Gasol, Conley lead Grizzlies to easy win over Suns 117-96
By CLAY BAILEY
Sunday, October 28
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — Despite a bit of a youth movement, it’s still the Marc Gasol and Mike Conley show for the Memphis Grizzlies — with a good amount of defense mixed in.
Memphis, held Phoenix to 46 percent shooting, including the Suns connecting on only 9 of 33 shots outside the arc in a 117-96 victory Saturday night.
“I think defense is what really keys and starts our offense for us,” said Conley, who finished with 18 points and seven assists. “Gives us easy opportunities. Gives us a different flow, a different rhythm. .It allows us to play with a little more pace and get guys more opportunities.”
Gasol led the Memphis scoring with 19 points. MarShon Brooks, like Conley, had 18 points, Garrett Temple added 15, and Wayne Selden 14.
“We want to be a versatile offensive team where you can’t key in on one or two guys to shut us down,” Memphis coach J.B. Bickerstaff said. “It’s good to see a bunch of guys get double-figure points. That means we’re sharing the ball well.”
With Suns leading scorer Devin Booker out nursing a left hamstring strain, it was up to Deandre Ayton, the first overall pick in last summer’s draft, to do his part. He led Phoenix, scoring 24 points — tops for his young season — and had eight rebounds.
But he didn’t get a lot of offensive help to replace Booker’s missing 28 points a game. Guard Isaiah Canaan was the only other starter reaching double figures, scoring 11 points. Rookie Elie Okobo came off the bench for 12 points, and Jamal Crawford added 11. The Suns have lost four straight.
While Memphis took a first-quarter lead, the advantage was built in the second, when the Grizzlies outscored Phoenix 42-25 for a 68-43 halftime lead.
“We came out lackadaisical with the turnovers and stuff,” Ayton said. “They started getting (into) a rhythm early, and they started making a lot of shots in the first half, especially in the second quarter.”
From there, Memphis would extend it to 26 midway through the fourth quarter, leading both coaches to start clearing their benches.
“We are repeating the same mistakes. Turnovers, obviously.” Phoenix coach Igor Kokoskov said of the Suns’ 19 miscues. “It was a big part of this game.
“We have to play better. But not just better. We have to execute better.”
Suns: Ayton has scored at least 18 points in four of his five games this season. … Josh Jackson started in Booker’s spot. …Jackson had six turnovers in the first quarter. … Ryan Anderson, who has a reputation as a 3-point shooter, entered the game 3 of 15 from outside the arc this season. His percentage didn’t get any better, going 1 for 3 from 3-point range.
Grizzlies: Jaren Jackson Jr. drew a technical foul early in the fourth quarter when he jumped up in dispute over being called for a foul. .Jackson scored 6 points, the first time he has not reached double-figures in his rookie season. .F Chandler Parsons sat for the second straight game with right knee soreness.
Gasol, who left Wednesday’s loss in Sacramento holding his shoulder and neck, played after evaluation showed he basically suffered “a stinger.” Memphis coach J.B. Bickerstaff was not surprised the 7-foot-1 center returned to action three days later. “That’s who Marc is,” Bickerstaff said. “He’s one of the toughest guys I’ve ever been around. Playing through almost anything.”
Memphis rookie Yuta Watanabe made his first appearance of the season, becoming only the second Japanese player to play in an NBA regular-season game. Yuta Tabuse, played four games for the Suns in 2004. “The NBA has been a dream since I was a little kid, and that was a good opportunity,” said Watanabe, who scored 2 points.
Suns: At Oklahoma City on Sunday night
Grizzlies: Host Washington on Tuesday night.
More AP NBA: https://apnews.com/tag/NBA and https://twitter.com/AP_Sports
Otterbein Chamber Ensembles to Perform Recital
Otterbein University’s string and piano chamber music ensembles will perform a recital at 8:00 p.m. on Friday, November 16 at Riley Auditorium in the Battelle Fine Arts Center, 170 W Park Street, Westerville. This event is free and open to the public. The ensembles include string quartets and a variety of chamber groups with piano. The program will feature works by Arensky, Grieg, Mozart, Vaughan Williams, and more.
More information about the Otterbein University Department of Music and its concert schedule can be found at http://www.otterbein.edu/music. For more information about this event, visit the following link: https://www.facebook.com/events/1064785780360301/
The Anticipations to Perform Rock Concert at Otterbein
The Anticipations, Otterbein’s student rock band, will perform their Fall Concert at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 17 at Riley Auditorium in the Battelle Fine Arts Center, 170 W Park Street, Westerville. The band consists of Ione Green-Lauber, Chance Landers, Brandon Williamson, Jose Avila, Eric Stratton, and Xavier Coppel. Under the direction of Prof. Douglas Neel, they have put together a wide cross-section of popular music from the 80’s, 90’s, and 2000’s. This event is free and open to the public.
More information about the Otterbein University Department of Music and its concert schedule can be found at http://www.otterbein.edu/music. For more information about this event, visit the following link: https://www.facebook.com/events/248296575849292/
Guest opinion: Health care coverage for half million to be decided this November
By Jordan Rasmussen, firstname.lastname@example.org, Center for Rural Affairs
This November, voters in Idaho, Nebraska, Montana, and Utah will decide whether to extend health insurance coverage to a combined half million hardworking, low-income Americans. These people fall into the coverage gap – meaning they earn too little to qualify for subsidies to purchase coverage from the insurance marketplace and too much to be eligible for Medicaid.
This vote comes following months of signature collection and advocacy. Utah and Idaho gathered 147,000 and 60,000 signatures, respectively, to place the issue on their ballots. Montana voters will decide whether to permanently expand Medicaid for nearly a 10th of the state’s population, after expansion was piloted by the state legislature in 2015.
Initiative 427, as it will appear on the ballot in Nebraska, would extend Medicaid coverage to nearly 90,000, who earn less than $17,000 annually.
In Nebraska’s rural counties, an average 11.76 percent of employed residents are uninsured. This picture duplicates across America. Expansion of Medicaid to the rural population could have an impact on keeping rural hospitals and clinics open across the country, offsetting the costs of uncompensated care.
If these states pass their respective ballot measures, they would join 33 other states that have done so already. As voters head to the polls this November, their choices will have a profound impact for those who are working on farms, in rural nursing homes, or in local cafés, who still cannot access insurance coverage. Much weighs on this vote for residents, hospitals, communities, and these four states.
Established in 1973, the Center for Rural Affairs is a private, non-profit organization working to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities through action oriented programs addressing social, economic, and environmental issues.
Why nonsense hurts democracy more than lies
May 14, 2018
Professor of Philosophy, Public Policy, and Governance, University of Washington
Disclosure statement: Michael Blake receives funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Partners: University of Washington provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.
Since the inauguration of Donald Trump as president, members of his administration have made many statements best described as misleading. During the administration’s first week, then-press secretary Sean Spicer claimed that Trump’s inauguration was the most well attended ever. More recently, Scott Pruitt claimed falsely to have received death threats as a result of his tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump himself has frequently been accused of telling falsehoods – including, on the campaign trail, the claim that 35 percent of Americans are unemployed.
What is extraordinary about these statements is not that that they are false; it is that they are so obviously false. The function of these statements, it seems, is not to describe real events or facts. It is instead to do something more complex: to mark the political identity of the one telling the falsehood, or to express or elicit a particular emotion. The philosopher Harry Frankfurt uses the idea of nonsense as a way of understanding what’s distinctive about this sort of deception.
As a political philosopher, whose work involves trying to understand how democratic communities negotiate complex topics, I am dismayed by the extent to which nonsense is a part of modern life. And what bothers me the most is the fact that the nonsense may do even more damage than the liar to our ability to reach across the political aisle.
Nonsense does not need facts
Democracy requires us to work together, despite our disagreements about values. This is easiest when we agree about a great many other things – including what evidence for and against our chosen policies would look like.
You and I might disagree about a tax, say; we disagree about what that tax would do and about whether it is fair. But we both acknowledge that eventually there will be evidence about what that tax does and that this evidence will be available to both of us.
The case I have made about that tax may well be undermined by some new fact. Biologist Thomas Huxley noted this in connection with science: A beautiful hypothesis may be slain by an “ugly fact.”
The same is true, though, for democratic deliberation. I accept that if my predictions about the tax prove wrong, that counts against my argument. Facts matter, even if they are unwelcome ones.
If we are allowed to say nonsense without consequence, though, we lose sight of the possibility of unwelcome facts. We can instead rely upon whatever facts offer us the most reassurance.
Why this hurts society
This nonsense, in my view, affects democratic disagreement – but it also affects how we understand the people with whom we are disagreeing.
When there is no shared standard for evidence, then people who disagree with us are not really making claims about a shared world of evidence. They are doing something else entirely; they are declaring their political allegiance or moral worldview.
Take, for instance, President Trump’s claim that he witnessed thousands of American Muslims cheering the fall of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The claim has been thoroughly debunked. President Trump has, nonetheless, frequently repeated the claim – and has relied upon a handful of supporters who also claim to have witnessed an event that did not, in fact, occur.
The false assertion here serves primarily to indicate a moral worldview, in which Muslims are suspect Americans. President Trump, in defending his comments, begins with the assumption of disloyalty: the question to be asked, he insisted, is why “wouldn’t” such cheering have taken place?
Facts, in short, can be adjusted, until they match up with our chosen view of the world. This has the bad effect, though, of transforming all political disputes into disagreements about moral worldview. This sort of disagreement, though, has historically been the source of our most violent and intractable conflicts.
When our disagreements aren’t about facts, but our identities and our moral commitments, it is more difficult for us to come together with the mutual respect required by democratic deliberation. As philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau pithily put it, it is impossible for us to live at peace with those we regard as damned.
It is small wonder that we are now more likely to discriminate on the basis of party affiliation than on racial identity. Political identity is increasingly starting to take on a tribal element, in which our opponents have nothing to teach us.
The liar, in knowingly denying the truth, at least acknowledges that the truth is special. The spewer of nonsense denies that fact – and it is a denial that makes the process of democratic deliberation more difficult.
Speaking back to nonsense
These thoughts are worrying – and it is reasonable to ask what how we might respond.
One natural response is to learn how to identify nonsense. My colleagues Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom have developed a class on precisely this topic. The syllabus of this class has now been taught at over 60 colleges and high schools.
Another natural response is to become mindful of our own complicity with nonsense and to find means by which we might avoid rebroadcasting it in our social media use.
Neither of these responses, of course, is entirely adequate, given the insidious and seductive power of nonsense. These small tools, though, may be all we have, and the success of American democracy may depend upon our using them well.
Trump isn’t lying, he’s spewing nonsense – and it’s far more dangerous
Updated January 27, 2017
Director of External Research for frank, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida
Disclosure statement: Lauren Griffin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners: University of Florida provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.
If you’ve been paying attention to the news over the past week or so, you know that over the weekend America was introduced to the concept of “alternative facts.” After Trump administration Press Secretary Sean Spicer rebuked the media for accurately reporting the relatively small crowds at President Donald Trump’s inauguration, senior White House aide Kellyanne Conway told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Spicer wasn’t lying; he was simply using “alternative facts.”
News outlets are still working through the process of figuring out what to call these mischaracterizations of reality. (“Alternative facts” seems to have been swiftly rejected.) Many outlets have upped their fact-checking game. The Washington Post, for instance, released a browser extension that fact-checks tweets by the president in near real-time.
Other outlets have resisted labeling Trump’s misstatements as lies. Earlier this year, for instance, the Wall Street Journal’s editor-in-chief Gerard Baker insisted that the Wall Street Journal wouldn’t label Trump’s false statements “lies.”
Baker argued that lying requires a “deliberate intention to mislead,” which couldn’t be proven in the case of Trump. Baker’s critics pushed back, raising valid and important points about the duty of the press to report what is true.
As important as discussions about the role of the press as fact-checkers are, in this case Baker’s critics are missing the point. Baker is right. Trump isn’t lying. He’s spewing nonsense. And that’s an important distinction to make.
As philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote in a 1986 essay, some don’t care whether what they are saying is factually correct or not. Instead, nonsense is characterized by a “lack of connection to a concern with truth [and] indifference to how things really are.” Frankfurt explains that person “does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”
In addition to being unconcerned about the truth (which liars do care about, since they are trying to conceal it), Frankfurt suggests that some don’t really care whether their audience believes what they are saying. Indeed, getting the audience to believe something is false isn’t their goal. Rather, they say what they do in an effort to change how the audience sees them, “to convey a certain impression” of themselves.
In Trump’s case, much of his rhetoric and speech seems designed to inflate his own grand persona. Hence the tweets about improving the record sales of artists performing at his inauguration and his claims that he “alone can fix” the problems in the country.
Likewise, his inaugural address contained much rhetoric about the “decayed” state of the country and rampant unemployment (a verifiably false statement). Trump then proceeded to claim that he was going to rid the country of these ailments. The image of Trump as a larger-than-life figure who will repair a broken country resonates with his audience, and it doesn’t work without first priming them with notions of widespread “carnage.”
A slippery slope
There are several problems with Trump adopting this style of communication.
First, misinformation is notoriously hard to correct once it’s out there, and social media, in particular, has a reputation for spreading factually inaccurate statements and conspiracy theories.
One study, for instance, examined five years of Facebook posts about conspiracy theories. The authors found that people tend to latch onto stories that fit their preexisting narratives about the world and share those stories with their social circle. The result is a “proliferation of biased narratives fomented by unsubstantiated rumors, mistrust, and paranoia.” Another study examined Twitter rumors following the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. These researchers explored how misinformation about the identity of a suspected terrorist abounded on the social media platform. They found that although corrections to the error eventually emerged, they didn’t have the same reach as the original misinformation.
Second, because Trump’s communication style relies heavily on anger, people who are predisposed to his message may become even less critical of potential bunk. Research suggests that when people are angry, they evaluate misinformation in a partisan way, typically accepting the misleading claims that favor their own political party. One study, for instance, primed participants by having them write essays that made them feel angry about a political issue. The authors then presented them with misinformation about the issue that either came from their own party or the opposing party. Participants who felt angry were more likely to believe their party’s misinformation than people who were primed to feel anxious or neutral.
Finally, a communications strategy based on nonsense inherently makes enemies of anyone who would seek to reinstate the truth and expose his statements as bunk. Journalists, scientists, experts and even government officials who disagree with him are subject to charges of ineptitude, partisanship or conspiracy. They’re then threatened with restrictions on funding, access and speech. We’ve already seen this happening with the suggestion that Environmental Protection Agency data may undergo review by political appointees before being made public.
In fairness, Trump may very well believe the things that he’s saying. He was recently quoted as saying “I don’t like to lie.” And people can convince themselves of things that aren’t true.
There’s some evidence, for instance, that he avoided information that Muslims in New Jersey didn’t actually celebrate the terrorist attacks on September 11th, as he claimed. Like all of us, Trump may be putting up psychological defenses to avoid accepting information that challenges his worldviews, as research suggests all of us do. So although he’s corrected frequently by journalists and on social media, it’s a very real possibility that he’s simply shut out anyone or any source of information that threatens his way of seeing things.
But this is of little comfort. Trump has an affinity for speaking mistruths with little consideration for their factual accuracy. Combine this with his relentless efforts to discredit anyone who challenges his declarations and his heavy use of social media – where posts and tweets can go viral with little context and no fact-checking – and it sets the stage for a dangerous turn in American political and civil discourse.