1st and Five: The Weekly Tendown, June 13-19 2010. Special Halfdown Edition.

Dear Internet:

I never fell into the "Why is Julia Roberts with Lyle Lovett" place; they were physically mismatched, sure, but it wasn't as if Lyle Lovett was a guy from Brody Jenner's posse; there are reasons to date someone beyond just the physical.

That said - Padma's gotta do better, right?  Not can do better, but needs to.  For the baby's sake if nothing else. 

Tendown officially opposes this situation.

Now, on the other hand:

Snooki and David Lee is something we can totally get behind. 

If you know all four of those people on sight, I apologize.  Welcome to my world.  Let's do some Tendown 31.

First: A Tragedy of the First Proportion
I've got 45 minutes to write Tendown this week, as I'm moving (tonight is my last night in the house I've owned for a decade; it would be a little emotional for me; the largest failure of my life as I'm unable to keep my house as a result of the Panic of 2008 - but it's not, there's air conditioning in the house we rented this week - and I'll take cool over everything else during what is currently the hottest June in south Florida history) and need to get back to the furniture store.  So, what is normally a 4-6 hour Sunday process will have to be severely truncated.

The one element of the week I wanted to cover was Joe Barton, the ranking Republican on energy - saying this to BP CEO Tony Hayward about Obama's securing from BP a promise to put 20 billion dollars in escrow for the damage it continues, daily, to cause, on the Gulf Coast:

I’m ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown

Barton's taken 1.4 million from Big Oil in campaign contributions.

His very top is contributor Anadarko Petroleum from which he's received $146,500.  Anadarko has a 25% stake in the still gushing BP well and has received a bill for its cleanup.

The right wing came to Barton's defense. 

And why not? 

After all, they don't think Obama should have anything to do with the BP leak - it's a problem caused by and to be solved by private industry.

Except when they're calling it Obama's Katrina.  Then it's "why didn't the President act more quickly."

Michelle Bachmann called the escrow account redistribution of wealth.  Yeah!  That's what it is!  Socialism!  Which we don't like. 

Except that two weeks ago Bachmann said Obama should be seizing ships to clean up the spill.:

The administration, they were hands off. They didn’t do anything. Where were the boats that could have been commandeered by the government to be sent into this region to deal with that oil plume as it was coming up in the water and destroying marine life? Nowhere to be found. Why? The administration was hands off on this policy.

But it's really a federalism issue, of course.  You know - the right wing is very concerned with issues of limited government.  That's why Barry Goldwater, Bill Buckley, William Rehnquist - and 45 years later, Rand Paul were opposed to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - it's just not the role of the federal government to interfere in the private decisions of a corporation - that use of power is creepy and dictatorial.  Yeah!  That's what it is!  Yeah!  Dictatorial!

Except of course when it came to George Bush's unitary theory of the executive branch.  Bush used signing statements to lay the groundwork for the most expansive view of Presidential power ever offered in the history of the United States.  We just spent a decade in which the executive branch put forth unprecedented programs of domestic spying and torture, and did so with the argument that Presidential power could go unchecked.  From the Boston Globe in 2006:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.


David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive-power issues, said Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore.

(Greenwald, by the way, dead on about Obama carrying on Bush's civil liberties record).


This is not that complicated.  Those actions - spying, torture - those actions were aimed at the powerless. When a restaurant or a hotel would refuse service to someone due to race - or refuse to hire or promote someone due to race or gender - those actions were aimed at people who had less power.

And the right wing stands with power.  And that's all.

And when it comes to putting restrictions on health insurance companies in order to make health care more affordable - when it comes to securing 20 billion dollars from BP to aid victims of the environmental catastrophe caused by its negligence - those actions were aimed at the powerful. 

And the right wing stands with power.  And that's all. 
It's not small government.  The right wing wants to drop bombs, keep gays from marrying, and tell a pregnant woman what do do with her womb.  It's power.  They worship it.

A Republican congressman sees a corporation that made 6 billion in profit in the first quarter of 2010 and says that securing 20 billion dollars over 4 years from that corporation is a "tragedy of the first proportion."

A Republican congressman sees a CEO who made 4.9 million dollars in 2009 and personally apologizes to him for the actions of the President. 

The right wing loves power.  That's it and that's all. 

After the jump - the rest of the Tendown.  Another 1st and 5 this week. 

1st and Ten: The Weekly Tendown, June 6-12 2010

 Dear Internet:

Do you know the bystander effect?

Excellent.  Here's Tendown 30.

First:  The Circle K Fallacy

Okay, so the bystander effect is the sociological phenomenon which says that we get our behavioral cues from those around us - and because of that, in situations which require fairly quick action, we are less likely to do anything at all the more we are surrounded by others.  Like this - I've seen these experiments; students are in an enclosed room filling out applications when smoke begins to come from underneath the door; not so much smoke that it's the end of the world, but enough that it's noticeable.  When a student is by himself, he leaves the room to go get help.  But when there are a group of students, they just sit there, frozen, because they're all waiting for someone else to act.  If you ever need help, like you're being attacked or you've got chicken lodged in your windpipe, you're better off having it happen in front of one person than in front of 20. 

I've added a corollary to that - the Circle K Fallacy.

The Circle K fallacy is that we overestimate the correlation between popularity and merit to such an extent that it inhibits our ability to make qualitative decisions.

Like this.

There's a Circle K near my house, it has one gasoline pump out front.  No one is ever there.  Literally, I've never once seen anyone pumping gas there who wasn't me.

It's next to a gas station and across the street from a gas station.  Larger, dozens of pumps, full on gas stations that are almost always completely full.  I live in an urban, high traffic area. 

The price of the gas is always almost to the penny the same.  The Circle K, at the very most, might be a penny or two more.  At the most.

But no one goes there.  People are more inclined to wait for a pump at the station next to it then go to the Circle K.

I did that myself, once, maybe twice.  One day as I was pumping gas and looking at the empty Circle K, I thought how odd my own decision making was - and I realized that it wasn't that I had coolly reflected upon the various merits of the gas stations and made a critical decision to choose the Chevron - it was instead that something about the Circle K just struck me wrong, wrong in a fleeting but still real way, and in a split second "do I turn here or here" choice, a choice made almost preconsciously - I went with the Chevron.

And in getting to that thought, it wasn't long before it became evident that why the Circle K seemed "off" is because there was no one there.  And my brain clearly processed "no one at that gas station is weird, given the circumstance, therefore, there must be something wrong with that gas station."

How many people, do you suppose, went through that same decision making process?  Choosing the gas station where all the people were, even if there was no reason to believe the popular gas station was any better.  Over and over it repeats.  One business succeeds, one fails.  It's like how tip jars are never empty (or shouldn't be) - they put some money in a tip jar so the customers will get the cue that the right thing to do is to tip.  Hey, other people are tipping, says the subconscious mind, I can tip too. 

The only reason I wasn't going to the Circle K was because no one else was going there. 

And now I go to the Circle K.  I'm always the only guy at the pump.

So, having had that thought - I asked if there were places (other than the tipping thing) where the fallacy was replicated.

Men - let me ask you a question.

Have you had this experience - the time when you are clearly of most interest to women is when you are already in a relationship.

Circle K fallacy.

If there's a guy without a girlfriend, who isn't dating, women are likely to think "well, something must be wrong with him - if he was valuable, he'd have someone."  Even if that thought isn't fully formed - it's there - 'cause there's a vacant pump, no reason to think it's defective, but they'd rather wait in line at the Chevron.

But the second you get a girlfriend, are in a relationship, are openly and notoriously in a relationship - suddenly women are driving up and asking for 20 dollars of premium unleaded. 

I'm almost 40 years old, I've been dating for almost a quarter of a century - and it's been my life without fail; long stretches of singleness during which there was barely a date to be found - and then, as soon as I coupled up - women who previously showed no interest are hitting on me brazenly.

(Note - this will seem like it's just cover because I'm trying to avoid the following conversation from my Lady Type Friend "who is she, who is this person you were writing about, I have lots of other options myself, Mister, don't think I can't get on Facebook in eleven seconds and have a swarm of gas stations who will stay open all night just for me" but this is entirely past tense in my life; when you hit middle age and work 7 days a week, there's not a lot of women pressing their phone numbers into your palm; I'm sure there are guys my age who can carry on affairs, but Jesus, who has the energy?)

I'd assume that, to an extent, it works in the opposite way - you know that trope where there's the sort of plain girl next door with the glasses and the frumpy clothes who is totally in love with the guy and who the guy obviously should be with why can't he just see how perfect she really is for him?  If she gets a boyfriend, then he'll notice.  Why?  Circle K fallacy. 

No one goes to that restaurant, it must not be any good.  Someone else is paying a hundred grand for a wedding, that must be the right amount.  None of the major politicians supports a dramatic increase in the top marginal tax rate in order to raise revenue, therefore, it must not be an idea worth discussing. 

Circle K fallacy.

We take our social cues from others.  Not only during crisis, but at the marketplace.  The marketplace of goods, the marketplace of people, the marketplace of ideas.  If no one else is there, there must be a good reason.

After the jump, the rest of the Tendown

2010 Wrestling Matches of the Year

I consider every match I rate at 4 1/2 and up to be a MOTY contender; last year, I saw 42 such matches.  My 2009 MOTY post is here. My match of the decade post for the first decade of the millennium is here.  And my list of the current best wrestlers in the world is here. (Edit - I've now finished the year off and put the top matches in order, you can get to that post here.)

I think I've seen every significant WWE, TNA, NOAH, New Japan, and Dragon's Gate match through May (December of 2009 counts with this year's matches, so we're halfway home).  I'm in March for most of the US indie shows.  I don't watch much lucha.  Some puroresu slips through the cracks, but I really try hard to see everything that might be a contender.  My bias is toward athleticism, as one can see when looking at my lists.  Sometimes that's spots, sometimes stiffness, sometimes otherwise impactful moves - but that's essentially what I care about when I watch wrestling matches. I've got 10 matches at 4 1/2 and up thusfar in the relevant period - and am considering the Davey Richards/Kota Ibushi from the Evolve debut as current MOTY.

I've got Kenta/Marufuji from June 6 on my hard drive right now.  Right now!  

(edit - I think my favorite match now is Marufuji/Devitt 3 from June, another edit - I just this second finished Death Before Dishonor VIII - I think the main event was 5 stars. I'm now solidly into October for every promotion in the world.)


Marufuji v. Devitt (NJ Dec 09) 4 ¾
Go v. Suguira (NOAH Dec 09) 4 ½
Marufuji v. Kanemoto (NJ Mar) 4 ½
Davey v. Ibushi (Evolve Jan) 4 ¾
Yoshikawa/Usuda v. Hidaka/Sawa (Battlearts Feb) 4 ¾
Dick Togo v. BKK (Osaka Feb) 4 ½
Goto v. Nakamura (NJ Apr) 4 ¾
Black v. Strong v. Aries (ROH Apr) 4 ½
Shingo v. Yamato (DGate May) 4 ½
Briscoes v. Wolves (ROH – March) 4 ¾
Richards v. Strong (PWG-Apr) 4 1/2
Shingo v. Hulk (DGate July) 4 ½
Marufuji v. Devitt (June NJ) 4 ¾
Marufuji v. Kanemaru (July NOAH) 4 1/2
Yoshino/Hulk/Doi v. Quackenbush/Jigsaw/Hallowicked (July Chikara) 4 1/2
Suguira v. Takayama (July NOAH) 4 1/2
Suguira v. Taniguchi (July NOAH) 4 1/2
Kensuke v. Go (July Noah) 4 ½
Briscoes v. Kings of Wrestling (June ROH) 4 1/2
Black v. Richards (June ROH) 5
Suguira v. Akiyama (August NOAH) 4 1/2
Kenta/Suguira v. Go/Morishima (Aug NOAH) 4 3/4
Go v. Nakamura (Aug NOAH) 4 ½
Suwama v. Suzuki (Aug AJ) 4 3/4
Black v. Richards (August ROH) 4 3/4
Kenta v. Kanemaru (September NOAH) 4 1/2
Hero v. Ryan (Sep PWG) 4 1/2
Davey v. Kanemoto (Sept NJ) 4 3/4
Kenta/Aoki v. Strong/Edwards (Oct Noah) 4 1/2
Yuji/Kanemoto v. Go/Aoki (Oct NJ) 4 1/2
Omega/Ibushi v. Devitt/Taguchi (Oct NJ) 4 1/2

At the 60 Game Mark - 2010 MLB All Star Ballot (and Giants draft thoughts)

We're now right about at 60 games into the baseball season; I did this at the 40 game mark also; it's my current All-Star ballot.  Each league's roster is 34, with 13 pitchers.  I've got one rep from each team.  Solely based on performance to date.

NL
C Olivo, Blanco, Hundley
1B Pujols, Votto, Huff
2B Utley, Prado, Johnson
SS Tulowitzki, Eckstein
3B Wright, Rolen, Zimmerman
OF Holliday, McCutcheon, Pagan, Torres, Ethier, Byrd
DH Willingham

P Jimenez (MVP, Cy)
   Wainwright
   Gallardo
   Leake
   Pelfrey
   Hernandez
   Johnson
   Hudson
   Oswalt
   Garcia
   Halladay
   Clippard
   Broxton

-Heyward just misses; he loses the spot to Byrd because of the need for a Cub; obviously, in the real world, he'll be on the team.  I'd expect Gonzalez to pass Huff and probably Votto too to backup at 1st.  Note that the Mets backup catcher Blanco is still on the team, but just barely; he could easily be replaced by Ruiz right now.  The DH is now a permanent All-Star fixture.

AL
C Mauer, Jaso, J. Molina
1B Morneau, Youkilis, Cabrera
2B Cano (MVP), Zobrist, Hudson
SS Andrus, Gonzalez
3B Longoria, Rodriguez, Beltre
OF Gutierrez, Crawford, Wells, Kearns, Swisher, DeJesus
DH Rios

P Romero
   Lester
   Price
   Verlander
   Buchholz
   Marcum
   Weaver
   Carmona
   Fister
   Pettitte
   Guthrie
   Valverde (Cy)
   Bailey

Bautista loses his spot to DeJesus because of the need for a Royal (I like, incidentally, the need to get a representative from every team; probably because it presents an additional challenge); Cruz is coming off the DL and might be able to nip Swisher for that last spot.  Unlikely that Romero will actually be the AL starter (or that a closer, Valverde, will win the Cy Young) but there isn't an obvious replacement yet.  Lester is rising and might be the choice by the 80 game mark when I do this again. 

I didn't love the Giants draft; it was frustrating to see all of the MLB Network guys analyze my club before our pick and agree that lack of "athleticism" is our obvious problem.  We can't hit the ball - but still, when a smart guy like Peter Gammons looks at our primary need, he wants to see speed.  Speed's what we drafted; I would have rather taken one of the bats - Brentz or Cox - in fact, just before our pick, I was thinking about all the in-game announcer puns should we take Cox, "The Giant Cox steps into the box" that kind of thing.  Coincidentally, the scouting report on Brown (true story) is that he is struggling with the switch from aluminum bats - so had we passed him up for that reason to take Cox, maybe something like "Giant Cox Superior Wood Swinger; Brown Prefers Pipe."

Sabean always taking away my fun.

Or we could have taken Brentz.  Also fine. 

1st and Five: The Weekly Tendown, A Special Halfdown May 30-June 5 2010

Dear Internet:

Jason Bateman and Dustin Hoffman get their makeout on for the Kiss Cam.

I got nothin'.

Let's do some Tendown 29!

First: You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train

The LA School District this week announced that the Arizona Show Your Papers law would become part of the civics curriculum.  Although the passed provison was facially neutral - commentary by the school board President suggested that the Arizona law was "anti-American" - and in the linked piece, law professor Jonathan Turley expressed concern that the way it might be presented in class might be slanted:

I have long supported schools incorporating such public issues into civics discussion to tie foundational principles to contemporary examples. Arizona’s law could make for some interesting debate and thought-provoking questions. However, only if it is taught in a neutral way and elicits discussion on both perspectives — not just opposition to the law. The message from the board appears to be that the classes should characterize the law as akin to racism and anti-Semitism. That would seem more like indoctrination than education.

This is, let me suggest, trickier than Turley presents.

Should every issue be presented in a neutral way?  Is it possible to do so?

Understandably, we want to lurch toward an idea of fairness - ideas aren't math problems, there isn't a "correct" answer to the question "is the show your papers law anti-American" in the way that we know 2+2=4 (or in the way we know that evolution is true; which adds another plank to this discussion; "teach the controversy" has become the creationist mantra for the past couple of decades - it was the position taken by Bush 43, that "both sides" of the evolution "debate" should be taught - as if the two possibilities of human existence were (1) the best analysis of the facts as currently knowable to us or (2) Genesis.  Oh...just briefly, the reason Christians really, and I mean really don't want that "controversy" taught - is we'd have to apply the same standard of rigor in evaluating evidence to creationism as we do toward actual science - and that would be a bit of a massacre. No one really argues that 2+2=7 or that Thursday comes before Wednesday should receive equal time; we could collectively decide that "facts do not exist" in a post-Foucaldian fashion should be a greater element of public school education - but it would make it kinda difficult to grade papers.  Certainly would have helped my Chemistry grade junior year:

The atomic weights of oxygen and of carbon are 16.0 and 12.0, respectively. How much heavier is the oxygen atom in relation to carbon?



Correct Solution: Atomic weights represent the relative masses of different kinds of atoms. This means that the atom of oxygen has a mass that is 16/12 = 4/3 ≈ 1.33 as great as the mass of a carbon atom.

My Answer: 4

But if my answer is motivated by my sincerely held belief that Avogadro's number is merely a secular theory designed to strip me of my religious heritage; one that would later lead to the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust, then clearly I should have gotten credit; otherwise I am being denied my religious liberty.  Sort of like the recent argument from military chaplains that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would be infringing upon their free exercise right to discriminate against gays.)

Which sort of gets us to the right spot.

We can agree, you and I and Professor Turley, that a math teacher should teach that 1+1=2 without room for much interpretation.

Let's put that on one end.  I'd suggest to you gravity, the heliocentric universe and evolution are pretty near that end.

On the extreme other end, there are some matters that we can largely agree are matters solely of taste.  Cake is better than pie.  Vanilla is better than chocolate.  Unlikely we want to teach those things as matters which are knowable.   

Where's the Holocaust on that scale?  Not "did it happen" - but "what does it mean"?

Or slavery?  Is the role of the instructor to look to have a balanced discussion about the merits of genocide? 

Turley, even as he's saying that a condemnation of the Show Your Papers law would be an inappropriate use of the classroom puts that law in contrast with racism and anti Semitism; by clear implication, Turley is saying that racism isn't a matter of opinion, that it is a clear wrong, should be taught as a clear wrong - that racism looks more like math than like dessert preference.

Once we move from a position that the job of the instructor is total neutrality about matters not factual we open the door to interpretation.  If Professor Turley takes for himself the ability to say the Holocaust was an atrocity - or that the conception of slavery, placing one man in a legally subordinate position to another man based solely on race, was "anti-American", given the stated comittment in our founding documents to the principle of all men being created equal - then presumably ideas are not all to be presented neutrally - ideas are presented in the manner in which they are most reasonably understood.

I'd argue that the most reasonable way to view Show Your Papers is that it's anti-American; that the essence of our criminal justice system is we place a burden not to prove innocence - but to prove guilt.  The reason we have a 4th Amendment is to make the government demonstrate good cause before accusing us of crimes; if the government wants to come into my house to investigate me, it needs something more than just suspicion; it needs probable cause.  We don't like in a country where the police pull your car over just to do.  We don't live in a country where, if you're walking down the street, you'd better have an ID at the ready.

Or at least we didn't used to.  This is the slippery slope in action.  Twenty years ago, we had a debate about drug testing in high school sports.  The government decided that, despite the language of the 4th Amendment, high school athletes could have their bodies searched, even if there were no suspicion at all of illegal activity.

I'd suggest to you this is anti-American.  I don't need to prove myself innocent.

Ten years ago, after 9-11, there were checkpoints placed in subways, there were patdowns in front of football stadiums.  The government argued that, despite the language of the 4th Amendment, the threat of terrorism required that we could have our property searched, even if there were no suspicion at all of illegal activity.

I'd suggest to you this is anti-American.  I don't need to prove myself innocent.

I shouldn't be allowed to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, despite first amendment language.  It poses an immediate threat to life.  Okay.  Fair exception.

I shouldn't be allowed to walk onto an airplane without going through a metal detector, despite fourth amendment language.  It poses an immediate threat to life.  Okay.  Fair exception.

Show Your Papers isn't that.  We can have a debate about the level of  "crisis" that undocumented immigration possesses - I'd argue it's fairly small in the universe of current American problems - but there's not a reasonable argument that it's the functional equivalent of getting on an airplane.

And that's not really the point, I recognize - the point is, as an instructor, what is my role - once we open the door and are willing to acknowledge a non-neutrality on ideas like "racism and anti-Semitism" - to what does that lead?

I don't have a good answer.  When it's the Texas School Board officially casting doubt on the separation of church and state, I think it's contrary to the manifest weight of historical evidence, but I get that pretty quickly we hit a whose ox is being gored place.

The problem is, as Howard Zinn observed, "you can't stay neutral on a moving train" - the idea of instructor as neutral arbiter doesn't exist;  we can offer rigorous analysis and offer that analysis from multiple perspectives - but just because multiple views exist, that doesn't mean they are all equally valid.  The ministers linked above are arguing that homosexuality is harmful and sinful - how much class time should that view get?  Should that view be presented neutrally?  Not much more than two generations ago a state like Virginia had a law against interracial marriage.  Would a Los Angeles high school teacher have been out of line by branding it un-American?  90 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the forced sterilization of those judged mentally incompetent was constitutionally permissible.  What was the level of neutrality required when considering that?  Or Japanese internment?  Or Indian removal?

I get that it's hard; no, I don't have a good place to draw the line - ideas are complicated; if the LA School District had actually taken an official position that the meaning of the Show Your Papers law was anti-American and students should be instructed of such (this didn't happen, as Turley points out) I'd be opposed.  But if an instructor were to argue such, if he were to argue that the slow diminishment of the 4th Amendment over the past 30 years has been anti-American - if he were to point out that Show Your Papers occurs in the same racially charged environment that produced the lightening of the faces in a public school mural:

City Councilman Steve Blair spearheaded a public campaign on his talk show at Prescott radio station KYCA-AM (1490) to remove the mural.



In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person, I would have to ask the question: Why?"

I think that's not only a reasonable argument - I think it's the most reasonable way to view the evidence.
I think, I'd guess, that a professor should have something to profess.  That's what I think.

After the jump, the rest of the Tendown (I'll take the offsides penalty, only need 5 this week)