1) Nice Krugman column on slavery’s long-lasting impact on American society and politics.
2) Loved this Vox piece on how the voice for Siri was created (by a human) and on how voice artists work.
3) Some days I hate how much email I get. Definitely some good suggestions in here. Some I already use (Doodle!). And my favorite piece of advice:
“If we email each other three times over the same issue, it’s time for one of us to pick up the phone.”
4) Why North Carolina lawmakers just back-tracked part way on the state’s Voter ID law.
5) Enjoyed Toobin’s take on King v. Burwell.
For writing the opinion upholding the law, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., is being hailed (and denounced) as a latter-day Earl Warren—a Republican appointee who turns out to be a secret liberal. This is hardly accurate. Roberts is still the author of the Shelby County case, which gutted the Voting Rights Act, and an eager member of the court majority in Citizens United and all the other cases that undermined our system of regulating political campaigns. But as his restrained and cogent opinion in King demonstrated, he is not a partisan ideologue. Quoting liberally from opinions by Justice Antonin Scalia, Roberts made the commonsensical observation that a law must be interpreted as a whole, not by the analysis of a few stray words here and there. And the context of the full A.C.A. compelled the obvious conclusion that the subsidies were intended to go to individuals on both the federal as well as state exchanges. The law would otherwise make no sense.
Meanwhile, George Will writes that this is all part of the liberal project to overthrow the Constitution. Seriously. It’s just amusing to me that so many still seem to see Will as a more reasonable, sober conservative. If only.
6) Really enjoyed this essay on why “white privilege” is not the problem. Does not explicitly mention John Roberts, but certainly akin to his idea that the best way to get past racism is to stop talking about race at all. I don’t necessarily agree with all this, but it is very thoughtful and thought-provoking.
7) Also enjoyed Reihan Salam’s same-sex marriage take:
Back in 2005, Peter Berkowitz, a conservative political theorist, made the case that the triumph of same-sex civil marriage was all but inevitable. The reason he gave was that arguments that can be made in the language of individual freedom almost always win out in the constitutional realm over those grounded in other considerations. One could argue that the debate over abortion is a clash between two interpretations of what individual freedom demands. Do we protect the autonomy of women or do we protect the rights of unborn children? The fact that both sides of the abortion debate can be rooted in the language of individual freedom has kept the debate alive.
But the debate over same-sex marriage is different. Advocates of same-sex marriage insist that the organization of intimate relations should be left up to the individuals in question, an idea that has become an article of faith among modern Americans. Proponents alone are rooting their arguments in individual freedoms. Critics of same-sex marriage, in contrast, tend to emphasize the potential harms children might experience as society moves away from traditional marriage.
8) Got in a huge argument on FB about the problem of sexism in Jurassic World. I really don’t like the way this essay seems to suggest every dumb thing a female character does or every poor writing choice is inherently “sexist.” Sure there’s some valid points here, but I would argue that when you are alienating the likes of me from your feminism, you are doing more harm than good to the feminist cause.
9) Do conservatives have more self-control than liberals? At least one study says so.
In a series of three studies with more than 300 participants, the authors found that people who identify as conservative perform better on tests of self-control than those who identify as liberal regardless of race, socioeconomic status and gender.
They also report that participants’ performance on the tests was influenced by how much they believed in the idea of free will, which the researchers define as the belief that a person is largely responsible for his or her own outcomes.
10) Your big long read for the week– an interesting take from a British science journalist arguing that climate science is way politicized, alarmist, and harming scientific credibility. There’s definitely some important ideas in here worth really thinking about and considering, but the author (a genuine science journalist, but also a Conservative MP in Parliament), is clearly very political in his take, which very much undermines his credibility. As for me, on the whole big picture thing, I would say that if chances of catastrophe are not likely, but simply non-trivial, that’s still a damn good reason to try and do something about it.