Subscribe via RSS Feed

Japanese Flying Fortresses

[ 19 ] September 10, 2014 |

This is a fascinating picture:

Some more information here.

The first B-17 to come under Japanese control was an B-17D which was pieced together from the remnants of other destroyed B-17Ds on Clark Field in the Philippines. The same thing was done to to two B-17Es on Bandung Field on Java. At the time, this was the newest model of the B-17 available. The Japanese were impressed with the simplicity of the cockpit for such a large aircraft. One of the B-17Es was used for a test bed for a captured Norden bombsight, coupled to the Sperry automatic flight control system. Also of great interest was the B-17′s gunnery equipment, especially the Sperry automatic computing gunsight. The May 1943 issue of Koku-Asahi was devoted almost completely to the captured B-17s. Nearly every major component was shown in photos and drawings. Since the Japanese also had instruction manuals for the aircraft, no detail was overlooked.

Share with Sociable

Oh, *that* video

[ 85 ] September 10, 2014 |

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — A law enforcement official says he sent a video of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee to an NFL executive five months ago, while league executives have insisted they didn’t see the violent images until this week.

The person played The Associated Press a 12-second voicemail from an NFL office number on April 9 confirming the video arrived. A female voice expresses thanks and says: “You’re right. It’s terrible.”

[SL] Good questions.

Share with Sociable

About those walking dead…

[ 77 ] September 10, 2014 |


A dead Facebook friend literally went zombie today — a mile-walking app hijacked his account and started posting how far he’d traveled and how many calories he’d burned doing so.

I would’ve been deeply saddened if I didn’t think he’d find it damn hilarious.

But it brings up an interesting question — how would you like to be memorialized online?

For the record, when I die, I encourage everyone to treat it in the spirit I would. Bad jokes aren’t merely welcomed, they’re required. Remember me at my worst best and best worst, is how I’d like it.

If y’all sit shiva and don’t swap “SEK was a world-class dumb-ass” stories, I’d be very disappointed, you know, if I wasn’t dead.


Share with Sociable


[ 27 ] September 10, 2014 |

This semester, I’m taking my first step towards becoming a “genuine” academic by teaching my first class as an adjunct assistant professor at CUNY’s Murphy Institute for Labor Studies. The class in question is Urban Studies 621, “Delivery of Urban Public Services” (which mostly means New York City social welfare services). It’s a fascinating course to teach, not least because the overwhelming majority of my students currently work in New York City social welfare agencies, and thus have an enormous wealth of experience with how urban public services function.

I thought I’d post the syllabus here for anyone interested in the topic. And if anyone has recommendations for more documentaries, I’d love to hear them.

Read more…

Share with Sociable

What Halbig Troofers Are Trying to Do

[ 169 ] September 10, 2014 |

Chait on the political dynamics of the ACA:

In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell — who had vowed publicly and privately to “repeal this monstrosity” — was asked whether he would repeal the insurance exchange in his own state, and replied with word salad (“I think that’s unconnected to my comments about the overall question here”). When asked about repealing his state’s Medicaid expansion, he replied, “I don’t know that it will be taken away from them.”

Unpopular Pennsylvania Republican Governor Tom Corbett recently agreed to accept Medicaid expansion. Four more Republican governors — in Tennessee, Utah, Indiana, and Wyoming — have taken steps toward following suit. In Washington, the river of attacks against Obamacare issuing from Republicans has slowed to a trickle. (The number of Congressional news releases attacking the law has fallen by 75 percent this summer from last.) The Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson is warning darkly of an “anti-repeal wing” within the party. “Root and branch repeal is starting to look more like twig and leaf,” concedes Reason’s Peter Suderman.


The Republican crusade against Obamacare is not ending; rather, it is shrinking and mutating. The party base will demand a presidential nominee who promises to repeal the hated law, just as it did in 2012. But the next Republican candidate will be running in an environment where repealing the law would create millions and millions of now-identifiable victims. Since the start of the year, Obamacare has gone from a weakness Republicans were salivating at the chance to exploit to an issue they no longer want to talk about. Two years from now, matters could be worse still.

The desperation of the Halbig troofers is, in this sense, rational; the more the ACA is entrenched, and the more beneficiaries it has, the harder it is to get rid off.

Which makes it a good time to make clear what the troofers — not to mention the Republicans who won’t take the Medicaid expansion — are trying to accomplish:

In a five month span, however, two things changed that offered Jenn a new chance at life. The first was a double lung transplant. On August 29, 2013, Jenn received two new lungs that were free of cystic fibrosis. Not long thereafter, she drew her first breath as an adult from lungs that were not constantly filling up with choking mucus. Although Jenn will be on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of her life, she can now speak on the phone again. Her husband Eder can touch her face again or kiss her cheek again without triggering a fit of coughing. Jenn is not confined to a hospital anymore. She lifts kettlebells instead.

The second change came on the first day of 2014 when the most important provisions of the Affordable Care Act took full effect. That meant that, for the first time in her life, Jenn knew that, no matter what happened, she would have health insurance. For Jenn, Obamacare means that insurers must cover her, despite her expensive preexisting condition. And it means that she is not facing a death sentence if she is unable to obtain health insurance through her own job or her husband’s.

Except for the fact that a group of lawyers are trying to take this certainty away from her. Last July, two Republican judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted to defund much of the Affordable Care Act, including provisions which ensure that Jenn’s insurance is affordable. Moreover, although the full DC Circuit recently withdrew this decision and announced that it would rehear the case before a much larger panel of 13 judges, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have not exactly hidden their desire to get this case before the conservative Roberts Court where four justices already voted once to repeal Obamacare. If the justices ultimately take this case, which is known as Halbig v. Burwell, and if one more of them agrees that Obamacare should be defunded, that could trigger a death spiral that could collapse the law’s health insurance marketplace in much of the country.

Five men in Washington could sentence Jenn to the same uncertainty she endured before the Affordable Care Act. They could potentially sentence her to die.


On January 1, 2014, Jennifer Causor woke for the first time knowing that, no matter what direction her health turned, she would at least live without fear that she would not be able to afford treatment. She shared that certainty with millions of Americans who once feared that each trip to the doctor would bring a choice between death and bankruptcy.

Eight days before next Christmas, a lawyer will walk into a courtroom, approach a podium, and stand before 13 judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He will then open his mouth, and in a calm, lawyerly manner, ask those judges to take from Jenn the certainty Obamacare has given her.

Freedom! And for that matter, the same thing applies to people who would have forgone the passage of health care reform until it was possible to pass the Single Payer and a Pony Act of 4545.

Share with Sociable

Wednesday Odds and Ends

[ 98 ] September 10, 2014 |

Last night I was at a loss as to what to make for dinner. I knew two things: I wanted to use some salmon and I wanted to use up some of the fresh veggies in my fridge. So here’s what I did…

  1. I sautéed some thinly-sliced onions, fennel, tomatoes, and zucchini in olive oil, salting and peppering to taste .
  2. I deglazed the pan with a generous splash of white wine and dumped in some chicken stock, along with some tomato paste.
  3. I let everything simmer together for several minutes. I was basically just trying to make a vegged-up tomato-fennel broth, which is my favorite thing to bathe seafood in.
  4. I nestled four salmon fillets in the broth and covered everything until the fillets were cooked through.
  5. I served the salmon fillets, veggies and broth over rice. I topped everything with some fresh fennel fronds. O…M…G.
  • Whenever I hear about the money woes of wealthy and/or upper-middle-class people it always strikes that those woes are due to extremely poor budgeting skills. And then I wonder why people who are poor or middle class are expected to live within in their means but rich people aren’t. I mean, isn’t that the weirdest thing?
  • I actually only watched a handful of episodes of “Homicide” back in the day, but I remember it being a chronically low-rated critics’ darling. So I’m not sure why I found this Margaret Lyons article arguing that the show was underrated so compelling–I really have no dog in the “which is the best cop drama?” fight. Speaking of which, which is your favorite cop drama?
  • Here’s a wonderful summation of #GamerGate.
  • As always, Alicublog is a great read.

Here’s my latest:

In Darkness Forged

Share with Sociable

Lillian Gobitas Klose

[ 16 ] September 10, 2014 |


Minersville School District v. Gobitis was one of the darker days in Supreme Court history. The Court upheld a mandatory flag salute statute that caused Gobitas to be expelled when she refused to comply. The opinion was authored by Felix Frankfurter, who on the Court was sort of the liberal equivalent of Scalia. At times, he seemed to revel in the fact that his opinions would produce bad consequences, even if they contradicted his principles and even if there was pertinent constitutional language that would seem to permit a favorable application.  And in this case, the bad consequences were immediate and severe: Jehovah’s Witnesses were subjected to a wave of not only school expulsions but violence. Fortunately, the Supreme Court quickly corrected its error, with several justices (although not Frankfurter) changing their votes. This produced one of the most famous passages in the United States Reports, from Justice Jackson’s majority opinion:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Of course, where many contemporary universities are concerned, this needs to be amended with “one exception occurs to us: when unorthodox opinions upset the development office.”

Share with Sociable

Cats vs. Stocks

[ 54 ] September 9, 2014 |

I have no idea why one would compare stocks with cats, except that capitalism and cats are both objectively evil and want to exploit us for profit, however they define it. So if you have to be exploited, it might as well be by something cute and fluffy.

According to new stats from the Federal Reserve, just 13.8% of U.S. families held any individual stocks like Apple (AAPL, Tech30) or Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) as of 2013. That’s down from nearly 18% in 2007 before the market meltdown.

“After experiencing severe losses in 2007 and 2008, investors with smaller portfolios have become more cautious,” said Lena Haas, senior vice president of retirement, investing and savings at E*Trade Financial (ETFC).

While less than 14% of families directly held stocks in 2013, 30% of households own at least one cat, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Share with Sociable


[ 19 ] September 9, 2014 |

Pretty impressive performance, considering.  I’m not sure what the upside is — obviously, a more coordinated opposition campaign would have generated more action from the incumbent — but in a world of competent pundits nobody would talk about Cuomo as a viable national candidate ever again.

Also, as a corrective to people who like lazy “Liberal NYC versus the conservative ‘upstate’” narratives, note that Teachout won every eastern county north of Orange County to the Adirondacks, generally by large margins, but Cuomo slaughtered her in New York City.

Share with Sociable

Salaita: The Derp Never Stops

[ 177 ] September 9, 2014 |

I don’t have the heart to say much about this Louis Liebovich op-ed; every argument in it is so feeble that even linking to it seems like an act of cruelty.  Most of it consists of “if things were different, they wouldn’t be the same” non-sequiturs.  Yes, if the hiring process involved picking one person at random and not looking into their record, this would be problematic.  Yes, if Salaita had somehow managed to never teach a student who supported Israeli policy, his teaching evaluations would be less meaningful. In the absence of any actual evidence that these things are true, the hypotheticals are also entirely irrelevant, and his evidence-free attack on the professionalism of the department and the school’s administration is a disgrace.

Still, I would have let this go without the following remarkable paragraph:

What was it about an English professor at Virginia Tech, who is not a Native American, that made him the choice for a tenured position with a salary of $85,000? What kind of research has he completed? How many books and articles has he published? Who were the other candidates, if there were other candidates, and why was he more qualified than the others?

Whoa, what was that?

who is not a Native American

Seriously, someone launching a volley of unwarranted attacks on the professionalism and competence of other academics is suggesting that one has to be Native American to teach in an American Indian Studies department? I just…wow. (Should I be barred from teaching American government because I was born in Canada? Should I be barred from teaching constitutional law because I never served on the Supreme Court?) I’ll be charitable and just assume Liebovich is arguing in bad faith here. As for the rest, I’ll defer to the committee of experts whose judgment I have no basis for second-guessing over someone with nothing to offer but a bunch of weaselly rhetorical questions with no factual basis.

Liebovich also asserts without argument that Salaita has tweeted “anti-Semitic remarks.” This brings us to Liel Leibovitz, who has…well, not exactly a response to critics of his first post on the subject as some words that give the vague appearance of a response:

And, for the most part, Salaita’s defenders have spent the past week engaging in linguistic acrobatics that may be the stuff of legend in undergraduate semiotics classes but that are intellectually and morally worthless once they engage with the world at large, where words still sometimes have meanings and are treated as more than playthings to be molded and reshaped according to the most au courant theory. (For a particularly fine example of tongue twisting and tortured logic, see the unimprovably named essay “Clownish conflation of ascription and achievement constitutes calumny,” a missive whose very title says a thing or two about the clarity of its author’s vision).

I could just note that the closest Leibovitz comes to an actual response to a lengthy, carefully argued response to his argument is to go “neener-neener” at the title and drop the mic. But I do think that the verbiage he uses to evade a substantive argument is also instructive. It seems to be a random assemblage of words taken from a 90s culture-war essay draft Roger Kimball rejected as being too lazy and cliched.

Look, you don’t need semiotics or deconstruction or Robert Mapplethorpe or Piss Christ or any other “au courant” theory to see that Leibovitz’s implication of anti-Semitism is not supported by the tweets in question. You just need an old-fashioned, minimally honest effort to understand what he’s trying to say. First of all, it’s not absolutely impossible that someone who tweeted things like “[t]hat particular look has been used to dehumanize Jews for many centuries, to nefarious ends” and “I believe that Jewish and Arab children are equal in the eyes of God. Equal rights for everybody, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, etc.” is an anti-Semite, but it seems highly unlikely. And even with respect to the isolated tweet in question, Leibovitz’s reading (“something that doesn’t exist has gone from horrible to honorable”) makes absolutely no sense even in itself, while the alternative reading does. (In this sense, my comparison of Leibovitz’s reading to the Halbig troofers is unfair — to the troofers. At least their reading makes sense if you make the mistake of focusing solely on the isolated passage.) Putting the tweet in context makes it obvious that he was arguing that the conflation of criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was undermining the very real and very bad latter thing, not that anti-Semitism is imaginary. Salaita has tweeted things one can object to on multiple grounds, but as for evidence that he’s an anti-Semite (a crucial question if we’re going to throw academic freedom out the window), his critics have nothing.

Despite the more intelligent language, the rest of his argument has all the same problems as Liebovich’s. I have no idea if Leibovitz is right about the one book (a collection of essays written for a general audience, and hence not the first place you’d start if examining only one if his works) he criticizes. Again, I see no reason not to defer to the committee of actual experts who examined his entire record versus other candidates over a non-expert who has already reached a pre-determined conclusion examining one of his books.

And the attempted boundary-policing of other fields — “other titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the Sioux or the Seminoles” — is silly even as a pretext. First of all, I’m not inclined to think that it’s up to scholars of American politics, video games, or anything else to determine what constitutes content relevant to the field of Native American Studies. And more importantly, even if I did feel strongly about what the content qualifications should be, it seems obvious that the appropriate remedy is for the administration to make its case before the fact or at least during the actual hiring process, not to yank a job offer after the new hire and spouse have resigned their positions and been scheduled to teach classes. But needless to say nobody really opposes Salaita because they think he’s not qualified; they oppose him because they disagree with his substantive views. Which is fine — I even agree the criticisms in some cases — but this cannot be a firable offense if academic freedom means anything.

I’ll conclude with these thoughts from Corey Robin:

[I]t takes a long time to familiarize yourself with a literature and a field, to understand its debates, its ins and outs. I deeply resent it when someone thinks they can just dive-bomb into a discussion I’m a part of without having done some background work of his (and it is, almost always, a dude) own: not because I have a fetish for expertise or academic authority but because I respect the work of intellectual labor, the amount of dedication, effort, and stamina that is required to truly understand and master a set of arguments. I respect people who’ve done the work—and expect that respect in turn. That some academics, who have no background or demonstrated record in Salaita’s field (indeed, can’t even bother to figure out what his field of expertise actually is), think they can now just hunt around his books and articles in order to draw fatal conclusions about his talents shows a profound disrespect for our collective enterprise. Indeed, a profound disrespect for themselves.

Share with Sociable

If They Didn’t Know, It’s Because They Didn’t Want to Know

[ 129 ] September 9, 2014 |

Sally Jenkins:

That Goodell is an unduly vain commissioner, and a self-serving one with his eye on some further prize, has always been obvious. That he obfuscates and evades on tough issues unless they are convenient for him, that his convictions are highly selective and so is his enforcement, has never been more apparent. On Monday morning, with the surfacing of that video, Goodell’s nature became totally clear. The NFL claims in a statement that no one in the league office had previously seen the tape. That is almost surely not the truth, unless the NFL wanted it that way. This is a league that works with Homeland Security, confers with the Drug Enforcement Agency, collaborates with law enforcement and has its own highly equipped and secretive private security arm. You’re telling me it couldn’t get a hold of a grainy tape from an Atlantic City casino elevator? But TMZ could?

If NFL executives and Baltimore Ravens staff had never seen that tape before, there are only two reasons: willful blindness, and the determination to maintain plausible deniability. Two NFL analysts with reputations for impeccable sources, Peter King of Sports Illustrated and Chris Mortensen of ESPN, were told months ago the league had to have seen the tape. Ray Rice’s own attorney had a copy of it. It simply defies belief that league and team officials couldn’t have seen it if they wanted to.

Magary on why your commissioner sucks:

But we don’t need that evidence when common sense can fill in the gaps. The NFL had every chance to look at the tape ages ago. There was NO good reason to deliberately avoid it. Consider:

  • Roger Goodell really likes suspending players, as a way of consolidating power in his office.
  • Roger Goodell really likes making STRONG statements, as a way of ginning up good public relations.
  • Anyone investigating the incident is going to want to see the tape in order to to nail down every last detail.
  • The tape was bound to surface at some point anyway. Lots of people had seen it. Lots of people had talked to people who’d seen it. A random Deadspin tipster, emailing us shortly after the arrest, knew what was on the tape, down to the detail—confirmed today by the AP—that Palmer had spit on Rice.
  • Legally speaking, nothing good can come from avoiding the tape.
  • You could probably guess what was on the tape, given that the other tape shows Ray Rice dragging his unconscious fiancée out into the casino lobby.

Now, Roger Goodell is a big stupid meathead of a guy, but even he isn’t stupid enough to say, “Hey, let’s be shady and bury this thing forever just to protect Ray Rice MWAHAHAHAHAHA.” No way, man. They saw the tape. Of course they saw the tape. They knew what was on there, and they heard Janay Rice state her case in person with her hubby and Goodell and four other high-ranking league and Ravens assholes right there, and they thought, sure, two games sounds all right. And that logic filtered through the league office, down to the Ravens, out to national media hand puppets like Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen, and it hardened into the conventional wisdom. Everything is easily explained if you accept that these are all a bunch of stupid men who think very much alike.

As of right now, the NFL is doing everything in its power to make you believe that it would never be so insensitive, but it’s failing miserably. No lifetime suspension or display of league righteousness will make up for the glaring lack of anger over the past few months. There was no good reason not to watch that tape. They saw it, and they thought little of it, and now they’re praying you don’t notice.

In conclusion, let’s move right along and drive a dumptruck of taxpayer money up to Dan Snyder’s house! To replace a stadium that’s not 20 years old!

…and, yes, it’s worth noting that multiple well-connected not only said that the NFL had seen the contents of the tape, but the league sources accurately described its contents at the time.  The NFL saw the tape; saying otherwise is just a massive intelligence-insulting operation.

Share with Sociable

Where “Incivility” = “Language that Makes University Administrators and Wealthy Donors Uncomfortable”

[ 52 ] September 9, 2014 |

The broad-based attack on “incivility” from academics continues. But of course “civility” can only be defined as language that makes the administrator class comfortable. Given that these administrators see themselves as equivalent to corporate CEOs, this also means they want the power to fire anyone who they deem “uncivil,” which means nothing more than “language that makes them or wealthy donors uncomfortable.” That the University of California chancellor used the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement to make this claim is especially galling.

Share with Sociable
Page 50 of 1,914« First...1020304849505152607080...Last »