Obsidian Wings

Your 'is the Pope Catholic?' Friday Open thread

by liberal japonicus

This Rolling Stone cover story about Pope Francis is well worth reading. Some grafs I found interesting:

A reporter asks Francis, who is standing at the head of the aisle, about the existence of a "gay lobby" within the Vatican. Francis begins by making a joke, saying he hasn't yet run into anyone with a special gay identification card. But then his face becomes serious and, gesturing for emphasis, he says it's important to distinguish between lobbies, which are bad – "A lobby of the greedy, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies!" he says later in the press conference – and individual gay people who are well-intentioned and seeking God. It's while speaking to the latter point that he makes the "Who am I to judge?" remark, and this part of the video is really worth watching, because, aside from the entirely mind-blowing fact of a supposedly infallible pope asking this question at all, his answer is never really translated properly. What he actually says is, "Mah, who am I to judge?" In Italian, mah is an interjection with no exact English parallel, sort of the verbal equivalent of an emphatic shrug. My dad's use of mah most often precedes his resignedly pouring another splash of grappa into his coffee. The closest translation I can come up with is "Look, who the hell knows?" If you watch the video, Francis even pinches his fingers together for extra Italian emphasis. Then he flashes a knowing smirk.

and

Even simple gestures, like Francis' rejection of the papal palace, went beyond mere symbolism. "The main reason he didn't want to live there mostly had to do with autonomy," says a Vatican clergyman who has worked closely with multiple popes. "In the palace, they can control what gets to you." Now, while Francis' days in some ways follow an expected papal itinerary – early rising and prayer, morning Mass, visits with dignitaries and heads of state, the occasional off-site trip to a hospital or a church – the space he's carved out for himself has allowed for an unprecedented degree of independence. While past popes maintained detailed public schedules, Francis handwrites his own agenda in a private datebook. "This is unheard of," a senior Vaticanisti who wishes to remain anonymous tells me. "Aides who'd ordinarily know what's going on have to piece things together by talking to other people." Confirms Father Lombardi, the Vatican press secretary, with the hint of a sigh, "Before, I was in contact with the Curia and could ask them what the daily agenda is. Now, we have to discover what the agenda is. He is very free in organizing it."

No word yet on if the Pope has purchased 5 copies for his mother.

Unionizing "Student-Athletes" and "Amateurism"

by Ugh

I see that ESPN's "Outside the Lines" is reporting that football players at Northwestern are attempting to unionize.  I'm not an expert on labor law, the National Labor Relations Act, or the National Labor Relations Board.  It seems that the key question is whether football players should be considered employees under the Act.  Here is a brief legal analysis that says they are likely to fail.

The NCAA, of course, thinks no.  NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy said "student-athletes are not employees within any definition of the National Labor Relations Act."  And that "their participation in college sports is voluntary."  I'm not sure what "voluntary" has to do with anything.  Certainly my employment is "voluntary," yet I'm still considered an employee.

Even if the "voluntary" issue is somehow relevant, how voluntary can it be for, say, the average Division I football or basketball player on a scholarship, especially at a private institution like Northwestern?  If a player decided he just didn't feel like practicing one week, could he "re-volunteer" the next week and everything would be just fine?  

Also this from Remy seems rather silly:  "This union-backed attempt to turn student-athletes into employees undermines the purpose of college: an education."  But surely many other students hold down jobs, even unionized ones, while in college.

Anyway, this brings up the whole question of whether college athletes should be paid more than they are.  And I can't believe people continue to think "no" is an acceptable answer, or at least I don't find any of the arguments in favor of continuing the current system at all persuasive, although I am open to hearing them.  Playing big-time, Division I college football or basketball is effectively a full-time job during the season, the colleges and universities generate millions of dollars from their programs, the NCAA and Big Conferences receive billions in TV royalties, and the coaches at the biggest schools are paid 7 figure salaries.  

Why shouldn't the players be paid properly?

Did misers become hoarders?

by Doctor Science

I definitely had a 21st-century day yesterday: a home organizer helped me spend 3 hours sorting and tossing stuff from the living room. It's not the case that *everyone* I know has a house with too much stuff in it, but it's certainly most people. We're going to be moving sometime in the next 6 or 8 months, and I'm determined that this time we won't move a bunch of stuff we don't need. So this first step is a very good one, but ye gods I ended up as exhausted as if I'd spend the time hauling rocks.

I say it's a 21st-century day because most of us seem to have way too many *things*, and have a hard time getting rid of them -- hence, a solid market niche for home organizers. Also, the rise of a new, or at least newly-identified, mental disorder, Compulsive Hoarding.

The odd thing about hoarding is that, as Wikipedia says, Hoarding in this context only entered widespread knowledge, media, and popular vocabulary after about 2000. I can think of a few characters in 19th-century novels who we'd now call hoarders -- Mr. Krook in Bleak House, for instance. But I can't think of one from a earlier story or drama.

"You see, I have so many things here," he resumed, holding up the lantern, "of so many kinds, and all as the neighbours think (but THEY know nothing), wasting away and going to rack and ruin, that that's why they have given me and my place a christening. And I have so many old parchmentses and papers in my stock. And I have a liking for rust and must and cobwebs. And all's fish that comes to my net. And I can't abear to part with anything I once lay hold of (or so my neighbours think, but what do THEY know?) or to alter anything, or to have any sweeping, nor scouring, nor cleaning, nor repairing going on about me."

Illustration by 'Phiz'.

So was the kind of personality that nowadays leads to hoarding less of a problem in earlier centuries? Or did the problem look like something else?

What I'm wondering is if the compulsive-hoarding people used to be misers. For thousands of years, misers were a stock figure of story-telling, but I always found it odd because I could never match them up to people I saw around me.

But when I read David Graeber's Debt I started thinking, maybe the kind of people who are now hoarders used to be misers. One point Graeber keeps making is that pre-modern societies were constantly bedeviled by a lack of cash, so that most people most of the time had very little contact with hard money. But they had even less contact with excess stuff, especially non-perishables. I wonder if the anxiety that today leads to hoarding all kinds of junk, back then tended to end up stuck on money -- because even though cash was scarce, it was still easier to accumulate money than to collect things you *buy* with money.

There's also the fact that, in any pre-modern society (whether agricultural or foraging), anxious hoarding of food against future uncertainty was *never* a bug, it was a feature: that was how you lived through the winter/the dry season. It's only in the modern era that it's become possible for an average person to accumulate a big enough pile of stuff to fill their house.

Indeed, by the turn of the 21st century it takes ongoing effort for the average person *not* to have too much stuff. I was at first taken aback to learn that this problem is even worse in Japan. I tend to think of Japanese homes as looking like this:

[source]

but in fact, I gather, they generally look more like this:

[From Tokyo, a Certain Style by Kyoichi Tsuzuki.]
— only to be expected when consumer culture collides with small living spaces.

The Emperor and the fire

by Doctor Science

Andrew Sullivan linked to Jeff Kingston's review of Tokyo Vernacular by Jordan Sand, and its discussion of the firebombing of Tokyo in WWII. Kingston says

outside of Japan this is one of the forgotten horrors of WWII. ... Oddly enough, there is no state memorial to this tragedy, and, in 1964, Emperor Showa actually bestowed an award on General Curtis LeMay, the man who was in charge of firebombing 66 of Japan’s cities, including Tokyo.

Sand suggests that the event is without official commemoration because

The families of many victims held a grievance against the imperial government for having brought the calamity upon them, or at least for having left them exposed to it. Investigative work by journalist Matsuura Sōzō and others revealed that authorities had put the safety and comfort of the emperor over the safety of the mass of Tokyo's citizens, and that air raid warnings had even been delayed as a consequence.

[Here is the citation.]

The award LeMay received was the Order of the Rising Sun, First Class, and it was given to him on December 7, 1964. Australian blogger Jonathan Delacour has discussed why and how LeMay might have been given this award, but it's all speculation as far as I can tell. Giving such a high award to LeMay, and doing it on Pearl Harbor Day, is so bizarre I honestly have no idea what they were thinking.

However, there are people here who might have a better idea! So tell me, liberal japonicus, why the firebombings of Tokyo (and other cities too, I assume) have no official commemoration.

The firebombings, as Kingston says, are still very much part of the people's memory, "one of the most retold stories in oral histories, with accounts of spectacular flames and the apocalyptic aftermath of a city reduced to ashes and panoramic vistas over smoldering ruins." And personal memory isn't the only re-telling. This picture is a still from Grave of the Fireflies, a traumatically depressing movie about the bombing of Kobe and its effects.

Your one gadget open Friday thread

by liberal japonicus

I have to admit, I only looked at this news item because I thought it said 'Lone Ranger debacle could be avoided with a gadget' and thought 'how could you have saved that film with a gadget?' (Though I saw it on the airplane coming back from the states and it was great transpacific fare, soaking up time with a minimum of mental effort).

Anyway, here is yet another open Friday post, where you can describe a gadget you like or hate or take the conversation in a different direction.

How can I tell whether the intelligence agencies are useful?

by Doctor Science
(who's back to being unable to log in under that name)

I grew up in the 60s and 70s, which means (among other things) that I tend to distrust the benevolence and competence of the "three-letter agencies" (FBI, CIA, NSA, KGB). That is: I tend to assume that they're up to not much good, and that what they *are* up to they do poorly. I have more respect for the FBI than the others, because I can see that they *do* do jobs they can talk about and that are worth doing, some of the time. But I don't know if my trust will ever recover from growing up during the reign of J. Edgar Hoover

Since Sept.11th, my always-shaky confidence in the intelligence agencies has dropped even further. What I see:

• Al Quaeda was unstopped not because of failure on the part of the agencies, but because there was no political interest in stopping them.
• CIA/NSA, at least, let themselves be used as political tools to argue for the Iraq War.
• The fact that the agencies didn't go *ballistic* when Valerie Plame was outed persuaded me that they think they *ought* to be political tools.
• It took the FBI 8 years to identify the anthrax terrorist, and they conveniently fingered someone who'd committed suicide years previously. Incompetence or political motivation? You be the judge!
• The CIA deliberately undermined the effort to exterminate polio to help track down Bin Laden. As far as I'm concerned, this makes them baby-killers aforethought.
• Security theater in the TSA, all in the spirit of covering one's ass.
• Massive, untrammeled surveillance of everyone and everything, just because.

Now, I'm told that this is necessary to "keep us safe", and that I should trust the people in charge. But you know what they say: Trust, but verify. So how do I verify?

Remember, I'm a scientist, and my null hypothesis is always: nothing non-random is happening. Is there any way for an observer without high-level access to tell whether the intelligence agencies are actually accomplishing anything? If so, is there any way to tell whether their accomplishments are outweighed by their costs?

Your fired for Photoshop open thread

by liberal japonicus

This story is a depressing one, but I thought this was the most plaintive note.

In a written appeal to his superiors, Powers asked that he be allowed to keep his job so he could focus on his work duties.

"I am at a point in my career where I have reached a fork in the road," he wrote. "Do I want to continue to under-achieve and get by making people laugh, or do I want to finally live up to my potential and become a valuable piece to a great team?"

Powers was fired two weeks later.

This also caught my eye

Administrative Law Judge Debra Wise ruled that Powers' photos did not rise to the level of misconduct because at least one of his supervisors was aware of them and hadn't told Powers to stop making them.

But with regard to the adult-themed websites, Wise ruled that Powers knowingly violated the state's computer-use policy, which amounted to workplace misconduct. On that basis, she denied his request for unemployment benefits.

For those of you streaming Game of Thrones to a work computer, watch out!

San Diego Border Beating Raises Excessive Force Problems Against More than the Allegedly Illegal Immigrant

--by Sebastian

Yesterday we were treated to yet another video of an armed officer using what appears to be excessive force against someone the officer is arresting.  (10 News )This case is murkier than some, because from the video it is still possible that the man is actually resisting arrest in some ways.  The man is still face first on the ground and definitely not kicking or punching, so the beating initially strikes me as execessive force. 

This particular instance contains a number of elements which are even more troubling for society as a whole than a typical excessive force case. 

The person who took the video is a parolee, meaning that the police can search his house for evidence of illegal activity without a warrant, which they did one day after he shot the video.  But initial reports strongly suggest that police seized the cell phone in an attempt to keep the video from getting out.  Searching a parolee's house for evidence of police wrongdoing, and then seizing it to keep it from getting out is an inversion of the purpose of being able to search a parolee's house without a warrant.  The police are supposed to have that power to protect the public from the parolee's illegal behavior, not their own.

Within two days, the police had arrested Jose Guzman, the person who shot the video, for violating his parole.  He reports that they set him up for aiding and abetting an unrelated illegal immigrant co-worker by not participating in an investigation by calling the worker and asking him where he was.  Parolees are required to cooperate with ongoing investigations, but they are not required to participate in investigations in that manner. 

This story is still in the early stages of development.  Facts may come to light which make the police response look better.  But at the moment it looks like they are using excessive force against the crime of keeping them accountable.  That wouldn't be good for any of us. 

Utah throws everything at the wall to see what sticks

by Doctor Science -- who blogger.com has decided to let in again

Adam Liptak at the NY Times doesn't *have* to mock the Utah Attorney General's office arguments against marriage equality (aka same-sex marriage), they come pre-mocked for your convenience:

"A substantial body of social science research confirms," the brief said, "that children generally fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving, low-conflict marriage."

Lawyers for the couples challenging Utah's ban on same-sex marriage responded that the assertion "is not true." For evidence, they cited "the scientific consensus of every national health care organization charged with the welfare of children and adolescents," and listed nine such groups. The view of the groups, the challengers said, "based on a significant and well-respected body of current research, is that children and adolescents raised by same-sex parents, with all things being equal, are as well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex couples."

Utah responded that it would not be swayed by "politically correct trade associations," referring to, among others, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. "We are not ruled by experts," the state's brief said.

And now, they go a step further:

drawing on Supreme Court decisions endorsing the value of diversity in deciding who may attend public universities, the state now said it was pursuing "gender diversity" in marriages. "Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students," the brief said. "If that is true in education, why not in parenting?"

You have *got* to be kidding.

IANAL, but some of you are. Is this kind of "throw absolutely everything at the wall to see what sticks" standard procedure for high-level appeals cases? Or is this a function of turmoil in the Utah AG office?

Once again, I am boggled at how feeble and poorly-rehearsed the anti-same-sex-marriage arguments are. For crying out loud, people, this has been going on for *years*, decades even -- why haven't you managed to come up with something better than that? It's as though they haven't even *tried*.

So I went looking for pictures of "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks", and what I found was this: Bubblegum Alley, San Luis Obispo, California. The second picture is attributed, sort of, to Seattle's Gum Wall, but it's clear that they're pictures of the same place. But which? And was the gum fluorescent in some way, or is this The Wonders of Photoshop?

Recess Appointments*

by Ugh

Today SCOTUS heard arguments on NLRB v. Noel Canning, regarding when the President can make so-called recess appointments to fill vacancies in Executive Branch positions that require Senate confirmation, without Senate confirmation.  

This is allowed by Art. II, Sec. 2, which reads in pertinent part "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

To me, this boils down to two questions, which are when is the Senate in "recess," and, once determined, does the power apply only to vacancies that arise when the Senate is in recess or vacancies that exist at the time of recess no matter when they arose.  

It seems that the answer to the latter question is that the text is fairly clear, POTUS can fill vacancies that happen "during" the recess of the Senate.  If they happen when the Senate is in session, too bad.  The counter-argument is that there is a longstanding practice to the contrary ("any vacancy will do"), but that doesn't seem persuasive enough to override the text.

The issue then becomes, when is the Senate in recess, other than between the two sessions?  Like most things, the Constitution doesn't provide a clear answer.  It does state that the Senate "may determine the Rules of its Proceedings."  So, perhaps we should ask the Senate whether it was in recess as there is little else to go on in the Constitution and when to start/end sessions seems to fall squarely within the rules of proceedings.  The answer from the Senate in this case is that it was not.  Case closed, Obama's appointments to the NLRB are invalid, and the NLRB's decisions made without a quorum are simliarly invalid.

I guess the hard question is, given the longstanding practice of making appointments in a manner that is now unconstitutional, do we have to unwind any decision ever made by a recess appointee that did not meet the now more clearly defined procedure?  The government raised this issue at argument, but I would expect the Court to either punt by saying that whether such a decision is retroactive to all appointees is not before them, or to just state that their decision applies in this case and all recess appointments made after the date the opinion is published.  

I find this interesting because it seems a rare case where Congress punched back at the Executive Branch in a way that really mattered.  IIRC, this first took place back when Bush was President and the Senate started holding pro forma sessions to thwart the recess appointment power.  If the Senate wins, at it seems it will, then maybe we'll see more of this.

*Playground, 1:30pm.