Obsidian Wings

The conservative grifter problem

by Doctor Science

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones discusses something I've been wondering about for a while: the number of conservative American political grifters. Drum asks,

why is this problem so much bigger on the right than on the left? I won't be happy with answers that simply assume liberals are innately better people. Even if they are, they aren't that much better. It's got to be something institutional, or something inherent in the nature of American conservatism. But what?

I think there are two factors at play:

• "Demand side": Conservatives are more elderly, more fearful, and more loyal than liberals, which makes them naturally more vulnerable to scams, especially affinity scams.
• "Supply side": Conservatives believe very strongly in capitalism and in making money, so conservative political operatives are much more likely than liberals to feel they deserve to make a lot of money for their political work. They expect to do well by doing (conservative political) good.

The weekend sports and things that matter open thread

by Ugh

It's Super Bowl weekend. My pick is Seattle winning 34-10. I just don't think New England is the good, they were lucky to beat Baltimore. Seattle was even more lucky to beat Green Bay, but I don't see Russell Wilson having a god awful game again

Tiger Woods is back and... He's terrible. If anyone cares.

A great Aussie open women's final of Serena v. Sharapova. Go Serena! Too bad it's on in the middle of the night eastern.

Will Kentucky have an undefeated season in men's college basketball? They have as good a chance as anyone. I mean, to be leading UCLA 41-7 at the half is just unbelievable. OTOH they do seem prone to lapses.

And there's probably something extremely depressing going on in the political world too. When is Bibi's speech to Congress?

Talk about any and all.

The Saudi succession system isn't really strange, but that doesn't mean it's functional

by Doctor Science

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo thinks Saudi succession is a strange, strange system (via slacktivist). As a reader of Marshall Hodgson's The Venture of Islam, I don't find it strange at all: the Saudi system is based on the usual Islamic succession principles, which are intended to focus on fairness and competence:

1. Fathers should not play favorites with their sons.

2. The holder of an office should be the most competent of the field of candidates.

3. The dead should not rule the living.

Principle 1 means that, under Islamic law, there should be no primogeniture. All sons should inherit equally; daughters don't inherit as much, but they *do* inherit and all daughters have an equal share. Indeed, even illegitimate or slave children have rights -- fathers aren't allowed to say some children count and others do not.

The point, as I understand it, is to make King Lear's approach impossible. The idea is to avoid manipulation and backbiting within the family, and to make sure every child has respect and support that can't be taken away.

Principle 2 means there are no regencies or child-kings under Islamic law. Rulership is never awarded to someone for being "next in line", for birth order alone. Ideally, the ruler should be not just a healthy adult male, but the most able of the group of qualified men. Ability is supposed to count much more than arbitrary luck.

Principle 3 means that a king doesn't get to appoint his successor. He may make a suggestion, he may even designate a Crown Prince -- but (in theory) that can be overlooked after his death.

I stayed up too late last night reading a recent paper on Primogeniture and autocratic survival in European monarchies. The authors, Andrej Kokkonen and Anders Sundell (Univ. of Gothenburg, Sweden) looked at every European monarch from 1000-1800 CE and correlated "type of succession" with "whether monarch left office due to natural causes, or was helped". They found that the latter risk "was several times higher in European monarchies not practicing primogeniture" (inheritance by eldest son). European monarchies became more stable over the centuries, and the spread of primogeniture could explain most of that.

Kokkonen & Sundell theorize that primogeniture is stabilizing because it makes succession very clear: there is only one Crown Prince, chosen by no human agency. Since the Crown Prince is a generation younger than the current monarch, he can afford to be patient. This means that the powerful people around the King (Prince/Emperor/President for Life/Supreme Leader) know exactly who to suck up to, to keep their positions in the next reign: they don't have to pick sides or take chances, they can expect business as usual to continue from one reign to the next.

Kokkonen & Sundell don't talk about one big disadvantage of primogeniture, which is that there's no quality control: the Crown Prince may not be competent, and may not even be an adult. It seems to me that primogeniture works[1] over the long term only in states where the monarch doesn't have to be particularly competent.

One traditional Islamic model of succession was "agnatic election": the ruler was chosen by election or a kind of bandwagon-consensus, from a pool of related male candidates -- the (many) sons or brothers of the previous ruler, usually. The idea is to get a ruler who has the competence to be a forceful leader from the get-go.

The Saudis have been mixing agnatic election with agnatic seniority. All the Kings so far have been sons of Abdulaziz or Ibn Saud, the first King. They've succeeded in order of age, but it's not automatic: many sons have been skipped over because they didn't have the support (or maybe desire) to be King.

I'm not really sure of the point of brother-to-brother succession. It means there isn't a generational jump from one ruler to the next: brothers are closer in age, and so perhaps in general outlook, than the father-to-son succession usual in Europe. In cultures (like Saudi Arabia, and in Islamicate tradition) where rulers have many wives, half-brothers can cover a broad range of ages -- Abdulaziz Ibn Saud had children over the course of 40 years, so the sons that ruled after him effectively belonged to several generations.

Now, though, the House of Saud is in a pickle. There are rumors that the new King, 79-year-old Salman, is in poor health. This would undercut one of the points of flexible succession, which is to start out with competent rulers -- but it may be true, if the succession guidelines were set up before his health deteriorated.

More worrying is that the current Crown Prince Muqrin is 69 years old and is the last available son of Abdulaziz Ibn Saud. After him, the family has to go to the next generation, which includes hundreds of grandsons. The first grandson to make the cut is Muhammad bin Nayef, currently Deputy Crown Prince (i.e. second in line). After that, the Allegiance Council is supposed to add grandsons to the succession based on "merit", not seniority.

"Merit", eh? That could in no way end poorly ...*Rains of Castamere starts to play* ...

Succession, by Wasily Kandinsky. "They speak of old blood and young stones."

---

[1.] By "it works" I mean "there's no civil war" -- avoiding civil war is the most important function of *any* system of succession.

LDS and LGBT and the possibility of change

by liberal japonicus

This, from Mother Jones:

In a groundbreaking news conference on Tuesday, the Mormon Church officially announced its support for some LGBT rights, on the condition that the same legal protections are extended to all religious groups. But in doing so, the church also made clear their endorsement did not reverse the church's opposition to same-sex marriage.

"We call on local, state, and the federal government to serve all of their people by passing legislation that protects vital religious freedoms for individuals, families, churches, and other faith groups while protecting the rights of our LGBT citizens in such areas as housing, employment, and public accommodation in hotels, restaurants, and transportation," Elder Dallin Oaks, a top official of the church, said. "[These] protections are not available in many parts of the country."

"We must all learn to live with others who do not share the same beliefs or values," church officials stated. 

It seems unprecedented to have a religion make a turn like this. Curious what the commentariat things.

 

 

Your long-standing confusion open thread

by Doctor Science

Sprog the Younger just watched M for German class. As she talked about it (her verdict: "I'm not sure you'll LIKE it, because it is a bit of a Moral Dilemma Indie Movie of the sort you think is super boring, but it's pretty cool.), I realized that for decades now I've been confusing it with Z, which came out when I was a teenager. Whoops. Category: Acclaimed European Movies With Single-Letter Titles I Haven't Seen.

So tell us about your long-standing confusions, or talk about your favorite Moral Dilemma Indie Movies, or whatever.

Mr and Mrs Sith, a Movie Title Typo by Austin Light:

Mr. and Mrs. Sith: Two Jedi abandon the order for love. Also to shoot lightning from their hands. Because that's cool.

As we say on Tumblr, #relationship goals. This is where the "M" came from, you see.

Does Hollywood export American racism?

by Doctor Science

The e-magazine Atlanta Black Star recently ran an article on 8 of the Worst Countries For Black People to Travel: Germany (the formerly East parts, specifically), Russia, Greece, Spain, Italy, Thailand, China, and South Korea.

About anti-black racism in the Asian countries, one (anonymous) person said:

My own experience is that the first exposures to black people for a lot of rural Northeast and Southeast Asians are US films and TV programs of the action genre. Unfortunately, the images depicted in them are generally more negative, where even the good folks are violent gun-toting folks.

There are a number of people here who have lived in these countries, does this sound reasonable to you?

The list says, in part:

China
A person of African descent traveling to China should not be surprised if they are repeatedly stared at or even swarmed by crowds of curious Chinese who will treat them as a spectacle by taking pictures, touching their hair, rubbing their skin, and asking questions that reflect their ignorance and lack of interaction with Black people.

In China, Black people are viewed through stereotypes, and most Chinese assume Blacks are poor, uneducated, violent, play basketball, are barbaric and wild, and even eat each other. The most common Chinese slur used against Black people means "black ghost."

South Korea
Racist mockery of Black people is very common in the public sphere in South Korea. When a Black person turns on the television in Korea, they can expect to experience Koreans using blackface and other stereotypical depictions to mock African people, the Diaspora, and Black culture in general.

Tourists can also anticipate being mistreated because of skin color or ethnicity. Foreigners say although many Koreans are polite and respectful, it's not unusual to experience an angry, public xenophobic outburst from some of Korea's citizens and taxi drivers, who they say overlook them in favor of picking up Koreans. A number of visitors have also reported locals shifting uneasily away from them on public transportation.

Some Koreans and visitors explain the racism against Black people as stemming from a fear of the unknown, since the country has historically been one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world. Some Koreans will go their entire lives and never see a Black person. Others say Koreans, over time, have adopted whites' attitudes towards Blacks.

Thailand
Many people of color who have lived in Thailand can attest to the problematic racial attitudes commonplace in the country. Thais have an aversion to dark skin in general, and are prejudiced against people of African descent or anyone who has a darker skin tone, even among themselves. Black people frequently face discrimination in the workplace and are targeted for scrutiny from police. According to some travelers, it is legal there to discriminate on the basis of skin color or ethnicity.

Anti-black racism in European countries is naturally going to be more complicated than in Asia, because of the much longer history of African-ancestry people living in Europe. The version of this list going around tumblr emphasized Thailand, China, and Korea as being "the worst", though the original doesn't, as far as I can see, rank the 8 countries it discusses. But since the cited risks in European countries include physical violence, I don't see how the "freak show" treatment black people get in Asia can be considered *worse*.

And, as many commenters at Atlanta Black Star point out, it's not as though the US is always an great place for black people to travel. Within my lifetime, African-Americans were excluded from sundown towns, and had to have their own travel guides to find places where they could eat and stay in safety. Points that should be borne in mind by anyone fussing about no-go zones springing up in the US or Europe.

Detail from Perseus Freeing Andromeda by Piero di Cosimo. MedievalPOC points out that Andromeda is canonically Ethiopian, but you'd never know it from the way she's depicted in European art. It looks to me as though di Cosimo was torn between realism and his patrons' expectations, so he painted Andromeda with unhealthy-looking grayish skin.

Does anyone have any idea what kind of instrument the black musician is playing? Is it supposed to be purely fantastic? The white musician's instrument looks much simpler and more plausible, though it doesn't match European instruments of the period. Might it be a three-stringed psaltery?

The real no go zone and sex discrimination in marriage

by Ugh

Greetings everyone from a cold as all get out French "no go" zone, aka Berlin.  Looks like that, while I was kinda busy, SCOTUS really does want to decide whether states can discriminate on the basis of sex in granting marriage rights.  Of course, it didn't quite put it that way (and, uh, NYTimes?  maybe you should put the actual questions earlier in the article than halfway through? just sayin).

So I guess we will see if my prediction on the outcome comes true.  I see a 6-3 decision on the result, and then 5 (4 "liberals" + Kennedy) agreeing on majority reasoning, Roberts writing on the stupid questions presented as if they are the real issue in the case, and then the other 3 dissenting.  

What say you?  Or, what's going on in your no go zone?

Your Mysteries of Home Finance and Design Open Thread

by Doctor Science

The big excitement at Chez Science is that we're buying a house! I have many questions about what people do and why they do it.

1. The house is a short sale, and has been on the market for *years*. We're the first people to be seriously interested in it in the past couple of years, and we made our first offer last July. The bank made a (IMHO laughable) counter-offer in September, and gave us two weeks to reply. We made a counter-counter offer well within that period, then waited 6 weeks for their counter-counter-counter -- which they gave us less than 3 business days to accept or reject. We countered yet again, and said we'd only be bound by that offer for 3 weeks, after that they could take their chances (I was *really* ticked).

Two months passed, we were actively looking at other houses, when all of a sudden *poof!* they took our offer. We looked at it, said "yeah, this house still has the location-location-location thing in *spades*, we'll go for it."

Now, I admit we were playing hardball with the price (successfully!), but the Free Market had been looking at the price the buyers were asking for years, and rejecting it. Market value is only what someone is willing to pay, and we were the only people waving money at this particular.

So why did it take them *so long* to make up their minds for each round of negotiation, when they felt entitled to demand that we decide within a few days? What kind of forces are acting to make banks or mortgage companies so reluctant to pick up money that's lying on the table? Is it something about the "Free Market" that I don't understand, or is it something about who gets blamed when a house is sold for less than the value of the liens? I wonder if the bank is losing money because no-one who's able to make decisions is personally rewarded when such a decision is made. Or maybe just keeping the house sitting there is somehow to their advantage -- which, given the property taxes around here, takes a lot of doing.

2. One reason we made a lowball offer is that we've got to put in a lot of work before we can really live there. One thing we definitely need is a complete kitchen remodel, which I've never done before, so I'm looking at kitchen design sites, making notes, and collecting good ideas. (So far: the kitchn, This Old House, Kitchens.com. Any other suggestions?)

Compared to most people, I do a *lot* of cooking -- we eat out rarely, get take-out maybe once a week, we have a dinner party for 6-10 people almost every Saturday, and holiday or birthday dinners for 10-14 people several times a year. For me, the kitchen is a heavily-used workspace that has to be efficient, easy to clean, and well-lit.

A lot of my choices aren't really going to be in line with current fashions, then. I don't like granite countertops, because it's too likely that things that drop or get tipped over will break, and it's not super-easy to clean. I don't like tile floors, because they're too hard when I'm on my feet for 3-4 hours.

But what I *really* don't understand is why people put a built-in microwave over the range. Isn't that just asking for burns, as you stretch over a boiling pot to get to the microwave? Why do people *do* that? Not to mention that I want a powerful hood-fan over the range, so the fire alarm isn't just the "cooking alarm".

Talk about housing, unfathomable choices by other people, or whatever.

Preparing the meal, by Jan Toorop (1883). A badly-designed kitchen will do that to your back, all right.

"The Legend of Korra" and what boys are taught about toxic relationships

by Doctor Science

When The Legend of Korra ended last month in a burst of sparkly rainbows, I decided I'd try watching it again. I watched the first season as it aired, but it didn't really grab me so I lost interest. So, being a completist by nature, I went back and picked up with Season 2. I just finished episode 2.04 "Civil Wars: Part 2", and I'm giving up. I am not happy that I just saw Korra, Our Heroine, torture someone for information (and it works!), but the last straw has been the relationship between Bolin and Eska.

TRIGGER WARNING: some discussion of abusive relationships, more may arise in comments.

Where was Obama? Really?

by Ugh

Is it just me or is the whole "the U.S. didn't send a sufficiently high level official/Obama himself to march in Paris - outrage!" thing ridiculous?  I'd dismiss it as mindless partisan blather, but then the White House starts saying it should have done so.  Perhaps they're of the mind "meh, there's no harm in apologizing and if it gets people to focus on real issues, why not?"

Of course, if he went or someone of "sufficient gravitas" was sent in his place (John Kerry?), then the opposite talking point is "A terrorist shoots up a tabloid in a foreign country and the President of the United States interrupts everything to jet over there?!!?  How low Obama has brought this country.  tsk. tsk."

Feh.