July 14, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston
Ta-Nehisi Coates is a tremendous asset to the public discourse, and I love the way he comes across in his writing. You might disagree with him, but I don’t see how anyone could dislike him. And usually, he gets it right.
But he gets one small thing wrong in his “thoughts on the verdict of innocent for George Zimmerman.”
Back when I taught criminal justice, I brought a Legal Aid lawyer to campus to give a talk about his work. During the Q-and-A, a student started to ask, “If a you’re on trial and a jury finds you innocent . . .” The lawyer immediately stopped her right there and said, “Since the founding of this republic two hundred odd years ago, no jury as ever found any defendant innocent.” The girl was more tha baffled, she was stunned. Then he explained that in our system of criminal justice, there is no such thing as innocence. Innocence is a factual matter. Guilt is a legal matter.
The question a jury must answer is not “did the defendant do it?” And it’s certainly not, “what verdict would do justice?” The question is much narrower: is there reasonable doubt? More specifically, is there reasonable doubt that the defendant’s actions make him guilty of the crime as defined in the criminal code – the crime that the state has charged him with?
The distinction is not particularly important in Coates's column, which I recommend that you read right now (here) – after all, the guy took valuable time away from his Paris sojourn (on Bastille Day yet) and his French lessons to write it. And while you’re at it, read Andrew Cohen (here), who explains why in highly publicized cases, the issues for the jury are very different from the issues that most engage the public.
Covers
July 13, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston
In the arts, when one work resembles another, it’s not always clear whether the similarity is coincidence, influence, homage, or just a plain ripoff.
This book cover for Lolita appears in a BuzzFeed piece on books that are “harmless. Until a friend or loved one tells you that one of them is their favorite.” A FB friend of mine thought the cover was brilliant. And it is.
But I couldn’t help thinking of that other meaning of “cover” – the one in music, as in “Madonna’s cover of Lady Gaga’s ‘Born This Way.’” The Lolita cover reminded me of a black-and-white photo by Ralph Gibson, a photographer known for his minimalist style as well has his nude and erotic photography.
I’m fairly sure that the Gibson photo predates the Lolita cover by decades. I have no idea whether the book designer had ever seen the Gibson photo. But even if he or she actually had seen it, and even if the Lolita cover was deliberate imitation, there’s no way for the designer to credit Gibson. Works of art do not include footnoted references.
(The problem of imitation/influence/plagiarism in the arts was the topic of one of the first posts on this blog. That one (here) was about magicians. This one and this one were about fiction.)
Posted by Jay Livingston
In the arts, when one work resembles another, it’s not always clear whether the similarity is coincidence, influence, homage, or just a plain ripoff.
This book cover for Lolita appears in a BuzzFeed piece on books that are “harmless. Until a friend or loved one tells you that one of them is their favorite.” A FB friend of mine thought the cover was brilliant. And it is.
I’m fairly sure that the Gibson photo predates the Lolita cover by decades. I have no idea whether the book designer had ever seen the Gibson photo. But even if he or she actually had seen it, and even if the Lolita cover was deliberate imitation, there’s no way for the designer to credit Gibson. Works of art do not include footnoted references.
(The problem of imitation/influence/plagiarism in the arts was the topic of one of the first posts on this blog. That one (here) was about magicians. This one and this one were about fiction.)
Spoiling the Party
July 10, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston
The World Meteorological Association included this graph in its report on Global Warming. Using decades shows the general trend more clearly than would a graph showing year-to-year variation.*
Needless to say, those who scoff at the idea of climate change added their discordant notes at sites like WaPo’s Wonkblog, which is where I found this graph.
Dan Savage – not a climate scientist – in a recent podcast talks of listening to a “This American Life” episode where state climatologists in conservative states say they are afraid to even use words like warming or climate change because the local ranchers and farmers, who just do not want to hear that idea, might force them out of their jobs. It’s happened. This reaction reminds Savage of the AIDS denial by some gays thirty years ago.
Of course, the farmers and ranchers are not alone. Big Energy has also worked hard to push the idea that nothing’s happening. AIDS denial and climate-change denial are examples of “motivated reasoning,” and the motivation in both cases is the same: if the science is correct, we’ll have to stop partying.
-------------------
* The lack of a 0-point on the Y-axis suggests that this is a sort of “gee whiz” graph, rigged to make small differences appear large. But with global temperatures a change of one degree Celsius is a big deal.
Posted by Jay Livingston
The World Meteorological Association included this graph in its report on Global Warming. Using decades shows the general trend more clearly than would a graph showing year-to-year variation.*
Needless to say, those who scoff at the idea of climate change added their discordant notes at sites like WaPo’s Wonkblog, which is where I found this graph.
Dan Savage – not a climate scientist – in a recent podcast talks of listening to a “This American Life” episode where state climatologists in conservative states say they are afraid to even use words like warming or climate change because the local ranchers and farmers, who just do not want to hear that idea, might force them out of their jobs. It’s happened. This reaction reminds Savage of the AIDS denial by some gays thirty years ago.
Standing around gay bars in Chicago, in New York, in 1983, 1984 and listening to gay men who were in complete denial about the fact that AIDS was a sexually transmited infection. They refused to believe it.The people whose lives are the most likely to be ravaged are the loudest voices in the chorus of denial.
Of course, the farmers and ranchers are not alone. Big Energy has also worked hard to push the idea that nothing’s happening. AIDS denial and climate-change denial are examples of “motivated reasoning,” and the motivation in both cases is the same: if the science is correct, we’ll have to stop partying.
-------------------
* The lack of a 0-point on the Y-axis suggests that this is a sort of “gee whiz” graph, rigged to make small differences appear large. But with global temperatures a change of one degree Celsius is a big deal.
The Mysteries of Pittsburgh
July 9, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston
In 2010, the Pittsburgh Pirates won 57 games and lost 105. That .352 was the worst in major league baseball. As we speak, they are at .602. But for last night’s 1-0 loss to Oakland, they would be tied with St. Louis for the best record in baseball.
What caused the turnaround? Socialism and planning.
The socialism part is revenue-sharing. Teams that make a lot of money must put some their profits into a pool for the less wealthy teams. From each according to his ability to pay and all that. The idea is that small-market teams can use the money for larger salaries to attract better players.
The NFL’s version of revenue-sharing shares a great deal of the wealth, which is why a “dynasty” in football rarely lasts more than a couple of years. It’s also the reason that a huge media market, Los Angeles, has not had an NFL team for nearly two decades.
In baseball, revenue sharing is less extensive, hence the long-term domination of big-market, wealthy teams like the Yankees. Still, some of the TV money gets distributed to the poorer teams. But according to leaked documents in 2010, it looked as if the owners of some small-market teams (notably two Florida teams, the Rays and the Marlins) were paying the money to themselves, not to their players.
The Pirates too came under suspicion since they kept to their tight-fisted payroll. But in fact, the Pirates were using the money for development – scouting young players, signing them, and giving them a couple of years in the minor leagues.
The result is a first-rate pitching staff (their closer, Jason Grilli, may be the next Mariano Rivera), and some pretty good hitting. All this on a payroll that’s less than one-third of what the Yankees are paying for their currently fourth-place General Hospital team.
-------------------
Big hat tip to Alan Barra at The Atlantic. My Pittsburgh connections, who blame owner Robert Nutting for the Pirates’ dismal record these past few years, claim that Barra’s article is “the Nutting PR machine at work” and that we should wait to see what changes the Pirates (and the Cards and Reds) make to their roster in the second half of the season.
Posted by Jay Livingston
In 2010, the Pittsburgh Pirates won 57 games and lost 105. That .352 was the worst in major league baseball. As we speak, they are at .602. But for last night’s 1-0 loss to Oakland, they would be tied with St. Louis for the best record in baseball.
What caused the turnaround? Socialism and planning.
The socialism part is revenue-sharing. Teams that make a lot of money must put some their profits into a pool for the less wealthy teams. From each according to his ability to pay and all that. The idea is that small-market teams can use the money for larger salaries to attract better players.
The NFL’s version of revenue-sharing shares a great deal of the wealth, which is why a “dynasty” in football rarely lasts more than a couple of years. It’s also the reason that a huge media market, Los Angeles, has not had an NFL team for nearly two decades.
In baseball, revenue sharing is less extensive, hence the long-term domination of big-market, wealthy teams like the Yankees. Still, some of the TV money gets distributed to the poorer teams. But according to leaked documents in 2010, it looked as if the owners of some small-market teams (notably two Florida teams, the Rays and the Marlins) were paying the money to themselves, not to their players.
The Pirates too came under suspicion since they kept to their tight-fisted payroll. But in fact, the Pirates were using the money for development – scouting young players, signing them, and giving them a couple of years in the minor leagues.
-------------------
Big hat tip to Alan Barra at The Atlantic. My Pittsburgh connections, who blame owner Robert Nutting for the Pirates’ dismal record these past few years, claim that Barra’s article is “the Nutting PR machine at work” and that we should wait to see what changes the Pirates (and the Cards and Reds) make to their roster in the second half of the season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)