(W) “When we revisit our shameful past, ask yourself, Where was the middle? Rather than chattel slavery, perhaps we could agree on a nice program of indentured servitude? Instead of subjecting Japanese-American citizens to indefinite detention during WW II, what if we had agreed to give them actual sentences and perhaps provided a receipt for them to reclaim their things when they were released? What is halfway between moral and immoral?”
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
A Supreme Marriage Proposal
By Nina Totenberg
NPR
31 October 2018
Some personal secrets are so well-kept that even family and friends are oblivious. So it is with the story of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist's marriage proposal to a Stanford Law School classmate in the early 1950s.
When 19-year-old Sandra Day entered Stanford Law School in 1949, her frequent seatmate was 26-year-old Bill Rehnquist, attending Stanford on the GI Bill. The two shared their equally meticulous class notes, and eventually were dating regularly. But by December of their second year, she broke up with him, while somehow retaining what she called their "study buddy" relationship; she even entered the moot court competition with Rehnquist, and the pair finished second.
When Rehnquist graduated a semester early and went off to Washington, D.C., for a Supreme Court clerkship, Sandra wrote to her parents that school "does not seem the same" without him. "We all truly hated to see him leave, in spite of, perhaps, even because of, all the funny things he does. He certainly has a brilliant career ahead," she added.
By then, Sandra, the only woman in her class, was dating John O'Connor, whom she met over a proofreading assignment on the prestigious Stanford Law Review. After their first meeting, John suggested they finish their proofreading over a beer, and the two soon were inseparable. John was charming and funny, and unlike a couple of beaus who had jilted her, he was not cowed by her smarts.
A biographer finds an old marriage proposal
But in March, just about the time that the pair were going out on their 40th date in 40 days, Sandra got a letter from Rehnquist, telling her he wanted to see her to talk about "important things." And in a March 29 letter, he popped the question. "To be specific, Sandy, will you marry me this summer?"
The future chief justice of the United States was proposing to the woman who years later would become the first woman to serve on the nation's highest court.
The reveal comes in a new book entitled First by author Evan Thomas, set to be published in March 2019. Thomas, while doing his research, found the Rehnquist letters among O'Connor's correspondence.
Sandra Day would marry John O'Connor, becoming Sandra Day O'Connor in 1952. As for Rehnquist, not long after Sandra said "no", he would start dating Nan Cornell, the woman he would marry in 1953. According to Thomas, Rehnquist would tell a friend shortly before his death in 2005 that Nan, who died in 1991, was the only woman he ever loved.
Friends, family and colleagues didn't know
The two justices never made a secret of their dating relationship at Stanford, though both played it down. But it appears that neither friends, colleagues nor family knew of the marriage proposal — until now.
O'Connor's son Jay says that he and his siblings were "surprised," though they knew their mother and Rehnquist had dated. That, observes Jay, "was a different era."
"Dating was pretty innocent in the 50s," he says, adding that "multiple men proposed to my mom when she was in college and law school and ultimately my dad was the one who was the real deal." Most remarkable was that O'Connor and Rehnquist remained close personal friends forever. They both ended up living in Phoenix, socialized together often, even were neighbors, according to Jay O'Connor. And when Rehnquist went to Washington in the Nixon Administration and was later appointed to the Supreme Court, the two stayed in touch.
Indeed, Rehnquist is said to have been one of those who privately suggested O'Connor to President Reagan as a potential Supreme Court nominee in 1981.
"Not only did they have a wonderful working relationship for over 25 years on the court they had a wonderful friendship their entire life.""It was just an amazing accident of history that... my mom and her friend and law school classmate ended up on the Supreme Court together," says Jay O'Connor.
NPR
31 October 2018
Some personal secrets are so well-kept that even family and friends are oblivious. So it is with the story of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist's marriage proposal to a Stanford Law School classmate in the early 1950s.
When 19-year-old Sandra Day entered Stanford Law School in 1949, her frequent seatmate was 26-year-old Bill Rehnquist, attending Stanford on the GI Bill. The two shared their equally meticulous class notes, and eventually were dating regularly. But by December of their second year, she broke up with him, while somehow retaining what she called their "study buddy" relationship; she even entered the moot court competition with Rehnquist, and the pair finished second.
When Rehnquist graduated a semester early and went off to Washington, D.C., for a Supreme Court clerkship, Sandra wrote to her parents that school "does not seem the same" without him. "We all truly hated to see him leave, in spite of, perhaps, even because of, all the funny things he does. He certainly has a brilliant career ahead," she added.
By then, Sandra, the only woman in her class, was dating John O'Connor, whom she met over a proofreading assignment on the prestigious Stanford Law Review. After their first meeting, John suggested they finish their proofreading over a beer, and the two soon were inseparable. John was charming and funny, and unlike a couple of beaus who had jilted her, he was not cowed by her smarts.
A biographer finds an old marriage proposal
But in March, just about the time that the pair were going out on their 40th date in 40 days, Sandra got a letter from Rehnquist, telling her he wanted to see her to talk about "important things." And in a March 29 letter, he popped the question. "To be specific, Sandy, will you marry me this summer?"
The future chief justice of the United States was proposing to the woman who years later would become the first woman to serve on the nation's highest court.
The reveal comes in a new book entitled First by author Evan Thomas, set to be published in March 2019. Thomas, while doing his research, found the Rehnquist letters among O'Connor's correspondence.
Sandra Day would marry John O'Connor, becoming Sandra Day O'Connor in 1952. As for Rehnquist, not long after Sandra said "no", he would start dating Nan Cornell, the woman he would marry in 1953. According to Thomas, Rehnquist would tell a friend shortly before his death in 2005 that Nan, who died in 1991, was the only woman he ever loved.
Friends, family and colleagues didn't know
The two justices never made a secret of their dating relationship at Stanford, though both played it down. But it appears that neither friends, colleagues nor family knew of the marriage proposal — until now.
O'Connor's son Jay says that he and his siblings were "surprised," though they knew their mother and Rehnquist had dated. That, observes Jay, "was a different era."
"Dating was pretty innocent in the 50s," he says, adding that "multiple men proposed to my mom when she was in college and law school and ultimately my dad was the one who was the real deal." Most remarkable was that O'Connor and Rehnquist remained close personal friends forever. They both ended up living in Phoenix, socialized together often, even were neighbors, according to Jay O'Connor. And when Rehnquist went to Washington in the Nixon Administration and was later appointed to the Supreme Court, the two stayed in touch.
Indeed, Rehnquist is said to have been one of those who privately suggested O'Connor to President Reagan as a potential Supreme Court nominee in 1981.
"Not only did they have a wonderful working relationship for over 25 years on the court they had a wonderful friendship their entire life.""It was just an amazing accident of history that... my mom and her friend and law school classmate ended up on the Supreme Court together," says Jay O'Connor.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
The POTUS and the 14th
Our disgusting POTUS thinks he can abrogate the citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment by an executive order. The language is clear in the amendment that persons born in the U.S. are citizens automatically. It is totally clear unless he gets the 5-headed troglodytes in the Supreme Court to twist the language and go along with him. This seems to clearly be an election ploy for his ignorant base.
Monday, October 29, 2018
A Great Team
World Series
Game 5
David Price pitched seven strong innings and Steve Pearce homered twice as the Red Sox put the finishing touches on one of the great seasons in recent baseball history.
- By Dave Sheinin
To the Red Sox!
Hail to the Red Sox! The Curse of the Bambino is long gone, but is still remembered, oh yes! Not much remembered is Pumpsie Green who integrated the Sox in 1959. The Red Sox were the last pre-expansion team in the majors to integrate.
I was in Boston in June of 1990. The team was not in town, but I was able to jog around Fenway. The oldest park in the majors, Fenway Park was built in 1912. Our own Rickwood was built in 1910 and still stands.
Ted Williams still intrigues me. He once said that hitting a major league pitcher was the hardest single thing to do in all of sports. I suspect he was right. He aspired to be the greatest hitter of all-time, and he may have been, Babe Ruth notwithstanding.
HAILTO THE RED SOX!
Sunday, October 28, 2018
He is Culpable
Politicians don't give specific directions. They simply set the tone, and in the end, someone else does the dirty work.
- By Julia Ioffe
Texas voting machines changing some straight-party selections
By Ted Oberg
ABC13 News
25 October 2018
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) --
ABC13 News
25 October 2018
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) --
Voters are reporting odd problems on both the Republican and Democratic side of straight-party voting in Texas.
Mickey Blake was one of the voters in those early voting lines in Houston earlier this week.
"I hit straight Democratic ticket," Blake said.
She says she expected all Democrats to come up on her screen, especially Rep. Beto O'Rourke, but when she got to the last screen to review her choices, she noticed a problem.
"It's all Democratic except for Ted Cruz was checked," Blake said.
So she backed up and did it again. And again.
"I tried it a third time and the same thing happened," she said.
The same thing happened to Cordell Hosea in Fort Bend County.
"When I got to the end, I just so happened that I glanced at the screen, I saw Ted Cruz was selected as my senator," Hosea said.
He too voted straight ticket Democrat.
But it's not just a Democrat problem. Voters who select straight-party Republican unselect Sen. Cruz and wind up voting for no one. Either way, officials say it's a rare issue that happens, but not to everyone.
It's popped up across Texas often enough for the Secretary of State to put up a statewide advisory on Monday to every Texas election advisor.
The Secretary of State calls it 'operator error.'
"We've heard from voters over a number of elections about this," said Ft. Bend County Election Administrator John Oldham.
Oldham says it's a problem he's seen for years.
He even told the Secretary of State about it years ago and it's still happening.
"It's not a glitch, it's a user-induced problem that comes from the type of system that we have," Oldham said. "I think both sides could be equally hurt."
It's unclear how widespread it is.
"As long as you don't hit the red button to cast, then you can get some assistance from the poll watchers," Hosea said.
Oldham tells us he recalls the problems for at least six years and says he's talked to the Secretary of State more than once about the problem. It has not been fixed aside from signs provided by the Secretary of State to warn voters to check their selections.
Oldham also said he was able to replicate the issue in his offices after multiple attempts.
"I'm really disappointed with the State of Texas," Hosea told us.
Sam Taylor, at the Texas Secretary of State's office, tells 13 Investigates the problem is "user error" and not something their office could fix. Taylor suggests a vendor could or should handle any upgrades, but the state has not asked vendors to do so.
Oldham and another election expert tell 13 Investigates that in some states, pop up screens warn straight ticket voters if they purposely or accidentally select a candidate of the other party. Texas has no such electronic warning.
Oldham in Fort Bend County told us it is most likely caused by voters simultaneously twisting the selection dial and pushing the enter button. It may not even be purposeful, but done by voters in a rush who don't realize they are still interacting with both.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
A Florida Trump Supporter
Cesar Sayoc, 56, is likely to be charged with sending a 14th device addressed to Democratic donor Tom Steyer, an official said.
Investigators across the country continued to chase potential bombs after the arrest.
- By Devlin Barrett, Mark Berman and Matt Zapotosky
Friday, October 26, 2018
Bombing Arrest
Man arrested in connection to investigation into mail bomb plot, federal officials confirm
Cesar Sayoc, Jr., a 56-year-old resident of Aventura, Florida, has been taken into custody in the Sunshine State
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Bombs Away
The packages set off a new wave of alarm amid a sprawling investigation into pipe bombs mailed to prominent political figures and critics of President Trump.
-WaPost
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Our POTUS is a Nationalist
Trump has admitted that he is a "nationalist." This is chilling if you understand what this means. All fascists are nationalists. The seminal book of our times regarding fascism (as far as I can see) is "How Fascism Works" by Yale philosopher Jason Stanley. It's all here.
One of his fascinating points is that for fascists the state is the enemy in favor of the nation. Hence, Trump can attack his own government in favor of a mythical nation that represents the interests of his people.
"In fascism, the state is the enemy; it is to be replaced by the nation, which consists of self-sufficient individuals who collectively choose to sacrifice for a common goal of ethnic or religious glorification. . . . fascist ideology involves something at least superficially akin to the libertarian ideal of self-sufficiency and freedom from "the state." P. 152
At the Pelham PO
My friends at the Pelham post office tell me that all post offices nationwide are on heightened alert to look for suspicious packages. Thanks, Trump. This is on you. November 6 gets bigger and bigger. Since November, 2016, something has changed and we all know it.
Bombs Away
Suspicious packages1:20
The devices sent to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton in New York and former president Barack Obama in Washington are thought to be the work of the person who sent a similar device to liberal philanthropist George Soros, two law enforcement officials said.
President Trump said: “In these times, we have to unify. We have to come together.”
My conclusion that Jefferson's repudiation of federal authority over domestic policy was authentic, and not a constitutional device primarily designed to protect slavery, is based on a close reading of the Jefferson-Madison letters. . . From a constitutional perspective, Jefferson consistently maintained that the United States was still a confederated union, not a sovereign-state.
-Joseph J. Ellis, American Dialogue, P. 247
-Joseph J. Ellis, American Dialogue, P. 247
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
High Stakes
'Stakes Couldn't Be Higher': Critics Slam Trump For Saying He's A Nationalist
The President of the United States openly identifies himself as a nationalist, calls for the jailing of his political opponents, attacks the press & cozies up to dictators, while Republicans in Congress stand idly by. The stakes of this election couldn’t be higher for democracy. — Robert Reich (@RBReich) October 23, 2018
Nationalism
Trump has admitted that he is a "nationalist." This is chilling if you understand what this means. All fascists are nationalists. The seminal book of our times regarding fascism (as far as I can see) is "How Fascism Works" by Yale philosopher Jason Stanley. It's all here.
One of his fascinating points is that for fascists the state is the enemy in favor of the nation. Hence, Trump can attack his own government in favor of a mythical nation that represents the interests of his people.
"In fascism, the state is the enemy; it is to be replaced by the nation, which consists of self-sufficient individuals who collectively choose to sacrifice for a common goal of ethnic or religious glorification. . . . fascist ideology involves something at least superficially akin to the libertarian ideal of self-sufficiency and freedom from "the state." P. 152
From Paul Volcker
The New York Times
20 mins ·
"We're developing into a plutocracy," the former Fed chairman said. "We've got an enormous number of enormously rich people that have convinced themselves that they're rich because they're smart and constructive. And they don't like government, and they don’t like to pay taxes."
Trump Supporting Violence
Republicans are conscious of Trump’s incitements at the time they occur. Yet they somehow cannot retain the memory of those incitements between the occurrences. “Republicans produce jobs, Democrats produce mobs” has become the party’s closing slogan—even as it urges voters to think of the election as a referendum on the record of Trump, the mob-leader-in-chief. How is this even done? Where does the mind find these resources? It’s beyond hypocrisy—it’s a double-folded state of being, and it will go on so long as the need to make excuses for Donald Trump continues.
-David Frum
Sunday, October 21, 2018
A Sign of High Intelligence
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos sits atop one of the most successful companies of our time, not to mention a personal fortune of some $150 billion. I think we can all agree that by any meaningful definition the guy is pretty smart. It's also obvious he has a talent for surrounding himself with other smart people who can help make his vision reality.
How does he find them? It's a question he addressed when he stopped by the Basecamp offices a few years ago, the company's founder, Jason Fried, reports on the Basecamp blog. And the answer Bezos gave was the exact opposite of what most folks would expect.
Smart people are actually wrong a lot.
Most of us, when we want to figure out if someone is smart, ask if the person is frequently right: Do they have correct knowledge about the world and their area of expertise? Do they come up with the right answers when faced with hard problems? Do their predictions turn out to be right?
But Bezos's counterintuitive strategy isn't just to look at how often people are right. Instead, he also looks for people who can admit they are wrong and change their opinions often.
Bezos has "observed that the smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they'd already solved. They're open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking," Fried reports the Amazon boss saying.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
That willingness to consider new information goes hand in hand with a willingness to admit your old way of thinking was flawed. In other words, to be super smart you have to change your mind a lot. Essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Bezos apparently agrees that consistency is overrated.
"He doesn't think consistency of thought is a particularly positive trait," Fried reports. "It's perfectly healthy -- encouraged, even -- to have an idea tomorrow that contradicts your idea today."
It's not just 19th-century philosophers who agree with Bezos. Modern science does too, although psychologists have a less poetic way of speaking about the flexibility of mind Bezos prizes. They call it intellectual humility. Studies of decision making show that people who are more willing to entertain the idea that they're wrong make markedly better choices. Being wrong, they understand, isn't a sign of stupidity. It's a sign of curiosity, openness to new information, and ultimately smarts.
If famous essays, top CEOs, and the latest research aren't enough to convince you that to be smarter, you need to also be frequently wrong, you can also take it from the undoubtedly smart futurists at Palo Alto's Institute for the Future. According to Stanford professor Bob Sutton, they encapsulate this trait of highly intelligent folks this way: "strong opinions, which are weakly held."
As the futurists explained to Sutton, weakly held (and therefore often changed) opinions are important because they mean you aren't "too attached to what you believe," which "undermines your ability to 'see' and 'hear' evidence that clashes with your opinions."
So next time you're trying to determine if someone is actually super smart or simply bluffing, don't ask whether they're always right. Instead, ask when was the last time they changed their opinion. If they can't name lots of times they were wrong, they're probably not as smart as they want to appear.
Books
Lifelong learning will help you be happier, earn more, and even stay healthier, experts say. Plus, plenty of the smartest names in business, from Bill Gates to Elon Musk, insist that the best way to get smarter is to read. So what do you do? You go out and buy books, lots of them.
But life is busy, and intentions are one thing, actions another. Soon you find your shelves (or e-reader) overflowing with titles you intend to read one day, or books you flipped through once but then abandoned. Is this a disaster for your project to become a smarter, wiser person?
If you never actually get around to reading any books, then yes. You might want to read up on tricks to squeeze more reading into your hectic life and why it pays to commit a few hours every week to learning. But if it's simply that your book reading in no way keeps pace with your book buying, I have good news for you (and for me; I definitely fall into this category): Your overstuffed library isn't a sign of failure or ignorance, it's a badge of honor.
Why you need an "antilibrary"
That's the argument author and statistician Nassim Nicholas Taleb makes in his bestseller The Black Swan. Perpetually fascinating blog Brain Pickings dug up and highlighted the section in a particularly lovely post. Taleb kicks off his musings with an anecdote about the legendary library of Italian writer Umberto Eco, which contained a jaw-dropping 30,000 volumes.
Did Eco actually read all those books? Of course not, but that wasn't the point of surrounding himself with so much potential but as-yet-unrealized knowledge. By providing a constant reminder of all the things he didn't know, Eco's library kept him intellectually hungry and perpetually curious. An ever-growing collection of books you haven't yet read can do the same for you, Taleb writes:
A private library is not an ego-boosting appendage but a research tool. Read books are far less valuable than unread ones. The library should contain as much of what you do not know as your financial means, mortgage rates, and the currently tight real-estate market allows you to put there. You will accumulate more knowledge and more books as you grow older, and the growing number of unread books on the shelves will look at you menacingly. Indeed, the more you know, the larger the rows of unread books. Let us call this collection of unread books an antilibrary.
An antilibrary is a powerful reminder of your limitations -- the vast quantity of things you don't know, half-know, or will one day realize you're wrong about. By living with that reminder daily you can nudge yourself toward the kind of intellectual humility that improves decision-making and drives learning.
"People don't walk around with anti-résumés telling you what they have not studied or experienced (it's the job of their competitors to do that), but it would be nice if they did," Taleb claims.
Why? Perhaps because it is a well-known psychological fact that it's the most incompetent who are the most confident of their abilities and the most intelligent who are full of doubt. (Really. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.) It's equally well established that the more readily you admit you don't know things, the faster you learn.
So stop beating yourself up for buying too many books or for having a to-read list that you could never get through in three lifetimes. All those books you haven't read are indeed a sign of your ignorance. But if you know how ignorant you are, you're way ahead of the vast majority of other people.
PUBLISHED ON: DEC 5, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)