How Orwellian : David Horsey is an idiot

from an article by David Horsey since pulled due to hyperventilating about the wrong insult :

Sarah Huckabee Sanders does not look like the kind of woman Donald Trump would choose as his chief spokesperson. Much like Roger Ailes when he was stocking the Fox News lineup with blond Barbie dolls in short, tight skirts, the president has generally exhibited a preference for sleek beauties with long legs and stiletto heels to represent his interests and act as his arm candy.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka and wife Melania are the apotheosis of this type. By comparison, Sanders looks more like a slightly chunky soccer mom who organizes snacks for the kids’ games. Rather than the fake eyelashes and formal dresses she puts on for news briefings, Sanders seems as if she’d be more comfortable in sweats and running shoes. Yet, even if Trump privately wishes he had a supermodel for a press secretary, he is lucky to have Sanders.

I'm not offended by the incredibly mild insult of calling her a "slightly chunky soccer mom" because I don't think "soccer mom" should be an insult and "slightly chunky" is hardly the worst insult hurled in politics.

I'm offended at the stupid premise that David Horsey suggests Trump wouldn't choose her and that using David Horsey's imagined telepathic abilities he knows Trump privately wishes he had a supermodel for press secretary while, in fact and contrary to David Horsey's suggestions of what Trump would do, Trump did make her his press secretary.

It turns out the for some people they are so convinced they know someone else's inner mind and what a bastard they are and they won't let reality intrude on that fantasy. 

How Orwellian : Africa's Great Civilizations on art and civilization

mask of the Ooni note the holes around the mouth and hairline to attach a beard and wig. Also note the odd crease lines on the neck.

PBS's Africa's Great Civilizations clip from episode 3 (about minute 43) :

Henry Louis Gates (host) : This astonishing sculpture is the mask of the Ooni. Obalufon the Second, monarch of one of the most important kingdoms in all of west Africa in the middle ages, the Kingdom of Ife. This is one of 40 or so brass copper sculptures executed with dazzling naturalism under the king's patronage. 

woman : They are technically among the most truly remarkable works of art created anyplace in the world. These are striking heads that are quite naturalistic but they're also this idealized naturalism so that none of the warts and wrinkles of the face is shown. If you look at them there is almost this serenity and calmness in them and give a sense of timelessness which are really, really beautiful.

Henry Louis Gates (host) : While European artists were still grappling with perspective and often struggling with the human form these African artists were making magnificent lifelike sculptures. It's not just the technical achievement of the sculptures its also their sheer artistry...

What he says in bold, taken separately, are true. But when put together he is drawing a comparison between the two and making an equivocation of 2 different things. Drawing and sculpture are 2 distinct mediums.  Being in the round, an object in 3d can be measured from any direction and compared to the model. They can even be put side by side and compare the profiles. Or a pantograph could be used. Or molds taken.

In contrast with drawing a slight shift in position changes the perspective. Even with a camera obscura or a grid window while they could help even a small change in the position of the artist would distort the image.  Even with photography it can take some skill to copy an image well and make an image that doesn't look copied from a photograph.

Let us compare a sculpture from a European artist of the same time period and see how it compares to the Ife artist:

Head of an Angel circa 1250, Paris, France

The sculpture above was carved from a piece of limestone.  I wouldn't call this "struggling with the human form" (assuming the nose was broken off and not forgotten by the sculptor). It is remarkably lifelike and quite subtle. I'm not going to try to puff this up by disparaging the African artist because I think the Ife head is well done.

St Donatus, Meissen Cathedral south wall of choir, Meissen, Saxony, Germany circa 1255-1260

Above is another example, this time a full figure, that I don't think is struggling with the human form (this one has a nose).

Would he have described African drawing as "grappling with perspective and often struggling with the human form while these European artists were making magnificent lifelike sculptures"? The series had several cringeworthy moments where the host takes on the role of cheerleader.

--------------------------

The Great Zimbabwe, mortarless stone walls as high as 36 feet (11m), seen from above

PBS's Africa's Great Civilizations clip from episode 4 (about minute 25) :

Associate ProfessorEdmund Akaba, University of Miami : It tells us that Africans were building cities in the 13th century and 14th century and 15th century contrary to this notion that Africa is, to some people, it's a place where there are animals and you have a couple of villages. But it shows that there was substantial technological and architectural development and that all these exploits were the work of Africans. 

Matenga : There is the debate about what is a civilization. Civilization has been rather sort of wrongly defined as the ability to write, leave text. I believe, in its own way, this place is a text.

Henry Louis Gates (host) : It is a text. (his voice rising)

Matenga : It is a text because a text is about communicating messages.

Henry Louis Gates (host) : mm-hmm

Matenga : So, this is a medium through which you can communicate messages.

Henry Louis Gates (host) : This is a sublime manifestation of the human spirit.

Matenga : Absolutely.

I agree that defining civilization as the ability to write is a wrong definition. Although I am unclear as to why he calls it a wrong definition and then wants to use that definition.

I always thought Civilization is the ability to build a city - to be able to sustain a place with a general civilness beyond kith & kin and beyond a population size where people can all know each other.

Congratulations! Africans built cities. He mentions other African cities and one had 15,000 people and another 20,000. For some reason, unlike the comparison with European artists above, he didn't draw a comparison to the progress of other places at the same time : Paris, France had a population of over 200,000 in 1300. Venice over 100,000, Beijing, China 400,000

"I believe, in its own way, this place is a text."

WTF. and then the host responds "It is a text." WTF.  Just WTF.  So a dog peeing on a tree is sending a message. In it's own way, urine is a text. I look forward to his next documentary series : "Great Civilizations of Dogs"

Writing is about knowledge. Being able to pass on the knowledge of thousands and thousands of people over thousands of years helps to build and keep a civilization.  A written language is not a prerequisite to civilization but I would suggest it is close. I would even suggest that it probably is a prerequisite for a modern civilization. Did a lack of written language prevent societies from expanding and sustaining? I suspect so.

Erasing the Past : Yale sculpture

Via the Yale Alumni Magazine :

If you were especially observant during your years on campus, you may have noticed a stone carving by the York Street entrance to Sterling Memorial Library that depict a hostile encounter: a Puritan pointing a musket at a Native American (top). When the library decided to reopen the long-disused entrance as the front door of the new Center for Teaching and Learning, says head librarian Susan Gibbons, she and the university’s Committee on Art in Public Spaces decided the carving’s “presence at a major entrance to Sterling was not appropriate.” The Puritan’s musket was covered over with a layer of stone (bottom) that Gibbons says can be removed in the future without damaging the original carving.

 The obvious point seems to be that "Puritan pointing a musket at a Native American" seems inaccurate. They are both looking in the same direction and one would expect the puritan to be looking towards the indian if the intent was to aim at the indian.

They do get one point of credit for making the censorship of the past both largely unobtrusive and reversible.

The only quote of the head librarian Susan Gibbons is "presence at a major entrance to Sterling was not appropriate" Unfortunately there isn't any explanation of why it is inappropriate although one might assume that the "Puritan pointing a musket at a Native American" canard might be why.

I'll note that the Committee on Art in Public Spaces self description is "The committee will hear from members of the community about art and other symbolic representations related to diversity and consider ways Yale might better reflect our campus and our history."

movie notes : Crumb (1994)

from the commentary track of the documentary movie Crumb (1994) (around the 24 minute mark)

Terry Zwigoff, director :  This guy Skutch he's talking about [a high school bully from the Crumb childhood] is another guy I tried to track down and interview in the film and I actually found him. He was living outside Milford, Delaware; close to where he'd gone to high school. I got him on the phone and I said to him I'd doing a documentary about this guy Robert Crumb and his brother Charles and Max and do you remember him from high school. He said "yeah vaguely" I said what do you do for a living? I may come out there and interview you if; we're trying to raise more money at the time... He said he ran some sort of salvage operation; I couldn't tell from that whether it was some sort of like a  progressive recycling situation or just a city dump. I couldn't tell. We were so short on money I just sort of let that go. It could have been good, I don't know.

it is an interesting distinction to draw into importance. Now, I may be being uncharitable but it seems like he sees a "progressive recycling situation" as something wonderful while a city dump/scrap yard/salvage operation is simply and distinctly déclassé. But is there a difference?

There is to some. Not a practical difference; both are recycling. Both are about reuse. Both are about not being wasteful. The difference is an arbitrary one of social standing.

This is much like those who are fascinated by "tiny houses," even those with wheels so they are mobile but somehow the phrases "mobile home" or "trailer home" are studiously omitted.  The difference between a tiny house and a mobile home is often defined as being able to afford minimalism vs not being able to afford something other than a mobile home.

Again,  I may be being uncharitable (and a little unfair as I am not a mind reader) but he did feel it necessary to interrupt his fellow commentarian to put this little bit of information out there (and the above transcript is the full statement he made about the man).  I sense he was thinking of the meme of the bully in high school who peaks in those years and then declines into obscurity while the victims of the bully have a documentary film made about them.

Bad graph : Requiem for the American Dream (2015)

A Bad Graph from the movie Requiem for the American Dream (2016) at about 42 minutes in

the graph is labeled at left  "% of total tax revenue"

Noam Chomsky : During the period of great growth of the economy the 50s and the 60s, but in fact earlier, taxes on the wealthy were far higher. Corporate taxes were much higher, taxes on dividends were much higher, simply taxes on wealth were much higher. The tax system has been redesigned , so that the taxes that are paid by the very wealthy are reduced and correspondingly, the tax burden on the rest of the population is increased.

My first thought was that "% of total tax revenue" meant the percentage of all Federal tax revenue – which seemed like an odd measure. My second thought was that graph sure doesn't show much in way of business cycles. That would be because they labeled it "% of total tax revenue" instead of the less ambiguous "tax rate." It turns out that the tax rate on "dividends were much higher" but the "taxes that are paid by the very wealthy are" increased and, contrary to Chomsky, not "reduced."

graph showing capital gains tax rate and the inflation adjusted revenue

------------------
towards the end

The tendencies we've been describing within American society; unless they are reversed, it's going to be an extremely ugly society. It's a society based on Adam Smith's vile maxim: all for myself, nothing for anyone else. A society in which normal human instincts and emotions of sympathy and solidarity and mutual support are driven out. That's a society so ugly I don't know who would want to live in it. I wouldn't want my children to. 

If only Adam Smith had some sort of Theory of Moral Sentiments. Of course, "all for myself, nothing for anyone else," was described by Adam Smith as a "vile maxim" and was not his vile maxim.

bad graph : Washington Post's abortion map

The lesson of this bad graph is don't just look at the graph but read the text.

from the Washington Post is this 2013 article by Sarah Kliff.

1. Before the Roe decision, most states did not allow legal abortion.

while the map does paint a certain picture by referring to "repeal" and "reform" of abortion laws. and the subhead says "most states did not allow legal abortion" the text walks that back considerably :

...Through the mid-1960s, 44 states outlawed abortion in nearly all situations that did not threaten the life or health of the mother. States began liberalizing their abortion laws in the 1960s and 1970s. This map shows the situation in the early-1970s, when Roe was decided.

The four maroon states legalized abortion in nearly all cases before the fetus was viable. The 14 pink states allowed abortions in some circumstances. Nearly all others continued to ban abortion in most cases.

This source lists the reformed group as : Colorado, North Carolina, California, Georgia, Maryland, Arkansas, New Mexico, Kansas, Oregon, Delaware, South Carolina, Virginia and Florida. I only count 13 which is also the count on the map.

The part I bolded hollows out the headline. So, the subhead should read "1. Before the Roe decision, most states DID allow legal abortion."  And the map should look different.

Note that unlike Kliff I include both a map showing an accurate representation of the subhead and also a map detailing what abortion laws actually looked like.

note that I haven't looked into  the specific restrictions of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New Jersey's laws outlawing "unlawful" or "unjustified" abortions and what a lawful or justified abortion would be. The source used for the map (Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing April 1972) does note that in contrast to Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, New Jersey had a higher abortion rate than almost any other state.

Note #2 : I'm not sure what the previous laws in Wisconsin and Texas were. Texas, where Roe v Wade originated, did include an allowance for rape.
Note #3 (added Oct 2016) : Washington DC, which I didn't place on the map would be black like Texas and Wisconsin (abortion laws had been invalidated by the courts pre-Roe vs Wade)

They're not egalitarians : Gender Gap Report 2015

The WEF Gender Gap Report 2015 (the report has been previously mentioned)


Russia is still at the top of the list (page 62) when it comes to equality of life expectancy. That is to say that there is an enormous gender gap between men and women but since the gap favors women the authors count that as "equality"

Australia (page 90) is still a sexist, misogynistic hell-hole because the Healthy Life expectancy is 74 for women and 71 for men. Of course, the Gender Gap Report defines this as the 3 year gap suffered by men as a gap where women are behind as they only count it as "equality" if women live 6% longer than men or longer.

Kazakhstan's sex ratio data (p216) is still wrong. The ratio shows male:female ratio while is is supposed to show female: male.

Note that the vertical dashed line indicates "equality." Since women do better than men they truncate the score at the "equality" benchmark because they don't want anyone to think men might fall behind (see page 5 of the report).  So, if you look at the 6th column of numbers you can see 1.06 is for sex ratio at birth and Healthy Life Expectancy is 1.14 but in the second column shows the truncated scores of 0.94 and 1.06 respectively.


They do 3 things with the data to generate the category score:
1) the convert to ratios to focus on differences between males and female scores

2) they truncate the data at their "equality" benchmark (ie with Healthy Life Expectancy they define equality as women living 6% longer than men; therefore with the Russian Life Expectancy Ratio at 1.20 they truncate the score to 1.06.) They don't want anyone to know if there is a gender gap where men suffer. "We find the one-sided scale more appropriate for our purposes, as it does not reward countries for having exceeded the parity benchmark."

3) the subcategory score is calculated with weighted average. A weight of 0.693 for sex ratio and 0.307 weight for HLE.  I think they calculated the weights (page 7) without allowing for their defining the more significant number as less than one and consequently even with perfect scores it'll always show women suffering inequality.

WEF logo - Committed To Improving The State Of The World (unless you are a guy)

Update :  Interestingly, they have been producing reports every year for 10 years and have gotten media attention with every report but no one noticed that the weighting was wrong. One would think it would be a clue when a country has men suffering a gender gap in health subcategories that they report that as women suffering a gender gap in the category. How depressing that they put so much effort into collecting the report each year and after all these years I seem to be the only person to take a close look at it. 

"The first is the sex ratio at birth, which aims specifically to capture the phenomenon of “missing women” prevalent in many countries with a strong son preference. Second, we use the gap between women’s and men’s healthy life expectancy."

The idea of "missing women," according to the abstract to the paper "Missing Women : Revisiting the Debate" referenced in the Gender Gap Report, is premised on "the number of females who had died as a result of unequal access to resources in parts of the developing world." Interesting that an "unequal access to resources" when it comes to men is seen as insignificant.

Update #2 (June 14, 2016) : I emailed some of the people listed on the report about this with no response after a week.

But I did notice that on page 11 they list the Health & Survival category and mark countries with a score of 0.980 as achieving parity (at least parity since the truncate the scores.) However, the chart they use to display each country's score in comparison to the sample average suggests that 1.0 is the standard of equality and Austria, for example is behind with regards to health.

I would also note that if they used equal values (ie a score of 1 for equality in each subcategory) then the weighting would work.

If the Gender Gap Report used the simple measure of life expectancy equality (results being equal to mean equality as opposed to insisting that women living 6% longer than men as "equality") then 138 out of 145 countries would have men suffering a gender gap, 4 would have equality and 3 would have women suffering a gender gap (page 62).

How Orwellian : the censor censoring the censor

An old article (1986) from the days of Sandinistas running Nicaragua about their censor/ propagandist Nelba Blandon

On Jan. 21, 1986, we [opposition newspaper La Prensa] received an interview with Nelba Blandon on censorship, by an AP correspondent named Eloy A. Aguilar. We tried to publish it under the headline: "Blandon Comments on Censorship," but the censor's decision was: "DO NOT PUBLISH." On Aguilar's next visit he asked Blandon why the interview, which he considered accurate, was not published. The censor answered: "Because the statements I made were for publication abroad, not for publication in Nicaragua."

As an aside I would point to this previous article from 1983 where Nelba Blandon admits that the Sandinistas censored newspaper coverage of Poland or the Soviet war in Afghanistan and she says :

''Now we are determined to let them say what they want, except about military matters or questions of product shortages, two themes that could cause panic in the country if not handled carefully,'' Lieutenant Blandon said in an interview." 

Apparently, having the censor being a military member, who by 1986 had been promoted to Captain, makes the censor's conversations a "military matter" and therefore censorable. And this :

Nicaragua's press censor is Lieut. Nelba Blandon, a 24-year-old lawyer whose wit and intelligence serve to soften the image given by the military uniform she wears to work and the pistol she carries on her hip. 

I must admit that I am surprised that the NY Times would describe a gun toting military censor of the press in such flattering terms.

Also interesting is the idea that the censor demands that people being censored pretend the censorship doesn't exist :

Along with photocopies of every page of the paper we send the censor two pages of material that we call "stuffing" -- articles that can be substituted for censored stories. La Prensa has been unable to publish on 40 occasions because the censor could not find adequate material to substitute for censored stories. It is prohibited to leave any blank space on a page or in any other way give the impression that the paper has been censored.

How Orwellian : Julian Assange's "confinement"

The PR statement from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

The Working Group considered that Mr. Assange has been subjected to different forms of deprivation of liberty: initial detention in Wandsworth prison which was followed by house arrest and his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy.  Having concluded that there was a continuous deprivation of liberty, the Working Group also found that the detention was arbitrary because he was held in isolation during the first stage of detention and because of the lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor in its investigations, which resulted in the lengthy detention of Mr. Assange.  The Working Group found that this detention is in violation of Articles 9 and 10 of the UDHR and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the ICCPR, and falls within category III as defined in its Methods of Work

Getting arrested while having a warrant filed is being arbitrarily detained? Then he was let out on bail with terms requiring he have a permanent address is not the same as house arrest and not the same as being arbitrarily detained.  The euphemism "his confinement at the Ecuadorian Embassy" to describe the claim of arbitrary detention elides that he confined himself there. Pity all the fugitives from justice who can't move freely without fear of being arrested.

The full report including the dissent is here (.docx file)

Who is the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention?

Members of the Working GroupMr. Seong-Phil Hong
Republic of Korea, since 2014
(Chair-Rapporteur)
Mr. José Guevara
(Mexico), since 2014
(First Vice-Chair)
Mr. Sètondji Adjovi
(Benin), since 2014
(Second Vice-Chair)
Ms. Leigh Toomey
(Australia), since 2015
Mr. Vladimir Tochilovsky
(Ukraine), since 2010

A five member group with the majority of the group having a variation of the title "chair." Presumably, the other two have to stand.

The War on Metaphor

A tweet from Richard Horton (‏@richardhorton1) who is the editor in chief of the UK medical journal the Lancet and totalitarian crankypants :

 [link to a BBC story about an NRA official saying "This is not a battle about gun rights,'' Mr Porter told attendees on Friday, saying it was "a culture war".]

Classic war on metaphor… Oops, did I say war? He is campaigning against … oops a campaign is a war metaphor too. He's targeting …ah, no.  He's going to the barricades to … nevermind. 

He even recognizes and identifies it as a metaphor! Unlike some people who don't understand (or pretend not to understand) that a metaphor is not literal, he identifies that a figure of speech is being used but unfortunately that makes him sound like even more of a book burning totalitarian.

First metaphors are jailable, then similes, then allegories, then onomatopoeia and then, well, he'll just make up a reason after you're in jail.

Speaking of war, guess who wrote a book called Health Wars? The very same Richard Horton.

How Orwellian : "Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas"

The headline at the Washington Post reads :

Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas

One who just skims the headlines might be led to believe that the event organizer had organized the attack. Not so.

The line of thinking is similar to Garry Trudeau's suggestion that Charlie Hebdo staff "incited" their own murders. The notion is that Pamela Geller organizing an event caused people to attack it. Would they ever claim a broad group of adults lacked moral agency?

It seems only if they encounter a contradiction between what "everyone knows" / "things you can't say" and reality. The solution seems to be to rephrase reality so that "everyone knows" factoid can stay standing.

Like the previous post suggesting that media outlets that ostensibly show a Mohammed cartoon but censor it are signaling compliance, there is another signaling going on : to signal "I'm not one of 'those' people."

It says "*I* follow the social rules." If you can't say "some muslims refuse to accept the American level of freedom of expression" then the source of agency must be elsewhere. 

It seems to be a social set of rules. Trudeau's punching up/punching down distinction stands out because Trudeau appoints himself as the person determining which way is up.

People with guns executing unarmed people in a magazine office? Ah, well the people with guns are members of a minority group (note that this can override the circumstances of a specific individual). They can keep adding criteria to analyze until they reach the destination they want.

from Ace of Spades :

1. To speak of Islamist violence, or to suggest there is a problem in Islam, is racist, and hateful, and irrational, and "islamophobic."
2. It is so predictable that Islamists will kill you if you say something "anti-Islamic" that victims of murder attempts can be said to have brought their attacks on themselves.

It depends on who says it. These are social rules with the consistency of High School cliques. 

Immediately after the Boston Marathon Bombing, Esquire's Charles P. Pierce (who, by the way, is an idiot) wrote :

Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like.

Don't jump to conclusions is a fine sentiment, but he does so want to disparage someone. Don't jump to conclusions about foreigners when you can jump to conclusions about your fellow citizens. There are socially unacceptable targets of venom and there are socially acceptable targets of venom.

from the NYTimes editorial by the NYT Editorial Board titled "Free Speech vs. Hate Speech" :

There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.
But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

(As an aside, note that the New York Times Editorial Board views religions as hierarchal with followers and leaders and nary a mention of books or ideas.)

In the editorial, the Times draws a distinction between free speech vs hate speech depending on who is speaking. What is being said is pushed off to near irrelevance so the exact same thing can be said by two different people and one can be noble Free Speech while the other is odious Hate Speech.  More importantly, the New York Times appoints itself as the arbitrator of who is or who is not an acceptable speaker.

Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.

The NYTimes defense of Charlie Hebdo as free speech, in contrast to Geller's hate speech, is that they have a broader range of targets. That is to say, Charlie Hebdo is not as offensive as Geller because they are more offensive to more people.

How Orwellian : Joschka Fischer & Putzgruppe

The NYTimes in 2001 says about Joschka Fischer (former Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor of Germany under Gerhard Schröder) :

The minister says he has never hidden his leftist past, always opposed terrorist violence and apologizes for having been a ''street fighter.''

and

''Should I distance myself from the struggle over Vietnam or Chile?'' Mr. Fischer asks in a conversation with a handful of journalists. ''No. What I must distance myself from is being a street fighter.'' But, he adds, to compare freedom fighters with rightists or Nazi revisionists -- as has happened here of late -- ''is simply grotesque.''

Above is Joschka Fischer (former Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor of Germany under Gerhard Schröder), Hans-Joachim Klein and other putzes beating/freedom fighting German police officer Rainer Marx.

"Putz," as everyone knows, refers to a stupid person and is Yiddish for "dick."  Although this seems entirely appropriate, it turns out Putzgruppe is German for "cleaning squad" while the first syllable being an acronym for Proletarische Union für Terror und Zerstörung, "Proletarian Union for Terror and Destruction"

Fun fact : Joschka Fischer harbored members of the Red Army Faction and lent his car to Hans-Joachim Klein and Klein used the car to smuggle guns that were latter used to assassinate Hessian Secretary of Commerce Heinz-Herbert Karry. The German wiki page for Putzgruppe mentions they used molotov cocktails more than once including burning (or freedom fighting, if Herr Fischer would prefer) policeman Jürgen Weber over 60% of his body.

When he says the comparison to rightists or Nazis is "simply grotesque" I think he really means "accurate but not flattering."

I wonder if the NYTimes might want to rethink paraphrasing without qualification "always opposed terrorist violence" about a member of a group that included the word "Terror" in its name.

How Orwellian : Garry Trudeau's "Free Speech Absolutists"

Doonsbury's Garry Trudeau's speech titled The Abuse of Satire was delivered on April 10 at the Long Island University's George Polk Awards ceremony, where he received the George Polk Career Award :

I, and most of my colleagues, have spent a lot of time discussing red lines since the tragedy in Paris. As you know, the Muhammad cartoon controversy began eight years ago in Denmark, as a protest against “self-censorship,” one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke, and in that they were exceedingly successful. Not only was one cartoonist gunned down, but riots erupted around the world, resulting in the deaths of scores. No one could say toward what positive social end, yet free speech absolutists were unchastened. Using judgment and common sense in expressing oneself were denounced as antithetical to freedom of speech.

Coming up with the euphemism "free speech absolutists" to criticize sounds much better than admitting that you want "restricted speech" over "free speech" because you fear the heckler's veto (or more pointedly the assassin's veto).

Imagine Garry Trudeau running a hot dog stand with a big sign that says "Free Hot Dogs!" But, he explains, he isn't a "Free Hot Dog Absolutist" so the hot dogs are $8 a piece. 

The context of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo, fundamentally, is whether people who don't follow a particular religion (Islam) are obliged to follow that particular religion's iconoclastic beliefs (Islam's prohibition of depicting Mohammed and the prohibition of depicting living things). 

Jyllands-Posten cartoon pixelated by CNN in the same way nudity get pixelated

from the Koran :

Behold! he said to his father and his people, "What are these images, to which ye are (so assiduously) devoted?" They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." He said, "Indeed ye have been in manifest error - ye and your fathers." sura 21, 52-54

The hadiths forbids the drawing people or animals : "All the painters who make pictures would be in the fire of Hell") Obeying the religious rules of everyone else's religions seems like hard work.

Although Trudeau says :
"one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness. The idea behind the original drawings was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority—her charge to the cartoonists was specifically to provoke…" 

That is not true.  The Jyllands-Posten cartoons were inspired by the fact that artists were afraid to illustrate a book by Kåre Bluitgen on Mohammed because they were afraid of violence. A group that successfully threatens others into following that groups religious rules instead of their own is not what I would call a  "powerless, disenfranchised minority" that should be immune from satire. One could even say it could "challenge authority."

A Jyllands-Posten cartoon Trudeau claims "was not to entertain or to enlighten or to challenge authority…[but] specifically to provoke"  Other than the muslim perception of blasphemy what is provocative about this?

"one editor’s call to arms against what she felt was a suffocating political correctness."

The Editor of Jyllands-Posten was Fleming Rose who is male.

"Not only was one cartoonist gunned down"

An attempted assassin was shot while he was trying to kill one of the cartoonists. I'm not aware of one of the cartoonist being shot although several were threatened.

"No one could say toward what positive social end"

Imagine every single cartoon ever done by Garry Trudeau being judged as to "what positive social end." If he gives a speech with significant factual errors does that negate some of its "positive social end"? 

More from Trudeau :

By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech, which in France is only illegal if it directly incites violence. Well, voila—the 7 million copies that were published following the killings did exactly that, triggering violent protests across the Muslim world, including one in Niger, in which ten people died. Meanwhile, the French government kept busy rounding up and arresting over 100 Muslims who had foolishly used their freedom of speech to express their support of the attacks. 

Incitement means to encourage someone to act illegally. Like telling Person A telling Person B that Person C deserves to die and that Person B should kill him. Note that in the United States there is the Brandenburg Test (intent, imminence, and likelihood).  In contrast, Person A telling something to Person B and Person C responding by murdering Person A or murdering 10 people in Niger not incitement. It is Person C being a murderer. 

Using his definition of inciting would mean that a Birmingham Baptist Church in 1963 getting bombed would have been incited by the church itself. 

He doesn't specify what about this issue of Charlie Hebdo he mentions appears to be "hate speech", "punching downwards" or "attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings." The cover is following the religious customs of the magazine and not Islam because following the religious rules of everyone is difficult.

Update : a little more here 

How Orwellian : Antiwar songs and prowar songs

Josef Stalin practices his Nazi salute
(eventually, Seeger realized Stalin wasn't the bees knees, but that wasn't until 2007.)

from Pete Seeger's New York Times Obituary :

When he returned to New York later in 1940, Mr. Seeger made his first albums. He, Millard Lampell and Mr. Hays founded the Almanac Singers, who performed union songs and, until Germany invaded the Soviet Union, antiwar songs, following the Communist Party line. Mr. Guthrie soon joined the group.

During World War II the Almanac Singers’s repertory turned to patriotic, antifascist songs, bringing them a broad audience, including a prime-time national radio spot. 

"Antiwar songs" and "antifascist songs"?  Why didn't the writer use the available symmetry in terminology :  Seeger played antiwar songs and prowar songs.

Those weren't really anti-war songs. They were less against war in general and more against any opposition to the revanchist wars of the USSR and their Nazi partners in crime. Opposing any effort to prevent Poland from being invaded and carved up is somehow "antiwar" while the NY Times describes his songs after the invasion of the USSR as "patriotic, antifascist songs" instead of prowar songs.

Seeger was essentially saying "Leave poor Stalin & Hitler alone! Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, and Finland are faraway, foreign, irrelevant places" until his pet USSR was attacked that is.

To paraphrase Grouch Marx : These are my principles, if you don't like them … well, the party might tell me if I have others.

How Orwellian : Women live longer than ever – women hardest hit

map of US life expectancy gender gap (here)

The headline is "U.S. Life Expectancy Map: The Gender Gap" with the subhead "Ladies Last" on this National Geographic piece by Amanda Fiegl

How long do you have? It depends on gender and geography. In the U.S., women live longer—81 years on average, 76 for men—but a recent study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation reveals a troubling trend. Though men's life spans have increased by 4.6 years since 1989, women have gained only 2.7 years, perhaps because a larger percentage of women have lacked adequate treatment for high blood pressure and cholesterol. "This is a wake-up call," says study co-author Ali Mokdad.

The question remains whether the "troubling trend" is that men's life expectancy has increased or if the troubling part is that women life expectancy increased less than men.

Despite the article's subhead reading "Ladies Last" the map is labeled "Margin by which women outlive men" with, apparently, no areas of the US where men outlive women. Poor, poor ladies last.

In looking for the context of the quote "This is a wake-up call"  this USA Today article shows that Ali Mokdad was referring not to men's increase or the comparative increase of women's but to some areas that have had a stagnation or decrease in life expectancy.

Amanda Fiegl's blinkered one-sidedness is similar to the WEF Gender Gap report mentioned previously.

Charles P. Pierce is an idiot

(a reprise from elsewhere from the day of the Boston Marathon Bombing (Apr 15, 2013)  but as far as I'm aware Charles P. Pierce is still an idiot.)

from Charles P. Pierce at Esquire : 

"Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like."

Don't jump to conclusions about foreigners when you can jump to conclusions about your fellow citizens.

-----------------

that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh.

Follow the logic : 

• there is a bombing on April 15
• April 15 is Patriot's Day in Massachusetts (third Monday in April since 1969)
• Patriot's Day in Mass used to be on April 19
• In 1995, Patriot's Day fell on April 17 and Tim McVeigh (b. 1968) said his act of mass murder was done on April 19, 1995 as that was the anniversary of the end of the Waco Seige.
• Therefore there might be a connection between McVeigh's bombing on April 19 and the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing.
• Connect the dots, Sheeple!

Although it may have missed the grasp of Charles P. Pierce, my guess would be that the date of the Boston Marathon bombing was chosen based on the date that the Boston Marathon was scheduled to be held. Imagine the Groundhog Day Liberation Front trying to bomb the Boston Marathon on Feb 2. 

How Orwellian : Gaps in understanding the meaning of equality

The WEF's Gender Gap report (PDF) redefines inequality as equality. 

US Educational Attainment (page 370)

The female to male ratio of USA enrollment in tertiary education is 1.41 but it is scored as "1" (1 = Equality). There is no extra credit given for women being in an advantageous position as the maximum score is one. When there is a gender gap where men suffer then it is defined as equality.

Fiji Educational Attainment (page 198)

The result of truncating the score at 1 is that Fiji's Educational Attainment has women equal to men or leading men in 3 of the 4 subcategories but because they trail in one subcategory the entire category is graded as showing inequality to women.

Cameroon Health and Survival (page 158)

Further, they define the "equal" life expectancy ratio at 1.06:1. If men and women have the same life expectancy, like Cameroon, then that is marked as inequality. 

Also note that the Sex ratio at birth is bounded at a predetermined "equal" value of 0.94 instead of Cameroon's actual 0.97. The result is that despite being equal in life expectancy and higher in sex ratio at birth the result is a overall Health and Survival score of 0.961 – Not Equal. 

As an aside, I'm unclear as to why "Sex ratio at birth" is a significant category. It doesn't capture female infanticide (except for sex selective abortion) and unlike most categories it doesn't seem determined by traditions or social institutions. A cynical person might suggest that it is a subcategory added solely to lower the Health and Survival average and to game the OMGsomethingHasToBeDone system.

Burundi Health and Survival (page 154)

Burundi's women have a higher sex ratio at birth than average and a higher life expectancy than men. This may lead some to think men are suffering inequality. Not according to the WEF. Because the sex ratio at birth score is capped at 0.94 and because women outlive men but do not outlive them to a sufficient degree that means the women of Burundi are the ones suffering inequality. 

In Australia (p120) men have a lower life expectancy than women by 3 years which the WEF scores as women suffering a gender gap. 

It is interesting to note the existence of a category listed under "Additional Data - Social Instutitions" : "Quota type" which notes if there are laws requiring a quota of female candidates or if laws require seats in the legislature be reserved for women.

On page 4 they acknowledge that they could present both gaps in the achievements of women and also the gaps in men's achievements but "We find the one-sided scale more appropriate for our purposes." 

One might get the impression these are not the most rigorous egalitarians.




the critique of the WEF Gender Gap report continues here.

How Orwellian #2

Military-style assault weapons should be banned in ways that honor the Second Amendment

The NRA and the USA By Brent Budowsky, theHill.com 12/19/12

Next he'll want to censor books in ways that honor the First Amendment.  And then he'll want to allow unreasonable searches and seizures in ways that honor the Fourth Amendment. And then he'll want to allow people to own slaves in a way that honors the Thirteenth Amendment.



see a previous example of Orwellian doublespeak.

How Orwellian : Like Uganda?

"In their place" Atlas of Women In The World pages 18-19

In the book Atlas of Women In The World section noting how women are kept "in their place" the USA is classified like Uganda where a man can inherit his dead brother's wives and where a man can claim "unmarried women as wives by raping them" and like Swaziland where "married women are legal minors."

The yellowish color on the map above indicates that "cultural norms, religious fundamentalism, or nationalist pressure are imposing increasing social restrictions on women" and the particulars noted for the US are all abortion related.

Curiously, quite a few countries that have much stricter abortion laws than the US but are displayed in a neutral tan color.  Ireland and many countries in Central and South America ban abortion in all circumstances except to save the life of the mother.

How many US states limit abortion to government approved reasons like say Japan, South Korea, Finland and Poland? Zero. (Finland and Poland are tan while South Korea and Japan are not visible because they are covered by the map's key. I hope the mapmaker is suitable embarrassed by that incompetence and especially by the big empty space on the bottom right of the page.)

Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain have gestational limits that are more restrictive than any US state but apparently that is hunkydory because they are neutral tan, too.

Even Angola and Nicaragua get a pass and are tan while they ban abortion in all circumstances including to save the life of the mother.

The map notes that Venezuela allows a man who rapes a woman to marry her to avoid punishment but it isn't colored yellow. Venezuela remains neutral tan despite banning abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother.

France has troubled banlieues where the organization Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissive) was born because women (no matter their beliefs) are expected to follow strict islamic rules or face violence. In France, convicted gang rapists get a pathetic and outrageous slap on the wrist as punishment : "two were given a year in prison; the third, six months; and the fourth, a suspended sentence two were given a year in prison; the third, six months; and the fourth, a suspended sentence" Despite all this France is neutral tan.

This map says a lot by what it doesn't show. Mostly, that it is an incompetently made map.

(the links above are to the Center for Reproductive Rights overview of world abortion laws (PDF link) and to the Guttmacher Institute's overview of US state laws (PDF link). This UN chart (PDF link) also has some interesting bits)