Conservative former talkshow host Charles J Sykes on “Why Nobody Cares the President is Lying”

Charles J Sykes, who formerly a hosted a conservative radio talk show in Wisconsin, now thinks the U.S. far right has gone a bit too far right. (He has a book coming out next October called How the Right Lost Its Mind.)

Writing in The New York Times Sunday review February 5, Sykes confessed,

For years, as a conservative radio talk show host, I played a role in that conditioning by hammering the mainstream media for its bias and double standards. But the price turned out to be far higher than I imagined. The cumulative effect of the attacks was to delegitimize those outlets and essentially destroy much of the right’s immunity to false information. We thought we were creating a savvier, more skeptical audience. Instead, we opened the door for President Trump, who found an audience that could be easily misled.

The news media’s spectacular failure to get the election right has made it only easier for many conservatives to ignore anything that happens outside the right’s bubble and for the Trump White House to fabricate facts with little fear of alienating its base.

Unfortunately, that also means that the more the fact-based media tries to debunk the president’s falsehoods, the further it will entrench the battle lines.

During his first week in office, Mr. Trump reiterated the unfounded charge that millions of people had voted illegally. When challenged on the evident falsehood, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, seemed to argue that Mr. Trump’s belief that something was true qualified as evidence. The press secretary also declined to answer a straightforward question about the unemployment rate, suggesting that the number will henceforth be whatever the Trump administration wants it to be.

He later adds, “All administrations lie, but what we are seeing here is an attack on credibility itself.”

The news media, he says, should push back against this even as Trump and his allies constantly try to portray legitimate news sources as false. And not just the mainstream media:

Perhaps just as important, it will be incumbent on conservative media outlets to push back as well. Conservatism should be a reality-based philosophy, and the movement will be better off if it recognizes that facts really do matter. There may be short-term advantages to running headlines about millions of illegal immigrants voting or secret United Nations plots to steal your guns, but the longer the right enables such fabrications, the weaker it will be in the long run. As uncomfortable as it may be, it will fall to the conservative media to police its worst actors.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Sanctuary cities have lower crime, better economies

Illegal immigrants have been responsible for some horrendous crimes, which is one reason people want to see illegal immigrants deported. There’s also the belief that immigrants, legal or not, take jobs away from people born in the country. In fact, however, there’s evidence that illegal immigrants are on average actually less likely to commit crimes than people born here and probably help the economy more than they hurt it.

A January 29 report by Gene Demby on National Public Radio points out that so-called “sanctuary cities” — those where law enforcement agencies have a policy of not enforcing immigration laws — have a lower crime rate than American cities as a whole and also have stronger economies. That’s not necessarily a cause-and-effect relationship, but it makes it hard to argue that providing a haven for illegal immigrants hurts a city. Demby cites an analysis by Tom K Wong at the University of California-San Diego (UCSD) found that cities with a policy of not complying with 48-hour holds initiated by federal Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE) had substantially fewer crimes relative to population, better incomes, lower unemployment, and a smaller percentage of children and teenagers getting public assistance.

Of course, most of us favor enforcement of laws and secure borders, and illegal immigrants are by definition here illegally. But deporting the 11 million or so illegal immigrants living here (down, incidentally, from about 12 million a decade ago before President Obama greatly increased deportation and border enforcement) would be horribly disruptive to the economies of the places where they live. Even Donald Trump, who campaigned on massive deportation, has quietly moderated his stance since taking office and now embraces essentially the same policies put in place by Obama.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

U.S. Department of Agriculture blacks out animal welfare reports

The United States Department of Agriculture has ended a longstanding practice of making animal welfare reports available on its website. Previously tens of thousands of reports could be read online concerning treatment of animals at nearly 8000 facilities, including about 1200 research laboratories as well as zoos, circuses, and various commercial enterprises. The reports have to do mainly with large mammals covered under the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act.

This is according to articles published in both Science and Nature, the two largest-circulation general science journals.

The USDA’s statement says that the change is intended to protect personal information. But personal information is in fact routinely redacted from these reports, and the reports are still available through Freedom of Information Act requests.

The article in Science says in part,

Inspection reports contain little, if any, personal information about individuals.

Public access to the reports has led to scores of media reports like this article in The Boston Globe in 2012 documenting problems at Harvard University’s primate research facility; the university later closed the trouble-prone New England Primate Research Center. Similarly, the reports allowed Nature and The New Yorker to report on the chronic abuse of goats held at the private company Santa Cruz Biotechnology in California, once the world’s second largest marketer of research antibodies. Several months after the Nature report, USDA in a rare move revoked the company’s license to market the antibodies.

“[These are] basic data about animal use and compliance that taxpayers have a right to access, particularly when it comes to taxpayer-funded labs,” says Justin Goodman, vice president of advocacy and public policy at the White Coat Waste Project, a Washington, D.C.–based group that opposes taxpayer-funded animal experiments.

The Humane Society of the United States said in a statement: “This action benefits no one, except facilities who have harmed animals and don’t want anyone to know.”

And Nature similarly reports,

The disappearance of information caught animal-welfare groups by surprise. “I’m just flabbergasted,” says Eric Kleiman, a research consultant at the Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group in Washington DC. “This is not only the opposite of transparency, it takes us back to the Stone Age.”

[…]

Getting such information through FOIA requests can take years, Klein says. And knowing what information to request will be difficult, as the USDA will no longer post complaints that it or outside groups file against an institution. These complaints often trigger USDA investigations.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Sean Spicer’s press conference on SNL

On the outside chance you haven’t seen this, here’s one of the best things NBC’s Saturday Night Live has been done in years:


Link: https://youtu.be/UWuc18xISwI

That’s comic actress Melissa McCarthy as White House spokesweasel Sean Spicer, and even Fox News (!!) praised the bit:

Donning an oversized suit and short-cropped wig, the Ghostbusters star delivered an amazing impression of the hot-tempered Spicer in what might have been the breakout sketch of the night.

From the press secretary’s infamously contentious relationship with members of the press to his use of “alternative facts,” and even his bizarre affinity for chewing gum, McCarthy’s impersonation was as brutal as it was hilarious.

Re chewing gum: Spicer says that he chews and swallows 35 pieces of Orbit cinnamon gum every morning. This has led to articles in Business Insider and Esquire on whether this unusual habit might be bad for his health. (Conclusion: Probably not, but it’s still not a good idea.)



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Reducing the risk of heart disease

Sear Carroll MD talks about a considerable amount of research that suggests there are non-drug interventions that can significantly reduce heart disease risk even among people with genetic predispositions to heart trouble. Given that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world that’s pretty important.

There’s nothing terribly novel here, and while the interventions may not be quite as easy as they sound, they’re also less drastic than one might expect. Basically, eating a little better and exercising a little more can help as much as drugs or help drugs work better.


Link: https://youtu.be/hkO44tzkXyQ



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Vsauce on the Zipf mystery

Suppose you’re designing a language course. All else being equal, you’d probably want to teach the most common words first, and there are a number of references you can check for that purpose. (For example, Wikipedia’s page for the most common words in English.)

If the list includes the actual frequency counts (as this one does, for example) you discover something curious: The most common word (“the”) appears about twice as often as the second most common, about three times as often as the third most common, and so on. Moreover, that holds true for pretty much any language. This is known as Zipf’s Law after American linguist George Kingsley Zipf, who studied (but did not discover) the pattern.

But it isn’t restricted to languages. The same general rule tends to hold true, at least approximately, for almost any similar sort of ranked list. It’s related to the Pareto Principle or “80-20 rule” in economics (loosely speaking, 80 percent of the benefit comes from 20 percent of the effort).

The Vsauce YouTube channel has a quite interesting presentation on this here:


Link: https://youtu.be/fCn8zs912OE



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Clearest explanation I’ve seen of Trump’s immigration order

In this concise 7-minute clip John Green offers the clearest, most intelligent explanation I’ve seen of Trump’s controversial immigration order. He also calmly details his concerns without resorting to any extremes of rhetoric and name-calling.


Link: https://youtu.be/sJYTj-VI_L8

(For more on the subject click through to the YouTube page.)



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

John Oliver on third parties

This is from October 16 but still relevant at least in general terms. It does run longer than most video clips I post, but I think it’s worth your time, and much of it is pretty funny.


Link: https://youtu.be/k3O01EfM5fU

Oliver’s main point is that third party candidates aren’t necessarily an improvement over those offered up by the major parties, much as we’d like to hope otherwise. OK, they might have been better than Trump, but that’s a low bar. As for Hillary Clinton, no matter how much you might dislike her, she’s pretty clearly more knowledgeable than any of the third party candidates you’re likely to have heard of.

On the other hand, there have certainly been quite good third party candidates in the past, a major example being Teddy Roosevelt when he ran as a Bull Moose. Teddy wasn’t as great as some people remember him, but he was probably no worse than Woodrow Wilson, who won that election.

However, a good third-party candidate can actually make things worse, and not just by the spoiler effect. The structure of our Rube Goldberg system for electing presidents is such that should we ever have three truly competitive candidates, the election would very likely the thrown into the House of Representatives, where each state’s delegation gets one vote. That’s actually worse than the Electoral College. Until we eliminate this nonsense and switch to a direct vote, preferably with a runoff, any sensible independent candidate should seek the nomination of a major party, as both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump did this year. Third party fans may contend that this isn’t practical, claiming the party bosses won’t allow it. But Sanders did pretty well, and Trump won the nomination, in both cases over the wishes of the parties in question. And certainly both Trump and Sanders attracted more interest to themselves and their proposals than they would have as third-party candidates.

I should note that Oliver’s criticism of Jill Stein provoked predictable responses from her supporters. (Follow the link above to the YouTube page and look at the comments and the list of related videos.) The main objection was that Oliver misrepresented her views on vaccines, but that’s not true. He objected only to her weakening her original pro-vaccine statement. At least one response objected to what Oliver said about her proposal to deal with student loan debt with quantitative easing. Critics correctly noted that she suggested other approaches as well. But in fact, the scale of student debt is so large that the most practical source of the necessary funds may well be to have the Fed buy up student loans as it did with bad mortgages. (Whether that’s desirable or not is a separate question; I’m just talking about how it might be financed.) But that’s actually a separate matter, since the problem Oliver was pointing out was that Stein claimed that the president had the authority to order the Fed to do that, and that’s simply not true. Oliver’s objection wasn’t to her tackling student loan problem per se but to her lacking such a basic understanding of the Federal Reserve and the powers of the president.



Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather