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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

“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?

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.