All posts by Jay Pinho

About Jay Pinho

Jay is a data journalist and political junkie. He currently writes about domestic politics, foreign affairs, and journalism and continues to make painstakingly slow progress in amateur photography. He would very much like you to check out SCOTUSMap.com and SCOTUSSearch.com if you have the chance.

Black Friday and the Walmart strike

Miscellaneous, Politics, , , , , ,

Robert Reich explains why shoppers should stay away from Walmart today:

A half century ago America’s largest private-sector employer was General Motors, whose full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today’s dollars, including health and pension benefits.

Today, America’s largest employer is Wal-Mart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour. A third of Wal-Mart’s employees work less than 28 hours per week and don’t qualify for benefits.

There are many reasons for the difference—including globalization and technological changes that have shrunk employment in American manufacturing while enlarging it in sectors involving personal services, such as retail.

But one reason, closely related to this seismic shift, is the decline of labor unions in the United States. In the 1950s, over a third of private-sector workers belonged to a union. Today fewer than 7 percent do. As a result, the typical American worker no longer has the bargaining clout to get a sizeable share of corporate profits…

Is this about to change? Despite decades of failed unionization attempts, Wal-Mart workers are planning to strike or conduct some other form of protest outside at least 1,000 locations across the United States this Friday—so-called “Black Friday,” the biggest shopping day in America when the Christmas holiday buying season begins.

At the very least, the action gives Wal-Mart employees a chance to air their grievances in public—not only lousy wages (as low at $8 an hour) but also unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, excessive hours, and sexual harassment. The result is bad publicity for the company exactly when it wants the public to think of it as Santa Claus. And the threatened strike, the first in 50 years, is gaining steam.

Josh Eidelson, meanwhile, notes that Black Friday may only be the start:

Expectations are high for a historic strike. Given Walmart’s role as the dominant employer of our era, the current wave of work stoppages is already among the country’s most consequential twenty-first century strikes. But in interviews this month, workers and organizers described today’s actions as a turning point, not a climax, in their struggle against the retail giant. “This is the beginning of something…” said Dan Schlademan, a United Food & Commercial Workers union official who directs the allied group Making Change at Walmart. “This is a new permanent reality for Walmart…2012 is the beginning of the season where retail workers are going to start to stand up.”

“There’s going to be more days that we’re going to strike,” said Rozier, “and it’s not going to stop. I’m not going to stop until they respect us and give us what we want.”

Andrew Sullivan has more.

Sports, without the athletes

Sports, , ,

Samuel Arbesman wonders why we even bother with real sports when we could just simulate them instead:

Imagine cutting the athletes out of the game altogether, and instead watching computer-simulated sports. I’m not just talking about virtual games like Madden NFL 18 (e.g., what it could be five years from now). Computer graphics – and the requisite algorithms – have progressed to the point where we could have a lifelike video of the simulation, never worry about replays, and see the action from angles unimaginable in today’s real-life games.

But … why would we do this, you ask (as you reach for your remote control, perhaps)?

For one thing, the possibilities are endless when we go beyond our all-too-fragile wetware towards more hardy software. Software is limitless. The human body is not.

Simulated sports would not only be cheaper but safer, preventing bodily harms such as torn ACLs and ruptured tendons to knee blowouts and traumatic brain injuries.

Meanwhile, sprawling imaginative games allow exotic locales (under the ocean, on the moon), as well as players with fantastical properties (superheroes, the guys from Mortal Kombat) not otherwise possible. Frankly, it’s about time I get to watch a showdown between LeBron and a teen wolf.

A cynical giving of thanks

Miscellaneous, , , , ,

Of course, it comes from Charles P. Pierce:

When you come right down to the bottom of the chafing dish, Thanksgiving is a holiday of great ambivalence. A day allegedly dedicated to thanking the great Whoever that enough white people survived the winter in Plymouth to kick off 300-odd years of continent-wide genocide. A day dedicated to celebrating the simple gifts that the great Whoever bestowed upon this land, yet one that we mark by going crazy over cheap, Chinese-slave-labor produced crap at 12:01 a.m. the very next morning. Also, too: the Detroit Lions. Sometimes, America is a very tough room.

What I choose to celebrate this year, however, is how, in the face of our own internal contradictions, and our own internal hypocrisies, and our own eternal ability to bullshit ourselves into believing almost anything, we retain the indomitable notion that, somehow, we can get things right. You can call this optimism, or you can call this delusional, and I wouldn’t disagree with either one. I know, it sounds sappy, but I really believe that, buried beneath all the nonsense and avarice and plain meanness with which we too often manifest our politics, there is a feeling of a political commonwealth that is worth getting back to and, having arrived there, worth preserving. I believe that is the case with the people I watched wait five hours to vote, arranging the events in their daily lives so that they could stay there in the face of brutish bureaucratic inertia. I believe that is the case with the people who believe that Agenda 21 is a UN plot to steal all our golfs. We believe nonsense in America, and we occasionally act on it, which is infinitely worse, and we occasionally believe that there can be no consequences to believing nonsense, and that is the worst thing of all. But there is something tiny and hopeful beneath all of our credulity, and our shouting at each other. And that is our stubborn optimism about our ability to fix things about ourselves, and about our poor, benighted relatives who don’t believe what we do, but would, if only they would put down the damn cranberry sauce and listen…for…a..minute. I believe that is true of all of us who are spending Thanksgiving celebrating the fact that the country did not hand itself over to Willard Romney, and I believe it is true of those people who are spending it pondering seriously the idea that all the country really needs to come back into the light of grace is Sarah Palin in the White House.

Conflict in the quiet car

Miscellaneous, , ,

Tim Kreider reports from the front lines of the battle for our vanishing quiet areas: Amtrak’s quiet car.

I was sitting in my seat, listening to music at a moderate volume on headphones and writing on my laptop, when the man across the aisle — the kind you’d peg as an archivist or musicologist — signaled to me.

“Pardon me, sir,” he said. “Maybe you’re not aware of it, but your typing is disturbing people around you. This is the Quiet Car, where we come to be free from people’s electronic bleeps and blatts.” He really said “bleeps and blatts.”

“I am a devotee of the Quiet Car,” I protested. And yes, I said “devotee.” We really talk like this in the Quiet Car; we’re readers. “I don’t talk on my cellphone or have loud conversations — ”

“I’m not talking about cellphone conversations,” he said, “I’m talking about your typing, which really is very loud and disruptive.”

I was at a loss. I learned to write on a typewriter, and apparently I still strike the keyboard of my laptop with obsolete force. “Well,” I said, trying to figure out which of us, if either, was the jerk here, “I don’t think I’m going to stop typing. I’m a writer; I sit in here so I can work.”

He was polite but implacable. “If you won’t stop, I’ll have to talk to the conductor,” he said.

Looking around, I saw that the Quiet Car wasn’t crowded; there were plenty of empty seats. “I’m not going to leave the Quiet Car,” I told him, “but since it’s bothering you, I will move to another seat.” He thanked me very courteously, as did the woman in front of me. “It really was quite loud,” she whispered.

When the train came to my stop I had to walk by his seat again on my way out. “Glad we could come to a peaceful coexistence,” I said as I passed. He raised a finger to stay me a moment. “There are no conflicts of interest,” he pronounced, “between rational men.” This sounded like a questionable proposition to me, but I appreciated the conciliatory gesture. The quote turns out to be from Ayn Rand. I told you we talked like this in the Quiet Car.

The problem with predicting the future

Politics, , ,

Michael D. Ward and Nils Metternich examine Nate Silver’s success this past election — his state-by-state electoral predictions were 50-for-50 — and conclude that his methodology can be extended to political events more generally:

Forecasting models need reliable measures of “things that are usefully predictive,” Ulfelder notes. Well, sure.  Does this mean that reliability is at issue? Or that we are using data that are not “usefully” predictive? This is a curious claim, especially in light of the controversial nature of polls. Indeed, there exists five decades worth of literature that grapples with exactly those issues in public opinion.  Take the recent U.S. election as an example. In 2012 there were two types of models: one type based on fundamentals such as economic growth and unemployment and another based on public opinion surveys. Proponents of the former contend that that the fundamentals present a more salient picture of the election’s underlying dynamics and that polls are largely epiphenomenal. Proponents of the latter argue that public opinion polling reflects the real-time beliefs and future actions of voters.

As it turned out, in this month’s election public opinion polls were considerably more precise than the fundamentals. The fundamentals were not always providing bad predictions, but better is better. Plus there is no getting around the fact that the poll averaging models performed better. Admittedly, many of the polls were updated on the night before the election, though Drew Linzer’s prescientvotamatic.org posted predictions last June that held up this November. To assess the strength of poll aggregation, we might ask how the trajectory of Silver’s predictions over time compare with the results, and there are other quibbles to raise for sure. But better is better.

When it comes to the world, we have a lot of data on things that are important and usefully predictive, such as event data on conflicts and collaborations among different political groups within countries. Is it as reliable as poll data? Yes, just so, but not more. Would we like to have more precise data and be able to have real-time fMRIs of all political actors? Sure, but it is increasingly difficult to convincingly argue that we don’t have enough data.

The problem with this line of reasoning is a somewhat similar issue to that noted by other political writers regarding the potential for a proliferation of Nate Silver types: the more these people become seen as experts, the less incentive there is for firms to pay for, and produce, the underlying data the experts rely on.

In this case, the issue is that, if predictions of world political events begin to look anywhere near as prescient as Nate Silver’s election forecasts have so far, people will start to follow them rabidly, base personal and business decisions on the numbers, and so on. Given a large enough scale, this widespread behavioral reaction to the predictions could very well have a negative effect on the accuracy of the predictions themselves, especially if the forecasts have anything to do with market prices of assets or something similar. This, in turn, could eventually doom the forecasts to irrelevance over a long enough time period, or at the very least produce extremely uneven results.

Related articles

The math of war

Media, Politics, , , , , ,
Caption and picture courtesy of Mondoweiss.net: “According to the IDF Rocket Counter widget, some time between Nov. 15, 2012 (left) and Nov. 16, 2012 (right), Gaza militant groups fired 24 rockets out of the year 2011.”

At Mondoweiss.net, Phan Nguyen compiled a meticulous piece cataloging all Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks emanating from Gaza since 2004 and found that — in all that time — only 26 people have been killed as a result:

If we borrow the IDF’s claim that more than 12,000 rockets have been fired into Israel in the last twelve years (which I dispute later), we get a kill rate of less than 0.217%. Thus in order to secure a single kill, we should expect to fire about 500 rockets. However, if the goal is to specifically kill Jews rather than foreign workers and Palestinian laborers, then it gets harder. Only 21 Jews have been killed by this method, bringing the kill rate down to 0.175%.

If this sounds disturbing or even anti-Semitic, note that I am just testing the argument of the current Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who, during Operation Cast Lead, co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the Gaza rockets and mortars were “more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians—they were expressions of a genocidal intent.”

Yet the statistics demonstrate that it is much less than a “crude attempt to kill.” One can imagine easier ways to kill a random person than to manufacture and fire 500+ homemade rockets.

As for genocide, at the going kill rate, it would require 4,477,714,286 rockets and mortars, and 4,477,714 years to kill all the Jews in Israel. This is assuming that Israel’s Jewish population does not increase. And of course we would need to factor in the limited range of the projectiles, which would require Israel’s non-growing Jewish population to all congregate in the western Negev by the year 4479726 CE, give or take a few years.

But by then, all of Israel’s Jewish population will have already been exterminated by the country’s other violent killer, automotive accidents.

It makes more sense, then, to suppose that there are political rationales for the firing of rockets and mortars.

Death to Citizens United

Politics, , , , , ,
Courtesy of Forbes.

That’s what Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) is going for. After surveying his options and concluding that no other alternative exists, Udall — who’s also integral to Senate filibuster reform efforts, which I’m covering in a magazine article to appear within the next month — is pushing for a constitutional amendment:

The amendment would give Congress the constitutional power to regulate the raising and spending of money in national elections, and it would give the states the same power to regulate spending in their elections. The amendment strikes at the fundamental heresy that lies at the heart of both Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo, the 40-year-old case that made CU inevitable, given the correct composition of a future Supreme Court: namely, that money is speech. To this, of course, was added the equally preposterous notion that corporations are people and that, therefore, they have the same free speech rights as you, me, and the guy on the next bar stool. (How preposterous? Google Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad some time and get a good look at how corporate personhood got birthed on the wrong side of the constitutional blanket.) Pass the amendment, and all of the entangled absurdity of Citizens United goes away. One doomsday machine takes out the other.

As a law student, Udall watched the Buckley case work its way through the system all the way to fruition. He was already a local district attorney in the 1980s when a constitutional amendment was proposed to overturn Buckley. (Udall’s uncle, the late Congressman Mo Udall of Arizona, was one of the early supporters of that amendment and took campaign-finance reform as one of his signature issues when he ran for president in 1976.) He saw clearly where the country was headed once that decision was handed down. He heard the floodgates beginning to creak open.

“Back then, Mo and Dave Obey (the former Wisconsin congressman) believed that, if you could investigate, and find that campaign contributions injected corruption, or the appearance of corruption, into the system, then you could regulate it.” Unfortunately, in its intricate tricks and traps, to borrow a phrase from Senator-elect Warren, Citizens United took care of that, too, with weathervane Anthony Kennedy famously opining within his crucial concurrence to the CU-based decision that struck down the Montana law that corporate independent campaign expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” And thus are born Super Pacs and phony, covertly-financed 501(c) “welfare” organizations out of which come roaring a thousands attack ads.

“What they’ve done, essentially, is legalize money-laundering,” Udall says. “You can shut down the 501(c) and then sluice the money into the campaign, and the secrecy around the donors is maintained. Secrecy has no place in a democracy and particularly not in the electoral process.

“Once you say that money is speech,then you get what we have now — a Supreme Court that’s getting bolder and bolder in defending its decision. That’s what you saw when the Montana law was struck down. They passed that law because they saw what unlimited and anonymous corporate money could do to democracy. Right now, there is no possible legal remedy to this decision on a national level. We have to go with a constitutional amendment because we have to take the Supreme Court head-on.”

This is still an uphill battle, however: so far only 26 senators support the amendment. So…41 to go, plus the House?

New York and the hurricane

Miscellaneous, , , , ,

Helena Fitzgerald reflects on her city’s performance during the latest (but most certainly not the last) disaster to befall it:

E. B. White, in his 1949 essay Here is New York, wrote: “No one should come to New York unless he is willing to be lucky.” Obsessively checking twitter, I watched friends and acquaintances, in the midst of disaster, asking plaintively whether bars were open, and where. A photographer I used to know posted a little after midnight, not long after the storm surge’s high tide, that he knew it was dangerous, but he was going to walk over the Williamsburg Bridge to Manhattan to take pictures of the flooding on the Lower East Side and in the East Village. One of the photos shows the FDR drive turned into an unrecognizable river. Another depicts the ConEd center on East 14th, after it had exploded, surrounded by deep, unbroken water, like some kind of science-fiction lighthouse. Walking across the blacked-out bridge, he ran into two people having sex, in the dark, in the middle of the hurricane. “Scared the shit out of me,” he said. But of course, I thought. I wasn’t surprised in the least. Not only because catastrophe, any and all life-threatening events, drive us to affirm life in the most basic way our wanting bodies know how. In any place threatened by a natural disaster, people would have clung to life by having sex in their homes, in bedrooms and living rooms, behind safely closed doors and secured windows. But it didn’t surprise me at all that in this particular city people had thought to put themselves in harm’s way as epically as possible, to go to the very most vulnerable and thrilling center of the disaster — on a bridge, in the dark, over a surging river, at the high point of the hurricane — while they had disaster sex.

“Willing to be lucky” is one way to talk about a city full of people more committed to being interesting than to being safe or happy. This unhinged, adrenaline-addicted prioritizing persists despite any gentrification, beyond any safe neighborhoods. I understood the impulse to go outside and have sex on the bridge in the middle of the hurricane, because it’s an exaggerated version of the impulse to move to New York at all. This place is a city full of unnecessary danger and difficulty, and to move here on purpose is neither logical nor sane. It is not exactly responsible to want everything to be this exciting at every moment. In the same way, it was not exactly responsible or noble of me to feel a thrill when I imagine these dangers turning the city back into something like what my parents experienced. But I admit I felt it anyway.