Our Disappointing Representative

I’ve previously said that I’m bad with local politics.  Here’s how bad: I just found out that my representative in Pennsylvania’s 14th congressional district, Mike Doyle, was one of the 64 Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment, which would prohibit insurance plans participating in the exchange from covering abortion (a.k.a. any bought with government subsidies, or those bought by small businesses).  The only exceptions are in cases or rape, incest, or when a doctor would certify that the mother was at risk of death.  Although I think the policy is misguided through and through, that last sentence is crucial: in cases where the mother’s health is in jeopardy, but there is no danger of death, an abortion would still be prohibited.  Unless the plain language of the bill is misleading, neither is there any provision for severe fetal abnormalities, even if they meant that the fetus could never become viable.

I can’t say that Doyle is a uniformly terrible representative.  A brief look at his record indicated some high points, including extremely good support for LGBT issues, and support for net neutrality.  Still, I think the headline “Stupak Amendment Passes; 64 Dems Ask for Primary Opponents is roughly on target.

Nor is there any reason the 14th district should have a conservative Democrat as it’s representative.  Obama won in the 14th congressional district by 70% to 29%.  Doyle won in 1994 by ten points, has run unopposed in several subsequent races, including the 2008 election, where he only faced a challenge from the Green party.  In 2010, there’s a Republican challenger, which potentially puts pressure on Doyle to continue behaving like a conservative Democrat.  That’s all the more reason that he needs pressure from his left.

I doubt Doyle will receive a primary challenge, and I don’t know if that would be strategically sound.  But I sure hope he sees a lot of pressure for this decision.  Although it’s over a week late, I plan on giving his office a call to say that I’m disappointed, and that when the compromise bill comes up for a vote, Doyle needs to support it, whether or not the Stupak language has been preserved.  Since Congress doesn’t have takebacks, that’s the closest we can get.

Quote of The Day

I may try and write about Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment to the House health bill, which blocked insurance companies enrolled in the exchanges from offering abortion coverage, as it raises a few interesting questions.  However, I don’t have the time right now, so I’ll leave you with a revealing comment from Ezra Klein, in his post The Stupak amendment: As much about class as about choice:

And it did not block the federal government from subsidizing abortion. All it did was block it from subsidizing abortion for poorer women.

Every Night, I Break Into People’s Homes And Replace The Twilight Series With Logic Texts

I’m more than a bit tickled to see that Dover has reprinted an edition of Raymond Smullyan’s First Order Logic.  It’s a Dover book, cheap and thin, so you can imagine someone casually picking it up to find out what this “logic” is about.  But despite its initially inviting exterior, it’s not a book of baby-logic, and section titles include

The Skolem-Lowenheim and Compactness Theorems for First Order Logic; Gentzen Systems; Gentzen’s Haupsatz; Craig’s Interpolation Lemma and Beth’s Definability Theorem

Contrary to my initial reaction, this is par for the course for Dover, which was founded after Tables of Functions with Formulas and Curves was an unexpected smash hit in the United States.

In general, math and logic books range from expensive to insultingly expensive, so it’s more than a little surprising to see serious (if outdated) books on the subject that are cheap.  For instance, I’m sure there are better books on the subject, but I’ve actually had Paul Cohen’s Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis recommended to me.

Local Politics

Once again, I’ve completely ignored local politics, there’s an election in two days, and I’m spending one of those days with a stack of student papers in front of me.

If I find anything out about the mayoral race, I’ll post it.  I’ve been itching to vote against our immature and possibly corrupt child mayor, Luke Ravenstahl, for awhile now.  Several months ago, it looked like the race wouldn’t even be remotely competitive. Perversely, that would make it easier for me to vote, since I’d feel less compelled to do due diligence before casting a protest vote.

Anyway, let me know if y’all know anything at all.

For comic value, do try Pittsburgh, City of Embarrassment.

Quote Of The Day

If Superfreakonomics wanted a calm and rational debate, this chapter would have been called something like: “Geoengineering: Issues in Relative Cost Estimation of SO2 Shielding”, and the book would have sold about five copies.

The title of the post is “Rules for Contrarians: 1. Don’t whine.  That is all.”  Another beautiful quotation follows it:

“In general, whatever “global cooling” meant, it was put on the cover in full knowledge of the impression it would give to a normal reader so once more, it is not legitimate to complain that this phrase was interpreted in the way in which it was intended to be interpreted.”

My personal take for most damning thing I read about Superfreakonomics is Ezra Klein’s claim that they used nearly meaningless statistics to make their argument that walking drunk is more dangerous than driving drunk.  If true, it’s a “your license to play a professor in public has been revoked” kind of error.

This Does Not End Well

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee voted Thursday to encourage limits on the compensation of insurance executives, responding to charges that expanding health insurance coverage would enrich insurance companies. (WSJ)

Granted, it’s more likely to end poorly with a series of stupid regulations than with a slide into a Soviet style gulag, but why should we think Congress has any idea how or authority to set such limits?

The Highbrow Life

I’m obviously flattered that Go is the game of the highbrow, according to a 1949 issue of Life magazine, but having played both, I wouldn’t say it’s a more highbrow game than bridge.  I like it better, but I wouldn’t say it’s a better game than bridge.

Even more confusing, Go’s footprint in the US was extremely small in 1949. Not even many highbrow individuals would have played it, even if they’d heard of it.

Taking America Too Seriously

I just got a reminder of why I don’t truly like Andrew Sullivan’s commentary, even though I often find much of it worthwhile:

If any person has done more to advance some measure of calm, reason and peace in this troubled word lately, it’s president Obama. I think the Cairo speech and the Wright speech alone merited this both bridging ancient rifts even while they remain, of course, deep and intractable. He has already done more to heal the open wound between the West and Islam than anyone else on the planet.

I’d just add one caveat: the American people who elected him deserve part of the credit too. Now he needs partners to help him.

Andrew Sullivan buys into American exceptionalism to an embarrassing degree.  He’s the perfect example of a foreign policy liberal in my typology (inspired by FDR): conservatives say “America is always right”, liberals say “this is a betrayal of America’s nature–we’re always right except this time”, leftists say “same old shit from America.”†   I think Matt Welch is entirely on target:

Among many other things, this selection illustrates the United States’ way-too-oversized role in the world’s imagination.

I do think Obama’s remarks were almost perfect.  Not a note in there that suggests he thinks he’s being awarded for special accomplishments he made.  There was a lot of danger that he’d react awkwardly to an award this premature.

Update: James Fallows has a nice breakdown of Obama’s speech and why it was good.

† I admit that it makes the taxonomy look bad that I come out as a leftist.  It’s even worse that it implies Daniel Larison doesn’t exist…maybe I should just give up.

A Quick Note On Hyperbole and Rhetoric Re: Rep. Grayson

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly,” Grayson said, standing next to giant placards that emphasized his words. “That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

Perhaps the first half of what Grayson says is ok.  It is obviously a case of hyperbole, and a bit impolite, but both those things are sometime defensible in politics.  It’s not my taste–or at least not what I aim for, but I won’t complain so much.

But the second half of Grayson’s comment is ridiculous.  There is no sense in which the Republicans want people to die.  Nothing even approximately close.  Republicans have their reasons for disagreeing with health care reform, many of which I think are bad (slavish devotion to an ideal of the free market, distorted ideas of what will happen).  Many legislators have worse reasons (pandering, insurance industry donations).  But the idea that they want people to die explains nothing.  It’s not hyperbole, it’s pure rhetoric, and it doesn’t appeal to any rational consideration, but pure fear.

I hardly think there’s need for a resolution censuring him–Steve Benen very aptly notes that Republicans have said equally extreme things during the health care debate.  It would be extreme hypocrisy for them to censure him.  In any case, rhetoric is rarely reason for a censuring–Wilson’s outburst broke less subjective customs of congressional behavior.

I haven’t seen many people in the parts of the left I frequent defending Grayson (and to be clear, it’s early for this tempest in a teapot), and I hope that stays the case.

P.S. If you’re disagreeing, does it matter that Grayson called the current situation a holocaust?

Cho U, Iyama Yuta And A Few Other Updates

When I last wrote about Cho U and Iyama Yuta, I wrote that Cho was arguably the top player in Japan.  I doubt it’s even arguable this year, as he holds five of the big seven titles (Meijin, Judan, Gosei, Oza, Tengen).

Let’s just repeat something John Fairbairn said: “Everyone agrees that the 20-year-old Iyama has gotten stronger in the intervening year, but, seemingly, so has Cho－after all, he has become the first player to hold five of the top seven titles simultaneously.”

Iyama swept the Meijin qualifier, going 8-0 against a respectable field.  Apparently it’s his tourney, as it’s the only major one this year where he’s stood out (and yet he has the most wins of any Japanese pro right now).

Cho is also doing well in the Kisei qualifiers.  He only has to beat the currently hapless Miyazawa Goro to win the B league, in which case he’ll have a game against O Rissei for the chance to challenge Yamashita Keigo.  Cho recently had little trouble defending the Oza against Yamashita, but it sometimes appears that particular players have a knack for winning their tournaments, and Yamashita is one more win before he becomes Honorary Kisei.  Anyway, even if Cho eventually gets to challenge for the Kisei, in November, he’ll be defending the Tengen title against…Yamashita Keigo.

Lastly, the Honinbo league is incredibly competitive: Takao Shinji, Yamada Kimio, Yamashita Keigo, Cho U, Takemiya Masaki (!), Yuki Satoshi, Mimura Tomoyasu, Iyama Yuta.  When you take into account that Hane Naoki is the title holder, it’s an impressive list.

The King Is Coming

I didn’t initially care that much about the G20, or think that it would be a big deal. Clearly, I was wrong.

What first made me angry was learning that several downtown universities would be closing for the three days surrounding the summit. At least one university is closing its residence halls, though it will deign to provide the students with alternate housing.  To drive into downtown, you’ll need a driver’s license with a downtown address. No word what you do if you just moved.

Pitt is three or four miles from downtown and the convention center, but because of a dinner being held at the Phipps conservatory, Thursday evening, all classes after 4PM are being cancelled, and all classes in the Cathedral of Learning are being cancelled starting at Noon.  I won’t pretend that having the afternoon off is a terrible burden.

What rankles is that this is all for a dinner.  After all the disruption that’s being inflicted on people who live and work downtown, they’re taking the delegation to Oakland just because they fancied the dinner location.

I don’t mind the tremendous expense of security, and I don’t think that the meeting is a waste of time.  I do wonder if there might have been a better city than Pittsburgh (isn’t this why we built DC?), but I have to admit that the visitors will probably bring enough money for it to be a net benefit.  I don’t even mind that the White House is a very nice place, and we the people spend money on ensuring that the president’s bed is comfy.

But when we’re shutting down a university for the sake of a dinner, we’ve crossed a line into treating the heads of state as if they’re kings and we’re their subjects.

Van Jones

To those whose investment in politics focuses on the horse-race and questions of who’s winning or losing, Van Jones’s resignation may be an interesting issue.   However, if your concerns are more about what’s right and what the aims of politics should be, there is not much of a story here.

Van Jones’s support for a 9/11 truth petition was outside of both intellectually serious opinion and mainstream American opinion. There is no principled reason for defending his stance, whether you are a milquetoast liberal like myself, progressive, green, Marxist or anarchist. The fact that many of his critics were themselves just as far from being respectable makes no difference.  Case closed.

If there’s any serious ground for doubting the pressure on Van Jones, it would be doubts about the coherence of personality. That is, just because a man believed something crazy about one topic, do we really have reason to doubt their judgment in general?   We’re surrounded by people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or that the earth in 6000 years old, or that colon cleansing is the key to health, yet they are not necessarily stupid or unreliable.

I have substantial sympathy for this idea, which you might see as an “intellectual situationism” or some relative thereof. Nonetheless, this is a radical idea.  Not ideologically radical, but radical in how it would destabilize our opinions about politics. If a person’s views and actions lack coherence in this way, then are we prohibited from thinking that Bush was lazy and careless, and McCain was a hothead, while Obama was cautious and cerebral?

I’m still wrestling with the proper way to think about character, both intellectual and ethical. My interest was initially philosophical, and I’ve only subsequently started to notice how often the topic is relevant to politics. My point here is not to prejudge that issue, but to stress the substantial commitments you’re taking on if you’re disinclined to take a scandal like Van Jones’ seriously.

Just Wow…

I’ve never been a fan of everything Will Wilkinson has written, but I’ve always thought he added something to the political debates being carried out online.  So, I’m amazed by his most recent and absolutely shameful post.  It begins:

Here is a good debate proposition: It ought to be less embarrassing to have been influenced by Ayn Rand than by Karl Marx.

The most powerful way to argue the affirmative is to compare the number of human beings murdered by the devotees of each. That line of attack ought to be decisive…

I won’t say that no one I know and respect would think of such a comparison.  But no one I know and respect would make such a comparison without quickly realizing and admitting that there might be a complicating factor or two, that perhaps the line between Marx’s ideas and all those deaths was not so direct.  And I’m not going to bother spelling them out, because when Will wakes up tomorrow, I doubt what he’s going to say is “what I wrote yesterday was really the way we ought to judge Marx and Rand.  I have no qualms about this argument.”

Btw, I carry no water for Marx–I’ve only ever read the Communist Manifesto, and that at too young an age to trust my judgment–which was that I’d wasted my time (true enough, it wasn’t really where Marx laid out his ideas).  My weakly held opinion that Marx belongs on my long list of things to eventually read is primarily based on the testimony of philosophers who have acknowledged his influence upon them–hardly a fervent endorsement.

Beginners Go Tournament

Just a quick note: there will be a go tournament for beginners held in Oakland this coming Tuesday–I’ve included the announcement below.  I doubt I’ll be there to offer moral support, but it’s a good opportunity to play go if you’re just starting or haven’t played in awhile.  I suspect that the fifteen game limit may be more of a rough guideline, but if you’re worried, you can contact someone at the club and ask.

Let me also note that September is just about the best time of year for new players in our club.  Every year there’s an increase in the number of attendees right after CMU’s activity fair, and it brings in folks of all levels.

——————–

The tournament will be this Tuesday night (Aug.  25) at Phantom of the Attic in Oakland (406 S.
Craig St.).  It will start at 7:30 and go no later than 11:30.

The tournament will be played on 13×13 boards and is aimed at players who are new to the game of go.  Anyone who has played around fifteen games or less is welcome to play.  So, if you’re new to the game yourself, be sure to stop by, and if you have friends that you’ve been trying to get excited about go, encourage them to attend.  First prize is a used go board.  Second prize is $5.

Josiah will be at Phantom of the Attic at 6:30 to give a review of the rules and other tips to anyone who shows up early.  Other
non-beginners are invited to stop by to observe and/or teach before the tournament and between rounds.

The Great Moderation

Reading John Quiggin’s most recent book blogging post, I was reminded of how atypical my age cohort’s experience is.  Counting the current (possibly ended) recession, we’ve lived through three recessions, two of which were quite mild.  Depending on our exact age, we were only paying attention for only one of those.  I knew about a ‘recession’ in 1990-1991, but I was six and what did I understand?  But before our generation:

Whatever the defintion, in the years before 1981 (the end of the Volcker recession) recessions in the US were relatively frequent, with the intervening expansions averaging a little over four years. The NBER Committee defined nine recessions between 1945 and 1981, two of which (those of the early 1970s and the double-dip recession of 1980-81, were both long and severe).

I was quite struck by this difference, which has to have a huge effect on how people our age perceive the financial crisis and uncertainty about the future.  You can imagine the effect going either way.  Perhaps we assume there has to be a return to “normality” and sustained growth, or you can imagine the sheer idea of a recession being so unfamiliar and paralyzing that we turn towards an apocalyptic mindset.

Of course if Quiggin is right in thinking that The Great Moderation was a mirage, the next quarter of our lives will nothing like what we’ve experienced so far.

Ready, Set, You Know Who To Blame For This…

As to why white parents would be especially pessimistic, Warnock notes that previous studies have suggested that up to one third of junior and high school students believe that financial aid is available only for minority students. This could account for low-income white parents thinking they don’t have any help for them – even though Pell Grants (and many other programs) are based on income, not race and ethnicity. (Inside Higher Ed)

If Stanley Milgram And Phillip Zimbardo Hadn’t Gone Into Psychology…

They might have gotten involved in Pranknet, the subjects of an article at the Smoking Gun.  These trolls call various places, especially hotels, and manipulate the people on the other end into destroying property or humiliating themselves.  In a few cases they tricked their targets into stripping naked in public, and even drinking a strangers’ urine in another.  Despite its similar style, Pranknet was not behind the strip search prank call scam.

The Smoking Gun has responded by revealing the real identities of a lot of the individuals involved.  The ringleader is Tariq Malik, who they visited at his parents’ house, but he turned out to be afraid of talking to the reporters, or at least going outside in the sunlight.  Shawn Powell is another member of the group and a registered sex offender–the smoking gun claims he’s not even the worst of them, but I’m unconvinced.

I’m not sure the traditional explanation of outing is applicable here, since you can’t expect these guys to feel much shame.  But so far as it punctures their sense that they’re invincible thanks to the anonymity of the internet, exposing them can’t help but do good.

I’ll leave you with an anecdote.  One day a professor of mine started class by telling us that “One very hard question in the social sciences, one that provokes a huge amount of disagreement is ‘why are men such jerks?’ ”

I Am The Anti-Plato

When one wishes to exercise the mind, one should lavish treats on the body.  I’m drinking soda, eating candy bars, and finishing with bourbon and valium tonight.

…Well, I do ascribe to the theory–since college started, I’ve always written papers with various tasty but unhealthy things on hand, but today only the soda has actually happened.  No candybars or valium in sight, and we’ll have to wait until much later to see about the bourbon.

Recently, my soda of choice has been Boylan Black Cherry, which is made with cane sugar.  The first time I tried it, it was like giving crack to an addict, but I’m no longer rocking back and forth when I go into withdrawal.  I highly recommend trying it.

I also highly recommend gawking at the list of colas in Wikipedia’s template for them (at the bottom of the Boylan Bottling Company page).  Andy Warhol said that in America, everyone drinks the same coke, but there appears to be an awful lot of variations.

Go Congress

It looks like the field for the Go Congress is going to be really impressive this year.  Jie Li, who missed 2007 and 2008 is going to attend, as will Andy Liu, winner of the 2006 congress.  There’s also Curtis Tang who was fourth in 2006 as a 13 year old.  He hasn’t played in US tournaments since then, and I thought I’d heard he was receiving professional training in China (if so, he’s not now a pro).  Canada is sending Yongfei Ge, who has won 2 prior Opens, Juyong Koh, who was top three in last year’s Open, and Gan Sheng Shi, who had a major upset against Mingjiu Jiang this previous year.  That’s in addition to a number of perennial strong American players like Zhaonian Chen, Eric Lui and Thomas Hsiang (a somewhat arbitrary list, I suppose).

There’s also a large contingent of professionals attending from China, Korea and Japan.  Last year, one of them, Yin Kuo, played in the Open, so I’m curious to see whether that will happen again, even if active professionals are likely to dominate the open.

There’s some uncertainty from where I sit about which American professionals will play.  Mingjiu almost always does, Myungwan did last year, and won the event, but there are others I don’t know about.

Sunday morning: Myungwan Kim is playing on one of the top three boards.  Little surprise that he won, playing against Jianing Gan, a 12 year old Canadian player.

Sunday Evening: Seems that Jie Li and Mingjiu Jiang aren’t playing in the open.  Nor are any foreign players.  So I’m somewhat disappointed.  Find pairings, although no results yet, at the Congress News page.

Later: After some delay, results are regularly being posted at the news page–after three days, there are no huge surprises.  In the Ing, you could count Andy Liu beating Yilun Yang for the second time in a few weeks as noteworthy, and the same for Jie Li losing to Juyong Koh, but neither is a shock.  Juyong Koh, Myungwan Kim and Andy Liu are the only undefeated players in the top section of the Open, so two of them will play on Thursday, and then we’ll be down to a maximum of one undefeated player after Friday.

I also noticed that Curtis Tang isn’t participating, even though he was previously listed.

Friday Night: It seems like the top board of Saturday (the last day) could be anticlimactic.  Myungwan Kim is 5-0, but has already beat all 4-1 players (Andy Liu, Juyong Koh, Zhaonian Chen), so he’ll probably play someone who is 3-2.  Some of the 3-2 players are very good, but others would provide an absolute mismatch.  More interesting will be which two of the three 4-1 players are paired.

Andy Liu has really had an amazing tournament–aside from being 4-1 in the Open, he went 5-0 in the Ing Masters.  All told, he won against Chaelim Kim, Thomas Hsiang, Jie Liang, Eric Lui (twice), Mingjiu Jiang 7p, Yilun Yang 7p and Feng Yun 9p. Seems like he’s now got a lead on strongest American amateur (Jie Li went 4-1 in the Ing).

Saturday Morning: Minor surprise, as Zhaonian Chen beats Andy Liu.  Myungwan Kim beats Yongfei Ge.  That puts Myungwan at 6-0, Zhaonian at 5-1, followed by several players at 4-2 (Andy Liu, Juyong Koh, Eric Lui, Thomas Hsiang, Jie Liang, Yuan Zhou, Richard Liang and Matthew Burall).  And with that, I’m done covering congress.

Doubts About Forensic Science

Popular mechanics has posted a nice article summarizing doubts about the current state of forensic science.  The short of it is that it would be nice if there were actual science involved.  The current state of forensic science ranges from DNA tests which are known to be quite reliable to techniques like bite mark analysis that may simply be useless.  Unfortunately, there is little connection between admissibility in court and rigorous tests that demonstrate reliability.

If you often read about forensic science, there won’t be much that’s new in the Popular Science article.  If it’s a topic you’re interested in, The Agitator is probably the place to go.  August 2nd: He just posted about the article, and linked to a few more resources.