JustOneMinute

When The Elephants Scuffle...

The NY Times takes a long look at Facebook and won't be getting many likes from that quarter. Oliver Roeder of Vox has a nice summary:

Facebook seems to materialize in this column an awful lot. But when a service has “connected” more than 2.2 billion people, I suppose that makes sense. The New York Times published a deep dive into the company, based on interviews with “more than 50 people,” many of whom are anonymous. We learn, for example, that the company hired a Republican opposition-research group to discredit protesters by linking them to George Soros, and that it lobbied a Jewish civil rights group to label criticism of Facebook as anti-Semitic. Just normal, cool, I-started-a-company-in-my-Harvard-dorm-room stuff.

One of the mice that got trampled as the elephants battled is the Republican oppo-research firm Definers Public Affairs, which lost Facebook as a client amidst the hue and cry. Facebok's position: senior execs knew nothing and anyway, the media knew full well that DPA had Facebook as a client:

Late Wednesday, Facebook decided to terminate its relationship with Definers after the publication of the Times article prompted an outcry, said a person familiar with the matter, who was not authorized to speak publicly. Top Facebook executives including Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg were not aware of the specific work being done by Definers, the person said.

In a statement, Facebook said it had not hidden its ties to Definers and disputed that it had asked the firm to spread false information.

“It is wrong to suggest that we have ever asked Definers to pay for or write articles on Facebook’s behalf, or communicate anything untrue,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in the statement.

“The relationship with Facebook was well known by the media — not least because they have on several occasions sent out invitations to hundreds of journalists about important press calls on our behalf,” the spokeswoman added.

Well. We wouldn't expect Facebook to stand up to a left-wing mob. With a different alignment of politics and players the Times follow-up headline would be "Republicans Kvetch About Business As Usual".

Just for example, the Times also included this detail in their original expose (with a picture of the offending poster):

By then, some of the harshest criticism of Facebook was coming from the political left, where activists and policy experts had begun calling for the company to be broken up.

In July, organizers with a coalition called Freedom from Facebook crashed a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, where a company executive was testifying about its policies. As the executive spoke, the organizers held aloft signs depicting Ms. Sandberg and Mr. Zuckerberg, who are both Jewish, as two heads of an octopus stretching around the globe.

Eddie Vale, a Democratic public relations strategist who led the protest, later said the image was meant to evoke old cartoons of Standard Oil, the Gilded Age monopoly. But a Facebook official quickly called the Anti-Defamation League, a leading Jewish civil rights organization, to flag the sign. Facebook and other tech companies had partnered with the civil rights group since late 2017 on an initiative to combat anti-Semitism and hate speech online.

That afternoon, the A.D.L. issued a warning from its Twitter account.

“Depicting Jews as an octopus encircling the globe is a classic anti-Semitic trope,” the organization wrote. “Protest Facebook — or anyone — all you want, but pick a different image.” The criticism was soon echoed in conservative outlets including The Washington Free Beacon, which has sought to tie Freedom from Facebook to what the publication calls “extreme anti-Israel groups.”

Hey, maybe the posters were meant to be anti-Semitic. Or maybe not! But it was lefties, so no biggie.

Let's Fly Under The Bridge!

It seems like the Typepad registration problem has been solved, so let me flip the switch and set the comments to registered mode.

I'll be keeping an eye out for problems. If you can't find a way in, contact me or someone else who can get the word out. Cumbersome, and we all feel vexed by it. But as we have seen, one undermedicated screaming boor can drown out a room full of conversation.

The Science Was Unsettled

A new study showing the world's oceans were taking in more heat than previously modeled got worldwide attention. It also got the attention of a math/science jockey who didn't like the way the numbers were coming together.

And now the original authors are admitting that there are problems. So the good news is, unlike a modern media outlet, errors are addressed. The bad news? Here is the critic's headline and lead in the blog post that began the unraveling:

A major problem with the Resplandy et al. ocean heat uptake paper

Posted on November 6, 2018 by niclewis | 231 Comments

 

by Nic Lewis

 

Obviously doubtful claims about new research regarding ocean content reveal how unquestioning Nature, climate scientists and the MSM are.

 

If the conclusion fits the favored narrative it slides more easily through the peer review process.

Saving Bob Mueller

While we await the spinning of the Wheel of Indictment the Senate contemplates the "No Special Counsel Left Behind" Act of 2018.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday he supported a bill that would protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from any politically motivated firings and would urge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to allow a vote on it.

“I would certainly vote for it,” Graham told reporters of the bill, which he supported when it passed the Senate Judiciary in April.

“I don’t see any movement to get rid of Mueller. But it probably would be good to have this legislation in place just for the future,” he said. 

McConnell told reporters in Kentucky last week he did not think legislation was necessary because he did not think Mueller was in danger.

 

A Great American

I guess when you are a Navy SEAL with an eye-patch from an IED in Afghanistan there is no need to bluster about you manhood with a youngster from SNL. David French describes a bit of hope for a better tomorrow in our political sphere.

Do let me add: the SEAL turned Congressman-elect is only 34. When he beats Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez in the Presidential showdown of 2032, Saturday Night Live can remember who launched his rocket.

A WWII Diversion

The question of what, if anything the US military might have done about the German death camps during WWII came up last night. A very interesting article presents the thoughts of a number of American politicians, including Bush 43 and George McGovern, the 1972 Dem Presidential candidate. People remember he lost 49 states to Nixon but forget he was an Army Air Force volunteer who flew 35 missions over Europe.

Bush:

While visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, in Jerusalem, on Jan. 11, 2008, President Bush “viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz death camp and called [Secretary of State Condoleeza] Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site, [Yad Vashem director Avner] Shalev said. ‘We should have bombed it,’ Bush said, according to Shalev.” (Associated Press, Jan. 11)

A bit of background will tee up McGovern (semi-spoiler alert):

Dr. Medoff, who is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, pointed out: 

“The photographs that President Bush viewed were taken because U.S. planes flew right over Auschwitz in 1944, taking surveillance photos in preparation for bombing--not for bombing the gas chambers or crematoria, but for bombing German oil factories less than five miles away. 

“The Roosevelt administration knew about the mass murder going on in Auschwitz but rejected proposals to bomb it on the grounds that bombing would have required a diversion of military resources. In fact, U.S. planes were already in the skies over Auschwitz. In one of the raids on the oil factories, stray U.S. bombs accidentally struck an SS barracks and part of the railway line leading into the death camp. But the gas chambers and crematoria were never targeted.

And McGovern:

U.S. Senator and 1972 Democratic Presidential Nominee George McGovern was one of the pilots who attacked German oil factories near Auschwitz in 1944. In an interview with Israel Television and the Wyman Institute on December 20, 2004, McGovern said “There is no question we should have attempted ... to go after Auschwitz. There was a pretty good chance we could have blasted those rail lines off the face of the earth, which would have interrupted the flow of people to those death chambers, and we had a pretty good chance of knocking out those gas ovens...Franklin Roosevelt was a great man and he was my political hero. But I think he made two great mistakes in World War Two.” One was the internment of Japanese-Americans; the other was the decision “not to go after Auschwitz ... God forgive us for that tragic miscalculation.”

This seems to be the presentation at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. Tries to balance both sides:

During the spring of 1944, the Allies received more explicit information about the process of mass murder by gassing carried out at Auschwitz-Birkenau. On some days as many as 10,000 people were murdered in its gas chambers. In desperation, Jewish organizations made various proposals to halt the extermination process and rescue Europe's remaining Jews. A few Jewish leaders called for the bombing of the Auschwitz gas chambers; others opposed it. Like some Allied officials, both sides feared the death toll or the German propaganda that might exploit any bombing of the camp's prisoners. No one was certain of the results.

...

Allied bombardment of Auschwitz-Birkenau in mid-July 1944 would not have saved the approximately 310,000 Hungarian Jews whom the Germans had killed upon arrival at the killing center between May 15 and July 11, 1944. Moreover, barracks located not far from the gas chambers at Birkenau housed 51,117 prisoners (31,406 of them women and children).

In the summer and fall of 1944, the World Jewish Congress and the War Refugee Board (WRB) forwarded requests to bomb Auschwitz to the US War Department. These requests were denied....

...

In subsequent decades, the Allied decision not to bomb the gas chambers in or the rail lines leading to Auschwitz-Birkenau has been a source of sometimes bitter debate. Proponents of bombing continue to argue that such an action, while it might have killed some prisoners, could have slowed the killing operations and perhaps ultimately saved lives.

 Lots more background here.

Shared Chaos

Lest we forget, the Brits had their Brexit stunner several months before we had our Trump stunner. Their confusion continues. If it's reassuring to be reminded that the US is not alone in having a dysfunctional political system, then be reassured.

We'll Always Have Paris

French President Macron spoke at the Arc de Triomphe, which apparently commemorates the triumph of sophistry:

PARIS, Nov 11 (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron led tributes to the millions of soldiers killed in World War One on Sunday, using an emotional ceremony in Paris attended by scores of world leaders to warn against nationalism a century on from the conflict.

...

In a 20-minute address delivered beside the tomb of the unknown soldier, Macron described the "unimaginable hell" of those who fought in the trenches, denouncing the nationalism that fanned the flames of war and now shows signs of resurgence.

Macron spoke bluntly of the threat from nationalism, calling it a betrayal of moral values. Trump, who has described himself as a nationalist and has promoted what he calls an "America First" policy, sat a few feet (meters) away, stony-faced.

"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism," Macron said. "When we say 'our interests come first, those of others don't matter', we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values.

"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism." Exact opposite? Similarly, Macron might have gone on to say, love is exactly the same as hate, since both are powerful emotions with a specific focus.

Obviously, "nationalism" has a bit of a tendency to mean what the user wants it to mean. Those speaking of a globalist/nationalist dichotomy will wonder what Macron is going on about, and will especially deride his use of this strawman definition of nationalism: "'our interests come first, those of others don't matter'". "Don't matter"? How about ""Matter but at a lower priority than American interests"?

An American nationalist could find plenty of solid, self-interested reasons to support the Marshall Plan or NATO, which also overlap with humanitarian concerns. America can justify our boots on the ground in Syria in order to oust ISIS and (maybe one day) stabilize the Middle East. But our self-interest notwithstanding, an American nationalist might wonder of the French patriots are doing their share in attempting to stabilize Syria to help stave off a European refugee crisis.

David Brooks provides an example of a relatively thoughtful, nuanced chap who does not seem to envision nationalism as the opposite of patriotism:

Yes, I’m an American Nationalist

How love of country nourishes a life.

 

California Burning

This is getting crazy out west.

Happy Veterans Day!

As we salute our veterans let us also remember the 100th anniversary of the Allied victory over Kaiser Soze and the Germans. That victory was made possible in part by the courage of the brave men and women flying Spitfires over England.

 

Football Saturday

It's a football Saturday and a Happy Birthday to the USMC so what better time to explain my non-slef-explanatory profile pic?

I'm hazy on the year but the young lady in the middle is one of my darling daughters. To her left is a friend of hers and the family, and uncharacteristically positioned off on the right is a cousin of their host for a weekend in New Orleans quite a while ago.

So let's have a football story while we chat about a couple of Marines. My buddy was a Marine Corps officer back in the late 60's. On this particular weekend he was meeting up with his cousin James, a younger Marine who would one day make corporal. The two of them were headed off to the Orange Bowl to watch this new-ish event called the "Super Bowl". The game was not a sell-out so their plan was to scoop up some tickets outside in the parking lot. That part of the plan went fine.

However, as they intrepid pair headed towards the entrance young James readjusted his equipment and - crash, splash - dropped the bottle of Scotch that was going to keep their spirits boosted through the day.

"James!" exhorted my friend. "What are we going to do now, watch the game? What kind of a Marine are you anyway?"

The pep talk continued a bit longer, with energy and conviction. However, the game must go on and the mission was not a total fail. "Drink the Scotch, don't drop it" did become a bit of family advice for quite some time thereafter, or so I am told.

So away we go for Football Saturday. Roll, Tide, Shake down the thunder, or whatever.

Chasing Headlines On Gun Policy

Another mass shooting prompts another call for gun control legislation that has little to do with the recent attack, is unlikely to accomplish much, and is driven by headlines rather than the real problem of gun violence. So, business as usual.

The "Let's Do Something" crowd:

Democrats Plan to Pursue Most Aggressive Gun-Control Legislation in Decades

Focus spurred by an incoming class of lawmakers with ‘F’ NRA ratings who campaigned on the issue

The Dems may have the votes to push something through the House and good for them. The Senate will be a tougher row to hoe and with five conservative justices, a dramatic new understanding of the 5-4 Heller decision on self-defense is not likely (obviously, with Merrick Garland there Heller would be re-interpreted into meaninglessness by five liberals).

Jacob Sullum of Reason points out that the mass shooter in California bought a handgun legally (he may have used an illegal yet widely available extended magazine). He also was a candidate for a Gun Violence Restraining Order, but the CA authorities did not pursue that.

As to chasing headlines - per the Gun Violence archive's expansive definition of "mass shooting", there have been 328 mass shooting deaths in 2018 (Their database can be downloaded and summed.) If I am following, the WaPo applies a more restrictive definition to the same database and totals 68 mass shooting deaths in 2018.

Either way, that is set against over 12,000 gun deaths (other than suicide) in 2018. Mass shootings drive headlines but they are less than 3% of gun deaths, even with the expansive count; per the WaPo criteria, they are 0.6% of gun deaths.

So why the focus on trying to control extreme outliers? I guessed at it last spring:

IMHO, what remains true is that many people have examined their lives and concluded that they are:

(a) not involved with criminal activity, especially drug-related;
(b) not in an abusive domestic relationship,
(c) not suicidal, and
(d) not living in a crime-ridden neighborhood

For those fortunate many, the most visible remaining risk of gun violence is a random shooting at a mall, theater, or (for kids and young adults) school.

Mass shootings may not be the best place to look if the goal is to cut into that 12,000 figure. But most gun homicides are done by handguns and frequently involve urban ethnics. The politicians most comfortable with more gun control are generally least comfortable with 'Stop and Frisk', locking up young black men, and generally cracking down on our city streets, so there is a tendency to push irrelevant feel-good legislation such as an assault weapons ban. Banning handguns? Probably violates Heller, probably can't be meaningfully enforced, probably can't pass any legislative body anywhere (CA and NY don't even they).

That said, I welcome a national debate, even if it is likely to be as brain-dead as the last one. The Gun Violence Restraining Order is still a good idea, if people would just use it.

Mueller With Momentum

More Resistance Porn? Benjamin Wittes says its too late to slow the Mueller Express.

His Point Six may induce a dmagaing level of eye roll from any righty familiar with the "investigation" into Hillary's emails. Take care

Sixth, corrupting the Justice Department is harder than you think.

To be fair, after watching Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama cover for Hillary's misdeeds (and the President used her email too, so the cover-up had plenty of motivation) or the FISA waltz with Carter Page I don't think corrupting the Justice Department is that hard.

Darn That Senate! An Urban Party Lacks Rural Appeal

Dylan Matthews of Vox discovers that the Democratic urban appeal plays poorly in rural states, which still get two Senate seats.

The Senate is a huge problem for Democrats

And it’s not going to get better soon.

Despite a great night in House elections, Democrats have lost ground in the Senate. Depending on what happens in Florida and Arizona, the party will hold anywhere between 46 and 48 seats in the US Senate. Any of those options represents a net loss for the party, which currently holds 49 seats.

That’s bad enough for the party in the near term. But it’s worse in the medium run. This year’s losses mean that Democrats will have a very hard time retaking the Senate in 2020.

Before the election, FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich noted that with a 52-48 Senate in Republicans’ favor, Democrats in 2020 would need to hold on to Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama, defeat both Susan Collins in Maine and Cory Gardner in Colorado, and pick up a seat in a red state by ousting at least one of Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Joni Ernst in Iowa, Jon Kyl in Arizona (who’s not seeking reelection), or David Perdue in Georgia. (They’d need one less if they also take the presidency.)

...

The upshot is clear: Democrats will probably remain in the minority in the Senate until at least 2022. That failure will have grave consequences not just for the prospects of future progressive legislation, like Medicare-for-all or action on climate change, but also for the next few decades of the federal judiciary.

Mr. Matthews duly notes that if Republicans hold the Senate in 2020 the outlook for a successful wave of progressive legislation from President Sanders and VP Ocasio-Cortez dims a bit. Doncha love it when Vox is your go-to good-news source?

Part of the Dem problem is that they have lost legacy seats in states that are currently viewed as Red in Presidential elections:

Why retaking the Senate might be structurally difficult for Democrats

Democrats used to rely heavily on seats in red states — not just swing states like Ohio or Iowa, but deep-red states like the Dakotas and Arkansas — for their Senate majority. They don’t anymore, and the Senate map looks increasingly identical to the presidential map. 2016 was the first year in the history of direct Senate elections that every state’s Senate election outcome matched its presidential outcome. That can mean only bad things for Democrats’ viability in the Senate in the medium to long run.

 

Democrats’ losses in 2018 were concentrated overwhelmingly in deep-red states. Republicans flipped Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota, none of which are normally competitive for Democrats in national elections (flukes like Obama’s 2008 win in Indiana aside), but where Democrats could compete because of popular incumbents from a less polarized age. Similar things happened in 2010 and 2014 in states like Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, and Alaska, and the 2010 losses weren’t reversed in 2016; indeed, in most cases, like Arkansas and North Dakota, Democrats didn’t even really try to reverse the losses in 2016.

Until the emerging Democratic majority moves out of urban centers and repopulates flyover country this will be a problem for the Dems. And there are some issues - gun control springs to mind - where urban voters and rural voters are unlikely to get on the same page.

Now, there are political theorists who believe the goal of a political party should be to figure out the rules and deliver a message that wins elections so they can implement their policy preferences. Others seem to think that if quirks in the current rules prevent a national majority from having its way, it is the rules than need changing, not the message. Hmm.

Since it's a Football Friday let's go with a dumb football analogy. The Jacksonville Jaguars have an impressive defense and a quarterback who couldn't hit the side of a barn if he were throwing from inside. What should they do?

Well, whinging about the strict rules on defensive pass interference and lobbying to change them might provide a boost to their prospects. Or they could get a decent quarterback! OK, if that was easy, plenty of other teams would do that too.

Still, developing a national message that is acceptable both to their big Dem donors on the coasts and the rubes in flyover country they are trying to sway should not be an insurmountable problem. OK, its a bit of a challenge since there seem to be progressive thought leaders who want to disempower and then disembowel white men, and white women if necessary. But let's just describe that as creative tension. Or oh-so-clever irony.

Do not let me overlook Mr. Matthews' conclusion:

It’s not obvious, to me, how Democrats get out of that bind.

I love a mystery.