Scott Cain's website

Bioinformatics, Perl, Cool Stuff
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system

Email: sco...@scottcain.net

Kevin Drum
Syndicate content Kevin Drum – Mother Jones
Smart, fearless journalism
Updated: 12 min 12 sec ago

Staff to Trump: Say “I Hear You” Occasionally

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 21:26

Behold the president of the United States, at an Oval Office meeting with students and parents from Parkland, Florida. His staff had to remind him that every once in a while he should pretend to be paying attention to the grieving families he was meeting with.

Associated Press
Categories: Politics

Don’t Worry, Social Media Will Get Better

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 19:33

This is from Chris Hayes last night:

It’s funny. Generally speaking, I’m not a cheerful, optimistic guy. And yet, I feel much more sanguine about social media than most of the folks I read on—well, on social media.

There are several reasons for this. For one thing, I’m not convinced that social media has changed people or that it “says something” about contemporary society. I think there have always been lots of assholes out there, and all social media does is congregate them in a single place. Second, the media wildly overcovers Twitter and Facebook because reporters (and famous people in general) tend to be on Twitter and Facebook themselves. Reddit is far more of a cesspool than Twitter will ever be, but you only rarely hear of it. Why? Because most reporters never read it. Third, as I’ve mentioned before, we humans are bad at arithmetic. The emotional impact of a thousand trolls haranguing you is way out of proportion to how much you should care about 0.0001 percent of the population hating on you.

I figure we’ll all adapt to this stuff eventually. The media will get bored with social media and the rest of us will figure out that tidal waves of assholes aren’t really all that meaningful.

But there’s one other thing that keeps me hopeful. I think of social media in its current incarnation as similar to war: a war between trolls and the rest of us. The trolls are on offense, and right now they have the upper hand. But military technology usually follows cycles like this. Offensive capabilities improve, and defenses only catch up later. Likewise, we’re only now starting to get serious about defending ourselves against trolls. But we’ll figure it out, and social media will be safe again. Then we’ll go through the same cycle again with something else.

I think we’re at the nadir of social media right now. A decade ago it was new enough that usage was low and trolls weren’t a big problem. A decade in the future we’ll figure out how to bottle up the trolls. Right now, though, we’re kind of screwed. But it won’t last.

Categories: Politics

Lunchtime Photo

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 16:30

A dandelion growing by the Sneem River in County Kerry.

Categories: Politics

Sorry, But Here’s Yet Another Nutball Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 14:32

Just in case you don’t know, the latest right-wing nutball conspiracy theory is that David Hogg, a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is not what he seems:

In certain right-wing corners of the web — and, increasingly, from more mainstream voices like Rush Limbaugh and a commentator on CNN — the students are being portrayed not as grief-ridden survivors but as pawns and conspiracists intent on exploiting a tragedy to undermine the nation’s laws. In these baseless accounts, which by Tuesday had spread rapidly on social media, the students are described as “crisis actors,” who travel to the sites of shootings to instigate fury against guns. Or they are called F.B.I. plants, defending the bureau for its failure to catch the shooter. They have been portrayed as puppets being coached and manipulated by the Democratic Party, gun control activists, the so-called antifa movement and the left-wing billionaire George Soros.

The theories are far-fetched.

Indeed they are, but let’s be honest: not as far-fetched as the idea that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor.

I know, I know: Just yesterday I announced a new right-wing nutball conspiracy theory, and today I have a brand new one. What can I say? Back in the good old days when Bill Clinton was accused of running drugs out of Mena airport and murdering Vince Foster, the conspiracy theories were weeks or even months apart. Today that seems quaint. Like any addict, modern right-wing nutballs demand higher highs and more frequent highs. Also like any other addict, they become ever more willing to sink to any depths to feed their habit. At least Bill Clinton was president of the United States, after all. Presidents are used to being attacked. Now they’re going after 17-year-olds who have just watched a gunman massacre their friends. I’m almost afraid to ask what’s next.

Categories: Politics

An Old Man Reflects on the Era of Fire Drills, Not Lockdown Drills

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 14:15

As an old man tottering into the sunset of his life, I would like to verify from my own experience that, yes, there was a time when kids went to high school without giving a moment’s thought to being gunned down by a mass murderer. Hard to believe, I know.

As we all know, kids today are better behaved, on average, than kids in the 70s and 80s. So that’s obviously not the reason. But what else could it be? It’s a mystery.

Categories: Politics

What’s the Real Takeaway From Yesterday’s Big Low-Carb vs. Low-Fat Showdown?

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 13:29

A number of people have pointed out to me that the New York Times has a very different take on yesterday’s big diet study:

The Key to Weight Loss Is Diet Quality, Not Quantity, a New Study Finds

A new study, published Tuesday in JAMA…found that people who cut back on added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods while concentrating on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods — without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes — lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year….The research lends strong support to the notion that diet quality, not quantity, is what helps people lose and manage their weight most easily in the long run. It also suggests that health authorities should shift away from telling the public to obsess over calories and instead encourage Americans to avoid processed foods that are made with refined starches and added sugar.

This was not my emphasis. I led with the comparison of low-fat and low-carb diets. Why the difference?

First things first. I didn’t have access to the study itself, which is often reason enough for me not to comment on something. On the other hand, here’s the abstract:

Conclusions and Relevance In this 12-month weight loss diet study, there was no significant difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat diet vs a healthy low-carbohydrate diet, and neither genotype pattern nor baseline insulin secretion was associated with the dietary effects on weight loss. In the context of these 2 common weight loss diet approaches, neither of the 2 hypothesized predisposing factors was helpful in identifying which diet was better for whom.

It sure seems like the main point of the study was to compare low-fat vs. low-carb diets, and to test the insulin secretion theory underlying low-carb diets. In any case, the reason I went ahead and commented even without reading the paper was because Examine.com had a long, detailed, and seemingly fair-minded description of the study. Here’s one of their charts:

It’s true that the researchers didn’t emphasize calorie counting. They recommended generally healthy eating combined with an emphasis on either low-carb or low-fat diets. The result, however, was that participants ended up consuming about 500 fewer calories per day. That’s a huge amount, and is almost certainly the reason for the weight loss. In fact, I’m surprised the average weight loss wasn’t more. But what underlies this large reduction in calorie consumption? Here’s what the lead author, Christopher Gardner, told Examine.com:

We did not “prescribe” a specific caloric restriction. We focused on reducing foods high in fats or foods high in carbs, and we advised the participants that they needed to find the lowest level of fat or carb intake they could achieve while not feeling hungry….We wanted for them to find a new eating pattern they could maintain without even thinking of it as a “diet”….Table 2 in the paper shows that the participants reported “achieving” a ≈500 calorie deficit, without us prescribing one … and it was fairly consistent through the 12 months. Now, I honestly think they likely exaggerated the caloric restriction. But in fact they did lose >6,500 lbs collectively…So they must have eaten less. I think this is an important area to explore.

That highlighted section has been the advice of nutritionists forever. If you think of something as a “diet,” you’ll eventually fall off the wagon. But if you think of it as making a permanent, sustainable lifestyle change, you’ll…

…well, as near as I can tell, you’ll probably still fall off the wagon eventually. But it will take longer. In any case, there’s exactly zero that’s new here. And the general advice to eat more vegetables and cut back on processed foods, added sugar, and refined grains is likewise of longstanding. My take is that there’s just nothing new in this part of the study. What’s new is comparing low-fat to low-carb diets in a fairly rigorous way, and then checking the insulin secretion theory of the low-carb diet. So that’s what I emphasized.

POSTSCRIPT: There’s still the question of why a low-carb or low-fat diet leads to lower calorie consumption. One theory is that as you get used to it, your hunger decreases and you just naturally eat less. Another theory is that these diets are pretty boring and make eating less attractive. Yet another theory is that carbs and fats are the main sources of calories in American diets, so if you significantly cut back on one or the other you’re almost certain to cut back on calories too. It takes a helluva lot of vegetables to make up for not eating meat or bread, and few people are that crazy for vegetables.

In any case, if you cut back on something with lots of calories, you’re cutting back on calories. As I said yesterday, “As near as I can tell, the bottom line is that if you want to lose weight, eat less.” The big difference between me and the New York Times is that they made this the lead, while I made it my last paragraph.

Categories: Politics

Republicans Are Having Second Thoughts About Abandoning TPP

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 12:43

Yesterday I read that a couple of Republican senators thought Donald Trump should rethink his decision to pull out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, a trade treaty with 11 other nations. But the Washington Post reports today that support for TPP has expanded:

The latest: Half of the Senate GOP is urging Trump to reconsider his year-old decision to yank the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership. In a Friday letter, 25 of them encouraged him to “work aggressively” to renegotiate terms and rejoin the sweeping pact with 11 other Pacific Rim nations that the Obama administration originally organized. The push comes as the final version of the deal was released Wednesday.

Trump himself cracked the door open for this particular appeal when he dangled the possibility of reviving U.S. participation in the agreement during a CNBC interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “I would do TPP if we were able to make a substantially better deal,” the president said. “The deal was terrible, the way it was structured was terrible. If we did a substantially better deal, I would be open to TPP.”

Huh. I wonder what finally prompted so many of them to do this? Pressure from the pharmaceutical and entertainment industries, who benefit quite a bit from TPP? Fear of being left out, as the other 11 countries sign a treaty of their own? Concern that China will fill the vacuum left by the lack of American leadership in the Pacific?

At this point, though, I wonder if the other 11 countries are even interested in talking? The whole point of TPP was the American presence, so they’d probably welcome a second chance at getting that. At the same time, would they be willing to waste time negotiating with Trump? His antics over NAFTA don’t make it seem like a worthwhile use of time. We’ll see.

Categories: Politics

No, Trump Hasn’t Been Harder on Russia Than Obama

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 02:30

Jonah Goldberg says Donald Trump is right to say he’s been tougher on Russia than President Obama:

Barack Obama sold out our Eastern European allies on missile defense. He slow-walked aid to Ukraine and did little more than shrug when Crimea was annexed. He said “never mind” on his own “red line” in Syria and turned a blind eye to Putin’s intervention there, in large part because of his obsessions with getting the Iran deal. The Russian meddling in our elections started on Obama’s watch — and not just our elections but those of many of our allies. When Mitt Romney famously said Russia was our No. 1 geopolitical foe, Obama mocked him for it as did countless liberal journalists who are now converts to anti-Russia hawkery.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has made life harder for Russia diplomatically and economically thanks to revving up our oil and gas production. It hasn’t been as tough as some — including me — would like, but it’s been tougher than the Obama administration. Or at least it’s not unreasonable.

Well now. Obama did cancel George Bush’s missile defense plan, but he did it on the advice of the same guy who created the plan in the first place: Defense Secretary Robert Gates. It was designed as a shield against Iranian missiles, and it wouldn’t have worked very well. In 2016 Obama approved a new missile defense plan based in Romania—also part of Eastern Europe and also blasted by the Russians as “an attempt to destroy the strategic balance.”

When Russia annexed Crimea, Obama put in place deep and painful sanctions against Russia. This was no easy task, since our European allies were reluctant to go along. As for who’s our No. 1 geopolitical foe, I think Obama was right not to choose Russia, though I suppose your mileage might vary on that. Ditto for Syria. I think Obama did the right thing to stay out, but those more hawkish than me probably disagree.

Now let’s move on to Trump. He has, according to Goldberg himself

…literally done nothing except to “rev up” our oil and gas production. Really?

Production of oil and gas rose a bit in September, but it rose for the same reason as always: because fracking operations increased output in response to a rise in prices (partly due to Hurricane Harvey). Fracking operations always respond to price spikes. It had nothing to do with Trump and nothing to do with Russia, which has been producing crude at the same rate all year:

Russia benefited from the increase in crude oil prices just like everyone else. In terms of oil revenue, at least, their life has gotten easier over the past year, not harder.¹

This is American conservatism in a nutshell. Goldberg despises Trump, but he despises Obama even more. The end result is pretzel-bending arguments about things like this that ignore every scrap of evidence about Trump and Russia. It’s fair to say that Vladimir Putin hasn’t gotten the breather he hoped for when Trump beat Hillary Clinton, but that’s only because Congress and public opinion have forced Trump to back off. And in any case, surely the fact that Putin was so hellbent on defeating Hillary in the first place is evidence enough of how difficult the Obama administration made his life?

¹Although this has nothing to do with Trump either.

Categories: Politics

New Right-Wing Nutball Theory: Michael Flynn About to Go Free!

Wed, 02/21/2018 - 01:08

Here’s the latest conspiracy theory among the nutball right: a judge recently ordered special prosecutor Robert Mueller to produce “any exculpatory evidence” in the Michael Flynn case. J’accuse! Obviously Mueller held something back and the judge is pissed. Perhaps Flynn plans to rescind his guilty plea?

Short answer: nope. Judge Emmet Sullivan, it turns out, issues a standing order to produce exculpatory evidence for every case brought before him. When he took over the Flynn case, he accidentally issued an old version of the order:

Categories: Politics

Humans Are Responsible for Nearly All Modern Global Warming

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 18:55

No special reason for this post, but in case anyone ever suggests to you that, sure, global warming is real, but we don’t know how much is caused by humans—well, yes we do:

This is from the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which states with high confidence that “the likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period [1951-2010] are minor.” If you want to see all the human causes broken down further, here you go:

We humans have done things that both increase and decrease the amount of solar heat being trapped on the earth. However, they don’t balance out: the increases are far greater than the decreases. The result is global warming.

Categories: Politics

Low-Fat vs. Low-Carb: A New Study Puts Them to the Test

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 17:14

The Nutrition Science Initiative was co-founded by Gary Taubes, one of the leading advocates of a low-carb/low-sugar diet. He argues that sugar is the real enemy in the American diet, not fat. I’ve been intrigued by this for a long time, and recently NSI teamed up with Stanford University and the National Institutes of Health to test low-fat vs. low-carb diets. This was a pretty high-quality random trial, and via Examine.com here’s what the weight loss looked like for every participant in each group:

Those are…remarkably similar. Apparently you can choose to lose weight any way you want, and it works fine as long as you consume fewer calories.

Now, there are caveats, of course. For starters, virtually no one fully adhered to either diet. And although weight loss was about the same for both groups, the low-fat group ended up with lower LDL (bad) cholesterol levels, while the low-carb group ended up with lower triglycerides and higher HDL (good) cholesterol levels. However:

Within each group, differences in genotypes or insulin secretion made no significant difference in weight change…Both groups were able to improve certain health markers (BMI, body fat percentage, waist circumference, blood pressure, and fasting insulin and glucose levels), although no significant differences were seen between groups….Resting energy expenditure (REE) was not significantly different between groups at any point….Total energy expenditure (TEE) was not significantly different between groups or compared to baseline. Lastly, although a little over 10% of each group improved their metabolic syndrome during the trial, there was no significant difference between diets.

Insulin secretion is the causal mechanism that underlies the low-carb diet, but this study suggests that there were no clinical differences in insulin changes between the low-fat and low-carb groups.

This is just one study, and it’s hardly the final word. Somehow, though, every time we study this stuff, it seems as though it makes less and less difference what we eat. As near as I can tell, the bottom line is that if you want to lose weight, eat less. If you want to get healthier, exercise more. Beyond that, it’s hard to say with confidence that anything makes a very big difference.

Categories: Politics

Lunchtime Photo

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 16:30

This is an egret in the San Diego Creek, which runs a few hundred yards from my house. I don’t know why it’s called that, since it’s nowhere near San Diego, but perhaps the early Mexican settlers around here were fans of Juan Diego. It’s not as if the folks down south with the famous zoo have a trademark on the name, after all. In any case, it’s not really a creek these days, it’s a storm channel that drains about a hundred square miles around these parts. At least, that’s what it does when we have any rain, which we don’t right now. At the moment, the whole creek bed is sort of marshy, perfect for egrets and ducks and sandpipers.

Categories: Politics

Judicial Watch: Never Give Up, Never Surrender

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 15:24

Look what popped up in my inbox this morning from Judicial Watch:

Rumors have been floating up from Little Rock for months now of a new investigation into the Clinton Foundation….

Do tell. Please go on:

John Solomon advanced the story recently….The Wall Street Journal is tracking the story….Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer¹ cryptically told SiriusXM radio that federal authorities should “convene a grand jury” in Little Rock.

….Smelling a rat in Arkansas when it comes to the Clintons of course is nothing new, and the former First Couple are masters of the gray areas around pay-to-play….The tenacious financial expert Charles Ortel, who has been digging deep into Clinton finances for years, told us back in 2015 that there are “epic problems” with the entire Clinton Foundation edifice, which traces its origins back to Arkansas….Law enforcement may be finally catching up with Ortel’s insights.

Has there ever been an outfit as bullheaded and longlasting as Judicial Watch? Last week it was Sid Blumenthal. The week before it was JW’s endless lawsuit to expose “draft indictments” of Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater case. This week it’s the Clinton Foundation. Arkansas politics is a sewer, and Judicial Watch has mucked around down there for decades, determined to dredge every bit of Little Rock tittle-tattle into the national limelight. The national press has followed them since the start, for reasons only Bob Somerby can fathom. And they’re still at it! Both Clintons are now out of politics. One was impeached and the other was defeated in the most humiliating way possible. But that’s not enough. Has any group ever been as fanatical in its hatred as Judicial Watch is of the Clintons?

¹Former YAF up-and-comer, Steve Bannon crony, Breitbart contributor, and, in case you’ve forgotten, author of Clinton Cash, which the New York Times credulously excerpted and followed up on during the 2016 campaign.

Categories: Politics

The Robots Are Coming! But Not For a While.

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 14:08

Things are slow this morning, so I’m going to rail against one of my pet peeves: analogies to the Industrial Revolution as evidence that robots won’t reduce employment. My victim today is Heather Long at Wonkblog:

History suggests new jobs will replace old ones. As the Industrial Revolution demonstrated, technological transformations create new jobs no one has thought of yet. The same trend appears to be happening today.

Companies shed workers during the Great Recession and rapidly tried to cut costs, including by introducing more machines on assembly lines and in fast casual restaurants like Panera, where you can now order on a touch screen. Yet even with those trends, the U.S. economy has added more than 16.4 million jobs since the low point for employment in December 2009.

“Tom Cotton is woefully misinformed,” said Joe Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM. “Robots will create more jobs.” Brusuelas points out that many of the fastest-growing jobs today, such as “user design” and “cloud engineers,” weren’t around a decade ago. We like to talk about how robots kill jobs, but we tend to talk a lot less about how many other jobs are being created in the economy.

Ah yes: user design and cloud engineers. All those displaced truck drivers will just transition into Silicon Valley engineering jobs. Sure they will.

We have had one (1) “technological transformation” in recent human history. It did, eventually, create new jobs for the class of workers¹ who had been displaced. However, this sample size of one provides no evidence that all technological transformations will work the same way.

In fact, it’s vanishingly unlikely that the AI Revolution will work the same way as the Industrial Revolution. The latter displaced human muscle power, but all those machines still had to be run by humans with brains. That’s where the new jobs came from. The AI Revolution will displace human brainpower, and that means there will be nothing left for most humans to do. If a robot is both mentally and physically equal (or superior) to a human being, then by definition they can do whatever a human can do. We don’t have to argue one by one about every job category, or even think about every possible new job that might be created in their place. The answer to all of them is: robots will do that too.

Now, if you don’t think AI will ever get to human level, that’s fine. Then the AI Revolution will never happen. I’d still argue that enough of it will happen to cause considerable upheaval, but now we’re in a technological argument. What happens, for example, if AI and robotics get smart enough to perform all unskilled and semiskilled labor, but never advance further than that? We won’t have 100 percent unemployment, but we’ll have 30-40 percent unemployment, and that strikes me as still a big enough problem to worry about.

However, if you accept that AI will eventually get to human level, then yes, robots will take all our jobs. And they’ll take all the new jobs too.

As for Cotton, though, he’s also wrong. There’s no conflict between the American economy needing more workers in the short term but being in danger of having too many workers in the longer term. Today we’re short of workers. In 20 years we’ll be wondering what to do with all the workers we have. There’s no reason to think those two things are in tension.

¹I say “class of workers” because many of the actual workers displaced by the Industrial Revolution were indeed put out of jobs. It was only later that other jobs cropped up to replace them. Workers of similar skill levels then took those jobs, but that was no help to the original folks who had lost their livelihoods.

Categories: Politics

Are “Deaths of Despair” Related to Lead Poisoning?

Tue, 02/20/2018 - 13:05

Here’s something I want to toss out, even though I don’t have an answer to offer—or even a clue, really. It’s about lead.

People periodically ask me about whether lead might be responsible for some phenomenon or other. I’m generally very careful about this stuff. It’s possible that lead poisoning is responsible for lots of things, but in most cases the effect is likely to be (a) fairly small and (b) swamped by other factors anyway. That makes it all but impossible to measure, and if you can’t measure it you can’t really say anything about it.

The things that are easiest to measure are behaviors at the far end of the bell curve. Here’s why: if lead affects some behavior by a little bit, it will push the mean of the bell curve over by a point or two. Most of the time, this is just too small to measure. But the tail of the bell curve might be doubled or tripled in size. This is the case with violent crime, for example, which is why it’s feasible to correlate lead and crime.

What other behaviors are fairly rare, and therefore might increase by a large amount due to lead poisoning? For some reason, it recently occurred to me to be intrigued by the Case-Deaton study of “deaths of despair.” There are some technical problems with their original paper, but I think everyone agrees that even when those are corrected there’s still something going on. And that something is primarily affecting people who are about 50 years old.

The peak years for lead poisoning in the US were 1965-1975. People born in those years are now ages 43-53. Is there some kind of connection?

The fact that this doesn’t seem to be happening in other countries—which is pretty much the whole point of the Case-Deaton paper—suggests that lead may not be the culprit. There’s also the fact that it seems to affect whites more than blacks, which is the opposite of what you’d expect if lead was involved. At the same time, it’s possible that lead has an effect that only shows up if other conditions help it along. Who knows?

In any case, it seems like this might be worth a look. I’m not entirely sure how to look at it, though. Take tooth samples of folks who drink themselves to death to check for lead concentrations? That’s not especially likely. But maybe there are less intrusive ways of establishing whether there’s a correlation in the first place. If there is, it would be worth further study.

Categories: Politics

“Don’t Feed the Trolls” Is Even Better Advice Than it Used to Be

Mon, 02/19/2018 - 21:17

Over at the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf calls out lefty call-out culture. It’s become so excessive, he says, that Twitter mobs routinely go ballistic over the smallest, most inadvertent micro-slights, even those from folks who are basically on their side:

I don’t understand why they believe that extreme anger and stigma should be directed at people whose intentions and substantive beliefs are so close to their own….

I don’t understand why they dedicate so much energy and focus to what even they call microaggressions at a time when an ascendant coalition in American politics is bent on deporting as many immigrants as possible….

I don’t understand how they think they can defeat that nativist faction if their own pro-immigrant coalition engages in divisive infighting over transgressions as inevitable as clumsy wording….

Even if every object of dragging deserved it, I don’t understand how the outcome could be anything other than punishing an infinitesimal percentage of bad actors while turning off so many with the excesses that it provokes a backlash.

Over at Vox, I think Ezra Klein coincidentally provides most of the answer in an interview with Tristan Harris:

Ezra Klein: I had Jaron Lanier on this podcast a couple months ago, and he said something I’ve been thinking about since then. He said that the key to a lot of social media is [that] negative emotions engage more powerfully than positive emotions. Do you think he’s right about that?

Tristan Harris: Oh, absolutely. Outrage just spreads faster than something that’s not outrage. When you open up the blue Facebook icon, you’re activating the AI, which tries to figure out the perfect thing it can show you that’ll engage you. It doesn’t have any intelligence, except figuring out what gets the most clicks. The outrage stuff gets the most clicks, so it puts that at the top….If the first thing you do when your eyes open is see Twitter and there’s a bunch of stuff to be outraged about, that’s going to do something to you on an animal level.

Journalists as a group evaluate social media poorly, and we evaluate Twitter especially poorly. Think about how Twitter works. There are a very few influencers who are determined to root out and denounce anything that’s even remotely problematic. They do this mostly via absurdly hostile readings of other tweets or by making connections that most people would never notice. Nonetheless, once that bell is rung, it can’t be unrung—and their followers all rush in to denounce the micro-slight in question. Why do the influencers do this? Because they’re zealots, and that’s what zealots do. And why do they attract mobs who follow them so uncritically? Because those are the kinds of mobs zealots always attract.

It’s exhausting to be on the receiving end of this stuff, but it’s truly meaningless. There will always be zealots and their mobs looking for outrages to slay. And while Twitter makes them more visible, their numbers are still tiny. A few hundred? A few thousand? That’s nothing considering the minuscule effort it takes to dash off a bit of tweetrage. Unless a Twitter mob gets into the 10-100,000 range, it simply doesn’t represent anything important.

Even among the far reaches of the left, I imagine that most people agree with Friedersdorf that outrage is a stupid response to micro-slights. So the answer to his bewilderment, I think, is twofold. First, social media is a magnet for outrage, and the platforms themselves encourage this because it keeps people engaged and delivers more eyeballs to their advertisers. Second, even given this, the number of people outraged by micro-slights is truly insignificant. Social media tidal waves, in which a few thousand responses rain down within a couple of hours, merely make them seem big.

If you ignore small Twitter mobs—and by small, I mean at least anything under 10,000 tweets—most of the paradoxes and conundrums of the social justice zealots go away almost instantly.

Categories: Politics

Republicans Are Trying Out a Shiny New Excuse For the Great Kansas Failure

Mon, 02/19/2018 - 19:46

Last week a reader emailed me about a new meme he had just come across:

Heard a random Republican talking head on NPR recently, and when the interviewer questioned him on the “Kansas experiment,” his automatic response was a) Kansas “massively” increased spending when they cut taxes, so that’s why they have problems; and b) North Carolina has done the same thing without the increased spending and it’s working great.

Of course this smells like bullshit to me, but I don’t actually know. Are either of these assertions correct?

I’m too lazy to waste time on North Carolina right now, but spending in Kansas is easy enough to check. Here it is:

Since 2011, when Sam Brownback took office promising a “red state experiment,” general fund spending has been flat while spending from all sources has declined by 1.7 percent. I’m pretty sure this doesn’t count as “massively” increasing spending.

Bottom line: Brownback slashed taxes, kept spending flat, wrecked Kansas schools, and turned in lousy economic performance compared to his neighboring states:

By just about any measure, the red-state experiment failed, and Republicans can hardly run away from Kansas fast enough. I guess their latest wheeze is to pretend that Brownback was a faker all along and it was really North Carolina we should have kept an eye on. Uh huh.

Categories: Politics

Lunchtime Photo

Mon, 02/19/2018 - 16:30

Ansel Adams became famous for making iconic pictures of Yosemite National Park like “Moon and Half Dome.” I too seek photographic immortality, so I’m following in his footsteps. Ladies and gentlemen, today I present “Airplane and El Capitan.”

Categories: Politics

Pennsylvania Gets a New Map

Mon, 02/19/2018 - 16:23

Via the Sunbury Daily Item, here is the new congressional map for Pennsylvania:

Republicans flatly refused to create a non-gerrymandered map, so the Pennsylvania Supreme Court created this one for them. It’s the map that will be used for this year’s midterm elections unless Republicans are able to get a federal court to issue an injunction of some kind. Since the Supreme Court’s decision was based entirely on state law, Republicans seem unlikely to succeed, but you never know. If you find the right judge….

Categories: Politics

Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men?

Mon, 02/19/2018 - 14:51

Sarah Kliff points today to a new study from Denmark on the gender wage gap. Danes are famously egalitarian, and labor force participation is nearly equal between men and women these days. However, Denmark still has a large gender wage gap—nearly as large as the United States, in fact. Why? Researchers Henrik Kleven, Camille Landais, and Jakob Egholt Søgaard conclude that it’s almost purely a childbearing penalty:

I’ve overlaid men and women in a single chart here to make it easier to compare them. Earnings are shown relative to the year before the birth of a first child, and the trajectories of men and women are similar prior to childbirth. Generally speaking, men’s earnings start a little higher but women’s earnings accelerate a little faster. For women without children and for all men, regardless of whether they have children, these trajectories continue throughout their careers: men suffer no earnings penalty at all when they have children. However, women who have children take a huge hit in earnings.

This is unsurprising. The big question is why they have lower earnings. Here’s a panel of charts that breaks it down:

After childbirth, fewer women work; they work fewer hours; and they get lower wages. And this is unrelated to education level: college graduates bear childbirth penalties that are about the same as high school grads. In fact, nearly all gender inequality has been wiped out in Denmark except for the gender gap due to childbirth:

However, this still doesn’t answer the question of why. Do women with children work less out of preference, or because firms treat them badly and eventually some of them give up? There’s a limit to what administrative data can tell us, but by expanding their dataset the authors are able to conclude that some of it is due to family influence:

Women incur smaller earnings penalties due to children if they themselves grew up in a family where the mother worked more relative to the father….The size of this effect is roughly unaffected by including the detailed non-parametric controls for education and wealth….[This] suggests that female child penalties are driven partly by female preferences formed during her childhood, rather than by male preferences formed during his childhood.

Women from more traditional families form an early preference for working less when they have young children to take care of. Women from more liberal families don’t. In other words, it’s women from traditional families who account for the biggest share of the childbearing penalty. However, the size of the difference between traditional and liberal families isn’t large, so there’s clearly a lot more going on than just that.

That’s the case in Denmark, anyway. Is something similar true in the United States? We lack the detailed administrative data of Denmark, so it’s not easy to conduct a similar study here. However, American studies do show that the gender gap in earnings opens up mostly between ages 25 and 35, which certainly suggests that children are the prime cause. More research, please.

Categories: Politics