Month: April 2012

by Patrick Appel

Adam Ozimek argues that "a self-conscious lack of labels is in fact a label, and can be just as constraining of one":

[T]o define oneself as, for example, “of no party or clique”, as Andrew Sullivan does, creates in others a social expectation of holding beliefs that defy parties and cliques. You may not be expected to take particular and easily predictable positions on every issue as you would if you had a politically well-defined label like, say, paleolibertarian, Christian conservative, or pro labor democrat.  But you are expected to regularly take positions that are idiosyncratic.

Sure, but open-minded examination of various debates should regularly lead to idiosyncratic opinions that satisfy neither party completely. And, as Wilkinson wrote, there is a major difference between "specifically political labels" and "naming one's convictions." Andrew is a marriage equality supporter, a fiscal conservative, a circumcision opponent, a beard advocate, etc. His embrace of these positions is part of what makes him idiosyncratic. 

Swearing allegiance to a party, which packages together an assortment of dissimilar beliefs, avoids the messy business of examining topics individually. Additionally, a lack of party loyalty prevents partisanship from overriding our convictions. A real fiscal conservative, for instance, would have serious problems with Bush's spending history while a strong partisan would find excuses for it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying oneself as primarily liberal or a conservative; these terms have deep philosophical roots largely independent of politics. But when liberal and conservative become exact synonyms for Republican or Democrat the terms are detached from their histories and corrupted. 

Earlier debate here, here, and here.

by Zoë Pollock

"Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you," – Hitchens, from Letters to a Young Contrarian. Today would have been his 63rd birthday.

by Patrick Appel

Women voters overwhelmingly preferred Ted Kennedy to Mitt Romney in 1994, despite Romney pandering to female voters during a debate with Kennedy:

How Kennedy turned women against Romney:

There was actually a moment in the 1994 race when many were predicting Kennedy’s defeat.  In a desperate bid for women’s votes, he went after Romney’s religion, saying that he should explain his stand on the Mormon Church’s pre-1978 ban on black priests and its continuing refusal to ordain women. (The Catholic Church, of course, doesn’t ordain women either, but Kennedy said that it should.) That line of attack backfired, sparking bipartisan disgust. “Religious Politicking Could Seal Kennedy’s Doom,” ran one headline.

Then Kennedy’s campaign tried a new tack, prefiguring one we’re likely to see from Obama this fall. “We made a case against [Romney] focused first of all on his record on business,” says Devine.  Kennedy’s staff zeroed in on two aspects of that record—layoffs, particularly of women, at companies taken over by Bain, and the absence of women in senior management positions at Bain itself.

by Maisie Allison

Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.

— Catholic League (@CatholicLeague) April 12, 2012

More on Bill Donohue's Twitter problem here. 

by Patrick Appel

First Read dissects yesterday's manufactured controversy:

The fact is, these next few months before the conventions are probably going to be filled with these manufactured “shiny metal object” controversies because of what we noted — just how professionalized both political parties are at creating them. And some in the media are easily susceptible to helping these manufactured controversies go viral because they are seen as simply “more interesting” than the serious “eat your vegetables”-like issues that divide the two parties.

Brendan Nyhan agrees:

When few competing stories exist and political reporters are starved for material, any whiff of scandal or controversy can create a feeding frenzy (PDF). A bored media is dangerous for politicians.

Rome, Italy, 10.34 am

by Patrick Appel

Tyler Cowen's advice:

Look at the menu and ask yourself: Which of these items do I least want to order? Or: Which one sounds the least appetizing? Then order that item. The logic is simple. At a fancy restaurant, the menu is well thought-out. The kitchen’s time and attention are scarce. An item won’t be on the menu unless there is a good reason for its presence. If it sounds bad, it probably tastes especially good.

More dining out tips here.

Ask Ackerman Anything

by Chris Bodenner

Spencer Ackerman is a regular presence on the Dish and one of the more colorful reporters on national security. You can review his bio here and follow his blogging at Wired's Danger Room. To ask Spencer anything you want, simply submit a question in the Urtak poll embedded above (ignore the "YES or NO question" aspect in the text field and simply enter any open-ended question). We have primed the poll with questions that you can vote on right away – click "Yes" if you are interested in seeing him answer the question or "No" if you don't particularly care. We will air the answers in daily segments soon.

My rocket didn't launch. I swear this has never happened to me before.

— KimJongNumberUn (@KimJongNumberUn) April 13, 2012

by Zack Beauchamp

Ackerman isn't worried about North Korea trying again:

There’s … reason to believe, with this latest failure, that Pyongyang is getting worse at their launches. “If the North Koreans were making progress with their missile program, you would expect to see them fixing problems after each failure and fine-tuning the technology,” says Brian Weeden, a former officer with the U.S. Air Force Space Command. “Instead, you see a range of different failure modes, indicating they are not really making much progress and actually may be going backwards as they keep making changes without truly understanding what went wrong in each case.”

A less sanguine Raymond Pritchett steps back to analyze the political implications in the Hermit Kingdom:

For the record, it is a demonstration of remarkable transparency that North Korea admitted failure with the rocket launch. It is so unprecedented for North Korea to admit failure in anything that some North Korean experts are suggesting this news of failure will be received by the population as bordering absurd and unbelievable. It is unclear what the purpose of announcing failure is, but rest assured – there is almost certainly a political calculation involved. One legitimate possibility I have heard mentioned is that the failure will be used as an excuse for the new leader to consolidate power by blaming the failure on Kim Jong-un's political rivals. However, another possibility is that by announcing failure and an investigation, it could be North Korea has reason to believe an outsider tampered with the rocket launch and the regime intends to blame South Korea for the failure.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader makes an essential point:

Lost in the discussion is that the NHL and the Canadian Medical Association have studied concussion for some time and consistently find that fighting has been identified as a lesser contributor to player concussions than legal hits.  (By the way, "Boxing On Ice" is far more cerebral than that representation; I urge you to read Adam Gopnik's essay on "why hockey is the smartest game in the world.")

Another differs:

I am sorry, but none of the other readers have yet managed to explain why fighting is necessary. You can argue that it is fun to watch or when playing that it is fun to do, but that doesn't make it necessary.

I played field hockey in high school. This sport is played on grass, so the players do not move as quickly, but they do wield lethal weapons in the form of sticks. The ball is also dangerous, in that on a good hit it can break bones. Almost every rule in field hockey is geared toward safety of the players, but the biggest difference in rules from ice hockey is that fighting, like in most sports, is not a part of the game.

Do some players get away with dirty plays? Sure. Refs can't be everywhere. One time a girl nearly broke my foot on a dirty hit, and the ref didn't see it. At no point did anyone suggest we send someone out to enforce the rules through a fistfight. That is ridiculous. Your coaches tell you to move on and keep your focus on the game. This is how it is in most sports.

It seems hockey has just made a conscious decision to ignore basic sportsmanship and general understanding of how we treat other players. That is fine. Just stop pretending that it is a necessary part of the game. It's not. It's just part of NHL culture. Other dangerous sports (including non-NHL ice hockey competitions) can play without fighting. So could the NHL, but only if it wants to.

Another is on the same page:

Lacrosse players wield deadly weapons as well and there isn't nearly the culture of fighting (while there's still some) as there is in hockey. And frequently the players participate in both sports, so it's not an issue of self-control. Any arguments FOR fighting in hockey are unjustifiable. They are using ritual, tradition, and culture to excuse something that should have been removed from the game long ago. And this coming from a guy that loves watching fights.

Reminds me of a great quote, can't remember from whom, and I'm paraphrasing: "Boxing is a brutal, awful sport that should not be embraced by modern culture, but until they ban it I'll watch every match I can."

Another:

While I tend to agree with one of your previous reader’s comments regarding the consensual nature of NHL fighting and the entertainment value of it, there is one area that I struggle with it: its influence on youth hockey.

Those of us who coach youth hockey spend hundreds of hours every year working with kids on developing a love of the game’s grace and skill, and we struggle with how much kids want to emulate the more negative physical aspects of the game. It’s probably hard for your readers who don’t live in ‘Hockey Country’ to understand, but youth hockey is not just another kid’s activity. It’s an entire lifestyle that involves countless hours on the ice and even more hours watching and daydreaming about professional hockey.

My big concern is that the culture of retaliation filters down through the age groups. I have seen fighting at the "old man league" level, at the high school level, and – most disturbingly – at the elementary school levels. I have personally coached 10 and 11 year old kids who have taken a swing at another player, and when I ask them what they were thinking, they say they were "just defending their teammates". As a coach you do your best to explain that these aren’t values that your team plays by and explain the value of hard work and fundamental skills, but you’re fighting the influence of 82 games a season where the enforcer gets the biggest fan reaction.

On that note, another reader points to a Youtube showing a player grabbing and slamming another's head into the glass barrier:

Here's a sign of how far the NHL has yet to go on the head injury front. There ended up being no injury on the play, but that's more luck than anything. Weber got a mere $2,500 fine rather than a suspension for that. At issue is a reluctance to deal out punishment in the playoffs at the same rate as in the regular season. The lesson for players to draw from the disciplinary outcome is likely not to be a good one.

Another adds, "If you want a recent example of a player getting hit through the glass, here you go." Another makes an interesting point:

I am dilettante boxer, and the physics of punching explains much of why fighting is allowed in hockey. To punch at all hard, you need to be able to plant your feet, which you can't do in skates. So hockey players can whale on each other – which fans love to watch – without doing the kind of permanent damage that usually results from fighting. Were hockey-like fights to break out in sports in which players can plant their feet, they would regularly carry players off on stretchers, which fans would not stand for. Case in point: Kermit Washington nearly killed Rudy Tomjanovich with one punch during a 1977 NBA game. A similar punch thrown on skates would do much less damage.

One more reader:

Considering that the vast majority of my hockey buddies wouldn't have a clue about The Dish, or who Andrew Sullivan is, I'm astonishingly pleased with the interest this thread had received. But no discussion about violence in hockey is complete without Jules Winnfield teaching the "Inglewood Jack".

Seen above. Lastly, I can't help but plug one of my favorite ads: