I wrote one Insider piece this week, on the decline and fall of Yasiel Puig as a hitter, not as a clubhouse problem or social media superstar. I also held a long Klawchat on Thursday.
I attended GenCon for the first time last week and wrote three pieces about it for Paste, including the top ten new games I saw, the summary of every other interesting title, and an essay on the experience of attending for the first time.
And now, the links:
- This piece on Twitter’s ongoing failure to deal with harassment sheds much light on how and why the site has allowed abuse to flourish. Lack of diversity in company leadership has been one major problem.
- Vox advances the thesis that NBC’s coverage of the Olympics is terrible because they view the games as entertainment, not sports. I find their broadcasts unwatchable; we record them and fast-forward through maybe 90% of the content, including every recorded feature they’ve prepared on the athletes, because all I’m interested in is certain events.
- Deadly bacteria, like the one that causes cholera, are spreading as ocean temperatures rise. Climate-change deniers tend to focus on air temperatures, but I’ve yet to find one who can rationalize away our warming and increasingly acidic oceans.
- A woman who was sexually assaulted while a student at Harvard Law School explains why the school needs to apologize, part of the “just say sorry” campaign for schools to at least accept that modicum of responsibility. I’m ashamed to read the details of how HLS mishandled her case, including the subsequent readmission of her rapist and the actions of 19 professors who have defended him and participated in shaming her.
- Anita Hill spoke to NPR about progress in workplace since her sexual harassment claim, which became a story in 1991 but never really threatened the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas. If a nominee today were accused of doing what Hill said Thomas did – and I see no reason to disbelieve her – would he sail through to the bench as Thomas did?
- Amazon is quietly eliminating list prices in response to a number of complaints, including lawsuits over misleading discounts off prices that never really existed.
- Three student-scientists at Stanford believe they’ve developed proteins that will kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria. They’re seeking investors and aren’t disclosing the details – which I hope isn’t too similar to Elizabeth Holmes’ history – but this could be very good news in what is about to become a huge public-health crisis.
- Clay Shirky explains why there’s no such thing as a protest vote. I happen to agree, and I have in fact cast such a vote in the past – but won’t this year.
- On the other hand, Reason has an op ed on why Republicans voting for Trump would be wasting their votes, although the author is really just arguing that Trump is not a conservative and that he’d be a disastrous president … but I believe he’s arguing conservatives should vote for Gary Johnson instead.
- Texas, which has executed more prisoners since 1976 than 45 other states combined, is about to execute a convict who didn’t kill anybody. He was in the getaway car when his partner in the planned robbery killed the store employee.
- So far, the Rio Olympics have not led to any of the disasters predicted for them. That doesn’t mean giving Brazil the Olympics was a good idea; the economic harm done to the country could be long-lasting, such as wasting $62 million on Olympic posters to hide a favela from public view.
- The pseudonymous surgeon and scientist Orac weighs in on the latest Medscape survey on vaccine-refusing or hesitant patients, with some prescriptions for the best strategies in dealing with them. He also notes that the media (hi!) have become less tolerant of anti-vax bullshit over the last few years.
- The DoJ report excoriating the Baltimore police department included a note where a prosecutor called a woman who reported a rape a “conniving little whore.” Much of the coverage has focused on the department’s problems with racial bias, but the BPD has an abysmal record at investigating rapes, too.
- Vanity Fair has a longread on the Bill Cosby rape case(s), explaining how this one particular incident reached a courtroom and opened the gates for fifty-nine other victims to come forward.
- A judge in Louisville, Kentucky, has gotten some positive attention on social media for two cases where she showed some human decency. The first case, of a female defendant who appeared to have been seriously mistreated by jailers, is about much more than just a judge showing compassion.
- Australia has a large detention center for asylum seekers on the remote Pacific island of Nauru – a functionally insolvent island state that depends on the center and foreign aid for its economic survival – and a Guardian investigative report found widespread abuse of children in the camp.
“Sail through”? Those allegations created a media circus, additional hearings, and a 52-48 confirmation vote (at a time when hardly any nominee, except Bork, got so many no votes). Who knows the truth, but I would hardly call that “sail[ing] through to the bench.”
OK, that’s fair. I was thinking about Thomas’s case vs that of Zoe Baird, who hired illegal immigrants to work as nanny and chauffeur and didn’t pay proper taxes on them (but had filed sponsorship papers on their behalf). While against the law, those crimes seem well below that of sexual harassment, but she had to withdraw her nomination while Thomas was confirmed.
I am not a climate change denier….but it has always struck me as incredibly short sighted to take such relatively small samples of data, including data that show glaciers started melting before the industrial age, combined with our existing knowledge that we have had ice ages, warm ages, not to mention that the earths orbit has been moving CLOSER to the sun recently, and conclude that global warming is a fully man made issue. The data, at most, only supports that man made factors could be contributing to what is otherwise a natural warming process. I am all for clean air and water, convervation and responsible use of resources. The best science happens when we use ALL the data available. The climate IS chaging….let’s find out why using all the data instead of just some of it.
I don’t think anyone (or at least professional scientists) attributes climate change solely to human beings, but it’s pretty clear from the literature that humans are having a significant impact on those processes.
“People who choose Option C (withholding their vote) aren’t being purer about their political choices?—?they’ve abandoned politics altogether.”
I do plan to vote, for Clinton, for many of the reasons the author says are important. And yet, the above stance and the reasons presented thereto just do not adequately encompass the reasons why a person might choose to withhold. First, and most basically, there are other races to vote on besides that for President. Second, the author presumes some larger message is being sent in choosing not to participate, but ignores the most basic — that a potential voter is fully willing to be convinced that one of the candidates would make a good (or excellent, or even just acceptable) President, but none of these particular candidates convinced her/him of it. Last week I used the term “affirmation” in regards to what I believe a vote is, but that isn’t meant to imply a purity test. It’s a bar to clear, and yes I believe it is one of conscience.
“Throwing away your vote on a message no one will hear, and which will change no outcome, is sometimes presented as ‘voting your conscience’, but that’s got it exactly backwards; your conscience is what keeps you from doing things that feel good to you but hurt other people.”
Ignores the likelihood that a person accustomed to casting a vote but choosing not to in a particular election does not actually “feel good” about it at all. I detect a presumption of narcissism in the author’s stance that I can easily imagine not being present in the minds of many non-voters.
I thought this was an interesting rebuttal:
http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/08/the-false-realism-of-lesser-evil-voting.html?m=1
It might be one, but he can’t stop insulting Shirky to get to it. Referring to Shirky as a “fine arts BA” doesn’t advance his case; it’s an ad hominem argument.
That Beijer piece has to be the worst thing I’ve read this month. Utterly lacking in clarity AND chock-full of snobbishness at the same time.
You know what the term is for a sentence that drags on for over 100 words, has TWO parentheses, a semicolon, and the phrase “faux-Wittgensteinian analytical logic”? Shitty writing.
” The best science happens when we use ALL the data available. The climate IS chaging….let’s find out why using all the data instead of just some of it.”
THe models all take into account the stuff you mention… and they only account for about 10-25% of the observed warming. When you add in manmade factors, THEN the observed trends match the models.
NBC’s coverage of the Olympics has been pathetic. Aside from the duo of Rowdy Gaines/Dan Hicks and then Al Michaels, the commentating has been obnoxious.
And yes, their coverage, especially their prime time coverage has been more about the stories than the games, but there are ways around it. The secondary channels (NBCSN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.) have done a great job in their games coverage, focusing more on the games than anything else.
I also think their streaming of every event online gives the consumer the option to view what they want and to avoid the “entertainment” side of things. As a fan of distance running, I found myself in 2012 watching those online, and likely will do the same this year.
Keith, you see no reason to disbelieve Anita Hill. Fair enough. Curious if you feel the same about Juanita Broaddrick.
I do.
I do as well. I also believe her claims that Hillary tried to silence/discredit/disgrace her, which is why I can’t support Hillary. That would be a true disservice to rape victims everywhere.
And that is really the primary issue with regards to Hilary. We should not hold her responsible for her husband’s actions, only her own.
I have lots of issues with Hillary, although I do not believe anything Bill (of whom I am most definitely not a fan) should be held against her. This isn’t one of them. While I think her actions were wrong, she has overall been a tremendous supporter of assault victims and abortion rights (which matters a lot to rape victims).
Ehhh I dunno. Seems like a double standard.
A double standard means differing standards are being applied to like situations. These are not situations.
Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court nominee, was accused of sexual harassment, allegations which came to light during his confirmation process.
Hilary Clinton, a Presidential candidate, is married to someone who was accused of rape. There are allegations that Hilary sought to silence the woman.
The accusations against Hilary and Thomas — while both serious in nature — are different. Their is greater similarity between the allegations against Thomas and Bill, but Bill isn’t running for office and hasn’t been nominated for the Supreme Court or anything else.
Who do you think should be held to the standard that Thomas was held to? And how should we do that?
How so? This is a binary choice: Clinton or Trump. On this particular issue, Clinton has overall been on the ‘right’ side of things, but appears to have failed on Broaddrick’s credible accusations. Trump has been accused of rape multiple times, and is the subject of a lawsuit now by a woman who was 13 at the time of the alleged assault. He’s referred to pedophile/rapist Jeffrey Epstein, named in that suit as well, as a “terrific guy.” (FTR, this lawsuit appears to have no chance of succeeding, and I have no idea if there’s any validity to it.) His ex-wife Ivana also accused him of rape. He also regularly uses the word “rape” in metaphors for bad deals. If rape, including helping victims and prosecuting attackers, is a single-issue voting criterion for you, you pick Hillary, who is not her husband and whose stance on this issue is far better than Trump’s.
“Troll” isn’t really a good word to use for these people on Twitter; basically they are just really terrible humans. “Troll” gives it a sense of purpose.
The thing about all votes is that it doesn’t matter. It is always in the hands of everyone else. So when people talk about protest votes at this point, they are trying to influence others to come to their side. A small group of conservative friends of mine are planning to vote for Johnson to get the RNC to move more center. They feel this election is a lost cause. If they wake up after election day and Johnson has 8-10% of the vote, they hope the Republican leadership will take notice. If Johnson has 3-5%, they probably will have failed. But individually, whether you vote for Hillary because you like her, Hillary as a “fuck you, Trump” vote, Trump, a third party, or you like somewhat obscure Monty Python references and want to give Kevin Phillips Bong his first vote, no one is going to notice in the grand scheme of things.
Getting Johnson over the 5% hurdle is the best reason I can come up with for voting for a third party.
Keith, I had no idea who Jeffrey Epstein is, so I Googled him. Maybe you should do the same. I’m seeing many, many more connections to the clintons than to Trump.
To Bill, not Hillary. Regardless, this is a red herring – you made a claim of a double standard, I answered it, and you dodged to talk about something irrelevant (and condescend to me at the same time). This closes the discussion.
I guess I’m trying to convey the point that you obviously arrived at the conclusion that you’re voting for Hillary and worked backwards from there…and that’s fine! Most people indeed put the same amount of thought into their voting choices as the average Amercan Idol voter.
It’s a cheerful, upbeat condescension — I guess that’s something.
With all due respect, Michael, your arguments seem very disingenuous. You accuse Keith of working backwards, when it appears that you have done the same thing in regards to not voting for Clinton. And then you accuse him of not putting thought into his choice, when that’s very obviously not true.
For conservatives who are put off by Trump, I would strongly advocate writing to your state Representatives and Senators. Not only can you express your dissatisfaction with the direction of the party, but those up for re-election are likely worried about not getting enough split-ticket voters to keep their seats. I’m not entirely convinced that protest votes for Johnson are likely to change the results of a GOP post-mortem.
Thanks, salty. Michael appears to have no purpose here other than to insult me, as with Mistro/Sergey before him…
It seems like Michael’s original argument is being ignored (and I’m not sure why he didn’t reiterate it rather than digressing):
The issue is not the original rape claim against Bill Clinton — the argument can and has been made that Hillary should not be held responsible for her husband’s transgressions.
However, Michael pointed out that if we are intended to believe the rape victim, she is also claiming that Hillary has tried to “silence/discredit/disgrace” her. If this is true, then it is a matter of Hillary’s actions, and not just Bill’s. For Hillary, it becomes a very serious matter of whether she tried to silence the victim of a violent crime in order to protect her husband’s political career (and/or her own political aspirations).
I think that’s a lesser transgression than the rape (which, again, I’m inclined to believe), which is why it’s gotten relatively little attention. It’s not an issue that would automatically lead me to disqualify a candidate from my vote, but something I’d consider in the broader calculation of whom to vote for, a clear negative but one variable among many.
HRC has a lot of negatives, in my opinion. I think Trump has a lot more negatives, and he has several that are automatic DQs for me. I’m voting for Hillary first and foremost because the alternative is Trump, not because I am or ever have been a particular advocate of hers.
I wish to be careful here, criticizing an article about the work of young and enthusiastic scientists, but the NPR article is way overhyped (which is a big problem in popular science writing). First, while showing that a compound has killing activity against bacteria is important, many labs get to this point and then hit any number of pitfalls (lack of effectiveness inside the body, drug toxicity, and high rates of allergic reactions (this is especially important to think about for protein drugs)). Second, bacteria WILL evolve resistance to any new drug. Current antibiotics nearly universally target processes that are essential for bacteria to survive–this is nothing new. These novel proteins may have a very low frequency of resistance emerging, but it will certainly not be zero. That said, any new antimicrobials are a very good thing, and kudos to the students for performing important research.
I had a feeling this was the case – lot of hype, a hidden breakthrough that limits outside scrutiny – but I feel as you do: any research into new weapons against bacteria is a good thing.
Keith,
As a constant user of Twitter and an advocate for the people being trolled (or more importantly, being harassed and threatened), do you have ideas for how Twitter can better manage the two goals of being a free-speech platform and discouraging people/accounts who continue to drag everything into the muck? Obviously giving voice to some of the most-affected groups in the way of leadership positions could only help, but I doubt that solves the issue. It sounds like there’s no clearly-defined vision from the company on how to accomplish this. Is it a constitution with specific ideals and a team of people/algorithms like the censored POTUS/Caitlyn Jenner interviews to uphold the vision? Putting more power into the hands of users to crowd source out trolls? Some combination? It seems like there’s a lot of criticism and Monday morning quarterbacking after incidents like the article linked above, but it’s a group of 300+ million and seems like a you can’t please everyone situation. Not saying do nothing of course, but where do you go from here? It does seem like the good outweighs the bad, since power users like yourself aren’t exactly leaving in droves and have chosen at least for the time being to soldier on despite the BS.
A few people have pointed out today that Twitter seems to have no problem whatsoever removing video clips and GIFs of the Olympics, so the resources exist to fight harassment. They’re choosing not to commit those resources to this particular issue, which may be a sound business decision (at least in the short run) but is contributing to a toxic culture of harassment that I believe bodes poorly for the service’s long-term growth.
I’m asking with only a few basic questions, without any condescending tone from my end.
What was the bacterial content of the world’s oceans in 1630? 1242? 1019? 550? 500 BC? etc…
The acidic content of the world’s oceans in those same years?
The actual ( not theoretical ) depth or lack thereof of the ice at both poles in those years?
My point is that nearly 100% of the global warming/climate change data that people point to to state that “the science is settled”, is computer model data, and little more.
And, if anyone responds to this, I’d appreciate an actual response, rather than simply be called a science denier.
When you have a planet that is millions of years old, and less than one hundredth of one percent of the climate history of the planet factually documented, in honestly seems like far more theory than fact today.
Scott, I’m not qualified to speak of the climate models or theory behind them, but I can at least comment on the cholera-causing bacteria story. The study isn’t dealing directly with climate change or its causes, but is instead very simply asking whether increasing ocean temperatures correlate with higher levels of cholera-causing bacteria and closely related cousins. And it turns out that over the past 50 years, increased levels of those bacteria are correlated with higher water temperatures. Based on the optimal growth temperatures of these organisms, this makes a lot of sense (which was why the authors originally chose to test the hypothesis). In practice, this means that some coastal areas without adequate water treatment facilities may be at risk for cholera outbreaks, and should likely be monitored when water temperatures rise.
Regarding the woman, Kamilah Willingham, who claimed she was sexually assaulted by Brandon Winston at Harvard and the 19 professors who openly defended her accuser:
http://hlrecord.org/2015/11/19-harvard-law-professors-defend-law-student-brandon-winston-denouncing-his-portrayal-in-the-hunting-ground/
Willingham paints a false picture in her article. She says the professors “extend(ed) my rape trial into the court of public opinion” but she was the one who chose to participate in the The Hunting Ground film. The 19 professors were defending Winston because the film was misleading and he was found not guilty of sexual assault by both a Harvard tribunal and a criminal court. He was found guilty in criminal court of a misdemeanor that had nothing to do with Willingham and given probation.
Winston was allowed to return to Harvard on appeal because there was insufficient evidence to support the accusation. The initial panel found Winston guilty even though (see this: https://academicwonderland.com/2015/12/07/the-hunting-grounds-academic-apologist/)
“…the initial panel (whose findings, again, were found unsubstantiated) didn’t have access to accuser Kamilah Willingham’s sworn testimony, didn’t have access to the physical evidence that came out at trial, and in particular didn’t have access to the cross-examination of Willingham.”
There is no reason any of these professors should apologize.
Those links don’t do much to paint a full picture either; they seem to lean the other way. The details of his readmission are particularly bothersome, such as her exclusion from the appeal hearing, where you might think she and the other victim would at least have been asked to testify. And it does seem to me like he admitted violating the second victim while she was physically unable to give consent. That link also offers a rejoinder to the claim that The Hunting Ground‘s depiction of this case was misleading.
I’m not suggesting to paint a full picture, just pointing out that the narrative posited by Willingham is self-serving and contradicted by third party investigations, including a criminal court of law.
I don’t know why Willingham wasn’t present or made aware of the appeal, but I think the importance of that is overstated. Part of the problem with these campus tribunals is that they lack proper controls for due process (disturbingly this includes presumptions of guilt) , cross examination, collecting evidence and testimony. Unlike a criminal court they lack the power of subpoena and testimony under oath, so even if Harvard had advised Willingham of the hearing she would not have had to show up if she didn’t want to. Being that she was no longer a student at Harvard when the appeal occurred, a good lawyer probably would have counseled her to stay away from the process too.
A finding of guilt by the initial Harvard panel only seems to have occurred due to the exclusion of exculpatory evidence, testimony and cross examination.
Again I don’t see how those Harvard professors owe Willingham an apology here.
Keith,
I love to read your blog but I think that you are on the wrong side on the Kamilah Willingham case. I am a white male and as such I feel for the most part that I have nearly no right to offer my opinion nor perspective on sexual assault. Although I have no first hand knowledge nor experience with sexual assault my tendencies are always to side with the victim. They have nearly nothing to gain by reporting any type of assault and everything to lose. So when a woman steps forward to accuse any man of assaulting her, I tend to immediately believe she is telling the truth. Your reference above struck me mostly because my wife and I were discussing, just last night, how a doctor at one of her rotations during her final years in Undergrad had made a comment to her about her breast size and hormones (something she had never told me before). So, i clicked through and read the piece that Kamilah wrote. Something bothered me about the intensity of the emotiion in her piece and so I spent another 45 minutes reading other references, including an article written in Slate Magazine about the movie The Hunting Ground, in which Kamilah’s case plays a very prominent part.
In this case it appears reasonably clear that Kamilah is a young woman with a serious agenda, who pressed a case extremely aggressively to achieve something. I don’t know what exactly, but something. The mere fact that she extracts a condom from her bathroom trash can and uses it to insinuate that the man involved had sex with her roommate, only to have the condom tested to reveal only her own DNA (and that of another man) makes her assertions less believable. She did not have to say anything about the condom, but she did. Did she forget that she had sex with another man and left the condom in the trash?
Anyway, I just felt that this was a case where the other side of the story has been extensively vetted, fact checked and discussed. The 19 Harvard professors that you reference in your article have nothing to gain and everything to lose by re-admitting a sexual predator to HLS. They are credible men and women who are putting their own credibility and reputations at stake for taking the unpopular and unnecessary position of advocating for a man that while far from acting like a gentlemen, also did commit the crime that he was accused of committing. Having the courage to step forward here for what is right despite enormous personal expense, makes these 19 people I lot more like victims of sexual assault than Kamilah Willingham.
Matthew: How much have you read about the case? There was a second victim, and the accused (may have) admitted to nonconsensual contact.
I also think you’re underestimating the effects of trauma on memory. If Willingham was indeed a victim of sexual assault, then she would be at risk for PTSD.
Keith,
Thanks for the reply. i read about the second victim and through the text and IM transcripts. “Admission” is a strong word there. I think that he did say that he went too far and stopped when he realized that a groggy girl was more asleep than awake. Still, completely indefensible, but seems to fall below the line for sexual assault. An opinion that was confirmed by a criminal hearing where Willingham was allowed to speak as a witness.
I cannot get past Willingham using her own used condom as a lever the threaten Brandon, PTSD? I’m not a Dr. And I don’t want to minimize the emotional trauma that Willingham may have (and still be) enduring, but we are responsible for our actions and that action by her indicates to me a level of malicious intent that is difficult for me to ignore.
Thanks again and keep up the excellent work here and on ESPN, I’m a big fan.
A comment on the “good news” link of the judge showing small mercies. As a former throw away the key guy, youthful ignorance, I am so glad to see humanity brought to courtrooms in any fashion. It’s a far cry from your Texas death penalty article. Better be perfect living in Texas or there will be no mercy shown.
Hi Keith,
Love the site, always check it.
Re: Twitter easily pulling Olympic video and GIFs. AI and Machine Learning tools make it almost automatic to pull down video. Audio or digital watermarks can be applied to track video usage. Studios already track theatrical movies and BluRay/DVDs. Recent advances in AI don’t even need the watermarks to be effective. On the other hand, threads of words, discussions, on Twitter, though also trackable, have many gray areas and a ranges of interpretation, even if you are following them closely. It surely can be done, but the resources (number of people to follow and track, human judgment, management attention, legal advisement, etc) to do it are significantly greater than tracking and pulling down video.
Bogalusa Bomber=The Cleveland Indians legendary outfielder. My boyhood talking.