by wj
The latest nonsense out of Florida has to do with book banning. (Which, Gary Sargent suggests, may have unexpected consequences for Gov. DeSantis.)
A new bill would require the instant removal of certain books targeted for objections, even before any sort of evaluative process unfolds. [It] mandates that instructional material facing objection in public schools through 12th grade for depicting “sexual” or “pornographic” conduct be “unavailable to students until the objection is resolved.”
This means books and other materials would be removed before something akin to due process occurs. Such objections could be lodged not just by a parent, but any resident in the county, meaning anyone could get a book removed more easily than before.
The bill’s chief sponsor, Republican state Sen. Clay Yarborough, doesn’t deny this. He holds it up as a positive. In a statement emailed to me, Yarborough cited the bill’s targeting of sexual material and said he will always “err on the side of protecting children.”
“I do not have any concerns with the materials being removed until an objection is resolved,” Yarborough added.
Consider this scenario. Some resident (who, unlike most evangelicals apparently, has actually read the Bible) decides that some of those Old Testament verses are really not suitable for children. You know, the ones which disparage the nuclear family (how many wives did Solomon have again? Isn’t that polygamy? It's definitely not a nuclear family!). Or the ones dealing with sex, masturbation, etc. So, he files an objection.
And presto! The Bible is now banned in schools in that county. Not on any stupid liberal church/state grounds either, but exactly on the grounds that the reactionaries have been using to ban other books there.
Even money that state Sen Yarborough suddenly discovers that he does too have due process concerns. Be careful what you wish for….
Open Thread
I should probably point out that the scenario I have suggested here is NOT one of Sargent’s unexpected consequences. All of his involve the impact in the general election (assuming DeSantis gets the nomination). Just an additional one, which might bite him in the primaries, too.
I should probably point out that the scenario I have suggested here is NOT one of Sargent’s unexpected consequences. All of his involve the impact in the general election (assuming DeSantis gets the nomination). Just an additional one, which might bite him in the primaries, too.
Someone in Utah has already made such a claim about the Bible: https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2023/03/22/utah-parent-says-bible-contains/
Someone in Utah has already made such a claim about the Bible: https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2023/03/22/utah-parent-says-bible-contains/
Good to hear that others have noticed the same issue with the book banning nonsense.
Good to hear that others have noticed the same issue with the book banning nonsense.
My bet is that calls for banning the Bible will be thrown out as ‘obviously frivolous’ and that the state courts will back that decision, if challenged. They will rant about ‘clear intent’ and ‘this is different and can’t by treated literally’ etc.
Hypocrisy will win the day.
My bet is that calls for banning the Bible will be thrown out as ‘obviously frivolous’ and that the state courts will back that decision, if challenged. They will rant about ‘clear intent’ and ‘this is different and can’t by treated literally’ etc.
Hypocrisy will win the day.
In other Florida news …
Disney has apparently outmaneuvered DeSantis in the battle to control the special district where it operates.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-30/disney-outmaneuvers-desantis-in-clash-over-theme-park-district
To recap, Disney very gently complained about Don’t Say Gay and then DeSantis lost his mind and stripped the company of its power to control development over its property. Just before the new law went into effect, the old governing body that Disney controlled entered into a very long term agreement that mostly allows Disney to continue on as before.
It’s one thing for Republicans to be cruel (that’s part of the brand), but this level of incompetence is a real black eye for DeSantis. I don’t know if this will get much play in national news, but it’s a big deal here.
As an aside, I’m no fan of Disney as a company, but they were managing their sprawling property in an environmentally responsible manner and they have consistently been slightly ahead of the curve on respecting queer employees and non-hetero couples.
In other Florida news …
Disney has apparently outmaneuvered DeSantis in the battle to control the special district where it operates.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-30/disney-outmaneuvers-desantis-in-clash-over-theme-park-district
To recap, Disney very gently complained about Don’t Say Gay and then DeSantis lost his mind and stripped the company of its power to control development over its property. Just before the new law went into effect, the old governing body that Disney controlled entered into a very long term agreement that mostly allows Disney to continue on as before.
It’s one thing for Republicans to be cruel (that’s part of the brand), but this level of incompetence is a real black eye for DeSantis. I don’t know if this will get much play in national news, but it’s a big deal here.
As an aside, I’m no fan of Disney as a company, but they were managing their sprawling property in an environmentally responsible manner and they have consistently been slightly ahead of the curve on respecting queer employees and non-hetero couples.
Something more mathy:
https://www.wired.com/story/unbelievable-zombie-comeback-analog-computing/
I just happened to come upon that article after watching this episode of Nova last night:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/einsteins-quantum-riddle/
Later in the program, they got into the subject of quantum computing, which was described as being more “fuzzy” than traditional digital computing. To me, that sounds at least analog-ish. So I was expecting the zombie-analog article to be about quantum computing. Apparently not.
I don’t have time to write a whole lot about this right now, but I know there are people here who know a lot more about such things than I do, so maybe a starting point for further discussion.
Something more mathy:
https://www.wired.com/story/unbelievable-zombie-comeback-analog-computing/
I just happened to come upon that article after watching this episode of Nova last night:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/einsteins-quantum-riddle/
Later in the program, they got into the subject of quantum computing, which was described as being more “fuzzy” than traditional digital computing. To me, that sounds at least analog-ish. So I was expecting the zombie-analog article to be about quantum computing. Apparently not.
I don’t have time to write a whole lot about this right now, but I know there are people here who know a lot more about such things than I do, so maybe a starting point for further discussion.
I see that Disney’s “very long-term agreement” hinges on the longevity of our royal family:
Under former chief executive Bob Chapek, Disney was initially hesitant to state public opposition to the bill, but did so after pressure. That prompted DeSantis and Florida Republicans to try to revoke privileges Disney has had for decades at its theme park, which employs 75,000 people.
However, a new governing board appointed by DeSantis on Wednesday reportedly said it will need to overturn last-minute agreements which would prevent it from taking control.
The document states that its provisions will stand until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England living as of the date of this declaration”.
“Royal clauses” of this kind are used to avoid rules in some places against contracts which last in perpetuity. The British royal family was chosen for the clauses because information about the family tree was readily available, but also because of the “better healthcare available to, and longer life expectancy of, a royal family member compared to a non-royal”, according to the law firm Birketts.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/30/disney-ron-desantis-florida-dont-say-gay
I see that Disney’s “very long-term agreement” hinges on the longevity of our royal family:
Under former chief executive Bob Chapek, Disney was initially hesitant to state public opposition to the bill, but did so after pressure. That prompted DeSantis and Florida Republicans to try to revoke privileges Disney has had for decades at its theme park, which employs 75,000 people.
However, a new governing board appointed by DeSantis on Wednesday reportedly said it will need to overturn last-minute agreements which would prevent it from taking control.
The document states that its provisions will stand until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England living as of the date of this declaration”.
“Royal clauses” of this kind are used to avoid rules in some places against contracts which last in perpetuity. The British royal family was chosen for the clauses because information about the family tree was readily available, but also because of the “better healthcare available to, and longer life expectancy of, a royal family member compared to a non-royal”, according to the law firm Birketts.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/30/disney-ron-desantis-florida-dont-say-gay
Yeah, I loved that parameter about the descendants of King Charles. How could a devout reactionary object to that???
Yeah, I loved that parameter about the descendants of King Charles. How could a devout reactionary object to that???
So DeSantis has to eliminate the British Royals to take over DisneyWorld?
That’s a 007 movie that I’d watch the shit out of.
So DeSantis has to eliminate the British Royals to take over DisneyWorld?
That’s a 007 movie that I’d watch the shit out of.
So DeSantis has to eliminate the British Royals to take over DisneyWorld?
Probably easier to just pass a law voiding any contract which mentions them. It would be an ex post facto law, and hence unconstitutional (Article 1, Section 10). But that’s never stopped the MAGAts from trying.
So DeSantis has to eliminate the British Royals to take over DisneyWorld?
Probably easier to just pass a law voiding any contract which mentions them. It would be an ex post facto law, and hence unconstitutional (Article 1, Section 10). But that’s never stopped the MAGAts from trying.
Just returned to find that I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry!
Just returned to find that I posted in the wrong thread. Sorry!
Pretty sure that reference to Brit Royals is legal boilerplate, that shows up in lots of documents that benefit the richy-rich.
So go ahead DeSantis, shoot yourself in the *other* foot by invalidating it.
Pretty sure that reference to Brit Royals is legal boilerplate, that shows up in lots of documents that benefit the richy-rich.
So go ahead DeSantis, shoot yourself in the *other* foot by invalidating it.
In this case, it was a savings clause in case someone argues that the agreement(s) violate the rule against perpetuities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
It’s generlly only a concern with contracts or estate planning documents that attempt to control property for a very long period of time.
In this case, it was a savings clause in case someone argues that the agreement(s) violate the rule against perpetuities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
It’s generlly only a concern with contracts or estate planning documents that attempt to control property for a very long period of time.
TRUMP INDICTED
TRUMP INDICTED
It says something that my first thought on reading the comment above was:
In which jurisdiction for which crime?
There were, after all, so many possibilities. Even if New York was most likely to get there first.
It says something that my first thought on reading the comment above was:
In which jurisdiction for which crime?
There were, after all, so many possibilities. Even if New York was most likely to get there first.
TRUMP INDICTED
Trump: “Please, please don’t throw me in the brier patch!”
TRUMP INDICTED
Trump: “Please, please don’t throw me in the brier patch!”
WJ, how many Bibles are in how many public school libraries? If you and others here are offended by censorship, how does the commentariat feel about Sensitivity Readers? Here’s a good read on that topic: https://www.piratewires.com/p/gaslight-kat-rosenfield?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Where does Huckleberry Finn fall on our permitted list of books? Is there anything sufficiently sexually explicit that it can’t be kept out of school libraries? Who draws that line?
WJ, how many Bibles are in how many public school libraries? If you and others here are offended by censorship, how does the commentariat feel about Sensitivity Readers? Here’s a good read on that topic: https://www.piratewires.com/p/gaslight-kat-rosenfield?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Where does Huckleberry Finn fall on our permitted list of books? Is there anything sufficiently sexually explicit that it can’t be kept out of school libraries? Who draws that line?
I’m old enough and southern enough that I remember when the Gideons visited all of the 5th grade classes at my school and handed out Bibles to all students.
I’m pretty sure that most states allow Bibles in public school libraries and a quick google suggests that it is pretty common.
For the most part, it looks like the efforts to remove the Bible from public schools are an effort to point out the crazy low threshold for removing a book for “review” that Republicans are pushing under the banner of “parents rights”.
I am very skeptical of censorship in all forms, but this appears to be a “fight fire with fire” situation … hopefully it doesn’t get to actual book burning.
I’m old enough and southern enough that I remember when the Gideons visited all of the 5th grade classes at my school and handed out Bibles to all students.
I’m pretty sure that most states allow Bibles in public school libraries and a quick google suggests that it is pretty common.
For the most part, it looks like the efforts to remove the Bible from public schools are an effort to point out the crazy low threshold for removing a book for “review” that Republicans are pushing under the banner of “parents rights”.
I am very skeptical of censorship in all forms, but this appears to be a “fight fire with fire” situation … hopefully it doesn’t get to actual book burning.
Who draws that line?
Initially, the school librarian. After that, various levels of challenge as necessary – school board, courts, etc.
It’s not really anything new other than the level of semi-organized outside interference. Someone’s always deciding what belongs in any library, for all sorts of reasons varying depending on what kind of library (or book store), since everything isn’t in every library (or book store).
Who decides what movies kids are allowed to see in theaters?
Who draws that line?
Initially, the school librarian. After that, various levels of challenge as necessary – school board, courts, etc.
It’s not really anything new other than the level of semi-organized outside interference. Someone’s always deciding what belongs in any library, for all sorts of reasons varying depending on what kind of library (or book store), since everything isn’t in every library (or book store).
Who decides what movies kids are allowed to see in theaters?
The Bible is culturally significant, so it should be present in school libraries (together with other scriptures like the Quran and basic texts from other world religions and philosophies, even the Book Mormon. I draw a line at Scientology though). Not elementary schools, naturally. Some books I would put into a restricted area together with secondary literature.
Books like those of Mark Twain should be available but ideally in annotated versions (annotations on a level schoolkids can handle, not a scholarly commentary). What I would also appreciate is a general guide to the content of the library with hints where stuff could be problematic (but definitely not written by a group with a name of ‘concerned X of Y’ for that tends to be a warning sign that it is not about what is best for the children but pure ideology).
What’s useful but contentious would be an age suitability index for all books (as is common for movies).
Unfortunately, all of this would cost money and would never satisfy the usual suspects.
The Bible is culturally significant, so it should be present in school libraries (together with other scriptures like the Quran and basic texts from other world religions and philosophies, even the Book Mormon. I draw a line at Scientology though). Not elementary schools, naturally. Some books I would put into a restricted area together with secondary literature.
Books like those of Mark Twain should be available but ideally in annotated versions (annotations on a level schoolkids can handle, not a scholarly commentary). What I would also appreciate is a general guide to the content of the library with hints where stuff could be problematic (but definitely not written by a group with a name of ‘concerned X of Y’ for that tends to be a warning sign that it is not about what is best for the children but pure ideology).
What’s useful but contentious would be an age suitability index for all books (as is common for movies).
Unfortunately, all of this would cost money and would never satisfy the usual suspects.
I draw a line at Scientology though
But does it really qualify as a real religion when it is the result of a science fiction author (in a bar conversation, IIRC) claiming that he could start a religion. And a listener begging leave to doubt it. It became a bar bet, before it became a (pseudo)-religion.
I draw a line at Scientology though
But does it really qualify as a real religion when it is the result of a science fiction author (in a bar conversation, IIRC) claiming that he could start a religion. And a listener begging leave to doubt it. It became a bar bet, before it became a (pseudo)-religion.
That’s what I meant. While I personally think that Joseph Smith was a fraud, Mormonism has become a non-fake religion. Hubbard is a proven fraud and so is his ‘religion’ (a textbook example of grift). So, Book of Mormon OK, Hubbard’s writings not OK (in school libraries at least). Mein Kampf (critical annotated edition) yes (in the restricted section), Nick Fuentes’ collected rants NO.
I am in two minds about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Annotated excerpts in a texbook on antisemitism should suffice.
Of course, I am assuming a school with large funds that can afford a really large library.
I think schools should consider a large online library as a medium term project and the government should lend a helping hand (accquiring the necessary copytights etc.)
Of course no chance of anything like that happening in the forseeable future.
That’s what I meant. While I personally think that Joseph Smith was a fraud, Mormonism has become a non-fake religion. Hubbard is a proven fraud and so is his ‘religion’ (a textbook example of grift). So, Book of Mormon OK, Hubbard’s writings not OK (in school libraries at least). Mein Kampf (critical annotated edition) yes (in the restricted section), Nick Fuentes’ collected rants NO.
I am in two minds about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Annotated excerpts in a texbook on antisemitism should suffice.
Of course, I am assuming a school with large funds that can afford a really large library.
I think schools should consider a large online library as a medium term project and the government should lend a helping hand (accquiring the necessary copytights etc.)
Of course no chance of anything like that happening in the forseeable future.
There could also be some caveats, depending on the existence and ready accessibility of public libraries. Which, typically, would have larger collections of books. (Assuming the self-appointed censors haven’t gotten to them, too.)
If kids can get to a public library, it’s less critical that the school library have everything.
There could also be some caveats, depending on the existence and ready accessibility of public libraries. Which, typically, would have larger collections of books. (Assuming the self-appointed censors haven’t gotten to them, too.)
If kids can get to a public library, it’s less critical that the school library have everything.
I have no problem with Scientology being in a school library as long as it is shelved in science fiction where it belongs.
And here is the deal with editing new editions of older texts for “sensitivity.” It’s a distressing trend in that it leads to readers who are unable to think critically and parse through the contradictions present in our entrenched social problems.
In that it is entirely of a piece with the anti-CRT, anti-LGBTQ+ urges that are busy trying to pack school boards and ram through their form of cultural fundamentalism. It’s entirely of a piece with the people who insist on having their own partisan media ecology to exist in opposition to the mainstream.
I’ve taught plenty of texts in college that give sensitivity readers fits. I still do teach some. But the thing is you have to make sure that the text in question is vital to what you are teaching, and that you are leaving space and time in the classroom to fully contextualize and work through the tough issues that provoke the sensitivity. If you don’t have that luxury, then you pick another text to get you where you need to go and skip the controversy because it’s just going to be a distraction that sidelines the class.
Teaching a socially messy, but important text is a commitment of weeks. They may well transform lives, but they do so in ways that take time to manifest and are Really Fucking Hard to measure. Both of those things are a problem for an education system that is built on selling worker preparation and concrete, measurable outcomes as their value proposition.
If you want nuance, you have to build an inherently pluralistic and secular educational system and you have to leave space for it to work and to contain noise that you don’t like.
I can understand a publisher wishing to keep a messy book in circulation. I think Huck Finn is an example of a book that should absolutely continue to exist, but that really needs to exist in a critical edition that can do the work of contextualizing it for the reader. The problem is when the work in question exists in a popular edition without any critical context. Young readers really do need contextual help working through these texts. So you get to choose: keep the books, but do so in critical editions; alter the books to strip away bigoted representations that do not serve the larger purpose of the narrative; let the books fall out of circulation because they no longer serve the needs of contemporary readers.
I have no problem with Scientology being in a school library as long as it is shelved in science fiction where it belongs.
And here is the deal with editing new editions of older texts for “sensitivity.” It’s a distressing trend in that it leads to readers who are unable to think critically and parse through the contradictions present in our entrenched social problems.
In that it is entirely of a piece with the anti-CRT, anti-LGBTQ+ urges that are busy trying to pack school boards and ram through their form of cultural fundamentalism. It’s entirely of a piece with the people who insist on having their own partisan media ecology to exist in opposition to the mainstream.
I’ve taught plenty of texts in college that give sensitivity readers fits. I still do teach some. But the thing is you have to make sure that the text in question is vital to what you are teaching, and that you are leaving space and time in the classroom to fully contextualize and work through the tough issues that provoke the sensitivity. If you don’t have that luxury, then you pick another text to get you where you need to go and skip the controversy because it’s just going to be a distraction that sidelines the class.
Teaching a socially messy, but important text is a commitment of weeks. They may well transform lives, but they do so in ways that take time to manifest and are Really Fucking Hard to measure. Both of those things are a problem for an education system that is built on selling worker preparation and concrete, measurable outcomes as their value proposition.
If you want nuance, you have to build an inherently pluralistic and secular educational system and you have to leave space for it to work and to contain noise that you don’t like.
I can understand a publisher wishing to keep a messy book in circulation. I think Huck Finn is an example of a book that should absolutely continue to exist, but that really needs to exist in a critical edition that can do the work of contextualizing it for the reader. The problem is when the work in question exists in a popular edition without any critical context. Young readers really do need contextual help working through these texts. So you get to choose: keep the books, but do so in critical editions; alter the books to strip away bigoted representations that do not serve the larger purpose of the narrative; let the books fall out of circulation because they no longer serve the needs of contemporary readers.
If kids can get to a public library, it’s less critical that the school library have everything.
That can be a big “if”, especially in low-income and rural areas.
If kids can get to a public library, it’s less critical that the school library have everything.
That can be a big “if”, especially in low-income and rural areas.
Who decides what movies kids are allowed to see in theaters?
Depending on the kid’s age, the parents or the kid.
HSH, are you saying that the school librarian has first call on sexually explicit materials in a public school? If so, can you be more specific on oversight? Do the parents (taxpayers) have any say-so?
Who decides what movies kids are allowed to see in theaters?
Depending on the kid’s age, the parents or the kid.
HSH, are you saying that the school librarian has first call on sexually explicit materials in a public school? If so, can you be more specific on oversight? Do the parents (taxpayers) have any say-so?
That can be a big “if”, especially in low-income and rural areas.
Exactly, Michael. That’s why I was careful to include “accessible” in my comment.
Let me note that the problem exists also in suburban areas. We have a great public library system here. But public transit is rudimentary. Which means that kids can have challenges getting to the library on their own, Especially young kids, for whom a 4 mile bicycle ride is a stretch. (Yeah, I did that sort of thing even back in 3rd grade. But it was a different time.)
That can be a big “if”, especially in low-income and rural areas.
Exactly, Michael. That’s why I was careful to include “accessible” in my comment.
Let me note that the problem exists also in suburban areas. We have a great public library system here. But public transit is rudimentary. Which means that kids can have challenges getting to the library on their own, Especially young kids, for whom a 4 mile bicycle ride is a stretch. (Yeah, I did that sort of thing even back in 3rd grade. But it was a different time.)
Do the parents (taxpayers) have any say-so?
Just for openers, I would draw a distinction between a whole community finding something unacceptable vs. (as in Florida, among other places) letting any single resident (not necessarily even a parent) have an effective veto. We can discuss the merits of a community objection, but a 1-person veto is, IMHO, a bridge too far for anyone not devoted to being a culture warrior.
Do the parents (taxpayers) have any say-so?
Just for openers, I would draw a distinction between a whole community finding something unacceptable vs. (as in Florida, among other places) letting any single resident (not necessarily even a parent) have an effective veto. We can discuss the merits of a community objection, but a 1-person veto is, IMHO, a bridge too far for anyone not devoted to being a culture warrior.
I’m keying my questions off of “sexually explicit materials in a public school.” The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
I’m keying my questions off of “sexually explicit materials in a public school.” The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
If a parent should be able to exclude a picture of Michelangelo’s David, should another parent be able to exclude a picture of a gun?
If not why not?
If a parent should be able to exclude a picture of Michelangelo’s David, should another parent be able to exclude a picture of a gun?
If not why not?
The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Please be so kind as to define “sexually explicit materials”.
Thank you.
The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Please be so kind as to define “sexually explicit materials”.
Thank you.
The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
I would say that at least as salient a question is, what is reasonably considered “sexually explicit”, or any other kind of objectionable?
For example, does having a homosexual couple depicted count? Clearly, for some, merely admitting the existence of homosexuality (except, perhaps, if it is demonized), let alone treating as unexceptional, is beyond the pale. How about having materials, of an “if you want to know more” type, for when a teacher gets to field a question about a student having two daddies?
Or even, how about a simple book on human anatomy? Especially if it addresses “What does each part do?”
I don’t actually have a problem with parents having a say. Although I do beg leave to doubt that teachers’ and librarians’ judgement in such matters is exceptionally outré. But something resembling objective standards for what is allowed/forbidden seems like a necessary precursor.
The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
I would say that at least as salient a question is, what is reasonably considered “sexually explicit”, or any other kind of objectionable?
For example, does having a homosexual couple depicted count? Clearly, for some, merely admitting the existence of homosexuality (except, perhaps, if it is demonized), let alone treating as unexceptional, is beyond the pale. How about having materials, of an “if you want to know more” type, for when a teacher gets to field a question about a student having two daddies?
Or even, how about a simple book on human anatomy? Especially if it addresses “What does each part do?”
I don’t actually have a problem with parents having a say. Although I do beg leave to doubt that teachers’ and librarians’ judgement in such matters is exceptionally outré. But something resembling objective standards for what is allowed/forbidden seems like a necessary precursor.
OMG, we’ve reached the point where bobbyp and I are in sync! Where will it all end???
OMG, we’ve reached the point where bobbyp and I are in sync! Where will it all end???
BP, here you go: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835973/Ron-DeSantis-airs-video-containing-sexually-explicit-content-childrens-books.html
BP, here you go: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835973/Ron-DeSantis-airs-video-containing-sexually-explicit-content-childrens-books.html
answer the question, McKinney.
answer the question, McKinney.
Growing up as the youngest of three children of a professor there were a lot of books in the house. We had a collection of literature from some publisher aimed at juvenile audiences presumably acquired for my oldest brother, so probably published mid-50s to early 60s. The publisher had no problem leaving in what is now “sensitive content” in Huck Finn, but (as I was unaware of until high school when I got a hold of an unexpurgated version) Gulliver’s Travels had some bits edited out, and the entire section on the Hounyms was whacked. Which explained the non-ending ending in the version I read as a kid.
Growing up as the youngest of three children of a professor there were a lot of books in the house. We had a collection of literature from some publisher aimed at juvenile audiences presumably acquired for my oldest brother, so probably published mid-50s to early 60s. The publisher had no problem leaving in what is now “sensitive content” in Huck Finn, but (as I was unaware of until high school when I got a hold of an unexpurgated version) Gulliver’s Travels had some bits edited out, and the entire section on the Hounyms was whacked. Which explained the non-ending ending in the version I read as a kid.
BP, are you serious? Seems like you’re evading. Is the example problematic or not?
BP, are you serious? Seems like you’re evading. Is the example problematic or not?
Parents get a “say” in their election of a school board, which then hires a supervisor, who hires a principal, who hires the librarian, who picks the books.
Not quite OT, I see elsewhere that Missouri zeroed public library funding from their state budget, which will have the most profound effect in rural areas.
Parents get a “say” in their election of a school board, which then hires a supervisor, who hires a principal, who hires the librarian, who picks the books.
Not quite OT, I see elsewhere that Missouri zeroed public library funding from their state budget, which will have the most profound effect in rural areas.
You know, in early 1980s the local public library in my rural Wisconsin town had material that explicit available in the teen section, and anyone could wander to the adult section of the library to see material that was even more explicit than that. They were all better sources of information than the porn mags that my classmates stole from their family members, which was the normal information channel for local adolescents.
The only real difference I am seeing (other than the online content links, which, let’s face it, probably lead to safer online spaces than what a minor would find through google) is that all these books are oriented to LGBTQ+ perspectives rather than the blanket heteronormativity of the books I had access to during my adolescent library browsing.
I suspect that the issue here is not that these texts are sexually explicit so much as that they are unapologetically queer.
You know, in early 1980s the local public library in my rural Wisconsin town had material that explicit available in the teen section, and anyone could wander to the adult section of the library to see material that was even more explicit than that. They were all better sources of information than the porn mags that my classmates stole from their family members, which was the normal information channel for local adolescents.
The only real difference I am seeing (other than the online content links, which, let’s face it, probably lead to safer online spaces than what a minor would find through google) is that all these books are oriented to LGBTQ+ perspectives rather than the blanket heteronormativity of the books I had access to during my adolescent library browsing.
I suspect that the issue here is not that these texts are sexually explicit so much as that they are unapologetically queer.
As for parental veto right in this sort of content, that’s why parochial schools existed, and why parents homeschooled. And those kids were usually well chaperoned at the public library.
With massively mixed results, just as always.
As for parental veto right in this sort of content, that’s why parochial schools existed, and why parents homeschooled. And those kids were usually well chaperoned at the public library.
With massively mixed results, just as always.
McKinney, I have no problem with saying that the content that DeSantis shows is not appropriate. On the other hand, experience (e.g. on CRT supposedly in schools) suggests serious skepticism as to whether said content was actually present in school libraries. Certainly it is nowhere near typical of most of the books being banned from school libraries.
McKinney, I have no problem with saying that the content that DeSantis shows is not appropriate. On the other hand, experience (e.g. on CRT supposedly in schools) suggests serious skepticism as to whether said content was actually present in school libraries. Certainly it is nowhere near typical of most of the books being banned from school libraries.
Certainly it is nowhere near typical of most of the books being banned from school libraries.
Can you give me some examples of “most of the books being banned from school libraries”?
So, if the Librarian makes the call initially, I assume it would be fine with everyone here if a Librarian excluded all queer literature and/or flooded the library with explicitly Christian literature? Because, you know, Librarians?
Certainly it is nowhere near typical of most of the books being banned from school libraries.
Can you give me some examples of “most of the books being banned from school libraries”?
So, if the Librarian makes the call initially, I assume it would be fine with everyone here if a Librarian excluded all queer literature and/or flooded the library with explicitly Christian literature? Because, you know, Librarians?
Here ya go
https://www.scribd.com/document/630033537/Martin-County-School-District-Removed-Books
Here ya go
https://www.scribd.com/document/630033537/Martin-County-School-District-Removed-Books
BP, are you serious? Seems like you’re evading. Is the example problematic or not?
So, you are saying you cannot define “explicitly sexual materials”?
BP, are you serious? Seems like you’re evading. Is the example problematic or not?
So, you are saying you cannot define “explicitly sexual materials”?
OMG, we’ve reached the point where bobbyp and I are in sync! Where will it all end???
With us linked arm and arm marching into the sunset under the banner of pure communism, ‘natch.
or maybe some other banner. LOL
have a good day. u 2 mckinney.
OMG, we’ve reached the point where bobbyp and I are in sync! Where will it all end???
With us linked arm and arm marching into the sunset under the banner of pure communism, ‘natch.
or maybe some other banner. LOL
have a good day. u 2 mckinney.
For example, does having a homosexual couple depicted count?
More and more ads on television include depictions of gay and lesbian couples that are clearly in romantic relationships. Depiction of gay or lesbian couples have become relatively routine in national content. Yes, there’s age-appropriate considerations. But I think states are really going to struggle to enforce rules that Bobby’s father can give his female spouse a quick kiss on the mouth as he rushes out the door to go to work, but Johnny’s father can’t display the same emotion towards his male spouse.
What can I say? I live in a state that was effectively quite red only 20 years ago, but now has an openly gay Democratic governor, married to a man with whom he’s raising two nice-looking kids, and won reelection by 22 percentage points last year.
For example, does having a homosexual couple depicted count?
More and more ads on television include depictions of gay and lesbian couples that are clearly in romantic relationships. Depiction of gay or lesbian couples have become relatively routine in national content. Yes, there’s age-appropriate considerations. But I think states are really going to struggle to enforce rules that Bobby’s father can give his female spouse a quick kiss on the mouth as he rushes out the door to go to work, but Johnny’s father can’t display the same emotion towards his male spouse.
What can I say? I live in a state that was effectively quite red only 20 years ago, but now has an openly gay Democratic governor, married to a man with whom he’s raising two nice-looking kids, and won reelection by 22 percentage points last year.
More and more ads on television include depictions of gay and lesbian couples that are clearly in romantic relationships. Depiction of gay or lesbian couples have become relatively routine in national content.
Which is, I suspect, a large part of what is driving the hysteria of the reactionaries. They can’t change what sells (i.e. what advertisers show). And that means that everywhere (including their little bits of isolation) will rapidly come to reflect something they don’t think they can, and certainly do not wish to, cope with.
Their only hope is to seize control of the government and outlaw all the things they don’t like. And it will have to be seize control, because they already lack a majority. And they know it.
More and more ads on television include depictions of gay and lesbian couples that are clearly in romantic relationships. Depiction of gay or lesbian couples have become relatively routine in national content.
Which is, I suspect, a large part of what is driving the hysteria of the reactionaries. They can’t change what sells (i.e. what advertisers show). And that means that everywhere (including their little bits of isolation) will rapidly come to reflect something they don’t think they can, and certainly do not wish to, cope with.
Their only hope is to seize control of the government and outlaw all the things they don’t like. And it will have to be seize control, because they already lack a majority. And they know it.
At what age should a child who feels non-het sexual desire have the right to find out that they are not alone in feeling this way and that many people live happy lives while involved in non-het relationships despite their parents thinking that these sorts of relationships are disgusting and unacceptable?
At what point should a child who does feel that way and whose parents find this unobjectionable be allowed to discuss this in public when the conversation turns to romantic relationships? Should this be allowed if the parents of other children in the class object to such things?
Also, for the record, the artwork in Genderqueer is no more explicit than the artwork on the Wikipedia page for Oral Sex. And it takes more work to find the graphic novel than it does to find Wikipedia.
At what age should a child who feels non-het sexual desire have the right to find out that they are not alone in feeling this way and that many people live happy lives while involved in non-het relationships despite their parents thinking that these sorts of relationships are disgusting and unacceptable?
At what point should a child who does feel that way and whose parents find this unobjectionable be allowed to discuss this in public when the conversation turns to romantic relationships? Should this be allowed if the parents of other children in the class object to such things?
Also, for the record, the artwork in Genderqueer is no more explicit than the artwork on the Wikipedia page for Oral Sex. And it takes more work to find the graphic novel than it does to find Wikipedia.
Should this be allowed if the parents of other children in the class object to such things?
A much better question than the “when did you stop beating your wife” queries from our house attorney. At issue is policy: Who gets to decide, when, and under what circumstances. I see a lot of heat here but not much in the way of policy from those who support banning books, but don’t have the courage to just come out and say only their side is entitled to weild this power under circumstances that only they get to decide.
Should this be allowed if the parents of other children in the class object to such things?
A much better question than the “when did you stop beating your wife” queries from our house attorney. At issue is policy: Who gets to decide, when, and under what circumstances. I see a lot of heat here but not much in the way of policy from those who support banning books, but don’t have the courage to just come out and say only their side is entitled to weild this power under circumstances that only they get to decide.
And it takes more work to find the graphic novel than it does to find Wikipedia.
Long ago my wife and I gave our children access to the internet. This was in the days before ubiquitous smart phones, so was via the computer we let each of them have. (Because of history, we were believers in personal computers.) I pointed out to the kids that their internet access was through a proxy and I had access to a list of every URL they visited. And that as Dad, I was probably going to look at the list from time to time, and impose filters if I thought that necessary.
There was sort of an implicit challenge in there. “The proxy is a Linux box. Feel free to try to crack it and conceal that from Dad. Who breaks into things, and prevents break-ins, professionally from time to time.”
Since it’s an open thread, that reminds me of the time a woman I worked with at Bell Labs let slip that her “professional experience” getting into locked cars was as a thief, not repo or AAA work.
And it takes more work to find the graphic novel than it does to find Wikipedia.
Long ago my wife and I gave our children access to the internet. This was in the days before ubiquitous smart phones, so was via the computer we let each of them have. (Because of history, we were believers in personal computers.) I pointed out to the kids that their internet access was through a proxy and I had access to a list of every URL they visited. And that as Dad, I was probably going to look at the list from time to time, and impose filters if I thought that necessary.
There was sort of an implicit challenge in there. “The proxy is a Linux box. Feel free to try to crack it and conceal that from Dad. Who breaks into things, and prevents break-ins, professionally from time to time.”
Since it’s an open thread, that reminds me of the time a woman I worked with at Bell Labs let slip that her “professional experience” getting into locked cars was as a thief, not repo or AAA work.
The scandalousness of high school guys scouring the school library collection of National Geographic looking for naked pictures. Somehow my generation survived that depravity.
The scandalousness of high school guys scouring the school library collection of National Geographic looking for naked pictures. Somehow my generation survived that depravity.
And then there were all us farm kids, who inevitably grew up knowing about sex**. Even those who didn’t get involved in 4-H. (And most of us weren’t flower children later either.)
It’s enough to make someone suspect that enforced ignorance is the real path to depravity. Just more projection from the MAGAts?
** And starting with animal sex at that!
And then there were all us farm kids, who inevitably grew up knowing about sex**. Even those who didn’t get involved in 4-H. (And most of us weren’t flower children later either.)
It’s enough to make someone suspect that enforced ignorance is the real path to depravity. Just more projection from the MAGAts?
** And starting with animal sex at that!
The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
There should be some oversight on what goes in a school library. Restrictions should not be solely, nor even primarily, on sexual content. They should certainly not be in direct response to objections by a small number of parents.
The question is: do the parents–plural–have any say-so in whether the librarian can put sexually explicit materials in the library.
There should be some oversight on what goes in a school library. Restrictions should not be solely, nor even primarily, on sexual content. They should certainly not be in direct response to objections by a small number of parents.
What Pro Bono said, passim.
And what nous said in his first two paragraphs (I cannot speak to the third) @08.26.
What Pro Bono said, passim.
And what nous said in his first two paragraphs (I cannot speak to the third) @08.26.
And, by the way, this focus on “explicit” books is somewhat hilarious, when studies reveal that most children are exposed to really explicit, graphic live-action porn on their phones by the time they are 11, and the most violent misogynistic porn at that, so that many boys (maybe even most) now think that throttling their partners, or spitting on them, is a normal part of heterosexual sex.
And, by the way, this focus on “explicit” books is somewhat hilarious, when studies reveal that most children are exposed to really explicit, graphic live-action porn on their phones by the time they are 11, and the most violent misogynistic porn at that, so that many boys (maybe even most) now think that throttling their partners, or spitting on them, is a normal part of heterosexual sex.
studies reveal that most children are exposed to really explicit, graphic live-action porn on their phones by the time they are 11
But since parents, not to mention grandparents, didn’t grow up attached to a phone 24/7, they have likely no clue.** That, or they aren’t willing to get into a fight over whether the kids get to have a phone; a fight where a pyrrhic victory is the best they could hope for anyway. So they have shifted to a battle over books and libraries that they might be able to “win”.
** Non-parents probably being even more clueless on the subject. But nobody here seems to be defending their right to interfere.
studies reveal that most children are exposed to really explicit, graphic live-action porn on their phones by the time they are 11
But since parents, not to mention grandparents, didn’t grow up attached to a phone 24/7, they have likely no clue.** That, or they aren’t willing to get into a fight over whether the kids get to have a phone; a fight where a pyrrhic victory is the best they could hope for anyway. So they have shifted to a battle over books and libraries that they might be able to “win”.
** Non-parents probably being even more clueless on the subject. But nobody here seems to be defending their right to interfere.
So, if the Librarian makes the call initially, I assume it would be fine with everyone here if a Librarian excluded all queer literature and/or flooded the library with explicitly Christian literature? Because, you know, Librarians?
The snark at the end is cute. It’s almost like you came from another planet and don’t recognize the similarity between the words “library” and “librarian.” It’s utterly uncontroversial that librarians select books for libraries. Not without any sort of guidance beforehand and not without oversight afterward. But that is what they do and have done for a very long time as a simple matter of fact.
Why noting that implies that no one can ever object to a librarian’s choices is beyond me. Never stop manufacturing your straw men. It’s tradition!
So, if the Librarian makes the call initially, I assume it would be fine with everyone here if a Librarian excluded all queer literature and/or flooded the library with explicitly Christian literature? Because, you know, Librarians?
The snark at the end is cute. It’s almost like you came from another planet and don’t recognize the similarity between the words “library” and “librarian.” It’s utterly uncontroversial that librarians select books for libraries. Not without any sort of guidance beforehand and not without oversight afterward. But that is what they do and have done for a very long time as a simple matter of fact.
Why noting that implies that no one can ever object to a librarian’s choices is beyond me. Never stop manufacturing your straw men. It’s tradition!
What hsh said.
And let’s not forget, we are having this conversation about a country where not only can representations of Michelangelo’s David be banned, but where children can get their hands on guns to kill their teachers, other children, their parents; and the same people who want to ban David and the explicit sex in the books will fight to the death to defend the right “to bear arms”.
Because freedoms!
What hsh said.
And let’s not forget, we are having this conversation about a country where not only can representations of Michelangelo’s David be banned, but where children can get their hands on guns to kill their teachers, other children, their parents; and the same people who want to ban David and the explicit sex in the books will fight to the death to defend the right “to bear arms”.
Because freedoms!
That’s interesting – what happened to McKinney’s comment, to which hsh was responding?
That’s interesting – what happened to McKinney’s comment, to which hsh was responding?
That’s interesting – what happened to McKinney’s comment, to which hsh was responding?
It’s right where it always was, as far as I can tell.
(do a search for “you know,”) — (or to put it a different way: 5:27 on 3/31)
That’s interesting – what happened to McKinney’s comment, to which hsh was responding?
It’s right where it always was, as far as I can tell.
(do a search for “you know,”) — (or to put it a different way: 5:27 on 3/31)
OK, I found it, but (and I might be going crazy) when I originally saw it it looked as if it was immediately before hsh’s response. I’m going to assume it’s me, not Typepad….
OK, I found it, but (and I might be going crazy) when I originally saw it it looked as if it was immediately before hsh’s response. I’m going to assume it’s me, not Typepad….
I’d go for Typepad or maybe odd browser behavior if I were you. 😉
And by the way, I try to stay away when McK starts his sneering gotchas, and having just gotten back from almost a month away from home I’m buried in catch-up chores anyhow.
But banning books that mention LGBTQ+ people is, among other things, just another part of the effort to rebuild the closet.
nous’s questions in the first two paragraphs of his 3/31 8:27 comment: “At what age do children have the right…” — both have the same answer: from the POV of the people who are trying to ban these books, children do not have those rights in the first place, so there’s no need to talk about “when” they might have them.
I have lived through these questions in real life, with neighbors who thought their kids were “too young” to hear about the existence of gay people. It never occurred to them that any of *their* kids might be gay…….
(Edited slightly after the fact.)
I’d go for Typepad or maybe odd browser behavior if I were you. 😉
And by the way, I try to stay away when McK starts his sneering gotchas, and having just gotten back from almost a month away from home I’m buried in catch-up chores anyhow.
But banning books that mention LGBTQ+ people is, among other things, just another part of the effort to rebuild the closet.
nous’s questions in the first two paragraphs of his 3/31 8:27 comment: “At what age do children have the right…” — both have the same answer: from the POV of the people who are trying to ban these books, children do not have those rights in the first place, so there’s no need to talk about “when” they might have them.
I have lived through these questions in real life, with neighbors who thought their kids were “too young” to hear about the existence of gay people. It never occurred to them that any of *their* kids might be gay…….
(Edited slightly after the fact.)
neighbors who thought their kids were “too young” to hear about the existence of gay people. It never occurred to them that any of *their* kids might be gay…..
I wouldn’t be too sure. It seems entirely possible that some of them suspected exactly that. And were in serious denial. Or thought that their kids could somehow be kept from thinking that their feelings were real if they were kept in ignorance — get them to act “normal,” no matter what they really wanted.
/massive cynicism
neighbors who thought their kids were “too young” to hear about the existence of gay people. It never occurred to them that any of *their* kids might be gay…..
I wouldn’t be too sure. It seems entirely possible that some of them suspected exactly that. And were in serious denial. Or thought that their kids could somehow be kept from thinking that their feelings were real if they were kept in ignorance — get them to act “normal,” no matter what they really wanted.
/massive cynicism
According to the Focus On the Family crowd, kids only ever end up gay if they are exposed to the idea of same-sex attraction at a vulnerable point in their development and don’t have strong heteronormative role models to counteract the influence. Daddy must be the firm patriarch, mommy the submissive support staff, and media influences must be tightly controlled to erase all homosexual representation.
And if this paranoid worldview strikes you as absurd, I’ve read similar fearmongering about vegans and their ungodly plan to save all the animals while callously murdering unborn humans.
It’s a tiresome genre.
According to the Focus On the Family crowd, kids only ever end up gay if they are exposed to the idea of same-sex attraction at a vulnerable point in their development and don’t have strong heteronormative role models to counteract the influence. Daddy must be the firm patriarch, mommy the submissive support staff, and media influences must be tightly controlled to erase all homosexual representation.
And if this paranoid worldview strikes you as absurd, I’ve read similar fearmongering about vegans and their ungodly plan to save all the animals while callously murdering unborn humans.
It’s a tiresome genre.
I wouldn’t be too sure.
These are people that I knew personally, along with their kids. I get what you’re saying, and I’m not denying that people like that abound, but I don’t think these were those people. In fact, the one I knew best came around once she thought things through and had a little more exposure to the issues, and became a staunch ally.
I wouldn’t be too sure.
These are people that I knew personally, along with their kids. I get what you’re saying, and I’m not denying that people like that abound, but I don’t think these were those people. In fact, the one I knew best came around once she thought things through and had a little more exposure to the issues, and became a staunch ally.
In fact, the one I knew best came around once she thought things through and had a little more exposure to the issues, and became a staunch ally.
Things like that are what give me hope for this country.
In fact, the one I knew best came around once she thought things through and had a little more exposure to the issues, and became a staunch ally.
Things like that are what give me hope for this country.
“Things like that are what give me hope for this country”
One down, 70M+ to go.
“Things like that are what give me hope for this country”
One down, 70M+ to go.
One down, 70M+ to go.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
One down, 70M+ to go.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
Zeno remains inconsolable.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
Zeno remains inconsolable.
LOL
LOL
Zeno remains inconsolable.
If we get half way thru the 70+ million, it will be cause for celebration. If we get half way thru the remainder, even more so.
If we don’t get thru the last few thousand, I just don’t care. It’s tragic for them, but for the rest of us? Not so much.
Zeno remains inconsolable.
If we get half way thru the 70+ million, it will be cause for celebration. If we get half way thru the remainder, even more so.
If we don’t get thru the last few thousand, I just don’t care. It’s tragic for them, but for the rest of us? Not so much.
This, from today’s WaPo, is rather cheering:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/03/fox-news-dominion-defamation-case-judge-ruling/?itid=hp_opinions_p001_f012
Opinion Fox News has been blown to smithereens
By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
April 3, 2023 at 7:46 a.m. EDT
Comment
Gift Article
It’s not just Democrats who believe that Fox News hosts and their guests lied repeatedly about Dominion Voting System efforts to “steal” the 2020 election. It’s also the opinion of Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis.
Davis in a ruling on Friday regarding Dominion’s defamation suit against the network held that on 20 occasions, Fox made false accusations that Dominion tampered with voting results. (Disclosure: I’m an MSNBC contributor.)
“Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” the judge wrote. Since Fox never disputed falsity, Davis concluded: “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.” Fox’s motion for summary judgment was rejected, meaning the suit will go to trial.
It cannot be repeated enough: Plaintiffs almost never win on the issue of falsity before the trial even begins. Usually, there is some defense that the facts were plausibly true — or at least that the comments were opinion (therefore, not actionable). Not in this case.
Fox’s lawyers and executives have suggested that Fox wasn’t responsible for what its star hosts said. Davis flatly rejected this. “FNN [Fox News Network] is not a passive entity. FNN controls what is broadcast on its various networks. FNN does this through its employees as agents of FNN,” Davis held. He added, “FNN did in fact publish the statements to its viewers.”
Fox claimed it is protected by a “neutral report” privilege — that is, it can repeat false statements that are “newsworthy.” New York law does not recognize such a defense, Davis stated. Moreover, he found, “Even if the neutral report privilege did apply, the evidence does not support that FNN conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.” He added, “failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates its reporting was not disinterested.”
Likewise, Davis wrote, Fox does not get to use the “fair report” privilege, which applies to “substantially accurate reports about proceedings, not the underlying facts.”
Overall, Davis’s ruling means that even before the first witness is heard in Fox’s defamation trail, the jury will be told the network repeatedly published false statements about Dominion that injured its business reputation. That is not exactly saying that Fox acted with malice, which Dominion’s lawyers will have to prove to win the case. Still, a jury might well come to that conclusion considering that the entity didn’t bother to check out an outrageous, obvious lie. Dominion now starts with a powerful advantage: Who’s going to believe anything Fox says at this point?
“The ruling is as significant for Fox News as it is for the whole of right-wing media,” said Angelo Carusone, CEO of Media Matters and who has documented Fox’s antics for years. “For Fox, the ruling underscores their incredibly weak legal position and dramatically increases the likelihood that they Fox will lose at trial.” He added, “Regardless of how this shakes out legally, Fox is on its heels, which means the right-wing echo-chamber is currently without its conductor at a moment when it needs it the most.”
On the issue of malice, Davis’s damning recitation of the facts shows that Fox knew it was lying. Just a brief excerpt from the opinion underscores how much evidence Dominion has:
Dominion points out that Fox witnesses have declined to acknowledge the allegations as true, and in some cases even testified they did not believe the allegations. [Former Fox News host Chris Stirewalt] testified that he [did] not believe the allegations, that “no reasonable person” would have believed them, and confirmed that this was a widely held belief among the news people he talked with. Additionally, the Brainroom addressed many of the allegations and determined the allegations to be untrue. … In addition to the general knowledge of falsity, Dominion claims that specific evidence shows that each of the following Fox executives expressed disbelief in the allegations, yet engaged in the publication process of the broadcasts — making them each responsible: Ms. Scott, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Lowell, Ms. Cooper, Ms. Petterson, Mr. Clark, Mr. Sammon, Mr. Komissaroff, Ms. Rosenberg, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Schreier, and the Murdochs.
The mountain of internal communication and deposition in which Fox personnel acknowledged these comments were false is shocking but not surprising. After all, fact-checkers and politicians have tracked misinformation, distortions and wacky conspiracy theories on Fox for years. This is just the first time it’s been shown that the network knew its lies were bunk. The motive, reiterated in internal documents, seemed simple: Keep its radicalized viewers satisfied to keep them from fleeing to competitors.
Fox’s arguments appear weak. It claims there’s a difference between not knowing something is true and knowing it’s false. But running something without any evidence that it is true sounds like the very definition of malice — i.e., reckless disregard for the truth.
Fox also claims that the people who knew about specific statements weren’t at the top of the network. But plenty of evidence suggests senior employees knew what was going on. As Davis recounts, “FNN has generally the same answer to all: FNN was waiting for the evidence.” Such unproven, absurd claims wouldn’t have been aired in any legitimate newsroom.
In the end, it will be up to the jury still to decide the issue of malice. It will also decide whether the parent company, Fox Corp., can be held responsible and determine damages. In any case, Fox has already taken a beating. There now exists a legal record of its dishonesty. The public should now understand that Fox personalities are willing to say things they know are false as part of a business model to keep viewers glued to its propaganda machine.
The pretense that Fox is a real news organization is being blown to smithereens — as is a great deal of the right’s narrative about everything from stolen elections to race to immigration. Discredit Fox, and you discredit a huge portion of the right-wing echo chamber and the MAGA pols who thrive in it.
Credible media, elected officials and voters can now stop treating Fox as a legitimate news outlet. If Fox doesn’t believe its own propaganda, why should anyone else?
This, from today’s WaPo, is rather cheering:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/04/03/fox-news-dominion-defamation-case-judge-ruling/?itid=hp_opinions_p001_f012
Opinion Fox News has been blown to smithereens
By Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
April 3, 2023 at 7:46 a.m. EDT
Comment
Gift Article
It’s not just Democrats who believe that Fox News hosts and their guests lied repeatedly about Dominion Voting System efforts to “steal” the 2020 election. It’s also the opinion of Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis.
Davis in a ruling on Friday regarding Dominion’s defamation suit against the network held that on 20 occasions, Fox made false accusations that Dominion tampered with voting results. (Disclosure: I’m an MSNBC contributor.)
“Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” the judge wrote. Since Fox never disputed falsity, Davis concluded: “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.” Fox’s motion for summary judgment was rejected, meaning the suit will go to trial.
It cannot be repeated enough: Plaintiffs almost never win on the issue of falsity before the trial even begins. Usually, there is some defense that the facts were plausibly true — or at least that the comments were opinion (therefore, not actionable). Not in this case.
Fox’s lawyers and executives have suggested that Fox wasn’t responsible for what its star hosts said. Davis flatly rejected this. “FNN [Fox News Network] is not a passive entity. FNN controls what is broadcast on its various networks. FNN does this through its employees as agents of FNN,” Davis held. He added, “FNN did in fact publish the statements to its viewers.”
Fox claimed it is protected by a “neutral report” privilege — that is, it can repeat false statements that are “newsworthy.” New York law does not recognize such a defense, Davis stated. Moreover, he found, “Even if the neutral report privilege did apply, the evidence does not support that FNN conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting.” He added, “failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates its reporting was not disinterested.”
Likewise, Davis wrote, Fox does not get to use the “fair report” privilege, which applies to “substantially accurate reports about proceedings, not the underlying facts.”
Overall, Davis’s ruling means that even before the first witness is heard in Fox’s defamation trail, the jury will be told the network repeatedly published false statements about Dominion that injured its business reputation. That is not exactly saying that Fox acted with malice, which Dominion’s lawyers will have to prove to win the case. Still, a jury might well come to that conclusion considering that the entity didn’t bother to check out an outrageous, obvious lie. Dominion now starts with a powerful advantage: Who’s going to believe anything Fox says at this point?
“The ruling is as significant for Fox News as it is for the whole of right-wing media,” said Angelo Carusone, CEO of Media Matters and who has documented Fox’s antics for years. “For Fox, the ruling underscores their incredibly weak legal position and dramatically increases the likelihood that they Fox will lose at trial.” He added, “Regardless of how this shakes out legally, Fox is on its heels, which means the right-wing echo-chamber is currently without its conductor at a moment when it needs it the most.”
On the issue of malice, Davis’s damning recitation of the facts shows that Fox knew it was lying. Just a brief excerpt from the opinion underscores how much evidence Dominion has:
Dominion points out that Fox witnesses have declined to acknowledge the allegations as true, and in some cases even testified they did not believe the allegations. [Former Fox News host Chris Stirewalt] testified that he [did] not believe the allegations, that “no reasonable person” would have believed them, and confirmed that this was a widely held belief among the news people he talked with. Additionally, the Brainroom addressed many of the allegations and determined the allegations to be untrue. … In addition to the general knowledge of falsity, Dominion claims that specific evidence shows that each of the following Fox executives expressed disbelief in the allegations, yet engaged in the publication process of the broadcasts — making them each responsible: Ms. Scott, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Lowell, Ms. Cooper, Ms. Petterson, Mr. Clark, Mr. Sammon, Mr. Komissaroff, Ms. Rosenberg, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Schreier, and the Murdochs.
The mountain of internal communication and deposition in which Fox personnel acknowledged these comments were false is shocking but not surprising. After all, fact-checkers and politicians have tracked misinformation, distortions and wacky conspiracy theories on Fox for years. This is just the first time it’s been shown that the network knew its lies were bunk. The motive, reiterated in internal documents, seemed simple: Keep its radicalized viewers satisfied to keep them from fleeing to competitors.
Fox’s arguments appear weak. It claims there’s a difference between not knowing something is true and knowing it’s false. But running something without any evidence that it is true sounds like the very definition of malice — i.e., reckless disregard for the truth.
Fox also claims that the people who knew about specific statements weren’t at the top of the network. But plenty of evidence suggests senior employees knew what was going on. As Davis recounts, “FNN has generally the same answer to all: FNN was waiting for the evidence.” Such unproven, absurd claims wouldn’t have been aired in any legitimate newsroom.
In the end, it will be up to the jury still to decide the issue of malice. It will also decide whether the parent company, Fox Corp., can be held responsible and determine damages. In any case, Fox has already taken a beating. There now exists a legal record of its dishonesty. The public should now understand that Fox personalities are willing to say things they know are false as part of a business model to keep viewers glued to its propaganda machine.
The pretense that Fox is a real news organization is being blown to smithereens — as is a great deal of the right’s narrative about everything from stolen elections to race to immigration. Discredit Fox, and you discredit a huge portion of the right-wing echo chamber and the MAGA pols who thrive in it.
Credible media, elected officials and voters can now stop treating Fox as a legitimate news outlet. If Fox doesn’t believe its own propaganda, why should anyone else?
I don’t know who Jean-Michel Connard is. And I know this absolutely is fake news (not least because the arraignment hasn’t happened yet). But it’s also priceless.
https://twitter.com/torriangray/status/1643030780430659585
Especially the “sketches” — which apparently are AI generated.
I don’t know who Jean-Michel Connard is. And I know this absolutely is fake news (not least because the arraignment hasn’t happened yet). But it’s also priceless.
https://twitter.com/torriangray/status/1643030780430659585
Especially the “sketches” — which apparently are AI generated.
He’s a connard alright. That’s some quality connarie. Well done, sir.
He’s a connard alright. That’s some quality connarie. Well done, sir.
Lead story on the late night news here is NOT about Trump. It’s about tributes here for a drag queen who died today (while on tour in London). https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/famed-san-francisco-drag-performer-heklina-reportedly-found-dead-in-london/
How wonderful for Trump’s ego, that he ranks in importance below a drag queen.
Lead story on the late night news here is NOT about Trump. It’s about tributes here for a drag queen who died today (while on tour in London). https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/famed-san-francisco-drag-performer-heklina-reportedly-found-dead-in-london/
How wonderful for Trump’s ego, that he ranks in importance below a drag queen.
The theatre scene in Florida is concerned and worried about how far the state is going to go in its censorship efforts and whether e.g. several plays by Shakespeare can still be staged – or the stage version of Mrs. Doubtfire. Several schools have already preemptively canceled school theatre productions for fear of running afoul of the new rules.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just reinstate the Hays Code in an updated form? Or would that be counterproductive since too explicit rules leave room for loopholes. The purpose is to scare people into self-censorship after all, so vague rules would be better. Gummiparagrafen as we call it in German (elastic clauses; the German term translates literally as ‘rubber clauses’), a favorite tool of authoritarian governments.
The theatre scene in Florida is concerned and worried about how far the state is going to go in its censorship efforts and whether e.g. several plays by Shakespeare can still be staged – or the stage version of Mrs. Doubtfire. Several schools have already preemptively canceled school theatre productions for fear of running afoul of the new rules.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just reinstate the Hays Code in an updated form? Or would that be counterproductive since too explicit rules leave room for loopholes. The purpose is to scare people into self-censorship after all, so vague rules would be better. Gummiparagrafen as we call it in German (elastic clauses; the German term translates literally as ‘rubber clauses’), a favorite tool of authoritarian governments.
Next: Ban WW1 movies featuring male and female tanks. Then it’s time to finally go after the sexualisation of electrics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
Next: Ban WW1 movies featuring male and female tanks. Then it’s time to finally go after the sexualisation of electrics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
I guess that the Rs are not interested in banning child beauty pageants. Because it’s not the sexualization of children they care about, it’s parental control.
I guess that the Rs are not interested in banning child beauty pageants. Because it’s not the sexualization of children they care about, it’s parental control.
Plus, Jabbabonk the Orange and his spiritual companions would not forgo those events (and often are the ones behind them too).
Plus, Jabbabonk the Orange and his spiritual companions would not forgo those events (and often are the ones behind them too).
The purpose is to scare people into self-censorship after all,
Close. The purpose is to give the appearance of having scared people into self-censorship. Maybe with q couple of test cases (involving members of disrespected groups), to show how rigid the rules can be.
Because, after all, for the politicians (at least most of them) this is about the performance, not about actually accomplishing anything. Bread (Social Security) and circuses.
The purpose is to scare people into self-censorship after all,
Close. The purpose is to give the appearance of having scared people into self-censorship. Maybe with q couple of test cases (involving members of disrespected groups), to show how rigid the rules can be.
Because, after all, for the politicians (at least most of them) this is about the performance, not about actually accomplishing anything. Bread (Social Security) and circuses.
it’s [about] parental control.
Only for some parents. Those parents also get to control the kids of other parents whose values are unacceptable to the Rs.
Otherwise, why do they get to control what all kids read, rather than just what their own kids read?
it’s [about] parental control.
Only for some parents. Those parents also get to control the kids of other parents whose values are unacceptable to the Rs.
Otherwise, why do they get to control what all kids read, rather than just what their own kids read?
Those other kids could infect their kids with what they read. And you surely have heard what problems the mere existence of kids with two moms or dads cause resulting it being a suspension (or is that suspending?) or firing offense to adress the mere fact. ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’ expanded to everyone about everyone (not just oneself).
Of course there is one exception: If you beat up a kid for having gay parents (let alone being gay), you can use that a as a get-out-of-punishment-free card (although you have to work on the ‘righteous anger’ shtick in some places).
Those other kids could infect their kids with what they read. And you surely have heard what problems the mere existence of kids with two moms or dads cause resulting it being a suspension (or is that suspending?) or firing offense to adress the mere fact. ‘Don’t ask don’t tell’ expanded to everyone about everyone (not just oneself).
Of course there is one exception: If you beat up a kid for having gay parents (let alone being gay), you can use that a as a get-out-of-punishment-free card (although you have to work on the ‘righteous anger’ shtick in some places).
Score another one for the optimists. In Wisconsin, where a 1 or 2 point margin in an election is a big deal, the reactionary candidate for the state Supreme Court lost . . . by eleven (11!) points. Between Dobbs and an extreme gerrymander by the legislature, the non-reactionary voters got motivated to turn out. Here’s hoping it’s another (see Kansas’ initiative on abortion rights) straw in the wind for 2024.
Score another one for the optimists. In Wisconsin, where a 1 or 2 point margin in an election is a big deal, the reactionary candidate for the state Supreme Court lost . . . by eleven (11!) points. Between Dobbs and an extreme gerrymander by the legislature, the non-reactionary voters got motivated to turn out. Here’s hoping it’s another (see Kansas’ initiative on abortion rights) straw in the wind for 2024.
“the reactionary candidate for the state Supreme Court lost . . . by eleven (11!) points.”
Well, sure.
The MAGAts were too busy on Tuesday, glued to their TVs as their God-Emperor was hauled before a judge.
Too bad that justice has really slowed down over the centuries, or Trump would be scheduled for crucifixion on Friday. Sturdy lumber and deck-screws with washers recommended.
“the reactionary candidate for the state Supreme Court lost . . . by eleven (11!) points.”
Well, sure.
The MAGAts were too busy on Tuesday, glued to their TVs as their God-Emperor was hauled before a judge.
Too bad that justice has really slowed down over the centuries, or Trump would be scheduled for crucifixion on Friday. Sturdy lumber and deck-screws with washers recommended.
Apparently, among other things, Trump is a ham sandwich.
Apparently, among other things, Trump is a ham sandwich.
That Trump is treif cannot be a surprise.
That Trump is treif cannot be a surprise.
🙂
🙂
Between Dobbs and an extreme gerrymander by the legislature, the non-reactionary voters got motivated to turn out.
I read that the Wisconsin Republicans won an open state senate seat, and now have large enough majorities to impeach and convict at will. So long as none of them defect, of course.
Between Dobbs and an extreme gerrymander by the legislature, the non-reactionary voters got motivated to turn out.
I read that the Wisconsin Republicans won an open state senate seat, and now have large enough majorities to impeach and convict at will. So long as none of them defect, of course.
Score another one for the optimists.
Yes, that was a really cheering result.
On the ham sandwich question, I am absolutely fascinated by the tone (or timbre? I don’t know the terminology) of voice in which Trump now makes his speeches, including I would say about 98% of last night’s. It seems a very strange die-away voice, perhaps like a minor key in music? Has anybody here (or any lurkers who know about these things) any opinion on this? I strongly suspect that this is a technique which actors, performers etc know about, although he seems to be doing it unconsciously because of its doom-laden feeling …
Score another one for the optimists.
Yes, that was a really cheering result.
On the ham sandwich question, I am absolutely fascinated by the tone (or timbre? I don’t know the terminology) of voice in which Trump now makes his speeches, including I would say about 98% of last night’s. It seems a very strange die-away voice, perhaps like a minor key in music? Has anybody here (or any lurkers who know about these things) any opinion on this? I strongly suspect that this is a technique which actors, performers etc know about, although he seems to be doing it unconsciously because of its doom-laden feeling …
Oh, I’ve just heard on C4 News John Bolton repeating the saying (which I had forgotten) that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. I took Charles’s @10.32 about the ham sandwich to be a comment on Trump’s performance as being characteristically hammy, hence my comment above about his delivery which might otherwise have seemed very mysterious!
Oh, I’ve just heard on C4 News John Bolton repeating the saying (which I had forgotten) that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. I took Charles’s @10.32 about the ham sandwich to be a comment on Trump’s performance as being characteristically hammy, hence my comment above about his delivery which might otherwise have seemed very mysterious!
you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Possibly. But if you’re a prosecutor with an (extremely) high profile criminal, you aren’t going to unless you think you’ve got an extremely solid case.
Successful prosecutions of cases like these can be a stepping stone to higher office (e.g. state Attorney General), if you aspire to such. But a failed prosecution can be a permanent blot on your record. So I’d incline to believe that the DA thinks he’s got a really solid case, maybe even a slam dunk, based on the evidence he’s got in hand. (With Michael Cohen’s testimony merely a “nice to have”.)
you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.
Possibly. But if you’re a prosecutor with an (extremely) high profile criminal, you aren’t going to unless you think you’ve got an extremely solid case.
Successful prosecutions of cases like these can be a stepping stone to higher office (e.g. state Attorney General), if you aspire to such. But a failed prosecution can be a permanent blot on your record. So I’d incline to believe that the DA thinks he’s got a really solid case, maybe even a slam dunk, based on the evidence he’s got in hand. (With Michael Cohen’s testimony merely a “nice to have”.)
I had missed this, back in the day. Apparently there is an audio recording of Trump and Cohen discussing the hush money payments, and how to launder the money thru a shell corporation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-tape.html
The significance of that being that, even if Cohen can be trashed as an unreliable witness, Trump’s own voice could provide evidence all on its own.
I had missed this, back in the day. Apparently there is an audio recording of Trump and Cohen discussing the hush money payments, and how to launder the money thru a shell corporation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/us/politics/michael-cohen-trump-tape.html
The significance of that being that, even if Cohen can be trashed as an unreliable witness, Trump’s own voice could provide evidence all on its own.
Old math joke, but seems to have become an Internet Quotation
Old math joke, but seems to have become an Internet Quotation
I read that the Wisconsin Republicans won an open state senate seat, and now have large enough majorities to impeach and convict at will. So long as none of them defect, of course.
The R who (narrowly) won that seat has publicly stated that he does not support impeaching Gov. Evers. Given the huge margin of the Supreme Court win there, I think that any attempt to push things farther to the right in WI on the back of all that gerrymandering is going to provoke a backlash and put the Rs in the back seat for years.
Probably won’t deter the rural Republicans, but it should scare any Rs with a college or medium sized city in their district.
And the state house is still two shy of a supermajority for the Rs.
It will be interesting if the state supreme court does go after the districting and demand maps that do not disadvantage Democrats by a -9 margin.
I read that the Wisconsin Republicans won an open state senate seat, and now have large enough majorities to impeach and convict at will. So long as none of them defect, of course.
The R who (narrowly) won that seat has publicly stated that he does not support impeaching Gov. Evers. Given the huge margin of the Supreme Court win there, I think that any attempt to push things farther to the right in WI on the back of all that gerrymandering is going to provoke a backlash and put the Rs in the back seat for years.
Probably won’t deter the rural Republicans, but it should scare any Rs with a college or medium sized city in their district.
And the state house is still two shy of a supermajority for the Rs.
It will be interesting if the state supreme court does go after the districting and demand maps that do not disadvantage Democrats by a -9 margin.
It will be interesting if the state supreme court does go after the districting and demand maps that do not disadvantage Democrats by a -9 margin.
And not only for the state government. Could move a couple of House seats as well — in a (currently) narrowly divided House. And that’s before the impact of whatever backlash the state sees over the various bits of MAGA insanity.
It will be interesting if the state supreme court does go after the districting and demand maps that do not disadvantage Democrats by a -9 margin.
And not only for the state government. Could move a couple of House seats as well — in a (currently) narrowly divided House. And that’s before the impact of whatever backlash the state sees over the various bits of MAGA insanity.
Clarence Thomas could be impeached…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/apr/06/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-harlan-crow-trump-indictment-politics-live
Clarence Thomas could be impeached…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2023/apr/06/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-harlan-crow-trump-indictment-politics-live
Not with a Republican-controlled house
Not with a Republican-controlled house
Not with a Republican-controlled house
Almost certainly true. But I guess the Dems could make hay with it in 2024, and given what seems like a pretty much nationwide revolt against the Roe v Wade decision, that could be a good thing.
Not with a Republican-controlled house
Almost certainly true. But I guess the Dems could make hay with it in 2024, and given what seems like a pretty much nationwide revolt against the Roe v Wade decision, that could be a good thing.
Call me cynical, but somehow I just can’t see a Democratic Party controlled House being willing to make a black man the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached. Certainly not without a lot more than just the sort of high dollar gifts the Congressmen themselves routinely accept from folks with interests in legislation they will be voting on.
Call me cynical, but somehow I just can’t see a Democratic Party controlled House being willing to make a black man the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached. Certainly not without a lot more than just the sort of high dollar gifts the Congressmen themselves routinely accept from folks with interests in legislation they will be voting on.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that
gamblingcorruption is going on in here!Will make zero difference with the Will to Power crowd on the right. They only care that Thomas is wholly and shamelessly theirs.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that
gamblingcorruption is going on in here!Will make zero difference with the Will to Power crowd on the right. They only care that Thomas is wholly and shamelessly theirs.
What nous said.
Although, in fairness, I expect that there are a few Great Replacement Theory believers on the far right for whom Thomas’s interracial marriage is problematic. (I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.)
What nous said.
Although, in fairness, I expect that there are a few Great Replacement Theory believers on the far right for whom Thomas’s interracial marriage is problematic. (I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.)
“I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.)”
He’s saving that until he needs a no-cost divorce.
“I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.)”
He’s saving that until he needs a no-cost divorce.
Wow, I had no idea about the disparity in mortality rates between the US and its peer countries. From today’s NYT:
David Wallace-Wells
How long a person can expect to live is one of the most fundamentally revealing facts about a country, and here, in the richest country in the world, the answer is not just bleak but increasingly so. Americans are now dying younger on average than they used to, breaking from all global and historical patterns of predictable improvement. They are dying younger than in any peer countries, even accounting for the larger impact of the pandemic here. They are dying younger than in China, Cuba, the Czech Republic or Lebanon.
You may think this problem is a matter of 70-year-olds who won’t live to see 80 or perhaps about the so-called deaths of despair among white middle-aged men. These were the predominant explanations five years ago, after the country’s longevity statistics first flatlined and then took a turn for the worse — alone among wealthy nations in the modern history of the world.
But increasingly the American mortality anomaly, which is still growing, is explained not by the middle-aged or elderly but by the deaths of children and teenagers. One in 25 American 5-year-olds now won’t live to see 40, a death rate about four times as high as in other wealthy nations. And although the spike in death rates among the young has been dramatic since the beginning of the pandemic, little of the impact is from Covid-19. Over three pandemic years, Covid-19 was responsible for just 2 percent of American pediatric and juvenile deaths.
Firearms account for almost half of the increase. Homicide accounted for 6.9 percent of deaths among that group, defined as those 19 years old or younger, and suicide accounted for 6.8 percent, according to a January analysis published in JAMA Network Open. Car crashes and accidental drug overdoses — which the National Center for Health Statistics collates along with other accidental deaths as “unintentional injuries” — accounted for 18.4 percent. In 2021, according to a JAMA essay published in March, more than twice as many kids died from poisoning, including drug overdoses, as from Covid-19. More than three times as many died of suicide, more than four times as many died from homicide, and more than five times as many died in car crashes and other transportation accidents (which began increasing during the pandemic after a long, steady decline).
Last week, the former Treasury secretary Larry Summers called the deepening life expectancy crisis, documented in recent surveys and studies, “the most disturbing set of data on America that I have encountered in a long time” and “especially scary remembering that demographics were the best early warning on the collapse of the U.S.S.R.” In many ways this feels like hyperbole. And yet, by the most fundamental measures of human flourishing, the United States is moving not forward but backward, at unprecedented speed, and now the country’s catastrophic mortality anomaly has spread to its children.
The new life expectancy studies pick up the thread of work by Anne Case and the Nobel laureate Angus Deaton, economists who, beginning in 2015, suggested that a broad social malady was visible in the growing mortality rates of non-college-educated white men in middle age. Their research into what they called “deaths of despair” offered a sort of data-based corollary to a narrative about the country’s left behind, stitched together in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s rise, in part to make sense of it. In the years since, the same data has invited a whole competitive roster of divergent analyses: that such deaths reflected social dysfunctions driven by ballooning income inequality; that they illustrated health disparities that frequently tracked those inequalities, from obesity and cigarette smoking; that they showcased the country’s threadbare social safety net, which briefly expanded during the pandemic and then abruptly shrank; that they arose from striking declines in what conservatives often call prosocial values like patriotism and religiosity.
The new data tells a somewhat different story. In the big picture, opioids still play a large role, and suicide contributes, too. But that pattern of elevated middle-aged mortality is giving way to a growing crisis of juvenile death. The demographics are shifting away from those narrow markers of class and race identified by Case and Deaton, as well.
Mortality is still increasing more quickly for those without a college degree, but as John Burn-Murdoch demonstrated vividly in The Financial Times, except for a few superrich Americans, individuals at every percentile of income are now dying sooner than their counterparts in Britain, for instance. For the poorer half of the country, simply being an American is equivalent to about four full years of life lost compared with the average Brit. For the richer half, being an American is not quite as bad but is still the equivalent of losing, on average, about two years of life. And this is even though an American earning an income in the 75th percentile is much richer than a Brit at the same income percentile, since American incomes are much higher.
This is not to say that longevity declines are uniform, exactly. Black Americans, on average, can expect to live five fewer years than white Americans; Black American men have lower life expectancies than men in Rwanda, Laos and North Korea. White Americans, in turn, can expect to live seven fewer years than Asian Americans. Life expectancy in the Black Belt of the Deep South is as much as 20 years lower than it is north of the Mason-Dixon line and west of the Mississippi, according to the American Inequality Project. And there is even a notable difference between counties that supported Joe Biden in 2020 and counties that supported Trump.
While the past few years of data are skewed by Covid mortality, you still see the American anomaly even if you subtract the pandemic: In all other nations of that counterfactual world, The Financial Times calculated, life expectancy would have either stabilized or increased, while in the United States the huge surge in violent deaths alone would have cut the country’s life expectancy by a full year.
For earlier generations, life expectancy at birth was often a misleading statistic, because before modern medicine, if a person survived childhood and adolescence, he or she could be expected to live at least to contemporary middle age, and so the remarkably low median life expectancy estimate was suppressed by how many newborns did not make it to 10 or 20. (Thomas Jefferson wasn’t an old man when he wrote the Declaration of Independence at 33, when life expectancy was probably about 45, but only two of his six children with his wife, Martha, survived to adulthood.)
In modern America, a similar if less dramatic threshold appears to have emerged. If you make it to retirement age, you can expect to live about as long as your counterparts in other wealthy countries. This is its own kind of failure, given how much more money Americans spend on health care. But it is merely a waste, not a horror. The horror is that, as Burn-Murdoch memorably put it, in the average American kindergarten at least one child can expect to be buried by his or her parents. The country’s exceptionalism of violence is more striking among the young but extends into early adulthood; from age 25 to 34, Americans’ chances of dying are, by some estimates, more than twice as high, on average, as their counterparts’ in Britain and Japan.
And the death rates are growing at a startling speed. According to that March JAMA essay, the death rate among America’s youths increased by 10.7 percent from 2019 to 2020 and 8.3 percent from 2020 to 2021. The phenomenon was more pronounced among older children and adolescents, but the death rate among those age 1 to 9 increased by 8.4 percent from 2020 to 2021, and almost none of that effect was the result of the pandemic itself.
The pandemic years look even grimmer when we examine pediatric mortality by cause. Guns were responsible for almost half of the increase from 2019 to 2020, as homicides among children age 10 to 19 grew more than 39 percent. Deaths from drug overdoses for that age cohort more than doubled. In 2021, as schools reopened, pediatric deaths from Covid nearly doubled but still accounted for only one-fifth of the increase in overall pediatric deaths — a large increase on top of the previous year’s even larger one.
The disparities are remarkable and striking, as well. Most of the increase in pediatric mortality was among males, with female deaths making only a small jump. Almost two-thirds of the victims of homicide were non-Hispanic Black youths 10 to 19, who had a homicide rate six times as high as that of Hispanic children and teenagers, and more than 20 times as high as that of white children and teenagers. In recent years, the authors of the JAMA essay write, deaths from overdose were higher among white children and teenagers, but increases in the death rates among Black and Hispanic children and teenagers erased that gap, statistically speaking, in 2020.
In this way, the new data manages to invert and upend the deaths of despair story while only confirming the country’s longstanding patterns of tragic inequality. That narrative, focused on the self-destruction of older and less-educated white men, took hold in part because it pointed to an intuitive sense of national psychic malaise and postindustrial decline. But the familiar narratives about the country’s problems are proving more enduring: The country is a violent place and is getting more violent, and the footfall of that violence and social brutality is not felt equally, however much attention is paid to the travails of the “forgotten” working class. Probably we should be much more focused on protecting our young.
Wow, I had no idea about the disparity in mortality rates between the US and its peer countries. From today’s NYT:
David Wallace-Wells
How long a person can expect to live is one of the most fundamentally revealing facts about a country, and here, in the richest country in the world, the answer is not just bleak but increasingly so. Americans are now dying younger on average than they used to, breaking from all global and historical patterns of predictable improvement. They are dying younger than in any peer countries, even accounting for the larger impact of the pandemic here. They are dying younger than in China, Cuba, the Czech Republic or Lebanon.
You may think this problem is a matter of 70-year-olds who won’t live to see 80 or perhaps about the so-called deaths of despair among white middle-aged men. These were the predominant explanations five years ago, after the country’s longevity statistics first flatlined and then took a turn for the worse — alone among wealthy nations in the modern history of the world.
But increasingly the American mortality anomaly, which is still growing, is explained not by the middle-aged or elderly but by the deaths of children and teenagers. One in 25 American 5-year-olds now won’t live to see 40, a death rate about four times as high as in other wealthy nations. And although the spike in death rates among the young has been dramatic since the beginning of the pandemic, little of the impact is from Covid-19. Over three pandemic years, Covid-19 was responsible for just 2 percent of American pediatric and juvenile deaths.
Firearms account for almost half of the increase. Homicide accounted for 6.9 percent of deaths among that group, defined as those 19 years old or younger, and suicide accounted for 6.8 percent, according to a January analysis published in JAMA Network Open. Car crashes and accidental drug overdoses — which the National Center for Health Statistics collates along with other accidental deaths as “unintentional injuries” — accounted for 18.4 percent. In 2021, according to a JAMA essay published in March, more than twice as many kids died from poisoning, including drug overdoses, as from Covid-19. More than three times as many died of suicide, more than four times as many died from homicide, and more than five times as many died in car crashes and other transportation accidents (which began increasing during the pandemic after a long, steady decline).
Last week, the former Treasury secretary Larry Summers called the deepening life expectancy crisis, documented in recent surveys and studies, “the most disturbing set of data on America that I have encountered in a long time” and “especially scary remembering that demographics were the best early warning on the collapse of the U.S.S.R.” In many ways this feels like hyperbole. And yet, by the most fundamental measures of human flourishing, the United States is moving not forward but backward, at unprecedented speed, and now the country’s catastrophic mortality anomaly has spread to its children.
The new life expectancy studies pick up the thread of work by Anne Case and the Nobel laureate Angus Deaton, economists who, beginning in 2015, suggested that a broad social malady was visible in the growing mortality rates of non-college-educated white men in middle age. Their research into what they called “deaths of despair” offered a sort of data-based corollary to a narrative about the country’s left behind, stitched together in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s rise, in part to make sense of it. In the years since, the same data has invited a whole competitive roster of divergent analyses: that such deaths reflected social dysfunctions driven by ballooning income inequality; that they illustrated health disparities that frequently tracked those inequalities, from obesity and cigarette smoking; that they showcased the country’s threadbare social safety net, which briefly expanded during the pandemic and then abruptly shrank; that they arose from striking declines in what conservatives often call prosocial values like patriotism and religiosity.
The new data tells a somewhat different story. In the big picture, opioids still play a large role, and suicide contributes, too. But that pattern of elevated middle-aged mortality is giving way to a growing crisis of juvenile death. The demographics are shifting away from those narrow markers of class and race identified by Case and Deaton, as well.
Mortality is still increasing more quickly for those without a college degree, but as John Burn-Murdoch demonstrated vividly in The Financial Times, except for a few superrich Americans, individuals at every percentile of income are now dying sooner than their counterparts in Britain, for instance. For the poorer half of the country, simply being an American is equivalent to about four full years of life lost compared with the average Brit. For the richer half, being an American is not quite as bad but is still the equivalent of losing, on average, about two years of life. And this is even though an American earning an income in the 75th percentile is much richer than a Brit at the same income percentile, since American incomes are much higher.
This is not to say that longevity declines are uniform, exactly. Black Americans, on average, can expect to live five fewer years than white Americans; Black American men have lower life expectancies than men in Rwanda, Laos and North Korea. White Americans, in turn, can expect to live seven fewer years than Asian Americans. Life expectancy in the Black Belt of the Deep South is as much as 20 years lower than it is north of the Mason-Dixon line and west of the Mississippi, according to the American Inequality Project. And there is even a notable difference between counties that supported Joe Biden in 2020 and counties that supported Trump.
While the past few years of data are skewed by Covid mortality, you still see the American anomaly even if you subtract the pandemic: In all other nations of that counterfactual world, The Financial Times calculated, life expectancy would have either stabilized or increased, while in the United States the huge surge in violent deaths alone would have cut the country’s life expectancy by a full year.
For earlier generations, life expectancy at birth was often a misleading statistic, because before modern medicine, if a person survived childhood and adolescence, he or she could be expected to live at least to contemporary middle age, and so the remarkably low median life expectancy estimate was suppressed by how many newborns did not make it to 10 or 20. (Thomas Jefferson wasn’t an old man when he wrote the Declaration of Independence at 33, when life expectancy was probably about 45, but only two of his six children with his wife, Martha, survived to adulthood.)
In modern America, a similar if less dramatic threshold appears to have emerged. If you make it to retirement age, you can expect to live about as long as your counterparts in other wealthy countries. This is its own kind of failure, given how much more money Americans spend on health care. But it is merely a waste, not a horror. The horror is that, as Burn-Murdoch memorably put it, in the average American kindergarten at least one child can expect to be buried by his or her parents. The country’s exceptionalism of violence is more striking among the young but extends into early adulthood; from age 25 to 34, Americans’ chances of dying are, by some estimates, more than twice as high, on average, as their counterparts’ in Britain and Japan.
And the death rates are growing at a startling speed. According to that March JAMA essay, the death rate among America’s youths increased by 10.7 percent from 2019 to 2020 and 8.3 percent from 2020 to 2021. The phenomenon was more pronounced among older children and adolescents, but the death rate among those age 1 to 9 increased by 8.4 percent from 2020 to 2021, and almost none of that effect was the result of the pandemic itself.
The pandemic years look even grimmer when we examine pediatric mortality by cause. Guns were responsible for almost half of the increase from 2019 to 2020, as homicides among children age 10 to 19 grew more than 39 percent. Deaths from drug overdoses for that age cohort more than doubled. In 2021, as schools reopened, pediatric deaths from Covid nearly doubled but still accounted for only one-fifth of the increase in overall pediatric deaths — a large increase on top of the previous year’s even larger one.
The disparities are remarkable and striking, as well. Most of the increase in pediatric mortality was among males, with female deaths making only a small jump. Almost two-thirds of the victims of homicide were non-Hispanic Black youths 10 to 19, who had a homicide rate six times as high as that of Hispanic children and teenagers, and more than 20 times as high as that of white children and teenagers. In recent years, the authors of the JAMA essay write, deaths from overdose were higher among white children and teenagers, but increases in the death rates among Black and Hispanic children and teenagers erased that gap, statistically speaking, in 2020.
In this way, the new data manages to invert and upend the deaths of despair story while only confirming the country’s longstanding patterns of tragic inequality. That narrative, focused on the self-destruction of older and less-educated white men, took hold in part because it pointed to an intuitive sense of national psychic malaise and postindustrial decline. But the familiar narratives about the country’s problems are proving more enduring: The country is a violent place and is getting more violent, and the footfall of that violence and social brutality is not felt equally, however much attention is paid to the travails of the “forgotten” working class. Probably we should be much more focused on protecting our young.
I just tried twice (once under each of my handles) to copy and paste a piece from today’s NYT about the extraordinary disparity in mortality rates between the US and its peer (and many non-peer) countries. When I failed both times, I noticed that the piece said at the beginning that it was subscribers only. I’m going to try, in a separate comment, to see if it at least lets me post the first few paragraphs.
I just tried twice (once under each of my handles) to copy and paste a piece from today’s NYT about the extraordinary disparity in mortality rates between the US and its peer (and many non-peer) countries. When I failed both times, I noticed that the piece said at the beginning that it was subscribers only. I’m going to try, in a separate comment, to see if it at least lets me post the first few paragraphs.
How long a person can expect to live is one of the most fundamentally revealing facts about a country, and here, in the richest country in the world, the answer is not just bleak but increasingly so. Americans are now dying younger on average than they used to, breaking from all global and historical patterns of predictable improvement. They are dying younger than in any peer countries, even accounting for the larger impact of the pandemic here. They are dying younger than in China, Cuba, the Czech Republic or Lebanon.
You may think this problem is a matter of 70-year-olds who won’t live to see 80 or perhaps about the so-called deaths of despair among white middle-aged men. These were the predominant explanations five years ago, after the country’s longevity statistics first flatlined and then took a turn for the worse — alone among wealthy nations in the modern history of the world.
But increasingly the American mortality anomaly, which is still growing, is explained not by the middle-aged or elderly but by the deaths of children and teenagers. One in 25 American 5-year-olds now won’t live to see 40, a death rate about four times as high as in other wealthy nations. And although the spike in death rates among the young has been dramatic since the beginning of the pandemic, little of the impact is from Covid-19. Over three pandemic years, Covid-19 was responsible for just 2 percent of American pediatric and juvenile deaths.
Firearms account for almost half of the increase. Homicide accounted for 6.9 percent of deaths among that group, defined as those 19 years old or younger, and suicide accounted for 6.8 percent, according to a January analysis published in JAMA Network Open. Car crashes and accidental drug overdoses — which the National Center for Health Statistics collates along with other accidental deaths as “unintentional injuries” — accounted for 18.4 percent. In 2021, according to a JAMA essay published in March, more than twice as many kids died from poisoning, including drug overdoses, as from Covid-19. More than three times as many died of suicide, more than four times as many died from homicide, and more than five times as many died in car crashes and other transportation accidents (which began increasing during the pandemic after a long, steady decline).
How long a person can expect to live is one of the most fundamentally revealing facts about a country, and here, in the richest country in the world, the answer is not just bleak but increasingly so. Americans are now dying younger on average than they used to, breaking from all global and historical patterns of predictable improvement. They are dying younger than in any peer countries, even accounting for the larger impact of the pandemic here. They are dying younger than in China, Cuba, the Czech Republic or Lebanon.
You may think this problem is a matter of 70-year-olds who won’t live to see 80 or perhaps about the so-called deaths of despair among white middle-aged men. These were the predominant explanations five years ago, after the country’s longevity statistics first flatlined and then took a turn for the worse — alone among wealthy nations in the modern history of the world.
But increasingly the American mortality anomaly, which is still growing, is explained not by the middle-aged or elderly but by the deaths of children and teenagers. One in 25 American 5-year-olds now won’t live to see 40, a death rate about four times as high as in other wealthy nations. And although the spike in death rates among the young has been dramatic since the beginning of the pandemic, little of the impact is from Covid-19. Over three pandemic years, Covid-19 was responsible for just 2 percent of American pediatric and juvenile deaths.
Firearms account for almost half of the increase. Homicide accounted for 6.9 percent of deaths among that group, defined as those 19 years old or younger, and suicide accounted for 6.8 percent, according to a January analysis published in JAMA Network Open. Car crashes and accidental drug overdoses — which the National Center for Health Statistics collates along with other accidental deaths as “unintentional injuries” — accounted for 18.4 percent. In 2021, according to a JAMA essay published in March, more than twice as many kids died from poisoning, including drug overdoses, as from Covid-19. More than three times as many died of suicide, more than four times as many died from homicide, and more than five times as many died in car crashes and other transportation accidents (which began increasing during the pandemic after a long, steady decline).
I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.
My hypothesis is broader than just Thomas and Loving: six members of the Court are prepared to allow there to be two Americas. They’re going to give the states back a whole bunch of authority. Some states will be progressive, some regressive. And in the back of their minds, they all think, “Of course, I’m not going to live in any of those regressive places so it’s okay.”
For Thomas specifically, Virginia (where he and Ginni live) repealed the law that Loving invalidated. The state seems unlikely to pass a new one even if Loving is overturned.
Yes, this is a pessimistic take on things.
I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.
My hypothesis is broader than just Thomas and Loving: six members of the Court are prepared to allow there to be two Americas. They’re going to give the states back a whole bunch of authority. Some states will be progressive, some regressive. And in the back of their minds, they all think, “Of course, I’m not going to live in any of those regressive places so it’s okay.”
For Thomas specifically, Virginia (where he and Ginni live) repealed the law that Loving invalidated. The state seems unlikely to pass a new one even if Loving is overturned.
Yes, this is a pessimistic take on things.
I hadn’t realized that Virginia had formally repealed the anti-miscegenation law. That does somewhat change his personal calculus.
I hadn’t realized that Virginia had formally repealed the anti-miscegenation law. That does somewhat change his personal calculus.
This seems about right.
What is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ stance on the Supreme Court’s decisions on civil rights and civil rights laws?
“Justice Clarence Thomas has a conservative stance on civil rights and civil rights laws. He believes that affirmative action and race-conscious policies are unconstitutional and has opposed the court’s decisions on these issues. He has also expressed skepticism towards the application of the Voting Rights Act and has criticized the court’s decisions on the issue of same-sex marriage. Thomas has advocated for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and has opposed the use of judicial activism to expand civil rights protections.” —ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo
This seems about right.
What is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ stance on the Supreme Court’s decisions on civil rights and civil rights laws?
“Justice Clarence Thomas has a conservative stance on civil rights and civil rights laws. He believes that affirmative action and race-conscious policies are unconstitutional and has opposed the court’s decisions on these issues. He has also expressed skepticism towards the application of the Voting Rights Act and has criticized the court’s decisions on the issue of same-sex marriage. Thomas has advocated for a strict interpretation of the Constitution and has opposed the use of judicial activism to expand civil rights protections.” —ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo
In case you missed the details, after yet another school shooting, 3 members of the Tennessee legislature protested the failure to enact (or even take up) gun control legislation. In doing so, the violated the Tennessee House’s rules.
Yesterday, two of the three (Justin Pierson and Justin Jones,) were expelled from the legislature. A motion to expell the third (Gloria Johnson) failed by one vote. You may ask, why not all three. Here is Rep Johnson’s analysis:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1644160388592721921
Perhaps not merely an absurd overreaction to what the three actually did.
In case you missed the details, after yet another school shooting, 3 members of the Tennessee legislature protested the failure to enact (or even take up) gun control legislation. In doing so, the violated the Tennessee House’s rules.
Yesterday, two of the three (Justin Pierson and Justin Jones,) were expelled from the legislature. A motion to expell the third (Gloria Johnson) failed by one vote. You may ask, why not all three. Here is Rep Johnson’s analysis:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1644160388592721921
Perhaps not merely an absurd overreaction to what the three actually did.
Thomas has . . . opposed the use of judicial activism to expand civil rights protections.
Although certainly not for other purposes.
Thomas has . . . opposed the use of judicial activism to expand civil rights protections.
Although certainly not for other purposes.
Are there any Supreme Court decisions that Justice Clarence Thomas has concurred with that could be viewed as judicial activist decisions?
“Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution and his opposition to judicial activism. He believes that judges should not use their personal beliefs or policy preferences to interpret the law. Therefore, he generally does not concur with decisions that could be viewed as judicial activism.
However, there have been instances where Thomas has concurred with decisions that could be seen as activist, but only if they align with his originalist views. For example, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), Thomas concurred with the majority opinion that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms applies to state and local governments, striking down Chicago’s handgun ban. While this decision could be seen as activist by some, Thomas argued that it was necessary to protect individual rights under the original meaning of the Second Amendment.” —ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo
Are there any Supreme Court decisions that Justice Clarence Thomas has concurred with that could be viewed as judicial activist decisions?
“Justice Clarence Thomas is known for his originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution and his opposition to judicial activism. He believes that judges should not use their personal beliefs or policy preferences to interpret the law. Therefore, he generally does not concur with decisions that could be viewed as judicial activism.
However, there have been instances where Thomas has concurred with decisions that could be seen as activist, but only if they align with his originalist views. For example, in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), Thomas concurred with the majority opinion that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms applies to state and local governments, striking down Chicago’s handgun ban. While this decision could be seen as activist by some, Thomas argued that it was necessary to protect individual rights under the original meaning of the Second Amendment.” —ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo
Just to be clear, Charles, do you post these ChatGPT precis in the belief that the information in them is always accurate?
Just to be clear, Charles, do you post these ChatGPT precis in the belief that the information in them is always accurate?
ChatGPT can be pretty accurate on subjects that are widely covered on the internet, in books, and in other sources. It’s when you drill down into more obscure subjects that it starts to make up stuff to fill in the gaps.
ChatGPT can be pretty accurate on subjects that are widely covered on the internet, in books, and in other sources. It’s when you drill down into more obscure subjects that it starts to make up stuff to fill in the gaps.
Yes, I sort of knew that. My question really relates to your own motivation – particularly since you agree that it is only “pretty accurate”.
Yes, I sort of knew that. My question really relates to your own motivation – particularly since you agree that it is only “pretty accurate”.
I’m not very articulate. ChatGPT can write something in a tiny fraction of a second that would take some time to write even on subjects I know something about. Plus when things get slow around here, I tend to try to fill the vacuum with something. An incentive for all of you to be more productive. 🙂
On the subject of accuracy, I would rate most news sources “pretty accurate” at best. For example, your NYT article has “They are dying younger than in China, Cuba, the Czech Republic or Lebanon.” Any data of this kind coming from China, Cuba, and perhaps Lebanon should come with a shipping container of salt. If the data is coming from independent researchers, they are just making the best guesses they can. Perhaps the NYT would rather score points than avoid using questionable data.
I’m not very articulate. ChatGPT can write something in a tiny fraction of a second that would take some time to write even on subjects I know something about. Plus when things get slow around here, I tend to try to fill the vacuum with something. An incentive for all of you to be more productive. 🙂
On the subject of accuracy, I would rate most news sources “pretty accurate” at best. For example, your NYT article has “They are dying younger than in China, Cuba, the Czech Republic or Lebanon.” Any data of this kind coming from China, Cuba, and perhaps Lebanon should come with a shipping container of salt. If the data is coming from independent researchers, they are just making the best guesses they can. Perhaps the NYT would rather score points than avoid using questionable data.
Perhaps not merely an absurd overreaction to what the three actually did.
Of course, if Republicans had done the same thing it would be characterized as an insurrection. 🙂
Perhaps not merely an absurd overreaction to what the three actually did.
Of course, if Republicans had done the same thing it would be characterized as an insurrection. 🙂
I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.
IIRC, in his dissent in Obergefell he wrote that the case differed from Loving in that anti-miscegenation laws were rooted in slavery, and Virginia’s law imposed a criminal penalty. He’s willing to make an exception for those.
On a mostly different subject — open thread, right? — Justice Thomas and I agree on one thing. A Supreme Court dominated by people who came through Harvard/Yale law schools and spent their adult lives largely in the northeast urban corridor is a not-good thing. How far back do you have to go to find a Democratic President who nominated someone that didn’t match those? Reagan nominated O’Connor and Kennedy. Trump nominated Gorsuch and Coney Barrett.
I do sometimes wonder how Thomas resists extending his objection to civil rights decisions since the middle of the last century to Loving v Virginia.
IIRC, in his dissent in Obergefell he wrote that the case differed from Loving in that anti-miscegenation laws were rooted in slavery, and Virginia’s law imposed a criminal penalty. He’s willing to make an exception for those.
On a mostly different subject — open thread, right? — Justice Thomas and I agree on one thing. A Supreme Court dominated by people who came through Harvard/Yale law schools and spent their adult lives largely in the northeast urban corridor is a not-good thing. How far back do you have to go to find a Democratic President who nominated someone that didn’t match those? Reagan nominated O’Connor and Kennedy. Trump nominated Gorsuch and Coney Barrett.
Barrett – University of Notre Dame. Not much difference I guess. At least Jackson was a defense lawyer instead of a prosecutor.
Barrett – University of Notre Dame. Not much difference I guess. At least Jackson was a defense lawyer instead of a prosecutor.
@Michael Cain —
Not to say that it’s a good thing, but a pipeline to clerkships etc. gets established, and then it’s a self-perpetuating system. Maybe lawyers trained at, let’s say, Stanford or USC or elsewhere in the west or midwest need a better lobbying system. 😉
Anyhow, I’m much less worried about that than I am about having 6 or 7 (depending on how you count Gorsuch) of the 9 be Catholic. That’s beyond appalling.
@Michael Cain —
Not to say that it’s a good thing, but a pipeline to clerkships etc. gets established, and then it’s a self-perpetuating system. Maybe lawyers trained at, let’s say, Stanford or USC or elsewhere in the west or midwest need a better lobbying system. 😉
Anyhow, I’m much less worried about that than I am about having 6 or 7 (depending on how you count Gorsuch) of the 9 be Catholic. That’s beyond appalling.
Ah, a catholic disdain for all things Catholic…
Ah, a catholic disdain for all things Catholic…
Ah, a catholic disdain for all things Catholic…
That’s not what I was expressing. But I suspect you know that.
Barrett – University of Notre Dame. Not much difference I guess.
Having lived in Ohio (next door to Indiana) and spent 12 years in Catholic school, and then gone to college and grad school in New England (grad school at Yale), I beg to differ.
Also there’s that Catholic thing again.
Ah, a catholic disdain for all things Catholic…
That’s not what I was expressing. But I suspect you know that.
Barrett – University of Notre Dame. Not much difference I guess.
Having lived in Ohio (next door to Indiana) and spent 12 years in Catholic school, and then gone to college and grad school in New England (grad school at Yale), I beg to differ.
Also there’s that Catholic thing again.
I don’t mind scrutiny of materials used in a school. I figure that the parents have the right to initiate conversations about the suitability of materials. What I mind about the current ginned up faux outrage hysteria from Republicans is that it’s astrotruf, it’s their latest hate crap, it’s cynical in that the people behind the scam don’t care about books or parents and it’s BS intended to get their gullible hater base to the polls.
I don’t mind scrutiny of materials used in a school. I figure that the parents have the right to initiate conversations about the suitability of materials. What I mind about the current ginned up faux outrage hysteria from Republicans is that it’s astrotruf, it’s their latest hate crap, it’s cynical in that the people behind the scam don’t care about books or parents and it’s BS intended to get their gullible hater base to the polls.
wonkie nails it. Same can be said of their current anti-trans bandwagon and the great overlap between these two. It’s the modern race card – one that can be covered with a religious fig leaf and crosses racial boundaries.
On a highly tangential and lateral note – the Scottish National Party is living in some very interesting times of a sudden.
wonkie nails it. Same can be said of their current anti-trans bandwagon and the great overlap between these two. It’s the modern race card – one that can be covered with a religious fig leaf and crosses racial boundaries.
On a highly tangential and lateral note – the Scottish National Party is living in some very interesting times of a sudden.
Scottish National Party is living in some very interesting times of a sudden.
You know you’re in deep when your auditors quit.
Reminds me of when the Trump Organization’s did the same. And unlike Trump, the SNP is stuck with a (not very long) deadline by which they must a) find a new auditor, and b) submit audited accounts. Any auditor willing to take on a client in this situation will be able to charge a premium. Probably a big one, given the obvious risk involved.
Scottish National Party is living in some very interesting times of a sudden.
You know you’re in deep when your auditors quit.
Reminds me of when the Trump Organization’s did the same. And unlike Trump, the SNP is stuck with a (not very long) deadline by which they must a) find a new auditor, and b) submit audited accounts. Any auditor willing to take on a client in this situation will be able to charge a premium. Probably a big one, given the obvious risk involved.
Tennessee legislature threatens the districts of expelled members with financial retaliation, if they renominate the expelled.
Tennessee legislature threatens the districts of expelled members with financial retaliation, if they renominate the expelled.
Wouldn’t want the lower classes to miss the racist point of the expulsions, aftet all.
Wouldn’t want the lower classes to miss the racist point of the expulsions, aftet all.
Meanwhile, from beyond this mortal coil, a bit of beauty in the wider universe.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap230408.html
Meanwhile, from beyond this mortal coil, a bit of beauty in the wider universe.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap230408.html
IIRC, duing the US Civil War, some parts of Tennessee seceded from Tennessee.
(Getting a ‘secession is great…NOT LIKE THAT!’ reaction)
Maybe it’s time for them to dust off the old playbook.
IIRC, duing the US Civil War, some parts of Tennessee seceded from Tennessee.
(Getting a ‘secession is great…NOT LIKE THAT!’ reaction)
Maybe it’s time for them to dust off the old playbook.
‘secession is great…NOT LIKE THAT!’
Not uncommon. What’s good for me is not good for thee…. pervades human thinking.
*****
@wj — thanks for the APOD. It’s nice to have you picking out the good stuff for us. 🙂
‘secession is great…NOT LIKE THAT!’
Not uncommon. What’s good for me is not good for thee…. pervades human thinking.
*****
@wj — thanks for the APOD. It’s nice to have you picking out the good stuff for us. 🙂
Thanks for the APOD. The Hubble’s still got some life left. The Webb images that have been impressing me the most are the ones using the infrared camera that are just pointed “out there” and and all have dozens of visible galaxies. Eg,
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/11/17/jwst-image-not-annotated_custom-6de969694158226ae6cbd7f5a744a2876c1193f1-s600-c85.webp
Thanks for the APOD. The Hubble’s still got some life left. The Webb images that have been impressing me the most are the ones using the infrared camera that are just pointed “out there” and and all have dozens of visible galaxies. Eg,
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2022/11/17/jwst-image-not-annotated_custom-6de969694158226ae6cbd7f5a744a2876c1193f1-s600-c85.webp
Those Webb photos are making some serious changes in how we understand (or, more often, realize we fail to understand) the history of the universe.
Those Webb photos are making some serious changes in how we understand (or, more often, realize we fail to understand) the history of the universe.
Perhaps the answer isn’t 42 after all.
Perhaps the answer isn’t 42 after all.
Perhaps the answer isn’t 42 after all.
And how did Jackie Robinson get into this discussion?
(Yes, I did get the reference. But it was just too good an opening to pass up. Especially at the beginning of baseball season.)
Perhaps the answer isn’t 42 after all.
And how did Jackie Robinson get into this discussion?
(Yes, I did get the reference. But it was just too good an opening to pass up. Especially at the beginning of baseball season.)
I happened to read Alice to my grandchildren recently.
I happened to read Alice to my grandchildren recently.
I happened to read Alice to my grandchildren recently.
Now that my wife is living in memory care I have started cleaning out all of the boxes of accumulated cruft. Not just her stuff, but mine as well. When my children were small I drew “little monster” pictures for them. The characters’ template was based on a greatly simplified version of the mad scientist’s monster in the 1946 Bugs Bunny cartoon Hair-Raising Hare. I found the originals from when my daughter and I started an adventure story — I drew, she was going to write. We didn’t get very far, and I haven’t found any of her writing.
But I have granddaughters now, aged nine, six, and one. I plan on introducing them to the little monsters this week. Hopefully one or more them will be interested in writing the story to go with the pictures.
I happened to read Alice to my grandchildren recently.
Now that my wife is living in memory care I have started cleaning out all of the boxes of accumulated cruft. Not just her stuff, but mine as well. When my children were small I drew “little monster” pictures for them. The characters’ template was based on a greatly simplified version of the mad scientist’s monster in the 1946 Bugs Bunny cartoon Hair-Raising Hare. I found the originals from when my daughter and I started an adventure story — I drew, she was going to write. We didn’t get very far, and I haven’t found any of her writing.
But I have granddaughters now, aged nine, six, and one. I plan on introducing them to the little monsters this week. Hopefully one or more them will be interested in writing the story to go with the pictures.
Other 42ers.
• Mariano Rivera: former MLB relief pitcher for the New York Yankees
• James Worthy: former NBA player for the Los Angeles Lakers
• Ronnie Lott: former NFL safety for the San Francisco 49ers and other teams
• Elgin Baylor: former NBA player for the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers[Wore 42 for eleven games during 1968-69. Otherwise wore 22]
• Pat Tillman: former NFL safety for the Arizona Cardinals who left football to serve in the US Army and was killed in action
• Vinny Testaverde: former NFL quarterback for multiple teams, including the New York Jets, Dallas Cowboys, and Baltimore Ravens
Other 42ers.
• Mariano Rivera: former MLB relief pitcher for the New York Yankees
• James Worthy: former NBA player for the Los Angeles Lakers
• Ronnie Lott: former NFL safety for the San Francisco 49ers and other teams
• Elgin Baylor: former NBA player for the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers[Wore 42 for eleven games during 1968-69. Otherwise wore 22]
• Pat Tillman: former NFL safety for the Arizona Cardinals who left football to serve in the US Army and was killed in action
• Vinny Testaverde: former NFL quarterback for multiple teams, including the New York Jets, Dallas Cowboys, and Baltimore Ravens
@Michael — nice story. I hope the story gets written!
I’m starting on another round of cleaning out accumulated cruft myself — spring and fall are the seasons for it, since the attic is neither too hot nor too cold. I’ve missed a couple of rounds, though, and now I can barely find a path through the mess. You’d think Covid isolation would have been a great time to do it, but somehow I kept putting it off….
@Michael — nice story. I hope the story gets written!
I’m starting on another round of cleaning out accumulated cruft myself — spring and fall are the seasons for it, since the attic is neither too hot nor too cold. I’ve missed a couple of rounds, though, and now I can barely find a path through the mess. You’d think Covid isolation would have been a great time to do it, but somehow I kept putting it off….
Last summer I tosed decades of accumulated crap when I thought for a time that I might be moving.
Last summer I tosed decades of accumulated crap when I thought for a time that I might be moving.
Testaverde? I believe NFL quarterbacks have been restricted to jersey numbers 1-19 since well before Testaverde entered the league.
Testaverde? I believe NFL quarterbacks have been restricted to jersey numbers 1-19 since well before Testaverde entered the league.
Testaverde?
I thought I had verified Testaverde. But he supposedly only wore 14, 12, 16, 7, 2, and 13.
Testaverde?
I thought I had verified Testaverde. But he supposedly only wore 14, 12, 16, 7, 2, and 13.
Google this: “vinny testaverde #42” and you’ll find out how the AI got confused. 😉
Google this: “vinny testaverde #42” and you’ll find out how the AI got confused. 😉
“3 moves = 1 fire”
Always best to dispose of the flammable stuff first.
“3 moves = 1 fire”
Always best to dispose of the flammable stuff first.
The mistake I made was not having it verify itself.
When did Vinny Testaverde wear 42 on his uniform?
“I apologize for the confusion in my earlier response. Vinny Testaverde did not wear the number 42 on his uniform during his NFL career. He wore several different numbers throughout his career, including 14, 12, 16, 7, 2, and 13, but not 42. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I’m sorry for any confusion my earlier response may have caused.”
geez…
The mistake I made was not having it verify itself.
When did Vinny Testaverde wear 42 on his uniform?
“I apologize for the confusion in my earlier response. Vinny Testaverde did not wear the number 42 on his uniform during his NFL career. He wore several different numbers throughout his career, including 14, 12, 16, 7, 2, and 13, but not 42. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I’m sorry for any confusion my earlier response may have caused.”
geez…
Gotta know how to ask the questions, apparently. 😉
And now to be skeptical of the answers.
Kinda like with humans.
Gotta know how to ask the questions, apparently. 😉
And now to be skeptical of the answers.
Kinda like with humans.
now -> how
now -> how
I know of people who have challenges like that with distinguishing reality. Not all of them are politicians.
I know of people who have challenges like that with distinguishing reality. Not all of them are politicians.
AIs may be made illegal in a few years if they get good enough to fact-check politicians.
AIs may be made illegal in a few years if they get good enough to fact-check politicians.
Will Hutton on the possible/probable Foxification of UK broadcast media:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/09/culture-truth-denial-wilting-us-democracy-britain-following-fast
Charles, are you now posting ChatGPT product without labelling it as such? Are we supposed to know what it is because it is in italics? For example, I always try (although I may have failed on occasion) to signpost where my quoted text in italics is from. Personally (others may disagree), I think if you are using ChatGPT you should make it clear, because otherwise it is like having a sockpuppet on the site (if I have the terminology correct!)
Will Hutton on the possible/probable Foxification of UK broadcast media:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/09/culture-truth-denial-wilting-us-democracy-britain-following-fast
Charles, are you now posting ChatGPT product without labelling it as such? Are we supposed to know what it is because it is in italics? For example, I always try (although I may have failed on occasion) to signpost where my quoted text in italics is from. Personally (others may disagree), I think if you are using ChatGPT you should make it clear, because otherwise it is like having a sockpuppet on the site (if I have the terminology correct!)
AIs may be made illegal in a few years if they get good enough to fact-check politicians.
Why bother? The politicians most in need of fact checking have fans who cheerfully ignore fact checking already.
AIs may be made illegal in a few years if they get good enough to fact-check politicians.
Why bother? The politicians most in need of fact checking have fans who cheerfully ignore fact checking already.
Charles, are you now posting ChatGPT product without labelling it as such? Are we supposed to know what it is because it is in italics?
Do you think CharlesWT carries those factoids around in his head? Out of curiosity, would you have the same objection to the lack of a cited source if the source were Google?
Charles, are you now posting ChatGPT product without labelling it as such? Are we supposed to know what it is because it is in italics?
Do you think CharlesWT carries those factoids around in his head? Out of curiosity, would you have the same objection to the lack of a cited source if the source were Google?
I prefer seeing a source myself in general, though at this point I tend to assume that CharlesWT is using ChatGPT unless otherwise noted.
I prefer seeing a source myself in general, though at this point I tend to assume that CharlesWT is using ChatGPT unless otherwise noted.
Not a hundred percent sure about Google, but on reflection I think if it is a direct copy-and-paste (as opposed to just getting info from) I do have the same view. I could go with your assumption @02.05, but it seems to me that Charles has always before now specified ChatGPT, and I would prefer to know on those occasions when it’s really him.
Not a hundred percent sure about Google, but on reflection I think if it is a direct copy-and-paste (as opposed to just getting info from) I do have the same view. I could go with your assumption @02.05, but it seems to me that Charles has always before now specified ChatGPT, and I would prefer to know on those occasions when it’s really him.
Charles, are you now posting ChatGPT product without labelling it as such?
Yep, I failed to give attribution. But we’re probably already reading news articles and other texts where no indication is given that it is in part or wholly from an AI.
A paid version of ChatGPT listed 20 professional athletes that wore 42 on their uniforms. When I told it to verify, it threw out four. I Haven’t checked the remaining.
Why bother? The politicians most in need of fact checking have fans who cheerfully ignore fact checking already.
True. But AI researchers are beginning to train large language models on images, audio, and video, not just text. And to interact with each other, use software tools, and do searches. And to keep themselves updated with current events. I can see politicians being a bit twitchy if AIs are fact-checking every syllable they utter in real-time.
Human fact-checkers aren’t always reliable. They sometimes ignore some untruths, try to put a favorable spin on some, and nitpick others to death depending on their biases. What would happen if there was an unbiased AI that held everyone’s feet to an equally hot fire?
Charles, are you now posting ChatGPT product without labelling it as such?
Yep, I failed to give attribution. But we’re probably already reading news articles and other texts where no indication is given that it is in part or wholly from an AI.
A paid version of ChatGPT listed 20 professional athletes that wore 42 on their uniforms. When I told it to verify, it threw out four. I Haven’t checked the remaining.
Why bother? The politicians most in need of fact checking have fans who cheerfully ignore fact checking already.
True. But AI researchers are beginning to train large language models on images, audio, and video, not just text. And to interact with each other, use software tools, and do searches. And to keep themselves updated with current events. I can see politicians being a bit twitchy if AIs are fact-checking every syllable they utter in real-time.
Human fact-checkers aren’t always reliable. They sometimes ignore some untruths, try to put a favorable spin on some, and nitpick others to death depending on their biases. What would happen if there was an unbiased AI that held everyone’s feet to an equally hot fire?
The current LLMs don’t know any facts. Their creators have taken large chunks of the internet, a lot of books, and other sources and rolled it all up into a very tight ball. When you give the model text it regurgitates text based on mathematically weighted connections between all the words in the ball. Autocomplete on steroids.
The current LLMs don’t know any facts. Their creators have taken large chunks of the internet, a lot of books, and other sources and rolled it all up into a very tight ball. When you give the model text it regurgitates text based on mathematically weighted connections between all the words in the ball. Autocomplete on steroids.
Autocomplete on steroids.
And we’ve all had experience on just how bad that can mess up.
For that matter, why doesn’t somebody redo autocomplete using AI? That could actually be beneficial.
Autocomplete on steroids.
And we’ve all had experience on just how bad that can mess up.
For that matter, why doesn’t somebody redo autocomplete using AI? That could actually be beneficial.
Makes you wonder, at least it makes me wonder, how much, if any, of the brain is just an organic large language model.
Makes you wonder, at least it makes me wonder, how much, if any, of the brain is just an organic large language model.
And all of this is why disinformation is winning. People can’t be bothered to do their own research and don’t have anything like sufficient media literacy to unpack the information that they do have. This is coupled with too little patience for uncertainty or for taking time to understand the context and variables.
Fact checkers are not a problem so long as they are transparent in their reasoning and sources. Biases are not a problem so long as the fact checker’s critical perspective is made clear.
All of the above are the work of a liberal education, and are crucial for all people in a liberal democracy regardless of vocation.
It’s too bad that our technolibertarian overlords don’t particularly value any of this.
And all of this is why disinformation is winning. People can’t be bothered to do their own research and don’t have anything like sufficient media literacy to unpack the information that they do have. This is coupled with too little patience for uncertainty or for taking time to understand the context and variables.
Fact checkers are not a problem so long as they are transparent in their reasoning and sources. Biases are not a problem so long as the fact checker’s critical perspective is made clear.
All of the above are the work of a liberal education, and are crucial for all people in a liberal democracy regardless of vocation.
It’s too bad that our technolibertarian overlords don’t particularly value any of this.
@nous: do their own research
Partly a depairing nitpick and partly a serious comment — “I’m doing my own research” has come to mean something pretty dismaying in the era of Covid. Without the liberal education you’re citing to underpin it, “my own research” is little more than a gambit meant to validate (often murderous) selfish bullshit.
@nous: do their own research
Partly a depairing nitpick and partly a serious comment — “I’m doing my own research” has come to mean something pretty dismaying in the era of Covid. Without the liberal education you’re citing to underpin it, “my own research” is little more than a gambit meant to validate (often murderous) selfish bullshit.
Throw in the profound need for a way to identify trustworthy sources……. Because no one has enough time to do their own research about every damned thing.
Throw in the profound need for a way to identify trustworthy sources……. Because no one has enough time to do their own research about every damned thing.
Yeah the part of my comment that I deleted was about the devaluation of expertise in an era of fast and wide information access. Understanding, judgment, and synthesis take time and experience and deep engagement.
Media literacy should include an understanding of that.
By the same token, we need to impress upon our experts that their information needs to be made more accessible to non-expert readers. We do too poor a job of outreach and technical journalism. It opens the door to overconfident non-experts coming in and muddying up the conversation.
Yeah the part of my comment that I deleted was about the devaluation of expertise in an era of fast and wide information access. Understanding, judgment, and synthesis take time and experience and deep engagement.
Media literacy should include an understanding of that.
By the same token, we need to impress upon our experts that their information needs to be made more accessible to non-expert readers. We do too poor a job of outreach and technical journalism. It opens the door to overconfident non-experts coming in and muddying up the conversation.
their information needs to be made more accessible to non-expert readers
There was a time when I enjoyed some of David Foster Wallace’s writing. I never managed to get very far in “Infinite Jest,” but his essay on Roger Federer is one of the best things I’ve ever read about sports, and most of his essays are (to my taste) wonderful.
DFW also fascinated me as one of those people with an interesting variety of talents (tennis, math, writing, all at fairly high levels), and also just because his mind was so … tangly. (He had a dark side too….)
So — He wrote a book called “Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity,” about the concept of infinity in mathematics. I read the book three times, very slowly, in order to try to follow it as well as I could, and I enjoyed every bit of it. But the only commentary I found on it from mathematicians was disapproving. And all I could think was: then write one yourself! Some of us would like to know something about this stuff, and at least DFW tried! (Similar dynamic in relation to Jared Diamonds writings….)
Big topic.
their information needs to be made more accessible to non-expert readers
There was a time when I enjoyed some of David Foster Wallace’s writing. I never managed to get very far in “Infinite Jest,” but his essay on Roger Federer is one of the best things I’ve ever read about sports, and most of his essays are (to my taste) wonderful.
DFW also fascinated me as one of those people with an interesting variety of talents (tennis, math, writing, all at fairly high levels), and also just because his mind was so … tangly. (He had a dark side too….)
So — He wrote a book called “Everything and More: A Compact History of Infinity,” about the concept of infinity in mathematics. I read the book three times, very slowly, in order to try to follow it as well as I could, and I enjoyed every bit of it. But the only commentary I found on it from mathematicians was disapproving. And all I could think was: then write one yourself! Some of us would like to know something about this stuff, and at least DFW tried! (Similar dynamic in relation to Jared Diamonds writings….)
Big topic.
One of my academic acquaintances wrote a popular guide for film theory. No one on his tenure review board gave a rat’s ass about it because it wasn’t a peer reviewed scholarly monograph. It probably, however, ended up informing more people about the basics of film theory than 95% of the journal articles published by film and media scholars.
A lot of writing literature has begun to recognize that the majority of science writers use, and prefer, passive voice for making their work sound all science-y. It makes the work sound objective by obscuring the work’s connection to the researchers doing the work. Another of my academic acquaintances (a top planetary geologist) has railed against the poor quality of science writing. He wants science to be written more engagingly, to be more public facing, and to focus more closely on methodology and on context so that people understand it as a process and not as a collection of facts about universal laws.
I’m on board with both of these. I’m teaching faculty. 100% of my legacy comes from what understanding and habits of mind I am able to pass on to my students. Education cannot matter to a public if it doesn’t face the public and argue for its intrinsic value.
One of my academic acquaintances wrote a popular guide for film theory. No one on his tenure review board gave a rat’s ass about it because it wasn’t a peer reviewed scholarly monograph. It probably, however, ended up informing more people about the basics of film theory than 95% of the journal articles published by film and media scholars.
A lot of writing literature has begun to recognize that the majority of science writers use, and prefer, passive voice for making their work sound all science-y. It makes the work sound objective by obscuring the work’s connection to the researchers doing the work. Another of my academic acquaintances (a top planetary geologist) has railed against the poor quality of science writing. He wants science to be written more engagingly, to be more public facing, and to focus more closely on methodology and on context so that people understand it as a process and not as a collection of facts about universal laws.
I’m on board with both of these. I’m teaching faculty. 100% of my legacy comes from what understanding and habits of mind I am able to pass on to my students. Education cannot matter to a public if it doesn’t face the public and argue for its intrinsic value.
we need to impress upon our experts that their information needs to be made more accessible to non-expert readers. We do too poor a job of outreach and technical journalism.
A loud Amen! to that.
All too often, our experts seem focused on talking to each other. With just an occasional pronouncement ex cathedra for the masses — one devoid of anything resembling supporting information. To call our level of outreach “poor” gives it far too much credit.
There are occasional exceptions, in a few fields. But way too few.
we need to impress upon our experts that their information needs to be made more accessible to non-expert readers. We do too poor a job of outreach and technical journalism.
A loud Amen! to that.
All too often, our experts seem focused on talking to each other. With just an occasional pronouncement ex cathedra for the masses — one devoid of anything resembling supporting information. To call our level of outreach “poor” gives it far too much credit.
There are occasional exceptions, in a few fields. But way too few.
has railed against the poor quality of science writing
Recognizing the obvious: a talent for doing science is different from a talent for making science intelligible, not to say engaging or entertaining, to lay people.
As usual, some of this has to do with our cultural/societal priorities, some to do with people living in bubbles and having turf wars over their boundaries (and protection of status) …
We’ve got more pressing problems at the moment, although the problems are all connected.
Back to contemplaing the ice that is only slowly receding from the edges of the lake.
has railed against the poor quality of science writing
Recognizing the obvious: a talent for doing science is different from a talent for making science intelligible, not to say engaging or entertaining, to lay people.
As usual, some of this has to do with our cultural/societal priorities, some to do with people living in bubbles and having turf wars over their boundaries (and protection of status) …
We’ve got more pressing problems at the moment, although the problems are all connected.
Back to contemplaing the ice that is only slowly receding from the edges of the lake.
Here’s a description of the steps it may take for information to get from the original research to us. Any errors, misinformation, disinformation, or tweaking the data to fit agendas along the way can leave us with distortions large and small of the research.
Describe the levels of the knowledge system that starts with the original research and ends with the knowledge that laypeople and policymakers can understand.
“The knowledge system that starts with original research and ends with the knowledge that laypeople and policymakers can understand can be divided into several levels:
1. Research: This is the initial stage of the knowledge system, where scientists conduct research to understand a particular phenomenon. This stage involves developing theories, hypotheses, and models based on empirical evidence.
2. Analysis: In this stage, researchers analyze the data collected from research to draw conclusions and make recommendations. This stage involves statistical analysis, data visualization, and other techniques to make complex data understandable.
3. Synthesis: This stage involves synthesizing the results from multiple studies and sources to create a coherent understanding of the phenomenon. This stage often involves systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other techniques to integrate data from different studies.
4. Translation: This stage involves translating the scientific findings into language that is understandable to laypeople and policymakers. This stage often involves the creation of summaries, infographics, and other tools to communicate scientific information to a broader audience.
5. Dissemination: This stage involves disseminating the translated information to a wider audience, including policymakers, journalists, and the general public. This stage often involves the use of social media, press releases, and other channels to communicate scientific findings to a broader audience.
6. Application”
—ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo [This is a paid version of ChatGPT. The cost is $0.0002 per token. Token counts are a bit higher than word counts. It seems to be less verbose than the free version.]
Here’s a description of the steps it may take for information to get from the original research to us. Any errors, misinformation, disinformation, or tweaking the data to fit agendas along the way can leave us with distortions large and small of the research.
Describe the levels of the knowledge system that starts with the original research and ends with the knowledge that laypeople and policymakers can understand.
“The knowledge system that starts with original research and ends with the knowledge that laypeople and policymakers can understand can be divided into several levels:
1. Research: This is the initial stage of the knowledge system, where scientists conduct research to understand a particular phenomenon. This stage involves developing theories, hypotheses, and models based on empirical evidence.
2. Analysis: In this stage, researchers analyze the data collected from research to draw conclusions and make recommendations. This stage involves statistical analysis, data visualization, and other techniques to make complex data understandable.
3. Synthesis: This stage involves synthesizing the results from multiple studies and sources to create a coherent understanding of the phenomenon. This stage often involves systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other techniques to integrate data from different studies.
4. Translation: This stage involves translating the scientific findings into language that is understandable to laypeople and policymakers. This stage often involves the creation of summaries, infographics, and other tools to communicate scientific information to a broader audience.
5. Dissemination: This stage involves disseminating the translated information to a wider audience, including policymakers, journalists, and the general public. This stage often involves the use of social media, press releases, and other channels to communicate scientific findings to a broader audience.
6. Application”
—ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo [This is a paid version of ChatGPT. The cost is $0.0002 per token. Token counts are a bit higher than word counts. It seems to be less verbose than the free version.]
For “making science intelligible” I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder.
For “making science intelligible” I recommend Sabine Hossenfelder.
I’ve watched a number of her videos.
I’ve watched a number of her videos.
A problem of science writing is that the style guides of journals require use of passive voice and strongly discourage what would be considered ‘good’ writing in other contexts. In extreme cases use of 1st person pronouns is explicitly forbidden. So, no ‘we did’ or even ‘it was done by us‘ only ‘it was done/observed’. A lot of very well written stuff from e.g. the 30ies would not get published to-day because of violations of such style guidelines.
A problem of science writing is that the style guides of journals require use of passive voice and strongly discourage what would be considered ‘good’ writing in other contexts. In extreme cases use of 1st person pronouns is explicitly forbidden. So, no ‘we did’ or even ‘it was done by us‘ only ‘it was done/observed’. A lot of very well written stuff from e.g. the 30ies would not get published to-day because of violations of such style guidelines.
And certainly no “I’m excited about this because it means that….”
And certainly no “I’m excited about this because it means that….”
All too often, our experts seem focused on talking to each other. With just an occasional pronouncement ex cathedra for the masses…
Certainly the large majority of my science/technical writing was intended for specialists in the field. To record and transmit a bunch of picky little details. So I didn’t skip the math, and I stuck to the accepted jargon, and perhaps most importantly, I made a bunch of assumptions about background knowledge. Density mattered — don’t use six pages if four suffices. Call this the style used in IEEE journals.
The couple of times I wrote for a broader but still technical audience required a different approach. Skip most of the math. Avoid overuse of jargon. Good graphics count for a lot. Call this the style used in IEEE flagship publications, in my case Communications Magazine. At least back in the day, articles for Communications went through peer review, then those they accepted were assigned to an editor who worked with the author(s) on style as necessary*.
Then there’s writing for the masses, which is yet a third approach. Very few people get the necessary practice to do all three well.
* When my piece for Communications was published, one section got rather badly mangled. The editor’s father had died suddenly and she was out of the office for a week for that, and then went into early labor before she got back. My last set of corrections to the proofs, which were mostly to fix a couple of large cut-and-paste goofs, didn’t get applied. I got a nice apology letter from the higher-ups at the IEEE, which included a brief description of the changes they were making in their work flow so the problem couldn’t happen again.
All too often, our experts seem focused on talking to each other. With just an occasional pronouncement ex cathedra for the masses…
Certainly the large majority of my science/technical writing was intended for specialists in the field. To record and transmit a bunch of picky little details. So I didn’t skip the math, and I stuck to the accepted jargon, and perhaps most importantly, I made a bunch of assumptions about background knowledge. Density mattered — don’t use six pages if four suffices. Call this the style used in IEEE journals.
The couple of times I wrote for a broader but still technical audience required a different approach. Skip most of the math. Avoid overuse of jargon. Good graphics count for a lot. Call this the style used in IEEE flagship publications, in my case Communications Magazine. At least back in the day, articles for Communications went through peer review, then those they accepted were assigned to an editor who worked with the author(s) on style as necessary*.
Then there’s writing for the masses, which is yet a third approach. Very few people get the necessary practice to do all three well.
* When my piece for Communications was published, one section got rather badly mangled. The editor’s father had died suddenly and she was out of the office for a week for that, and then went into early labor before she got back. My last set of corrections to the proofs, which were mostly to fix a couple of large cut-and-paste goofs, didn’t get applied. I got a nice apology letter from the higher-ups at the IEEE, which included a brief description of the changes they were making in their work flow so the problem couldn’t happen again.
I’d rather not see comments on here generated by ChatGPT – I think they’re worthless. But that’s just my view.
I’d rather not see comments on here generated by ChatGPT – I think they’re worthless. But that’s just my view.
As has probably become clear, I agree with Pro Bono. But, if others disagree, I myself would want them always to be labelled as such.
As has probably become clear, I agree with Pro Bono. But, if others disagree, I myself would want them always to be labelled as such.