Quick hits (part II)

1) Jacob Hacker explains why we really need to add a public option to Obamacare.

2) Solid, quality journalism costs money.  If you care about journalism, you should support it with your dollars.

3) Does the first amendment protect deliberate lies?  Indeed:

Why would free speech protect them?

Under U.S. law, many falsehoods—even some deliberate lies—receive the full protection of the First Amendment. That is true even though “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” as Justice Lewis Powell Jr. wrote for the Supreme Court in 1974. Nonetheless, the Court has often refused to allow government to penalize speakers for mistakes, sloppy falsehoods, and lies. Political lies are strongly protected; but even private lies sometimes are as well.

Why?

Imagine if you will, the following impossible scenario: Candidate X says of Candidate Y, “His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald’s being—you know—shot. … That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

Shouldn’t this ridiculous, petty, cruel, and destructive lie be punished?

The answer, under First Amendment law, is probably not. The strictly imaginary comment above, however crude and stupid, is nonetheless a statement about an important political issue: determining the presidential nominee of a major party. So, if there is a “hierarchy” of speech under the First Amendment, this allegation starts out at the top. Candidates for president sling all sorts of mud at each other—one candidate, for example, may claim another is planning to “rig the election”; was involved in the “murder” of a government official even though an investigation had found suicide; or was theco-creator, with a sitting president, of a terrorist conspiracy against the United States.

Such allegations—not that anyone would make them—would be contemptible; but I would be worried about a system in which the government could silence them

4) John Yoo is a war criminal who should be in jail, not teaching law students.  But even he opposes Donald Trump.

5) And here’s an intersting story about pretty much the only person in the national security establishment who has not rejected Trump, General Michael Flynn.

6) Really enjoyed this about reaction time in sprinting (with a fun, interactive game to test your own reaction time).

7) No evidence for any “Bradley effect” for Trump in the polls (i.e., social desirabilitiy results affecting poll results depending upon the mode).

8) One of my favorite pieces on Usain Bolt— the science behind his speed.

9) So, basically most of the Olympic table tennis players are Chinese, but the vast majority are playing for other countries.

10) How genetic engineering could affect the limits of human athletic performance.

11) NPR is ending comments on its website because only a tiny handful of readers ever comment.

12) NYT Editorial making the case for affordable child care as the secret to a better economy:

The losses are even more profound when multiplied over the economy.International comparisons indicate that more family-friendly policies in the United States, including quality child care, would allow roughly 5.5 million more women to work, assuming the economy was adding jobs at a reasonable pace. All else being equal, that surge could generate an astounding $500 billion a year in economic growth, or about 3.5 percent of gross domestic product.

Proper child care also lays the foundation for future productivity gains. Research shows that public investment in early education yields benefits for children far in excess of its cost, including higher academic and career achievement well into adulthood, as well as better health. McKinsey researchers estimated that closing academic achievement gaps between low-income students and others would increase the size of the economy by roughly $70 billion a year; closing racial and ethnic gaps would add $50 billion annually.

13) Matt Grossman on one of my favorite themes (and his– he’s got a book on it), the asymmetry:

My new book with David A. Hopkins, Asymmetric Politics(link is external): Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats, sheds light on the longstanding advantages of each political party and their bases of mass support. We argue that the Republican Party is the vehicle of an ideological movement that prizes the general principles of limited government, American nationalism, and cultural traditionalism. The Democratic Party is instead a coalition of myriad social groups, each with specific programmatic policy concerns.

14) This interview with Sasha Issenberg on how Trump’s campaign is like a campaign from 1980 is terrific.  Hits all the key points on how campaigns have changed and evolved.   If I was teaching campaigns and elections now, it would be going straight into the syllabus.

15) Can I say how incredibly tired I am of people using posting from nobody morons on twitter to make their points?!  You can prove any thesis you want if all you need is for rubes to post about it on social media.  As if there had actually been some actual mainstream attacks on Gabby Douglas or mainstream defenses of Lochte’s deplorable behavior.

16) Frum says Trump’s choice is to lose like Dukakis or Goldwater.  I think he may be right, but I have a hard time imagining Trump taking anything but the Goldwater route.

17) On a similar note, yes, I feel bad for the incredibly difficult position Caster Semenya is in (there’s just no easy answer), but I have read at least three different posts this week saying the equivalent of this from Olga Khazan:

It’s unclear how much of an advantage testosterone gives women in running—or in anything else. [emphasis mine] Men are faster, on average, than women, but testosterone is not the only reason: Men also have more red blood cells and bigger hearts and lungs. Due in part to the lack of scientific clarity, in 2015 the Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended the IAAF’s testosterone regulations for two years.

#$%#$ing seriously??!!  Right, we really have no idea how testosterone affects women’s athletic performance.  If only there had been something like “steroids” or “the East German Olympic team” to look to for any kind of evidence.  A shame.

 

Advertisements

About Steve Greene
Professor of Political Science at NC State http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/shgreene

2 Responses to Quick hits (part II)

    • Steve Greene says:

      I especially like the point in this comment that it is disappointing that the 538 piece is more advocacy that discussion of the relevant science. If you think this issue is easy, you are not paying attention.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: