I managed to glance at the RPI and the actual rankings this week. Those were good for a laugh
1) Kansas
2) Duke
3) Syracuse
(These are the only teams I think have a shot at the title, in that order. BYU fits the criteria of uptempo team that blows people out, but only against much inferior competition).
4) Wisconsin
5) BYU
(Probably will get knocked off sooner because they will be underseeded and have to play somebody tougher earlier. RPI hates these two. They're not quite the most undervalued by RPI and pollsters, but it's pretty close because of how highly they rate on MOV and efficiency type ratings).
6) West Virginia
7) Ohio State (RPI hates them too. Turner's injury and Lauer's on Wisconsin's should play into their seeding)
8) Kentucky
9) Purdue
9) Kansas State
(I call this the hit or miss mix. Purdue's injuries, Kentucky's road woes and K State's weak resume aren't too helpful).
11) Maryland
12) Texas
13) Villanova
14) Baylor
(somebody is going to be very sad if they get Maryland as a lower seed draw in the second round, which they will because RPI and the bracketology folks who work based on that RPI rank have them as no better than a 5 or even 6 usually. Nova is also tricky. Texas isn't playing well. But I still wouldn't want to play them early either).
15) Missouri
16) California
17) Georgetown
18) Clemson
19) Xavier
20) Michigan State
(Cal should be in no problem, but they only have Murray St as a good win outside of their conference. I'm also not sure I buy that the Pac 10 is THAT far down. They're 8th in the RPI? You do realize that the A10 has Fordham at the glorious record of 2-26 in it?. Washington State as the last place Pac10 team is still 16-14 overall. There's probably 5-6 teams in the A10 that would struggle to win a single game in the Pac10. Sorry can't take that as a better conference just because of Temple, Xavier and Richmond. The ACC also not being #1 or #2 is hard to take seriously. Again, no easy outs. The Big East at least has Rutgers and DePaul to beat up on.)
Here's the profile on the bids so far that might matter. Winthrop and ETSU, thanks for playing but you will be cannon fodder.
N. Iowa I have #39. They have an 9-1 record versus the top 100 and will probably get a more favorable seed than a 10 (New Mexico is the only team more overrated by RPI). Possibly a sweet 16 team but nothing more than that, depends on the draw.
Murray St I have #47. The commentators for their game had them pegged as a 13 seed. RPI has them as a possible 11 or 12, depending on who doesn't make the cut ahead of them (teams like Connecticut and Seton Hall for example). They may be a good setup for a 5-12 upset or even a 4-13 if they get hosed on the draw, but they haven't played many good teams so it's hard to tell (1-3 versus top 100, with a close loss to Cal on the road the first game of the year). Their conference mostly sucked royally, as it often does.
Cornell I have #59. Not much hope for an Ivy league team win this year actually.
Bubble teams:
Washington is my highest rated team that isn't in right now (28). I'm only sort of in agreement that they shouldn't be in. They're terrible on the road and haven't beaten anybody of significance (Cal, Texas AM, Arizona St, and then...Wright St by 5?). They did play a decent out of conference slate, but it's still mostly cannon fodder outside of the top 100 or very nearly so (Belmont, Montana, Portland etc). Lost to Georgetown.
Minnesota is the most shafted RPI team (78 on RPI, 36 on my list, Marquette is the next team on that list and it's not even close). They've lost a bunch of close games (5 games by one point or OT), and mostly blew people out in their wins. That Michigan blowout loss will probably sink them, even though it probably shouldn't have (Michigan is also heavily underrated by RPI). The OT loss at Indiana is in my opinion the killer. Beat Butler out of conference. And that's it. Lost to two of Washington's out of conference wins (Texas AM and Portland).
Arizona State (39). Probably will get in now, unless they lose early in their tournament. Has only beaten San Diego State. Lost to Duke, BYU and Baylor and got swept by California though. Probably shouldn't be in in my opinion, but the bubble is just that weak this year. RPI doesn't like them too much, but they're still in "reasonable" territory unlike Minnesota. Not sure why they're favored to get in over Washington by Lunardi and others.
Memphis (45). Lost by 2 to Kansas, got crushed by Syracuse and played absolutely nobody else all year. Season sweep over UAB is their best win all year. May get in as a result, mostly to spite the Pac 10 or the SEC it would appear. I think they should have to win the auto-bid.
Connecticut (46). Best test team for the things the committee often says it wants. Played the one of the best schedules in the country and definitely the best out of conference slate among meaningful teams (nobody cares about Arkansas Pine Bluff). Isn't on the bubble discussion at all after finishing 12th in the Big East. Lost to Duke, Kentucky, but beat Texas, Villanova (on the road) and West Virginia. Michigan may be killing two decent teams at large chances here by beating Connecticut and Minnesota. So if they lose to St Johns (a road game basically) they're done, and most experts won't have them in unless they get to the Big East final at least. I think they should be in and that nobody would want to draw them in the first round as a 10-11-12 seed.
Dayton (50). Played their way out by getting swept by St. Louis and losing every meaningful game they played in the last 8 (Charlotte did the same thing so much so that Dayton's blowout over them is no longer a "meaningful game"). Did lose to Nova New Mexico, and Kansas State and did beat Georgia Tech and Old Dominion. Would have been in if the tournament was in early February, easily (especially after crushing Xavier at home). No luck now.
Mississippi (48). Probably should be in, but probably won't be. Beat Kansas St, lost to Villanova and West Virginia. Got swept by Mississippi State. Should have picked up Admiral Ackbar sooner.
Mississippi St (53). I wouldn't have them in right now, but they did beat Old Dominion, almost beat Kentucky (refs blew that game), swept their instate rivals for the bubble crown and again has the all important Wright State win out of conference (amazingly, Wright State is around Kent State as a 13-14 seed quality if they were to get in. Even if you could throw out the auto-bids from mediocre conferences they'd probably have a shot to get in. This is probably very surprising for Ohioans).
Florida (52) Seems like they're getting in. Not sure that they should be. Lost to SOUTH ALABAMA. Yes. South. Late season loss at home to Xavier didn't help them (would have been a quality win they could use). Did beat Florida State and Michigan State. NC State in OT doesn't impress too much. Also lost to Richmond and Syracuse.
Rhode Island (NR). I took them off my sheet a few weeks ago after the loss to St Louis. They have done nothing since to convince to put them back on. Losing to Massachusetts and St Bonaventure has finally convinced other people to take them off the bracket. Did beat Oklahoma State and a couple other decent wins out of conference. Lost to VCU and a 1 point win in Dayton is the only good win in conference for them. Should not even be in the discussion. I hate RPI.
San Diego State (49). Lost to Wyoming? Did beat New Mexico and lost to them in OT on the road. Also split with UNLV. Swept by BYU. Got crushed by St Mary's and crushed Arizona is all they did out of conference (also lost to Pacific). Another team that doesn't deserve to get in and might thanks to the wonderful RPI formula.
Notre Dame (50). Probably will get in. Probably should thanks to the 4 crucial wins down the stretch against top tier Big East teams (plus an earlier win over West Virginia). Probably will lose immediately. Lost to Rutgers and Loyola Marymount? Did nothing out of conference (lost to Northwestern too).
Illinois (NR). I have them dropped off the list after the losses down the stretch. They'd be in between Siena and Cornell, which is not good enough for an at-large bid. They do have a better profile of wins than all of the above bubbles. Beat Clemson (road), Vandy, Michigan State and Wisconsin (road). But those losses to Bradley and Utah are not pretty. Georgia isn't helping either. Took Gonzaga to OT, in Chicago (but was losing that game by 20, same with the Clemson win). Mostly beat up the lower tier Big Ten as they got swept by Purdue and Ohio State and split with Michigan State and Wisconsin. They're still in on the "national bracket", relatively comfortably (as an 11). This is a testimony to the weakness of the bubble.
Teams that people keep talking about as "on the bubble" or "playing for their tournament hopes/lives" that they should shut the hell up about: Louisville. California. Old Dominion (if they don't win tonight). All are comfortably on the bracket, have solid RPIs and solid profiles (Louisville and Cal's are sort of odd...but still).
08 March 2010
07 March 2010
directional-wingers
I'm apparently now a crazy liberal.
Or at least it seems that way whenever I talk to people about anything other than economics.
Here's the problem.
"Liberals" as a whole are far less "liberal" about social issues, ethics, or the expanse of civil liberties that should be protected than I am. Liberals as a whole are greatly annoyed at the Citizens United decision for example. I applauded it. Most liberals may be in favor of marijuana being legalised or at least decriminalized. I am okay with even heroin being legal. Liberals are more in favor of civil liberties that should extend to homosexuals. But they're not comfortable enough to say that this should include the term "marriage" as applied to the unions of their couples (this is at least the position taken publicly by Obama for example). Many such liberals don't even have consistent views on these. They may be okay with equal civil privileges and liberties for homosexuals but not okay with drugs or not adequately and categorically opposed to torture and indefinite detention regimes for example.
When I took a political compass test, I come out so far on the "social liberal" scale that I don't exist on the American political scale (I tend to get somewhere around a -6 or -7 on that axis). Ralph Nader comes the closest, with Kucinich or Ron Paul maybe in the next standard deviation after that. "Democrats", labeled in this country as radical leftists by their opposition, come in as modest conservatives on social matters (on average or as a whole). They're hardly liberal enough for me to take them seriously as a result. As an example, I suppose if I took Obama's civil liberties positions during the campaign more directly, I would be disappointed. He has largely ignored those positions since. I would be more so if I had taken them directly because they were more in line with the anti-terrorism views I have and thus voted for him. It was this that I felt most likely to actually change through executive action alone. Passing the other stuff like health care or extracting us from Iraq or Afghanistan was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Besides Obama ran on committing more troops and support to the Afghan front. I didn't vote for him. I'm too cynical for that. The disaffection I have is more on things like the support of the Afghan war and his opposition to free trade, positions which he did run on and has kept his word on. Which makes it a lot harder to get annoyed or surprised.
But for me there's usually a further political problem than merely identifying people with even a modest amount of respect for civil liberties and limitations on social and individual restrictions placed by law. I see the same sort of limitations as unnecessary to restrain businesses and markets. Republicans claim a sort of "right" of center conservative nature on markets. And yet they constantly exhibit the same sort of ridiculous corporatism or interferences caused by anti-market biases that Democrats use in their rhetoric. I've had to spend the last two years explaining that this country is and has been for a long time a far more socialistic enterprise than people are aware. That path was started a long, long time ago. It didn't change because we elected some radical leftist to the "throne" anymore than it was beaten back by the ascension of some "radical" conservative in 2000 or even in 1980 (with their patron saint Reagan). Americans are viewed by Europeans and other developed nations as having a vastly more market oriented economy than they have (with a couple exceptions like Hong Kong and Singapore). And yet when they observe portions of it, often key portions, it's nothing like an unfettered market at all (and sometimes less of a free and open market than they use). Health care, the supposed road being taken down the socialist path of hell, is the main example here. If you wanted to design a market for health care based on "free market principles" it wouldn't look anything like the tapestry of regulations, mandates, monopolistic barriers, and so on that we've deliberately put place even before discussing that we provide health care as a form of wealth transfer from the young to the old (and often as a result, the poor to the rich). I have no objections to people spending their money on the care of their elders. I guess that's considered noble and good and one assumes that one reason is that we would like our progeny to care for us in our advanced age and retirements. But do we really want to claim that the methods we use to do so are guided by "free markets" as the proscribed cause of our ills in the health care sector's economic performance (or lack there of)? I think not, maybe that's just me. And this is the precise program that was defended all last year from cuts and changes in the mandates or recommendations over what procedures to use and pay for by this supposed "party of markets" on the right. It goes on down the line from this, with things like opposing different methods of open markets for schools or the ending of food subsidies (both of which are things that most Republicans do not actually support). It goes further into things like immigration, where Republicans are far more likely to spout belligerent nonsense that ends up being anti-market and protectionist.
I typically get around a 6 on the economic scale. Republicans rhetorically are sometimes nearer to me on this axis than Democrats ever are on civil liberties, but in fact Democrats are not that far behind on this one (whereas Republicans usually are pretty far away on the social scale, enough to be diametrically opposite rather than merely annoyingly so). The idea that they're radical leftists puts a lot of undue impression and importance on the amount of distinct policies they support. Supporting corn subsidies to produce ethanol to prop up energy companies instead of propping up agricultural corporate giants isn't much of a big deal from where I sit.
I guess that makes me a radical politically. But I'm not sure what direction that goes.
More examples: I live in Ohio, which is considered a swing state, but which to me sits firmly as a conservative one. We barely passed legal gambling (other than lotteries and scratch offs) after several tries. We have laws restricting the behavior in strip clubs (private businesses which could enforce their own rules quite well through social customs), dry counties, what seems to be an absurd church to house ratio in some towns, and are one of the poster child states for the worst forms of abstinence only education (those that defame condoms and methods of birth control as harmful and more dangerous than unprotected sex). Despite this apparent "conservativism" or otherwise right-wing behavior, this is also a state that passed amendments to its constitution providing for farm price controls and subsidies (glorifying these laws with the difficulty of reform or repeal rather than merely passing them as temporary measures). It spent an absurd amount of time and energy passing a public smoking ban on restaurants and bars (rather than allowing the continuing trend of consumers to make these decisions themselves and impose them in the de facto sense instead of the legally binding method). Assessing to the state more power is hardly a "right-wing" paradise in my view, or at least it doesn't seem to be consistent with the vision of a small and modest purpose for government as espoused by such conservatives.
It doesn't exactly endear me to a vision of supporting either side of "wingers" when they merely change the form those powers will take over individual choices and preferences when they change sides.
Or at least it seems that way whenever I talk to people about anything other than economics.
Here's the problem.
"Liberals" as a whole are far less "liberal" about social issues, ethics, or the expanse of civil liberties that should be protected than I am. Liberals as a whole are greatly annoyed at the Citizens United decision for example. I applauded it. Most liberals may be in favor of marijuana being legalised or at least decriminalized. I am okay with even heroin being legal. Liberals are more in favor of civil liberties that should extend to homosexuals. But they're not comfortable enough to say that this should include the term "marriage" as applied to the unions of their couples (this is at least the position taken publicly by Obama for example). Many such liberals don't even have consistent views on these. They may be okay with equal civil privileges and liberties for homosexuals but not okay with drugs or not adequately and categorically opposed to torture and indefinite detention regimes for example.
When I took a political compass test, I come out so far on the "social liberal" scale that I don't exist on the American political scale (I tend to get somewhere around a -6 or -7 on that axis). Ralph Nader comes the closest, with Kucinich or Ron Paul maybe in the next standard deviation after that. "Democrats", labeled in this country as radical leftists by their opposition, come in as modest conservatives on social matters (on average or as a whole). They're hardly liberal enough for me to take them seriously as a result. As an example, I suppose if I took Obama's civil liberties positions during the campaign more directly, I would be disappointed. He has largely ignored those positions since. I would be more so if I had taken them directly because they were more in line with the anti-terrorism views I have and thus voted for him. It was this that I felt most likely to actually change through executive action alone. Passing the other stuff like health care or extracting us from Iraq or Afghanistan was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Besides Obama ran on committing more troops and support to the Afghan front. I didn't vote for him. I'm too cynical for that. The disaffection I have is more on things like the support of the Afghan war and his opposition to free trade, positions which he did run on and has kept his word on. Which makes it a lot harder to get annoyed or surprised.
But for me there's usually a further political problem than merely identifying people with even a modest amount of respect for civil liberties and limitations on social and individual restrictions placed by law. I see the same sort of limitations as unnecessary to restrain businesses and markets. Republicans claim a sort of "right" of center conservative nature on markets. And yet they constantly exhibit the same sort of ridiculous corporatism or interferences caused by anti-market biases that Democrats use in their rhetoric. I've had to spend the last two years explaining that this country is and has been for a long time a far more socialistic enterprise than people are aware. That path was started a long, long time ago. It didn't change because we elected some radical leftist to the "throne" anymore than it was beaten back by the ascension of some "radical" conservative in 2000 or even in 1980 (with their patron saint Reagan). Americans are viewed by Europeans and other developed nations as having a vastly more market oriented economy than they have (with a couple exceptions like Hong Kong and Singapore). And yet when they observe portions of it, often key portions, it's nothing like an unfettered market at all (and sometimes less of a free and open market than they use). Health care, the supposed road being taken down the socialist path of hell, is the main example here. If you wanted to design a market for health care based on "free market principles" it wouldn't look anything like the tapestry of regulations, mandates, monopolistic barriers, and so on that we've deliberately put place even before discussing that we provide health care as a form of wealth transfer from the young to the old (and often as a result, the poor to the rich). I have no objections to people spending their money on the care of their elders. I guess that's considered noble and good and one assumes that one reason is that we would like our progeny to care for us in our advanced age and retirements. But do we really want to claim that the methods we use to do so are guided by "free markets" as the proscribed cause of our ills in the health care sector's economic performance (or lack there of)? I think not, maybe that's just me. And this is the precise program that was defended all last year from cuts and changes in the mandates or recommendations over what procedures to use and pay for by this supposed "party of markets" on the right. It goes on down the line from this, with things like opposing different methods of open markets for schools or the ending of food subsidies (both of which are things that most Republicans do not actually support). It goes further into things like immigration, where Republicans are far more likely to spout belligerent nonsense that ends up being anti-market and protectionist.
I typically get around a 6 on the economic scale. Republicans rhetorically are sometimes nearer to me on this axis than Democrats ever are on civil liberties, but in fact Democrats are not that far behind on this one (whereas Republicans usually are pretty far away on the social scale, enough to be diametrically opposite rather than merely annoyingly so). The idea that they're radical leftists puts a lot of undue impression and importance on the amount of distinct policies they support. Supporting corn subsidies to produce ethanol to prop up energy companies instead of propping up agricultural corporate giants isn't much of a big deal from where I sit.
I guess that makes me a radical politically. But I'm not sure what direction that goes.
More examples: I live in Ohio, which is considered a swing state, but which to me sits firmly as a conservative one. We barely passed legal gambling (other than lotteries and scratch offs) after several tries. We have laws restricting the behavior in strip clubs (private businesses which could enforce their own rules quite well through social customs), dry counties, what seems to be an absurd church to house ratio in some towns, and are one of the poster child states for the worst forms of abstinence only education (those that defame condoms and methods of birth control as harmful and more dangerous than unprotected sex). Despite this apparent "conservativism" or otherwise right-wing behavior, this is also a state that passed amendments to its constitution providing for farm price controls and subsidies (glorifying these laws with the difficulty of reform or repeal rather than merely passing them as temporary measures). It spent an absurd amount of time and energy passing a public smoking ban on restaurants and bars (rather than allowing the continuing trend of consumers to make these decisions themselves and impose them in the de facto sense instead of the legally binding method). Assessing to the state more power is hardly a "right-wing" paradise in my view, or at least it doesn't seem to be consistent with the vision of a small and modest purpose for government as espoused by such conservatives.
It doesn't exactly endear me to a vision of supporting either side of "wingers" when they merely change the form those powers will take over individual choices and preferences when they change sides.
05 March 2010
calling attention
tribunals reactions
Mostly what you would expect. Not much jubilation in the GOP. Who doesn't even want to have tribunals at all under an Obama administration but rather is cynically resorting to denying any victories over terrorists (political or militarily) while he's in office. You will note there's not much reaction positive or negative on the events in Pakistan and various attacks or captures both there and in Afghanistan. Even the troop increases in Afghanistan are being somehow ignored and passed aside as though the President is merely a pretend President until a GOP candidate is restored to the throne and none of his actions, however much in agreement with GOP talking points they may be, will ever matter (see: Romney, Mitt, and obviously Cheney, Dick, the dark master behind the scenes).
Likewise the obvious reaction of many Democrats, progressives, and of course the civil libertarian front is frustration. Rahm is getting his head marched out on a platter by these folks for a whole host of reasons while story after story in the Washington political scene paints him as this savvy operator necessary to gloss over Obama's naive assumptions of how politics operates. This is probably a kernel of truth. But when he's primarily actively doing things contrary to Obama's stated interests (or at least, contrary to Holder-Obama approach on justice) on the assumption that it will get a couple of GOP votes to accomplish some other minor and trivial goal (closing the Guantanamo prison so it can be re-opened in Illinois), then he deserves to be castigated. Which goal is more important? Closing a symbolic prison facility and continuing one of its more pressing international concerns in other locations or trying and convicting people of crimes against our state and against international law and sensibility? Probably one of these was less "politically" important. I'm assuming it's the latter since Rahm doesn't seem as accommodating on the whole "we should have a trial" front.
Anyway, the main reason I linked up there was the lines at the end of the post.
"I think it's going to be a long time before we recover from 9/11. Not from the attack, but from our response to the attack. We haven't been the same since. No? Maybe this is who we always were." - I am pretty sure we haven't changed actually. We did. For about two or three weeks. I remember the sort of civic spirit and pride that was infused in Americans for a little while. Maybe that was just shock, like the feeling and the motions people seem to go through after a sudden death or major illness in the family. That shock was replaced by something more primal, and something uglier, and, from what I can tell, something that's always been around in the American psyche: hate and fear turned into rage. Bill Halsey on viewing the carnage in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor is reputed to have said "the only place Japanese will be spoken after this is over is in Hell". Americans have always had a whipping boy for these feelings, for a long time quite literally in the form of slavery and its longer lasting underpinnings in the denial of basic civil rights. We brought up the same tactics again and again. The savage Red Man. The Red Scares and the Evil Empire. And now Iran and Islamist radicals. To be sure some of these enemies have been worthier foes than baseless claims would indicate or possessed an ideological capacity which might have been damaging were it to prevail over the constant and pressing need for some level of freedom and choice in our society. But it's far from clear that they were, any of them, ever posing a grave danger to that society. If the Brits could weather the Blitz and the massive damage and destruction that wrought upon their people and places, turning their despair into fortitude against aggression and oppression rather than as a turn toward the darker impulses of humanity, we ought to be ashamed at the level of disturbance that is necessary to stir up our passionate resentments.
This sort of ugliness or double standard is useful for comedic effect, but it rarely ever gets acknowledged in any other public way. Over the week, they had "To Kill a Mockingbird" on. I've read it, and I've seen it, several times. The fact of a man's obvious innocence, the passion with which his case is argued (for and against), and the shamefulness that he was never vindicated publicly and indeed could never be vindicated publicly was a powerful message about the way things were (and sometimes still can be). I think in many ways it is almost impossible to imagine this society as existing atop and astride that history. We are more comfortable imagining that we have improved. Perhaps, and I think it would be fair to say, we have, but that does little to accommodate a feeling of pride in our history, all of it. We are marginally ashamed of these things at times. Racism is uglier and a topic to be avoided largely because, well we still have some blacks and Asians and Jews and so on in our society. It won't do for us to acknowledge what hate and pettiness we were so often capable of but we'll at least make symbolic gestures (or what we think should be regarded as symbolic gestures and goalposts to say how race has progressed). The natives and our history with them on the other hand we pretty much purged and we seem to have a minority who wants the blood of the land stained again to rid us of these pesky "terrorists" who claim their way to be that of Allah. I sympathize with the feelings of resentment and revenge that get stirred up when an act of senseless violence claims many lives, as 9-11 did. I didn't experience those feelings myself and I thus have a very hard time imagining how they justify all that was done to carry out that revenge, but I at least realize that injustice demands justice. I'm just confused as to how people think they are attaining it. My best guess is that we haven't changed and never did. Our "better natures" almost never assert themselves because we always feel ourselves to be "superior" over these more base and vile natures that we employ to carry our will abroad and throughout the land.
Mostly what you would expect. Not much jubilation in the GOP. Who doesn't even want to have tribunals at all under an Obama administration but rather is cynically resorting to denying any victories over terrorists (political or militarily) while he's in office. You will note there's not much reaction positive or negative on the events in Pakistan and various attacks or captures both there and in Afghanistan. Even the troop increases in Afghanistan are being somehow ignored and passed aside as though the President is merely a pretend President until a GOP candidate is restored to the throne and none of his actions, however much in agreement with GOP talking points they may be, will ever matter (see: Romney, Mitt, and obviously Cheney, Dick, the dark master behind the scenes).
Likewise the obvious reaction of many Democrats, progressives, and of course the civil libertarian front is frustration. Rahm is getting his head marched out on a platter by these folks for a whole host of reasons while story after story in the Washington political scene paints him as this savvy operator necessary to gloss over Obama's naive assumptions of how politics operates. This is probably a kernel of truth. But when he's primarily actively doing things contrary to Obama's stated interests (or at least, contrary to Holder-Obama approach on justice) on the assumption that it will get a couple of GOP votes to accomplish some other minor and trivial goal (closing the Guantanamo prison so it can be re-opened in Illinois), then he deserves to be castigated. Which goal is more important? Closing a symbolic prison facility and continuing one of its more pressing international concerns in other locations or trying and convicting people of crimes against our state and against international law and sensibility? Probably one of these was less "politically" important. I'm assuming it's the latter since Rahm doesn't seem as accommodating on the whole "we should have a trial" front.
Anyway, the main reason I linked up there was the lines at the end of the post.
"I think it's going to be a long time before we recover from 9/11. Not from the attack, but from our response to the attack. We haven't been the same since. No? Maybe this is who we always were." - I am pretty sure we haven't changed actually. We did. For about two or three weeks. I remember the sort of civic spirit and pride that was infused in Americans for a little while. Maybe that was just shock, like the feeling and the motions people seem to go through after a sudden death or major illness in the family. That shock was replaced by something more primal, and something uglier, and, from what I can tell, something that's always been around in the American psyche: hate and fear turned into rage. Bill Halsey on viewing the carnage in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor is reputed to have said "the only place Japanese will be spoken after this is over is in Hell". Americans have always had a whipping boy for these feelings, for a long time quite literally in the form of slavery and its longer lasting underpinnings in the denial of basic civil rights. We brought up the same tactics again and again. The savage Red Man. The Red Scares and the Evil Empire. And now Iran and Islamist radicals. To be sure some of these enemies have been worthier foes than baseless claims would indicate or possessed an ideological capacity which might have been damaging were it to prevail over the constant and pressing need for some level of freedom and choice in our society. But it's far from clear that they were, any of them, ever posing a grave danger to that society. If the Brits could weather the Blitz and the massive damage and destruction that wrought upon their people and places, turning their despair into fortitude against aggression and oppression rather than as a turn toward the darker impulses of humanity, we ought to be ashamed at the level of disturbance that is necessary to stir up our passionate resentments.
This sort of ugliness or double standard is useful for comedic effect, but it rarely ever gets acknowledged in any other public way. Over the week, they had "To Kill a Mockingbird" on. I've read it, and I've seen it, several times. The fact of a man's obvious innocence, the passion with which his case is argued (for and against), and the shamefulness that he was never vindicated publicly and indeed could never be vindicated publicly was a powerful message about the way things were (and sometimes still can be). I think in many ways it is almost impossible to imagine this society as existing atop and astride that history. We are more comfortable imagining that we have improved. Perhaps, and I think it would be fair to say, we have, but that does little to accommodate a feeling of pride in our history, all of it. We are marginally ashamed of these things at times. Racism is uglier and a topic to be avoided largely because, well we still have some blacks and Asians and Jews and so on in our society. It won't do for us to acknowledge what hate and pettiness we were so often capable of but we'll at least make symbolic gestures (or what we think should be regarded as symbolic gestures and goalposts to say how race has progressed). The natives and our history with them on the other hand we pretty much purged and we seem to have a minority who wants the blood of the land stained again to rid us of these pesky "terrorists" who claim their way to be that of Allah. I sympathize with the feelings of resentment and revenge that get stirred up when an act of senseless violence claims many lives, as 9-11 did. I didn't experience those feelings myself and I thus have a very hard time imagining how they justify all that was done to carry out that revenge, but I at least realize that injustice demands justice. I'm just confused as to how people think they are attaining it. My best guess is that we haven't changed and never did. Our "better natures" almost never assert themselves because we always feel ourselves to be "superior" over these more base and vile natures that we employ to carry our will abroad and throughout the land.
jundullah
So... down in Texas, there's a group of Americans, much like those wonderful folks in Jesus Camp, that think the Islamist model of running around vigorously policing morality (or at least their own vision of it) is so worthwhile and such a great idea that they're copying everything. Except maybe the people getting stoned part. To death that is. At least I assume they're still against people getting stoned, this being America where we're not even allowed to get stoned ourselves.
Here's their handy list of atrocities.
1. Gay pride events. (naturally homosexuals are public enemy #1 for Christianists)
2. Earth worship events such as “Earth Day” (Earth Day is an "earth worship event?)
3. Pro-abortion events or places such as Planned Parenthood (wait, so is abortion or homosexuals public enemy #1. As Carlin put it "Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?")
4. Breast cancer events such as “Race for the Cure” to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer. (Breast cancer isn't caused by abortion. But nevermind I'm getting into scientific facts and discussions about the scientific methods of inquiry with people who probably believe the planet is 6000 years old)
5. Opening day of public schools to reach out to students. (huh?, is this a ministry thing or are they afraid public schools are some sort of demon worship cult?)
6. Spring break events. (I guess this explains their trips to Cancun?)
7. Demonically based concerts. (which are... ? I seem to remember people getting worked up in turn over Jazz, Swing, Rock and Roll, and Hip Hop music. Must be the latent racism. Oh and naturally guess who else policies music and forbids dancing. Ahh yes. Religious fanatics of the world UNITE!)
8. Halloween events. (public enemy #2 is candy)
9. Other events that may arise that the ministry feels called to confront. (ahh yes... the old.. whatever we don't approve of clause)
Here's their handy list of atrocities.
1. Gay pride events. (naturally homosexuals are public enemy #1 for Christianists)
2. Earth worship events such as “Earth Day” (Earth Day is an "earth worship event?)
3. Pro-abortion events or places such as Planned Parenthood (wait, so is abortion or homosexuals public enemy #1. As Carlin put it "Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?")
4. Breast cancer events such as “Race for the Cure” to illuminate the link between abortion and breast cancer. (Breast cancer isn't caused by abortion. But nevermind I'm getting into scientific facts and discussions about the scientific methods of inquiry with people who probably believe the planet is 6000 years old)
5. Opening day of public schools to reach out to students. (huh?, is this a ministry thing or are they afraid public schools are some sort of demon worship cult?)
6. Spring break events. (I guess this explains their trips to Cancun?)
7. Demonically based concerts. (which are... ? I seem to remember people getting worked up in turn over Jazz, Swing, Rock and Roll, and Hip Hop music. Must be the latent racism. Oh and naturally guess who else policies music and forbids dancing. Ahh yes. Religious fanatics of the world UNITE!)
8. Halloween events. (public enemy #2 is candy)
9. Other events that may arise that the ministry feels called to confront. (ahh yes... the old.. whatever we don't approve of clause)
03 March 2010
1770
In the last days of the winter of 1770, in Boston, there was an incident of violence between an aggrieved mob of citizens and a group of soldiers. In the aftermath, a prominent lawyer comes forward to defend the soldiers against a public outcry demanding retribution and justice for the deaths and injuries to civilians at the hands of military force. This lawyer does so with limited pecuniary reward and at considerable risk to his otherwise respectable status and reputation earned within his community (such as it can be as a lawyer and skilled orator), not to mention the potential for risk of his personal safety in the inflammatory environment of the day. He succeeds in arguing the innocence of these soldiers and their commander. The obviousness of the charge being that they were but a match thrown into the fire by another hand (the British government). The successful adjudication of this case is, among other things, celebrated by international scholars, lawyers, and is often cited as a hallmark of American jurisprudence that we will intend, not merely with motions but with great and serious vigor, to supply a rigorous defence to people who are charged with a crime, even a serious and violent crime against civilians or innocents. The lawyer involved eventually, though not without some occasional blemish on his record of public service, is regarded as among our highest patriots and greatest Americans, despite a great deal of public uncertainty and passionate feeling surrounding the case itself at the time.
In the years following 2001, American intelligence and military forces and its international allies detained hundreds of suspects without charge. A handful of lawyers either elected themselves or were appointed to the task of representing the case to be made for their innocence if ever the charges were raised against them. In most cases these lawyers had to argue even for such charges to be made and the cases adjudicated to verify them at all. These lawyers are branded as traitors for having the unmitigated gall to represent people who the government claims, but offers no proof for such, as subhuman scum capable of the worst and most terrifying criminal acts of wanton aggression against society (ie: they're terrorists). It is no matter that hundreds of these suspects were released or ordered to be released on the grounds that they posed no threat to American security and safety or at least that the government had collected no evidence that they were a threat. It matters only that they supported "terrorists".
One wonders which image would be more productive at prosecuting and defending the cause of liberty and freedom, causes which Americans claim to revere and celebrate through the retelling of our history. The ardent Patriot who confidently represents his enemy in a courtroom with dedication? Or the person who demands that his government protect him by making accusations and arrests without having to support them merely to alleviate his fear?
Update: There's also this guy in our "history". He might have had something to say about the tradition of fighting injustices in the form of our treatment of other men to reflect our passions and prejudices in the manner of justice just as Adams did.
In the years following 2001, American intelligence and military forces and its international allies detained hundreds of suspects without charge. A handful of lawyers either elected themselves or were appointed to the task of representing the case to be made for their innocence if ever the charges were raised against them. In most cases these lawyers had to argue even for such charges to be made and the cases adjudicated to verify them at all. These lawyers are branded as traitors for having the unmitigated gall to represent people who the government claims, but offers no proof for such, as subhuman scum capable of the worst and most terrifying criminal acts of wanton aggression against society (ie: they're terrorists). It is no matter that hundreds of these suspects were released or ordered to be released on the grounds that they posed no threat to American security and safety or at least that the government had collected no evidence that they were a threat. It matters only that they supported "terrorists".
One wonders which image would be more productive at prosecuting and defending the cause of liberty and freedom, causes which Americans claim to revere and celebrate through the retelling of our history. The ardent Patriot who confidently represents his enemy in a courtroom with dedication? Or the person who demands that his government protect him by making accusations and arrests without having to support them merely to alleviate his fear?
Update: There's also this guy in our "history". He might have had something to say about the tradition of fighting injustices in the form of our treatment of other men to reflect our passions and prejudices in the manner of justice just as Adams did.
02 March 2010
top 20 week 4
1) Duke
2) Kansas
3) Syracuse
4) Kansas State
5) Wisconsin
6) BYU
7) West Virginia
8) Purdue (Hummel was 5th in the country on a composite of Adjusted plus minus and Statistical plus minus...so that...sucks)
9) Ohio State
9) Kentucky
11) Texas
12) Missouri
12) Maryland
14) Villanova
15) California
16) Baylor
17) Michigan State
18) Clemson
19) Georgetown
20) Xavier
At this point pretty much everybody else is irrelevant. Though Pitt is odd.
That Minnesota-Illinois game over the weekend did not go so well. For me anyway.
2) Kansas
3) Syracuse
4) Kansas State
5) Wisconsin
6) BYU
7) West Virginia
8) Purdue (Hummel was 5th in the country on a composite of Adjusted plus minus and Statistical plus minus...so that...sucks)
9) Ohio State
9) Kentucky
11) Texas
12) Missouri
12) Maryland
14) Villanova
15) California
16) Baylor
17) Michigan State
18) Clemson
19) Georgetown
20) Xavier
At this point pretty much everybody else is irrelevant. Though Pitt is odd.
That Minnesota-Illinois game over the weekend did not go so well. For me anyway.
01 March 2010
stack proposals
I realize this was about two weeks ago now. But I'm still wrapping my head around the way this was covered and the contortions and manipulations needed to keep it out and away from any standard and reasonable definition of terrorism. Suddenly, because it's an American, non-Muslim, citizen attacking a bureaucracy that people hate anyway, it's ennobled to the status of "disgruntled/disaffected person" rather than some sort of religious theocratic radical who hates us for our freedom, so it obviously cannot be an action of terrorism and instead could have been safely handled by our courts without incident (much as McVeigh was).
I think this would be a lot easier if many people who were insistent that it was an act of terrorism would not have sprang immediately to the conclusion that it was a "right-wing" nutcase. Anti-authoritarian attitudes which develop into violent actions and fester over many years of frustration are not so easily pigeon-holed into the right-left paradigms of the media and elite establishment (against both of which these attitudes are often rebelling). As the random assortment of frustrations that were on center state during the health care townhalls last year should indicate, "the people" hold a wide cross-section of frustrations, many of which fit the standard right-left dialogue, such as protests involve racism or accusations of "socialism" or "fascism". But others, the simple tactic of applying the Charlie Chaplin mustache to our hated "dictator" of the moment, clearly aren't. As evidenced by accusations leveled at Cheney and Bush. I would argue in both cases, Bush and Obama, that the accusations of crony capitalism or corporatism are in fact, pretty accurate anyway. Regardless, it should have been easy enough to react to this event as though it was an intended act of terror without needing to find a political movement that was supposedly feeding the beast. The fact that some political movements members leapt up to support their new found fallen hero should have been sufficient evidence (that some tea party type members saw fit to memorialize this should be indicative of two things: 1) that that movement is not likely to amount to anything and 2) because it's too decentralised in a political environment that requires centralisation to achieve something, even to achieve "decentralisation")
The secondary response of people seems to have been: okay it was terrorism, so what? What do we do about it? To which I would ask, uh, what exactly do you think our tactics and strategies intended to deal with terrorism actually do? Because that answer is not much, at least at the margins and certainly on a cost-benefit analysis. It's even highly probable that some of them, in particular things like preventive detention, violations of civil liberties, and torture, have been counterproductive and spawned more incidents. Suppose we decided to "crack down" on anti-IRS cranks and throw them in jail without recourse for justice or even the need to verify the accuracy of the government's claims that they were in fact anti-IRS cranks capable of violent action and even have some of them tortured to determine their friends and associates. Would you suppose those methods would deter acts of aggression against the IRS and government or encourage them? Likewise, even simpler things like making it harder to deal with the IRS bureaucracy, decreasing the transparency of its operations and complicating the rules under which we are to comply with their authority over our income is unlikely to do much for the better natures of humans frustrated with these authorities. Much as airline security strikes me as almost a complete waste of time and energy, increasing complications rather than increasing security and efficiency of a difficult task of flying people around the country (or administering the tax code and collection).
My reaction to this question of "what do we do about it?" would be why should we do anything different when the guy's name is Abdullah and he crashes deliberately into a building? If you want deliberate and powerful limitations on individual liberties for that guy, then the same thing should apply here. If you don't want those powerful limitations for some randomly pissed off American citizen taking lives and attacking government officials, then why would you need them for anybody else doing so?
I think this would be a lot easier if many people who were insistent that it was an act of terrorism would not have sprang immediately to the conclusion that it was a "right-wing" nutcase. Anti-authoritarian attitudes which develop into violent actions and fester over many years of frustration are not so easily pigeon-holed into the right-left paradigms of the media and elite establishment (against both of which these attitudes are often rebelling). As the random assortment of frustrations that were on center state during the health care townhalls last year should indicate, "the people" hold a wide cross-section of frustrations, many of which fit the standard right-left dialogue, such as protests involve racism or accusations of "socialism" or "fascism". But others, the simple tactic of applying the Charlie Chaplin mustache to our hated "dictator" of the moment, clearly aren't. As evidenced by accusations leveled at Cheney and Bush. I would argue in both cases, Bush and Obama, that the accusations of crony capitalism or corporatism are in fact, pretty accurate anyway. Regardless, it should have been easy enough to react to this event as though it was an intended act of terror without needing to find a political movement that was supposedly feeding the beast. The fact that some political movements members leapt up to support their new found fallen hero should have been sufficient evidence (that some tea party type members saw fit to memorialize this should be indicative of two things: 1) that that movement is not likely to amount to anything and 2) because it's too decentralised in a political environment that requires centralisation to achieve something, even to achieve "decentralisation")
The secondary response of people seems to have been: okay it was terrorism, so what? What do we do about it? To which I would ask, uh, what exactly do you think our tactics and strategies intended to deal with terrorism actually do? Because that answer is not much, at least at the margins and certainly on a cost-benefit analysis. It's even highly probable that some of them, in particular things like preventive detention, violations of civil liberties, and torture, have been counterproductive and spawned more incidents. Suppose we decided to "crack down" on anti-IRS cranks and throw them in jail without recourse for justice or even the need to verify the accuracy of the government's claims that they were in fact anti-IRS cranks capable of violent action and even have some of them tortured to determine their friends and associates. Would you suppose those methods would deter acts of aggression against the IRS and government or encourage them? Likewise, even simpler things like making it harder to deal with the IRS bureaucracy, decreasing the transparency of its operations and complicating the rules under which we are to comply with their authority over our income is unlikely to do much for the better natures of humans frustrated with these authorities. Much as airline security strikes me as almost a complete waste of time and energy, increasing complications rather than increasing security and efficiency of a difficult task of flying people around the country (or administering the tax code and collection).
My reaction to this question of "what do we do about it?" would be why should we do anything different when the guy's name is Abdullah and he crashes deliberately into a building? If you want deliberate and powerful limitations on individual liberties for that guy, then the same thing should apply here. If you don't want those powerful limitations for some randomly pissed off American citizen taking lives and attacking government officials, then why would you need them for anybody else doing so?
news tidbits I don't care about version 899
Obama's still smoking.
They fired the PR person for the party debacle, or whatever that was, a few months ago.
The psychology study that indicates intelligent people are more likely to be liberal, monogamous, and atheists is also not worth my time. I would imagine I'm more likely to be two of those things (one is obvious, but I'm not sure if I fit the categories of the other two or not), but I'm also pretty sure that mostly what they're correlating is the likelihood of intelligent people to be more broadly accepting of ideas which are unpopular or unconventional by way of being able to defend them against the less cogent and underdeveloped arguments of less intelligent people (cases in point: people citing snow as a refutation of global warming or irreducible complexity as a refutation of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Such simple arguments are convincing for many people but not usually for intelligent people). As a result, you would also see intelligent people writing about polygamy and polyandry, religious theology, socialism, and even the appreciation of technocracy and one-party rule in China or Singapore than a "normal" person. This says very little about the types of views that "intelligent" people present as a demographic as a result. Other than high end educational achievements like advanced college degrees, there isn't much that can be shown to correlate with political or social views that would also correlate with intelligence.
So I assume they're simply trying to continue the old philosophical thought experiment about intelligence and democracy and which one should prevail over the other.
They fired the PR person for the party debacle, or whatever that was, a few months ago.
The psychology study that indicates intelligent people are more likely to be liberal, monogamous, and atheists is also not worth my time. I would imagine I'm more likely to be two of those things (one is obvious, but I'm not sure if I fit the categories of the other two or not), but I'm also pretty sure that mostly what they're correlating is the likelihood of intelligent people to be more broadly accepting of ideas which are unpopular or unconventional by way of being able to defend them against the less cogent and underdeveloped arguments of less intelligent people (cases in point: people citing snow as a refutation of global warming or irreducible complexity as a refutation of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Such simple arguments are convincing for many people but not usually for intelligent people). As a result, you would also see intelligent people writing about polygamy and polyandry, religious theology, socialism, and even the appreciation of technocracy and one-party rule in China or Singapore than a "normal" person. This says very little about the types of views that "intelligent" people present as a demographic as a result. Other than high end educational achievements like advanced college degrees, there isn't much that can be shown to correlate with political or social views that would also correlate with intelligence.
So I assume they're simply trying to continue the old philosophical thought experiment about intelligence and democracy and which one should prevail over the other.
who needs the military when you've got SWAT
Lies, more lies and damned statistics
"94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended."
- Give a mouse a cookie....
The only good news I could take of this story was in this line
"Police forced their way into 545 houses, seized property in 633 of the raids, made arrests 485 times and discharged their weapons five times. In the six months studied, seven civilians were hurt but none killed, and two animals were injured and two killed."
But if they only fired 5 times on raids, it does lead to some questions as to how often they were going up against armed and potentially hostile suspects, the putative reason that SWAT goes in rather than a regular police arrest with backup.
Which is criticized here
"Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes."
- So they need SWAT to go after someone with unpaid parking tickets, disorderly conduct, or a pot possession charge? Bad enough the police have, and abuse the use of, tasers or shoot people's corgis. We don't need a military police regime to enforce standard laws. What you'd need is a more efficient criminal justice system (and possibly fewer dumb laws, but that's probably asking too much).
"94 percent of the state's SWAT deployments were used to serve search or arrest warrants, leaving just 6 percent in response to the kinds of barricades, bank robberies, hostage takings, and emergency situations for which SWAT teams were originally intended."
- Give a mouse a cookie....
The only good news I could take of this story was in this line
"Police forced their way into 545 houses, seized property in 633 of the raids, made arrests 485 times and discharged their weapons five times. In the six months studied, seven civilians were hurt but none killed, and two animals were injured and two killed."
But if they only fired 5 times on raids, it does lead to some questions as to how often they were going up against armed and potentially hostile suspects, the putative reason that SWAT goes in rather than a regular police arrest with backup.
Which is criticized here
"Worse even than those dreary numbers is the fact that more than half of the county’s SWAT deployments were for misdemeanors and nonserious felonies. That means more than 100 times last year Prince George’s County brought state-sanctioned violence to confront people suspected of nonviolent crimes."
- So they need SWAT to go after someone with unpaid parking tickets, disorderly conduct, or a pot possession charge? Bad enough the police have, and abuse the use of, tasers or shoot people's corgis. We don't need a military police regime to enforce standard laws. What you'd need is a more efficient criminal justice system (and possibly fewer dumb laws, but that's probably asking too much).
things you notice when you read a lot of dead people's work
I'm pretty sure there's a huge gap between my rational abilities and those of people where I'm studying their works and thoughts as committed to posterity. Even though I can sometimes come up with some of the same basic theories far before being exposed to them. That concerns me. In large part because it's not clear that I'm capable of coming up with anything different, which makes the quasi-developed critical thinking skills I have pretty damned useless actually.
What doesn't concern me is that there appears to likewise be a huge gap between myself and the bulk of other people. In the opposite direction. If there ever becomes a wider use for this gap, I at least have something to do in order to try to be a bridge between wisdom and real life. Or if I become a better writer at some subjective measure. That, among the many flaws, seems to be less pressing than the actual rational capacity for cutting through the bullshit as it were. I am resolved that this isn't nearly as useful for me simply because the average person seems to enjoy surrounding their arguments with bullshit rather than having it cut through to get at the point. There's a very small audience of people who dislike being bullshitted.
What doesn't concern me is that there appears to likewise be a huge gap between myself and the bulk of other people. In the opposite direction. If there ever becomes a wider use for this gap, I at least have something to do in order to try to be a bridge between wisdom and real life. Or if I become a better writer at some subjective measure. That, among the many flaws, seems to be less pressing than the actual rational capacity for cutting through the bullshit as it were. I am resolved that this isn't nearly as useful for me simply because the average person seems to enjoy surrounding their arguments with bullshit rather than having it cut through to get at the point. There's a very small audience of people who dislike being bullshitted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
