Category Archives: culture

Another Mueller Leak

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times has published the questions Mueller wants to ask President Donald Trump regarding Mueller’s “investigation” of Trump, the Trump campaign, Trump businesses, and whatever else blows Mueller’s skirt up.  Never mind that this sort of thing is supposed to be secret, or at least known only to the target and his lawyer until they’re asked, answered, and become part of the public record of an actual trial.

How did the NYT get the questions?  They didn’t send a reporter to steal them.  No, the newspaper was given them.  There’s also no reason to believe the Trump team knew these questions and so would have been in a position to leak them.  Negotiations over the nature of a Mueller interrogation of Trump are supposedly in progress, but Mueller wouldn’t give up the questions until the negotiations have been completed and the interrogation set up.

Only Mueller’s team knew these questions.  In a separate article about the questions, the NYT does assert this:

investigators for Mr Mueller agreed days later to share during a meeting with Mr Dowd [then Trump’s lawyer] the questions they wanted to ask Mr Trump.

But there’s no reason to believe that, since the NYT chose not to identify its source for that claim, making it impossible to believe that the claim is more than just an idle rumor.

And what’s Mueller doing about this leak?  A lot of nothing.  Because if Mueller isn’t the one who leaked, he actively approved others to do it.

The NYT had this about the questions in that separate article:

The questions provide the most detailed look yet inside Mr Mueller’s investigation, which has been shrouded in secrecy since he was appointed nearly a year ago.

Umm, no, no secrecy.  Mueller has been making studied leaks right along.

But Mueller is an honorable man. So are all his team, all honorable men.

Teachers Unions

Posted on by
Reply

…and their strikes’ impacts.  Look at the Arizona teachers union strikes, for instance.

Arizona parents scrambled to find alternative arrangements for their children as the state braced for a third day of teacher walkouts.

It’s estimated that at least 800,000 Arizona students have been affected by the strike that started Thursday, with some school districts in the state closed until further notice.

It isn’t only the children that these strikers are holding hostage for their demands.  It’s the parents, too, who must take time off from work to take care of their children with those kids denied access to schools and education.

The teachers unions complain about low pay.  They’re ignoring, though, the even lower pay of many of those parents who are being harmed by these teachers union strikes.  Jennifer Goehring, a nurse, a former teacher, and a union supporter but not of the strikes:

It’s holding the parents hostage because they are having to scramble to find people to watch their kids.  It’s placing an undue hardship on families just trying to stay afloat. I don’t like the kids being used as pawns.

Goehring, by the way, alternates with her husband to watch their children and several others whose families couldn’t take off work during the walkout.  Others, plainly, are trying to fill in to ameliorate, at least a little, the damage the teachers unions are causing.

And this:

Churches, community centers, youth clubs, food banks, and community organizations are offering free and discounted services to help take care of students.

Who’s paying for all of this support for those parents and their children?  It isn’t the teachers unions, who are causing the expenses.  Bet on it: they won’t reimburse these facilities after the fact, either.

Diplomatic Cowardice

Posted on by
Reply

In response to a remarks US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, made regarding Hamas’ role in the deaths and injuries of Gaza inhabitants as they keep trying to storm the fence separating Gaza from Israel, Palestinian Ambassador to the UN Riyad Mansour said Haley’s remarks “lacked credibility.”

What Haley said:

She said the terrorists hide behind innocent women, children and men to further their cause.

Haley in part said that, “Anyone who truly cares about children in Gaza should insist that Hamas immediately stop using children as cannon fodder in its conflict with Israel.”

What Mansour said:

We challenge the liars who advocated lies in the Security Council yesterday.

When asked if he was calling Haley a liar—was she one of the “liars” to whom he was referring—Mansour said she:

created a very strong resentment among the entire Palestinian nation.

And

With regard to Ambassador Haley, the fact that she goes on the tangent that she did…would make her whole story not credible, in addition to being extremely insensitive.

Mansour didn’t have the moral courage to say straight up that he was calling Haley a liar—or that he was not and clarifying that he was not.

This diplomatic cowardice is of a piece with the physical cowardice of the Hamas terrorists who do, indeed, cower behind women and children (and men who want nothing to do with terrorism, even if they do protest the fence).

Battle Against Hate Speech?

Posted on by
Reply

Bob Pearson, co-author of Countering Hate and CIO of W2O Group says that AI is able to identify hate speech today.

All human beings follow patterns online.  You can see what language, content, channel, and people matter to them. You can see which words trigger information seeking, which language is most associated with hate topics or sites, which people are the most important influencers and you can see a range of behavioral characteristics.

Except that humans can’t define “hate speech;” we can’t even define “hate.”  All that can be done is for each of us, individually, to identify what it seems like that to us—not what it is to anyone else.  A Justice’s remark about pornography—that he couldn’t define it, but he knew it when he saw it—is worse than wholly inadequate when Government tries to regulate speech, or when private enterprises try to regulate speech in the public spaces they create as their business models or offshoots of them.  Such regulation is a threat to individual liberty.

Artificial Intelligence certainly is not up to this task of discriminating unacceptable speech from acceptable.  The definitions of those terms will be programed by a select group of humans—who can’t define the terms except as they personally apply the terms to themselves.  This frangibility is demonstrated by those cases that go to jury trials and the differing outcomes differing juries reach on substantially similar cases.  All AIs can do is reflect the prejudices of their programmers.

How, indeed, is “hate speech” to be discriminated from the merely rude or offensive or uncivil speech?  To narrow the thing a bit, think about civility—simple courtesy.  Why should a New Yorker’s version of civility be forced to take a back seat to a Midwesterner’s or a Californian’s version of civility?  Why should one of the other two be forced to take a back seat to a New Yorker’s version?  On what basis would any definer pick one or identify a middle ground that doesn’t wind up being a more insidious censorship?

Consider Marshall McLuhan’s the medium is the message.  Sometimes the overt rudeness—even “hate”—is a demonstration of a point.  Is burning our national flag an act of hatred or political speech?  Is posting a picture of Mohammed…?  Prove it: it’s a hard line to draw between that and rudeness on the one hand or actual hate on the other.

Not even civility is “simple.”  How is something as complex as hate speech to be handled?

Yet the whole argument over identifying, and then censoring, hate speech is irrelevant other than the threat to freedom that is that effort to identify and censor.

The problem he [Pearson] says, is that Facebook and other companies have not taken up the charge to make the battle against hate speech a major priority.

No, Pearson is utterly wrong on this.  Facebook, et al., must not take up the battle, any more than can Government be allowed to.  Any effort along these lines can only be the despicable bigotry and the equally shameful cowardice of censorship.  Bigotry because all such efforts amount to is one man, or a small group of them, imposing his prejudice of acceptability on the speech of all others.

Hackneyed as it’s become, Justice Louis Brandeis still is right: the answer to bad speech—however defined—is more, and better, speech—however defined.

Engage in the discourse, don’t cower away from it.

Foolishness of Zero Tolerance

Posted on by
Reply

…or of intolerance; the two are interchangeable terms in this context.  This context is the overreaction of school management and local police departments to remarks concerning “threats” to schools.

Gina Gobert’s 12-year-old daughter was detained overnight at a police station in Oakdale, LA, after allegedly talking to schoolmates about a social-media post she said she received that threatened violence against the school.

School management, it seems, decided the girl had received no such threat and turned her over to the police, who decided to charge the child with “terrorizing.”

And this:

“You can’t joke about this stuff. It’s just unacceptable behavior in today’s world,” said Sheriff Craig DuMond in Delaware County in New York, where an 8-year-old was arrested in March on a felony charge of terroristic threat for allegedly threatening to burn down his school in Davenport, NY.

With adults, maybe.  But with children?  This is ridiculous, not least because, as minors, they are by definition incapable of making their own calls on such matters.  As a practical matter, though, they’re just too inexperienced—they literally haven’t lived long enough—to be able to form such judgments or to reason through the associated implications.  And: it’s the nature of children to push boundaries as they seek out their places in the world—and to change those places.

And this:

“If you threaten a school, you are going to be charged,” said Eric Smith, a prosecutor in Macomb County in Michigan, where 54 students have been charged in school-threat cases in the two months since Parkland, up from 17 in all of last year. “We get a lot of kids saying they were just joking, wanted attention, were acting out against bullies. Law enforcement doesn’t know if it’s real or not.”

Don’t know, therefor it’s OK to arrest them, lock them up, then do the investigation.  Guilt by accusation, guilt by dislike of what’s being said.  Jokes are no joke.

Even with adults, though, the matter is contextual; blanket bans are just the inflexibility of intolerance, and it suffocates even legitimate interactions.

My usual question, this time for school management and the police: what’s your limiting principle? Where will this naturally stop, and joking around—including dark humor joking—be successfully discriminated from actual threat?

And: is the “zero” tolerance foolish, or is it dangerous to our liberty?