Wednesday, August 13, 2008
"I Was So Pleased to be Informed of This / That I ran twenty red lights in his honor"
by Ken Houghton
"[N]ot...every violation of the law, is a crime." - Michael Mukasey, making it clear to the world that a Columbia education isn't worth jack.
Labels: Democracy, LGandM, the rule of law
Monday, July 07, 2008
Condolences to Scott
by Ken Houghton
In the greater scheme of things, this is a minor matter. But it seems likely to ruin his day.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Jon Alter Continues to Support Gaming the System...as Not Gaming the System
by Ken Houghton
Via Brad De Long (but somehow now missing from his main page), Jon Alter continues his absurdist claim* with a roundelay of anti-democratic screed in support of his previous anti-democratic screed.
Meanwhile, Scott Lemieux beats his chest, rents his clothing and generally wails, while DeLong himself agrees with Alter, but at least does so with some style. So let's look at Scott's declaration:
Damn. "Debilitating" "Could seriously Compromise." Never have the glories of Gaming the System been stated so clearly as an asset.
Don't get me wrong. I have sung the praises of Rory Harper before, even after he posted That Unmentionable Video (first link above). But any pretense that Rory's vote being worth somewhere between slightly over 9% of a delegate and a whole delegate has anything to do with "the will of the people voting in the Democratic Primaries" is self-delusional. [The delegate in question is to the Texas state convention -- Ed.]
You may argue—I suspect Scott or Hilzoy, to name two, would—that Gaming the System for Delegates is The Idea.** If you want to do so, of course, and claim to argue consistently, you can't also declare that Bush v. Gore "should not be taken as articulating a legal principle at all."
Or, you can argue that, since the system is set up so that a majority of the voter-selected delegates does not guarantee one the nomination, that it is a perfectly reasonable strategy to campaign for broad-based voter support (which may well cost you some delegates, since votes and delegates are not apportioned proportionately; see Rory above) and to use that to convince the Superdelegates that they should support you.
But that, in the Alter/Scott world, is Evil.*** (Stephen Schlesinger appears to know better.)
Apparently, even though more delegates does not mean more voters (i.e., the delegate selection process is often anti-democratic), it would be anti-democratic for superdelegates to consider the actual will of the voters.
So let's rehash the guiding principles:
Glad we got that straight. Later, Scott will explain (at LG&M) why spending the next four months having McCain and Ari Fleischer concentrating their attacks solely on Obama is preferable to a continued narrative that focuses on Democratic issues and Democratic candidates, and keeps people interested in the Democratic Convention as possibly more than just a coronation.****
Tom Begs to Differ:
1. Jonathan Alter's "Hillary's Math Problem" simply points out that, by virtue of having failed to land a knockout blow on Super Tuesday and subsequently losing a mess of primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton cannot win the remaining states by large enough margins to undig her hole with respect to the more-or-less democratically-selected delegates. If that's an "anti-democratic screed," then I don't know what is.
2. Insofar as Clinton's late break was, in part, the result of some negative campaigning, I'm with Scott Lemieux in not looking forward to what will emanate from Mark Penn's bottom in the next six weeks. I'd almost be willing to throw my support to Clinton if she'd only shitcan the lot of her incompetent campaign advisers.
3. A byproduct of point #1 is that, barring a spectacular and improbable Obama implosion, Clinton can win the nomination only by deploying the superdelegates (i.e., the least democratic element in the selection process) against the pledged delegates (the more democratic element).
4. The anomaly that the system can produce a nominee who won fewer aggregate votes but won more states at least mirrors an anomaly in the national election system; for the standpoint of November, winning big versus winning really big in New York and California is a less valuable skill than being a strong candidate in swing states. Clinton's Ohio performance is, really, the first sign that she has strength in the latter area.
5. Sure, some of the rules are stupid (see: DNC treatment of FL and MI), but they were preannounced. Not contesting a state under those circumstances is quite unlike the HRC campaign's failure to set up a geographically broader campaign in contestable states and therefore getting blown out. It goes without saying that certain Clinton campaign strategists have some words regarding open primaries in redish-to-red states now that two of them have saved their asses.
*He's not alone in this, of course, he's just "prominent" and "liberal."
**Or, alternately, that Mark Penn should have thought to do it.
***It appears to be so in Hilzoy-world as well, which is why I recently called her a member of the ABC camp. She claims otherwise, so I'm hoping someone will cite a post of hers that acknowledges that Superdelegates can and should make up their own minds.
****I'm assuming neither candidate is going to give his or her acceptance speech at 3:00 a.m., or fail to vet their VP selection. And that neither is going to enter a tank without appropriately-sized head gear being procured first.
[Dissenting opinion below -- Ed.]
Via Brad De Long (but somehow now missing from his main page), Jon Alter continues his absurdist claim* with a roundelay of anti-democratic screed in support of his previous anti-democratic screed.
Meanwhile, Scott Lemieux beats his chest, rents his clothing and generally wails, while DeLong himself agrees with Alter, but at least does so with some style. So let's look at Scott's declaration:
So this thing will go on for another month, and the chances of a debilitating convention fight...that could seriously compromise the Democratic nominee in the general have increased.
Damn. "Debilitating" "Could seriously Compromise." Never have the glories of Gaming the System been stated so clearly as an asset.
Don't get me wrong. I have sung the praises of Rory Harper before, even after he posted That Unmentionable Video (first link above). But any pretense that Rory's vote being worth somewhere between slightly over 9% of a delegate and a whole delegate has anything to do with "the will of the people voting in the Democratic Primaries" is self-delusional. [The delegate in question is to the Texas state convention -- Ed.]
You may argue—I suspect Scott or Hilzoy, to name two, would—that Gaming the System for Delegates is The Idea.** If you want to do so, of course, and claim to argue consistently, you can't also declare that Bush v. Gore "should not be taken as articulating a legal principle at all."
Or, you can argue that, since the system is set up so that a majority of the voter-selected delegates does not guarantee one the nomination, that it is a perfectly reasonable strategy to campaign for broad-based voter support (which may well cost you some delegates, since votes and delegates are not apportioned proportionately; see Rory above) and to use that to convince the Superdelegates that they should support you.
But that, in the Alter/Scott world, is Evil.*** (Stephen Schlesinger appears to know better.)
Apparently, even though more delegates does not mean more voters (i.e., the delegate selection process is often anti-democratic), it would be anti-democratic for superdelegates to consider the actual will of the voters.
So let's rehash the guiding principles:
- Disproportionate allocation of delegates is perfectly fine, even when it means that the loser of the popular vote ends up "winning." [WTF? --Ed.] [Example: Nevada's delegate split, or TX's - kh]
- Superdelegates choosing to vote for the good of the party—especially in a case where the presumptive nominee has less general support but a plurality of the delegates due to Gaming the System—is mean, evil, and anti-democratic.
- As previously discussed, voters who choose to vote when their primary was scheduled are not important, because they should have known there would be a demand for a "do over."
- Brad De Long's disparagements of HRC (when, it now appears, that the dispute was at least in part over whether NAFTA or Health Care should be the Administration's First Priority) are definitive, while Todd Spivak's interactions with Obama (including details that suggest that his Legendary Effectiveness in passing the videotape-interrogations law is exaggerated) or Joe Wilson's noting that Obama's own words belie his "I always opposed the Second Iraq War" position are "hit jobs." [Update: h/t to The Smartest Woman I Know for the Spivak and dKos links]
Glad we got that straight. Later, Scott will explain (at LG&M) why spending the next four months having McCain and Ari Fleischer concentrating their attacks solely on Obama is preferable to a continued narrative that focuses on Democratic issues and Democratic candidates, and keeps people interested in the Democratic Convention as possibly more than just a coronation.****
Tom Begs to Differ:
1. Jonathan Alter's "Hillary's Math Problem" simply points out that, by virtue of having failed to land a knockout blow on Super Tuesday and subsequently losing a mess of primaries and caucuses, Hillary Clinton cannot win the remaining states by large enough margins to undig her hole with respect to the more-or-less democratically-selected delegates. If that's an "anti-democratic screed," then I don't know what is.
2. Insofar as Clinton's late break was, in part, the result of some negative campaigning, I'm with Scott Lemieux in not looking forward to what will emanate from Mark Penn's bottom in the next six weeks. I'd almost be willing to throw my support to Clinton if she'd only shitcan the lot of her incompetent campaign advisers.
3. A byproduct of point #1 is that, barring a spectacular and improbable Obama implosion, Clinton can win the nomination only by deploying the superdelegates (i.e., the least democratic element in the selection process) against the pledged delegates (the more democratic element).
4. The anomaly that the system can produce a nominee who won fewer aggregate votes but won more states at least mirrors an anomaly in the national election system; for the standpoint of November, winning big versus winning really big in New York and California is a less valuable skill than being a strong candidate in swing states. Clinton's Ohio performance is, really, the first sign that she has strength in the latter area.
5. Sure, some of the rules are stupid (see: DNC treatment of FL and MI), but they were preannounced. Not contesting a state under those circumstances is quite unlike the HRC campaign's failure to set up a geographically broader campaign in contestable states and therefore getting blown out. It goes without saying that certain Clinton campaign strategists have some words regarding open primaries in redish-to-red states now that two of them have saved their asses.
*He's not alone in this, of course, he's just "prominent" and "liberal."
**Or, alternately, that Mark Penn should have thought to do it.
***It appears to be so in Hilzoy-world as well, which is why I recently called her a member of the ABC camp. She claims otherwise, so I'm hoping someone will cite a post of hers that acknowledges that Superdelegates can and should make up their own minds.
****I'm assuming neither candidate is going to give his or her acceptance speech at 3:00 a.m., or fail to vet their VP selection. And that neither is going to enter a tank without appropriately-sized head gear being procured first.
Labels: 2008, Brad DeLong, Democracy, LGandM, ObamaNation, Politics
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
I Channel Scott Lemieux (not a hockey-related post)
by Ken Houghton
They state reality, without conclusion:
Care to discuss the post-mortem (as it were) on Treason in Defence of Slavery and the Southern Strategy, anyone?
Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science has a post (two, actually) about "tied" Presidential elections.
They state reality, without conclusion:
Four straight close elections in the 1870s-80s, five close elections since 1960, and almost none at any other time.
Care to discuss the post-mortem (as it were) on Treason in Defence of Slavery and the Southern Strategy, anyone?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Pawn to King Whale
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Quote of the Day
by Ken Houghton
Cokehead's favorite baseball player on Slappy and the "GREATEST MANIFESTATION OF EVIL ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH":
"Between them and the Yankees making sure we were updated every 15 minutes about when they were actually going to name their manager, I didn't give a crap. Bottom line was they're playing golf and making organizational decisions and we're still playing games."
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The 2007 New York Yankess (Sixth and final in a series)
by Ken Houghton
My original post was all too accurate, and the absurdity (not Joe Torre's decision) of starting Wang* on three days's rest instead of Mike Mussina only proved the initial point.
In the end, though, the Yankees ended up 3.5 games below where the bettors had them at the beginning of the year—which is quite an accomplishment, given the injuries and changes the team went through this year.
I freely admit being no fan of Joe Torre's;I remember his Mets team that battled Roger Maris for the single-season home run title. I generally give most of the credit for Torre's "success with the Yankees" to Woody Woodward and Brian Cashman. But even I have to admit that this year's team—aging, fading, increasingly weak defense, and without the dominant closer than Rivera was since the year after Jeffrey Maier—overachieved in retrospect.
By contrast, the mathematician predicted the Mets to win 90 games, two more than they did and virtually the same as the "over 89 1/2" SportsMemo predicted.
So we have one team that achieved 3.5 less wins than it was predicted to, in the face of its own injuries, and one that achieved 1.5 less despite major injuries to its closest rivals and which ended with Carlos Delgado declaring that they are "so good they get bored," even as they lose nine of their last ten home games.
If you're asking a fan which one was motivated, they can tell you the answer. Seems a pity that management doesn't know it.
The previous posts in the series are one, two (really a throwaway), three, four, and five.
*Or, as FoxSports referred to him, BLEEP.
With Jeremy and Erin both celebrating, and even The Curse of Scott only having extended their playoff life one game, it's well past time for the final Yankees v. Mathematician v. Gamblers post of the year.
My original post was all too accurate, and the absurdity (not Joe Torre's decision) of starting Wang* on three days's rest instead of Mike Mussina only proved the initial point.
In the end, though, the Yankees ended up 3.5 games below where the bettors had them at the beginning of the year—which is quite an accomplishment, given the injuries and changes the team went through this year.
I freely admit being no fan of Joe Torre's;I remember his Mets team that battled Roger Maris for the single-season home run title. I generally give most of the credit for Torre's "success with the Yankees" to Woody Woodward and Brian Cashman. But even I have to admit that this year's team—aging, fading, increasingly weak defense, and without the dominant closer than Rivera was since the year after Jeffrey Maier—overachieved in retrospect.
By contrast, the mathematician predicted the Mets to win 90 games, two more than they did and virtually the same as the "over 89 1/2" SportsMemo predicted.
So we have one team that achieved 3.5 less wins than it was predicted to, in the face of its own injuries, and one that achieved 1.5 less despite major injuries to its closest rivals and which ended with Carlos Delgado declaring that they are "so good they get bored," even as they lose nine of their last ten home games.
If you're asking a fan which one was motivated, they can tell you the answer. Seems a pity that management doesn't know it.
The previous posts in the series are one, two (really a throwaway), three, four, and five.
*Or, as FoxSports referred to him, BLEEP.
Labels: baseball, LGandM, sabremetrics, Yankees
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Never Bet against d's use of Burnt Offerings
by Ken Houghton
Close enough.
Not only does he provide an excellent summary of flying coach (which will get worse when cell phones become legal, instead of just commonly used because the ban isn't enforced), but there is this, at which several of us laughed:
Not being a devout follower of college football these day, I will nevertheless be making additional burnt offerings this weekend on behalf of the Kentucky Wildcats, who will -- if justice is not the cruelest of illusions -- tear LSU limb from limb.
Close enough.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Editing the Christian Science Monitor
by Ken Houghtonlede opening paragraphs (corrected; h/t, Gary in comments) for today's article on the faith of Rudy "I Hate Ferrets" G., the thrice-married Devout Catholic, as it should be:
There. That's better.
In the grand tradition of Scott at LG&M, here's the
Minutes before the South Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed into a roar of white dust and debris, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani caught a glimpse of the Fire Department's chaplain, Father Mychal Judge.
"Pray for us," the mayor said, reaching out to grab the chaplain's hand as the two raced past each other in the chaos.
"I always do," replied Father Judge. "I always pray for you."
It was the last time Mr. Giuliani would see his close friend and spiritual adviser. Judge was killed minutes later as he administered last rites to a firefighter who might not have died had Mr. Guiliani not both moved the Emergency Headquarters from the safety of the basement of One Police Plaza to the 25th floor of the WTC and failed to work over the previous eight years to provide the fire department with proper communication equipment, such as the police who had been warned to evacuate the building by then were using. The chaplain was just one of many personal friends among the casualties, which the mayor summed up for the stunned nation simply as "more than we can bear."
There. That's better.
Labels: 2008, Journamalism, LGandM, Politics, the rule of law
Thursday, September 13, 2007
"It's in your DNA"
by Ken Houghton
Well worth the trip.*** It's nice to see that that messy "Iraq" thing has been solved and we can go back to important work:
It's a good thing, as I noted Wednesday, thatJane GaltMegan McArdle assures us that we can ignore anything a politician says; otherwise, I might start thinking that the Republicans are trying to distract us from the war and pay for their exorbitant spending with the Greenspan Committee's payroll tax increase that both (1) was scheduled to pay the Boomer retirements and (2) even now was rather accurate in its demographic projections, and moderately pessimistic about productivity and revenue gains.
Headline Reference should be clear to EOB readers. See here for album picture.
*Phrase used advisedly. While at my age anyone Suzanne's age or younger can fairly be considered a "young woman," these two appeared barely old enough to carry a Trapper-Keeper.
**The cologne was named, one guesses, because it is the answer (along with "He was...") to "How did Derek Jeter get to a ball hit four steps to his right?"
***I have to assume that this
is a joke (possibly unintentional), since without those Federal entitlement payments, the state of Kentucky would be at least $500MM a year poorer [PDF]. If we assume they are rational, then cutting SocSec and Medicare payments should be the last thing on a Kentuckian's mind.
The Avon girls* were passing out St. Derek of Pasta Diving (tm - Scott L) new cologne, Driven,** so I had to visit LG&M Thursday.
Well worth the trip.*** It's nice to see that that messy "Iraq" thing has been solved and we can go back to important work:
[Senator Mitch McConnell]’s “deeply disappointed” the new Democratic-controlled Congress has not tackled the “tough issues,” like Social Security…
Besides their “preoccupation” with the Iraq war, Democrats spend their time dreaming of “taxation, regulation and litigation. It’s in their DNA.”
It's a good thing, as I noted Wednesday, that
Headline Reference should be clear to EOB readers. See here for album picture.
*Phrase used advisedly. While at my age anyone Suzanne's age or younger can fairly be considered a "young woman," these two appeared barely old enough to carry a Trapper-Keeper.
**The cologne was named, one guesses, because it is the answer (along with "He was...") to "How did Derek Jeter get to a ball hit four steps to his right?"
***I have to assume that this
Given rural Kentuckans' well known hatred for Federal entitlement programs, dismantling Social Security is a sure winner for Mitch, but it's still kind of surprising to see a Republican in a border state try to shift the focus from the war to domestic issues...
is a joke (possibly unintentional), since without those Federal entitlement payments, the state of Kentucky would be at least $500MM a year poorer [PDF]. If we assume they are rational, then cutting SocSec and Medicare payments should be the last thing on a Kentuckian's mind.
Labels: baseball, Eat Our Brains, Iraq, LGandM, policy wonk, Politics, social security
Sunday, August 05, 2007
A Matter of Quality
by Ken Houghton
Steve Smith has nothing in common with Harry Reid. Let's compare:
In short, Scott has insulted Steve Smith directly and, by implication, the integrity of NHL players everywhere by comparing Smith to someone who would commit what he (Scott) correctly calls "an appalling abdication of constitutional responsibility; there's nothing else one can say."
He should be ashamed of himself. Not so ashamed as Harry Reid, to be certain, but ashamed nonetheless.
*Reference to a song by my favorite Christian rocker, Bruce Cockburn. The lyrics are especially worth quoting in this context:
I wasn't going to blog again tonight—too much paperwork, cleanup, and other life things that should but don't have cute pictures—but this post by Scott is so offensive that it requires comment.
Steve Smith has nothing in common with Harry Reid. Let's compare:
- Steve Smith made a mistake that he immediately regretted. Harry Reid is bending over and saying, "More please, sir."
- Steve Smith got up again and returned to his job. When the Oilers won the Cup in 1987, Wayne Gretzky immediately handed the Cup to Smith. If Harry Reid's team wins anything next year—which his actions keep putting in doubt—no one will even give a fly*ng f*ck* about him.
- It wasn't until the end of his career that Steve Smith Played for The Other Team in Scott's video. Harry Reid has no such excuse.
- Smith's mistake was in the heat of play, and you can see what he was trying to do. Reid's act is deliberate and meditated and has no rational explanation.
- Smith's error was at least a boon for Scott. Harry Reid's error is a disaster for 300 million U.S. citizens and countless others.
In short, Scott has insulted Steve Smith directly and, by implication, the integrity of NHL players everywhere by comparing Smith to someone who would commit what he (Scott) correctly calls "an appalling abdication of constitutional responsibility; there's nothing else one can say."
He should be ashamed of himself. Not so ashamed as Harry Reid, to be certain, but ashamed nonetheless.
*Reference to a song by my favorite Christian rocker, Bruce Cockburn. The lyrics are especially worth quoting in this context:
North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a fly*ng f*ck
About the people in misery....
See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
Labels: hockey, LGandM, Politics, the rule of law
