Obsidian Wings

Tangential thoughts from RGB to Arthur Ashe

by liberal japonicus

This seems a bit too detailed for a comment. I'll start off with what a facebook friend wrote about RGB, which was observing something to the effect that RGB wasn't perfect, she only had one black clerk her entire tenure on the court. I don't know if this is true or not and I didn't really have the energy to check it out and the person didn't say it to dismiss RGB, just made the observation as a little resistance to her beatification.

This has had me thinking about attitudes and growth. Some very interesting quotes from this Dahlia Lithwick piece from 2019 that popped up in the comments
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-jurist-evolution.html

But also, I think that in that period it seemed she was much less anxious because she wasn’t the only one. And she was very aware that the trailblazing had been done by Justice O’Connor. And then, when O’Connor left in 2005 to take care of her ailing husband—which is, by the way, a whole other feminist story because it was really a thing that the male justices would not have done, she felt—suddenly Justice Ginsburg is the only one, which is a long way of saying that in 2009, when the court argues a case about a little girl in middle school who’s been strip-searched for contraband ibuprofen, I remember sitting in the room for the oral argument, and everybody was making jokes. Justice Antonin Scalia was joking about whether they searched from the outside in or the inside out. And Chief Justice John Roberts was making jokes. And then poor Justice Stephen Breyer starts saying things about, “When I was in high school changing for gym, people would stick things in my underwear.” And of course everybody at this point is doubled over laughing.

And Justice Ginsburg, who never loses her cool, actually gets very angry. And she sort of tunes up her colleagues from the bench and says, “This is nothing like changing for gym class.” And she describes how this child was humiliated while the strip search was going on. And then, she gives an interview, while the case is pending, where she says to Joan Biskupic: I can’t believe that I’m the only woman on the bench who thought that was appalling. And if there were more women on the bench, it would not have been like that. And then she said, which is fighting words for RBG, I don’t think the men share my sensitivities on this. And by the time the case comes down, all the judges, with two exceptions, mostly have conformed entirely to her vision of this as an inappropriate search. But it was her wielding a kind of soft power, and I had never seen her do it until then. That, to me, is when I carbon-date how she started to change.

So how do we go from RGB to Arthur Ashe? Via this

[With guest Arthur Ashe], Cavett instigated the equal prize money debate and Ashe explained his position. “We’ve come to realize, like other sports, our appeal (as tennis players) is about 70% entertainment and 30% sport,” said Ashe on the 1980 telecast in a New York City studio. “And as such, the amount of money that we make or we can command in prize money, is directly related to our box office appeal. What I said was that women don’t deserve the same amount of prize money as men. They don’t. We are not out there making car doors for Ford Motor Company. One example that I like to use is let’s suppose that Caesars Palace (in Las Vegas) was going to have The Carpenters (perform a concert) one week and Frank Sinatra the next week. Now would you pay Frank Sinatra the same that you would pay The Carpenters? Obviously not. You’d pay Frank quite a bit more than you’d pay The Carpenters. For the exact same number of hours.”

“All I was saying was that the caliber or quality of matches put on by a draw of 128 women, in no way, right now in the Fall of 1980, equals the appeal of a draw of the best 128 men. One day the women might command more. But right now it’s not the same. But at the top, there’s no question that Chrissie or Tracy Austin, they are just as powerful as a Borg or a McEnroe. But, unfortunately, in the first round of 64 matches, the top women usually win those matches very easily. Chrissie Evert seldom loses more than two games a set before she gets to the quarterfinal. But it’s almost assuredly one of the sixteen seeds in the men’s will lose in the first or second round.”

The Guardian article on the Original 9 has this

“We’re talking about a different era,” says Julie Heldman, “We’re talking little housewife at home. We’re talking even the men tennis players at the time, who were really, genuinely good people, had this institutionalised misogyny. Arthur Ashe, who later said: ‘Oh boy was I wrong,’ his view was that there should not be any money for women players. Men get married and men should be supporting their wives.”

Everyone is wrong from time to time. It gets to be a problem when you can never be able to admit it.

some charts about demographics

by russell

How representative are the representatives?

The link above will take you to some simple graphs, comparing the demographic profiles of the population at large, vs those of the (D) and (R) members of Congress, for race, religion, and gender.  It will surprise no-one to find that the demographics of the (D)'s in Congress more closely reflect those of the population at large than those of the (R)'s, who are mostly white, male, and Christian.

The (R)'s currently hold the White House and a majority in the Senate.  They hold both in spite of the POTUS losing the popular vote, and (R) Senators representing 15 million fewer people than the (D)'s.  We are also on our way to a 6-3 conservative majority in the SCOTUS.

The (D)'s do hold a majority in the House.

There doesn't need to be a one-to-one correspondence of demographic details between the population as a whole, and the people who represent them in government.  But it does seem reasonable that, in a polity based on representative self-governance, the representatives should be.... representative.  At least approximately.

a few words about the filibuster

by russell

Federalist 58 :

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have been required for a quorum; and in particular cases, if not in all, more than a majority of a quorum for a decision. That some advantages might have resulted from such a precaution, cannot be denied. It might have been an additional shield to some particular interests, and another obstacle generally to hasty and partial measures. But these considerations are outweighed by the inconveniences in the opposite scale.

"In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.

Federalist 22 :

To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.

Thoughtful debate is fine.  Insuring that the concerns of minority interests are heard and considered is fine.

The filibuster has become a mechanism for requiring a supermajority for any and every controversial issue.  It's not a Constitutional issue, it's a matter of Senate rules, and it wasn't even a regular matter of Senate practice until well into the 19th C.

I'm not in favor of change for its own sake, and I recognize that changes to established practice often cut more than one way.  All of that said, it's time to get federal governance back to something approaching a functional state.

If getting rid of the filibuster helps make that happen, I'm all for it.

RBG

by liberal japonicus

My mother kept a diary when I was a baby. I've been trying to find it now, but if my memory is correct, it was all in the first person, i.e. my view of the world. However, the day that Robert Kennedy was assassinated, if I am remembering correctly, she changed and wrote half a page about waking up to the news. I'm not writing in anyone else's voice, but I imagine that how my mother felt is the way I'm feeling now.

A thread for discussion.

Your antiaptonym thread

by liberal japonicus

I had a friend who was always collecting store names that were antiaptonyms. The print shop called Typos, the hair salon called Tangles, that sort of thing. Well, my google news feed pulled this up

Short Seller Hindenburg Research Renews Attack On Nikola and I thought that Hindenberg Research might be a company that developed hydrogen powered cars. But alas, it's not. Though you got to wonder about a company that that calls itself Hindenberg Research. Oh the humanity...

Freakonomics, back in the day, had one about actual names, though they always seemed too punny for me. Not that I don't like a good pun, my recent favorite was a sushi shop in Otaru, Hokkaido called ポセイ丼 (Poseidon) The last don is a Chinese character for donburi, or a rice bowl dish.

However, it serves as an intro to a thread to bring out both your aptonyms and antiaptonyms.

A change of pace

by liberal japonicus

For those of you who don't want to talk about the election, compare this article https://medium.com/indica/the-overwhelming-racism-of-covid-coverage-78e37e4ce6e8

In the dirty south, we are constantly excluded from the world via euphemism. You talk about ‘developed’ world or the ‘industrialized’ world or ‘advanced’ nations. But what does that mean? How developed are you if you don’t have public health? How industrialized are you if you cannot distribute tests and PPE? How advanced are you if your people won’t even wear a mask?

with Daniel Dennett's review of The Weirdest People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/12/books/review/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-joseph-henrich.html

The world today has billions of inhabitants who have minds strikingly different from ours. Roughly, we weirdos are individualistic, think analytically, believe in free will, take personal responsibility, feel guilt when we misbehave and think nepotism is to be vigorously discouraged, if not outlawed. Right? They (the non-WEIRD majority) identify more strongly with family, tribe, clan and ethnic group, think more “holistically,” take responsibility for what their group does (and publicly punish those who besmirch the group’s honor), feel shame — not guilt — when they misbehave and think nepotism is a natural duty.

Discuss.

Tactics?

by liberal japonicus

Another open thread. What I'm wondering about is the juxtaposition of the current fire/weather crises in the western US and the upcoming election. This Guardian article argues that the Dems are still not sure it is a crisis. My assumption is that talking it up when it isn't an issue in the Midwest and the East is concern that it will be weaponized as an issue for the election.

I see a similar approach by Labour to the Tory admission that they are planning on breaking international law, albeit "in a very specific and limited way". At a recent PMQ, Starmer concentrated on the failures of the UK testing regime, without a mention of law breaking. Of course, during PMQ, there were others to ask the question and there is no election in a month, but the problem seems similar: going after the other side over issues that can then be used to rile up the base. Curious as to what others think.

Also, if you are in any of the areas that are affected by the fires, if you have your own personal perspectives of what is going down, feel free to share them. Stay safe everyone.