I think this story should make us think about the Sunni-Shi'a divide in Iraq.
The event:
"Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near an Iraqi army post. The soldiers did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.
"The savage revenge attack for Thursday's slaughter of 215 people in the Shiite Sadr City slum occurred as members of the Mahdi Army militia burned four mosques, and several homes while killing an unknown number of Sunni residents in the once-mixed Hurriyah neighborhood."
In the country, Shi'as are the majority, but Sunnis had more political power under Saddam Hussein. As pro-democracy folks, U.S. citizens have rushed to declare Shi'as the "good" Muslims, and indeed most of the insurgents have been Sunnis and other Saddam loyalists.
But according to the New York Times, Iraq and Iran are majority Shi'a; the rest of the Muslim world is mainly Sunni. This doesn't jive well with the good/bad Muslim divide, if one exists.
The dirty little secret is that there are remarkably few differences between Sunnis and Shi'as. That's one reason (though no excuse) many government officials can't explain the difference. It's much more akin to the Catholic-Protestant ideological divide than the U.S.-Soviet one.
From About.com:
"Both Sunni and Shia Muslims share the most fundamental Islamic beliefs and articles of faith. The differences between these two main sub-groups within Islam initially stemmed not from spiritual differences, but political ones. Over the centuries, however, these political differences have spawned a number of varying practices and positions which have come to carry a spiritual significance."
The main difference:
"The division between Shia and Sunni dates back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and the question of who was to take over the leadership of the Muslim nation. Sunni Muslims agree with the position taken by many of the Prophet's companions, that the new leader should be elected from among those capable of the job.
...
"The Shia Muslims believe that following the Prophet Muhammad's death, leadership should have passed directly to his cousin/son-in-law, Ali. Throughout history, Shia Muslims have not recognized the authority of elected Muslim leaders, choosing instead to follow a line of Imams which they believe have been appointed by the Prophet Muhammad or God Himself."
It's not unreasonable to take a somewhat pro-Shi'a stance in the name of majority rule, but (A) this will enrage Sunnis and (B) as this story shows, Shi'as are not angels. Regardless of whether some kind of "revenge" was justified, targeting a bunch of innocents was not.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Michael Richards hires PR expert
This story is pretty embarrassing to me, as I've become known as the guy who once somewhat defended Michael Richards's outburst.
The man has hired a public relations expert to get Al Sharpton and "race hustling poverty pimp" Jesse Jackson on his side. This isn't the action of a man sincerely sorry; this is a man who wants to rescue his reputation and keep making money.
Jesse Jackson, for starters, is known for capitalizing on "racism," extorting money for his organization in exchange for the "black community's" support. There's no evidence of a Richards "donation" yet, but we'll see.
Both "civil rights activists" are also known for their anti-Semitism. Wonder what Jerry Seinfeld thinks about this.
If the "Kramer" actor was truly sorry he'd shut up and disappear for awhile to let the wounds heal. He'd do some volunteer work, maybe get anger management therapy. He'd get to know some everyday blacks. Maybe he'd start some kind of organization, or even just donate to one, sincerely meant to help the black community.
He most certainly would not start with the PR-not-personal side of things, and he wouldn't ingratiate himself with the two most self-interested, race-baiting black politicians in American history. If Richards's fans read his behavior accurately, they'll stay away for a long time.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The man has hired a public relations expert to get Al Sharpton and "race hustling poverty pimp" Jesse Jackson on his side. This isn't the action of a man sincerely sorry; this is a man who wants to rescue his reputation and keep making money.
Jesse Jackson, for starters, is known for capitalizing on "racism," extorting money for his organization in exchange for the "black community's" support. There's no evidence of a Richards "donation" yet, but we'll see.
Both "civil rights activists" are also known for their anti-Semitism. Wonder what Jerry Seinfeld thinks about this.
If the "Kramer" actor was truly sorry he'd shut up and disappear for awhile to let the wounds heal. He'd do some volunteer work, maybe get anger management therapy. He'd get to know some everyday blacks. Maybe he'd start some kind of organization, or even just donate to one, sincerely meant to help the black community.
He most certainly would not start with the PR-not-personal side of things, and he wouldn't ingratiate himself with the two most self-interested, race-baiting black politicians in American history. If Richards's fans read his behavior accurately, they'll stay away for a long time.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Michael Richards was raised Catholic
I've been getting a lot of Google hits for searches like "Michael Richards Jewish" or "Michael Richards ethnicity," etc.
According to Wikipedia, he was raised Catholic. Most U.S. immigrants with the surname Richards came from England. It is Germanic, used in English, French, German and Dutch cultures, and common in French Canadians. He's a plain old white guy who can't use any historical grievance to excuse his actions.
Happy Thanksgiving everybody. I'll be trying to blog once or twice a day for the weekend, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have.
UPDATE: I've noticed from conversations over the last few days that virtually everyone thinks the Seinfeld cast is Jewish. But:
"Cosmo Kramer, Elaine Benes and George Costanza are definitely not Jewish."
Click the link for explanations. (Seinfeld himself, of course, is Jewish in real life and on screen.)
[NOTE on this update: As a commenter pointed out, this refers to the characters on the show, not the actors who played them. It's an aside to the Richards debate, not an argument within it. In quoting the characters' names from the article -- Kramer, Benes, Costanza instead of Richards, Louis-Dreyfus, Alexander -- I meant to make that clear, but in the context of a debate about Michael Richards the actor I should have been specific. The term "cast" is also misleading. Apologies to anyone who took it the wrong way.]
UPDATE: A commenter, using a quote from Richards's PR guy, is claiming I'm wrong. The PR person, however, is the one in error. Richards is not Jewish.
According to Wikipedia, he was raised Catholic. Most U.S. immigrants with the surname Richards came from England. It is Germanic, used in English, French, German and Dutch cultures, and common in French Canadians. He's a plain old white guy who can't use any historical grievance to excuse his actions.
Happy Thanksgiving everybody. I'll be trying to blog once or twice a day for the weekend, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have.
UPDATE: I've noticed from conversations over the last few days that virtually everyone thinks the Seinfeld cast is Jewish. But:
"Cosmo Kramer, Elaine Benes and George Costanza are definitely not Jewish."
Click the link for explanations. (Seinfeld himself, of course, is Jewish in real life and on screen.)
[NOTE on this update: As a commenter pointed out, this refers to the characters on the show, not the actors who played them. It's an aside to the Richards debate, not an argument within it. In quoting the characters' names from the article -- Kramer, Benes, Costanza instead of Richards, Louis-Dreyfus, Alexander -- I meant to make that clear, but in the context of a debate about Michael Richards the actor I should have been specific. The term "cast" is also misleading. Apologies to anyone who took it the wrong way.]
UPDATE: A commenter, using a quote from Richards's PR guy, is claiming I'm wrong. The PR person, however, is the one in error. Richards is not Jewish.
New piece up at antiMusic/Rocknworld
antiMusic/Rocknworld has my review of Army of Anyone's debut.
Main point:
"Army of Anyone is looking to join the Audioslave and Velvet Revolver school of bands that peaked a decade or two ago, only to return with another singer and play classic rock. But on this debut CD, they simply can't muster up the chemistry those bands can. Four talented people in a room doesn't necessarily equal a great record."
Main point:
"Army of Anyone is looking to join the Audioslave and Velvet Revolver school of bands that peaked a decade or two ago, only to return with another singer and play classic rock. But on this debut CD, they simply can't muster up the chemistry those bands can. Four talented people in a room doesn't necessarily equal a great record."
Court ruling holds Internet, print journalists to different standards
A new California court decision is good, but it's totally inconsistent with established law.
Some background. In print, you can be held liable for re-printing others' slanderous statements (at this point it becomes libel, or printed defamation). I always thought this was stupid. If I print "so-and-so 1 said so-and-so 2 engages in sick behavior X," and so-and-so 1 really did say that, my factual assertion is correct. If so-and-so 1's factual assertion is wrong, only so-and-so 1 should be held accountable.
Thanks to the new decision my opinion will rule California -- on the Web only. Michelle Malkin (who's been defamed herself and crusades for tighter Internet laws) correctly argues that doesn't make any sense.
According to sfgate.com:
"Because the ruling prohibits lawsuits against someone who publishes another person's statement on the Internet, he said, a newspaper couldn't be sued for carrying a libelous quote in its online edition, but could be sued if the libelous statement was made by one of its reporters [as opposed to a source].
...
"Newspapers and publishers can be sued for publishing an author's libelous statement, although the victim generally must prove at least that the publisher knew or should have known that the statement was false and defamatory. Applying the same standard online would encourage Internet providers to monitor their message forums, as Congress intended in a 1996 law, the appellate court said in a 2003 ruling."
The main thing that annoys me is the court's refusal to distinguish between (A) a poster sued for quoting libel and (B) a provider sued for hosting a comment board on which libel took place. It ruled that both are immune, even though (A) is a clear parallel to behavior print journalists can't get away with. (B) is somewhat similar to a newspaper publisher's role, but comment boards are much harder to monitor without a lot of staff, and it's pretty clear the law in question was meant to protect providers.
From the ruling:
"This appears to be the first published case in which...immunity has been invoked by an individual who had no supervisory role in the operation of the Internet site where allegedly defamatory material appeared, and who thus was clearly not a provider of an 'interactive computer service' under the broad definition provided in the CDA...[W]e conclude that Congress employed the term 'user' to refer simply to anyone using an interactive computer service, without distinguishing between active and passive use."
Even the good California court decisions are bad.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Some background. In print, you can be held liable for re-printing others' slanderous statements (at this point it becomes libel, or printed defamation). I always thought this was stupid. If I print "so-and-so 1 said so-and-so 2 engages in sick behavior X," and so-and-so 1 really did say that, my factual assertion is correct. If so-and-so 1's factual assertion is wrong, only so-and-so 1 should be held accountable.
Thanks to the new decision my opinion will rule California -- on the Web only. Michelle Malkin (who's been defamed herself and crusades for tighter Internet laws) correctly argues that doesn't make any sense.
According to sfgate.com:
"Because the ruling prohibits lawsuits against someone who publishes another person's statement on the Internet, he said, a newspaper couldn't be sued for carrying a libelous quote in its online edition, but could be sued if the libelous statement was made by one of its reporters [as opposed to a source].
...
"Newspapers and publishers can be sued for publishing an author's libelous statement, although the victim generally must prove at least that the publisher knew or should have known that the statement was false and defamatory. Applying the same standard online would encourage Internet providers to monitor their message forums, as Congress intended in a 1996 law, the appellate court said in a 2003 ruling."
The main thing that annoys me is the court's refusal to distinguish between (A) a poster sued for quoting libel and (B) a provider sued for hosting a comment board on which libel took place. It ruled that both are immune, even though (A) is a clear parallel to behavior print journalists can't get away with. (B) is somewhat similar to a newspaper publisher's role, but comment boards are much harder to monitor without a lot of staff, and it's pretty clear the law in question was meant to protect providers.
From the ruling:
"This appears to be the first published case in which...immunity has been invoked by an individual who had no supervisory role in the operation of the Internet site where allegedly defamatory material appeared, and who thus was clearly not a provider of an 'interactive computer service' under the broad definition provided in the CDA...[W]e conclude that Congress employed the term 'user' to refer simply to anyone using an interactive computer service, without distinguishing between active and passive use."
Even the good California court decisions are bad.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Fairfax County seeks police station gun ban
Regular readers of this blog (or of Reason, or of the Northwestern Chronicle) know I'm pretty much your stereotypical deer-hunting redneck who hates gun control.
It may surprise some, then, that I don't have much of a problem with this law. I just think it's an illogical reaction to the case that inspired it, and that it won't work.
Fairfax County, Virginia officials are trying to get a ban on carrying weapons into police buildings. (I live in the county.) The inspiration:
"Michael Kennedy, a mentally ill 18-year-old, drove behind the police station in Chantilly last May and fired more than 70 shots with several weapons. Two officers died from gunshot wounds."
First of all, the main problem with these kinds of laws -- "gun-free zones" -- is that they're more like "sitting duck zones." Criminals know no one will be armed there, so a disproportionate number of multiple-victim shootings actually happen in them.
The exception with a police station, of course, is that there is "armed security" all over. I would guess this kind of situation is basically unheard of, so banning civilian guns there won't hurt the law-abiding. That's why I don't care much if the law passes.
However, look at the case that inspired it. The shooting happened outside the building. This law wouldn't have prevented this attack, even if the mentally ill man bent on killing cops had obeyed it.
And of course, that's the problem. If a guy wants to shoot some cops and the risk of being shot or spending his life in prison hasn't deterred him, a "no guns here" sign
doesn't have much of a chance. The only way to enforce it would be to build metal detection checkpoints at every police station in the county in response to a single incident.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
It may surprise some, then, that I don't have much of a problem with this law. I just think it's an illogical reaction to the case that inspired it, and that it won't work.
Fairfax County, Virginia officials are trying to get a ban on carrying weapons into police buildings. (I live in the county.) The inspiration:
"Michael Kennedy, a mentally ill 18-year-old, drove behind the police station in Chantilly last May and fired more than 70 shots with several weapons. Two officers died from gunshot wounds."
First of all, the main problem with these kinds of laws -- "gun-free zones" -- is that they're more like "sitting duck zones." Criminals know no one will be armed there, so a disproportionate number of multiple-victim shootings actually happen in them.
The exception with a police station, of course, is that there is "armed security" all over. I would guess this kind of situation is basically unheard of, so banning civilian guns there won't hurt the law-abiding. That's why I don't care much if the law passes.
However, look at the case that inspired it. The shooting happened outside the building. This law wouldn't have prevented this attack, even if the mentally ill man bent on killing cops had obeyed it.
And of course, that's the problem. If a guy wants to shoot some cops and the risk of being shot or spending his life in prison hasn't deterred him, a "no guns here" sign
doesn't have much of a chance. The only way to enforce it would be to build metal detection checkpoints at every police station in the county in response to a single incident.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
A severe etiquette malfunction
Andrew Sullivan attacks John Derbyshire's take on the Kramer explosion (hopefully this is the last time I'll blog about it), even though they have essentially the same view: This could have happened to anyone. We all harbor these sentiments, and the main problem here is that, in Derbyshire's words, "[t]he inner Kramer...just broke out for a second."
My own writing has covered studies indicating that the average white has at least a subconscious bias against blacks. Years of negative black images, statistics, facts, experiences and stereotypes build up over time.
And Derbyshire is right in suggesting that racism is a continuous variable, not a binary trait. People range from ultra-non-racists who can't recognize statistical differences between races, to "race realists" (count me in this category) who aren't afraid to explore and act on empirical trends, to outright bigots. And everything in between.
But it simply cannot explain this kind of behavior or even conscious thought pattern. Derbyshire correctly notes that these are epithets, outright denunciations of a person's race. No rational, modern person thinks seriously in quite this way, even in moments of anger.
Are whites scared when a black male approaches them after dark? Yes, and rationally -- and consciously. But do they hate that person, or even wish to express hatred they don't quite feel? I don't think so. In safer situations, like in the military, in classrooms and at casual get-togethers, blacks and whites pretty much get along fine. Usually at comedy clubs, too, where all different ethnicities come around to see Dave Chappelle or Carlos Mencia riff on every stereotype imaginable.
It really doesn't, as Sullivan claims, "show what lies beneath the surface of so many minds and hearts," at least to the degree that "[n]o one is immune." "Immune" people are called "normal" in today's society. The vast majority of whites are in no danger of snapping like Richards did, because they don't think like Richards was.
Conservatives and liberals alike must greet racial epithets with intolerance. Yes, that's inconsistent with the dogma that all white people are racist animals at heart -- then, it really would be an excusable slip of what we all feel -- but it has to be done. Sullivan and Derbyshire both use their cynical view of human nature to give up on the fight against real racism.
The left has gone beyond decrying outright racism like this, to espousing affirmative action, etc. If conservatives make excuses for Richards -- he's just saying what we all think, right? Right? -- they're not only wrong, they're giving liberals more ammo.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Here's a way for Andrew Sullivan to prove he truly believes "no one is immune" from this severe brand of bigotry. He should post on his blog:
"I, Andrew Sullivan, am not immune to this kind of outburst. If a black person taunts me enough at a book signing, I just might snap and call him a n----r."
Unless what he meant was that "no one but Andrew Sullivan" is immune.
My own writing has covered studies indicating that the average white has at least a subconscious bias against blacks. Years of negative black images, statistics, facts, experiences and stereotypes build up over time.
And Derbyshire is right in suggesting that racism is a continuous variable, not a binary trait. People range from ultra-non-racists who can't recognize statistical differences between races, to "race realists" (count me in this category) who aren't afraid to explore and act on empirical trends, to outright bigots. And everything in between.
But it simply cannot explain this kind of behavior or even conscious thought pattern. Derbyshire correctly notes that these are epithets, outright denunciations of a person's race. No rational, modern person thinks seriously in quite this way, even in moments of anger.
Are whites scared when a black male approaches them after dark? Yes, and rationally -- and consciously. But do they hate that person, or even wish to express hatred they don't quite feel? I don't think so. In safer situations, like in the military, in classrooms and at casual get-togethers, blacks and whites pretty much get along fine. Usually at comedy clubs, too, where all different ethnicities come around to see Dave Chappelle or Carlos Mencia riff on every stereotype imaginable.
It really doesn't, as Sullivan claims, "show what lies beneath the surface of so many minds and hearts," at least to the degree that "[n]o one is immune." "Immune" people are called "normal" in today's society. The vast majority of whites are in no danger of snapping like Richards did, because they don't think like Richards was.
Conservatives and liberals alike must greet racial epithets with intolerance. Yes, that's inconsistent with the dogma that all white people are racist animals at heart -- then, it really would be an excusable slip of what we all feel -- but it has to be done. Sullivan and Derbyshire both use their cynical view of human nature to give up on the fight against real racism.
The left has gone beyond decrying outright racism like this, to espousing affirmative action, etc. If conservatives make excuses for Richards -- he's just saying what we all think, right? Right? -- they're not only wrong, they're giving liberals more ammo.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Here's a way for Andrew Sullivan to prove he truly believes "no one is immune" from this severe brand of bigotry. He should post on his blog:
"I, Andrew Sullivan, am not immune to this kind of outburst. If a black person taunts me enough at a book signing, I just might snap and call him a n----r."
Unless what he meant was that "no one but Andrew Sullivan" is immune.
Thank you!
I checked my traffic reports this morning, and it turns out my November hits just surpassed my October ones. Therefore, since I joined Blogger News Network, every month has been better than the last. September massacred August (when I wasn't on BNN), October saw a 200 percent climb and by the time November is over I'll be up significantly again.
Thanks to BNN for having me, and thank all of you for visiting. I hope my ideas challenge and inform you.
Thanks to BNN for having me, and thank all of you for visiting. I hope my ideas challenge and inform you.
Kanye West: "Mutt" women make good rap video models
Kanye West's comments -- calling biracial people "mutts" and saying they make good models for rap videos -- have been a bit overshadowed by Michael Richards's. The use of the term "mutt" is obviously a problem, but I think this brings up two issues I can shed some light on:
(A) There is evidence people really do find biracial folks more attractive.
(B) Within the black community there is a preference for lighter skin, so bi-racial models will be the most attractive ones "black enough" for BET. You don't see too many flat-out white girls in rap videos.
The first has been shown by science. There's even a book making some evolutionary arguments about it, but I haven't read it and can't comment. Steve Sailer disagrees with some points here; the debate is over why the biracial are so sexy, however, not if.
The second came as a real surprises to me; a black woman I worked with told me about one of her lighter-skinned friends who married a darker-skinned man. The girl's mother, evidently, was not happy.
It turns out "colorism" even pre-dated European invasions, though arguably in a different form. I suspect -- based on nothing, really -- that people are attracted to a tan-ish look between pale Caucasian and dark African. This would explain why (A) white people like tans, (B) black people like their lighter-skinned folks and (C) biracial people are hot.
None of this excuses use of the term "mutt," but I think it's important to note his seemingly absurd comments are based in reality.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
(A) There is evidence people really do find biracial folks more attractive.
(B) Within the black community there is a preference for lighter skin, so bi-racial models will be the most attractive ones "black enough" for BET. You don't see too many flat-out white girls in rap videos.
The first has been shown by science. There's even a book making some evolutionary arguments about it, but I haven't read it and can't comment. Steve Sailer disagrees with some points here; the debate is over why the biracial are so sexy, however, not if.
The second came as a real surprises to me; a black woman I worked with told me about one of her lighter-skinned friends who married a darker-skinned man. The girl's mother, evidently, was not happy.
It turns out "colorism" even pre-dated European invasions, though arguably in a different form. I suspect -- based on nothing, really -- that people are attracted to a tan-ish look between pale Caucasian and dark African. This would explain why (A) white people like tans, (B) black people like their lighter-skinned folks and (C) biracial people are hot.
None of this excuses use of the term "mutt," but I think it's important to note his seemingly absurd comments are based in reality.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
US government drops 'hunger' terminology
The AFP wire has taken up the Associated Press's habit of using loaded terminology in supposedly objective news reports. Check out this lede:
"The US government has tweaked its terminology in referring to the nearly 11 million Americans who face a constant struggle with hunger to refer to them as people with 'very low food security.'"
The decision was a judgment about whether those people truly "face a constant struggle with hunger," and how well the existing measures determined that. Rather than treating it as a controversy the journalist simply states the government is wrong.
No mention until the seventh -- and last -- paragraph that the change was due to a recommendation of the National Academies of Science. If anything, the organization leans left.
The funniest thing is that the NAS said (all italics theirs):
"The panel therefore concludes that hunger is a concept distinct from food insecurity, which is an indicator of and possible consequence of food insecurity, that can be useful in characterizing severity of food insecurity. Hunger itself is an important concept that should be measured at the individual level distinct from, but in the context of, food insecurity."
Also:
"As an indication of the severity of food insecurity, the HFSSM asks the household respondent if in the past 12 months she or he has experienced being hungry because of lack of food due to resource constraints. This is not the same as evaluating individual members of the household in a survey as to whether or not they have experienced hunger. The panel urges USDA to consider alternate labels to convey the severity of food insecurity without the problems inherent in the current labels."
The issue is whether or not the survey used measures hunger. It doesn't. It measures household-level resource problems. None of this has anything to do with whitewashing the problem.
It makes me wonder if the USDA will keep measuring hunger, but with a different survey (as the NAS panel also recommended).
On a side note hunger, in reality, is a practically non-existent problem in America. In fact, the poor are disproportionately overweight. As Rich Lowry once argued:
"Hunger, defined as going without a meal at least once in the past month, is also extremely rare, according to the Department of Agriculture, affecting roughly one-half of 1 percent of American children. Advocacy groups get their higher number by resorting to a category in Agriculture Department surveys measuring 'food insecurity without hunger,' meaning the worry that it might be hard to find a meal."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
"The US government has tweaked its terminology in referring to the nearly 11 million Americans who face a constant struggle with hunger to refer to them as people with 'very low food security.'"
The decision was a judgment about whether those people truly "face a constant struggle with hunger," and how well the existing measures determined that. Rather than treating it as a controversy the journalist simply states the government is wrong.
No mention until the seventh -- and last -- paragraph that the change was due to a recommendation of the National Academies of Science. If anything, the organization leans left.
The funniest thing is that the NAS said (all italics theirs):
"The panel therefore concludes that hunger is a concept distinct from food insecurity, which is an indicator of and possible consequence of food insecurity, that can be useful in characterizing severity of food insecurity. Hunger itself is an important concept that should be measured at the individual level distinct from, but in the context of, food insecurity."
Also:
"As an indication of the severity of food insecurity, the HFSSM asks the household respondent if in the past 12 months she or he has experienced being hungry because of lack of food due to resource constraints. This is not the same as evaluating individual members of the household in a survey as to whether or not they have experienced hunger. The panel urges USDA to consider alternate labels to convey the severity of food insecurity without the problems inherent in the current labels."
The issue is whether or not the survey used measures hunger. It doesn't. It measures household-level resource problems. None of this has anything to do with whitewashing the problem.
It makes me wonder if the USDA will keep measuring hunger, but with a different survey (as the NAS panel also recommended).
On a side note hunger, in reality, is a practically non-existent problem in America. In fact, the poor are disproportionately overweight. As Rich Lowry once argued:
"Hunger, defined as going without a meal at least once in the past month, is also extremely rare, according to the Department of Agriculture, affecting roughly one-half of 1 percent of American children. Advocacy groups get their higher number by resorting to a category in Agriculture Department surveys measuring 'food insecurity without hunger,' meaning the worry that it might be hard to find a meal."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Comedian: 'I kept expecting a punch line' from Richards
First things first, I've admitted I was wrong in arguing "Kramer's" outburst was a failed attempt at a "heckling the hecklers" joke with ethnic humor. But apparently I wasn't alone in thinking that in the first place.
Comic Paul Rodriguez, an audience member at the club, said at a news conference:
"I kept expecting a punch line. It didn't come."
He also said:
"Once the word comes out of your mouth and you don't happen to be African-American, then you have a whole lot of explaining."
As I pointed out in my initial reaction to the matter, however, that latter statement isn't exactly true. Minorities can jab at other minorities. Hispanic comedians get get away with the N-word (Carlos Mencia), as can Jews (Sarah Silverman), if they're funny. Pretty much anyone, whites included, can say "cr-cker," and The New York Times will even use "redneck" in the author's voice.
The only question left is whether white males can go after minorities if the jokes are funny enough, and I'm not sure yet what the answer is.
As for Kramer, it will be up to fans to decide whether to forgive him. He's admitted that he wasn't kidding, that he lost his temper and vented racist sentiments. Normally I caution against oversensitivity on racial matters, but here's a case where someone wasn't misunderstood. He crossed the line and should be held accountable.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Nick Gillespie of Reason also shared my reaction:
"Here's video of Michael Richards, a.k.a. Seinfeld's Kramer, stinking up the joint recently at The Laugh Factory. Responding to a heckler, Richards goes on an n-word tear that starts out like a Lenny Bruce/Dick Gregory-ish bit that's trying to straddle off-color (literally) humor and social commentary but then never climbs above simple offensiveness...
"You see a guy who reaches first for the easiest comeback to an African-American heckler and then can't trade up to actually being funny, to pull himself out of a simple assertion of power (whether based on skin color or, tellingly, celebrity)."
Comic Paul Rodriguez, an audience member at the club, said at a news conference:
"I kept expecting a punch line. It didn't come."
He also said:
"Once the word comes out of your mouth and you don't happen to be African-American, then you have a whole lot of explaining."
As I pointed out in my initial reaction to the matter, however, that latter statement isn't exactly true. Minorities can jab at other minorities. Hispanic comedians get get away with the N-word (Carlos Mencia), as can Jews (Sarah Silverman), if they're funny. Pretty much anyone, whites included, can say "cr-cker," and The New York Times will even use "redneck" in the author's voice.
The only question left is whether white males can go after minorities if the jokes are funny enough, and I'm not sure yet what the answer is.
As for Kramer, it will be up to fans to decide whether to forgive him. He's admitted that he wasn't kidding, that he lost his temper and vented racist sentiments. Normally I caution against oversensitivity on racial matters, but here's a case where someone wasn't misunderstood. He crossed the line and should be held accountable.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Nick Gillespie of Reason also shared my reaction:
"Here's video of Michael Richards, a.k.a. Seinfeld's Kramer, stinking up the joint recently at The Laugh Factory. Responding to a heckler, Richards goes on an n-word tear that starts out like a Lenny Bruce/Dick Gregory-ish bit that's trying to straddle off-color (literally) humor and social commentary but then never climbs above simple offensiveness...
"You see a guy who reaches first for the easiest comeback to an African-American heckler and then can't trade up to actually being funny, to pull himself out of a simple assertion of power (whether based on skin color or, tellingly, celebrity)."
'Kramer' actor: 'I lost my temper'
In a previous post I argued that “Kramer” actor Michael Richards’s several-minute N-word-spewing tirade was an attempt at being funny gone terribly wrong and dragged out too long. He just appeared on the David Letterman show, and it seems my analysis was too charitable.
He did say “I tried to defuse it — you don’t have the whole thing” on the TMZ video, and he pointed out that “I push the envelope; I work in a very uncontrolled manner onstage, I do a lot of free association.”
But he was more revealing in saying “I lost my temper onstage” and “I took [the heckling] badly and went into a rage, and said some pretty nasty things to some Afro-Americans.”
Apparently Richards looks theatrical and over-the-top even when he’s being serious. It is beyond nauseating he could keep going like that for several minutes, not trying to show people he was kidding but to further injure people with racist insults. This by his own admission.
Much of what Richards said on Letterman was incomprehensible, with the actor blurting out ideas he apparently connected with pro-black causes. There was “there’s a great deal of disturbance in this country about what happened with Hurricane Katrina,” and something about racism within the country being analogous to relations between “this country and another nation.” I think one stab at social commentary is enough for this week.
I suppose we can credit Richards with being man enough to admit what happened and apologize. It’s disappointing to hear he meant what he said earlier, though, even if just for a little while.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
He did say “I tried to defuse it — you don’t have the whole thing” on the TMZ video, and he pointed out that “I push the envelope; I work in a very uncontrolled manner onstage, I do a lot of free association.”
But he was more revealing in saying “I lost my temper onstage” and “I took [the heckling] badly and went into a rage, and said some pretty nasty things to some Afro-Americans.”
Apparently Richards looks theatrical and over-the-top even when he’s being serious. It is beyond nauseating he could keep going like that for several minutes, not trying to show people he was kidding but to further injure people with racist insults. This by his own admission.
Much of what Richards said on Letterman was incomprehensible, with the actor blurting out ideas he apparently connected with pro-black causes. There was “there’s a great deal of disturbance in this country about what happened with Hurricane Katrina,” and something about racism within the country being analogous to relations between “this country and another nation.” I think one stab at social commentary is enough for this week.
I suppose we can credit Richards with being man enough to admit what happened and apologize. It’s disappointing to hear he meant what he said earlier, though, even if just for a little while.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Monday, November 20, 2006
'Cosmo Kramer' actor uses racial epithet
NOTE: Many of you are probably clicking over from CBS -- thanks much to the site for linking. But I'd like to say that this reaction is from before the Letterman appearance, which changed my mind on the incident. See my additional reactions here, here and here. In the second link I make the point I wasn't the only person to see it this way at first.
ORIGINAL POST:
This video of the actor who played Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld, Michael Richards, is really making the rounds. Jerry Seinfeld himself has said it makes him "sick."
In the video -- which, police brutality tape-style, starts after some audience members heckle the actor -- he shouts down a black man in the front row, repeatedly using the word "n----r." A few in the crowd laugh (you can tell he's trying to be funny by heckling the hecklers), but mostly it falls flat.
The comedian keeps going.
And going.
And going.
Until people start walking out in disgust.
First of all, I don't think there was any racist intent here; he was trying to be edgy and entertaining, and some people even found it such.
Ethnic humor seems to be on the uptick lately, with comedians like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle delightfully poking fun at human differences. And as some Seinfeld episodes have made clear, comedians need to respond to hecklers to keep momentum. The combining of the two was a dumb choice, but even if Richards was a racist, he'd be smart enough not to show it onstage.
The bigger question here is: What's the rule on racial slurs in comedy?
It's pretty clear minorities can use them with impunity. Carlos Mencia not only rags on his own ethnicity ("b--ner") but pretty much every other one as well ("cr----r," "n-gga"). Sarah Silverman, a Jew, gets away with "n----r" and "ch-nk." Rock and Chappelle have used their fair share of unsavory racial terms.
Is the rule for non-Jewish whites that they can only do it when it's funny? Or that they can't do it at all? I'm not aware of too many white comedians who work race into their routines, so I'm not able to test the question.
If this incident is any indication, it definitely becomes "racism" when the joke falls flat, but we'll have to wait for a really gutsy white guy to see whether a good racist joke is passable.
Or even possible. Can white racism be funny in front of a multi-ethnic audience?
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: A commenter has argued that the slurs weren't uttered in a comedic context; they were a sincere, personal attack on an audience member. This is certainly a valid interpretation (the guy himself took it that way), but to me it sounds like Richards is speaking in a theatrical tone, not as if he's actually lost control and is ranting. He even pauses, thinks and keeps going.
A few of the audience members laugh, indicating that they not only think he's joking but find it funny. I disagree -- and I love ethnic jokes -- but humor is a very subjective thing.
UPDATE II: I've just come across Richards's Wikipedia page, which says he "produced and directed shows dealing with race relations" as a member of the V Corps Training Road show during the Vietnam War. Of course, this doesn't prove he's not a racist, but it isn't consistent with a racist interpretation, either. It also points out that he's apologized for the recent incident -- so far as I can tell he neither made excuses for his words nor admitted they betrayed any genuine prejudice.
ORIGINAL POST:
This video of the actor who played Cosmo Kramer on Seinfeld, Michael Richards, is really making the rounds. Jerry Seinfeld himself has said it makes him "sick."
In the video -- which, police brutality tape-style, starts after some audience members heckle the actor -- he shouts down a black man in the front row, repeatedly using the word "n----r." A few in the crowd laugh (you can tell he's trying to be funny by heckling the hecklers), but mostly it falls flat.
The comedian keeps going.
And going.
And going.
Until people start walking out in disgust.
First of all, I don't think there was any racist intent here; he was trying to be edgy and entertaining, and some people even found it such.
Ethnic humor seems to be on the uptick lately, with comedians like Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle delightfully poking fun at human differences. And as some Seinfeld episodes have made clear, comedians need to respond to hecklers to keep momentum. The combining of the two was a dumb choice, but even if Richards was a racist, he'd be smart enough not to show it onstage.
The bigger question here is: What's the rule on racial slurs in comedy?
It's pretty clear minorities can use them with impunity. Carlos Mencia not only rags on his own ethnicity ("b--ner") but pretty much every other one as well ("cr----r," "n-gga"). Sarah Silverman, a Jew, gets away with "n----r" and "ch-nk." Rock and Chappelle have used their fair share of unsavory racial terms.
Is the rule for non-Jewish whites that they can only do it when it's funny? Or that they can't do it at all? I'm not aware of too many white comedians who work race into their routines, so I'm not able to test the question.
If this incident is any indication, it definitely becomes "racism" when the joke falls flat, but we'll have to wait for a really gutsy white guy to see whether a good racist joke is passable.
Or even possible. Can white racism be funny in front of a multi-ethnic audience?
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: A commenter has argued that the slurs weren't uttered in a comedic context; they were a sincere, personal attack on an audience member. This is certainly a valid interpretation (the guy himself took it that way), but to me it sounds like Richards is speaking in a theatrical tone, not as if he's actually lost control and is ranting. He even pauses, thinks and keeps going.
A few of the audience members laugh, indicating that they not only think he's joking but find it funny. I disagree -- and I love ethnic jokes -- but humor is a very subjective thing.
UPDATE II: I've just come across Richards's Wikipedia page, which says he "produced and directed shows dealing with race relations" as a member of the V Corps Training Road show during the Vietnam War. Of course, this doesn't prove he's not a racist, but it isn't consistent with a racist interpretation, either. It also points out that he's apologized for the recent incident -- so far as I can tell he neither made excuses for his words nor admitted they betrayed any genuine prejudice.
Fox anchors criticize Fox OJ interview
This situation has been brewing for awhile, so I might as well weigh in. Fox anchors Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera are using Fox airwaves to bash Fox for airing the OJ Simpson interview.
One local station president is refusing to air the interview at all. From the article:
"We are going to take a financial loss, but you know some things are not for sale," said station president Frank Quitoni, about his decision to not air the Simpson interview.
Most people just treat this like a curiosity -- hey look! He's criticizing Fox on Fox!
I'd like to take a look, however, at what this says about media consolidation. Rupert Murdoch, Fox's owner, is often seen as the most evil of the media barons. He owns media outlets all over the world, and an entire documentary has been made attacking Fox News.
I've supported two arguments for Murdoch in the past: (A) Media consolidation is a myth to begin with and (B) the big companies still have to compete against each other, and they provide a good deal of variety in themselves.
What this scenario shows, however, is that even one company within itself can provide several perspectives on its own behavior. This stems from the fact that opinion journalists hate nothing more than being muzzled. O'Reilly and Rivera have large enough followings that a threat to leave isn't worth risking from Fox's perspective.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
One local station president is refusing to air the interview at all. From the article:
"We are going to take a financial loss, but you know some things are not for sale," said station president Frank Quitoni, about his decision to not air the Simpson interview.
Most people just treat this like a curiosity -- hey look! He's criticizing Fox on Fox!
I'd like to take a look, however, at what this says about media consolidation. Rupert Murdoch, Fox's owner, is often seen as the most evil of the media barons. He owns media outlets all over the world, and an entire documentary has been made attacking Fox News.
I've supported two arguments for Murdoch in the past: (A) Media consolidation is a myth to begin with and (B) the big companies still have to compete against each other, and they provide a good deal of variety in themselves.
What this scenario shows, however, is that even one company within itself can provide several perspectives on its own behavior. This stems from the fact that opinion journalists hate nothing more than being muzzled. O'Reilly and Rivera have large enough followings that a threat to leave isn't worth risking from Fox's perspective.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Study: Young people in richer countries less happy
This story shows an important trend, but I'm not sure it hits the nail on the head. It turns out that young people in the developed world report less happiness than those in the developing world.
The story seems to just imply that developed-world teens and young adults just don't appreciate what they have, and that's true. "[A] lack of optimism, concern over jobs and pressure to succeed" are not reasons First World young people should be worried, but apparently they are.
But I think the bigger picture, only hinted at in the article, is that there's a frame of reference people base their happiness on. For example, within the U.S., richer people report being happier than poorer ones. Americans do appreciate what they have -- relative to other Americans.
People in the developing world see that, compared to the way things are now, and compared to the way their parents grew up, they'll have it pretty easy. By their frame of reference, things are great. I'd argue those facts hold in America as well, but that it's not nearly as apparent; many parents expect their kids to be worse off than they are, even though things are getting better in reality.
On a side note, this passage from the article is hilarious:
"Developed countries were particularly pessimistic about globalization, with 95 percent of young Germans thinking it is ruining their culture, while developing countries which tended to be more receptive to globalization were also more optimistic about their economic future and more proud of their nationality."
Even if the Germans are being stupid about it, it's great that people in countries where economic development is most important are most receptive.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The story seems to just imply that developed-world teens and young adults just don't appreciate what they have, and that's true. "[A] lack of optimism, concern over jobs and pressure to succeed" are not reasons First World young people should be worried, but apparently they are.
But I think the bigger picture, only hinted at in the article, is that there's a frame of reference people base their happiness on. For example, within the U.S., richer people report being happier than poorer ones. Americans do appreciate what they have -- relative to other Americans.
People in the developing world see that, compared to the way things are now, and compared to the way their parents grew up, they'll have it pretty easy. By their frame of reference, things are great. I'd argue those facts hold in America as well, but that it's not nearly as apparent; many parents expect their kids to be worse off than they are, even though things are getting better in reality.
On a side note, this passage from the article is hilarious:
"Developed countries were particularly pessimistic about globalization, with 95 percent of young Germans thinking it is ruining their culture, while developing countries which tended to be more receptive to globalization were also more optimistic about their economic future and more proud of their nationality."
Even if the Germans are being stupid about it, it's great that people in countries where economic development is most important are most receptive.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Rangel to introduce draft legislation
I've always thought of myself as a non-economist who thinks economically. But even right after the death of Milton Friedman -- an economist who helped end the draft -- I totally missed this angle to the story of Charles Rangel seeking to reinstate the draft.
From John Lott (a real economist):
"What he fails to understand is that while direct government expenditures will be lowered, you will be taking workers away from jobs where their value added to society is higher. You don't want to draft a surgeon who can earn $250,000 a year...If you are worried that the size of the military is too small and you aren't getting enough recruits, increase their pay."
The late, great Friedman made a similar argument:
"[Friedman and others] noted that...the value of the output that society gives up when a worker is drafted can be approximated by the civilian wages that the draftee would have received if he had not been drafted. Under a volunteer army, individuals who elect to join the military have a lower opportunity cost of time and society gives up less output. This argument suggests that total output increases under an all-volunteer army since individuals will self-select into occupations in which they possess a comparative advantage."
Another important part of Friedman's argument was that a draft was fundamentally unfair; it worked by forcing people to fight for less pay than they were worth.
By the way, check out Lott's blog. It's been on fire the last week or two, and it's inspired several of my own posts.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
From John Lott (a real economist):
"What he fails to understand is that while direct government expenditures will be lowered, you will be taking workers away from jobs where their value added to society is higher. You don't want to draft a surgeon who can earn $250,000 a year...If you are worried that the size of the military is too small and you aren't getting enough recruits, increase their pay."
The late, great Friedman made a similar argument:
"[Friedman and others] noted that...the value of the output that society gives up when a worker is drafted can be approximated by the civilian wages that the draftee would have received if he had not been drafted. Under a volunteer army, individuals who elect to join the military have a lower opportunity cost of time and society gives up less output. This argument suggests that total output increases under an all-volunteer army since individuals will self-select into occupations in which they possess a comparative advantage."
Another important part of Friedman's argument was that a draft was fundamentally unfair; it worked by forcing people to fight for less pay than they were worth.
By the way, check out Lott's blog. It's been on fire the last week or two, and it's inspired several of my own posts.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Americans buying organs from executed Chinese criminals
Here's a story with its up- and downsides. China has admitted "most of the human organs used in transplants here are taken from executed prisoners and that many of the recipients are foreigners who pay hefty sums to avoid a long wait," according to the LA Times. Some of those foreigners are Americans.
My initial response was, "why the heck not?" If they're being executed anyway, why waste organs that could go to good use?
The only problem here is in the warped incentives it presents China. The country essentially benefits from executing more prisoners regardless of the crime. And they're executing plenty.
According to the story:
"The acknowledgment...came about two weeks after China announced it would tighten oversight of capital cases, requiring that death sentences be approved by the country's highest court. Legal experts estimate that will reduce executions by a third.
"Though China doesn't disclose the number of annual executions, Amnesty International says at least 1,770 people were put to death in 2005, based on a review of Chinese media reports. Some activists say the annual figure could be as high as 10,000.
"The lower estimate represents more than 80% of at least 2,148 that Amnesty International says took place worldwide last year. The United States executed 60 prisoners.
"In July, China ruled that all sales of organs were illegal. But enforcing its decrees can be a problem, especially when substantial profits are involved."
Another interesting angle is in the fact they admitted the problem at the same time they cut executions. This leads me to believe that the old situation -- high execution rate, no admission -- was perpetuated because of the profit. It seems they're only tackling the organ sales problem because they have a ready-made solution. "We're working on it -- see, we're reviewing the cases!"
Finally, I don't think there's anything wrong with organ sales in principle. If someone is willing to donate an organ for pay, but not out of the goodness of his heart, who's harmed if he gets paid? He gets money, the rich person gets an organ. Crass but practical.
The same would go for the executed -- if only we could be sure they would be still be executed if not for the profit.
Mother Jones weighs in here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
My initial response was, "why the heck not?" If they're being executed anyway, why waste organs that could go to good use?
The only problem here is in the warped incentives it presents China. The country essentially benefits from executing more prisoners regardless of the crime. And they're executing plenty.
According to the story:
"The acknowledgment...came about two weeks after China announced it would tighten oversight of capital cases, requiring that death sentences be approved by the country's highest court. Legal experts estimate that will reduce executions by a third.
"Though China doesn't disclose the number of annual executions, Amnesty International says at least 1,770 people were put to death in 2005, based on a review of Chinese media reports. Some activists say the annual figure could be as high as 10,000.
"The lower estimate represents more than 80% of at least 2,148 that Amnesty International says took place worldwide last year. The United States executed 60 prisoners.
"In July, China ruled that all sales of organs were illegal. But enforcing its decrees can be a problem, especially when substantial profits are involved."
Another interesting angle is in the fact they admitted the problem at the same time they cut executions. This leads me to believe that the old situation -- high execution rate, no admission -- was perpetuated because of the profit. It seems they're only tackling the organ sales problem because they have a ready-made solution. "We're working on it -- see, we're reviewing the cases!"
Finally, I don't think there's anything wrong with organ sales in principle. If someone is willing to donate an organ for pay, but not out of the goodness of his heart, who's harmed if he gets paid? He gets money, the rich person gets an organ. Crass but practical.
The same would go for the executed -- if only we could be sure they would be still be executed if not for the profit.
Mother Jones weighs in here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UK's Telegraph connects fates of Pelosi, Hillary Clinton
This article makes a few interesting suggestions. For one, it states the obvious fact that Republicans will be attacking the new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a lot in the coming years. The questionable assertion is that, in doing so, the right will be aiming for Hillary.
It's questionable not in that the right wants this to happen -- sources in the article confirm that -- but in that it has any prayer of working.
For starters, Pelosi is a good target. She's far to the left of most Americans. She supported pull-outta-Iraq-now Murtha for majority leader, and even her own party shot her down.
I don't think voters will connect Pelosi and Clinton that closely, however. They are, incidentally, two different people. And Clinton has made a few centrist remarks recently to warm people up to the thought of her.
Another major reason: Clinton is in the running for president because she brings back memories of the Bill Clinton years -- when the economy was good, entanglements overseas were embarrassing but minor and the hot-button issue was an (admittedly vile) misuse of office for sex. Attacking Pelosi will do nothing to undo the Hillary-Bill association, which is much stronger than the Hillary-Nancy one.
Finally, the election isn't for another two years. If going after Pelosi will have any effect, it'll be closer to the election. Attacking Pelosi now can jam up her agenda (great idea), but I don't see it carrying weight through 2007 and most of 2008. Unless the Repubs think up some really pithy insults.
I'd argue that to bring down Clinton, Republicans will have to go after Clinton. This Rube Goldberg stuff is worth a shot 24 months out, but they'll have to get serious soon.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
It's questionable not in that the right wants this to happen -- sources in the article confirm that -- but in that it has any prayer of working.
For starters, Pelosi is a good target. She's far to the left of most Americans. She supported pull-outta-Iraq-now Murtha for majority leader, and even her own party shot her down.
I don't think voters will connect Pelosi and Clinton that closely, however. They are, incidentally, two different people. And Clinton has made a few centrist remarks recently to warm people up to the thought of her.
Another major reason: Clinton is in the running for president because she brings back memories of the Bill Clinton years -- when the economy was good, entanglements overseas were embarrassing but minor and the hot-button issue was an (admittedly vile) misuse of office for sex. Attacking Pelosi will do nothing to undo the Hillary-Bill association, which is much stronger than the Hillary-Nancy one.
Finally, the election isn't for another two years. If going after Pelosi will have any effect, it'll be closer to the election. Attacking Pelosi now can jam up her agenda (great idea), but I don't see it carrying weight through 2007 and most of 2008. Unless the Repubs think up some really pithy insults.
I'd argue that to bring down Clinton, Republicans will have to go after Clinton. This Rube Goldberg stuff is worth a shot 24 months out, but they'll have to get serious soon.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
More Borat talk
Buck Theorem has posted a response to my response to one of his posts that mentioned my AmSpec op-ed, if you follow that. It's lengthy and very thoughtful, and I suggest a read.
He makes a number of interesting arguments:
--Borat might have gone for urban anti-Semitic reactions but failed to get them. Or, the reactions might not have been funny enough.
True, though I've seen quite a bit of Borat -- people at work love the guy and are constantly going through his YouTube clips -- and haven't come across even one example.
--The anti-rural thing is for economics, not prejudice.
True, as the target audience is definitely urban. Cohen is a smart guy who decries (and has researched) bigotry himself, so I doubt he really does hate rural people. However, I think this bias hurts the work's value as sociology no matter what the cause.
As a clarification, it was the editor who wrote the deck that Borat is "not a work of sociology." In the piece itself I say it has "limited value" as such.
He makes a number of interesting arguments:
--Borat might have gone for urban anti-Semitic reactions but failed to get them. Or, the reactions might not have been funny enough.
True, though I've seen quite a bit of Borat -- people at work love the guy and are constantly going through his YouTube clips -- and haven't come across even one example.
--The anti-rural thing is for economics, not prejudice.
True, as the target audience is definitely urban. Cohen is a smart guy who decries (and has researched) bigotry himself, so I doubt he really does hate rural people. However, I think this bias hurts the work's value as sociology no matter what the cause.
As a clarification, it was the editor who wrote the deck that Borat is "not a work of sociology." In the piece itself I say it has "limited value" as such.
Lizard massacre proves 'Darwin was right'
It makes me absolutely livid when reporters take a common instance of natural selection and act like it proves Darwin correct on all counts. In this story, called "Darwin Got it Right," scientists noted that the introduction of a predator made a prey species "evolve" more than once in a year.
From the story:
"In the first six months the brown arole, Anolis sagrie, developed longer legs so that it could outrun its predator, Leiocephalus carinatus.
"Over the second six-month period the arole changed its behaviour so that it spent far less time on the ground and longer on branches and plant stems."
First of all, they claim the changes happened "within a single generation." Darwinian evolution is a process of birth as well as death, so one generation is the very minimum it can take to occur, at least at the genetic level. All the scientist is saying is that predators killed all the lizards with less-than-optimal features, making the "average" limb length change -- until the next generation is born, we won't even know how many of the changes have been passed on genetically. For example, many of the long-leg lizards probably have some short-leg recessive genes. The species has "developed" nothing.
Yes, evolution happens faster in large-scale massacres occuring under unnatural circumstances, so the newborns will likely confirm their suspicions, but what's happened so far isn't even one complete cycle of Darwinian evolution. It's amusing to have a big-name paper run a story about evolution that doesn't even mention the reproduction half of the theory.
On a side note, a change in behavior is adaptation, not evolution, if it happens "within" a generation.
Second, no serious person -- and I mean no serious person -- disputes natural selection. If you kill all the dark-colored moths, future generations will have lighter tones. To not believe in natural selection, you'd have to not believe in genes. The debate, and I won't get into it here, is whether random genetic mutations can account for each and every development between single-cell organisms and human beings.
Finally, they use the study as evidence that evolution can happen incredibly quickly. Sure, but like I said, only when incredibly drastic things happen. This sort of situation, where tons of predators at once randomly descend on a previously tranquil species, doesn't happen in nature too much. That's why they had to set it up instead of observing such a scenario in the real world.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I just thought of an analogy that explains this study. Say I take 100 random men, caculate their average height to be 5'8", and line them up from tallest to shortest. I shoot the 20 tallest guys and calculate the new average to be 5'6". Without even waiting to see how tall the remaining 80 dudes' offspring are -- it would be higher than 5'6" because of recessive genes but not quite 5'8", most likely -- I declare to have proved Darwin right, and that, look, it happens pretty fast, too!
Of course, in terms of natural selection (well, not "natural") I have illustrated his theory. When organisms die based on their traits, beneficial traits get passed on. But this says absolutely nothing about genetic mutation and speciation, and it doesn't illustrate anything new about selection, either.
UPDATE II: I found some additional corroboration for my idea that genetic-level one-generation evolution tends to be small. People have made the same arguments about black slaves "evolving" on the Middle Passage. Greg Cochran once explained to Steve Sailer why that's unlikely -- like I said, you have to wait for future generations to see if evolutionary changes have been passed on:
"The reason it wouldn't have an important effect is that you don't get a lot of genetic change in one generation unless you try really hard. If they lost the bottom 15% of the people (in terms of salt retention) during the Middle Passage, a cutoff of about one std below average, the increase in salt retention would be about a tenth or so of a standard deviation, assuming a narrow-sense heritability of 50%. You'd never notice the difference."
From the story:
"In the first six months the brown arole, Anolis sagrie, developed longer legs so that it could outrun its predator, Leiocephalus carinatus.
"Over the second six-month period the arole changed its behaviour so that it spent far less time on the ground and longer on branches and plant stems."
First of all, they claim the changes happened "within a single generation." Darwinian evolution is a process of birth as well as death, so one generation is the very minimum it can take to occur, at least at the genetic level. All the scientist is saying is that predators killed all the lizards with less-than-optimal features, making the "average" limb length change -- until the next generation is born, we won't even know how many of the changes have been passed on genetically. For example, many of the long-leg lizards probably have some short-leg recessive genes. The species has "developed" nothing.
Yes, evolution happens faster in large-scale massacres occuring under unnatural circumstances, so the newborns will likely confirm their suspicions, but what's happened so far isn't even one complete cycle of Darwinian evolution. It's amusing to have a big-name paper run a story about evolution that doesn't even mention the reproduction half of the theory.
On a side note, a change in behavior is adaptation, not evolution, if it happens "within" a generation.
Second, no serious person -- and I mean no serious person -- disputes natural selection. If you kill all the dark-colored moths, future generations will have lighter tones. To not believe in natural selection, you'd have to not believe in genes. The debate, and I won't get into it here, is whether random genetic mutations can account for each and every development between single-cell organisms and human beings.
Finally, they use the study as evidence that evolution can happen incredibly quickly. Sure, but like I said, only when incredibly drastic things happen. This sort of situation, where tons of predators at once randomly descend on a previously tranquil species, doesn't happen in nature too much. That's why they had to set it up instead of observing such a scenario in the real world.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I just thought of an analogy that explains this study. Say I take 100 random men, caculate their average height to be 5'8", and line them up from tallest to shortest. I shoot the 20 tallest guys and calculate the new average to be 5'6". Without even waiting to see how tall the remaining 80 dudes' offspring are -- it would be higher than 5'6" because of recessive genes but not quite 5'8", most likely -- I declare to have proved Darwin right, and that, look, it happens pretty fast, too!
Of course, in terms of natural selection (well, not "natural") I have illustrated his theory. When organisms die based on their traits, beneficial traits get passed on. But this says absolutely nothing about genetic mutation and speciation, and it doesn't illustrate anything new about selection, either.
UPDATE II: I found some additional corroboration for my idea that genetic-level one-generation evolution tends to be small. People have made the same arguments about black slaves "evolving" on the Middle Passage. Greg Cochran once explained to Steve Sailer why that's unlikely -- like I said, you have to wait for future generations to see if evolutionary changes have been passed on:
"The reason it wouldn't have an important effect is that you don't get a lot of genetic change in one generation unless you try really hard. If they lost the bottom 15% of the people (in terms of salt retention) during the Middle Passage, a cutoff of about one std below average, the increase in salt retention would be about a tenth or so of a standard deviation, assuming a narrow-sense heritability of 50%. You'd never notice the difference."
Andrew Sullivan is good for something
It's not insightful commentary, but he found a great YouTube clip.
I'm not a huge Tori Amos fan, though I do own and love Little Earthquakes. I've long been curious to hear the '80s-pop album she released before that, Y Kant Tori Read. Sullivan has a clip here. Hilarious if you've heard her stripped-down '90s compositions with serious, morbid lyrics.
More info on the record here.
P.S. Anyone know the meaning of the term "little earthquakes"? There's also a book called that, so it must have meant something before Amos's debut.
I'm not a huge Tori Amos fan, though I do own and love Little Earthquakes. I've long been curious to hear the '80s-pop album she released before that, Y Kant Tori Read. Sullivan has a clip here. Hilarious if you've heard her stripped-down '90s compositions with serious, morbid lyrics.
More info on the record here.
P.S. Anyone know the meaning of the term "little earthquakes"? There's also a book called that, so it must have meant something before Amos's debut.
Kissinger: We should get Iraq's neighbors to help
There is a constant tension in international relations between criticizing a country's internal policies and asking for its cooperation in dealing with other nations. For example, do we rag on Russia for its impending authoritarianism, or do we ask for help on matters like North Korea? It's pretty tough to do both.
That's the tradeoff Kissinger doesn't seem to recognize in this article. He claims that, military victory now being impossible, we should call a conference with Iraq's neighbors to bring the situation under control.
I would argue this should be carefully weighed against the problems we have with Iran's nuclear weapons program. If we're relying on them to fix our mess in Iraq, we can't very well turn around and try to bully them into shutting down the program. Their only logical response would be, fine, we'll pull out of Iraq -- or even switch sides. It's an extra bargaining chip.
Hanging around a foreign policy magazine (with which Kissinger is affiliated) has let me listen to a lot of experts talk about diplomacy, and a recurring theme is that working with a country does not equal endorsing the government. True, but going into talks with a country is an admission you're dependent on their cooperation. Even one advocate of diplomacy put it this way: "From where I sit, it strengthens the case for the United States having a broad dialogue with Iran—not as a favor to Iran, not as a reward, but simply as a strategic recognition that Iran has the capacity to influence the future of the Middle East and American interests in the Middle East."
Such a recognition is a reward, I would add, if your interests become dependent on said influence. I'm not sure that's the message we want to send to Iran right now; we have to weigh that against any benefit they could give us in Iraq.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Apparently Kissinger recognized this kind of tradeoff in a New York Post op-ed:
"Diplomacy — especially with an adversary — can succeed only if it brings about a balance of interests. Failing that, it runs the risks of turning into an alibi for procrastination or a palliative to ease the process of defeat without, however, eliminating the consequences of defeat."
The article is not on the Web site, but John Derbyshire quoted it here.
That's the tradeoff Kissinger doesn't seem to recognize in this article. He claims that, military victory now being impossible, we should call a conference with Iraq's neighbors to bring the situation under control.
I would argue this should be carefully weighed against the problems we have with Iran's nuclear weapons program. If we're relying on them to fix our mess in Iraq, we can't very well turn around and try to bully them into shutting down the program. Their only logical response would be, fine, we'll pull out of Iraq -- or even switch sides. It's an extra bargaining chip.
Hanging around a foreign policy magazine (with which Kissinger is affiliated) has let me listen to a lot of experts talk about diplomacy, and a recurring theme is that working with a country does not equal endorsing the government. True, but going into talks with a country is an admission you're dependent on their cooperation. Even one advocate of diplomacy put it this way: "From where I sit, it strengthens the case for the United States having a broad dialogue with Iran—not as a favor to Iran, not as a reward, but simply as a strategic recognition that Iran has the capacity to influence the future of the Middle East and American interests in the Middle East."
Such a recognition is a reward, I would add, if your interests become dependent on said influence. I'm not sure that's the message we want to send to Iran right now; we have to weigh that against any benefit they could give us in Iraq.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: Apparently Kissinger recognized this kind of tradeoff in a New York Post op-ed:
"Diplomacy — especially with an adversary — can succeed only if it brings about a balance of interests. Failing that, it runs the risks of turning into an alibi for procrastination or a palliative to ease the process of defeat without, however, eliminating the consequences of defeat."
The article is not on the Web site, but John Derbyshire quoted it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
