As for today (15 December) I’ve now found 19 newspapers who, in some way, have called for Trump’s impeachment, resignation, or removal. This now includes five of the top 10 circulation papers in the US: USA Today, the LA Times, the NY Times, the Tampa Bay Times, the Washington Post.
Not surprisingly, the top circulation paper in the US, the Wall Street Journal, is not among these.
So far, I’ve found three newspapers that have published editorials calling for Trump’s resignation, the Indy Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Connecticut Post. See data viz below. Click on the newspaper name and follow the link to the actual editorials.
By the time Nixon resigned in August of 1974, most major newspapers had called for him to resign. Let’s see how things progress this time.
EDIT: It’s now four newspapers, with the addition of the Orlando Weekly.
EDIT: Lots of activity after the House hearings — now we’re up to 12, that I know of.
In a recent article on Slate, Lance Koonce talked about his recent experience of having a video he tweeted of the June 10th helicopter crash in NYC go viral. In his article, he referenced his experience as a lawyer defending against charges of copyright infringement for using an embedded tweet.
Technologists often accuse judges and legislators of not understanding science and technology. I don’t disagree with this charge; I’m in the middle of writing something about mistakes made even at the Supreme Court level.
However, I think technologists sometimes fail to understand the human element in how people actual use and perceive the technology.
The particular case Koonce references, media sites embedding a tweet with picture that was originally taken by Justin Goldman. The issue partially depends on what’s known as the “Server Test,” which basically says that you can commit copyright infringement if you copy an image and place it on your server. If instead, you merely provide a link to that image on someone else’s server, you’re in the clear.
I could copy that image, upload it to the server that hosts my website, and post it from there. It might look something like this:
Image stored on my server
Alternatively, rather than copying the image, I could simply link to the image on the website of original owner. And then it would look like this:
Image embedded by linking to Wikipedia
So, the reader experienes no difference. But as far as I can tell, they’re treated very differently by copyright law, at least according to the ninth circuit. The more recent court decision in the second circuit comes to a different conclusion.
Now, the actual Second Circuit case, Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC, involved an embedded tweet, so it would look something like this:
Image on Twitter, in an embedded tweet
The tweet at the center of this case wasn’t made by Goldman himself, but by another person who didn’t have permission to use the image, although that’s not directly relevant to my concern about the server test.
So I have three version of the exact same image shown on this page. The first two look exactly the same to the reader. The server test makes it awfully easy to use another creator’s work, not credit them, and be legally okay. That doesn’t seem right.
Am I missing something? I certainly respect a lot of the people who support the server test, but it doesn’t actually seem to reflect how people actually view a website.
Footnotes [ + ]
In an earlier blog post, I mentioned Clarence Thomas’s misuse of Adam Cohen’s book, Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. Thomas had essentially reversed the connection between eugenics and abortion. When this book first came out a few years ago, I had wanted to read it, but never did, so Thomas’s misleading use of it prompted me to actually purchase and start reading.
Although I’m only about a third of the way through it, it’s as good as advertised, and anyone interested in eugenics and its implementation in the US should pick it up. Especially striking to me is the kind of people who were serious promoters of eugenics – that is, progressives and the scientific establishment. This hits me at the core of who I am – a progressive supporter of science!
They told me the operation was for an appendix and rupture
The most moving part of the article are the quotes from Doris Buck Figgins (younger sister of Carrie Buck), who tried for years to have children, not knowing she was sterilized without her consent. “’They told me the operation was for an appendix and rupture,’ said Figgins.”
Sterilizations in Virginia continued into the 1970s.
To overturn Buck v. Bell, the ACLU and the ACLU of Virginia filed a class action lawsuit to have the court declare that the sterilization program violated the victims’ constitutional rights and prohibit further sterilizations without informed consent.
Connection between Eugenics and Abortion Today
Flash-forward to today and the government still tries to control women’s reproduction. While the mechanism has changed (i.e., forcing women to give birth rather than sterilization), the elitism and misogyny hasn’t. As I mentioned earlier, Clarence Thomas reverses the connection between eugenics and abortion; he claims that the pro-choice movement is like the eugenicists of the past, but it’s really the opponents of abortion who are trying to control women’s bodies.
To me, that’s the most important part of the story. We still need to fight these attempts to pass laws that would control a person’s very body.
Building on the “brains” part of my earlier post, one of the issues that I find so striking is the meaningless of a ban at six weeks and what this reveals about the lack of knowledge of the world.
I can imagine a hypothetical reasonable person who thinks about a six-week abortion ban and says, “six weeks…that’s plenty of time to realize you’re pregnant, decide what to do, and then have an abortion if you want.”
But, of course, people don’t know they might be pregnant on day 1. Pregnancy is measured from the last menstrual period, and it’s a missed period that may be the sign of pregnancy. So, that’s four weeks in.
“Okay,” my hypothetical reasonable person says to themselves, “that still leaves two weeks to think about what to do and get an abortion.”
But most people don’t discover they’re pregnant until 4 to 7 weeks. For many women, under completely normal circumstances, six weeks will pass before they even try to determine if they are pregnant.
Some women may not keep track of the time between their periods, especially if their periods don’t happen in a precise 4-week cycle. On average, a woman gets her period every 24 to 38 days (38 days happens to be just short of 6 weeks). Irregular periods are particularly common for younger women, or women who have recently stopped using the pill.
“Gee, so maybe six weeks doesn’t actually mean a lot for many people who might get pregnant, but I’m going to ignore that and believe that women will know at four weeks,” goes my ever less reasonable hypothetical person. “So they can still go get an abortion.”
If only it were that easy. Because of restrictive and unnecessary state laws, someone seeking an abortion may need multiple trips to obtain an abortion. There are 27 states that require a waiting period between counseling and an abortion; 14 states require that counseling be in-person and be separated from the actual abortion, necessitating two separate trips.
And those trips may be to a distant facility, because TRAP laws and other pressures have resulted in the closing significant numbers of abortion facilities. Kentucky went from 9 clinics to 1; Louisiana went from 17 to 3; Ohio went from 45 to 10.
So, for many, a six-week abortion ban is as good a complete ban. In order for this not to be true, depending on where one lives, they must:
- Realize they’re pregnant
- Determine what to do, often in consultation with loved ones
- Get the resources to pay for the abortion as well as the travel to a perhaps distant facility
- Take time off work, perhaps twice
- Travel twice, or stay overnight
- Actually have the abortion
Of course, it could all be a cynical ploy to appear to do something other than a total ban while not explicitly labeling it so.
I’ve been wondering what can I do to support reproductive freedom and abortion rights in light of the terrible, vile laws that have been passed recently, and I’ve come up with three prongs:
- Your money
- Your words
- Your brain
Use your dollars
As is so often the case, money always helps. It costs a lot of money to fight these laws and to support individuals directly affected by them.
Donate to those organizations on the frontline of the abortion fight. Certainly, that includes the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL. But also include those smaller organizations that may not get so much publicity, such as the Yellow Hammer Fund, which directly supports those seeking care at one of Alabama’s three abortion clinics, or ARC-Southeast, which helps individuals travel to Atlanta to get reproductive services. The National Network of Abortion Funds lists funds in many US states as wells as some supporting women outside the US.
But we can also work to reduce the flow of money to politicians who advocate and pass these laws. So, share your concern with those whose dollars are going to those who oppose abortion rights. There are lists of companies that support the sponsors of these bills. Use them. Conversely, thank those companies that take a public stand against these laws,
Use your words
Contact your legislators (no matter where you live) and tell them you, as a voter, can only support those who stand on the right side of this issue and back that up with your actions. Even in states that aren’t at risk to pass bad laws, we can get new, supportive laws passed, like the law in Maine allowing nurse practitioners, physician assistants and nurse midwives to provide abortion services.
Share your stories of how reproductive freedom and the assault on it affects you. Many people have shared moving stories of abortion in their lives. But even if you don’t have that story to tell, you may have another one. My wife and I can talk about choosing when to have our son (who is perfect in every way 😀) and the options available to us, because of where we live and the resources we have.
Hold legislators and candidates (including the 2020 Presidential candidates) accountable for speaking clearly. They can’t mumble, sound wishy-washy, or equivocate. They must give full-throated, clear support for abortion rights, and we need to hold them to that. At this point, we can’t accept a candidate who will merely parrot back stock phrases about his or her support for a pro-choice position (“I will appoint judges who support Roe v. Wade”). Candidates need actual plans and policies.
Use your brain
The anti-abortion movement, like so much on the right today, willfully, flagrantly denies science, logic, and evidence. Take, for example, the current spate of “heartbeat” bills, banning abortion at six weeks. As Dr. Jen Gunter says, these should be called “fetal pole cardiac activity bills.” That’s because, at six weeks, a fetus DOES NOT HAVE A HEART.
Ohio’s recent bill allows for insurance coverage for transplanting the fertilized egg in an ectopic pregnancy (when the fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus). This procedure does not exist! As Daniel Grossman, MD, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, states in an excellent twitter thread, this is “pure science fiction.”
Clarence Thomas’s recent concurrence in the Mike Pence/Indiana abortion case provides another example of willfully distorting the historical record. Thomas claims that the “foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement.” This simply is not true. As it was in England, abortion was legal in colonial times. Abortion prior to “quickening” only became criminalized in the 1860s.
I’d add that Adam Cohen, the author of the book that Thomas cites in linking abortion and eugenics clearly indicates that Thomas gets this wrong too. While it may be true that Margaret Sanger supported eugenics, none of this was about abortion, which as illegal at the time.
So, use your brain, use logic, and help others recognize the fallacies and fantasies in these laws. If one really wanted to support women’s health, the lives of children, and even reduce abortion, there are policies that could actually do this.
So yesterday was the Super Bowl, which means this morning USA Today released their annual Ad Meter ratings. That also means today I engage in my annual rant about how the Ad Meter Ratings terribly represent data journalism, use of data, and measurement.
According to their ratings, people like the “100-Year Game commercial” for the NFL the most.
This annual story, while a great deal of fun, is a terrible piece of data journalism. It gives a false sense of implied accuracy, doesn’t give us the margin of error or a sense of who the participants were, doesn’t show what’s significant or meaningful, and probably measures the wrong thing.
The Ad Meter story doesn’t seem to indicate anywhere what the margin of error might be (if it’s even relevant). We can roughly estimate it though, given the size of the population of viewers and the number of participants in the Ad Ratings.
Close to 100 million people watched the Super Bowl this year, so let’s call that our population. Based on their FAQ, USA Today expected to have “thousands” of participants. If 10,000 people participated in the ratings, the margin of error would be about ±.98, or a tenth of point on a 10-point scale.
That assumes that those participating in the ratings are representative of the larger population we’re interested in (i.e., people purchasing the products being advertised). Without knowing a lot more about those that take part in the ratings, it’s impossible to tell this.
What are they measuring?
Most importantly, I doubt the Ad Meter measures anything relevant to the actual performance of the ads. Presumably companies advertise during the Super Bowl to increase awareness of their product, to create a buzz, and mostly to sell more stuff. And we don’t know how well the commercials do at this.
For example, I must have been one of the few people who quite enjoyed the Andy Warhol Burger King commercial, which the Ad Meter ratings pegged as the lowest rated commercial. It certainly got my wife and I talking about it. “Is that really him?” “If not, it’s a really good fake!”
The commercial sent down a rabbit hole of Google searches, to find out there’s a four-minute clip of Andy Warhol eating this burger. It’s part of a longer film from 1982, 66 Scenes of America, by Danish poet and filmmaker Jørgen Leth. Just about the entire film appears available on YouTube!
But most importantly, I’m not going to forget about Burger King. Not that this will change my behavior – I largely avoid fast food, and even when I did eat a lot more of it, I never liked Burger King. So, for me, this ends up being very effective, but expensive advertisement for Jørgen Leth.
Most importantly, does any of this actually work? Jeri Smith of advertising research firm Communicus conducts research on the effectiveness of Super Bowl ads. Their research suggests that companies just waste their money with Super Bowl ads. According to their work, just 10% of viewers remember the ad and who it was for.
While the USA Today Ad Meter story appears to be the most popular version of this story, other groups have different measures. iSpot.TV looked at “Digital Share of Voice,” essentially what percentage of online activity that ad gets in relation to the other commercials, including views on YouTube, tweets, Facebook likes, and so on. According to their measure, the Avengers: End Game commercial scored in first place, in comparison to 32nd place finish in the USA Today Ad Meter.
You may be saying that this just a fun story…that it doesn’t matter if has any meaning. But it would be relatively easy for USA Today to add in some of this information, to actually inform the public about how what the data means.
I don’t mind a fun story, but when they put this much effort into a project, they might as well make it good data journalism, rather than bad.
End of rant
In her recent article on Slate, Josephine Wolff slams Judge Kandis Westmore’s ruling that, in part, gives Fifth Amendment protection for biometrics (like fingerprints or facial recognition) when used as a password for cell phones.
Westmore’s ruling does appear to break new legal ground and I don’t know if it will hold up (assuming it’s appealed) or if other judges will issue similar rulings. However, to claim that Westmore doesn’t understand the Fifth Amendment goes a little too far.
In her ruling, Westmore takes take the admonition from Kyllo and Carpenter seriously, that courts “must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.”
As others have suggested, Carpenter may significantly change how US courts view technology. See Paul Ohm’s argument that Carpenter (almost) rids us of the third-party doctrine (to which I say good riddance).
Wolff compares a cell phone to a safe, a metaphor I’ve seen used other places. As she rightly states, the Fifth Amendment prevents the government from compelling you to tell them the combination to the safe, but they can still use “jackhammers, drills, and explosives” to break into it.
But that’s not the right metaphor. The argument isn’t that the government can’t crack your cell phone. They can use whatever tools at their disposal to unlock the phone themselves.
But just like they can’t force you to unlock the safe yourself (either by telling them the combination or forcing you to do it yourself), they can’t force you unlock your cell phone. Current law makes the distinction between compelling you to type in your password and placing your finger on the phone. Westmore says that distinction doesn’t makes sense, given the advances in technology.
I think that’s the right call. More importantly, it’s logical extension of Carpenter and to simply dismiss it as an error in understanding the Fifth Amendment drastically understates Carpenter’s importance and does an injustice to Westmore’s ruling.
One of most common statements about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault of Christine Blasey Ford focuses on his age at the time, just 17. Megan McCardle, for example, in a slightly more sophisticated phrasing of this, tweeted, “I wouldn’t disqualify anyone from higher office because of anything they had done as a minor.”
But it’s not just conservatives who have expressed concern over derailing Kavanaugh’s nomination over something that happened when he was not yet a legal adult. For example, Rosa Brooks, whoa among other things, is a Fellow at the New American Foundation, tweeted, “I oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination, think senators should vote no based on his judicial record, but am uncomfortable with asserting that his behavior as a teen tells us anything about his ‘character’ now.”
Under different circumstances, I would agree with this concern. Read Bryan Stevenson’s description of a 14-year-old charged with murder, and weep for how the criminal justice system treated Charlie.
We understand that at 17, human brains haven’t yet been fully formed. The criminal justice system shouldn’t treat adolescents as adults; minors shouldn’t be put in jail or prison with adults. They shouldn’t be sentenced to death or even life without parole. And they shouldn’t be placed in solitary confinement.
But Brett Kavanaugh will not go to prison for his alleged actions 36 years ago. No one will fire him. No one will punish him.
Instead, he might not get a promotion. He might not become one of the nine most powerful judges in the United States. And I’m okay with that.
Kavanaugh’s actions since 1982 matter too
But I’m saying that not just because of what happened in 1982, but because of Kavanaugh’s behavior today. He fails to recognize that his recollection of how he behaved in high school may not be accurate and the things he did may have actually hurt others.
In his most recent statements about his behavior in high school, Kavanaugh acknowledged that he drank beer, sometimes “too many” and did things that now make him “cringe.” But such vague generalities fail to consider the people he may have done those cringe-worthy things to.
Imagine the counterfactual — rather than issuing a categorical denial, Kavanaugh acknowledged that he may have done this, but because of his drinking at the time, he simply can’t recall. Like his friend Mark Judge wrote of his own time in high school, heavy drinking can lead to blackouts1Those fortunate not to have either been a heavy drinker or having someone close to them be one may misunderstand what a blackout is. It is not the same as passing out. A blackout is a loss of memory. People simply don’t remember the events during the period of the blackout. They may still be functioning and engaging in a whole range of behavior, some of which may be quite dangerous (e.g., driving, having unprotected sex, or committing crimes). such that Kavanaugh might not even remember his actions.
Let’s carry the counterfactual further and imagine that he recognized the differences between adolescent behavior and that of adults and that he’ll take that into consideration when ruling on cases.
And we know that how the criminal justice system (and in society more broadly) treats people depends considerably on one’s (or their parents’) wealth and the color of their skin. So, imagine a Brett Kavanaugh, who never seemed to get in trouble for underaged drinking or other behavior that makes one “cringe,” recognized how the context of his life made that possible, and how others aren’t so lucky.
But all the evidence we have points in the opposite direction.
Because he served on Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he hasn’t decided a lot of criminal justice cases. However, everything we’ve seen in his record suggests that he will take a harsh view of minors (and adults) caught in the legal system.
Kavanaugh certainly didn’t treat with care and respect the seventeen-year-old immigrant in the Garza case, who he tried to prevent from having a legal abortion
He’s called former Chief Justice William Rehnquist his “judicial hero.” This “hero” argued that juveniles can be subject to the death penalty and that racial disparities in the criminal justice system are okay.
Going back to his time working with Ken Starr or when in the George W. Bush administration, we find other examples of his willingness to treat people harshly. While working on the Starr Report, he promoted the Vince Foster conspiracy theory without apparent consideration for Foster’s family, even though the official ruling, based on overwhelming evidence, concluded that Foster committed suicide.
While in the Bush administration, he also helped bolster the case for torture. And once he was on the bench, he ruled in ways that prevent judicial oversight of torture and of Guantanamo.
Kavanaugh’s denial of even the possibility that the assault took place, his likely approach to criminal justice cases, and his inability to acknowledge others beyond his own experience lead to the clear conclusion that he does not deserve this promotion. So it’s the way he behaves today, not one night2or 4, as of when I wrote this 36 years ago that make him unworthy of the Supreme Court.
Footnotes [ + ]
|1.||↑||Those fortunate not to have either been a heavy drinker or having someone close to them be one may misunderstand what a blackout is. It is not the same as passing out. A blackout is a loss of memory. People simply don’t remember the events during the period of the blackout. They may still be functioning and engaging in a whole range of behavior, some of which may be quite dangerous (e.g., driving, having unprotected sex, or committing crimes).|
|2.||↑||or 4, as of when I wrote this|