I'll try not to get too immature about this story (bouncebouncebounce), but I sincerely think it's great. The FDA is allowing silicone gel implants in addition to the saline ones already available.
Libertarians and other individualists have long argued that (A) silicone gel breast implants are not unsafe; the arguments against them stem from the assumption that every woman with both cancer and implants got the cancer because of the implants and (B) even if there is a risk, women should be informed of it and allowed to make the choice themselves.
The FDA has finally bought the former argument.
John Lott weighs in here with the observation the story is terrible, "but it is the AP." I second that.
The reporting is all bad, all the time:
"The rupture issue persists: The implants do not last a lifetime, and eventually they must be removed or replaced, according to the FDA. A 2000 Institute of Medicine report found rupture rates as high as 77 percent.
"Women whose silicone implants ruptured have reported years of pain, swelling, numbness and other symptoms that they blame on the devices. Leaked silicone gel can migrate throughout the body and form lumps. Implants also can cause infection and form hard, painful scar tissue that can distort the shape of a breast.
"Some researchers also worry that platinum used to manufacture the implants can seep into the body and cause harm. The FDA says there is no evidence of that."
The story does concede, however, that "most studies have failed to find a link between silicone breast implants and disease."
Aside -- Reason has a great article here about the "feminist" case against implants. It's called "Pro-choice no more."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
MySpace sued for copyright violation
I've gone on the record opposing filesharing, and I've also been harshly critical of MySpace's policy of letting minors post information in the Internet. So a lawsuit accusing MySpace of filesharing is a slam-dunk right? Universal just filed such a complaint, alleging that the site encourages people to upload copyrighted material.
The problem lies in that MySpace users, particularly those who sign up as "bands" (as I did to upload music I really did write and own the copyright to), can put music and videos on the Web site. Some of them have chosen to put up others' copyrighted work.
The reason I think the suit is bunk -- and in this rare case the courts might even get it right -- is that there is a very limited duty to police in America. For VCRs that could illegally record stuff, but could also be used for legitimate purposes, the courts ruled companies could not be held liable for their customers' infringement. It took a much more egregious product, Napster, to get shut down. Grokster lost only because it was "promoting its use to infringe copyright."
MySpace is loaded with legitimate use of the feature, including my own. I have never come across anything from MySpace that encourages infringement. To the contrary, when uploading, you have to click a box stating that the material is your own.
And even if the site has a duty to police beyond not encouraging bad practices, there's an incredibly strong argument they're meeting that duty. From the article:
"Earlier Friday, MySpace said it was testing technology aimed at enabling content owners to flag videos on the site that they find contain unauthorized copyrighted material. The flagged content is then removed by MySpace. The company expects to roll out the feature in a few weeks.
"Currently, MySpace takes down content from its users' pages when it receives a notice from a copyright holder.
"Last month, MySpace began using 'audio fingerprinting' technology to block users from uploading copyrighted music to the site. That technology works by checking audio files against a music database from Gracenote Inc."
That certainly doesn't sound like negligence to me. The responsibility here lies with the users, not the site, just as it did with the VCR lawsuit years ago.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The problem lies in that MySpace users, particularly those who sign up as "bands" (as I did to upload music I really did write and own the copyright to), can put music and videos on the Web site. Some of them have chosen to put up others' copyrighted work.
The reason I think the suit is bunk -- and in this rare case the courts might even get it right -- is that there is a very limited duty to police in America. For VCRs that could illegally record stuff, but could also be used for legitimate purposes, the courts ruled companies could not be held liable for their customers' infringement. It took a much more egregious product, Napster, to get shut down. Grokster lost only because it was "promoting its use to infringe copyright."
MySpace is loaded with legitimate use of the feature, including my own. I have never come across anything from MySpace that encourages infringement. To the contrary, when uploading, you have to click a box stating that the material is your own.
And even if the site has a duty to police beyond not encouraging bad practices, there's an incredibly strong argument they're meeting that duty. From the article:
"Earlier Friday, MySpace said it was testing technology aimed at enabling content owners to flag videos on the site that they find contain unauthorized copyrighted material. The flagged content is then removed by MySpace. The company expects to roll out the feature in a few weeks.
"Currently, MySpace takes down content from its users' pages when it receives a notice from a copyright holder.
"Last month, MySpace began using 'audio fingerprinting' technology to block users from uploading copyrighted music to the site. That technology works by checking audio files against a music database from Gracenote Inc."
That certainly doesn't sound like negligence to me. The responsibility here lies with the users, not the site, just as it did with the VCR lawsuit years ago.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Judge supports homeowners association's smoking ban
This case is interesting. A judge supported a homeowners association rule that a couple cannot smoke in their own townhouse.
First of all, I'm very much into smokers rights. I despise smoking bans and pretty much all "for your own good" legislation.
But the issue here isn't smoking; it's the right of homeowners associations to control what goes on on their properties. These associations are created by developers, and they maintain control over individual behavior to make a neighborhood a better place to live. According to Wikipedia, "[a] homeowners association (sometimes HOA) is an organization comprised of all owners of units in a housing development, which may or may not be part of a gated community...In the United States, the vast majority of homeowners associations are incorporated and are therefore governed by a board, which is in essence a private government."
The only credible argument against them in principle has to do with the fact they're permanent. Owning land at one point does not give you the right to dictate what happens on it for all eternity. I'd argue you shouldn't be able to write, in your will, that all future tenants must do this or that; not sure if that would hold up under current law. But the rules are passed by a committee of current homeowners, so no specific dictat is permanent. I would assume the homeowners could vote to dissolve the association if they so chose.
Now, there are some problems with homeowners associations in practice, including the fact that some ban clotheslines -- the environment-friendly drying solution that's more common in lower-class neighboorhoods. Also, from anecdotes I've heard about power-tripping board members who give homeowners notes to take their garbage cans in faster or cut their lawns more.
But in this case, I have to say the judge made the right decision. When the couple moved in, they agreed to follow the HOA's rules. As long as there's nothing that hurts society at large, like forbidding pro-environment practices, there's no reason the government should step in.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: There's a very thoughtful comment on this post I suggest reading. A few responses to it:
--There's no such thing as a "de facto" level of government. Either it can legitimately use force, or it can't. Homeowners associations can only make you pay dues/fines if you sign a contract beforehand agreeing to -- and if you then refuse, only by suing in a court presided over by the actual government. The IRS and police just go, "F*** you. Pay me." There's a big difference.
--Even if there was a "de facto" level of government, using the real government to bring it into line is a terrible idea. There would be a slippery slope in the definition of "de facto" government.
--The notion there is "no meeting of the minds" is simply false. There is a board, and everyone who owns a home in the association gets to vote. Also, HOAs compete with non-HOA land for your business, and you can choose to go elsewhere. One reason so much new land is HOA controlled is that actual governments can't constitutionally stop your neighbors from being annoying pigs. HOAs can because they're voluntary, and people seem to like that.
--Until now I'd never heard that some municipalities actually require associations. Also, the Wikipedia article (not that Wikipedia is infallible) doesn't mention it. The only thing it does mention runs in the opposite direction, that some municipalities dissolve HOAs after 20 years if they're not renewed. If what you're saying does happen it shouldn't, and thanks for pointing it out.
--Many other voluntary associations "de facto" "tax, legislate and judge" their members. Religion, for example, and pretty much every group requiring dues and organized around a certain type of behavior. As with any organization, you can leave an HOA any time you want.
First of all, I'm very much into smokers rights. I despise smoking bans and pretty much all "for your own good" legislation.
But the issue here isn't smoking; it's the right of homeowners associations to control what goes on on their properties. These associations are created by developers, and they maintain control over individual behavior to make a neighborhood a better place to live. According to Wikipedia, "[a] homeowners association (sometimes HOA) is an organization comprised of all owners of units in a housing development, which may or may not be part of a gated community...In the United States, the vast majority of homeowners associations are incorporated and are therefore governed by a board, which is in essence a private government."
The only credible argument against them in principle has to do with the fact they're permanent. Owning land at one point does not give you the right to dictate what happens on it for all eternity. I'd argue you shouldn't be able to write, in your will, that all future tenants must do this or that; not sure if that would hold up under current law. But the rules are passed by a committee of current homeowners, so no specific dictat is permanent. I would assume the homeowners could vote to dissolve the association if they so chose.
Now, there are some problems with homeowners associations in practice, including the fact that some ban clotheslines -- the environment-friendly drying solution that's more common in lower-class neighboorhoods. Also, from anecdotes I've heard about power-tripping board members who give homeowners notes to take their garbage cans in faster or cut their lawns more.
But in this case, I have to say the judge made the right decision. When the couple moved in, they agreed to follow the HOA's rules. As long as there's nothing that hurts society at large, like forbidding pro-environment practices, there's no reason the government should step in.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: There's a very thoughtful comment on this post I suggest reading. A few responses to it:
--There's no such thing as a "de facto" level of government. Either it can legitimately use force, or it can't. Homeowners associations can only make you pay dues/fines if you sign a contract beforehand agreeing to -- and if you then refuse, only by suing in a court presided over by the actual government. The IRS and police just go, "F*** you. Pay me." There's a big difference.
--Even if there was a "de facto" level of government, using the real government to bring it into line is a terrible idea. There would be a slippery slope in the definition of "de facto" government.
--The notion there is "no meeting of the minds" is simply false. There is a board, and everyone who owns a home in the association gets to vote. Also, HOAs compete with non-HOA land for your business, and you can choose to go elsewhere. One reason so much new land is HOA controlled is that actual governments can't constitutionally stop your neighbors from being annoying pigs. HOAs can because they're voluntary, and people seem to like that.
--Until now I'd never heard that some municipalities actually require associations. Also, the Wikipedia article (not that Wikipedia is infallible) doesn't mention it. The only thing it does mention runs in the opposite direction, that some municipalities dissolve HOAs after 20 years if they're not renewed. If what you're saying does happen it shouldn't, and thanks for pointing it out.
--Many other voluntary associations "de facto" "tax, legislate and judge" their members. Religion, for example, and pretty much every group requiring dues and organized around a certain type of behavior. As with any organization, you can leave an HOA any time you want.
A response to my Borat op-ed
I've just found this piece accusing me (in a footnote) of a "slightly garbled," "bizarre" anti-Borat op-ed that "doesn't really hold up."
Let's put it this way: I provided several examples of how Borat seeks out anti-Semitism in rural areas (the "Throw the Jew Down the Well" song, the question to the gun shop owner of how best to "defend against a Jew"), and several examples of how he pranks urban people in more harmless ways (kissing working-class New Yorkers, learning fashion tips from black Atlanta residents). David Brooks used an entire New York Times column to make a similar point about the film's "condescenscion."
Let's show some counterexamples instead of making bald assertions, because so far I'm not aware of a single one.
Let's put it this way: I provided several examples of how Borat seeks out anti-Semitism in rural areas (the "Throw the Jew Down the Well" song, the question to the gun shop owner of how best to "defend against a Jew"), and several examples of how he pranks urban people in more harmless ways (kissing working-class New Yorkers, learning fashion tips from black Atlanta residents). David Brooks used an entire New York Times column to make a similar point about the film's "condescenscion."
Let's show some counterexamples instead of making bald assertions, because so far I'm not aware of a single one.
Starbucks sued for serving hot hot chocolate
I've previously argued that the McDonald's coffee case was just as bad as the general public thought it was, despite some intellectuals' desire to make excuses for it. Even if the coffee was hotter than competitors', well, the point of a free market is to have a variety of products available. The woman balanced what she knew was a scalding-hot beverage in her crotch and took the lid off while driving. In a younger woman that would be called "Darwinism;" for someone her age, it's just her problem.
However, I have a little more sympathy for the parents in this similar Starbucks case. The mother ordered a children's hot chocolate -- it is Starbucks' policy to serve children's drinks a little cooler than adults' -- and as she pulled away, the chocolate spilled.
From the story:
"The child was 'screaming in pain,' and her mother pulled over, got Rachel out and removed her clothes to find the 'skin on Rachel's leg was falling off of her.'"
Starbucks claims the beverage was served at the proper temperature, and it should not have to pay any damages.
Where I hesitate is that the drink was specifically marketed to children. That would imply that the lid, and to the greatest possible degree the temperature, is safe for someone too immature to handle adult-hot drinks. I think an important unknown detail is how the cover came off. If it was improperly fastened or too weak to hold Starbucks is almost certainly liable; if the kid took it off, the decision will hinge on whether the lower-but-still-high temperature was necessary in a children's hot chocolate. The company shouldn't have to serve lukewarm drinks, but it shouldn't burn kids for a few extra degrees, either.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
However, I have a little more sympathy for the parents in this similar Starbucks case. The mother ordered a children's hot chocolate -- it is Starbucks' policy to serve children's drinks a little cooler than adults' -- and as she pulled away, the chocolate spilled.
From the story:
"The child was 'screaming in pain,' and her mother pulled over, got Rachel out and removed her clothes to find the 'skin on Rachel's leg was falling off of her.'"
Starbucks claims the beverage was served at the proper temperature, and it should not have to pay any damages.
Where I hesitate is that the drink was specifically marketed to children. That would imply that the lid, and to the greatest possible degree the temperature, is safe for someone too immature to handle adult-hot drinks. I think an important unknown detail is how the cover came off. If it was improperly fastened or too weak to hold Starbucks is almost certainly liable; if the kid took it off, the decision will hinge on whether the lower-but-still-high temperature was necessary in a children's hot chocolate. The company shouldn't have to serve lukewarm drinks, but it shouldn't burn kids for a few extra degrees, either.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Study: Conservatives more charitable than liberals
This story pretty much speaks for itself. A new book argues that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do.
Even after controlling for income -- some studies, like those finding red states as a whole give a higher percent of income than blue states do, have failed to do that. (Others then counter-argued that people who make more money can give more, but still end up donating only a small percentage of their income.)
Now that the issue is settled, what does that say about American politics? Well, certainly, that conservatives are more charitable than liberals -- though you could argue that liberals are more charitable through government policies that force everyone to "donate." I would say it's a feather in the cap of the right, and a solid rebuttal of the notion that conservatives are hard-hearted compared to those compassionate, nice liberals.
Best graf:
"The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Even after controlling for income -- some studies, like those finding red states as a whole give a higher percent of income than blue states do, have failed to do that. (Others then counter-argued that people who make more money can give more, but still end up donating only a small percentage of their income.)
Now that the issue is settled, what does that say about American politics? Well, certainly, that conservatives are more charitable than liberals -- though you could argue that liberals are more charitable through government policies that force everyone to "donate." I would say it's a feather in the cap of the right, and a solid rebuttal of the notion that conservatives are hard-hearted compared to those compassionate, nice liberals.
Best graf:
"The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Might be on BBC radio
I have been contacted to go on "World Have Your Say," a BBC radio program that starts at 1 p.m. Eastern, to talk about the UCLA Tasering incident. There's a chance they won't get to me, but if you can try to listen online.
UPDATE: ...and the anticlimax. Wasn't on. Thanks to BBC for noticing the post and trying to work me in though.
UPDATE: ...and the anticlimax. Wasn't on. Thanks to BBC for noticing the post and trying to work me in though.
Borat actor comes out of character
Sacha Baron Cohen has come out of character to defend Borat. One has to wonder why, because he adds virtually nothing to the debate.
The only worthwhile thing he says is that the people who sang "Throw the Jew Down the Well" in the bar weren't necessarily anti-Semitic, just not vigilant enough about anti-Semitism. That's a perspective I haven't heard before.
Beyond that, it's the same crap everyone else has been saying. Borat isn't anti-Semitic, he just brings out the anti-Semitism in others. No one laughs at the Jew jokes, they just laugh at the fact that somewhere, somehow, some redneck might find a joke like that funny. (Well, that last part is probably false, but hey.)
However, the biggest reason the interview is a total waste is that he answers none of the serious charges against him. David Brooks and I have both alleged he makes fun of rural people but ignores the problems, and specifically anti-Semitism (in my argument anyway), of the urban population. Numerous people, including residents of a Romanian village, are saying Borat's team lied to them about what the movie was and/or where it would be shown. Some people have said the "Throw the Jew Down the Well" skit was edited to make it look worse. Cohen is silent on all these topics.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The only worthwhile thing he says is that the people who sang "Throw the Jew Down the Well" in the bar weren't necessarily anti-Semitic, just not vigilant enough about anti-Semitism. That's a perspective I haven't heard before.
Beyond that, it's the same crap everyone else has been saying. Borat isn't anti-Semitic, he just brings out the anti-Semitism in others. No one laughs at the Jew jokes, they just laugh at the fact that somewhere, somehow, some redneck might find a joke like that funny. (Well, that last part is probably false, but hey.)
However, the biggest reason the interview is a total waste is that he answers none of the serious charges against him. David Brooks and I have both alleged he makes fun of rural people but ignores the problems, and specifically anti-Semitism (in my argument anyway), of the urban population. Numerous people, including residents of a Romanian village, are saying Borat's team lied to them about what the movie was and/or where it would be shown. Some people have said the "Throw the Jew Down the Well" skit was edited to make it look worse. Cohen is silent on all these topics.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
College student gets Tasered
My original thoughts on this YouTube clip were ones of amusement, but after re-watching the video and reading up on Tasers, I think the officers could have handled the situation a little differently. UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad refused to stand up for the officers escorting him out of the school library, swore at the cops and got Tasered at least four times. He deserved it, but I think dragging him out would have been more effective.
According to Taser's official Web site, "TASER systems use proprietary technology to immediately incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk individuals who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves." By the cops' own press release, the suspect went limp and refused to exit.
That's obnoxious and illegal, but it's not posing a threat. If he was indeed violent with the officers -- the video doesn't show the whole situation, and one source in the article says they thought he might be armed -- they did the right thing, but otherwise it's a bit much. The situation started when the cops were doing a routine ID check because the library is students-only after 11 p.m. Apparently the individual wouldn't show the card.
Michelle Malkin has comments here.
Of course, this comes on the heels of another controversial "police brutality" video. I blogged about that incident here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com/.
UPDATE: "Even the company that makes the stun gun, Taser International, urges caution about use of the weapon in the "drive-stun" mode and with repeated shocks." The officers used that mode. The more I learn, the more my outrage goes from the out-of-control student to the look-I'm-a-real-cop campus security.
UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin has posted this e-mail from a police officer. I've heard of the +1 policy before:
"What the officer did wrong was continue to ask the subject for compliance. I can tell by his (the officer’s) actions and his words that he is so afraid of doing the 'wrong' thing that he has let the safety and well being of both himself and the others in the area become secondary. Police officers across the country are taught to take action quickly and most importantly 'don’t do it like they do in California.' In other places without the PC police, that guy would have been jacked up and carried out in under 30 seconds, without tasers, noise, or video.
"It is a very simple principle: 1+1… if a person uses one type of resistance, a police officer (even in California) is justified in using a force GREATER than that of the offender. If you say NO, then I can lay hands on you! If you fight, I can pepper spray, taser, even hit with a stick! If you have a knife or a club, I can shoot you.
"Police officers that attempt to match a person’s resistance with the same amount of force all to often end up in litigation or dead.
"I always ask new recruits, “Would you rather hit a person with your nightclub one time as hard as you can in the leg and gain control, OR hit him softly (the pc version) over and over until he gives up. Inevitably, new recruits are afraid to answer until I add… 'don’t forget a TV camera is recording.' One solid strike is usually all it takes to gain compliance from someone like the offender in the video, and by the time that is over the folks with the cameras don’t even have time to push record."
UPDATE III: Reason's normally-awesome Hit & Run has a hysterical post here that basically takes all the evidence and bald assertions against the cops at face value, while ignoring everything they've said to defend themselves.
One thing it does point out -- and I alluded to above -- is that Tasers have an inherent danger. They're not meant as punishment for not standing up.
The arguments for banning them are ludicrous, though; they should be kept to situations where they do more good than harm. If a suspect is resisting violently, there is less risk in Tasering him than in getting into a nightstick-swinging brawl in front of passers-by.
UPDATE IV: I've been hearing a lot of noise about how, especially with long shocks, Tasers can stop people from moving even when the charge is no longer flowing. However, the kid didn't say "I can't move" after being zapped and told to stand up; he said "f*** off." Knowing what I know about human nature, if you've been shocked once and you want to get shocked again, that's a good way to do it.
According to Taser's official Web site, "TASER systems use proprietary technology to immediately incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk individuals who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves." By the cops' own press release, the suspect went limp and refused to exit.
That's obnoxious and illegal, but it's not posing a threat. If he was indeed violent with the officers -- the video doesn't show the whole situation, and one source in the article says they thought he might be armed -- they did the right thing, but otherwise it's a bit much. The situation started when the cops were doing a routine ID check because the library is students-only after 11 p.m. Apparently the individual wouldn't show the card.
Michelle Malkin has comments here.
Of course, this comes on the heels of another controversial "police brutality" video. I blogged about that incident here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com/.
UPDATE: "Even the company that makes the stun gun, Taser International, urges caution about use of the weapon in the "drive-stun" mode and with repeated shocks." The officers used that mode. The more I learn, the more my outrage goes from the out-of-control student to the look-I'm-a-real-cop campus security.
UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin has posted this e-mail from a police officer. I've heard of the +1 policy before:
"What the officer did wrong was continue to ask the subject for compliance. I can tell by his (the officer’s) actions and his words that he is so afraid of doing the 'wrong' thing that he has let the safety and well being of both himself and the others in the area become secondary. Police officers across the country are taught to take action quickly and most importantly 'don’t do it like they do in California.' In other places without the PC police, that guy would have been jacked up and carried out in under 30 seconds, without tasers, noise, or video.
"It is a very simple principle: 1+1… if a person uses one type of resistance, a police officer (even in California) is justified in using a force GREATER than that of the offender. If you say NO, then I can lay hands on you! If you fight, I can pepper spray, taser, even hit with a stick! If you have a knife or a club, I can shoot you.
"Police officers that attempt to match a person’s resistance with the same amount of force all to often end up in litigation or dead.
"I always ask new recruits, “Would you rather hit a person with your nightclub one time as hard as you can in the leg and gain control, OR hit him softly (the pc version) over and over until he gives up. Inevitably, new recruits are afraid to answer until I add… 'don’t forget a TV camera is recording.' One solid strike is usually all it takes to gain compliance from someone like the offender in the video, and by the time that is over the folks with the cameras don’t even have time to push record."
UPDATE III: Reason's normally-awesome Hit & Run has a hysterical post here that basically takes all the evidence and bald assertions against the cops at face value, while ignoring everything they've said to defend themselves.
One thing it does point out -- and I alluded to above -- is that Tasers have an inherent danger. They're not meant as punishment for not standing up.
The arguments for banning them are ludicrous, though; they should be kept to situations where they do more good than harm. If a suspect is resisting violently, there is less risk in Tasering him than in getting into a nightstick-swinging brawl in front of passers-by.
UPDATE IV: I've been hearing a lot of noise about how, especially with long shocks, Tasers can stop people from moving even when the charge is no longer flowing. However, the kid didn't say "I can't move" after being zapped and told to stand up; he said "f*** off." Knowing what I know about human nature, if you've been shocked once and you want to get shocked again, that's a good way to do it.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
New York Times releases obituary for Milton Friedman
I'm well aware that anecdotes, while illustrative, don't prove much. I also know that birth to poor parents increases one's chances of poor adulthood.
But it's never ceased to amaze me how, with high IQ and a little luck, drastic changes in fortune are possible in free market societies. Immigrants are often the most dramatic examples of this phenomenon.
From the NYT's Milton Friedman obituary:
"Milton Friedman was born in Brooklyn on July 31, 1912, the last of four children and only son of Jeno S. Friedman and Sarah Landau Friedman. His parents worked briefly in New York sweatshops, then moved their family to Rahway, N.J., where they opened a clothing store.
"Mr. Friedman’s father died in his son’s senior year at Rahway High School. Young Milton later waited on tables and clerked in stores to supplement a scholarship he had earned at Rutgers University. He entered Rutgers in 1929, the year the stock market crashed and the Depression began."
But it's never ceased to amaze me how, with high IQ and a little luck, drastic changes in fortune are possible in free market societies. Immigrants are often the most dramatic examples of this phenomenon.
From the NYT's Milton Friedman obituary:
"Milton Friedman was born in Brooklyn on July 31, 1912, the last of four children and only son of Jeno S. Friedman and Sarah Landau Friedman. His parents worked briefly in New York sweatshops, then moved their family to Rahway, N.J., where they opened a clothing store.
"Mr. Friedman’s father died in his son’s senior year at Rahway High School. Young Milton later waited on tables and clerked in stores to supplement a scholarship he had earned at Rutgers University. He entered Rutgers in 1929, the year the stock market crashed and the Depression began."
Milton Friedman passes away
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman -- one of the most influential figures in modern conservatism, a free market advocate and a major influence of mine -- has passed away.
As much as any other economist, this man applied free market theory toward practical solutions. He spearheaded the school voucher movement, arguing the government should give education money to parents instead of local schools. That way, schools would have to compete; good schools would see high enrollment, and bad ones would go bankrupt. The idea has seen limited but pretty successful implementation.
Another of my favorite Friedman concepts explains why government spending is so wasteful. When you spend your own money on yourself (grocery shopping), you try to get the best product you can for as little cash as possible. When you spend someone else's money on yourself (a rich teenager with Daddy's credit card), you try to get the best product you can without caring how much you spend. When you spend your own money on someone else (a gift) you try to spend a set amount, but you don't care so much about getting the best product.
Finally, when you spend someone else's money on someone else, it doesn't matter what you get or how much it costs. That is the scenario government programs by definition fall into. By cutting spending, and when necessary using vouchers (where the people spending the money also receive the benefit) instead of social programs, we can have a more efficient allocation of resources.
It is sad we have lost such an innovative mind, such an proponent of individual freedom. But on the other hand the man lived to 94, he achieved to his fullest potential and he made the world an immeasurably better place. There is plenty to celebrate in that.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
As much as any other economist, this man applied free market theory toward practical solutions. He spearheaded the school voucher movement, arguing the government should give education money to parents instead of local schools. That way, schools would have to compete; good schools would see high enrollment, and bad ones would go bankrupt. The idea has seen limited but pretty successful implementation.
Another of my favorite Friedman concepts explains why government spending is so wasteful. When you spend your own money on yourself (grocery shopping), you try to get the best product you can for as little cash as possible. When you spend someone else's money on yourself (a rich teenager with Daddy's credit card), you try to get the best product you can without caring how much you spend. When you spend your own money on someone else (a gift) you try to spend a set amount, but you don't care so much about getting the best product.
Finally, when you spend someone else's money on someone else, it doesn't matter what you get or how much it costs. That is the scenario government programs by definition fall into. By cutting spending, and when necessary using vouchers (where the people spending the money also receive the benefit) instead of social programs, we can have a more efficient allocation of resources.
It is sad we have lost such an innovative mind, such an proponent of individual freedom. But on the other hand the man lived to 94, he achieved to his fullest potential and he made the world an immeasurably better place. There is plenty to celebrate in that.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Report: Decline in public housing spending causes homelessness
I am a little skeptical of this report, which contends a declining federal Housing and Urban Development budget has caused an increase in homelessness. It has a lot of important information in it, though.
First of all, it's not at all clear that the HUD budget is a good indicator of how much government money is being spent on housing assistance. As this graph indicates, tax breaks have gone up while other sources have gone down. If you read the report closely, it concedes that housing priorities, not housing spending totals, have shifted -- the good point is that housing money has gone from the poor to the rich.
But according to a California organization, there are still resources for the poor, most of them non-HUD:
"Since the early 1980's, HUD budgets have fallen further and further behind in reflecting the rapidly increasing need for affordable housing. Today, HUD is only one of a large number of sources of financing for affordable housing, along with banks, investors, the Federal Home Loan Bank, public agencies and foundations, among others."
In addition, many localities and states have passed affordable housing mandates stating that X percent of new housing must fall into the "affordable" category (defined, completely at random, as 30 percent of income -- as if people need no less than 70 percent of their income for food, transportation, insurance and utilities no matter how much they make, even when they don't have kids).
Finally, the piece's main solution -- those affordable housing mandates, with increased spending -- will give some poor people housing, but at great cost. Prices exist for a reason, namely, to lower demand. A high price indicates that a given commodity is highly valued, and when you artificially lower the price you end up with a line out the door. And when the previously homeless move in to "affordable" units in nice areas, property values can decline. Basic economics, folks.
The Reason Foundation has a good summary of affordable housing's other problems here. Mother Jones weighs in here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
First of all, it's not at all clear that the HUD budget is a good indicator of how much government money is being spent on housing assistance. As this graph indicates, tax breaks have gone up while other sources have gone down. If you read the report closely, it concedes that housing priorities, not housing spending totals, have shifted -- the good point is that housing money has gone from the poor to the rich.
But according to a California organization, there are still resources for the poor, most of them non-HUD:
"Since the early 1980's, HUD budgets have fallen further and further behind in reflecting the rapidly increasing need for affordable housing. Today, HUD is only one of a large number of sources of financing for affordable housing, along with banks, investors, the Federal Home Loan Bank, public agencies and foundations, among others."
In addition, many localities and states have passed affordable housing mandates stating that X percent of new housing must fall into the "affordable" category (defined, completely at random, as 30 percent of income -- as if people need no less than 70 percent of their income for food, transportation, insurance and utilities no matter how much they make, even when they don't have kids).
Finally, the piece's main solution -- those affordable housing mandates, with increased spending -- will give some poor people housing, but at great cost. Prices exist for a reason, namely, to lower demand. A high price indicates that a given commodity is highly valued, and when you artificially lower the price you end up with a line out the door. And when the previously homeless move in to "affordable" units in nice areas, property values can decline. Basic economics, folks.
The Reason Foundation has a good summary of affordable housing's other problems here. Mother Jones weighs in here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Lawyer: Animal necrophilia and bestiality are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!
A lawyer is arguing that a law banning sex with animals does not preclude sex with dead animals (in this case a deer). There's this slippery slope, you see -- if you extend the definition of "animal" past death, he says, pretty soon you've outlawed sex with frozen meat. And that's just intrusive. Legally and to the frozen meat.
Is it sick if I find the whole debate kind of amusing?
Rationally, I suppose, animal necrophilia is a victimless crime. Unlike a human, deer don't have family members whose rights are violated. A dead Bambi can't exactly be traumatized. Like animal cruelty, however, this behavior indicates a sociopathic mindset worth legally tempering.
But the question is much more of a legal one -- the people of Minnesota have decided all bestiality is worth outlawing, and the issue is whether animal necrophilia is actually sex with an animal. In the story, the lawyer points to a dictionary definition that defines "animals" as "living," and most other definitions agree.
I would argue, however, that the definitions use "living" to separate animals from inanimate objects. In common parlance, "dead animal" has meaning. You would not call a piece of meat a "dead animal," even if you realize it's a part of one. So there's no slippery slope.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I let through a comment that says the animal was actually a dog, but it's wrong; he/she is talking about a different case. The Minnesota incident (involving a man from my home state, Wisconsin) was with a dead deer.
Is it sick if I find the whole debate kind of amusing?
Rationally, I suppose, animal necrophilia is a victimless crime. Unlike a human, deer don't have family members whose rights are violated. A dead Bambi can't exactly be traumatized. Like animal cruelty, however, this behavior indicates a sociopathic mindset worth legally tempering.
But the question is much more of a legal one -- the people of Minnesota have decided all bestiality is worth outlawing, and the issue is whether animal necrophilia is actually sex with an animal. In the story, the lawyer points to a dictionary definition that defines "animals" as "living," and most other definitions agree.
I would argue, however, that the definitions use "living" to separate animals from inanimate objects. In common parlance, "dead animal" has meaning. You would not call a piece of meat a "dead animal," even if you realize it's a part of one. So there's no slippery slope.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I let through a comment that says the animal was actually a dog, but it's wrong; he/she is talking about a different case. The Minnesota incident (involving a man from my home state, Wisconsin) was with a dead deer.
Supremes reinstate death penalty for murderer
This George Will column (about this story) hits the mark in most ways. A man was sentenced to death after a gruesome crime, but the ultra-leftist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the case. The Supreme Court then overturned the Ninth.
According to the story:
"At the [1979] trial, defense witnesses praised his conduct while he was being held in the manslaughter case, including his work on a fire crew. A California Youth Authority chaplain called Belmontes a 'salvageable person' who could live a productive life in prison."
And according to the column:
"Belmontes' attorney asked the trial judge to specifically instruct the jury to consider Belmontes' ability to live acceptably in prison. Instead, the judge used California's 'catchall mitigation instruction,' which was declared constitutional in 1990. It tells a jury weighing capital punishment that it can consider many things (e.g., the use of force or violence, the defendant's age, any extreme mental or emotional disturbance, prior felony convictions). Belmontes' case turned on whether the jury understood one provision of the catchall instruction -- to consider 'any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime' -- to include the 'forward-looking' consideration that life imprisonment might be a suitable punishment."
That is one bad policy. Instead of debating, "forward-looking" and with deference to "good behavior" in jail, whether life in prison might be suitable for this individual, why not ask (A) does the punishment fit the crime and (B) are there any real mitigating factors to do with the crime, like mental disorder or infidelity, where the average person might lose control? If the answers are yes and no, let's get a needle ready before 25 years pass and a lawyer comes up with some lame excuse.
That said, I think Will overstates his (somewhat joking) case about the Ninth Circuit being so bad, and so out of line with other courts, that we need a second Supreme Court just to reverse it. The real Supreme Court only knocked down the Ninth's decree by a 5-4 margin. The Ninth may have an absurd sympathy for criminals, but the Supremes aren't too far behind.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
According to the story:
"At the [1979] trial, defense witnesses praised his conduct while he was being held in the manslaughter case, including his work on a fire crew. A California Youth Authority chaplain called Belmontes a 'salvageable person' who could live a productive life in prison."
And according to the column:
"Belmontes' attorney asked the trial judge to specifically instruct the jury to consider Belmontes' ability to live acceptably in prison. Instead, the judge used California's 'catchall mitigation instruction,' which was declared constitutional in 1990. It tells a jury weighing capital punishment that it can consider many things (e.g., the use of force or violence, the defendant's age, any extreme mental or emotional disturbance, prior felony convictions). Belmontes' case turned on whether the jury understood one provision of the catchall instruction -- to consider 'any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime' -- to include the 'forward-looking' consideration that life imprisonment might be a suitable punishment."
That is one bad policy. Instead of debating, "forward-looking" and with deference to "good behavior" in jail, whether life in prison might be suitable for this individual, why not ask (A) does the punishment fit the crime and (B) are there any real mitigating factors to do with the crime, like mental disorder or infidelity, where the average person might lose control? If the answers are yes and no, let's get a needle ready before 25 years pass and a lawyer comes up with some lame excuse.
That said, I think Will overstates his (somewhat joking) case about the Ninth Circuit being so bad, and so out of line with other courts, that we need a second Supreme Court just to reverse it. The real Supreme Court only knocked down the Ninth's decree by a 5-4 margin. The Ninth may have an absurd sympathy for criminals, but the Supremes aren't too far behind.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
David Brooks seconds my point from The American Spectator
Unfortunately the piece is behind the TimesSelect wall, but David Brooks has a column in The New York Times today that makes the same point as my Monday article from The American Spectator: That Borat lashes out at rural people, ignoring anti-Semitism in big, sophisticated cities.
Reading the pieces back-to-back is a pretty weird experience, actually. We have the same thing to say, but we use totally different methods of getting there. My writing is direct, unembellished and supported by statistics; his is eloquent and based mainly on his own solid analysis of modern culture.
Reading the pieces back-to-back is a pretty weird experience, actually. We have the same thing to say, but we use totally different methods of getting there. My writing is direct, unembellished and supported by statistics; his is eloquent and based mainly on his own solid analysis of modern culture.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
German doctor held liable for contraceptive failure, must pay child support
This story from Germany shows how overzealous, successful lawsuits against doctors aren’t limited to the U.S. A couple sued a physician after a contraceptive implant failed, and now the doctor has to pay for the child’s upbringing.
The story accuses the doctor of “botching” the implant, but statistics indicate that isn’t necessarily the case. According to Merck, about 1 in 1,000 women “become pregnant within the first year” of using an implant. If there was some evidence he screwed up, or that other implants he’d done failed, I’d be slightly more sympathetic. Presumably, they were informed of the minor possibility of a pregnancy — no contraceptive method is 100 percent effective.
The article also raises the issue that, because of the lawsuit, the child will forever know it was unwanted.
In addition, what about adoption? (Abortion for pure unwantedness is illegal but not punished in Germany.) If the couple truly didn’t want the child — they’re no longer together – they could have given it away. Instead, they decided to keep it and saddle the doctor with the financial responsibility someone else would have gladly taken. The entire lawsuit is based on an assumption of unwantedness the couple’s post-birth behavior disproves.
Compensation for the expenses of birth, e.g. time off work and hospital bills, would be logical, fair and accurate if the doctor was negligent in some meaningful way. But 18 years of child support is overkill, even if he did truly “botch” the implant.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
American Spectator piece picked up by The Washington Times
I was pleasantly surprised to hear that The Washington Times picked up an excerpt of my American Spectator piece on Borat.
Also, anyone interested in abortion public opinion should read this Reason piece. It is not accurate to describe the American public as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
However, I disagree with this assertion: "The ban’s opponents said there should also be exceptions for rape and incest, which make sense only if you think abortion, though bad, is not the same as murder. After all, a baby is no less innocent because he’s the product of a crime."
True, the baby is innocent, but it's still self-defense if you've been raped or molested. I would say it's not murder but killing.
Also, anyone interested in abortion public opinion should read this Reason piece. It is not accurate to describe the American public as "pro-life" or "pro-choice."
However, I disagree with this assertion: "The ban’s opponents said there should also be exceptions for rape and incest, which make sense only if you think abortion, though bad, is not the same as murder. After all, a baby is no less innocent because he’s the product of a crime."
True, the baby is innocent, but it's still self-defense if you've been raped or molested. I would say it's not murder but killing.
The lastest Andrew Sullivan overreaction
Don't get me wrong; this passage is terrible. Back when I lived in Wisconsin I drove a 1982 Buick with only AM radio, so I heard Michael Savage a lot -- this kind of rhetoric isn't uncommon for the radio host. He's written a book called Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, an absurd attack on both liberals and people who really do have mental disorders.
But you've gotta love Andrew Sullivan's post on the latest rant, which begins by quoting Savage:
On a side note, I wouldn't read too much into the fact Savage has 8 million listeners. I know a few people who listen to him, and they all -- including some of the furthest-right conservatives I've ever met -- tune in just to hear what nutty thing he'll come up with next. He has a large audience, but not one that takes him seriously. Some of the callers are scary though.
But you've gotta love Andrew Sullivan's post on the latest rant, which begins by quoting Savage:
"'And I want to tell you something, and I'm going to say it to you loud and clear. The radical homosexual agenda will not stop until religion is outlawed in this country. Make no mistake about it. They're all not nice decorators. You better get it through your head before it's too late. They threaten your very survival. They went after the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is now caving into the homosexual mafia. They will not stop until they force their agenda down your throats. Gay marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. They want full and total subjugation of this society to their agenda. Now, if you want that and if you don't think it's a threat -- believe me, that is what's going to occur in this country,' - radio talk-show host, Michael Savage, with 8 million listeners daily.
"Substitute the word 'Jew' for 'homosexual' and see how it reads."
You mean, "The radical Jew agenda will not stop until religion is outlawed in this country"? Not so well, actually, given that Judaism is, um, a religion.On a side note, I wouldn't read too much into the fact Savage has 8 million listeners. I know a few people who listen to him, and they all -- including some of the furthest-right conservatives I've ever met -- tune in just to hear what nutty thing he'll come up with next. He has a large audience, but not one that takes him seriously. Some of the callers are scary though.
New piece up at antiMusic/Rocknworld
antiMusic/Rocknworld has my review of Cage9's latest.
Main point:
"If you absolutely hate pop-punk, you won't like El Motivo. The sing-along choruses will prove too much to handle.
Main point:
"If you absolutely hate pop-punk, you won't like El Motivo. The sing-along choruses will prove too much to handle.
"But if you're willing to give the better element of a terrible genre a shot, this record is a great place to start. And Cage9 is a band to watch for the future, because the album hints at a number of avenues to explore."
Asian student files complaint against affirmative action policy
An Asian student has filed a civil rights complaint against Princeton for rejecting him. His scores were such that, on merit alone, he'd have gotten in.
It's really no secret that affirmative action hurts Asian students. With above-average IQs and particularly math scores, they are over-represented in colleges nationwide. Rather than kick out white students (though that happens as well), admissions offices often throw "extra" Asians overboard to make room for blacks and Hispanics.
The best documentation for this I'm aware of is a graph in The Bell Curve. Using data they somehow managed to squeeze out of an institution with access to it, they demonstrated that blacks have considerably low SAT scores relative to whites at top colleges -- and Asians have relatively high SAT scores. This shows that Asians with scores higher than admitted whites' did not get in, and that blacks with scores lower than admitted whites' did.
Affirmative action is not a tie-breaker, then; it's a system of discrimination against Asians and to a lesser degree whites. You can argue whether or not it's beneficial, but you have to admit that fact.
Jonah Goldberg has more:
"A study [link added] conducted by two Princeton academics last year...concluded that if you got rid of racial preferences in higher education, the number of whites admitted to schools would remain fairly constant. However, without racial preferences, Asians would take roughly 80 percent of the positions now allotted to Hispanic and black students.
...
"Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, notes [link Goldberg's] that there is now ample empirical data showing that the supposed benefits of diversity in education are fleeting when real and often are simply nonexistent. Black students admitted to universities above their skill level often do poorly and fail to graduate in high numbers. UCLA law professor Richard Sander found that nearly half of black law students reside in the bottom ten percent of their law-school classes. If they went to schools one notch down, they might do far better."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
It's really no secret that affirmative action hurts Asian students. With above-average IQs and particularly math scores, they are over-represented in colleges nationwide. Rather than kick out white students (though that happens as well), admissions offices often throw "extra" Asians overboard to make room for blacks and Hispanics.
The best documentation for this I'm aware of is a graph in The Bell Curve. Using data they somehow managed to squeeze out of an institution with access to it, they demonstrated that blacks have considerably low SAT scores relative to whites at top colleges -- and Asians have relatively high SAT scores. This shows that Asians with scores higher than admitted whites' did not get in, and that blacks with scores lower than admitted whites' did.
Affirmative action is not a tie-breaker, then; it's a system of discrimination against Asians and to a lesser degree whites. You can argue whether or not it's beneficial, but you have to admit that fact.
Jonah Goldberg has more:
"A study [link added] conducted by two Princeton academics last year...concluded that if you got rid of racial preferences in higher education, the number of whites admitted to schools would remain fairly constant. However, without racial preferences, Asians would take roughly 80 percent of the positions now allotted to Hispanic and black students.
...
"Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, notes [link Goldberg's] that there is now ample empirical data showing that the supposed benefits of diversity in education are fleeting when real and often are simply nonexistent. Black students admitted to universities above their skill level often do poorly and fail to graduate in high numbers. UCLA law professor Richard Sander found that nearly half of black law students reside in the bottom ten percent of their law-school classes. If they went to schools one notch down, they might do far better."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
San Francisco bans JROTC over 'don't ask, don't tell'
Ah, the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is back in the news. San Francisco has banned the JROTC military program from its high schools, arguing that the rule doesn't jive with its equal-rights-for-gays laws.
"Don't ask, don't tell," as its name implies, holds that gays in the military cannot disclose their orientation. In return, armed forces officials can't ask for it.
Michelle Malkin, seconding sources from the article (including San Fran's pro-gay mayor), says the ban punishes students without having any effect on policy.
Agreed, but I'd like to focus on the policy argument itself. Is "don't ask, don't tell" bad for gays? Well, yes. It stops them from serving openly, and according to folks involved with my college's ROTC program, it can stop superiors from keeping track of their soldiers' lives.
My argument for the policy doesn't stem from anti-gay sentiment or a drive to preserve culture; it stems from the idea that it's inappropriate for open gays and striaghts to serve together. From an op-ed I wrote for a college paper a year and a half ago:
"In the military people are forced to live, eat and shower with others of the same sex. The policy's author, Charles Moskos, said it best in an interview with the Northwestern Chronicle: 'To me, the issue comes down to privacy. Prudes have rights, too.' He also likened 'don't ask, don't tell' to gender-segregated toilets.
"Don't ask, don't tell," as its name implies, holds that gays in the military cannot disclose their orientation. In return, armed forces officials can't ask for it.
Michelle Malkin, seconding sources from the article (including San Fran's pro-gay mayor), says the ban punishes students without having any effect on policy.
Agreed, but I'd like to focus on the policy argument itself. Is "don't ask, don't tell" bad for gays? Well, yes. It stops them from serving openly, and according to folks involved with my college's ROTC program, it can stop superiors from keeping track of their soldiers' lives.
My argument for the policy doesn't stem from anti-gay sentiment or a drive to preserve culture; it stems from the idea that it's inappropriate for open gays and striaghts to serve together. From an op-ed I wrote for a college paper a year and a half ago:
"In the military people are forced to live, eat and shower with others of the same sex. The policy's author, Charles Moskos, said it best in an interview with the Northwestern Chronicle: 'To me, the issue comes down to privacy. Prudes have rights, too.' He also likened 'don't ask, don't tell' to gender-segregated toilets.
"In other words, there's nothing 'intolerant' about not wanting to get naked with someone.
"When sexual orientation can lead to awkwardness or tension, it's inappropriate to force people to live together. When I was 18 I would have jumped at the opportunity to see a bunch of...young women in the nude (as I am straight), and it's hard to argue that would have been fair to the women. It's also hard to argue that's a false analogy."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Study: Best pornography filter misses 1 in 10 sites
This story has a few interesting numbers in it. To me, the most surprising were that only 1 percent of the Internet is used for pornography, and that even the most effective filtering software only blocks 9 out of 10 sites.
The government study is an attempt to bring back the Child Online Protection Act, blocked by the Supreme Court two years ago in part on the assertion that filters would work better than laws would.
The first number is fascinating because I swear I've seen higher statistics before, and because people make such a huge deal out of it. In the big scheme of the Internet, it seems pornography isn't that much of an issue.
The second number is pretty troubling, though. Having been a teenager once, I assure you that 10 pornographic sites aren't hard to find, and if on average one of them won't be blocked that's not an effective filter.
However, the article also makes the point that 50 percent or more of these sites are foreign, so I wonder if the filtering software is more effective for domestic sites. If so, it could block all the common sites kids might come across while still missing 1 in 10 total porn pages. If no one from the U.S. can realistically find a site anyway, it doesn't really matter if it's blocked or not.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The government study is an attempt to bring back the Child Online Protection Act, blocked by the Supreme Court two years ago in part on the assertion that filters would work better than laws would.
The first number is fascinating because I swear I've seen higher statistics before, and because people make such a huge deal out of it. In the big scheme of the Internet, it seems pornography isn't that much of an issue.
The second number is pretty troubling, though. Having been a teenager once, I assure you that 10 pornographic sites aren't hard to find, and if on average one of them won't be blocked that's not an effective filter.
However, the article also makes the point that 50 percent or more of these sites are foreign, so I wonder if the filtering software is more effective for domestic sites. If so, it could block all the common sites kids might come across while still missing 1 in 10 total porn pages. If no one from the U.S. can realistically find a site anyway, it doesn't really matter if it's blocked or not.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Survey: Women less likely to use vaccine if it also protects against STD
For awhile I've decried the PC campaign of trying to de-stigmatize STD testing. The honest message is "if you're going to act this way, you need to make sure you're not hurting other people, so get over it -- it's anonymous anyway," not "no one could or should think less of you if they find out." Sexual attitudes have changed over the years, but there are still plenty of "prudish" people who might be put off by someone who risks his life in that manner (and needs to get tested as a result).
These beliefs are honest, logical and, from a medical standpoint, healthier than the alternative. A war on them might encourage people who should to get tested in the short term, but it undermines a whole set of worthwhile cultural norms.
So this article from Fox News/LiveScience caught my eye -- not because of the "oh my God HPV!!" fad of the moment, but because of a survey result they report at the end of the article. It gives some evidence that, while the above opinion is logically sound, some fudging on the logic might be better for public health. I personally would go with the honesty, but here at Robert's Rationale I try to concede evidence against my beliefs.
From the article:
"They surveyed 635 adults over the age of 18, about half of whom were women, assigning each to read one of three paragraphs about the vaccine, each emphasizing a different perspective...[one was that] the vaccine protects against cervical cancer [and another was that] the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infections....
"When women read that the vaccine protects only against cervical cancer, 63 percent indicated they were 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to get vaccinated, compared with 43 percent of those who read the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and a sexually transmitted infection."
Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever. Even if a woman is monogamous or sexually inactive, if she's willing to take a vaccine for cervical cancer, she should also be willing to take one that also protects against an STD. The extra protection doesn't matter. And if a woman is sexually promiscuous, the extra feature is a bonus.
It seems, then, that de-stigmatizing STD testing could have ramifications beyond making the promiscuous feel good about themselves. Even if you wince at a crusade to mainstream the results of unhealthy behavior, you have to concede it's bad for someone to forego prevention of a non-sex-related illness at the risk of looking questionable.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
These beliefs are honest, logical and, from a medical standpoint, healthier than the alternative. A war on them might encourage people who should to get tested in the short term, but it undermines a whole set of worthwhile cultural norms.
So this article from Fox News/LiveScience caught my eye -- not because of the "oh my God HPV!!" fad of the moment, but because of a survey result they report at the end of the article. It gives some evidence that, while the above opinion is logically sound, some fudging on the logic might be better for public health. I personally would go with the honesty, but here at Robert's Rationale I try to concede evidence against my beliefs.
From the article:
"They surveyed 635 adults over the age of 18, about half of whom were women, assigning each to read one of three paragraphs about the vaccine, each emphasizing a different perspective...[one was that] the vaccine protects against cervical cancer [and another was that] the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infections....
"When women read that the vaccine protects only against cervical cancer, 63 percent indicated they were 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to get vaccinated, compared with 43 percent of those who read the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and a sexually transmitted infection."
Obviously, this makes no sense whatsoever. Even if a woman is monogamous or sexually inactive, if she's willing to take a vaccine for cervical cancer, she should also be willing to take one that also protects against an STD. The extra protection doesn't matter. And if a woman is sexually promiscuous, the extra feature is a bonus.
It seems, then, that de-stigmatizing STD testing could have ramifications beyond making the promiscuous feel good about themselves. Even if you wince at a crusade to mainstream the results of unhealthy behavior, you have to concede it's bad for someone to forego prevention of a non-sex-related illness at the risk of looking questionable.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
CBS affiliate: Chicago police manipulating homicide data
UPDATE: Full story here.
This report is very significant, and very jarring. A CBS affiliate in Chicago is claiming the city’s law enforcement agencies are manipulating crime statistics to make it look like the homicide rate is lower than it is. Crime File News has some thoughts here, including the fact Daley has used the statistics as support for Chicago’s handgun ban. John Lott weighs in here.
This report is very significant, and very jarring. A CBS affiliate in Chicago is claiming the city’s law enforcement agencies are manipulating crime statistics to make it look like the homicide rate is lower than it is. Crime File News has some thoughts here, including the fact Daley has used the statistics as support for Chicago’s handgun ban. John Lott weighs in here.
A little bit of background: Prior to the 1990s, police often took a don’t-blame-us-cuz-other-factors-control-crime approach to statistics. But Rudy Guiliani, with police chief William Bratton, used highly aggressive police and statistical techniques to bring crime under control. Their efforts saved countless lives with a 70 percent drop in crime.
The campaign was twofold. Law enforcement managers would grill local supervisors and officers about crime trends in their areas (tracked through the new CompStat program), with harsh reprimands for those who didn’t keep a good handle on their numbers. Then, the local squads would crack down on crime, interestingly focusing on “quality of life” issues (based on James Q. Wilson’s Broken Windows theory). For example, they’d go after subway turnstile jumpers — and often find people with outstanding arrest warrants.
With this success, other cities tried to replicate the trend. The LAPD picked up Bratton himself (seeing a 25 percent decrease in crime), Chicago follows the model and I’ve even heard Bratton-like rhetoric from cops in Green Bay, Wisconsin (my hometown). Chicago hasn’t been quite as successful as New York was. My suspicion is that the pressure to perform, coupled with an unwillingness to go as far as it takes, is hurting matters.
I attended college in the Chicago area, and a representative of the department gave a presentation to a class I took. A student asked about New York’s greater success, and the representative argued Chicago was trying to have a decrease in crime without going quite as far as New York had in aggressiveness.
There is a tradeoff to be made — civil liberties activists threw a fit over New York, for example. But, well, there is a tradeoff to be made. You can’t expect full results from less than full measures.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Report: Abortion causes illegal immigration
According to this story, Missouri lawmakers are contending abortion has led to illegal immigration. There is really no reason for a state legislature to even contemplate this -- immigration is a federal issue, as is, unfortunately, Roe v Wade -- but they're almost certainly right to a degree.
Slate has a critical post here.
First of all, the very basic logic is sound. Abortions decrease population, and they disproportionately occur in poorer women more likely to birth future low-income employees. Fewer natives with this tendency means a higher demand for immigrant workers.
The calculation of 80,000 fewer Missourians as a result of abortion also seems pretty reasonable. It's not simply the number of abortions, as there have been nearly 50 million nationwide, and about 2 percent of Americans (5.8 million) live in Missouri. From that, one would guess there've been around a million abortions in Missouri, give or take substantially, of course.
What I think they took into account is the fact that Roe v. Wade increased conceptions to such a degree it barely decreased births. After the decision, births fell 6 percent, but conceptions rose 30 percent. This means that a large number, almost certainly a majority, of abortions ended pregnancies that would not have started if not for Roe. The effect on illegal immigration is in the 6 percent, not the total number of abortions.
Like I said, 80,000 sounds feasible -- that's just a little more than 1 percent of Missouri's total population (much of which was born before Roe, which is why it's not nearer 6 percent). Also, these folks would be young and often working age right now, so the importance of those 80,000 is disproportionate in terms of labor.
Compare this to the Federation for American Immigration Reform's preferred estimate of 22,000 illegal immigrants in Missouri. Using this alone, abortion would more than explain the worker shortage that leads to illegal immigration in Missouri.
The thing that gives me pause here is that the total foreign born is 194,000, and the total Hispanic population is more than 118,000 -- the difference due to legal immigrants, children of illegals who automatically get citizenship, etc. These people more than fill the void left by abortion, so on net I would tend to think the effect of abortion has been pretty limited in terms of immigration.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Slate has a critical post here.
First of all, the very basic logic is sound. Abortions decrease population, and they disproportionately occur in poorer women more likely to birth future low-income employees. Fewer natives with this tendency means a higher demand for immigrant workers.
The calculation of 80,000 fewer Missourians as a result of abortion also seems pretty reasonable. It's not simply the number of abortions, as there have been nearly 50 million nationwide, and about 2 percent of Americans (5.8 million) live in Missouri. From that, one would guess there've been around a million abortions in Missouri, give or take substantially, of course.
What I think they took into account is the fact that Roe v. Wade increased conceptions to such a degree it barely decreased births. After the decision, births fell 6 percent, but conceptions rose 30 percent. This means that a large number, almost certainly a majority, of abortions ended pregnancies that would not have started if not for Roe. The effect on illegal immigration is in the 6 percent, not the total number of abortions.
Like I said, 80,000 sounds feasible -- that's just a little more than 1 percent of Missouri's total population (much of which was born before Roe, which is why it's not nearer 6 percent). Also, these folks would be young and often working age right now, so the importance of those 80,000 is disproportionate in terms of labor.
Compare this to the Federation for American Immigration Reform's preferred estimate of 22,000 illegal immigrants in Missouri. Using this alone, abortion would more than explain the worker shortage that leads to illegal immigration in Missouri.
The thing that gives me pause here is that the total foreign born is 194,000, and the total Hispanic population is more than 118,000 -- the difference due to legal immigrants, children of illegals who automatically get citizenship, etc. These people more than fill the void left by abortion, so on net I would tend to think the effect of abortion has been pretty limited in terms of immigration.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Iranian president: We're near-nuclear
Working at a foreign policy magazine/journal has, more than anything, taught me that I know far less about foreign policy than I thought I did. So this is more an idea I'm throwing out than a thesis.
Iran is claiming it's almost nuclear. What does that say about our decision to go into Iraq?
Well, for starters, it might tell us we invaded the wrong country. There's no way to tell if the Iranian president is being honest -- I suspect the intelligence wars will step up in the coming weeks -- but we now know for sure Iraq was pretty harmless.
On the other hand, the debate wasn't really about invading Iraq, or invading Iran. It was about invading Iraq, or not invading Iraq. Assuming that, absent the Iraq invasion, Iran would still be making this announcement, it's arguable the decision was a good one.
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, both countries might now be claiming to have near-nuclear capabilities. That would make for an incredibly complicated situation, possibly even more so than the "messy Iraq/near-nuclear Iran" issue we now face.
As an aside, there are reasons to believe the guy is lying. Some experts have contended it would be years before Iran would have nuclear weapons. It's not hard to see how it's in his best interests to claim this; the First World sometimes offers concessions to countries in return for ends to these programs.
For further reading, check out my coverage of an Iran policy conference.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Iran is claiming it's almost nuclear. What does that say about our decision to go into Iraq?
Well, for starters, it might tell us we invaded the wrong country. There's no way to tell if the Iranian president is being honest -- I suspect the intelligence wars will step up in the coming weeks -- but we now know for sure Iraq was pretty harmless.
On the other hand, the debate wasn't really about invading Iraq, or invading Iran. It was about invading Iraq, or not invading Iraq. Assuming that, absent the Iraq invasion, Iran would still be making this announcement, it's arguable the decision was a good one.
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, both countries might now be claiming to have near-nuclear capabilities. That would make for an incredibly complicated situation, possibly even more so than the "messy Iraq/near-nuclear Iran" issue we now face.
As an aside, there are reasons to believe the guy is lying. Some experts have contended it would be years before Iran would have nuclear weapons. It's not hard to see how it's in his best interests to claim this; the First World sometimes offers concessions to countries in return for ends to these programs.
For further reading, check out my coverage of an Iran policy conference.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Steve Sailer seconds my theory on why Borat is funny
More than a month ago I said: "Borat asks his viewers to laugh at racist jokes under the guise that it's really racism, not minorities, they're laughing it." Fans of Borat never agree with me when I say that in person.
Steve Sailer has a very similar post up today. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here are some key excerpts:
"The tendency of politically correct critics to develop meta-justifications for politically incorrect comics like Sara Silverman and Dave Chappelle -- 'They're not getting laughs from ethnic stereotypes, they're, uh, getting us to laugh at the stereotypicality of the stereotypes, you see. It's all very meta.' -- might be pretty funny if the comedians themselves sometimes didn't fall for this nonsense.
"The Jewish comedians like Baron Cohen and Silverman generally know how to play this game. Silverman, for example, occasionally throws in an intentionally stupid, untrue racial stereotype ('Mexicans smell bad') so all the nice white liberals in the audience can pretend her other stereotypes ('Asians are good at math') are dumb too, and that they are actually laughing at all those idiots conservatives who believe Asians are good at math, as if there is any such thing as race. Or math, for that matter.
...
"The tragic case is Chappelle, who actually fell for the critics' wheeze that he wasn't poking fun at blacks, no, he was exposing the stereotypes held by bigoted white people who thought about blacks in the way Chappelle portrayed them. Then one day, a white man on his set laughed so hard, in such an un-meta way, that Chappelle finally realized that the whole meta theory was just white jive to justify laughing at funny black people. So, Chappelle ran off to South Africa and walked out on his $50 million contract."
Steve Sailer has a very similar post up today. I recommend reading the whole thing, but here are some key excerpts:
"The tendency of politically correct critics to develop meta-justifications for politically incorrect comics like Sara Silverman and Dave Chappelle -- 'They're not getting laughs from ethnic stereotypes, they're, uh, getting us to laugh at the stereotypicality of the stereotypes, you see. It's all very meta.' -- might be pretty funny if the comedians themselves sometimes didn't fall for this nonsense.
"The Jewish comedians like Baron Cohen and Silverman generally know how to play this game. Silverman, for example, occasionally throws in an intentionally stupid, untrue racial stereotype ('Mexicans smell bad') so all the nice white liberals in the audience can pretend her other stereotypes ('Asians are good at math') are dumb too, and that they are actually laughing at all those idiots conservatives who believe Asians are good at math, as if there is any such thing as race. Or math, for that matter.
...
"The tragic case is Chappelle, who actually fell for the critics' wheeze that he wasn't poking fun at blacks, no, he was exposing the stereotypes held by bigoted white people who thought about blacks in the way Chappelle portrayed them. Then one day, a white man on his set laughed so hard, in such an un-meta way, that Chappelle finally realized that the whole meta theory was just white jive to justify laughing at funny black people. So, Chappelle ran off to South Africa and walked out on his $50 million contract."
Monday, November 13, 2006
Widows sue to get Wiccan symbols on husbands' military gravestones
There are some freedom of speech issues that really need to be fought out. This isn't one of them: Two widows of fallen soldiers are suing to get Wiccan pentacles on their husbands' graves. One wonders why the government response wasn't, "You're right. Hold on, and we'll design a new stone."
According to the article:
"The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs allows military families to choose any of 38 authorized headstone images. The list includes commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie."
I could understand it if it was an issue of uniformity -- if members of the military had a standard gravestone they all got. But with 38 to choose from, some representing incredibly minor religions few in America have even heard from, why not add another? Wicca itself is fairly recent, coming to popularity in the 1950s, but it's based on centuries-old traditions of pre-Christian Europe.
Indeed, according to the article, "The Army allows Wiccan soldiers to list their faith on dog tags, Wiccan organizations are allowed to hold services on military installations and the Army Chaplains Handbook includes an explanation of the religion, attorneys said."
The one thing that gives me pause is this:
"In memos and letters cited by the lawsuit, Lindee L. Lenox, director of memorial programs for the veterans agency, said the government was reviewing the process for evaluating and approving new emblems and would not accept new applications until the review was complete."
It's possible they're suing out of impatience, though refusing to accept applications is just asking for trouble.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
According to the article:
"The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs allows military families to choose any of 38 authorized headstone images. The list includes commonly recognized symbols for Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism, as well as those for smaller religions such as Sufism Reoriented, Eckiankar and the Japanese faith Seicho-No-Ie."
I could understand it if it was an issue of uniformity -- if members of the military had a standard gravestone they all got. But with 38 to choose from, some representing incredibly minor religions few in America have even heard from, why not add another? Wicca itself is fairly recent, coming to popularity in the 1950s, but it's based on centuries-old traditions of pre-Christian Europe.
Indeed, according to the article, "The Army allows Wiccan soldiers to list their faith on dog tags, Wiccan organizations are allowed to hold services on military installations and the Army Chaplains Handbook includes an explanation of the religion, attorneys said."
The one thing that gives me pause is this:
"In memos and letters cited by the lawsuit, Lindee L. Lenox, director of memorial programs for the veterans agency, said the government was reviewing the process for evaluating and approving new emblems and would not accept new applications until the review was complete."
It's possible they're suing out of impatience, though refusing to accept applications is just asking for trouble.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Responses to my American Spectator article
I've gotten a few thoughtful e-mails about my article about Borat in The American Spectator.
Bookworm has a post linking to the article with the hilarious title "Rednecks and Jews in a Well Together."
And a reader born in Romania writes:
"I must say that, in Europe, you don't need to act as a loveable dimwit foreigner to get racist, sexist, and intolerant reactions out of people... both in rural areas and in the cities. You can just get a regular native, give him a camera and make him ask the folk about, say, their views on immigrants and you'll get remarks that would make the Minutemen look like La Raza.
"I went to see the movie with my Romanian friends. And one of them mentioned how in Romania, or anywhere else in Europe, a homeless foreigner would never be received in such a friendly way at any kind of church the way Borat was received at that Pentecostal church. Say what you will about the way they conduct church service (I'll admit that scene freaked me out), but you will never have someone like a Borat be accepted the way he was in any other country. So, in a way, this movie made Americans look like what they most assuredly are, the nicest people in the world... and maybe also the most naive."
Well said.
Bookworm has a post linking to the article with the hilarious title "Rednecks and Jews in a Well Together."
And a reader born in Romania writes:
"I must say that, in Europe, you don't need to act as a loveable dimwit foreigner to get racist, sexist, and intolerant reactions out of people... both in rural areas and in the cities. You can just get a regular native, give him a camera and make him ask the folk about, say, their views on immigrants and you'll get remarks that would make the Minutemen look like La Raza.
"I went to see the movie with my Romanian friends. And one of them mentioned how in Romania, or anywhere else in Europe, a homeless foreigner would never be received in such a friendly way at any kind of church the way Borat was received at that Pentecostal church. Say what you will about the way they conduct church service (I'll admit that scene freaked me out), but you will never have someone like a Borat be accepted the way he was in any other country. So, in a way, this movie made Americans look like what they most assuredly are, the nicest people in the world... and maybe also the most naive."
Well said.
New piece up at antiMUSIC/Rocknworld
My review of The Haunted's The Dead Eye is up. Apologies if your computer displays the dashes funny; not sure what's going on there.
New Borat clip available
Hillary Clinton: Health care coming back as an issue
I'm a pretty big opponent of government involvement in health care -- subsidies and universal plans distort incentives, making it so the demand for services outpaces their supply. The result is absurd waiting lines, even for important procedures.
But democracy has elected Democrats, so they can take a crack at passing something.
Even starting with that assumption, however, I have to wonder whether it's in anyone's best interest to have Hillary Clinton leading the charge again. Many will recall her disastrous attempt in the early '90s, leading in large part to the Republican victory in the 1994 midterms.
According to this story, Clinton has said, "health care is coming back...it may be a bad dream for some." Uh, yeah, coming from your mouth.
Health care reform is an issue drowning in complicated moral and economic problems. People often point to lower drug prices elsewhere, or the fact that other countries have managed universal health care for some time despite its significant issues.
It's not unfeasible for some sort of compromise -- Charles Murray's universal voucher-esque plan, for example -- to cut across party lines. But from a purely political angle, Democrats will need a better spokesperson for the task.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But democracy has elected Democrats, so they can take a crack at passing something.
Even starting with that assumption, however, I have to wonder whether it's in anyone's best interest to have Hillary Clinton leading the charge again. Many will recall her disastrous attempt in the early '90s, leading in large part to the Republican victory in the 1994 midterms.
According to this story, Clinton has said, "health care is coming back...it may be a bad dream for some." Uh, yeah, coming from your mouth.
Health care reform is an issue drowning in complicated moral and economic problems. People often point to lower drug prices elsewhere, or the fact that other countries have managed universal health care for some time despite its significant issues.
It's not unfeasible for some sort of compromise -- Charles Murray's universal voucher-esque plan, for example -- to cut across party lines. But from a purely political angle, Democrats will need a better spokesperson for the task.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Violence up in Afghanistan
About four years ago, I wrote a piece for a college paper about how, after the Afghanistan invasion, media reports on the country simply dropped off (unfortunately, it never made it to the paper's Web site). The run-up to the Iraq war, and then the war itself, further overshadowed the issue.
In the years since it's become clear that public scrutiny, between 9/11 and the 2003 Iraq invasion, would have been a good way to evaluate the nation-building process. Even as the media endlessly harps on anything remotely negative in Iraq, however, coverage of Afghanistan has been non-existent.
Finally, though, the AP has taken note of a report about the situation in Osama's old stamping ground:
"Insurgent activity in Afghanistan has risen fourfold this year, and militants now launch more than 600 attacks a month, a rising wave of violence that has resulted in 3,700 deaths in 2006, a bleak new report found.
"Afghanistan saw about 130 insurgent attacks a month last year, said the report by the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board, which consists of representatives from Afghanistan and the international community, including the United Nations.
"The new report said insurgents were launching more than 600 attacks a month as of the end of September, up from 300 a month at the end of March this year. The violence has killed more than 3,700 people this year, it said."
Not surprisingly, one problem area is along the border with Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan has become one of the biggest hotspots for terrorists.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Newsweek analyzes Rove's election predictions
Shortly before the elections I took a look at Rove's prediction that the GOP would hold both houses of Congress. I argued it was at least possible that even Rove didn't believe the numbers -- he was trying to create the impression of a winnable battle. This would bouy the spirits of Republican activists and hurry along the bandwagon effect.
The bandwagon effect theory holds that people are more likely to vote for candidates they think will win. This is pretty illogical, as votes are more needed by those who aren't winning, but some evidence shows that exit polling data tends to reinforce itself as election day wears on. If polls show someone is ahead, more people turn out to vote for that candidate.
Newsweek has a story that pretty strongly disagrees with my assessment, pretty much resting on the assumption that Rove's calculations were honest and firmly believed. Indeed, it does seem his math was complex and detailed.
However, it shows one of the effects Rove could have been looking for in overstating his case:
"His confidence buoyed everyone inside the West Wing, especially the president."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The bandwagon effect theory holds that people are more likely to vote for candidates they think will win. This is pretty illogical, as votes are more needed by those who aren't winning, but some evidence shows that exit polling data tends to reinforce itself as election day wears on. If polls show someone is ahead, more people turn out to vote for that candidate.
Newsweek has a story that pretty strongly disagrees with my assessment, pretty much resting on the assumption that Rove's calculations were honest and firmly believed. Indeed, it does seem his math was complex and detailed.
However, it shows one of the effects Rove could have been looking for in overstating his case:
"His confidence buoyed everyone inside the West Wing, especially the president."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Random question
I just came across John Lowery's (AKA John5 of Marilyn Manson/Rob Zombie) Wikipedia page, and it says he toured with Metallica for about a month in 1988. Anyone have any clue why? Metallica's Wikipedia page doesn't even list him as a "temporary live member."
Please throw in a comment if you have any idea, 'cuz I'm really curious.
Please throw in a comment if you have any idea, 'cuz I'm really curious.
New piece up at The American Spectator
The American Spectator has my piece on Borat.
Main point:
"Sometimes it takes an outsider to point out any culture's problems. But Borat is unwilling to seek out anti-Semitism wherever it lies, instead keeping his backwardness, and especially his thoughts on Jews, to rural areas."
Main point:
"Sometimes it takes an outsider to point out any culture's problems. But Borat is unwilling to seek out anti-Semitism wherever it lies, instead keeping his backwardness, and especially his thoughts on Jews, to rural areas."
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Simpsons: Military recruits stupid people
I watched the first part of tonight's Simpsons (I've never been a fan, but people at work are so I figured I'd study up for conversation tomorrow), and so far it's pretty much been hammering home the "the military recruits dumb people" angle. First recruiters go after the teen hoodlums, then Homer.
I'd like to refer people to my Weekly Standard article proving that notion false.
I'd like to refer people to my Weekly Standard article proving that notion false.
Expert supports LAPD in brutality allegations
Yesterday I blogged about a YouTube video purporting to show police brutality on the part of the LAPD. I reserved judgment because many details are yet to come out, but I pointed out that many of the existing facts should make one skeptical any wrongdoing took place. I also brought up the fact that most "brutality" videos only show a few seconds of pounding without giving any context.
It seems an expert, Rod Wheeler, agrees with my gut reaction on pretty much every point. ABC has the scoop here. From the article:
"What you don't see is the pressure he's exerting on the officers," Wheeler said. "And they only begin hitting him in the face when he starts trying to raise his arms. They were also trying to get handcuffs on him, which is very difficult to do when someone does not want to be handcuffed."
He also pointed out that the suspect crying out "I can't breathe" -- I said yesterday that the words "I can't breathe" can never be spoken honestly, as speech requires breath -- is often used as a tactic to resist arrest. When police lighten the hold, suspects grab for guns.
Finally, Wheeler reiterates my point that force is only excessive when officers keep going after a suspect stops resisting or is under control (as they did with Rodney King). If you're resisting arrest, you're asking for a few good smacks.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
It seems an expert, Rod Wheeler, agrees with my gut reaction on pretty much every point. ABC has the scoop here. From the article:
"What you don't see is the pressure he's exerting on the officers," Wheeler said. "And they only begin hitting him in the face when he starts trying to raise his arms. They were also trying to get handcuffs on him, which is very difficult to do when someone does not want to be handcuffed."
He also pointed out that the suspect crying out "I can't breathe" -- I said yesterday that the words "I can't breathe" can never be spoken honestly, as speech requires breath -- is often used as a tactic to resist arrest. When police lighten the hold, suspects grab for guns.
Finally, Wheeler reiterates my point that force is only excessive when officers keep going after a suspect stops resisting or is under control (as they did with Rodney King). If you're resisting arrest, you're asking for a few good smacks.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
AP: Gates's role in Iran-Contra scrutinized
This story says much less about Gates's past behavior than it does about his relevant experience. Evidently, certain segments of the political spectrum are set to throw a fit over the fact Secretary of Defense appointee Robert Gates was in government during the Iran-Contra scandal 20 years ago. It's not about what Gates did, you see, it's about what he knew.
But the biggest thing this shows is that to criticize the man's work with the government, you have to go back to the Cold War. He left the government more than 10 years ago to work at Texas A&M, though he's participated in some Iraq panels and the like.
In fact, his memoirs (keep an eye out; I might be writing more on them soon) are explicitly packaged as a history of the Cold War through Gates's eyes.
The world was completely different then. He dealt with terrorism in only a very limited Soviet Union-related context. Counter-insurgency-type guerilla work was limited to funding pro-U.S. forces, not going in and doing fighting ourselves. And "nation building" doesn't even have an entry in the book's index.
It's not a matter of what Gates knew about Iran-Contra. It's not even so much about how effectively he served in his previous positions. It's about how well he's equipped to handle current challenges, and who he can surround himself with who'd have more direct experience.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But the biggest thing this shows is that to criticize the man's work with the government, you have to go back to the Cold War. He left the government more than 10 years ago to work at Texas A&M, though he's participated in some Iraq panels and the like.
In fact, his memoirs (keep an eye out; I might be writing more on them soon) are explicitly packaged as a history of the Cold War through Gates's eyes.
The world was completely different then. He dealt with terrorism in only a very limited Soviet Union-related context. Counter-insurgency-type guerilla work was limited to funding pro-U.S. forces, not going in and doing fighting ourselves. And "nation building" doesn't even have an entry in the book's index.
It's not a matter of what Gates knew about Iran-Contra. It's not even so much about how effectively he served in his previous positions. It's about how well he's equipped to handle current challenges, and who he can surround himself with who'd have more direct experience.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Mouth-shaped urinals sold on eBay
Here's some follow-up to a story I blogged about last month: Urinals a business removed -- the ones shaped like full, lipsticked women's mouths -- have been sold on eBay for a total of more than $7,000.
Earlier I made the point that, yes, they're sexist (okay, and funny), but they are sexist against a gender that can never see them. They were, after all, in the men's restroom. It's kind of a "if a tree falls when no one's around, does it make a sound?" issue. Women's rights groups were offended by the pure existence of the urinals, not by any effect they could actually have on females' lives.
Indeed, stories indicated that no man had ever complained about them. If everyone who comes in contact with a piece of art (ha) is fine with it, and no taxpayer money is involved, where's the issue?
That said, this outcome is probably the best one. It seems the publicity got the owner a decent price for his troubles, and now no woman will be offended by something she can't see. Unless she finds out where the urinals ended up. Then we'd have a whole new problem.
The purchasers' identities have not been released, but all four urinals will stay in Austria.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Earlier I made the point that, yes, they're sexist (okay, and funny), but they are sexist against a gender that can never see them. They were, after all, in the men's restroom. It's kind of a "if a tree falls when no one's around, does it make a sound?" issue. Women's rights groups were offended by the pure existence of the urinals, not by any effect they could actually have on females' lives.
Indeed, stories indicated that no man had ever complained about them. If everyone who comes in contact with a piece of art (ha) is fine with it, and no taxpayer money is involved, where's the issue?
That said, this outcome is probably the best one. It seems the publicity got the owner a decent price for his troubles, and now no woman will be offended by something she can't see. Unless she finds out where the urinals ended up. Then we'd have a whole new problem.
The purchasers' identities have not been released, but all four urinals will stay in Austria.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
