I've wondered before how true a sociological study Borat's comedy really is. It's often hailed as a sort of muckraking, uncovering America's racist underside. It's hilarious and un-PC to boot.
(For those of you who've been living under rocks the past month, Borat is a kind of reality-show comedian. Pretending to be a journalist from Kazakhstan, he says outrageous things -- anti-Semitic and misogynist, mostly -- and gets other to react. Often, the funniest skits are when people agree with him.)
Borat's most notorious skit was when he got a group of rural Southerners to sing along to "Throw the Jew Down the Well," a country song he wrote. I've wondered how selective the camera work was (some members of the crowd cheer while a few have quizzical looks as it is), and how much the audience's reaction was simply alcohol. It certainly says something about anti-Semitism, but I'm not sure to what degree.
The point implied, that Southerners in particular hate Jews, is also suspect. I bet you could get inner city blacks to sing along if you set it to rap music (they don't seem to like middleman minorities much either, though they're not acceptable targets for ridicule like Southerners are), but Borat isn't as interested in making urban people look stupid. In his new movie, the closest he comes is kissing New Yorkers and watching them threaten him.
In the last week, two lawsuits have indicated how unrealistic Borat's movie ("Throw the Jew" was part of a TV show, not the new movie) really is. First, a group of frat boys sued, alleging that Borat's team told them (A) the movie wouldn't be shown in the U.S. and (B) to drink as much as possible. They appear pretty dumb and pretty inebriated, at one point lamenting the end of slavery.
Now, villagers shown in the film, including a man with one arm, finally realized how they were portrayed. The story is worth quoting at length:
"But now the villagers of this tiny, close-knit community have angrily accused the comedian of exploiting them, after discovering his new blockbuster film portrays them as a backward group of rapists, abortionists and prostitutes, who happily engage in casual incest.
"They claim film-makers lied to them about the true nature of the project, which they believed would be a documentary about their hardship, rather than a comedy mocking their poverty and isolation.
"Villagers say they were paid just £3 each for this humiliation, for a film that took around £27 million at the worldwide box office in its first week of release."
Is not nice. Is over the line, in fact.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
YouTube video shows LAPD 'brutality'
There are a lot of details yet to come out, but I am slightly skeptical that this story indicates wrongdoing on the part of the police. There is a YouTube video (violence, profanity) of an LAPD arrest where the cops hold a suspect down and hit him in the face. The "victim" is a known gang member. (Disclosure: My father is a retired police officer.)
In the video, the officer throwing the punches says "let go of me" several times, though it's unclear how the criminal is grabbing him. The arrestee is possibly biting the leg the officer is using to hold him down. The criminal says "I can't breathe" repeatedly (amusingly, indicating he can).
At first glance it does look pretty wanton and brutal, but the "let go of me"s and the fact it happened in broad daylight and on camera lead me to think the video doesn't show the whole story. The article reveals, in addition, that (A) the suspect ran at first, (B) the officers described facial blows in their report, indicating they were not afraid of consequences and (C) "A Superior Court commissioner who viewed the video nearly two months ago and heard the officers' testimony has already found that their conduct was 'more than reasonable' under the circumstances because Cardenas was resisting."
And like most police brutality videos, the camera clip begins after the entire pursuit and takedown. For example, Rodney King led cops on a 100 mph chase, ran afterwards, got tasered and kept charging at officers. When they finally got him down, they kept hitting him while he feebly tried to get up -- perfectly within the realm of normal human reaction, though unnecessarily harsh and probably in violation of police procedure. The camera, of course, went on once he was down and helpless and they were still kicking.
Similarly, in California, Donovan Jackson wouldn't deny grabbing an officer's testicles before being slammed into a car and punched in the face while handcuffed. Again, the tape went on right as he was getting thrown against the car.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
In the video, the officer throwing the punches says "let go of me" several times, though it's unclear how the criminal is grabbing him. The arrestee is possibly biting the leg the officer is using to hold him down. The criminal says "I can't breathe" repeatedly (amusingly, indicating he can).
At first glance it does look pretty wanton and brutal, but the "let go of me"s and the fact it happened in broad daylight and on camera lead me to think the video doesn't show the whole story. The article reveals, in addition, that (A) the suspect ran at first, (B) the officers described facial blows in their report, indicating they were not afraid of consequences and (C) "A Superior Court commissioner who viewed the video nearly two months ago and heard the officers' testimony has already found that their conduct was 'more than reasonable' under the circumstances because Cardenas was resisting."
And like most police brutality videos, the camera clip begins after the entire pursuit and takedown. For example, Rodney King led cops on a 100 mph chase, ran afterwards, got tasered and kept charging at officers. When they finally got him down, they kept hitting him while he feebly tried to get up -- perfectly within the realm of normal human reaction, though unnecessarily harsh and probably in violation of police procedure. The camera, of course, went on once he was down and helpless and they were still kicking.
Similarly, in California, Donovan Jackson wouldn't deny grabbing an officer's testicles before being slammed into a car and punched in the face while handcuffed. Again, the tape went on right as he was getting thrown against the car.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Allen endorsement blows up in NRA's face
I was a member of the NRA for about three years (just expired a few months ago), and I've written about gun issues from a very pro-rights perspective. I still hold those views.
But I was quite angry -- indeed, it cinched my decision not to re-join -- when I learned they strongly endorsed George Allen for the Virginia senate seat, accusing Webb of siding too closely with the DNC on many issues (not, interestingly, guns). Allen indeed earned an A+ based on his beliefs, but Webb got an A. That warrants Allen getting the endorsement, but it sure doesn't justify an active campaign against Webb.
You can read Webb's response, explaining how he, an NRA member, received a card advising a vote for Allen, here. Also how the group put off posting his A grade on their Web site.
It seems, as this Raising Kaine post alleges, that the NRA is not truly a single issue group. I understand why they'd get involved with media laws that keep them from buying airtime, but there is no reason to support the GOP candidate when his opponent is a member of your organization.
The ultimate irony is that the NRA explained the endorsement by its policy of going with incumbents. But Webb won, so now they've managed to anger and possibly alienate a pro-gun senator.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But I was quite angry -- indeed, it cinched my decision not to re-join -- when I learned they strongly endorsed George Allen for the Virginia senate seat, accusing Webb of siding too closely with the DNC on many issues (not, interestingly, guns). Allen indeed earned an A+ based on his beliefs, but Webb got an A. That warrants Allen getting the endorsement, but it sure doesn't justify an active campaign against Webb.
You can read Webb's response, explaining how he, an NRA member, received a card advising a vote for Allen, here. Also how the group put off posting his A grade on their Web site.
It seems, as this Raising Kaine post alleges, that the NRA is not truly a single issue group. I understand why they'd get involved with media laws that keep them from buying airtime, but there is no reason to support the GOP candidate when his opponent is a member of your organization.
The ultimate irony is that the NRA explained the endorsement by its policy of going with incumbents. But Webb won, so now they've managed to anger and possibly alienate a pro-gun senator.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Space shuttle computers may have Y2K-style glitch
This story is really, really scary. NASA can put a man on the moon and send space vehicles to the outer reaches of the solar system, but making computers that can go from December 31 to January 1 is just too much to ask. They're rushing the Discovery's launch so that it will be home by New Years Day.
The NASA source is "sure" that, if something goes wrong, they can find a way to keep it up there. That's reassuring.
First of all, how did people programming a life-or-death computer not think of this, and second, how did it never occur to anyone at NASA to test the computers in a year no shuttle was launching? And is it the brightest idea to send the shuttle up when, in an emergency, you're not sure how the computers will act?
Of course, this glitch is similar to the Y2K one, which turned out not as badly as expected. But while it's reasonable that a programmer in the '80s might not think of what happens December 31, 1999, it's not quite clear how a NASA programmer wouldn't consider the effect December 31 of any year could have on his machine.
Gotta love the government.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The NASA source is "sure" that, if something goes wrong, they can find a way to keep it up there. That's reassuring.
First of all, how did people programming a life-or-death computer not think of this, and second, how did it never occur to anyone at NASA to test the computers in a year no shuttle was launching? And is it the brightest idea to send the shuttle up when, in an emergency, you're not sure how the computers will act?
Of course, this glitch is similar to the Y2K one, which turned out not as badly as expected. But while it's reasonable that a programmer in the '80s might not think of what happens December 31, 1999, it's not quite clear how a NASA programmer wouldn't consider the effect December 31 of any year could have on his machine.
Gotta love the government.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Landscaper refuses to work for homosexual couple
This story is disappointing. A landscaping company refused to work for a gay couple, which is bad enough as it is, but then legions of homosexual activists bombarded its Web site with scathing criticism and threats of violence.
Here's where I come down: It is completely within the rights of the company to choose its clientele. There are a few limitations -- race and gender legislation, chiefly -- but sexual orientation is not one of them in most states (including, I'd presume, Texas). I think the guy should take the money and do the work, as he's a businessman, not a preacher, but it's his choice.
It is also within the rights of the gay couple to boycott, and I hereby endorse said boycott.
However, I disagree with the offended gay man's use of the word "ignorance." It's always kind of annoyed me when people try to bring what they call "facts" or "enlightenment" to the bigotry debate. Actually, the facts of the matter indicate that people of different sexual orientations, races, etc., exhibit a number of different characteristics. They're not, as groups, "equal."
Equality is a value, as Rick Santorum argued in It Takes a Family. It's a value I support, including in this case. The problem with this landscaper is his values, then -- not his "ignorance" or lack of "enlightenment." There is no fact you could teach him to change his mind.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Here's where I come down: It is completely within the rights of the company to choose its clientele. There are a few limitations -- race and gender legislation, chiefly -- but sexual orientation is not one of them in most states (including, I'd presume, Texas). I think the guy should take the money and do the work, as he's a businessman, not a preacher, but it's his choice.
It is also within the rights of the gay couple to boycott, and I hereby endorse said boycott.
However, I disagree with the offended gay man's use of the word "ignorance." It's always kind of annoyed me when people try to bring what they call "facts" or "enlightenment" to the bigotry debate. Actually, the facts of the matter indicate that people of different sexual orientations, races, etc., exhibit a number of different characteristics. They're not, as groups, "equal."
Equality is a value, as Rick Santorum argued in It Takes a Family. It's a value I support, including in this case. The problem with this landscaper is his values, then -- not his "ignorance" or lack of "enlightenment." There is no fact you could teach him to change his mind.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
There are no conservatives outside America
At least that's the impression you'd get reading this AP article.
Best line: "In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as 'the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world.'"
Sounds like a broad coalition! Normally I'd fault the AP for including a positive, subjective evaluation of a left-wing activist event, but that sure is "extraordinary."
Best line: "In an extraordinary joint statement, more than 200 Socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as 'the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world.'"
Sounds like a broad coalition! Normally I'd fault the AP for including a positive, subjective evaluation of a left-wing activist event, but that sure is "extraordinary."
On the uselessness of exit polls
On election night my roommate kept remarking how useless exit polls were, and how he didn't even see why TV stations bothered to report them. I still stand by my counterargument on the CNN/MSNBC/etc. front, which is that exit polls are something to report. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
But I was a little skeptical of his assessment of the polls' accuracy, and I was wrong. Over at NRO's Corner, JPod has the scoop on how telephone polls were actually more accurate than exit polls were. The latter keep skewing Democrat by significant margins, 5 to 8 percent. In close elections, of course, that can affect the predicted outcomes bigtime.
My theory is the "privacy buff" effect. More conservatives than liberals refuse to take random polls. In telephone polls they correct for this bias, but exit polls are reported raw. I would think that, over time, pollsters could introduce a correction to their exit poll data that would make it more useful. At the expense, of course, of the "raw data" appeal exit polls now have.
JPod hopes for an end to exit polling. I doubt this will happen, just because it's such a news circus. But we can hope for more accurate exit polling.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But I was a little skeptical of his assessment of the polls' accuracy, and I was wrong. Over at NRO's Corner, JPod has the scoop on how telephone polls were actually more accurate than exit polls were. The latter keep skewing Democrat by significant margins, 5 to 8 percent. In close elections, of course, that can affect the predicted outcomes bigtime.
My theory is the "privacy buff" effect. More conservatives than liberals refuse to take random polls. In telephone polls they correct for this bias, but exit polls are reported raw. I would think that, over time, pollsters could introduce a correction to their exit poll data that would make it more useful. At the expense, of course, of the "raw data" appeal exit polls now have.
JPod hopes for an end to exit polling. I doubt this will happen, just because it's such a news circus. But we can hope for more accurate exit polling.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UN: Norway best country to live in
According to the AP, the UN has named Norway the best country to live in for the sixth consecutive year. It's too bad they missed the main reason it would be sweet to move there -- the country is home to the coolest metal bands.
Joking aside (even though I wasn't kidding), the country is rated high because of its education, affluence, health, life expectancy and care for the poor. The UN presumably releases such rankings so countries low on the list can model themselves after the "better" nations. However, I think it says less about policy and more about who they have living there.
The Norwegian welfare state is immensely generous, and the distortions in incentives (paying people to be poor makes them less likely to work) have been slower to set in there than they were here in the U.S. Steve Sailer has pointed out that Scandinavian culture is the cause of this -- not working is simply not an option for someone who wants acceptance in a community (and Scandinavians do). As a result, welfare in Norway helps the helpless without hurting the working poor, and people there live long lives with relatively little stress.
There is little danger of this culture breaking down, unless the welfare state itself does it. According to the CIA World Factbook, there is basically only one ethnicity in Norway, and 85 percent of them share the same religion.
So, Norway is a great place to live because of its traditions. The ranking is pat on the back to the country, of course. But by the same token, the Scandinavian model is not something replicable in other cultures. When they've tried -- say, the U.S. Great '60s Welfare Experiment -- they've failed.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Joking aside (even though I wasn't kidding), the country is rated high because of its education, affluence, health, life expectancy and care for the poor. The UN presumably releases such rankings so countries low on the list can model themselves after the "better" nations. However, I think it says less about policy and more about who they have living there.
The Norwegian welfare state is immensely generous, and the distortions in incentives (paying people to be poor makes them less likely to work) have been slower to set in there than they were here in the U.S. Steve Sailer has pointed out that Scandinavian culture is the cause of this -- not working is simply not an option for someone who wants acceptance in a community (and Scandinavians do). As a result, welfare in Norway helps the helpless without hurting the working poor, and people there live long lives with relatively little stress.
There is little danger of this culture breaking down, unless the welfare state itself does it. According to the CIA World Factbook, there is basically only one ethnicity in Norway, and 85 percent of them share the same religion.
So, Norway is a great place to live because of its traditions. The ranking is pat on the back to the country, of course. But by the same token, the Scandinavian model is not something replicable in other cultures. When they've tried -- say, the U.S. Great '60s Welfare Experiment -- they've failed.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Proportion of Jews in legislature rises
This news is sure to gin up a few conspiracy theories. According to a Jewish Web site, the proportion of Jews in the legislature has risen. Now 13 Jews are in the Senate, up from 11. In the House the numbers are 30 and 24.
The rise in Democrats explains most of the difference, however, so Mearsheimer and Walt can sit this one out. The number of Democrats rose 14.5 percent in the House and 13 percent in the Senate, compared to the number of Jews rising 25 percent and 18 percent respectively. I'm no statistician, but since almost 90 percent of Jews voted Democrat, I don't think it's a significant disproportion. (Of course, Jews were overrepresented relative to the American population before; I explained a theory why in a previous post.)
One criticism people should take seriously, however, is what this means for support for Israel. I support Israel on the simple grounds it's a fairly decent democracy (though I'm confused about the finer points of the region's history), but I think there is a credible case that siding with the country hurts our interests in many ways.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The rise in Democrats explains most of the difference, however, so Mearsheimer and Walt can sit this one out. The number of Democrats rose 14.5 percent in the House and 13 percent in the Senate, compared to the number of Jews rising 25 percent and 18 percent respectively. I'm no statistician, but since almost 90 percent of Jews voted Democrat, I don't think it's a significant disproportion. (Of course, Jews were overrepresented relative to the American population before; I explained a theory why in a previous post.)
One criticism people should take seriously, however, is what this means for support for Israel. I support Israel on the simple grounds it's a fairly decent democracy (though I'm confused about the finer points of the region's history), but I think there is a credible case that siding with the country hurts our interests in many ways.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
New piece up at antiMUSIC/Rocknworld
There were some unfortunate formatting problems, but antiMUSIC has my review of Dissonance's record here.
Bush, Pelosi to meet
You've got to love the promise of bipartisanship. There's something all warm and fuzzy about different people coming together to "get stuff done." It happened in 2000, and it's happening again. Bush and Pelosi are expected to meet soon.
I hate to say something so stupidly obvious, but it doesn't seem anyone else grasps it. You can only cooperate when you have both (A) the same goals and (B) the same way, or at least some flexibility in your way, to get there.
There are a few issues where that's the case. Even the most contentious aspect to politics, Iraq, has a lot of common ground, as even most Democrats aren't advocating a fast withdrawal. To some degree Bush and the Dems can meet and work out the proper course of action.
But on so many other issues, there is simply no way to cooperate. The minimum wage (which costs jobs), repealing tax cuts, cutting back the Patriot Act -- you can't work together to get something done on these fronts. You can't work together to accomplish opposite ends.
So, this "new tone" is kind of cute. But if there's anyone left who takes it seriously, they should stop. And Bush should be more frank that he's ready to fight the Dems on key issues.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Some genius at the AP gets it.
I hate to say something so stupidly obvious, but it doesn't seem anyone else grasps it. You can only cooperate when you have both (A) the same goals and (B) the same way, or at least some flexibility in your way, to get there.
There are a few issues where that's the case. Even the most contentious aspect to politics, Iraq, has a lot of common ground, as even most Democrats aren't advocating a fast withdrawal. To some degree Bush and the Dems can meet and work out the proper course of action.
But on so many other issues, there is simply no way to cooperate. The minimum wage (which costs jobs), repealing tax cuts, cutting back the Patriot Act -- you can't work together to get something done on these fronts. You can't work together to accomplish opposite ends.
So, this "new tone" is kind of cute. But if there's anyone left who takes it seriously, they should stop. And Bush should be more frank that he's ready to fight the Dems on key issues.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Some genius at the AP gets it.
AP: Ballot initiatives bolstered...liberalism
If you still doubt media bias, check out this AP story, with the thesis that Tuesday's ballot initiatives struck a huge blow against right-wingers everywhere. That's funny, because most serious analysts noticed how the election seemed to be anti-Republican but pro-conservative. Even the Democrats who won took on some right-wing beliefs.
By the AP's own account -- buried deep in the story -- "Michigan voters approved a ban on some types of affirmative action programs, Colorado and Arizona passed mearsures targeting illegal immigrants and seven states approved gay marriage bans, joining 20 that had done so in previous elections."
Compare this to the left's great triumphs, pushed front and center in the story. South Dakota defeated an abortion ban (pretty draconian, only exception was life of the mother), Missouri endorsed embryonic stem cell research (which many Republicans and libertarians support) and Arizona was the first state to shoot down a gay marriage ban (by the AP's own admission, not because people opposed the core of it but because it could stop government entities from respecting domestic partnerships -- again, that's buried way down in the story).
Also, not in the beginning of the story but higher than the many conservative successes, the AP talks about California and Oregon shooting down parental notification laws. Both are liberal states, and both votes were close.
I myself think there should be exceptions to these laws. For example, if the father of the pregnant teen is the father of her child as well. By and large parents should have the final say, but the law needs to recognize that these things happen.
Planned Parenthood succeeded by making this argument and spending tons of money, not by saying average parents shouldn't know their daughter is having an abortion. A pro-life group in California claims this exception is in the bill and PP is lying, same for Oregon. I haven't read either piece of legislation.
The election was, according to Bush himself, a thumpin' for Republicans. But the ballot initiatives were a completely different story for conservatism, and the AP is showing its bias by refusing to admit it.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
By the AP's own account -- buried deep in the story -- "Michigan voters approved a ban on some types of affirmative action programs, Colorado and Arizona passed mearsures targeting illegal immigrants and seven states approved gay marriage bans, joining 20 that had done so in previous elections."
Compare this to the left's great triumphs, pushed front and center in the story. South Dakota defeated an abortion ban (pretty draconian, only exception was life of the mother), Missouri endorsed embryonic stem cell research (which many Republicans and libertarians support) and Arizona was the first state to shoot down a gay marriage ban (by the AP's own admission, not because people opposed the core of it but because it could stop government entities from respecting domestic partnerships -- again, that's buried way down in the story).
Also, not in the beginning of the story but higher than the many conservative successes, the AP talks about California and Oregon shooting down parental notification laws. Both are liberal states, and both votes were close.
I myself think there should be exceptions to these laws. For example, if the father of the pregnant teen is the father of her child as well. By and large parents should have the final say, but the law needs to recognize that these things happen.
Planned Parenthood succeeded by making this argument and spending tons of money, not by saying average parents shouldn't know their daughter is having an abortion. A pro-life group in California claims this exception is in the bill and PP is lying, same for Oregon. I haven't read either piece of legislation.
The election was, according to Bush himself, a thumpin' for Republicans. But the ballot initiatives were a completely different story for conservatism, and the AP is showing its bias by refusing to admit it.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Sullivan on Rush Limbaugh
I hate to blog just to rip on Andrew Sullivan, but this post ("Liars"!) is just over-the-top. He criticizes Rush Limbaugh for supporting Republicans even though they weren't doing good jobs.
Well, Limbaugh's reasoning was more than solid, even if the quote was poorly worded (I don't think Limbaugh meant to say he actually supported legislation he didn't like, but that he supported candidates behind that legislation). The talk show host argued that you support the better candidate, not the opposite of the one that failed to be perfect.
Also, I love this: "Have you ever heard of intellectual honesty, Mr Limbaugh? You can look it up in the dictionary."
Sorry, dude, but that's a two-word term. The dictionary only has single words. You shouldn't criticize others' vocabularies when you're not too familiar with the means of building them.
UPDATE: It's just occurred to me that Sullivan himself misdefines intellectual honesty in this post. Intellectual dishonesty is when you believe something for a certain reason, but you don't apply that reasoning to other issues. In short, it is illogic.
For example, you can't be anti-abortion because the government can never take life, and then in turn support the death penalty. You can hold both those beliefs for other reasons (as I do), but in this case you'd be intellectually dishonest.
Sullivan is not accusing Limbaugh of applying principles unevenly; he's accusing him of outright lying. According to Sullivan, Limbaugh would say "I support policy X" when he really didn't. That's just a lie, not a betrayal of high-minded universal standards.
Well, Limbaugh's reasoning was more than solid, even if the quote was poorly worded (I don't think Limbaugh meant to say he actually supported legislation he didn't like, but that he supported candidates behind that legislation). The talk show host argued that you support the better candidate, not the opposite of the one that failed to be perfect.
Also, I love this: "Have you ever heard of intellectual honesty, Mr Limbaugh? You can look it up in the dictionary."
Sorry, dude, but that's a two-word term. The dictionary only has single words. You shouldn't criticize others' vocabularies when you're not too familiar with the means of building them.
UPDATE: It's just occurred to me that Sullivan himself misdefines intellectual honesty in this post. Intellectual dishonesty is when you believe something for a certain reason, but you don't apply that reasoning to other issues. In short, it is illogic.
For example, you can't be anti-abortion because the government can never take life, and then in turn support the death penalty. You can hold both those beliefs for other reasons (as I do), but in this case you'd be intellectually dishonest.
Sullivan is not accusing Limbaugh of applying principles unevenly; he's accusing him of outright lying. According to Sullivan, Limbaugh would say "I support policy X" when he really didn't. That's just a lie, not a betrayal of high-minded universal standards.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Judge blocks anti-sex offender law in California
I hate to say it, but the judge in this case is right. He blocked enforcement of a popular ballot initiative keeping sex offenders at least 2,000 feet from parks.
Now, I'm all for frying every sex offender on the planet.* I think it's nauseating that we don't do more to punish rapists and child molesters -- I've heard the argument that lax rape laws are due to overwhelmingly male legislatures, and I'm not sure I believe that (plenty of other laws are too lenient), but it's a problem nonetheless.
But there's something called ex post facto, which means, in a word, retroactive. That's forbidden in America. If the punishment for robbery is 1 year, and I rob, you can't pass a law extending my sentence to 3 years. You have to wait until I rob again to give a different sentence.
Likewise, for sex offenders who've already committed their crimes, you can't add the extra punishment of a 2,000-foot rule. Such a rule can only apply to sex offenses to take place after the law's passage.
Robert VerBruggen blog at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
*Save for the 18-year-olds who had consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriends, and the guys who, drunk themselves, had sex with drunk girls and got prosecuted. I love this line from the Cornell Rape Education Web site, not because it's bad advice but because it's an accurate description of the law: "Being drunk or high is not a legal defense against a charge of rape. You are responsible for your actions, whether or not you are drunk or on drugs. Furthermore, a woman who is drunk or under the influence of drugs may be incapable of consent." In other words, men are responsible for their drunken behavior. Women aren't.
Now, I'm all for frying every sex offender on the planet.* I think it's nauseating that we don't do more to punish rapists and child molesters -- I've heard the argument that lax rape laws are due to overwhelmingly male legislatures, and I'm not sure I believe that (plenty of other laws are too lenient), but it's a problem nonetheless.
But there's something called ex post facto, which means, in a word, retroactive. That's forbidden in America. If the punishment for robbery is 1 year, and I rob, you can't pass a law extending my sentence to 3 years. You have to wait until I rob again to give a different sentence.
Likewise, for sex offenders who've already committed their crimes, you can't add the extra punishment of a 2,000-foot rule. Such a rule can only apply to sex offenses to take place after the law's passage.
Robert VerBruggen blog at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
*Save for the 18-year-olds who had consensual sex with their 17-year-old girlfriends, and the guys who, drunk themselves, had sex with drunk girls and got prosecuted. I love this line from the Cornell Rape Education Web site, not because it's bad advice but because it's an accurate description of the law: "Being drunk or high is not a legal defense against a charge of rape. You are responsible for your actions, whether or not you are drunk or on drugs. Furthermore, a woman who is drunk or under the influence of drugs may be incapable of consent." In other words, men are responsible for their drunken behavior. Women aren't.
The ice beer of pundits
I have just discovered that my friend Jeremy Lott refers to me as "the ice beer of pundits" on his blog. Not sure if that means I'm not watered down, or that I'm cheap and extra-intoxicating.
Another of my roommates, Michael Brendan Dougherty, was apparently the first to break the Rumsfeld resignation...on the Comedy Central blog election night.
Another of my roommates, Michael Brendan Dougherty, was apparently the first to break the Rumsfeld resignation...on the Comedy Central blog election night.
New piece up at antiMUSIC/Rocknworld
antiMUSIC/Rocknworld has my review of Rob Zombie's new greatest hits here. Scroll down.
Regional differences in Virginia weren't that severe
In analyzing the Virginia election -- still too close to call, though Democrat Webb is coming out ahead in the first count -- people often stressed the state's regional tensions. DC suburban Virginia is more liberal than the North Carolina-bordering southern part.
On MSNBC yesterday, announcers made a big deal that a then-uncounted precinct was in Fairfax County (DC suburban; I live there). And this USA Today article says: "Allen piled up big voting margins in conservative, rural counties across Virginia, but as election night wore on, the incumbent's support throughout the countryside was offset by Webb's strong showing in urban areas."
There is something to this notion, but the differences aren't nearly as severe as I had been expecting given the hype. The Northeast may run headlong into the South in Virginia, but here are CNN's results by region of the state:
Northern Virginia: 40 percent Allen
Southeastern Virginia: 47 percent Allen
Richmond/Eastern Virginia: 55 percent Allen
Shenandoah/Western Virginia: 57 percent Allen
These numbers are fairly typical for states with urban/rural divides, even when they don't bridge regions. Wisconsin, for example, varied in support for Kohl (D) from 50 percent (southern area of the state) to 68 (Milwaukee area) percent. New York saw an even worse divide, with the city going 82 percent for Hillary Clinton; upstate only 57 percent.
The numbers seem to suggest that the difference between rural and urban people is more important than that between Northern and Southern folks.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
On MSNBC yesterday, announcers made a big deal that a then-uncounted precinct was in Fairfax County (DC suburban; I live there). And this USA Today article says: "Allen piled up big voting margins in conservative, rural counties across Virginia, but as election night wore on, the incumbent's support throughout the countryside was offset by Webb's strong showing in urban areas."
There is something to this notion, but the differences aren't nearly as severe as I had been expecting given the hype. The Northeast may run headlong into the South in Virginia, but here are CNN's results by region of the state:
Northern Virginia: 40 percent Allen
Southeastern Virginia: 47 percent Allen
Richmond/Eastern Virginia: 55 percent Allen
Shenandoah/Western Virginia: 57 percent Allen
These numbers are fairly typical for states with urban/rural divides, even when they don't bridge regions. Wisconsin, for example, varied in support for Kohl (D) from 50 percent (southern area of the state) to 68 (Milwaukee area) percent. New York saw an even worse divide, with the city going 82 percent for Hillary Clinton; upstate only 57 percent.
The numbers seem to suggest that the difference between rural and urban people is more important than that between Northern and Southern folks.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Britney filed for divorce on date crucial to prenup
This is absurd, but I'm actually going to try to analyze Britney Spears's motives in a serious manner. Sure is more productive than adding to the ridiculous amount of baseless election analysis going around. The pop singer recently dumped husband K-Fed after having two children by him.
Fox News says the divorce was all about money -- indeed, it seems that Nov. 6 would have been the very last day for Spears to avoid giving Federline more money via the prenuptual agreement.
But I don't think money works as sole governor of Spears' behavior. It really can't explain why she'd have kids (you know, 'cuz kids cost money and keep her from touring). An honest falling-in-and-out-of-love doesn't work either; otherwise, she wouldn't leave right after giving birth to a second child, precisely on the day the prenup terms adjust.
What works best is a combination of the money motive and publicity. Spears keeping her name in the news explains all of her behavior, save the timing of the divorce filing, explicable only by money -- and publicity is tied to money, so the two make a good couple. The media (including me now, I suppose) predictably jumped all over the marriage, the kids, the divorce.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Fox News says the divorce was all about money -- indeed, it seems that Nov. 6 would have been the very last day for Spears to avoid giving Federline more money via the prenuptual agreement.
But I don't think money works as sole governor of Spears' behavior. It really can't explain why she'd have kids (you know, 'cuz kids cost money and keep her from touring). An honest falling-in-and-out-of-love doesn't work either; otherwise, she wouldn't leave right after giving birth to a second child, precisely on the day the prenup terms adjust.
What works best is a combination of the money motive and publicity. Spears keeping her name in the news explains all of her behavior, save the timing of the divorce filing, explicable only by money -- and publicity is tied to money, so the two make a good couple. The media (including me now, I suppose) predictably jumped all over the marriage, the kids, the divorce.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
New piece up at The National Interest
The National Interest has an election analysis piece of mine. It takes a look at Tom Lantos, the new House international relations committee chair.
FCC: Profanity OK in news shows
Oddly enough, E! Entertainment's Web site has the most thorough coverage of the FCC's recent ruling. UPI's story is actually pretty terrible and includes the profanity in question.
Apparently, profanity is now okay in news interviews. Almost without a doubt, this will lead to an increase in foul-mouthed talking heads, though I would guess the broadcast networks will exert some kind of self-control (for example, cable news could have been using profanity all along, as it doesn't depend on publicly-owned airwaves, but it hasn't).
Now, I love swearing. Outside of work I can hardly complete a sentence without tossing in a few choice words. But this distinction between news interviews and awards shows (Cher and Nicole Richie's cussing was deemed inappropriate) is bogus. For starters, one interview was with a Survivor contestant, so it's not like this is some sort of public's-right-to-know issue.
I think the distinction should be between pre-taped and live -- and, for live broadcasts, the individuals instead of the network should be fined for profanity between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. There's really no need to pollute the publicly-owned airwaves with inappropriate material, though I can understand that networks can't control everything that comes out of their sources' mouths. Networks should get release forms from on-camera personalities that they won't swear, and that they'll bear the consequences if they do.
There's a broader issue in whether the public should even own the airwaves, as some libertarians have argued against it. It's really the only workable system, though, because the airwaves really do go through everyone's property without consent. We shouldn't let anyone who wants pump anything they want into our homes.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Apparently, profanity is now okay in news interviews. Almost without a doubt, this will lead to an increase in foul-mouthed talking heads, though I would guess the broadcast networks will exert some kind of self-control (for example, cable news could have been using profanity all along, as it doesn't depend on publicly-owned airwaves, but it hasn't).
Now, I love swearing. Outside of work I can hardly complete a sentence without tossing in a few choice words. But this distinction between news interviews and awards shows (Cher and Nicole Richie's cussing was deemed inappropriate) is bogus. For starters, one interview was with a Survivor contestant, so it's not like this is some sort of public's-right-to-know issue.
I think the distinction should be between pre-taped and live -- and, for live broadcasts, the individuals instead of the network should be fined for profanity between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. There's really no need to pollute the publicly-owned airwaves with inappropriate material, though I can understand that networks can't control everything that comes out of their sources' mouths. Networks should get release forms from on-camera personalities that they won't swear, and that they'll bear the consequences if they do.
There's a broader issue in whether the public should even own the airwaves, as some libertarians have argued against it. It's really the only workable system, though, because the airwaves really do go through everyone's property without consent. We shouldn't let anyone who wants pump anything they want into our homes.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
High school soccer game features Hitler speech over PA
This story is pretty embarrassing to soccer players, anyone who knows anything about audio editing and human beings in general. A high school soccer game in North Carolina featured part of a Hitler speech over the PA.
The excuse given was (follow this closely): The team used "on to victory" as a slogan. One member of the team is a German exchange student and taught the other kids to say it in his language -- indeed, German is a fearsome language appropriate for aggresive sports; that's why they often use it to train police dogs.
Some nitwits on the team decided to capture the slogan, in German, to play over the PA. But instead of, I dunno, recording it with a microphone (a $10 one from Radio Shack could do the trick, or even a built-in one on a laptop computer if you yell right into it and boost the volume afterwards) or just saying it over the PA in person they decided to take the three words from a Hitler speech.
Then, they couldn't get just those three words and ended up with a significant chunk of the speech. They ran with it anyway; thus the problem.
I'm not sure if they recorded it on cassette or CD, or what original they were working with, but in the digital domain a free program like Audacity could solve that issue in about 10 seconds. Same for a cassette player's record button. And even if the clip had been properly edited, having Hitler yell your school slogan is just stupid.
I've tried to speak out against the media's nonstop bashing of rural folks and Southerners, but sometimes people really should stop throwing reporters red meat.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The excuse given was (follow this closely): The team used "on to victory" as a slogan. One member of the team is a German exchange student and taught the other kids to say it in his language -- indeed, German is a fearsome language appropriate for aggresive sports; that's why they often use it to train police dogs.
Some nitwits on the team decided to capture the slogan, in German, to play over the PA. But instead of, I dunno, recording it with a microphone (a $10 one from Radio Shack could do the trick, or even a built-in one on a laptop computer if you yell right into it and boost the volume afterwards) or just saying it over the PA in person they decided to take the three words from a Hitler speech.
Then, they couldn't get just those three words and ended up with a significant chunk of the speech. They ran with it anyway; thus the problem.
I'm not sure if they recorded it on cassette or CD, or what original they were working with, but in the digital domain a free program like Audacity could solve that issue in about 10 seconds. Same for a cassette player's record button. And even if the clip had been properly edited, having Hitler yell your school slogan is just stupid.
I've tried to speak out against the media's nonstop bashing of rural folks and Southerners, but sometimes people really should stop throwing reporters red meat.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Mother Jones decries use of racist epitaphs
Mother Jones is my favorite liberal magazine, but I have to love this headline: "Claims Allen Used Racial Epitaphs Continue to Emerge."
First of all, no they don't -- racial "epithets" even! The story linked to is from more than a month ago, and the guy later admitted he'd never heard Allen use the word. And second, I don't think Allen made any racial inscriptions on gravestones.
First of all, no they don't -- racial "epithets" even! The story linked to is from more than a month ago, and the guy later admitted he'd never heard Allen use the word. And second, I don't think Allen made any racial inscriptions on gravestones.
Poll: Americans favor comprehensive sex ed
This story (full study here) unintentionally shows one of the biggest problems in polling: What you don't mention can influence the results. This study shows public opinion is supportive of comprehensive sex ed and hostile toward abstinence-only education -- even across political ideologies. But it doesn't bother to offer "no sex education in schools" as an option: "The measures each represented a different type of sex education..."
The omission is particularly glaring to me because it's my opinion. Schools are doing a bad enough job teaching kids history and math. (A) There's no reason to burden them with morality-infused parenting tasks like this and (B) there's no reason to believe they can even approach the level of competence necessary to teach the subject fairly and accurately.
Of course, this isn't the first poll to rest on weak assumptions. Gun scholar John Lott once pointed out how polls often ask, in effect, "So, will stealing people's guns lower crime a little, a lot or not at all?" without even acknowledging the possibility -- fact, Lott's research would indicate -- that stealing people's guns actually increases crime.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The omission is particularly glaring to me because it's my opinion. Schools are doing a bad enough job teaching kids history and math. (A) There's no reason to burden them with morality-infused parenting tasks like this and (B) there's no reason to believe they can even approach the level of competence necessary to teach the subject fairly and accurately.
Of course, this isn't the first poll to rest on weak assumptions. Gun scholar John Lott once pointed out how polls often ask, in effect, "So, will stealing people's guns lower crime a little, a lot or not at all?" without even acknowledging the possibility -- fact, Lott's research would indicate -- that stealing people's guns actually increases crime.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Karl Rove: We will keep both houses
According to this transcription of an interview with Karl Rove, the strategist thinks the Republicans will keep both houses of Congress. What popped into my mind was: Is this an honest prediction, or a shrewd political move?
It's not outlandish as an honest opinion, as most people seem to say the Republicans will keep the Senate and the House is up for grabs. A little wishful thinking wouldn't be odd for someone with such a conflict of interest, and he did admit it would be a close, tough battle.
But Rove being as calculating as he is, I wonder if this is an attempt to stir up the "bandwagon effect." This is the theory -- with some if not complete empirical documentation -- that people like to vote for winners. The evidence for this is that exit polls allegedly increase turnout for winning candidates, even though they show losing candidates are the ones who need support.
In other words, by creating the sense that the Republicans will win Rove is increasing the likelihood that they really will. It's a bit of a Rube Goldberg idea, yes, but at this point I think we have to assume that all words from political figures' mouths are calculated to help candidates.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
It's not outlandish as an honest opinion, as most people seem to say the Republicans will keep the Senate and the House is up for grabs. A little wishful thinking wouldn't be odd for someone with such a conflict of interest, and he did admit it would be a close, tough battle.
But Rove being as calculating as he is, I wonder if this is an attempt to stir up the "bandwagon effect." This is the theory -- with some if not complete empirical documentation -- that people like to vote for winners. The evidence for this is that exit polls allegedly increase turnout for winning candidates, even though they show losing candidates are the ones who need support.
In other words, by creating the sense that the Republicans will win Rove is increasing the likelihood that they really will. It's a bit of a Rube Goldberg idea, yes, but at this point I think we have to assume that all words from political figures' mouths are calculated to help candidates.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Rumor: John Paul Stevens in poor health
Over at Human Events, Sean Rushton reports on rumors that Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens could retire due to health problems. Stevens is widely regarded as a left-wing jurist -- living Constitution, voted to uphold Roe, etc. -- and retirement before Bush leaves would give the president a chance to give the court a solid conservative majority.
Given Stevens' suspected condition, I'll leave my subjective analysis at this: I wish Stevens and his family the best, and everyone reading this should too. Now is not the time to evaluate the judge or argue my judicial philosophy.
As to near certainties for the future, American Enterprise Institute scholar John Lott -- who's done scientific analysis of confirmation battles -- predicts that if this is true "you haven't seen a confirmation battle [like] what you would see at that time." Such a battle will depend on tomorrow's election, as well as Democrats' willingness to filibuster or vote down nominees on ideological grounds. Neither party has had a problem doing that in the past.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Given Stevens' suspected condition, I'll leave my subjective analysis at this: I wish Stevens and his family the best, and everyone reading this should too. Now is not the time to evaluate the judge or argue my judicial philosophy.
As to near certainties for the future, American Enterprise Institute scholar John Lott -- who's done scientific analysis of confirmation battles -- predicts that if this is true "you haven't seen a confirmation battle [like] what you would see at that time." Such a battle will depend on tomorrow's election, as well as Democrats' willingness to filibuster or vote down nominees on ideological grounds. Neither party has had a problem doing that in the past.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Study: School buses should have seat belts
This study's findings sound reasonable, but its recommendations are a bit out there. It says the risk of injury warrants mandating all school buses have seat belts.
For all the kids who ride school buses every day, fewer than nine are killed annually. I would guess simple physics explains this: Most crashes cause injuries through an abrupt change of speed. Buses have high enough mass that they push pretty much whatever's in front of them, making the impact less jarring. Rollovers are the main danger, and they're rare.
The study, then, doesn't even look at fatal accidents, but only non-fatal emergency room visits. There are about 17,000 yearly, and some of those are caused by things like boarding/leaving the bus and fighting on it.
Yes, seat belts could still prevent a few injuries, but at what cost? Besides the equipment money needed to retro-fit old buses, seat belts decrease capacity.
The article doesn't take the notion of a tradeoff seriously, beyond a quote that some school districts couldn't "afford" it. Even if they can afford it, it's possible those dollars would be better spent improving safety in some other way.
Also, there' s a quote that seat belts are the safest way to get to school, with or without a seat belt. Why burden the safest method with additional constraints instead of focusing on other hazards?
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
For all the kids who ride school buses every day, fewer than nine are killed annually. I would guess simple physics explains this: Most crashes cause injuries through an abrupt change of speed. Buses have high enough mass that they push pretty much whatever's in front of them, making the impact less jarring. Rollovers are the main danger, and they're rare.
The study, then, doesn't even look at fatal accidents, but only non-fatal emergency room visits. There are about 17,000 yearly, and some of those are caused by things like boarding/leaving the bus and fighting on it.
Yes, seat belts could still prevent a few injuries, but at what cost? Besides the equipment money needed to retro-fit old buses, seat belts decrease capacity.
The article doesn't take the notion of a tradeoff seriously, beyond a quote that some school districts couldn't "afford" it. Even if they can afford it, it's possible those dollars would be better spent improving safety in some other way.
Also, there' s a quote that seat belts are the safest way to get to school, with or without a seat belt. Why burden the safest method with additional constraints instead of focusing on other hazards?
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Study: UK teens worst behaved in Europe
This report from the Sun gives some credibility to the notion that continental Europe dwellers are particularly refined. Compared to France, Germany, etc., UK 15-year-olds were more likely to get drunk and have underage sex. Sources quoted blame a disconnect between parents and their children, and this sounds plausible.
One thing the article doesn't cover, however, is how these trends break down within the UK. It mentions that Scotland teens spend more time with their peers, but it doesn't give that statistic for the other trends. I wonder how much this has to do with the UK's "white trash" segment -- the terms "redneck" and "cracker" actually originated there, not in the US.
And as Thomas Sowell has argued, the Scots-Irish can be prone to behavioral issues. So, how much of this is due to the UK as a whole, and how much is due to specific cultures within the UK?
Also, though the term "increasing" is used, there is no evidence presented that the UK once did better in this regard. I would guess that, to some degree or another, this trend has been the case for awhile.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
One thing the article doesn't cover, however, is how these trends break down within the UK. It mentions that Scotland teens spend more time with their peers, but it doesn't give that statistic for the other trends. I wonder how much this has to do with the UK's "white trash" segment -- the terms "redneck" and "cracker" actually originated there, not in the US.
And as Thomas Sowell has argued, the Scots-Irish can be prone to behavioral issues. So, how much of this is due to the UK as a whole, and how much is due to specific cultures within the UK?
Also, though the term "increasing" is used, there is no evidence presented that the UK once did better in this regard. I would guess that, to some degree or another, this trend has been the case for awhile.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
New piece up at The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard has my piece on Barack Obama's comment about the Republican Party "discovering" black people.
Money quote: "He may be principled and consistent, but he's far from moderate."
Money quote: "He may be principled and consistent, but he's far from moderate."
American Conservative magazine opposes Bush
It's amazing how even political junkies can miss the divisions in the conservative movement. Mother Jones' blog has a post here noting that, jeez, even The American Conservative wants to dump Bush!! The magazine doesn't seem to grasp that TAC is part of the paleoconservative movement, and members of that strain have never liked Bush in the slightest. Like liberals, paleocons opposed the Iraq war from the outset.
I'd say there are three right-of-center ideologies with some sway in this country. The first is neoconservatism (e.g. The Weekly Standard), which espouses social conservatism, free market economics and the use of American foreign policy to spread freedom in the world. Paleoconservatism (e.g. TAC) has social conservatism, restrictions on immigration and imports, and isolationist international relations. Libertarian conservatism (e.g. Reason, though they have left-libertarians on staff as well) has social liberalism, free market economics and a distrust of unnecessary military deployment.
The American Conservative went so far in 2004 as to refrain from official endorsement. Rather, they had each writer endorse a candidate of his or her choice, and they ended up with Bush, Kerry and Nader represented. So it's no shock whatsoever that TAC is aiming to dump Bush. They didn't want him to begin with.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
I'd say there are three right-of-center ideologies with some sway in this country. The first is neoconservatism (e.g. The Weekly Standard), which espouses social conservatism, free market economics and the use of American foreign policy to spread freedom in the world. Paleoconservatism (e.g. TAC) has social conservatism, restrictions on immigration and imports, and isolationist international relations. Libertarian conservatism (e.g. Reason, though they have left-libertarians on staff as well) has social liberalism, free market economics and a distrust of unnecessary military deployment.
The American Conservative went so far in 2004 as to refrain from official endorsement. Rather, they had each writer endorse a candidate of his or her choice, and they ended up with Bush, Kerry and Nader represented. So it's no shock whatsoever that TAC is aiming to dump Bush. They didn't want him to begin with.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Study: Political opinions might be genetic
According to this story, some scientists are saying political attitudes could be genetic. Their research indicates that identical twins show more similar beliefs than fraternal ones do.
I don't doubt there is some truth to the hypothesis. I'd guess certain personality traits are consistent with certain political ideologies, so genes could play a role. And it's an improvement on some political belief research; the last study I recall compared Rush Limbaugh to Adolf Hitler.
However, I seriously question the methodology used.
I would suggest that identical twins will be more likely to react the same way to their parents' political views. Genetically identical brothers, for example, might both dutifully follow, or rebelliously reject, a father's social conservatism. Fraternal twins are more likely to see one go one way and the other another. If this is true it's not political opinion but rebelliousness that's inherited.
There is a lot of research taking place in genetics right now. In a few decades we'll know what a lot of genes do, and we'll know how those genes vary across political ideology, race, gender, etc. We probably won't like a lot of what we find.
We shouldn't jump to conclusions with the limited research available right now, however, so I don't think this news deserves much deference.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
I don't doubt there is some truth to the hypothesis. I'd guess certain personality traits are consistent with certain political ideologies, so genes could play a role. And it's an improvement on some political belief research; the last study I recall compared Rush Limbaugh to Adolf Hitler.
However, I seriously question the methodology used.
I would suggest that identical twins will be more likely to react the same way to their parents' political views. Genetically identical brothers, for example, might both dutifully follow, or rebelliously reject, a father's social conservatism. Fraternal twins are more likely to see one go one way and the other another. If this is true it's not political opinion but rebelliousness that's inherited.
There is a lot of research taking place in genetics right now. In a few decades we'll know what a lot of genes do, and we'll know how those genes vary across political ideology, race, gender, etc. We probably won't like a lot of what we find.
We shouldn't jump to conclusions with the limited research available right now, however, so I don't think this news deserves much deference.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
MIT poll: Climate change top environmental concern
This story is interesting in light of my friend Jeremy Lott's op-ed "Voters Don't Care about the Environment." An MIT survey shows that, where in 2003 Americans deemed "ecosystem destruction" the most important environmental concern (I wonder how many respondents even knew what it meant), now global warming tops the list. Back then, water pollution and toxic waste also beat climate change.
But the only-hinted-at bigger picture here is that, no matter where global warming is within environmental concerns, environmental concerns themselves rank low on the American political to-do list. One interesting tidbit from Lott's piece is that one poll found "self-described environmentalists tend to 'rank the environment lower as a vote qualifier than other non-environmental issues such as abortion and Social Security.'" By Lott's analysis, people tend to feel guilty only about not feeling guilty about these things.
As the science about global warming comes in, it appears the phenomenon is real (though not catastrophic) and at least partially caused by humans. Even the author of Global Warming and other Eco-Myths has recanted. The MIT poll indicates scientists are doing a good job of getting this out relative to other environmental concerns, but they'll have to do a lot better if they want anyone to truly care.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But the only-hinted-at bigger picture here is that, no matter where global warming is within environmental concerns, environmental concerns themselves rank low on the American political to-do list. One interesting tidbit from Lott's piece is that one poll found "self-described environmentalists tend to 'rank the environment lower as a vote qualifier than other non-environmental issues such as abortion and Social Security.'" By Lott's analysis, people tend to feel guilty only about not feeling guilty about these things.
As the science about global warming comes in, it appears the phenomenon is real (though not catastrophic) and at least partially caused by humans. Even the author of Global Warming and other Eco-Myths has recanted. The MIT poll indicates scientists are doing a good job of getting this out relative to other environmental concerns, but they'll have to do a lot better if they want anyone to truly care.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Haggard: I'm guilty of sexual immorality
All the secrets are finally out: Evangelical leader Ted Haggard has come clean he's guilty of homosexual immorality. Let's get over it.
But Andrew Sullivan can't stop giving me absurd statements to make fun of, so here's one. "What's interesting to me is that having adulterous gay sex is apparently, in Haggard's mind, a worse sin than buying crystal meth. He copped to the meth before the sex."
How about: Yes. Adultery -- gay or straight -- is worse than drug use. Adultery violates a promise you made to another person, where drug use just hurts you to some degree or another. How is that interesting? Sullivan proceeds to conclude that "drugs-worse-than sex may be a story that works in the mainstream; but among some Christianists, drug abuse is nowhere near as bad as being gay."
I'm not sure who in the "mainstream" would rather find out their significant other cheated than did drugs, but I'll be on the lookout. And as far as Christianity goes, there are passages in the Bible that warn against homosexuality but few if any that demand complete abstinence from alcohol and drug use. I'm no Christian, much less a Biblical literalist, but if you were one homosexuality would indeed be worse than meth. It's not the far-out crazy idea Sullivan makes it out to be.
One argument Sullivan accurately blasts, though, is one blaming Haggard's wife for letting herself go and not being sexually available enough. It's possibly true (it makes sense) that religious figures' wives are less likely to sex it up to fend off other women, but most people would cheat with, you know, a female.
And of course, I pointed out earlier that instead of showing sympathy for a fellow gay, Sullivan piled on and made some ridiculous point about "the closet" being the problem.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But Andrew Sullivan can't stop giving me absurd statements to make fun of, so here's one. "What's interesting to me is that having adulterous gay sex is apparently, in Haggard's mind, a worse sin than buying crystal meth. He copped to the meth before the sex."
How about: Yes. Adultery -- gay or straight -- is worse than drug use. Adultery violates a promise you made to another person, where drug use just hurts you to some degree or another. How is that interesting? Sullivan proceeds to conclude that "drugs-worse-than sex may be a story that works in the mainstream; but among some Christianists, drug abuse is nowhere near as bad as being gay."
I'm not sure who in the "mainstream" would rather find out their significant other cheated than did drugs, but I'll be on the lookout. And as far as Christianity goes, there are passages in the Bible that warn against homosexuality but few if any that demand complete abstinence from alcohol and drug use. I'm no Christian, much less a Biblical literalist, but if you were one homosexuality would indeed be worse than meth. It's not the far-out crazy idea Sullivan makes it out to be.
One argument Sullivan accurately blasts, though, is one blaming Haggard's wife for letting herself go and not being sexually available enough. It's possibly true (it makes sense) that religious figures' wives are less likely to sex it up to fend off other women, but most people would cheat with, you know, a female.
And of course, I pointed out earlier that instead of showing sympathy for a fellow gay, Sullivan piled on and made some ridiculous point about "the closet" being the problem.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
New piece up at The Washington Times
The Washington Times has my review of Woodward and Bernstein: Life in the Shadow of Watergate.
Excerpt:
Ms. Shepard is clearly a fan of "Woodstein," but from the work's early pages she is careful not to overstate the duo's importance. If only all of America would read a few sentences from the preface:
"[T]he two reporters did not single-handedly bring down the president . . . The courts, the Congress, the grand jury, and the FBI all played key roles. In reality, had former Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield not told Senate investigators on Friday, July 13, 1973, that Nixon kept a secret taping system, Nixon might never have resigned."
Excerpt:
Ms. Shepard is clearly a fan of "Woodstein," but from the work's early pages she is careful not to overstate the duo's importance. If only all of America would read a few sentences from the preface:
"[T]he two reporters did not single-handedly bring down the president . . . The courts, the Congress, the grand jury, and the FBI all played key roles. In reality, had former Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield not told Senate investigators on Friday, July 13, 1973, that Nixon kept a secret taping system, Nixon might never have resigned."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
