Jamison Foser

Yes, Of Course It Matters Who You Vote For

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump mansplains why you shouldn’t worry your pretty little head about policies backed by Republican Cory Gardner that would outlaw contraception (pdf):

”[E]ven if Cory Gardner wins, it seems unlikely that he will be able to single-handedly ban birth control. Perhaps the guy’s complete lack of awareness of how basic politics works is why his partner thinks he’s too stupid to think of checking drugstores for condoms.”

The condescension just oozes out of Bump, like an open sore. Well, actually, Cory Gardner would just be a Senator, not wizard with a magic wand that would allow him to enact his every policy whim instantaneously.

Gee, thanks for the civics lesson, Plato. But here’s the thing: Literally everybody knows that, and it’s irrelevant to rational voting decisions. The rational thing to do is to support those candidates who hold policy positions you approve of, and oppose those candidates who hold policy positions you disapprove of, because the policy positions they hold are more likely to be enacted if they are elected. That's how "basic politics" really works. Alternatively, I suppose you could simply assume that nothing will ever change no matter who is elected and just flip a coin. Such an approach may win the approval of the oh-so-savvy people who write about politics for the Washington Post’s blog The Fix, but you may end up regretting it.

So while Bump is sneering at the rubes about “how basic politics works,” he’s also making just about the stupidest possible argument: That you shouldn’t consider what candidates want to do, as they will be unable to do them single-handedly. But, hey, people who write about politics make just about the stupidest possible argument all the time: What else is new, right? In this case, it’s the combination of condescension and utter stupidity that’s really impressive. Well done, Philip Bump!

Sadly, Bump isn’t alone in lecturing women not to worry about politicians who want to take away their reproductive rights. It’s something of an epidemic. The Oregonian editorial board — all men, by the way — mocked the “threadbare Democratic ‘war on women’ narrative” earlier this month.

Similarly, the Denver Post endorsed Gardner for the Colorado Senate seat, calling opponent Mark Udall “obnoxious” and “tedious” for talking about Gardner’s opposition to reproductive rights because “Gardner’s election would pose no threat to abortion rights.” Why? The Post didn’t bother to explain, apparently believing it self-evident that United States Senators have no influence over public policy. There, again, is that combination of condescension and stupidity. Notice how often it shows up in claims that women shouldn’t worry about their rights?

Then came a Colorado Senate debate in which the two (male) moderators and the (male) Cory Gardner took turns lecturing Udall for talking about women’s rights too much. The lowlight of that particular exchange came when one of the (male) moderators said, essentially, But enough about women, let’s talk about voters who matter: Men.

When was the last time you saw journalists lecture a candidate for talking too much about budgets or national security? Never, right? For some reason (male) moderators only seem to do that when they think candidates are talking too much about women’s rights.

Why are so many men so insistent that we stop talking about women’s rights — and that women shouldn’t worry about politicians who want to take those rights away? Maybe because our laws and culture are rigged in favor of men, and they want to keep it that way?

Quick, Nobody Apologize to Dylan Byers! (His 2013 Piece About Jill Abramson Is Still Awful)

In the wake of Jill Abramson’s abrupt dismissal as executive editor of the New York Times, Politico’s Mike Allen suggests people owe his colleague Dylan Byers an apology:

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO APOLOGIZE to Dylan Byers for attacking his April 2013 story, "Turbulence at The Times," as sexist? In retrospect, it's clear that it was reporting (and even understating) the reality.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I stand by my criticism of Byers’ article, and find it laughable that anyone would suggest that Abramson’s firing negates the central complaints lodged against it.

Byers’ article was about alleged problems with Abramson’s “temperament,” yet it began and ended with anecdotes about two separate instances of Dean Baquet (then the Times’ managing editor and now Abramson’s replacement) punching newsroom walls in anger. In the opening anecdote, Baquet “burst out of Abramson’s office, slammed his hand against a wall and stormed out of the newsroom” and didn’t return for the rest of the day, skipping a daily editors’ meeting. Here’s how Byers concludes the opening anecdote:

[O]nce the story had made the rounds, it wasn’t Baquet the staffers were griping about. It was Abramson.

That tells you everything you need to know about Byers’ piece: From his reporting, he learned that some Times staffers didn’t like Abramson’s temperament and said she was “difficult to work with.” He also learned that Baquet had on multiple occasions punched newsroom walls in anger. And yet he chose to write an article about Jill Abramson’s alleged temperament problems, without addressing in any way the sexist double-standard that leads people to describe a woman as temperamental and difficult while they “fondly” recall examples of a man punching a wall.

That was the problem with Byers’ article: Nobody thought he made up his sources (though some, myself included, wondered how representative they were of the newsroom as a whole.) Instead, people criticized him for not recognizing that a key part of the story, if not the central focus, was the extent to which sexist attitudes played a role in the criticisms of Abramson he was hearing. (See examples here, here, here, here and here.)

In short, the criticism of Byers was that he failed to recognize and address the strong possibility of sexist attitudes driving complaints about Abramson, and that this kind of failure helps perpetuate those sexist attitudes (and likely demonstrates them.)

That hasn’t been undermined by this week’s news. (It’s hard to imagine how it even could be.) Just the opposite, in fact. While we don’t (and won’t) know the “true” or “full” story behind Abramson’s tenure and its sudden end, this week’s developments actually reinforce the critique that Byers missed a glaring question of sexist attitudes and double-standards.

Hurricane Preparations

Perhaps if I lived in an area in which things like earthquakes and hurricanes are more common, I'd prepare for them by stocking up on shelf-stable food products and duct tape. Lacking such survival instincts, I instead write memos:

Kramer - Funny = Beck

Here's Cosmo Kramer's greatest dialogue:

Now, what happens if you remove the humor and focus on the crazy:

Quote of the Day

"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.'"

-- George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

And Orwell never had the misfortune of seeing Glenn Beck standing at a chalkboard.

Politico's misdiagnosis

More than 2,000 words on Barack Obama’s political troubles, and Politico’s top editors never once address this basic truth: The economy isn’t any good and unemployment is high, and as long as those two things are true, the president isn’t going to be very popular -- and many economists and liberals (Paul Krugman, for one) said last year that the stimulus package needed to be much larger in order to provide the needed boost to the economy. There is plenty of reason to believe they were correct.

That’s fairly simple, really. Yet in purporting to explain Obama’s political trouble, and dissatisfaction among liberals, Politico’s top editors touch on everything except this obvious truth. His speeches aren’t good enough! His staff isn’t nice enough to reporters! He’s a “big-government liberal”! The White House failed to clear Senate primaries for its favored candidates!

No. It’s fairly simple, really: President Obama and the Democrats are struggling politically because the economy isn’t any good and unemployment is high. What should they have done differently? They should have done more to improve the economy; last year’s stimulus should have been bigger, for one thing. Speeches, kindness to reporters -- basically, everything Politico focuses on -- that’s all comparatively insignificant.

Back in January, Politico's John Harris (co-author of today's piece) demonstrated the same lack of understanding of what matters, as I noted at the time:

Harris writes that a key lesson of [Bill] Clinton's [post-'94] comeback is to "Find a way to talk about the economy." Strangely, he makes no mention of a more important lesson: Find a way to fix the economy. Indeed, he ignores the concept that actual economic conditions have something to do with electoral results.

One question this raises: What exactly is the value of a publication that calls itself “Politico” if it is blind to such obvious realities about politics?

LeBron

I often enjoy Bill Simmons -- though I rarely agree with his analytical approach, particularly when it comes to baseball -- but today’s column is an absolute train-wreck in which many of his worst habits are on display. It’s contradictory with out working through or even acknowledging the contradictions. It’s irrational and illogical. It’s chock-full of mind-reading presented as objective fact, armchair psychoanalysis, absurd melodrama, and tedious efforts to turn everything into morality plays and character studies.

Basically, it’s just like the media’s coverage of politics.

Most striking is how frequently Simmons contradicts himself, without seeming to realize he has done so. Points 10 and 11 in his list of 24-random-thoughts-about-LeBron are that the Miami Heat wouldn’t be very good with James/Wade/Bosh. “No way they win more than 50,” Simmons insists. Point 13 is that James going to Miami would be a “cop-out” because “Any super-competitive person would rather beat Dwyane Wade than play with him. Don't you want to find the Ali to your Frazier and have that rival pull the greatness out of you?” Well, which is it? Would the Heat be mediocre with James/Wade/Bosh, or would going to the Heat show that James doesn’t have any competitive drive because playing with Wade would make things too easy?

In point 15, Simmons says James should go to Chicago: “That's where the rings are. The fact that he didn't say to Bosh, ‘Come to Chicago with me, we'll play with Rose and Noah and win six titles together’ was the single most disappointing outcome of the summer. That team would have been a true juggernaut…”

But Simmons had just ridiculed James for even considering joining Wade and Bosh in Miami, which he portrayed as crying for “HELP” -- something Jordan or Kobe never would have done. He said it would be “The move of someone who, deep down, doesn't totally trust his own talents any more.” Then -- in literally the next paragraph -- Simmons said James should go to Chicago to play with Rose and Noah, and should have brought Bosh along with him. And that Magic and Bird and Kobe would have done the same thing!

So, which is it? Is wanting excellent teammates (Wade, Bosh) a character flaw Kobe Bryant would never demonstrate? Or is wanting excellent teammates (Bosh, Rose, Noah) the kind of no-brainer move anyone -- including Kobe Bryant -- who cares about winning has to do?

Simmons rants for a few paragraphs about how evil James will be if he picks any team other than Cleveland. Ok, he doesn’t say “evil” -- he says it will be cruel, and unforgivable “Repeat: unforgivable,” and “the meanest thing any athlete has ever done to a city.” Oh, and in a sentence in which Simmons blasts James for having “lost all perspective,” Simmons says James leaving Cleveland would make him like Tiger Woods. Read that again: While blasting James for a lack of “perspective,” Bill Simmons compares signing with the Chicago Bulls or Miami Heat to Tiger Woods cheating on his wife with … well, with just about everyone.

Then, two paragraphs later, Simmons says James should pick Chicago or New York.

This inconsistency and incoherence is the inevitable result of Simmons obsession with turning everything an athlete does into some sort of character study. The thing is, though, missing a shot, losing a game, signing with Miami (or New York or Cleveland) … these things aren’t like, say, committing a double homicide in Brentwood. They generally don’t have anything to do with character. You have to strain to try to force them into such a framework.

The giveaway is that you can easily take any given James decision that people are portraying as indictments of his character and spin it as an indication of outstanding character.

Say he chooses Miami. Critics have accused James of having an unhealthy ego; of focusing too much on money; Simmons argues that going to Miami would show he isn’t mentally strong enough to win on his own. But going to Miami means taking less money than staying in Cleveland and leaving a situation in which he is unambiguously the only thing that matters about the entire franchise for a situation in which he is one of three stars. It’s a selfless act that (arguably) demonstrates that all he cares about is winning, which is what the Simmons types are constantly telling us should be an athlete’s highest priority.

See how easy that is? Things that are actually character studies -- like, say, committing a double homicide in Brentwood -- can’t be easily spun as both positives and negatives. There’s a fundamental truth that’s pretty hard to get around: Two dead bodies. But LeBron James signing with the Heat? That’s easy -- because there’s no fundamental truth to get around; it’s all just spin. (Actually, I think it’s much easier to argue that doing so would reflect well on James by the standards people like Simmons typically use* than it is to argue that it reflects poorly on James by those standards.)

Anyway: I don’t really care where James decides to play, though I’d probably prefer it to be anyplace other than Cleveland, if only because they seem likely to have the least interesting roster and team around him. Regardless of his decision, I doubt very much that it will reveal anything about his character, just as Bill Simmons (“The Boston Sports Guy”) moving to L.A. to write for a television show wasn’t a disloyal sell-out. It was just a guy making a decision about where to live and work.

And the other thing people have been complaining about -- James decision to announce his decision via an hour-long ESPN special -- doesn’t bother me at all precisely because of all the foolish psychoanalysis from people like Simmons. The media has spent years speculating about where James would go -- speculation that in recent weeks has increasingly involved judgmental attempts to infer reasons for various potential decisions. Who can blame him for wanting to tell his story his way?

* I say “by the standards people like Simmons typically use” for two reasons: To emphasize how incoherent the Simmons-esque position is, and to make clear that I do not stipulate to the validity of those standards. I don’t think it is inherently “good” or “bad” for an athlete to stay with the team s/he has been playing for, to take less money, to try to maximize earnings, to prioritize winning, to want to play for a team with a rich tradition of excellence, etc, etc. Basically, I don’t expect everyone to have the same priorities in deciding where to work and play, and see no reason why my priorities or Bill Simmons’s are morally superior to someone else’s.

The Sestak non-scandal, in a nutshell

Conservatives: "Rahm Emanuel ordered a turkey sandwich. That's a scandal!"

Media: "OMG!"

The White House: "Rahm Emanuel ordered a turkey sandwich. That isn't a scandal."

Media: "It's the White House's fault we were all, like, 'OMG!' They should have told us sooner that ordering a turkey sandwich isn't a scandal."

Conservatives: "They really expect us to think all they did was order a turkey sandwich? How stupid do they think we are? That's obviously a cover story."

Media: "Questions about sandwich order continue to linger."

Duke Basketball & Observer Bias

Over on The Twitter this morning, I took issue with some of the rationalizations people offer for their dislike of Duke's basketball team. To be clear, though I am a longtime fan of the team, I don't really care whether people like Duke -- I (quite obviously) don't play for the team, didn't go to the school, and have spent about 27 hours of my life in North Carolina. I do, however, take issue with obviously bogus rationalizations for that dislike, mostly because I am not a fan of obviously bogus rationalizations in general.

For example, I've seen people say they don't like Duke's basketball team because Duke is an elite, extremely expensive school. I'm not really sure what that has to do with basketball, but in any case: I never hear that complaint about Georgetown or Stanford or Villanova or Wake Forest, none of which are exactly easy to get into, and all of which are extremely expensive. And certainly not about an Ivy League upstart that threatens to win a few games. So I tend to doubt that's the real reason people dislike Duke. It's OK to dislike Duke just for the sake of disliking them. Really, it is. You don't need to make up a cover story.

Anyway, in response to my Tweet, a couple of people told me Duke is hated because they benefit from favorable officiating. Well, It just so happens that I've long considered the "Duke gets all the calls" meme a classic case of observer bias and of the distorting effects of conventional wisdom, so I figured I'd finally spend a few minutes spelling some of that out. 

A couple of disclaimers up front: First, I'm not saying Duke doesn't benefit from favorable officiating -- I'm saying none of us really knows whether they do. Second: I'm not trying to convince you to like Duke. I don't care whether you do. I don't really get why people enjoy hating sports teams (unless they're coached by John Calipari) but I recognize that many people do -- so have at it! 

OK. Here goes:

1.  College basketball officiating isn't particularly consistent. Referees often seem to call interior play more tightly than perimeter play, or vice-versa. Different officials call games differently -- and even individual officials will show variance in foul-calling from game to game, and even within games. Finally, most basketball viewers aren't particularly good at correctly assessing what is and is not a foul -- they aren't experts, they don't always have good angles, etc. I can't prove any of that, but I don't expect anyone, save perhaps an NCAA referee, would seriously contest it.

2.  Given all of that, if you're watching a college basketball game in which you have a rooting interest, it is incredibly easy to find yourself thinking "your" team is getting hosed by the zebras. Most people are more likely to notice questionable calls that go against their team than those that benefit their team -- and to react more strongly to them. This skews their assessment of the officiating.

3.  I believe, as many people do, that referees tend to slightly favor players who have an established level of success. Michael Jordan got a ton of favorable calls; one of the iconic moments of his career -- his game-winning shot against Utah in the Finals -- probably should have been an offensive foul. Dwyane Wade, Larry Bird and countless other players have likely gotten a bit more leeway and "protection" from referees due to their established abilities.

Those first three points are, I would imagine, pretty uncontroversial. Moving on:

4.  A lot of people don't like Duke. So a lot of people watching Duke games perceive them to benefit from favorable officiating even when it is not happening (per 1 & 2 above.) And Duke just might get more questionable calls that go their way than, say, Arkansas Pine-Bluff (per 3 above.)

5.  That leads to a lot of people saying "Duke gets all the calls" -- which leads to a lot of people hearing "Duke gets all the calls."

6.  Constantly hearing "Duke gets all the calls" leads people to expect Duke to get all the calls -- so, when they're watching a Duke game, they're more likely to notice a close call that goes Duke's way. People see what they expect to see. They then start saying "Duke gets all the calls," and the whole thing snowballs.

7.  Finally, even if a viewer correctly and impartially assesses every call and non-call in every Duke game for several years -- enough to build up a significant sample size -- s/he is unlikely to have an accurate mental picture of the pattern that emerges. Think of it this way: When a player shoots a jump-shot, there's no subjectivity involved in determining whether it goes through the basket. Now, say you watched Hollis Thompson shoot 500 jumpers in games over the course of 4 years, but didn't keep written record of how many he attempted or made. Now: If you had to guess what Thompson's shooting percentage was, based solely on your observations of him over the years, how close do you think you'd come? I think you'd be lucky to come within ten percent of his actual shooting percentage. And that's a much, much easier task than keeping reliable-but-informal tally of highly subjective things like incorrect foul calls for and against a given team.

Now, none of that should really be controversial, either. Argue with it if you like, but you'll be arguing with human nature more than with me. It is important to note, however, that nothing above "proves" that Duke does not benefit from a disproportionate share of questionable calls. It is simply a reminder that the notion that Duke gets favorable treatment is nothing more than an impression created by unreliable observations -- much like the near-universal (but no longer operative) image of Tiger Woods a clean-cut good guy.

So what do I think? I think that nobody really has a clue whether any team gets a disproportionate number of bad calls over a statistically-significant sample, and that anybody who expresses much certainty on that front should examine the reliability of their conclusions, in part by considering the factors presented above. I don't find it hard be believe that elite programs get a few more calls than middling programs (see 3 above) though I doubt the disparity is particularly large, and even within programs, there is a disparity among players.

Duke is on television roughly 30 times a year in the District of Columbia, where I live. I've been a fan of Duke basketball since the late '80s (though, for reasons not relevant here, I am not particularly fond of Duke's coach) so I probably watch 20-25 of those games. I am obviously not an impartial observer of those games -- though I think my mild obsession with observer bias makes me less to jump to conclusions than many if not most basketball-watchers. I should also note that my biases extend well beyond being a Duke fan. I -- like most observers -- have biases about the style of play that I prefer and other factors, all of which go into my reactions to foul calls and non-calls. I like to see a relatively open style of play, without a lot of pushing and grabbing on the perimeter, for example -- and that, no doubt, affects my assessment of officiating. You really can't overstate the biases most of us bring to our assessments of how a game is officiated. 

Speaking of pushing and grabbing on the perimeter: The one consistent pattern I have perceived in college basketball officiating over the years was a small one: I believe that in J.J. Redick's senior year at Duke, he was routinely fouled while working off the ball on offense, without a foul being called.  He was constantly pushed and grabbed on the perimeter as he was trying to get open, well above and beyond what is typically allowed.* Of course, all of the caveats about observer bias I have spelled out apply here, perhaps most significantly including my distaste for that style of play -- and even if I'm right, the referees' approach to one player over the course of a couple dozen games says very little about their approach to an entire team over the course of many years.

I can't remember a college player who was more consistently said to benefit from favorable calls than North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough. His offensive game often seemed to consist of slamming himself into a defender, either knocking him over and scoring, or drawing a foul, which led to him making approximately 19 trillion free throws. During his four years at UNC, I certainly indulged in my share of complaints about referees sending him to the line after he initiated contact and his defender did little more than fall over after being clobbered. But did he, over the course of the ten thousand or so possessions he was involved in, benefit from a disproportionate number of bad calls? I can't say with any confidence that he did. How could I? In fact, I kind of doubt he did in any significant way.

Finally, Len Elmore probably broadcasts a quarter to a third of the Duke games I see each year -- and in doing so provides the one of the best illustrations of the concept of "observer bias" I've ever seen. When a close or questionable call goes Duke's way, Elmore can be counted on to say something like "That kind of thing is why people think Duke gets all the calls." He'll sometimes say that even when he says he thinks it was the right call. But when a close/questionable call goes against Duke, Elmore either ignores it or simply says it was a close/questionable/wrong call. He does not -- not once, in all the games I've seen -- say anything like "That undermines the theory that Duke gets all the calls." The effect this has on viewers and on perceptions about Duke getting favorable calls should be obvious. (Anyone looking for an example of Elmore's conduct in this regard should seek out a copy of the Duke-Temple game from Redick's senior year.)

* Two notes on this: First, note the specificity of my wording. It's possible Redick benefited from favorable calls once he had the ball, or on defense. I never noticed much of a pattern either way on that front; I'm speaking solely of his off-ball movement on offense. Second, I thought at the time that Coach K should compile a video showing the most egregious non-calls to combat the perception that Duke gets all the calls. Referees are, no doubt, aware of that perception, and if I were Duke's coach, I would be worry that they bend over backwards to avoid such perceptions.

UPDATE: One final thing, going back to the idea that people hate Duke because they get all the calls. Even aside from the question of whether that's an accurate perception of officiating, I think it's a bogus explanation. I remember widespread belief that Michael Jordan benefited from favorable calls. But I don't remember him being reviled for it. One more time: Go ahead and hate Duke if it makes you happy. But don't bother with the flawed rationalizations.

Garbage In, Garbage Out: Gallup’s reconciliation polling

A Gallup poll question finding that 52 percent of Americans oppose the use of reconciliation to pass health care legislation is getting a lot of attention from Republicans and the media.  It shouldn’t.  

The Gallup question asked respondents how they would feel about “Democrats in Senate using a parliamentary procedure to avoid a Republican filibuster and pass healthcare bill by simple majority vote.”

At best, that means exactly nothing to most people.  Worse, it sounds devious.  “Using a parliamentary procedure to avoid” makes it seem like some sort of unprecedented trick (it isn't.)  No wonder people oppose it.

Another problem: The question suggests the entire health care reform package would be passed using this trickery.  In fact, reconciliation is generally being considered as a means of passing tweaks to the legislation that has already passed the Senate with 60 votes.

The results would, I suspect, be far different if Gallup asked a much more straightforward question: “Do you think passage of health care legislation should be decided by majority vote?” Or even the more-accurate-but-slightly-more-complicated: “Do you think passage of changes to the recently-passed health care legislation should be decided by majority vote?”

UPDATE: As I noted on The Twitter, if you ask people if they like "“heated ground bovine flesh,” the results will be significantly less reliable than if you ask them about "hamburger." Keep it simple!