“I don’t agree with all of these, but this media narrative chart for shootings seems mostly right.

When I’m not careful, I have the male equivalent of “Resting Bitch Face“… which did foist upon me a greater degree of awareness of how I can come across. And that’s without the additional penalties women face.

Gustavo Arellano writes of Los Angeles’s long history against the “wrong” kinds of food, including and perhaps especially of the Mexican variety.

Lion’s piece on sock puppetry links to this really interesting story of the CIA using sock-puppets to spread pro-US propaganda.

The Washington Post’s Rick Noack’s piece on Germany’s fascination with the United States helps explain why Germany is one of the non-adversarial developed countries with rather high levels of disapproval for the US.

IUDs are the most effective method of birth control, and honestly one of the only forms of birth control I see making a serious dent in our abortion rates.

According to some, Houston doesn’t have zoning the same way that Louisiana doesn’t have counties. Not so, says Tory Gaddis.

When all is said and done, staunch partisanship and fringy political views appear to make for happier marriages.

Conspiracy theories are losing their stigma, and they have enormous traction when it comes to global warming. Which makes sense, as since people don’t want to believe it’s happening are likely to want to latch on to any reason to believe it won’t.

James Bowie looks at the University of North Dakota’s mascot crisis (they can’t use Sioux, but have no replacement), and tries to figure out what a suitable mascot might be. I agree that a lot of the schools that made the change chose pretty poorly.

I agree with this article from the Guardian, suggesting that social media’s ability to break down the wall between birth parents and adopted children, poses a lot of potential for trouble. All of the momentum in the US, though, has been towards unsealing the records.

Tips on sleeping with other people.

Greta Christina argues that being socially liberal but economically conservative isn’t enough. Some good points, though #4 and #5 assume a disagreement that may not exist, assuming that aggressive policing and the war on drugs are economically, rather than socially, conservative positions.

Patrick Clark argues that when figuring out where to live, we should look at where people are already moving instead of hypothetically nice places that for some reason people don’t seem to actually want (in as large numbers, anyway).

Why are people so fixated on the race when it comes to characters in video games? Like these white people?

With Jhanley and I both writing pieces about the GOP debates, I found a couple other links of interest:

1) Jonathan Last starts off with a quiz asking if you can tell Fox debate questions from CNBC ones. Both featured some tough questions, but Fox’s were couched in terms to give candidates an opportunity to respond, while CNBC’s were framed… differently:

So #1 was Megyn Kelly asking Ben Carson a hard question about whether he’s ready to be president based on his own statements. That’s pretty tough. Then look at #8, where Becky Quick wanted to ask Carson about homosexuality, but couldn’t figure out how to do it except by making his involvement with Costco about homosexuality because some “marketing study” said that Costco is “the number one gay-friendly brand in America.”

What does that phrase even mean? That gay people like to buy things from Costco? That gay people like to work for Costco? That Costco courts gay consumers and/or employees? The answer, of course, is that this word salad doesn’t mean anything. It’s a meaningless pretext for a blunt, open-ended question that assumes, as a baseline, that Ben Carson hates gay people.

Or take #2 where the moderator in question is John Harwood and he references unnamed “economic advisors” who said that Trump’s economic plan has “as much chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms around.” Like Quick, Harwood doesn’t have a specific, pointed question. He has anonymous straw men standing in the middle of a non-question holding a sign that says “Repblican Is Stoopid.”

2) David Harsanyi is sensitive to Republican concerns:

It was amusing watching journalists acting like this entire kerfuffle was all about the inability of Republicans to answer “tough questions” rather than decades of institutional favoritism. Or even more preposterously, that demanding to be treated with the same tenderness as Democrats meant that Republicans were undermining free speech in some way. A rallying cry from journalists could be heard across the Twitterverse, demanding someone, somewhere stand up and fight. If only these sentinels of principled reporting felt the same way every time some hackneyed hit piece rolled off the presses at The New York Times.

Demanding more favorable treatment is not tantamount to attacking the First Amendment. A candidate has no obligation to stand in front of moderators who misrepresent their position and answer useless but antagonistic questions. Not to mention, this is a primary, not a general election. Demands are nothing new. In 2007, Democrats boycotted a Fox News debate because they wanted to avoid an outlet that might pose challenging questions.

But ultimately says come on:

For starters, the slew of limitations proposed in the letter reportedly drafted by GOP attorney Ben Ginsberg have absolutely nothing to do with the bias of mainstream media moderators and everything to do with attempts to transform GOP debates into infomercials.

Why can’t a network film candidates looking at their notes? And why can’t they show shots of the audience? What does leaving the mic open have to do with dumb questions? Why does the GOP care if there are candidate-to-candidate questions asked during a candidates’ debate? None of these restrictions help with the fundamental problem of Harwood-style gotcha advocacy posing as journalism. A raucous argument with genuine questions and disagreements is somewhat useful and watchable (the first Fox debate featured all of these things).

The GOP candidates who are signing onto the letter to the networks objecting to the debate formats are making a mistake. This can make them look weak and whiny, unable to handle the rough and tumble of politics. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with trying to change the formats, but the public complaining and public letter are the wrong way to do it. This calls for quiet negotiation.

I think that in part they’re trying to whip up the base, but that base doesn’t need to be whipped up now over an issue that will fade. I think the greater part of their reaction is primarily a combination of their natural uneasiness at being asked uncomfortable questions and their in-built distrust of the so-called liberal media. Through that lens any uncomfortable question naturally is read as a liberal attack. Add on to that the fact that some of the questions in the debate were ridiculously unsubstantive (journalists generally not being as smart as they think they are), and their frustration is anything but surprising.

But what matters when you’re frustrated is how you respond. And I think Obama spoke for many voters when he emphasized the weakness the candidates were demonstrating.

“Have you noticed that everyone of these candidates say, ‘Obama’s weak. Putin’s kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he’s going to straighten out,'” Obama said…

“Then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at the debate. Let me tell you, if you can’t handle those guys, then I don’t think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you,”

Fiorina, Christie, and Kasich have chosen the smarter, more presidential path, declining to sign the letter, and Christie at least going out of his way to urge his fellow party members to stop complaining. Whether they are sincere or calculating really doesn’t matter–this is one of those cases where pure political calculation and acting like a grownup lead to the same action.

But that action may be trumped, as the Donald has announced that he’ll negotiate with the networks on his own. I think his action is evidence of his narcissism, and I’d like to see the networks flatly refuse to negotiate one-on-one with candidates and generously offer to let him register his protest by not appearing at future debates. But looked at impersonally, Trump is signalling that he’s his own man, not dependent on anyone else and not subservient to his own party establishment. He’s taking the action of a leader, trying to set the agenda that everyone else will have to follow. And that’s what large numbers of voters want in a president, a kick-ass guy who takes no prisoners, shoots first, and doesn’t bother with questions later because by-god he already knows.

If the networks refuse to negotiate one-on-one there’s no cost to Trump. He spins that as evidence that the establishment fears him. It’s a small story that dies in a couple news cycles, but it’s not a damaging story. If he wins, he is the man who took on the political establishment and the liberal media elites and won. And that makes him appear strong and in-charge–in other words, presidential.

Recently in the headlines is the GOP dissatisfaction with the CNBC debate. What’s a little unusual about this is that almost everybody agrees that the debates were poorly done. To pick one example, Tod Kelly says:

The worst part wasn’t that their questions were often insipid. (Though they were.)1 Or that CNBC’s version of what issues should be important to American voters was rather bizarrely skewed. (Though it was.)2 It wasn’t even the first question of the debate, where they asked the candidates to tell everyone what their greatest weakness was, then stressed that they were going to hold them to answering the question, and then just sat there watching as each candidate (save Trump) used the question to tell the world how much more awesome than everyone else they were.

No, the worst part was that CNBC had clearly made a decision to go full Candy Crowley, and hold the candidates’ feet to the fire when they answered with false statistics or histories. Which was a noble ambition, and might have led to a truly awesome debate, but for one tiny flaw: The moderators hadn’t taken the time to learn anything about the questions they were asking. When candidates pushed back, the moderators looked lost. When asked, the moderators couldn’t recall where they got their facts. When Becky Quick pushed Trump on a point, and he asked where she was getting her facts, she began shuffling through notes with a confused look on her face, and this exchange actually happened {…}

Vox’s Marcus Brauchli argues that it’s basically American Gladiators, and we’re entitled to it:

The audiences are coming — CNBC and other broadcasters have enjoyed record viewership for the debates — because it’s a red, white, and blue American television mashup of courtroom drama, where tough questions elicit surprise answers; team sport, where even favorite players stumble; and reality TV, where every participant has a unique narrative, moderators stoke controversy, and viewers have a say in who gets voted off the island.

The GOP and Republican Party, however, don’t agree. Which has been responded to as such:

The CNBC debate was a disaster, but fucking suck it up.

— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) November 2, 2015

Here’s the thing: It’s not really up to the GOP to just “suck it up.” It is not their responsibility to entertain us. They have no democratic obligation to endure whatever silly little games CNBC chooses to go forward with for good ratings and entertaining television. The debates are not a benign service to us, nor a tribute to democracy. They exist for the benefit of the party. If they do not benefit the party, there is nothing wrong with them demanding debates that do benefit the party. I don’t mean “there’s nothing wrong” in the sense that “It’s undemocratic but they’re within their Constitutional Rights”… I mean that they are doing a disservice to nobody because there is no obligation, democratic or otherwise, to even have debates to begin with.

So no, they don’t have to “fucking suck it up.” This is their show.

Now, the GOP could well screw itself over by turning the debates into a prolonged advertisement. That would make it far less interesting to the networks themselves and viewers, and a lot of people would tune it all out. More importantly, it would deprive potential primary voters of a chance to assess how the candidates do with their feet to the fire. I’ve been paying attention to the debates with a particular eye to how well Marco Rubio – a relatively untested figure – handles it. And the debates are helpful for assessing how other candidates, such as Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, might perform in general election debates over which the GOP will have far less leverage (and in that case, rightfully so).

So there is a balance to be struck here. You know who is best qualified to strike that balance? The Republican Party, that’s who. The same applies to the Democratic Party, which in 2007 decided that it would not do Fox debates. The added exposure wasn’t in their interest. That was their call, and they certainly have more stake in making the right one than does any of us.

“Yeah, but the Democrats were right because Fox is hopelessly biased while none of the rest are except for reality’s well-known liberal bias.”

Even if we accept the notion that there is no bias in media towards the left, there is inarguably a bias in favor of an entertaining shitshow, which the GOP primaries might presently lend themselves to but not to which party officials must resign themselves to exacerbating. That requires making demands.

Whether I agree with the complaints and demands is rather beside the point. As it turns out, most of the “demands” are pretty reasonable:

• Opening and closing statements for each candidate that last at least 30 seconds
• Equal time, similarly substantive, and fair questions for each candidate
• No rapid-fire “lightening rounds” (sic) in which all the candidates are limited to a few words in answering questions
• More details further in advance on what the rules, subject, production, and format will be
• Veto power for candidates over graphic and bio information that will be displayed onscreen about them

The only one I consider objectionable is that last one, and even that one is debatable. Any demands greater than that would have required a degree of consensus that would have been hard to achieve among candidates with such contrary interests.

Another thing they’re planning on requiring is that the temperature be 67 degrees. The operating temperature by the third debate shouldn’t even be an issue. Is it outrageous that they demand not to be uncomfortable? Or is it the media’s god-given right to play Egon Spengler from Ghostbusters 2 while ratcheting up the temperature to see how the candidates respond and if they can get Marco Rubio to ask for a disqualifying drink of water.

Everybody comes into debates with different objectives. For the candidates and the parties, it’s about trying to win people over. For the voters, it’s about being informed or at least entertained. For the media, it’s about drawing viewers. Arguably, at least, the parties and candidates do have a democratic obligation to the voters to inform (or maybe entertain) them. But the media? Hurm.

CNBC charged *fifty* times their normal ad rate for the GOP debate, yet the media pretends they are the ones doing the GOP a favor. Come on.

— Josh Jordan (@NumbersMuncher) November 2, 2015

Sure, candidates don't have to let news orgs run debates. And news orgs don't have to give them hundreds of millions of dollars in free TV.

— Nick Confessore (@nickconfessore) November 2, 2015

“Dance for us, clown. Or as journalists we will boycott the presidential primary of one of the two major parties. Because journalism.”

What happens when a toddler discovers magic markers…

–

Costume time!
–

In lieu of trick or treating, we went to an event downtown. That worked out pretty well because she was fascinated by the concentration of unusual activity. Also, there was a bouncy castle that she got to play in for a little while.

If you’re wondering how I dressed, I went as “Batman But You Can Call Me Bob.”

Watch a baby elephant try to bathe in a tub its outgrown.

The story.

And here’s one in a tub more appropriately sized, slipping and sliding around.