Mike Hollihan has a very interesting post that manages to summarize pretty much everything worth knowing about Memphis politics today. A particularly interesting quote:
Also, if Memphians who want out—for good schools, racism, safe neighborhoods, whatever—know that Shelby County is now, or will soon be, a closed book, then they just skip county or state lines and move anyway. But now they’d be out of the reach of Shelby County altogether.
And, thanks to a oft-overlooked portion of Tennessee’s “smart growth” law passed in the late 1990s (after the “Toy Towns” crisis), they’re now out of the reach of Memphis too. Part of the deal that half-heartedly imposed Oregon-style urban planning on the state’s municipalities was a little provision that essentially cut off the “nightmare scenario” under previous law that would, essentially, have allowed Memphis to annex any unincorporated land in Tennessee, given sufficient ingenuity by the Memphis City Council;* now, annexations across county lines require county commission approval, except in limited cases where a city already straddled county lines.
In essence, the legislature told Memphis: “we saved you from the Toy Towns, now the whole mess is yours to sort out—the catch is, you only get to f*ck up one county.” The legislature is looking mighty prescient right about now.
* Tennessee’s annexation laws give priority to the more populous municipality in annexation disputes, regardless of any other factors (geographic continuity, geographic compactness, ability to deliver services, etc.). As the most populous municipality in Tennessee, Memphis thus had essentially unchallengeable authority to annex all unincorporated land in the entire state.
To the rest of the world, “R and R” means “rest and relaxation.” To academics, however, it means “revise and resubmit”—a living hell of extra data collection, analysis, and writing.
Guess which version I’ll be doing this afternoon.
Professor Bainbridge roots for the Redskins to win one for a very idiosyncratic reason:
A 72-year streak links the victory or defeat of the Washington Redskins on the eve of election day with the presidential race. If the Redskins go down to defeat or tie, the sitting president’s party loses the White House. That leaves the fate of President Bush squarely on the shoulders of Redskins head coach Joe Gibbs. Hometown hero Gibbs, who led the team to three Super Bowl titles, retired after the 1992 season and now has returned to the team’s helm.
The Redskins face off against the Green Bay Packers at FedEx Field on Oct. 31 — the last game before the election Nov. 2. ...
The Redskins’ performance has aligned with the presidential outcome in the last 18 elections — a probability of 1 in 263.5 million, according to Dave Dolan, an assistant professor of statistics at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
Bainbridge at least acknowledges that this result “is a spurious correlation generated by data mining.” No such luck for someone else who should know better (quoted by Steven Jens):
From UVa poli-sci prof Larry Sabato comes word that no incumbent president with a four-letter last name has ever won (I’m avoiding using the term “re-elect” so as not to exclude Ford).
Sabato deserves his own personal category here at Signifying Nothing—particularly considering that I’m stuck with using his god-awful American government text in the fall. Even “Burns, Peltason, and 17 other dead people” would be better.
A few links for those with an interest in goings-on in Canuckistan. Peaktalk is disappointed that the Conservatives have moved to the left on health care, thus forestalling a much-needed national debate on Canada’s health care system. Meanwhile, Collin May of Innocents Abroad is pretty much flooding the zone with current poll results and analysis; barring a major reversal in the next 3 weeks, it’s looking more and more like the Tories will win a plurality and be able to form a government with the support of the Bloc Québecois (as outlined here)—inspired debate or no.
Also of potential interest (and joining the blogroll, at least through the end of the month): Alexandra Taylor, who comes recommended by Colby Cosh, and Points of Information, a group blog recommended by Alexandra.
Will Baude still maintains his objections to comments on heavily-trafficked blogs, but concedes there may be some merit to comments in the less-traveled-by portions of the blogosophere. The interesting questions to me are: why do comment sections turn to sludge, and what’s the inflection point where sludge control efforts can no longer be fruitful?
My working hypothesis is that comments sections turn to sludge when the expected number of eyeballs that might read a comment on someone else’s blog exceeds the number of eyeballs that might see J. Random Jackass’s post to his own blog.
Assuming J. Random Jackass can get 30 hits/day by just setting up a blog, that means that any blog that gets, on average, more than 30 hits/full post is vulnerable to being “sludged.” There are, however, some sludge rate caveats:
- Completely inline comments will massively increase the odds of getting sludged. If a blog’s comments are visible on the front page, and thus will be read by every visitor, it will probably be sludged at a much lower threshold. (See, e.g. Daily Pundit.)
- “Hide/show inline comments” will somewhat increase the odds of being sludged, though—as most readers won’t bother clicking the “Expand comments” button—the risk is significantly lower than for fully inlined comments. (PoliBlog, Wizbang)
- Pop-up only comments (e.g. Haloscan and other services for pre-2.0 Blogger) will significantly decrease the odds of being sludged, as even permalinks to the post will not include the comments, unlike the default templates for Movable Type, WordPress, and most other tools.
Empirical testing of this hypothesis is encouraged.
As far as the inflection point goes, I suspect it is very close to the actual sludge threshold. Should your blog reach the inflection point, my (normative) suggestion is to disable comments rather than attempt to implement technological fixes (IP bans, content analysis) that will work marginally well, if at all.