A little bit more from La Coultera

Popping by La Coultera's column, I see that this week she is mining one of her richest veins, and working the trope she uses with some frequency, contrasting "Liberals" with "Normal people." Normal people don't care about Sarah Palin, Liberals do. Normal people don't worry that someone who seems to be intellectually and ethically challenged, among other things, is frequently discussed as a serious candidate to become the most powerful person in the world.

I think it would be nice to ignore her, and focus on more important things, as La Coultera suggests, such as Michael Jackson.

But it is worth noting that La Coultera, hard-working researcher that she is, introduces a new fallacy this week, the argumentum ad verecundiam, or the appeal to authority. This fallacy infers from Person X being an expert and saying y that y must be true. (Its complement is the argumentum ad hominem.)

Sarah Palin says y. Therefore y is true. This strategy saves time and effort, allowing La Coultera to focus on more important things (like a normal person).

Thus her column takes at face value Palin's claim and simply repeats it. (Paraphrasing others is a good way to fill one's column without thinking too much.)

The problem? Palin's claim is apparently false. And, oddly enough, it doesn't become true when La Coultera repeats it.

The claim?

"That huge waste that we have seen with the countless, countless hours that state staff is spending on these frivolous ethics violations and the millions of dollars that Alaskans are spending, that money not going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research," Palin said this week.

La Coultera's incisive commentary on this claim?

With the left frenetically filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Palin, costing her state millions of dollars and her personally half a million dollars, citizens of Alaska must be asking, "Can we please have our state back?"

I'm not sure where La Coultera gets the half a million dollar figure from (although I can guess).

But, according to a number of Alaskan bloggers who looked at the figures, the number is vastly inflated due to double counting, astronomical billing rates, and counting fees that would be paid to government attorneys anyway. Picked up by the Anchorage Daily News, the claim should be rejected. Rather than taken at face value and then repeated. (It also turns out that the vast majority of the ethics charges came before Palin was chosen to be McCain's running mate, a time when most normal people, liberals, and "the left" outside of Alaska hadn't heard of her.)

Palin administration officials provided the Daily News with a breakdown of what it says are $1.9 million in costs. Most of it is a per-hour accounting of the time state employees, such as state attorneys, have spent working on public records requests, lawsuits, ethics complaints, and issues surrounding the Legislature's "Troopergate" investigation last summer of Palin.

"Is it a check that we wrote, no, but is it staff hours, yes," Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for Palin, said of the expenses related to state employee work.

Those state employees would have been paid regardless.

I don't know if it is a Liberal thing or a normal person thing to worry about Presidential candidates who are unqualified. If Ann represents the normal person, though, I guess it is a normal person kind of thing either to lie, or to be too lazy to even consider checking some facts.

La Coultera

I haven't posted anything here in awhile; summer, new smoker, learning about Twitter, reading, avoiding grading, watching Pujols, catching up with a long-lost friend: many distractions.

But I popped over to Ann Coulter's page the other day. I don't have TV any more, and I miss her insights.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there are some really good lawyers (my long-lost friend is probably one of them). I also think there are some that are evil, liars, stupid, drunk, asleep, and/or some combination of those qualities. At the same time, looking at the recent display of logic on the part of La Coultera, I think I'm starting to understand why she went into writing columns:

1) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing the law correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Icky.

2) It avoids the long hours and hard work involved in doing journalism correctly: you know, reasons, and evidence, and inferences, and arguments. Also icky.

So you scream and rant and rave, say the most ludicrous things, dare people to put you on TV (aren't there videos you can already get, "Brains Gone Wild," or something?); complain if they don't, and complain if they do. It's a fabulous approach for a rich spoiled kid desiring to remain rich and spoiled. Wish I'd thought of it.

But let's examine a single claim of La Coultera's June 24 column, and see what, if any implications one can draw from it (using traditional logic, say that of Aristotle, or Frege; not her own, for, as we shall see, one of her axioms is "If P, then any fucking thing I want follows.")

The money quote:

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.

So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)

Let's ignore the fact that La Coultera probably doesn't know much about Neda—famously supported by liberal bloggers all over the planet—and that much of the ricocheting that La Coultera mentions was the fault of liberals who hate America—and was, of all things, a philosophy student.

Let's just focus on the logic here.

X happens. Y does Z after X occurs. Therefore Z is a response, by Y, to X.
(There's a first-order predicate version of this, but I'll spare you.)

Feel free to fill in the variables. Let's try a few.

• 800, 000 Tutsis are massacred in Rwanda. La Coultera responds by going to the beach.
• In 1984, some 15,000 people die in 72 hours in Bhopal India. La Coultera responds by going on a date and having a second martini and half a pack of cigarettes.
• In 2001, some 3,000 people (not just Americans, people from 83 different countries) die in a coordinated attack by Muslim extremists. La Coultera responds by watching TV.
• In 2002, Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, is beheaded. La Coultera responds by walking her dog and then taking a shower.

Need I add "masterful!"?

C'mon, it's fun! Add your own. While some law schools no doubt teach "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as a traditional fallacy (well, it is about 2,500 years old, at least), maybe La Coultera missed that day.

How did you respond to Neda's tragic killing?
La Coultera didn't offer us information on her response. I'm sure it was pious and devoted.

Slam Dunks and Predictibility

A good political blogger, BarbinMD, who is linked at the DailyKos, had the following title to her entry on the Sotomayor nomination

Predictable Attacks Against Sotomayor Begin

After which she (?) listed a number of standard comments, disturbingly predictable, about Sotomayor. You can find it yourself if you want to read this dreariness.

I had been thinking exactly the same thing. A couple of weeks ago, on the NPR syndicated radio show (one of those that actually allows guests, and callers, with different perspectives on the show, and doesn't involve "dittoes" [or "megadittoes"], caller abortions, the term "Feminzazis," or the expressed desire for the current President to fail), there was a discussion about the upcoming nomination.

For the conservatives, Richard Viguerie spoke. A standard-bearer of the conservatives, and "King of Direct Mail" (hey, if it works, fine, but it's kind of an embarrassing way for a grown man to make a living), said various things, none of which were surprising: this will be an ideological battle—which conservatives always win [apparently distinct, then, from electoral battles]—a teaching opportunity for conservatives, wants a judge who will be a strict constructionist, etc., etc..

This was, of course, before anyone (including Obama) knew who the nominee would be.

Today, Vigurie was back on the same show, to discuss the same topic.

He offered, virtually word-for-word, the same critique: this will be an ideological battle—which conservatives always win, a teaching opportunity for conservatives, wants a judge who will be a strict constructionist, etc., etc.. He did take the time to note that Sotomayor was a "leftist extremist."

It made me think it really wouldn't have mattered who Obama had nominated; Vigurie could (literally) have phoned in his remarks. Unless, perhaps, Obama had nominated Frank Easterbrook (aka Easterbunny, and unlikely). As one caller noted, elections have consequences. I think you should take it like a man, Dick.

Some day I may write here about what I think is all-too-often taken as uncontroversial: namely, some kind of coherent distinction between "strict constructionism" and "judicial activism/interpretation." I doubt if that distinction can be made in any kind of consistent way that wouldn't make a judge who sticks to some version of "strict constructionism" sound like a madman.

I will note that years ago I read a piece by H. Jefferson Powell (I think that's the name; I'm doing this from memory) in the Stanford Law Review (again, I think that's right), on what the Founding Fathers thought of "strict constructionism."

Turned out, if we are to abide by their views and use the narrowest of interpretations, we better be prepared to be confused. For a strict interpretation of their view of strict interpretation seems to be that such strict interpretation was nonsense. Go figure.

The last administration had its slam dunk: George Tenet declaring that was the way to characterize the many WMD in Iraq.

This administration has its first (maybe the last, maybe not) slam dunk: Sotomayor being confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Nice contrast, don't you think?

My novel

As some of you know, I wrote a novel when I was in China. It's sort of about a guy who is pretty good at things—languages, computers, music—and really, really bad at finding a girlfriend.

It's easy to read, my guess is that some of you might find it amusing, and I had more fun writing it than I thought I would. There's some music, some sex, some art, some intrigue, some practical jokes, and a few other things thrown in for good measure. It is, by the way, fiction.

I didn't have much luck placing it with a publisher, however.

But a new service —SCRIBD—has come on-line, where people can offer their books for sale (usually quite cheap). If it gets a little "buzz," it might sell some copies; the authors receive 80% of the proceeds. Mine only costs $2.50, which seems at least righteous to me.

So I put my novel ("Everybody Wins") on SCRIBD. An old roommate bought it. I'd be interested in what others think about it, and even more interested in their buying it. (You know, building up that snowball effect that lands me on Oprah.)

If you're interested, here's the link:

Everybody Wins: A Nicholas Bradley Story

Baseball's Greatest Team

OK, this is a little dorky; "inside baseball," as it were, in the most literal sense.

Ask most people to name the greatest team in the history of baseball, and the vast majority will say the 1927 Yankees. A great team, no doubt. (Others might mention the '75 Reds, the '88 Yankees, the '02 Pirates, among others, but the '27 Yankees always gets mentioned.)

A couple of examples:

1. The 1927 New York Yankees

That season, Babe Ruth hit 60 Home Runs. Lou Gehrig had 47 HR and 175 RBI. Tony Lazzeri hit .309 with 102 RBI. Bob Meusel hit .337 with 109 RBI. Earl Combs hit .356 with 231 hits and 137 Runs scored. They also had great pitchers in Waite Hoyt, Urban Shocker, and Herb Pennock. These Yankees outscored their opponents by almost 400 runs and finished with a 110-44 record. Then they swept the Pirates in the World Series. You can't get better than that!

2. A more statistical approach

The four greatest teams in Major League baseball history. Trying to separate them is difficult. What’s interesting to note is that 1902 Pirates had the best winning percentage of the four, the 1939 Yankees had the greatest run differential of the four, and the 1998 Yankees had the greatest number of Hall of Fame caliber players.

The 1927 Murders Row New York Yankees of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig did not lead in any of the categories but were second in each one.

The other night, after a couple of beers, I pulled out the Baseball Encyclopedia (and then had a couple of more after spending some time amazed by Walter Johnson's pitching records). I thought it might be of interest to compare the '27 Yankees to the 1926 Yankees.

Here's the respective starting nine, from the BE's World Series pages:

1926
Gehrig
Lazzeri
Koenig
Dugan
Ruth
Combs
Meusel
Collins

1927
Gehrig
Lazzeri
Koenig
Dugan
Ruth
Combs
Meusel
Collins

The pitchers who pitched significant innings in '26:
Pennock, Shocker, Hoyt, Jones (als Ruether and Shawkey).

The pitchers who pitched significant innings in '27:
Pennock, Shocker, Hoyt, Moore, Ruether Pipgras, and Thomas.


So the starting nine is identical between the two teams, and while
there is a bit of a shake-up of the pitching staff (I'm not sure what
happened to Jones, who pitched well in '26), I don't think anyone
is suggesting that this team was the greatest in the history of
baseball because of adding Moore and Pipgras.

Thus the question: the 1926 Cardinals beat the Yankees in the
World Series. (In seven, Babe Ruth famously making the last
out in Game 7 by being caught stealing.)

If the 1927 Yankees aren't all that much different than the 1926
Yankees, and the '27 Yankees are the greatest team in baseball,
then is there some argument that the Cardinals beat what, 12
months later, was the greatest team in the history of baseball?

Just wonderin' . . . .

Basketball's Life Lessons

I don't have cable, but a little black and white TV my friend Bob gave me. It gets FOX--so we have the Simpsons--and CBS. That's about it. And we only have this until June 12.

I love college basketball, so I just finished watching all but the championship as of this writing. My brackets look like vermicelli that has been microwaved, on high, for about 3 days. These things happen. But I have learned much from watching these games, all of which, depressingly, seem to be covered by the same ad buy. Hence I have seen certain ads way too much, and from the whole tournament experience, drawn certain conclusions.

If Howie Long advertises something, I will never purchase it.

People who think they might lose their job in the next nine months probably should not be buying a Cadillac, in spite of GM's suggestions otherwise.

"Calipari" is Sicilian slang for the Yiddish "mishegoss."

Drinking "Coke Zero" makes you stupid, annoying, and apparently expresses an otherwise latent obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Sheraton Inns are chock full of sports fans; UNC fans object to being touched, while Georgetown and Syracuse fans see the whole homoeroticism thing in a much different light.

There can never be sufficient mention of the beat-down Kansas gave UNC in last year's semi-final.

I would like to find the very young kid who does the E-trade commercials annoying, but I seem unable to.

The Big East may be the best conference by far, powerful and unstoppable, overwhelming in its excellence and the conference to whom all others should bow down; but I don't see any of its teams in the final.

Tom Izzo is a great coach, and if he wins Monday night (which as of this writing seems unlikely, but so have their last two wins against Louisville and Connecticut) he will have beaten the overall #1 seed (L'ville), another #1 seed (C'cut) and a third #1 seed (UNC).

Right now I'm pulling for MSU to beat UNC, and beat them bad. This would mean that the team that gave the Spartans the best game was, of course, Kansas.

Self takes Arizona Job!!!

I just read this off a chatboard that linked the story to an Arizona chatroom that, eventually, offered a link, to a Kansas City Star chatroom.

Calipari leaving Memphis clearly meant that recruiting was a mess, at Memphis, at Kentucky, and, ultimately, at Kansas. Lance Stephenson was supposed to announce today (the odds were that he was coming to Kansas), and then postponed it. At one point, rumors were that John Wall, or Xavier Henry, or both, or neither, were going to Kansas.

Evidently, the Stephenson recruiting generated a bunch of hard feelings between Self and the KU Athletic Director Lew Perkins. Even though Self had a long-term contract and was, supposedly, very happy at Kansas, the AD told him he had screwed up, and that losing out on Stephenson was unacceptable. This all on top of both Cole Aldrich and Sherron Collins having told Self they were declaring for the draft. (Perkins, rumor also has it, wasn't all that thrilled with Self as the choice to replace Roy Williams.)

Self seemed to have gone from having a very good recruiting class, for 48 hours a terrific recruiting class, then no recruiting class except for one power forward and an untested guard. With the AD on his back, his Sweet 16 team not coming back, a bare cupboard, and Arizona promising to match Calipari's contract at Kentucky, Self--known for his quick temper and even quicker decision-making--said "fuck it" and is off for Phoenix.

This really bites. I had hoped KU had another coach for years and years, with lots of skill and, more important, lots of class. Money talks, after all.