-seed upset by Jorja Pound Turnipseed over Jasmine Squirrel. However, I picked the wrong horse in the Muna Tuna-Langstaff Dickerson race, and Muna Tuna came out ahead. I did pick the rest of the bracket correctly to round it out, though. 6/8 correct
Summary Judgments
George Mason University renamed their law school after Antonin Scalia, but forgot about acronyms. The Antonin Scalia School of Law is ASSLaw or ASSoL. I can't believe no one thought about that. Anyway, they've already changed it to Antonin Scalia Law School (ASLS). • • • A Wisconsin Representative said after Tuesday's election that voter ID laws will help Republicans in that state. That's the truth about voter ID laws: Although they sound good, they are really a smokescreen to eliminate minority (often Democrat) votes from the general election. I've done the research and the facts are clear. If you want to stop voter fraud in truth, reform absentee voting. Until then, legislators are focusing on the speck of dust instead of the plank in the proverbial eye. • • • Censorship makes me angry. It makes me further angry when legislators — who should know better — cherry-pick lines to make books sound evil and toxic. It really makes me angry when legislators from former Confederate states seek to cherry-pick lines from Pulitzer Prize-winning books written by black authors. • • • The other day, I was picking up the kids from daycare. I've got Evie in my arms, while Roland is crying while the daycare attendant is grabbing our stuff. I said, "Come on, Roland! Be happy!" Evie then leaned into my ear and whispered, "Happy." It was then that I learned that any word, no matter how nice, is made creepy by whispering.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Code Words and referees
There's been a lot of talk about "religious liberty" in bills that have made their way mostly through state Legislatures in the South. These claim to be protecting religious liberty, but really do little of the sort. Rather, they're code words for allowing harassment. These "religious liberty" bills are, in effect, giving people who don't like gay and lesbians the opportunity to discriminate without reproach.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled gay people can get married, there are still laws on the books on the subject of discrimination. In 28 states, you can be fired simply for being gay. You can be kicked out of your apartment if your landlord finds out you are gay. These religious freedom bills are trying to allow businesses to deny service, allow government officials to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses, and to write in ink that such discrimination is acceptable.
I have a two-part test to determine if something is discrimination. The first is "Would it still sound discriminatory if the roles were reversed?" The second is "Does the characteristic quality of Group B affect the situation?"
For example: Would it be illegal/discriminatory if a gay court clerk recused himself from allowing two Christians to get married? Would Christians be mad if a gay landlord kicked someone out of their apartment for being Christian? Would it be discrimination if Tim Cook, openly gay CEO of Apple, announced he'd fire anyone that was openly Christian? Of course it would! It goes back to the Golden Rule. People would be up in arms if the shoe were on the other foot.
But there are some situations in which homosexuality could be rightfully used for termination. They don't quite fit the reversal of roles argument. If a minister comes out of the closet, that should/could be grounds for his firing. However, that's because of the religious nature of his job. He works in the business of religion, and homosexuality would be incompatible with his position. If James Dobson or Pat Robertson came out of the closet tomorrow, they'd lose their jobs, and there should be no protection in such a case.
But most situations are not religious in nature, thus the second test. Does the fact that a person is gay affect whether they should be able to buy a telephone? No. Does the fact a person is gay affect their ability to pay rent? No. The government is a nonreligious entity, so whether a person is gay has no bearing on their ability to receive a marriage license. Gay money has just as much buying power as straight money.
So why do I bring all this up? Because CNN is using "religious freedom" right now. This is a problem, because objectivity is a major tenet of journalism. Using the phraseology of one group is like a referee saying they'll let the home team call all the fouls while they watch the out-of-bounds plays. Journalists should be the referee. And they're giving up inch by inch by allowing people to decide what to call things. These are not religious freedom bills. These are anti-gay discrimination bills. One sounds nice. The other sounds mean-spirited. Call it down the middle, ref.
Sesame Street Questions
The kids have started watching Sesame Street lately. I've mostly had a nostalgic trip down Sesame Street, and seeing the new characters has added some fun wrinkles. I definitely agree that there's been a bit of a decline in recent years, especially the more the show has become Elmo-centric. Here's a story from last year about that rise, and how it's been bad for the show. But on the whole, I've still liked a lot more than I didn't. The better part is, the kids like it. You can pretty much get the kids interested in watching (and being relatively still) by mentioning Elmo.
However, there have been a few silly questions I've had:
• On one show, they teach in detail how to wrap a present. However, the next show has one human character folding laundry like no one ever should. What gives?
• Why are there so many special appearances by characters from Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, a decidedly not-for-kids show? Also, who mailed Det. Stabler a pickle? And why would you do that?
• There are self-aware cakes in Sesame Street. If you eat one, is this murder? Are the cakes OK with this?
• Why are there so many broken toasters on Sesame Street? I've counted six so far.
• Is Elmo's Dad the Muppet Sammy Hagar?
Summary Judgments
Even if you don't care for his politics, former New York Democratic Senator Barney Frank had an honest, interesting interview with Slate recently. He speaks freely, has logic behind his arguments and doesn't stick to party lines. I like people on either side of the aisle who do that. • • • I was going to spend the majority of time talking about Donald Trump, and how the media has given up its duty, but other, better people have beaten me to it. This story from 538.com did the best job of summarizing how it happened, and the way journalism allowed itself to be used. • • • I've got a couple good kid stories I'll have to write next week. Thanks for reading!
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled gay people can get married, there are still laws on the books on the subject of discrimination. In 28 states, you can be fired simply for being gay. You can be kicked out of your apartment if your landlord finds out you are gay. These religious freedom bills are trying to allow businesses to deny service, allow government officials to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses, and to write in ink that such discrimination is acceptable.
I have a two-part test to determine if something is discrimination. The first is "Would it still sound discriminatory if the roles were reversed?" The second is "Does the characteristic quality of Group B affect the situation?"
For example: Would it be illegal/discriminatory if a gay court clerk recused himself from allowing two Christians to get married? Would Christians be mad if a gay landlord kicked someone out of their apartment for being Christian? Would it be discrimination if Tim Cook, openly gay CEO of Apple, announced he'd fire anyone that was openly Christian? Of course it would! It goes back to the Golden Rule. People would be up in arms if the shoe were on the other foot.
But there are some situations in which homosexuality could be rightfully used for termination. They don't quite fit the reversal of roles argument. If a minister comes out of the closet, that should/could be grounds for his firing. However, that's because of the religious nature of his job. He works in the business of religion, and homosexuality would be incompatible with his position. If James Dobson or Pat Robertson came out of the closet tomorrow, they'd lose their jobs, and there should be no protection in such a case.
But most situations are not religious in nature, thus the second test. Does the fact that a person is gay affect whether they should be able to buy a telephone? No. Does the fact a person is gay affect their ability to pay rent? No. The government is a nonreligious entity, so whether a person is gay has no bearing on their ability to receive a marriage license. Gay money has just as much buying power as straight money.
So why do I bring all this up? Because CNN is using "religious freedom" right now. This is a problem, because objectivity is a major tenet of journalism. Using the phraseology of one group is like a referee saying they'll let the home team call all the fouls while they watch the out-of-bounds plays. Journalists should be the referee. And they're giving up inch by inch by allowing people to decide what to call things. These are not religious freedom bills. These are anti-gay discrimination bills. One sounds nice. The other sounds mean-spirited. Call it down the middle, ref.
Sesame Street Questions
The kids have started watching Sesame Street lately. I've mostly had a nostalgic trip down Sesame Street, and seeing the new characters has added some fun wrinkles. I definitely agree that there's been a bit of a decline in recent years, especially the more the show has become Elmo-centric. Here's a story from last year about that rise, and how it's been bad for the show. But on the whole, I've still liked a lot more than I didn't. The better part is, the kids like it. You can pretty much get the kids interested in watching (and being relatively still) by mentioning Elmo.
However, there have been a few silly questions I've had:
• On one show, they teach in detail how to wrap a present. However, the next show has one human character folding laundry like no one ever should. What gives?
• Why are there so many special appearances by characters from Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, a decidedly not-for-kids show? Also, who mailed Det. Stabler a pickle? And why would you do that?
• There are self-aware cakes in Sesame Street. If you eat one, is this murder? Are the cakes OK with this?
• Why are there so many broken toasters on Sesame Street? I've counted six so far.
• Is Elmo's Dad the Muppet Sammy Hagar?
Summary Judgments
Even if you don't care for his politics, former New York Democratic Senator Barney Frank had an honest, interesting interview with Slate recently. He speaks freely, has logic behind his arguments and doesn't stick to party lines. I like people on either side of the aisle who do that. • • • I was going to spend the majority of time talking about Donald Trump, and how the media has given up its duty, but other, better people have beaten me to it. This story from 538.com did the best job of summarizing how it happened, and the way journalism allowed itself to be used. • • • I've got a couple good kid stories I'll have to write next week. Thanks for reading!
Thursday, March 24, 2016
A begrudging look at why Hulk Hogan's sex tape matters
*Heavy sigh.* There are almost no scenarios in which I want to talk about a Hulk Hogan sex tape, but such a scenario appeared this week. The Hulk Hogan v. Gawker Media lawsuit has important ramifications about the idea of First Amendment protections for journalists and even "journalists."
Hogan sued Gawker for publishing parts of a sex tape it received from an anonymous sender. After a jury trial in his hometown, Hogan won $140 million for an invasion of his privacy. Gawker plans to appeal. Normally, "plans to appeal" is a desperate cry of a losing team. However, Gawker is likely to win on the appeal and probably should.
A landmark case in journalism law is New York Times v. Sullivan. In short: Public figures have less privacy. Plaintiffs must prove that the accused either knew something was false and charged ahead anyway (doesn't apply to this case, since it was a video) or the invasion of privacy was not newsworthy. Is Hulk Hogan's sex life newsworthy? Here's where it gets a little complicated.
Hogan, a famous professional wrestler, often went on radio and television to discuss his sex life. He had a reality show. He is a celebrity, which falls into the category of public figure. Hogan's lawyers argued that there is a line between Hulk Hogan (character) and Terry Bollea (real name). In effect, they argued that what he says on radio and television interviews and reality television should be considered the character Hulk Hogan and not the person Terry Bollea.
Gawker's arguments are morally repugnant, but no less correct. Hogan's sexual braggadocio (ew!) made his sex life a public topic. It's like Hulk Hogan put a plate of sandwiches out for anyone, but Terry Bollea said not to eat them. Given that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea are the same person, that public-private split doesn't work. From the New Yorker: "Public figures can't escape their special constitutional status by saying that deep down, they're really shy."
Did Gawker have to show video? Hogan's lawyers said no, but in modern media, that's the only way to "prove" anything. Think Ray Rice or any given law enforcement "incident" with minorities (both for and against). The value is in the video. Is it gross to publish a sex tape of a celebrity? Yes. Most news organizations (journalists) would not publish it, while most tabloids ("journalists" with quotation marks) likely would.
Ultimately, this case is about what's moral and what's legal. Although Gawker was found guilty, they were likely found guilty by a jury that was morally outraged. Legally, there was nothing wrong with Gawker's actions. If there was, then freedom of the press to publish video and images debunking the statements of public figures is threatened. If Tom Hanks goes on TV telling everyone he loves dolphins, then if a video of him punching dolphins in his backyard pool is newsworthy. (Disclaimer: Tom Hanks does not punch dolphins.)
One last note: I think Hogan sued not because of the sex tape, but what else was on the sex tape. The pillow talk (seriously, EW!) included racists statements about black people that made headlines. The sex didn't cost Hogan millions of dollars and his status with the WWE; rather, it was the use of the N-word in a negative way that did. Although he can't put that particular cat back into the bag, this lawsuit is about winning as much money as he can to replace that lost income.
Bathroom Break
Think about what your bathroom habits are. I bet everyone has the same general answer: Do your business, wash your hands and leave (I hope). But North Carolina lawmakers think that LGBT people don't do that. I don't know what they think LGBT people do in the bathroom, but the idea that they're somehow sexual deviants while they take a dump fails logic. Lawmakers say this is about protecting children... from what?
Say you're a transgender female. That is, you were born a man, but have always identified as a woman. You've undergone some amount of gender reassignment (think: Caitlin Jenner). You have breasts and long hair and wear a dress. Which bathroom does it make more sense to use? The women's restroom, of course. She's going to do what everyone else does in the bathroom — Do her business, wash her hands and leave. Many states are now requiring this person to use the men's bathroom — a person that by all appearances and action is a woman. She'd feel more uncomfortable at this point using the men's restroom. I'm sure the men would be more uncomfortable, too.
How do you enforce such a law, anyway? Have a birth certificate gender scanner at the entrance to every bathroom? LGBT people aren't child molesters and aren't spying on others when they use the bathroom. Mostly, they just want to use the bathroom. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then just let them pee and poop with the ducks.
Summary Judgments
This has easily been the grossest entry on News Judgments I've had. Thank you for patiently and willingly reading about Hulk Hogan sex tapes and bathroom habits. • • • I don't usually read stories about shoes and endorsements, but here's a fascinating breakdown by True Hoop of how Steph Curry (last year's MVP) made the switch away from Nike and to Under Armour. You'd think Nike would have a) bothered to pronounce his name right and b) fixed the slides in their PowerPoint to the right name. You'd be wrong. • • • Good story by ESPN on how OU basketball coach Lon Kruger is the nicest, most boringly great coach. • • • The kids are sleeping better at night since they got tubes put in last week. And now I've jinxed it. Thanks, me. • • • Have a wonderful, renewing Easter!
Hogan sued Gawker for publishing parts of a sex tape it received from an anonymous sender. After a jury trial in his hometown, Hogan won $140 million for an invasion of his privacy. Gawker plans to appeal. Normally, "plans to appeal" is a desperate cry of a losing team. However, Gawker is likely to win on the appeal and probably should.
A landmark case in journalism law is New York Times v. Sullivan. In short: Public figures have less privacy. Plaintiffs must prove that the accused either knew something was false and charged ahead anyway (doesn't apply to this case, since it was a video) or the invasion of privacy was not newsworthy. Is Hulk Hogan's sex life newsworthy? Here's where it gets a little complicated.
Hogan, a famous professional wrestler, often went on radio and television to discuss his sex life. He had a reality show. He is a celebrity, which falls into the category of public figure. Hogan's lawyers argued that there is a line between Hulk Hogan (character) and Terry Bollea (real name). In effect, they argued that what he says on radio and television interviews and reality television should be considered the character Hulk Hogan and not the person Terry Bollea.
Gawker's arguments are morally repugnant, but no less correct. Hogan's sexual braggadocio (ew!) made his sex life a public topic. It's like Hulk Hogan put a plate of sandwiches out for anyone, but Terry Bollea said not to eat them. Given that Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea are the same person, that public-private split doesn't work. From the New Yorker: "Public figures can't escape their special constitutional status by saying that deep down, they're really shy."
Did Gawker have to show video? Hogan's lawyers said no, but in modern media, that's the only way to "prove" anything. Think Ray Rice or any given law enforcement "incident" with minorities (both for and against). The value is in the video. Is it gross to publish a sex tape of a celebrity? Yes. Most news organizations (journalists) would not publish it, while most tabloids ("journalists" with quotation marks) likely would.
Ultimately, this case is about what's moral and what's legal. Although Gawker was found guilty, they were likely found guilty by a jury that was morally outraged. Legally, there was nothing wrong with Gawker's actions. If there was, then freedom of the press to publish video and images debunking the statements of public figures is threatened. If Tom Hanks goes on TV telling everyone he loves dolphins, then if a video of him punching dolphins in his backyard pool is newsworthy. (Disclaimer: Tom Hanks does not punch dolphins.)
One last note: I think Hogan sued not because of the sex tape, but what else was on the sex tape. The pillow talk (seriously, EW!) included racists statements about black people that made headlines. The sex didn't cost Hogan millions of dollars and his status with the WWE; rather, it was the use of the N-word in a negative way that did. Although he can't put that particular cat back into the bag, this lawsuit is about winning as much money as he can to replace that lost income.
Bathroom Break
Think about what your bathroom habits are. I bet everyone has the same general answer: Do your business, wash your hands and leave (I hope). But North Carolina lawmakers think that LGBT people don't do that. I don't know what they think LGBT people do in the bathroom, but the idea that they're somehow sexual deviants while they take a dump fails logic. Lawmakers say this is about protecting children... from what?
Say you're a transgender female. That is, you were born a man, but have always identified as a woman. You've undergone some amount of gender reassignment (think: Caitlin Jenner). You have breasts and long hair and wear a dress. Which bathroom does it make more sense to use? The women's restroom, of course. She's going to do what everyone else does in the bathroom — Do her business, wash her hands and leave. Many states are now requiring this person to use the men's bathroom — a person that by all appearances and action is a woman. She'd feel more uncomfortable at this point using the men's restroom. I'm sure the men would be more uncomfortable, too.
How do you enforce such a law, anyway? Have a birth certificate gender scanner at the entrance to every bathroom? LGBT people aren't child molesters and aren't spying on others when they use the bathroom. Mostly, they just want to use the bathroom. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, then just let them pee and poop with the ducks.
Summary Judgments
This has easily been the grossest entry on News Judgments I've had. Thank you for patiently and willingly reading about Hulk Hogan sex tapes and bathroom habits. • • • I don't usually read stories about shoes and endorsements, but here's a fascinating breakdown by True Hoop of how Steph Curry (last year's MVP) made the switch away from Nike and to Under Armour. You'd think Nike would have a) bothered to pronounce his name right and b) fixed the slides in their PowerPoint to the right name. You'd be wrong. • • • Good story by ESPN on how OU basketball coach Lon Kruger is the nicest, most boringly great coach. • • • The kids are sleeping better at night since they got tubes put in last week. And now I've jinxed it. Thanks, me. • • • Have a wonderful, renewing Easter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)