Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr., aka Muhammad Ali passed away last night at the age of 74.
I first saw him win the Light Heavyweight Gold medal – on film – at the Rome Olympics in 1960. We had no TV then. He has floated like a butterfly in my view of the world for over 50 years.
RIP.
“Marcellus vanquished Carthage,
Cassius laid Julius Caesar low.
And Clay will flatten Douglas Jones
with a mighty measured blow!”
1960 Olympic gold medallist
That the European Union does take away national sovereignty is obvious even if David Cameron may argue (now) that it doesn’t. Even though I think that we must eventually evolve away from nation states, the EU is not a development in that direction. It involves surrendering autonomy – away from the “nation” to the faceless, supercilious, self-righteous, European Commission and the European parliament. Poland may be pursuing policies that its EU members disapprove of, but surely that is Poland’s prerogative.
BREXIT supporters have a clear example of how the EU fancies itself a super-state and one which thinks it has the right – if not necessarily the power – to dictate to its members how to think. Like it or not, the Justice Party was elected “democratically” in Poland. The European Commission is far from being any kind of democratic institution. It is an executive body. There is something deeply disturbing about EU bureaucrats telling an elected government what it may or may not do. The self-righteous arrogance of the European Commission is often offensive.
The EU executive has given Poland an official warning that changes to its constitutional court endanger the rule of law in the country.
Frans Timmermans, vice president of the European commission, said he had written to the Polish government warning that recent alterations to the workings of Poland’s highest court posed “a systemic risk to the rule of law”.
The publication of a formal opinion ratchets up pressure on Poland and marks the first time that the EU executive has criticised a member state under its rule-of-law procedure.
After Poland’s Law and Justice (Pis) party came to power, the Polish parliament passed a law allowing the government to appoint the judges of its choosing to the highest court and not recognise those chosen by its predecessor, the liberal Civic Platform party.
Legal experts advising the Council of Europe have concluded that the changes breach the rule of law, democracy and human rights.
If Poland refuses to back down, it could face the ultimate sanction of being stripped of EU voting rights, although Brussels is keen to avoid that scenario.
I am not sure if BREXIT is good or bad for the UK, but there should be little doubt that staying within the EU does mean giving up a large measure of sovereignty. It is surely better for the EU that the UK remain a member. But the best for both the UK and the EU, I think, is for reform of the EU. I remain convinced that a vote in favour of BREXIT vote will only cause the EU to finally make real concessions rather than the cosmetic changes offered to Cameron. A BREXIT vote is – after all – only the start of a long negotiation. But the negotiation could be real and not just a PR exercise. Of course the UK would need a real negotiator – and that isn’t either Cameron or Corbyn.
I don’t much care that Facebook is tracking me – and now “on and off Facebook through cookies”. But their analysis of whatever tracking they do is suspect. At least in my case, the tracking analysis does not seem to be very effective (or even intelligent).
Facebook cookie monster
Facebook’s choice of “top stories” – which seems to be their enforced default condition – never matches what I would consider top stories on my news feed. I keep switching back to “most recent” and what I get is something close to – but not exactly – the most recent posts (or comments). Some posts are suppressed and some are elevated. In this age where they are supposedly tracking my every move, why cannot they manage something as simple as just following a time stamp? It is pretty clear that their over-complicated, over-sophisticated algorithms cannot leave well alone. Why must they always try to “add value” (and fail) by revising time?
For the last 5 days Facebook has been showing this irritating message
To help personalize content, tailor and measure ads, and provide a safer experience, we use cookies. By clicking or navigating the site, you agree to allow our collection of information on and off Facebook through cookies. Learn more, including about available controls: Cookies Policy.
As the WSJ points out, Facebook is trying to show an increased “value” to its advertisers (presumably to fool them into paying higher rates). Personally I thin the advertisers would be throwing their money away. The pages that Facebook suggests for me are very, very rarely of any relevance – or even of interest – for me. I cannot remember ever having clicked on an advertisement on Facebook. I don’t suppose I am in the main target group for Facebook advertisers, but surely the much-touted sophistication of their algorithms can do better. I am not especially impressed by the quality of the selections made for me.
I find Google ads are much more closely aligned to my interests. In any search for news stories, I always ignore the first few paid-for references. They are invariably low quality stories. But I have been known to click – not very often but a few times – on their ads. Ads on WordPress sites are generally very relevant to the main story (interspersed with regular ads for porn sites but these are easy to ignore).
I suspect that Facebook are claiming far more for their algorithms and their capability of selection of target audiences than they can actually achieve. (That they do suppress news they don’t like is now pretty well proven).
Facebook has set out to power all advertising across the Internet.
To that end, the social network and online advertising company said Thursday it will now help marketers show ads to all users who visit websites and applications in its Audience Network ad network. Previously Facebook only showed ads to members of its social network when they visited those third-party properties.
The change is a subtle one, but it could mean Facebook will soon help to sell and place a much larger portion of the video and display ads that appear across the Internet. The change will also intensify competition with Alphabet Inc. subsidiary Google, which dominates the global digital-advertising market, and a wide range of other online ad specialists.
“Publishers and app developers have some users who aren’t Facebook users. We think we can do a better job powering those ads,” said Andrew Bosworth, vice president of Facebook’s ads and business platform.
But my advice to Facebook advertisers would be to double check any claims Facebook makes about how well they are able to select their target audiences. From the little I have seen, they are not particularly good.
All I really want is that my news feed follow the fundamental time-stamp and that “most recent” gives me the most recent posts – without suppression of some and elevation of others. Google seems to know my mind better than Facebook does.
The Guardian is blatantly biased – but that’s perfectly OK. They tend to be quite selective in choosing which stories to report and which to ignore and that, too, is perfectly OK, since they make no secret of the agendas they pursue. Their opinion pieces nearly always cherry pick information to suit their point of view and I have no problem with that. Their spelling mistakes are legendary (perhaps they need to have an Indian-American with the spelling bee gene as a spell checker). But they do not make up the “facts” they do report.
Except, it seems, they sometimes do.
The Guardian has retracted 13 articles by a freelance writer Joseph Mayton who has been writing for them since 2009. They have also deleted extracts from his other articles which could not be verified. Mayton denies he has fabricated his stories – but his protests which claim unprofessionalism as a defence – are not very convincing.
Guardian editor Lee Glendinning writes:
…. we acted immediately to investigate when sources claimed that they had not spoken with the writer of the piece they were quoted in.
The article in question, from February, was by a freelance journalist, Joseph Mayton, who began writing opinion pieces for the Guardian in London in 2009, while based in Egypt. He contributed several opinion pieces before starting to write occasional US news stories, on a freelance basis, in May 2015 from California. These stories ranged from coverage of wildfires to issues related to marijuana farms, urban vineyards and whale deaths on the coast.
When Mayton was unable to provide convincing evidence that the interviews in question in the February article had taken place, we hired an independent fact-checker to investigate all of his prior work, which comprised 37 single-byline articles published between 2015 and 2016, seven shared byline stories from the same period, and 20 opinion pieces written from 2009 to 2015.
In an investigation that included approximately 50 interviews, our fact-checker found articles that contained likely or confirmed fabrication, including stories about two events that organizers said he didn’t attend. Dozens of sources could not be found – either they had no online presence or they were anonymous and could not be substantiated – and several people quoted in Mayton’s articles either denied speaking with him or giving the quotes attributed to them. …..
….. In light of the extent of the fabrication and the uncertainty surrounding many of the articles, we are removing 12 of the news stories, and one opinion piece from the Guardian website. In the articles that remain, quotes and information that could not be verified have been removed, and we have published footnotes on each article page to outline this. There were other stories which proved accurate, with no corrections needed, and have been left as is.
I use The Guardian as one of my key benchmarks for liberal-left opinions. I don’t expect objectivity from them and I hardly ever agree with their viewpoint but I do rely on their veracity.
And so I am very glad to see them take this action to protect, at least, their reputation for accuracy in the facts they do report.
h/t – Retraction Watch
Indian Americans now totally dominate the US Spelling Bee competition. It was the third straight year of joint winners at the 2016 Scripps National Spelling Bee. Nihar Janga, 11, of Austin, Texas, and Jairam Hathwar, 13, of Corning, New York, were declared co-champions at the National Spelling Bee on Thursday.
May 26, 2016; National Harbor, MD, USA; Jairam Hathwar, 13, of Painted Post, N.Y. (L), and Nihar Janga, 11, of Austin, Texas (R), celebrate as co-champions during the 2016 Scripps National Spelling Bee at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center. Image : Reuters
Seventeen out of the last twenty one winners (from 1999 to 2016), including all champions for the most recent nine years (from 2008-2016, including 2014, 2015, and 2016’s pairs of co-champions, for a total of twelve champions during this interval), have been Indian Americans, reflecting the recent dominance of students of this community in this competition. Indian Americans make up less than one percent of the U.S. population. In 2016, Nihar Janga from Austin, Texas, became the youngest ever champion when he won the title at the age of 11.
The 2016 Scripps National Spelling Bee featured co-champions for the sixth time in the competition’s history, the previous occurrences having been in 1950, 1957, 1962, 2014, and 2015. (Wikipedia)
It must be genetic. But for some reason the spelling gene does not express itself in India. Obviously some epigenetic factor is in play.
My hypothesis is that all Indians have the spelling gene but it is only expressed when triggered by a geographical factor to be found only in the US.
Related:
Why are Indian-Americans sweeping the US spelling bee?
Donald Trump leads – just – in the polls and there is some panic. The RCP poll of polls shows Trump leading Clinton for the first time by just 0.2 percentage points (43.4 to 43.2).
Trump leads 22nd May 2016
But this support for Trump is not reflected in the US media. Overwhelmingly – and I would guess over 90% – of the main stream media are contemptuous of Trump. The liberal media is filled with anti-Trump vitriol. (These attacks are counter productive and I have written elsewhere of how Trump and the anti-establishment wave he is riding feed on these attacks). The consensus even among my friends – who do reflect the media – is that a Trump victory would be a catastrophe for the US and the world. Trump supporters are considered fools or worse. They are supposed to be the racists and the rednecks and all the stupid and “angry” people.
The US media attacks on Trump show a hint of panic (especially the liberal-left media). They are still missing the point that attacking Trump increases his support. It is only by adopting an anti-establishment stance that some of this support could be siphoned away.
Suppose Trump does win the election. Will the media and the establishment accept the “verdict of the people”? Will they still be extolling the virtues of democracy and universal suffrage where the stupid have as much of a vote as the intelligent? I suspect that Trump will not be as bad a President as people fear. But if he wins, it will be because of the inherently, perverse nature of democracy.
The basic problem is that “universal suffrage” with an “equal vote” for everyone is fundamentally unjust.
……. it is mere existence as an individual that suffices to have an “equal vote”. And if everyone has the vote it is assumed that “democracy” has been attained – as if it were some sort of state of grace. The only real criterion is that of age, even if some countries still have some other criteria in force. The merit of the individual is irrelevant. Votes can and are bought by promises or by free meals or by money or by a bus-ride. A “bought” or coerced vote weighs as heavy as one that is freely given. (There is nothing wrong in buying or selling votes – the flaw lies in that the seller has a vote equal to that of free elector). A fool has the same vote as a wise man. A large tax contributor is equated to a small tax contributor. Government servants paid for by taxes have the same weight of vote as the tax payers. Priests and politicians have the vote. The behaviour of an individual does not affect his vote. Experience, intelligence, wisdom, competence or criminality are all considered equally irrelevant. A majority vote is considered to be the “will of the people” where “constitutions” are supposed to prevent excesses against minorities. But constitutions are subject to the same majority vote. One hundred and one idiots take precedence over one hundred wiser men. And we inevitably get the politicians that universal suffrage deserves. This democracy and its universal suffrage needs also to be tempered by merit. But meritocracy smacks of elitism and no self-respecting socialist could tolerate that.
Universal Suffrage which ignores merit has led to the Lowest Common Factor becoming what counts and not the Highest Common Multiple that is being sought. And that was not, I think , what Lincoln intended.
Perhaps what is needed is a differential vote. Every one would have a basic vote but extra fractions of a vote could be earned for merit – for intelligence, for service, for wealth creation, … . It is probably time for “democracy” to shift towards a “meritocracy”.
Humanity – as applying to the human species – is something more than just the 7 billion individuals alive today or even the 110 billion (or so) members of homo sapiens who have ever lived. Humanity must include the 4 babies being born every second. It must include all those who have ever been, or will come to be, “human”. Any definition of humanity must transcend time. For any individual, to be “human” it is is not a case of just falling within a certain envelope of physical and cognitive characteristics, but must also include the individual’s behaviour.
Our genes determine our physical and cognitive capabilities – our potential. Nurture then determines how these are expressed in each individual case. While our genes may not determine specific, individual behaviour, they do define the envelope of all possible behaviours available to an individual. It is our genes which define the envelope of all possible human characteristics and also the envelope of all possible human behaviour.
The envelope of all possible human behaviour will – must – include all behaviour that many would consider “inhumane”. Hitler or Pol Pot or Breivik or ISIS fanatics are or were undoubtedly human, but their behaviour was or is “inhumane”. Their “inhumanity” does not remove them from the body of anydefinition of humanity. If not, it would mean that there could be some humans who – on account of their behaviour – were not part of humanity. That, I think, would be a contradiction in itself. Equally, if some entity exhibited behaviour which fell within the envelope of all possible human behaviour, but fell outside the envelope of physical and cognitive characteristics, then that entity would not be part of humanity.
The paradox is that what we call “crimes against humanity” are, in fact, part of humanity. Inhumane behaviour is an integral part of humanity.
If we wish to exclude certain types of behaviour from humanity, the inescapable conclusion is that we have to eliminate or modify the genes which allow the unwanted behaviour. But our physical characteristics and our behaviour are dependent upon the same genes. And if genetic engineering to change behaviour was possible, it would also mean that our physical and cognitive abilities would inevitably change.
Superman might pretend to be human but he could never be a part of any definition of humanity.
Justin Trudeau’s #elbowgate is extensively covered by all the press.
But why the indignation?
Quelle surprise.
Canada’s normally staid House of Commons erupted into chaos on Wednesday, after the visibly annoyed Trudeau marched into a group of MPs, grabbed Conservative Gordon Brown by the arm and led him out of the group.
Parliamentarians were waiting to vote on a controversial motion from the Liberals to limit debate on assisted suicide legislation. The vote was delayed while several New Democrat MPs gathered around Brown, seemingly impeding him from taking his place.
Trudeau swore as he strode toward Brown, reportedly telling MPs to “get the fuck out of the way”. Footage from the House of Commons showed Trudeau elbowing New Democrat Ruth Ellen Brosseau as he pulled Brown away from the group.
elbowgate
Pretty children – especially those who know they are pretty – are prone to temper tantrums. It does not change just because they are in parliament. His admirer’s and apologists are hard at work trivialising his outburst. And like all spoilt children, he will probably get away with it.
That somebody has made a montage of clips about Hillary Clinton’s untruthful statements over a number of years is not – in itself – so newsworthy or surprising. A Youtube video was posted in January this year. That such a video is promoted by the Drudge report is also not very surprising.
But I think it is a little surprising that the Washington Post (via Kathleen Parker) has helped this video to go viral is a little surprising. That a similar video of Donald Trump could be produced is certain. But why would the WaPo effectively help the Trump camp? Why now? The WaPo oped certainly has reached parts of the Democratic body corpus that other beers cannot reach. Of course the WaPo is far to the left of Hillary Clinton and they will do what they can to help Bernie Sanders. But even Sanders’ most ardent supporters cannot give him much of a chance.
Hillary Clinton’s vast resume of, shall we say, inconsistencies, is the dog that caught the car and won’t let go. A viral video collection of her comments on various subjects through the years is bestirring Republican hearts.
To those who’d rather vote for a reality show host than a Clinton, the video merely confirms what they’ve believed all along. For independents and even Democrats, it’s a reminder of how often Clinton has morphed into a fresh incarnation as required by the political moment.
Most of the highlights would be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect. Politicians count on Americans’ short attention spans (and memories) as much as they do their own policies and/or charms. This video (https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI), inartfully titled “Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight,” clarifies blurred recollections and recasts them in an order that, among other things, reminds us how long the Clintons have been around.
The video is worth watching in its own right: Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight
