I hate it when people make a big deal out of every anecdote that supports their opinions, but this Chicago shooting illustrates a number of the stastical trends in gun control.
For one, gun control doesn't work. Handguns are banned in Chicago, yet a madman was able to storm an office building -- past that office building's security (though from my experience, office security typically only requires signing in, and there's no indication there was a metal detector) -- with a revolver.
Two, gun-free zones, like all public places in Chicago, are really sitting duck zones. If people were allowed to carry concealed weapons, this man would have had a strong deterrent. But because he could be almost certain no one would have a gun, he went ahead. Even at this point, in a concealed carry state, someone in the office might have been able to stop him. Now three people are dead because the victims had to wait until police arrived with a sniper rifle.
These are more than principles illustrated by anecdotes; they're statistical trends. The work of John Lott has been incredibly important in this regard. He found that concealed carry reduces crime, and that multiple-victim shootings like this one tend to happen in gun-free zones. A lot of other research, including James Q. Wilson's dissent from a National Academy of Sciences report, backs him up.
Even if you take the other side -- like the National Academy of Sciences report itself, or the normally anti-gun CDC's report -- you're not left with much. The consensus has moved to the center, arguing there is no solid evidence that gun control does or does not work.
At the best, more lenient gun laws could have saved three lives in Chicago. At the worst, draconian violations of gun owners' rights did nothing to stop the incident.
Lott has a new book out that addresses gun control.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com/ and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com/.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Friday, December 08, 2006
My lame Liberaltarian weigh-in
As a conservative libertarian, I guess I'm obligated to weigh in on the whole "Liberaltarian" thesis, which holds that liberals and libertarians could form an alliance in the coming years.
I haven't read the original article, so I'm basically shooting from the hip here.
First, my conceptualization of the political spectrum. Broadly speaking, there are economic and social policies ("social" referring to drugs, abortion, etc., not "social justice," which is basically economic). Conservatives want the government to stay out of the economy -- no income redistribution or crippling business regulation. They tend to support government involvement in social issues. Liberals are the opposite, and libertarians want the government out of both.
The thing a lot of people miss is that there are more issues, and conservatives and liberals have tended to pick sides. Libertarians are divided.
Take crime. Liberals are soft and rehabilitative, conservatives more lock-em-up. Libertarians? Well, it depends. Most agree that victimless crimes shouldn't carry consequences, but the ideology offers nothing for how harsh a murderer should be treated.
Same for war, and even foreign policy generally. Libertarians do loosely tend to oppose military deployment -- war is government involvement -- but at what point should the military get involved, and how? Humanitarian crises, and the very existence of dictatorships, are very un-libertarian things, so should the U.S. military fix them? Is libertarianism abroad important?
What happens is that libertarians divide themselves into left and right varieties. The left ones emphasize the do-whatever-you-want aspect (even against private scorn, not just the government), the right more on keeping the state away from people's guns and money. The left also puts a greater weight on ACLU-style civil liberties.
A quick litmus test for libertarians: How offensive is the Patriot Act? If you could make the Supreme Court either (A) permanently kill most gun control or (B) permanently preserve Roe v. Wade, which would you pick? We know you think pot should be legal, but how much do you smoke? "Very," "(B)" and "a lot" makes you a left-libertarian.
There might be a left-libertarian alliance with liberals, but I doubt the right-libertarians would jump on board with income redistributionist, rabidly anti-war, soft-on-crime libs. And libertarians are a small enough group that any split in their ranks renders them irrelevant as a voting bloc.
My friend (and a paleocon) Michael Brendan Dougherty has a great analysis here.
UPDATE: Over at the corner, Ramesh Ponnuru seconds my economic-social theory:
"Those libertarians who put more emphasis on economic than social issues will probably vote most often for Republicans. Those who have the reverse priorities will probably vote most often for Democrats."
He doesn't, however, bring up that some issues don't fall into these categories, and that libertarians are more divided than conservatives or liberals on them.
Another good point:"The trouble for libertarians, whether their top issues are economic or social, is that both parties are acting as though their libertarian aspects are political liabilities. (Which may be because they are.) Liberalism's political strength seems to derive from its unlibertarian views. Again, it is surely true that a libertarianism that has given up on shrinking the federal government, as Brink has, can work with a liberalism that has become more market friendly. They would be able to work together because they would be the same thing: an '80s neo-liberalism on steroids. But that would require liberalism to reverse a course it has taken for good reasons."
Liberals are more, not less, committed to national health insurance than they were a dozen years ago; more, not less, committed to protectionism (whether or not it travels by that name); more, not less, eager to raise the minimum wage. One of the few issues where liberals have become more libertarian in recent years is on guns—and that's a play for the social Right more than it is for the bloc Brink has in mind."
I haven't read the original article, so I'm basically shooting from the hip here.
First, my conceptualization of the political spectrum. Broadly speaking, there are economic and social policies ("social" referring to drugs, abortion, etc., not "social justice," which is basically economic). Conservatives want the government to stay out of the economy -- no income redistribution or crippling business regulation. They tend to support government involvement in social issues. Liberals are the opposite, and libertarians want the government out of both.
The thing a lot of people miss is that there are more issues, and conservatives and liberals have tended to pick sides. Libertarians are divided.
Take crime. Liberals are soft and rehabilitative, conservatives more lock-em-up. Libertarians? Well, it depends. Most agree that victimless crimes shouldn't carry consequences, but the ideology offers nothing for how harsh a murderer should be treated.
Same for war, and even foreign policy generally. Libertarians do loosely tend to oppose military deployment -- war is government involvement -- but at what point should the military get involved, and how? Humanitarian crises, and the very existence of dictatorships, are very un-libertarian things, so should the U.S. military fix them? Is libertarianism abroad important?
What happens is that libertarians divide themselves into left and right varieties. The left ones emphasize the do-whatever-you-want aspect (even against private scorn, not just the government), the right more on keeping the state away from people's guns and money. The left also puts a greater weight on ACLU-style civil liberties.
A quick litmus test for libertarians: How offensive is the Patriot Act? If you could make the Supreme Court either (A) permanently kill most gun control or (B) permanently preserve Roe v. Wade, which would you pick? We know you think pot should be legal, but how much do you smoke? "Very," "(B)" and "a lot" makes you a left-libertarian.
There might be a left-libertarian alliance with liberals, but I doubt the right-libertarians would jump on board with income redistributionist, rabidly anti-war, soft-on-crime libs. And libertarians are a small enough group that any split in their ranks renders them irrelevant as a voting bloc.
My friend (and a paleocon) Michael Brendan Dougherty has a great analysis here.
UPDATE: Over at the corner, Ramesh Ponnuru seconds my economic-social theory:
"Those libertarians who put more emphasis on economic than social issues will probably vote most often for Republicans. Those who have the reverse priorities will probably vote most often for Democrats."
He doesn't, however, bring up that some issues don't fall into these categories, and that libertarians are more divided than conservatives or liberals on them.
Another good point:"The trouble for libertarians, whether their top issues are economic or social, is that both parties are acting as though their libertarian aspects are political liabilities. (Which may be because they are.) Liberalism's political strength seems to derive from its unlibertarian views. Again, it is surely true that a libertarianism that has given up on shrinking the federal government, as Brink has, can work with a liberalism that has become more market friendly. They would be able to work together because they would be the same thing: an '80s neo-liberalism on steroids. But that would require liberalism to reverse a course it has taken for good reasons."
Liberals are more, not less, committed to national health insurance than they were a dozen years ago; more, not less, committed to protectionism (whether or not it travels by that name); more, not less, eager to raise the minimum wage. One of the few issues where liberals have become more libertarian in recent years is on guns—and that's a play for the social Right more than it is for the bloc Brink has in mind."
Bush backs away from Iraq Study Group recommendations
Odd political move on Bush's part: The president has distanced himself from some of the Iraq Study group's recommendations, particularly pulling back combat brigades and engaging Iran and Syria.
From the story:
"But Mr. Bush, in his first extended comments on the study, pushed back. With Mr. Blair by his side, the president said he needed to be 'flexible and realistic' in considering troop movements, and made clear he would impose preconditions for talking to Iran and Syria that neither side is willing to accept. He was especially animated in describing what he said would be the consequences of a failure to stabilize Iraq, saying that future generations of Americans would be put at risk.
"The back-and-forth came as the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council moved ahead on their own reevaluations of policy in Iraq. The president expects to receive reports from each over the next week to 10 days, and plans to speak to the American people sometime before the end of the year about what both he and the Baker-Hamilton commission are calling 'the way forward' in Iraq."
Now, he might be right on both fronts. But the thing is, Bush is looking obstinate by emphasizing his contentions. There are many points of agreement between the administration and the study group.
Jonah Goldberg pointed out on The Corner:
"The draw down of troops, the imbedding, the training, the pressure on the Iraqis etc etc: all of these things are either already being tried, have been tried or are about to be tried. The report undercuts the Murtha crowd by delegitimizing the quick bug-out (AKA redeployment) option and makes staying in Iraq at least until '08 the 'conventional' or 'mainstream' point of view.
"For Bush, isn't this the only part of the ISG report that matters? And when it comes to the actual situation in Iraq, the report basically confirms established policies of the White House and the Pentagon. So, in effect, doesn't the heralded bipartisan commission in effect give Bush the leeway to — ahem — stay the course?"
By playing this up, Bush could look like he's willing to take advice, while not changing his policy preferences at all. Instead, he's just fanning the flames of partisan conflict.
I also wrote about the study group here, arguing for caution on talking to Iran and Syria.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
From the story:
"But Mr. Bush, in his first extended comments on the study, pushed back. With Mr. Blair by his side, the president said he needed to be 'flexible and realistic' in considering troop movements, and made clear he would impose preconditions for talking to Iran and Syria that neither side is willing to accept. He was especially animated in describing what he said would be the consequences of a failure to stabilize Iraq, saying that future generations of Americans would be put at risk.
"The back-and-forth came as the Pentagon, State Department and National Security Council moved ahead on their own reevaluations of policy in Iraq. The president expects to receive reports from each over the next week to 10 days, and plans to speak to the American people sometime before the end of the year about what both he and the Baker-Hamilton commission are calling 'the way forward' in Iraq."
Now, he might be right on both fronts. But the thing is, Bush is looking obstinate by emphasizing his contentions. There are many points of agreement between the administration and the study group.
Jonah Goldberg pointed out on The Corner:
"The draw down of troops, the imbedding, the training, the pressure on the Iraqis etc etc: all of these things are either already being tried, have been tried or are about to be tried. The report undercuts the Murtha crowd by delegitimizing the quick bug-out (AKA redeployment) option and makes staying in Iraq at least until '08 the 'conventional' or 'mainstream' point of view.
"For Bush, isn't this the only part of the ISG report that matters? And when it comes to the actual situation in Iraq, the report basically confirms established policies of the White House and the Pentagon. So, in effect, doesn't the heralded bipartisan commission in effect give Bush the leeway to — ahem — stay the course?"
By playing this up, Bush could look like he's willing to take advice, while not changing his policy preferences at all. Instead, he's just fanning the flames of partisan conflict.
I also wrote about the study group here, arguing for caution on talking to Iran and Syria.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Challenge to DC handgun ban still in court system
According to the AP, a DC handgun ban is still winding its way through the courts. At issue is whether the Second Amendment applies to "a well regulated militia" or to "the people."
I'd like to refer people to an extensive Reason magazine article I wrote a year and a half ago that mentioned the ban. I said of the Second Amendment:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down a gun control measure on Second Amendment grounds. In the last Second Amendment case it heard, United States v. Miller (1939), the Court [declined to strike down] a ban on sawed-off shotguns...because "it is not within judicial notice that [such weapons are] any part of the ordinary military equipment or that [their] use could contribute to the common defense." This ruling certainly suggested that some categories of weapons are legitimate targets of legislation...
"Stephen Halbrook [takes an individual rights view of the Second Amendment]...Halbrook is co-author of Supreme Court Gun Cases, which argues that the high court has repeatedly acknowledged, in cases not directly involving guns, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. In the 1990 case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, for example, Chief Justice William Rehnquist's majority opinion concluded that the phrase 'the people'--which, Rehnquist noted, appears in the Second Amendment as well as the First, Fourth, Ninth, and 10th amendments--is 'a term of art' that 'refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community.' Halbrook is also the author of That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, which makes the case that the Framers understood the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to arms--a view that has attracted growing support among legal scholars in the last two decades."
Hat tip: John Lott, who makes the good point that, in the interest of good strategy, gun rights advocates should have waited for another Supreme Court appointment.
Also, John Ashcroft's report on the Second Amendment was superb.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Wiccan symbol issued for military gravestone
About three weeks ago I blogged about Wiccan soldiers' widows suing to get pentacles on their deceased husbands' gravestones. I argued that, since the military already allows 38 different symbols, there is no harm in adding another one.
Another point I made, however, was that suing might have been overkill. The military was in the process of revamping its procedures, and nothing really indicated that anyone was opposed to adding a Wiccan symbol. It ended up being the Nevada Office of Veterans Services, not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, that issued the plaque. It was still a year in the making.
From the new story:
"VA officials have said they are rewriting rules for approving emblems, but the process requires a public comment period.
"About 1,800 active-duty service members identify themselves as Wiccans, according to 2005 Defense Department statistics, and Wicca is one of the fastest-growing faiths in the country. Its adherents worship the Earth and believe they must give to the community. Some consider themselves 'white' or good witches, pagans or neo-pagans."
It's really a victory for individualism, and for honoring the dead in a respectful manner.
Hat tip: Wonkette. They also conclusively prove Satan runs the government! (They're of course joking, but I should point out the difference between the Wiccan pentagram and the so-called Satanic one. The star in the Satanic one is inverted. Read about this here.)
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Another point I made, however, was that suing might have been overkill. The military was in the process of revamping its procedures, and nothing really indicated that anyone was opposed to adding a Wiccan symbol. It ended up being the Nevada Office of Veterans Services, not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, that issued the plaque. It was still a year in the making.
From the new story:
"VA officials have said they are rewriting rules for approving emblems, but the process requires a public comment period.
"About 1,800 active-duty service members identify themselves as Wiccans, according to 2005 Defense Department statistics, and Wicca is one of the fastest-growing faiths in the country. Its adherents worship the Earth and believe they must give to the community. Some consider themselves 'white' or good witches, pagans or neo-pagans."
It's really a victory for individualism, and for honoring the dead in a respectful manner.
Hat tip: Wonkette. They also conclusively prove Satan runs the government! (They're of course joking, but I should point out the difference between the Wiccan pentagram and the so-called Satanic one. The star in the Satanic one is inverted. Read about this here.)
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Iraq Study Group suggests working with Iran, Syria
A lot has already been said about the Iraq Study Group's recommendation to work with Iran and Syria. I'm not quite decided, but I wanted to take a quick step back from the debate.
The question is often posed as, do we talk to people we don't like? People argue that, even though they're horrible, we can come to agreements with dictators.
I think this assumption is a poor one. (A) Seeking their help and offering concessions gives up the option of criticizing their behavior and (B) by and large, coming to agreements with people you can't trust isn't smart.
(A) is acceptable in terms of domestic policy if you're willing to make concessions to a bad state -- their internal problems are theirs to handle, whether or not our aid (and decision to look the other way) emboldens them. But it does become a problem when internal problems become external ones, say, a nuclear Iran we had help us in Iraq. You can't demand they disarm and ask them for help; it has to be one or the other.
(B) is the more troubling. Heck, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. How could we value its leader's words? We'd give aid and weaken our bargaining position, and they might not even follow through on helping Iraq.
What the study group depends on is the notion that no country thinks a divided Iraq is good. They list the surrounding countries and say why. The logic is sound -- if an agreement is always in your best interest, you'll stick to it out of selfishness if not honor.
Yet by the panel's own admission:
"Iraq's neighbors are doing little to help it, and some are undercutting its stability."
I ask: If it's in everyone's best interest to have stability in Iraq, why does the U.S. have to actively organize even the slightest effort in that direction (and in some cases, away from the opposite one)? Does the panel think the countries are acting in self-destructive ways, but they'll change if the U.S. "works" with them? Seems a little unlikely.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The question is often posed as, do we talk to people we don't like? People argue that, even though they're horrible, we can come to agreements with dictators.
I think this assumption is a poor one. (A) Seeking their help and offering concessions gives up the option of criticizing their behavior and (B) by and large, coming to agreements with people you can't trust isn't smart.
(A) is acceptable in terms of domestic policy if you're willing to make concessions to a bad state -- their internal problems are theirs to handle, whether or not our aid (and decision to look the other way) emboldens them. But it does become a problem when internal problems become external ones, say, a nuclear Iran we had help us in Iraq. You can't demand they disarm and ask them for help; it has to be one or the other.
(B) is the more troubling. Heck, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. How could we value its leader's words? We'd give aid and weaken our bargaining position, and they might not even follow through on helping Iraq.
What the study group depends on is the notion that no country thinks a divided Iraq is good. They list the surrounding countries and say why. The logic is sound -- if an agreement is always in your best interest, you'll stick to it out of selfishness if not honor.
Yet by the panel's own admission:
"Iraq's neighbors are doing little to help it, and some are undercutting its stability."
I ask: If it's in everyone's best interest to have stability in Iraq, why does the U.S. have to actively organize even the slightest effort in that direction (and in some cases, away from the opposite one)? Does the panel think the countries are acting in self-destructive ways, but they'll change if the U.S. "works" with them? Seems a little unlikely.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Let's just hope they don't poison my sushi
Man, Army of Anyone fans are a sensitive lot. One fan posted my review of the band's debut -- which wasn't all that negative -- on a message board, prompting another to change my tagline to:
"Robert VerBruggen (http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com) is an apprentice editor at The National Interest in Washington, DC and an antiMusic contributor AS WELL AS BEING A COMPLETE [F---]ING WANKER."
They're not all buffoons, though. One wrote me:
"I saw AOA at the Metro in Chicago last night and it was one of the best shows I have ever seen, trumping every single STP show that I have been to. The energy from the band was unbelievable even though the crowd was completely lame. They ripped through their set playing songs from the new album as well as STP and Filter songs, and they sounded perfect."
My response to this is that I was reviewing the CD, not the capabilities of the band, but at least that's a good point. The record isn't very good, but it might be worthwhile to check out a show to hear stuff from the old bands' better years.
"Robert VerBruggen (http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com) is an apprentice editor at The National Interest in Washington, DC and an antiMusic contributor AS WELL AS BEING A COMPLETE [F---]ING WANKER."
They're not all buffoons, though. One wrote me:
"I saw AOA at the Metro in Chicago last night and it was one of the best shows I have ever seen, trumping every single STP show that I have been to. The energy from the band was unbelievable even though the crowd was completely lame. They ripped through their set playing songs from the new album as well as STP and Filter songs, and they sounded perfect."
My response to this is that I was reviewing the CD, not the capabilities of the band, but at least that's a good point. The record isn't very good, but it might be worthwhile to check out a show to hear stuff from the old bands' better years.
WaPo columnist: GOP is too Southern
My Blogger News Network colleague Warner Todd Huston has some great comments on a recent Washington Post op-ed. He rightly points out the writer is South-o-phobic and bigoted, defining "Dixie" political attitudes as "knee-jerk militaristic, anti-scientific, dogmatically religious, and culturally, sexually and racially phobic."
Even if Southerners are disproportionately those things, painting with a broad brush won't win you any converts.
What I'd like to say, though, is that Meyerson is dead wrong in his analysis. He claims that the GOP lost non-Southern support because it embraced Southern policies.
His evidence seems pretty damning at first:
"The Democrats won control of five state legislatures, all outside the South, and took more than 300 state legislative seats away from Republicans, 93 percent of them outside the South."
The thing is, though, that virtually every analyst has seen the election as an Iraq war referendum against conservatives. Where is such a backlash most likely to gain traction? In the places that are not very conservative. Even Lincoln Chafee lost, for crying out loud, and he might not even stay a Republican.
And what region is most conservative? Oh yeah, the South. So even if the population shifted left a bit, it wouldn't be enough to get Republicans out of power there.
Republicans kept the South but lost elsewhere because the situation ousted moderate Republicans in moderate and liberal states, due to the Iraq war. The South does not contain moderate or liberal states, it contains conservative ones that won't go Democrat when the wind changes directions. It's not because the Republican Party pursued a "Southern" strategy.
On a side note, for an analysis of whether the Harold Ford ad was "racist," see my American Spectator op-ed.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Even if Southerners are disproportionately those things, painting with a broad brush won't win you any converts.
What I'd like to say, though, is that Meyerson is dead wrong in his analysis. He claims that the GOP lost non-Southern support because it embraced Southern policies.
His evidence seems pretty damning at first:
"The Democrats won control of five state legislatures, all outside the South, and took more than 300 state legislative seats away from Republicans, 93 percent of them outside the South."
The thing is, though, that virtually every analyst has seen the election as an Iraq war referendum against conservatives. Where is such a backlash most likely to gain traction? In the places that are not very conservative. Even Lincoln Chafee lost, for crying out loud, and he might not even stay a Republican.
And what region is most conservative? Oh yeah, the South. So even if the population shifted left a bit, it wouldn't be enough to get Republicans out of power there.
Republicans kept the South but lost elsewhere because the situation ousted moderate Republicans in moderate and liberal states, due to the Iraq war. The South does not contain moderate or liberal states, it contains conservative ones that won't go Democrat when the wind changes directions. It's not because the Republican Party pursued a "Southern" strategy.
On a side note, for an analysis of whether the Harold Ford ad was "racist," see my American Spectator op-ed.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Introducing therationale.com!
Hello all,
Thanks to those of you who've been visiting this site regularly (and those of you arriving via search engine for the first time). Thanks especially to those of you who've linked to your favorite posts -- Slate, CBSNews, PajamasMedia, Jeremy Lott, John Lott, etc. It's been great to build Robert's Rationale into something that gets anywhere from 50 to 250 readers a day.
Due largely to your support, I was able to get an Orble blogging scholarship, and they bought me the domain http://www.therationale.com. They own the domain and the material I post on it.
It's their policy that I can use my Orble material on other sites so long as said practice doesn't affect their bottom line. Considering therationale.com is just getting started, I think the publicity from BNN and this site will do more good than harm for my new project.
So, until they e-mail me back saying I can't do it, all The Rationale's posts will also show up here and vice versa -- I'll let you know if that changes. But www.therationale.com is easier to remember and type in than robertsrationale.blogspot.com, so I encourage you to check it out. I'll be trying to make the site more visually appealing in the coming weeks.
Thanks,
Robert
Thanks to those of you who've been visiting this site regularly (and those of you arriving via search engine for the first time). Thanks especially to those of you who've linked to your favorite posts -- Slate, CBSNews, PajamasMedia, Jeremy Lott, John Lott, etc. It's been great to build Robert's Rationale into something that gets anywhere from 50 to 250 readers a day.
Due largely to your support, I was able to get an Orble blogging scholarship, and they bought me the domain http://www.therationale.com. They own the domain and the material I post on it.
It's their policy that I can use my Orble material on other sites so long as said practice doesn't affect their bottom line. Considering therationale.com is just getting started, I think the publicity from BNN and this site will do more good than harm for my new project.
So, until they e-mail me back saying I can't do it, all The Rationale's posts will also show up here and vice versa -- I'll let you know if that changes. But www.therationale.com is easier to remember and type in than robertsrationale.blogspot.com, so I encourage you to check it out. I'll be trying to make the site more visually appealing in the coming weeks.
Thanks,
Robert
Some Mayans worried about Apocalypto
Here is a great story about Mel Gibson's upcoming Apocalypto. It makes the mistake of focusing on some Mayans' -- who haven't seen the film -- wariness of the movie, but it has some excellent analysis.
Regarding the wariness, I'd like to point out that while Gibson certainly has his problems, and tends to broadcast them when he's drunk, he directs sober and thinks through his movies. Braveheart, for example, portrays Scots as fighters against British oppression. So I suspect this movie shows Mayans in a sympathetic light.
Some are worried about the violence, but:
"Until the 1950s, academics often depicted the ancient Mayas as an idyllic, peaceful culture devoted to astronomy and mathematics. Evidence has since emerged that, even at their height, the Mayas fought bloody and sometimes apocalyptic wars among themselves, lending somewhat more credence to Gibson's approach."
One thing I've been interested in for awhile, also, is the attempt to revive the Mayan language. Gibson is encouraging people to "speak it with pride," and of course the film is recorded in the tongue.
Now, to be clear: If someone wants to, on their own time, learn another language, I don't think it's harmful to anyone in any way. As long as people retain the ability to communicate with the vast majority of their country, there is no point in discouraging their ancestors' culture. (Political scientist Samuel Huntington disagrees, saying that maintaining one's language is a sign of unwillingness to adjust to a new society, particularly in Hispanic immigrants to the U.S.)
But what I wonder is (A) how successful such a move can be, given how small the surviving Mayan population is (there are fewer than a million left, though there is a radio station in 90 percent Mayan) and (B) whether that effort would be better spent preserving a different aspect of the culture. If non-Mayans can embrace genuine Mayan culture -- not the "Mayan" resorts the article speaks of -- I think that would be a worthwhile accomplishment.
Some interesting demographic facts from the story:
"Still, the percentage of Maya speakers in Yucatan state fell from 37 percent in 2000 to 33.9 percent by 2005. Paradoxically, for a state that advertises the glories of the Mayan culture for tourists, it is having a hard time keeping the present-day Maya there; many are migrating to the United States."
I also blogged about Apocalypto here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and Robert's Rationale.
Regarding the wariness, I'd like to point out that while Gibson certainly has his problems, and tends to broadcast them when he's drunk, he directs sober and thinks through his movies. Braveheart, for example, portrays Scots as fighters against British oppression. So I suspect this movie shows Mayans in a sympathetic light.
Some are worried about the violence, but:
"Until the 1950s, academics often depicted the ancient Mayas as an idyllic, peaceful culture devoted to astronomy and mathematics. Evidence has since emerged that, even at their height, the Mayas fought bloody and sometimes apocalyptic wars among themselves, lending somewhat more credence to Gibson's approach."
One thing I've been interested in for awhile, also, is the attempt to revive the Mayan language. Gibson is encouraging people to "speak it with pride," and of course the film is recorded in the tongue.
Now, to be clear: If someone wants to, on their own time, learn another language, I don't think it's harmful to anyone in any way. As long as people retain the ability to communicate with the vast majority of their country, there is no point in discouraging their ancestors' culture. (Political scientist Samuel Huntington disagrees, saying that maintaining one's language is a sign of unwillingness to adjust to a new society, particularly in Hispanic immigrants to the U.S.)
But what I wonder is (A) how successful such a move can be, given how small the surviving Mayan population is (there are fewer than a million left, though there is a radio station in 90 percent Mayan) and (B) whether that effort would be better spent preserving a different aspect of the culture. If non-Mayans can embrace genuine Mayan culture -- not the "Mayan" resorts the article speaks of -- I think that would be a worthwhile accomplishment.
Some interesting demographic facts from the story:
"Still, the percentage of Maya speakers in Yucatan state fell from 37 percent in 2000 to 33.9 percent by 2005. Paradoxically, for a state that advertises the glories of the Mayan culture for tourists, it is having a hard time keeping the present-day Maya there; many are migrating to the United States."
I also blogged about Apocalypto here.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and Robert's Rationale.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Mother Jones dishonest on tax cuts
I love Mother Jones, but this post has a statistic that's The Nation-style misleading:
"Bush’s tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those earning $1 million are saved $42,700."
Well, take a look at the Treasury's distribution table. Unfortunately it doesn't break the incomes down closer than $0-$30,000, but those folks paid an average of -$416 in income tax. That's right, due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child credit, they got more money back than they paid.
Since MJ used the word "saved," I would assume that those between $20,000 and $30,000 actually do pay taxes on average. But the best evidence indicates it's certainly not very much after the credits, so there's no reason a tax cut would save them much. They don't pay taxes.
UPDATE: Nailed down some more numbers. People between $20,000 and $30,000 pay an average of around $3,000 in income tax. But they get $1,000 back for every child younger than 17, and up to $4,536 in Earned Income Tax Credit breaks (that number for two children). After that, on average, there isn't much tax left to cut.
"Bush’s tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those earning $1 million are saved $42,700."
Well, take a look at the Treasury's distribution table. Unfortunately it doesn't break the incomes down closer than $0-$30,000, but those folks paid an average of -$416 in income tax. That's right, due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the child credit, they got more money back than they paid.
Since MJ used the word "saved," I would assume that those between $20,000 and $30,000 actually do pay taxes on average. But the best evidence indicates it's certainly not very much after the credits, so there's no reason a tax cut would save them much. They don't pay taxes.
UPDATE: Nailed down some more numbers. People between $20,000 and $30,000 pay an average of around $3,000 in income tax. But they get $1,000 back for every child younger than 17, and up to $4,536 in Earned Income Tax Credit breaks (that number for two children). After that, on average, there isn't much tax left to cut.
New details in PlayStation3 shooting
The facts are slow in emerging, and I'm still agnostic on the PlayStation3 shooting (an alleged PS3 thief was killed after police had to break into his house), but here's a scintillating bit of information:
"Authorities have not yet said what exactly prompted the shooting, but according to the arrest report when police were trying to serve the warrant on Strickland another suspect in the robbery, 20-year-old Ryan Mills, showed up at Strickland's house.
"The report doesn't go into detail, but we know officers believed Mills was armed and dangerous. There were even pictures of him posing with an assault rifle on his internet webpage.
"Mills's surprise arrival may have contributed to the chaos that left Peyton Strickland dead."
The cops are, not surprisingly, being careful in what they release to the media:
"All across the board it has been like pulling teeth to get information in this case, the kind of information that the law enforcement routinely discloses to us in other cases."
Aside from the dumb, loaded wording, my issue here is whether Freedom of Information laws require faster disclosure. It hasn't been long since the shooting, and most laws allow a certain amount of time for governmental bodies to digest and prepare documents for public consumption. In a severe case like this, I don't think it's unreasonable for an agency to fact-check and investigate the details a little closer than it normally would.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
"Authorities have not yet said what exactly prompted the shooting, but according to the arrest report when police were trying to serve the warrant on Strickland another suspect in the robbery, 20-year-old Ryan Mills, showed up at Strickland's house.
"The report doesn't go into detail, but we know officers believed Mills was armed and dangerous. There were even pictures of him posing with an assault rifle on his internet webpage.
"Mills's surprise arrival may have contributed to the chaos that left Peyton Strickland dead."
The cops are, not surprisingly, being careful in what they release to the media:
"All across the board it has been like pulling teeth to get information in this case, the kind of information that the law enforcement routinely discloses to us in other cases."
Aside from the dumb, loaded wording, my issue here is whether Freedom of Information laws require faster disclosure. It hasn't been long since the shooting, and most laws allow a certain amount of time for governmental bodies to digest and prepare documents for public consumption. In a severe case like this, I don't think it's unreasonable for an agency to fact-check and investigate the details a little closer than it normally would.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Heather Mac Donald: NYPD shooting not 'murder'
Heather Mac Donald doesn't add any new details to the NYPD shooting, but she has some excellent background and analysis.
Some data for the "cops have tons of power, they misuse it all the time and you can't prosecute them" crowd:
“The instances of an [NYPD] officer shooting an innocent, unarmed victim are so unusual that they can be counted on one’s fingers. Last year, of the nine suspects fatally shot by the police, two had just fired at a police officer, three were getting ready to fire, two had tried to stab an officer, and two were physically attacking an officer. Far more frequent are the times when the NYPD refrains from using force though clearly authorized to do so. So far this year, officers have been fired upon four times, without returning fire. In 2005, there were five such incidents. And the NYPD apprehended 3,428 armed felons this year, 15 percent more than last year. Each arrest of a gun-toting thug involves the potential for the use of deadly force, yet is almost always carried out peacefully.
"It may turn out that the officers failed to follow departmental procedures during the incident (though the NYPD’s rule against firing at cars that are trying to run an officer over seems highly unrealistic). If so, the city will hold them accountable. The criminal justice system may even find them criminally liable."
The one thing I don't think she argues well is the last two sentences' notion, restated this way later:
“The NYPD and the criminal justice system investigate every police shooting with profound seriousness; they will not rest until the facts are uncovered and justice done.”
That's not to say I disbelieve her; recently I argued the notion that "the law makes it difficult to prosecute cops" is misguided.
(I think aforementioned statistics give further evidence of my argument -- if police shootings are this rare, it's logical to think that the overwhelming majority of the ones that do happen are justified. So the lack of convicted cops indicates innocence, not escape from justice.)
Still, it is hard to convict a cop for practical reasons, not the least of which is that governments tend to trust the officers they hire and have trouble investigating themselves. I wish she'd given some facts and statistics to support this, rather than just asserting NY's PD and criminal justice system are capable of vigorous self-critique.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Some data for the "cops have tons of power, they misuse it all the time and you can't prosecute them" crowd:
“The instances of an [NYPD] officer shooting an innocent, unarmed victim are so unusual that they can be counted on one’s fingers. Last year, of the nine suspects fatally shot by the police, two had just fired at a police officer, three were getting ready to fire, two had tried to stab an officer, and two were physically attacking an officer. Far more frequent are the times when the NYPD refrains from using force though clearly authorized to do so. So far this year, officers have been fired upon four times, without returning fire. In 2005, there were five such incidents. And the NYPD apprehended 3,428 armed felons this year, 15 percent more than last year. Each arrest of a gun-toting thug involves the potential for the use of deadly force, yet is almost always carried out peacefully.
"The Department has dramatically driven down the rate of all police shootings—justified and not—over the decades (in 1973, there were 1.82 fatal police shootings per 1,000 officers; in 2005, there were 0.25 such shootings per 1,000 officers, bringing the absolute number of police shootings down from 54 in 1973 to nine in 2005). The NYPD’s per capita rate of shootings is lower than [that of] many big city departments.
..."It may turn out that the officers failed to follow departmental procedures during the incident (though the NYPD’s rule against firing at cars that are trying to run an officer over seems highly unrealistic). If so, the city will hold them accountable. The criminal justice system may even find them criminally liable."
The one thing I don't think she argues well is the last two sentences' notion, restated this way later:
“The NYPD and the criminal justice system investigate every police shooting with profound seriousness; they will not rest until the facts are uncovered and justice done.”
That's not to say I disbelieve her; recently I argued the notion that "the law makes it difficult to prosecute cops" is misguided.
(I think aforementioned statistics give further evidence of my argument -- if police shootings are this rare, it's logical to think that the overwhelming majority of the ones that do happen are justified. So the lack of convicted cops indicates innocence, not escape from justice.)
Still, it is hard to convict a cop for practical reasons, not the least of which is that governments tend to trust the officers they hire and have trouble investigating themselves. I wish she'd given some facts and statistics to support this, rather than just asserting NY's PD and criminal justice system are capable of vigorous self-critique.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
MySpace to kick out sex offenders
In the past I've been very critical of MySpace, for two reasons. (A) The site's stated policy is to allow anyone 14 and older to create a page with personal information and (B) in the past, sex offenders have used the site to find victims. (Disclosure: I am a site member.)
This story is encouraging, but it won't solve the problem. MySpace is working to exclude sex offenders from joining with technology.
Here's how it works:
"MySpace is teaming up with Sentinel Tech Holding to build and deploy within 30 days a database that will contain the names and physical descriptions of convicted sex offenders in the United States. An automated system will search for matches between the database and MySpace user profiles. Employees then will delete any profiles that match."
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, they can make it so no sex offender can get around the technology. (Even though perverts could use fake names and fake pictures.)
So assuming that against all evidence, the fact still remains that a bunch of 14-year-olds will have information on MySpace, and you don't have to be a member to access their sites. In some cases perps are believed to have "researched" teens on the site without necessarily contacting the future victims.
Also, from the story:
This story is encouraging, but it won't solve the problem. MySpace is working to exclude sex offenders from joining with technology.
Here's how it works:
"MySpace is teaming up with Sentinel Tech Holding to build and deploy within 30 days a database that will contain the names and physical descriptions of convicted sex offenders in the United States. An automated system will search for matches between the database and MySpace user profiles. Employees then will delete any profiles that match."
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, they can make it so no sex offender can get around the technology. (Even though perverts could use fake names and fake pictures.)
So assuming that against all evidence, the fact still remains that a bunch of 14-year-olds will have information on MySpace, and you don't have to be a member to access their sites. In some cases perps are believed to have "researched" teens on the site without necessarily contacting the future victims.
Also, from the story:
"The News Corp. site, however, won't be using Sentinel's technology to verify the ages and identities of users to ensure they're not adults posing as teens -- a change urged by many lawmakers and law-enforcement officials.
"Cardillo said his service would be ineffective for such a purpose given the site's large teen population. Children don't have public records the same way adults do, he said, so the technology can't rule out whether an adult is posing as a teen online."
So let's be honest about what this will do. It will leave up teenagers' personal pages, and continue to allow pedophiles to pose as fellow teens. It will just knock out those perverts stupid enough to use their own names and photos in the process.
I'd rather make things difficult for some perverts than none, so it's a step in the right direction. But it doesn't mean MySpace is managing its site with sound policies.
New piece up at The American Spectator
My book review of Unprotected is up at The American Spectator.
Main point:
Main point:
"The work has moments of stunning brilliance, though the author strays from her areas of expertise and sometimes writes with overexuberance.
"Chapter I is the book's crown jewel, with Anonymous walking the path of hot coals known as promiscuous sex. She's not concerned with STDs or morality yet, though -- it turns out sexual activity has emotional consequences particularly pronounced in women."
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Malcolm Gladwell: Reality is racist
I have to join Steve Sailer in piling on Malcolm Gladwell, because the latter's definition of racism is obnoxious and internally inconsistent.
Take this bit of idiocy:
Take this bit of idiocy:
"To call someone a [n----r] is not as a bad as arguing that black people have lower intelligence than whites... I think it's worse for someone to say that Jews are money-grubbers than it is to make a joke about how Orthodox Jews have large families. The first statement is groundless, and the second is at least statistically defensible."
Earth to Malcolm Gladwell: Low black IQ is statistically defensible! Every IQ test ever devised has shown a significant gap between whites and blacks, even tests containing no cultural information whites would have an advantage on -- e.g., asking subjects to recite a list of numbers backward from memory. You can debate why blacks have lower intelligence than whites (environment, culture, genetics), but there is no serious debate whether they do.
In fact, to argue that black people do not "have lower intelligence than whites" is to say that social inequality -- along with the terrible schools blacks in this country suffer -- does not affect intelligence. If blacks, who disproportionately come from disadvantaged circumstances, end up just as smart as whites, what is there to correct?
And "money-grubber" is a term steeped in ignorant anti-middleman minority sentiment, but it is a fact that Jews on average have higher incomes than other Americans. More due to higher IQs (and middleman minority culture) than to greed, but even that's racist under Gladwell's definition -- racist by calling all other ethnicities, including my own, of "lower intelligence."
The central problem is with defining racism as a belief in certain facts, facts which, as new information comes out, may actually prove true. Reality cannot be racist.
Rather, properly understood racism is an attitude, a value judgment of a certain group as inferior -- individuals in that group are worth less as people, simply for being in that group. It's a decision not to consider people as individuals, but rather to judge them by group norms and stereotypes, when better information is available. The terms "n----r" and "money-grubber" reflect these values; an honest look at racial tendencies does not.
Morris: President Rodham, not Clinton
Dick Morris, a former Bill Clinton adviser who resigned amid allegations of a relationship with a prostitute and then wrote the anti-Hillary Rewriting History, has claimed that Hillary Clinton, after being elected, will asked to be called Hillary Rodham, her maiden name.
He seems pretty certain:
"I'll bet you that if she wins, that's what she has people call her."
I'm incredibly skeptical of this. For one, Morris has an immense interest in trash-talking the Clintons after writing books criticizing them. He doesn't have the rational, maybe-I'm-wrong tone people ought to have when they make a prediction:
"It's one of these Hillary lies...When she learned that Bill had been with Monica [Lewinsky] 'cause of the stain on the dress, she had to pretend that she didn't know a year earlier when he told her, so she could defend having called it a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Now, I'm certainly no Hillary fan, and it's well established she's a feminist. But she would lose an incredible amount of political cache if she used the Clinton name to get elected, then dumped it afterward. At that point she'd want a second term badly enough to calm her furthest-left notions, especially purely symbolic ones that do nothing to drive the U.S. toward socialism.
Right now it seems more likely to me that Morris is using this -- an accusation that makes a little bit of sense on its face -- to get back at the Clintons. Especially since he gives no indication of how he knows this well enough to outright predict it.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
He seems pretty certain:
"I'll bet you that if she wins, that's what she has people call her."
I'm incredibly skeptical of this. For one, Morris has an immense interest in trash-talking the Clintons after writing books criticizing them. He doesn't have the rational, maybe-I'm-wrong tone people ought to have when they make a prediction:
"It's one of these Hillary lies...When she learned that Bill had been with Monica [Lewinsky] 'cause of the stain on the dress, she had to pretend that she didn't know a year earlier when he told her, so she could defend having called it a vast right-wing conspiracy."
Now, I'm certainly no Hillary fan, and it's well established she's a feminist. But she would lose an incredible amount of political cache if she used the Clinton name to get elected, then dumped it afterward. At that point she'd want a second term badly enough to calm her furthest-left notions, especially purely symbolic ones that do nothing to drive the U.S. toward socialism.
Right now it seems more likely to me that Morris is using this -- an accusation that makes a little bit of sense on its face -- to get back at the Clintons. Especially since he gives no indication of how he knows this well enough to outright predict it.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But I have a sore throat
I just discovered (via Hit & Run) that Prohibition ended 73 years ago today. Despite my rather nasty cold, I will have to tip back a Miller High Life in celebration tonight.
Speaking of drinking with a cold, a friend of mine (who shall remain anonymous) suggested I gurgle scotch to kill the bacteria in my throat yesterday. It really hurts, but he maintains it warded off sickness for him once...except he used vodka. I decided to keep to my off-brand pain pills. Did I do the right thing? Any doctors out there?
Speaking of drinking with a cold, a friend of mine (who shall remain anonymous) suggested I gurgle scotch to kill the bacteria in my throat yesterday. It really hurts, but he maintains it warded off sickness for him once...except he used vodka. I decided to keep to my off-brand pain pills. Did I do the right thing? Any doctors out there?
New York bans trans fats
Apologies to readers looking for my typical supergenius cutting-edge analysis (that was a joke), but I have a pretty basic point about New York banning trans fats in restaurants: It's stoopid. One more reason I hope my girlfriend gets living there out of her system quickly.
There is a tradeoff when it comes to food, one we make every day, between taste and health. Many of us make the wrong ones (including me with a bag of Chex Mix last night...ugggh). But it is our choice to make, and if we want healthy food we can seek out a restaurant that serves it.
According to Michael "I know what's good for you better than you do" Bloomberg, the city's mayor:
"Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers — I love those things, too...But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that."
By law, apparently, even if restaurants don't want to and customers like the food less.
Not to mention the business aspect:
"Fast-food restaurants and other major chains were particularly interested in the board's decision because a trans-fat ban wouldn't just involve substituting one ingredient for another. In addition to overhauling recipes, the change disrupts supply operations, not to mention selling the new taste to customers."
The most annoying thing is that healthier food that tastes the same sells, so most of the major chains are already researching legitimate substitutes through taste tests (read the article for an extensive list). If they'd just hold their horses, health nannies would get what they want. They can't stand market solutions, though, so we end up with this kind of pointless intervention.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
There is a tradeoff when it comes to food, one we make every day, between taste and health. Many of us make the wrong ones (including me with a bag of Chex Mix last night...ugggh). But it is our choice to make, and if we want healthy food we can seek out a restaurant that serves it.
According to Michael "I know what's good for you better than you do" Bloomberg, the city's mayor:
"Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers — I love those things, too...But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that."
By law, apparently, even if restaurants don't want to and customers like the food less.
Not to mention the business aspect:
"Fast-food restaurants and other major chains were particularly interested in the board's decision because a trans-fat ban wouldn't just involve substituting one ingredient for another. In addition to overhauling recipes, the change disrupts supply operations, not to mention selling the new taste to customers."
The most annoying thing is that healthier food that tastes the same sells, so most of the major chains are already researching legitimate substitutes through taste tests (read the article for an extensive list). If they'd just hold their horses, health nannies would get what they want. They can't stand market solutions, though, so we end up with this kind of pointless intervention.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Paltrow: I didn't say that
This story interests me, even though it's celebrity news. Gwyneth Paltrow is claiming she never said British people are more civilized and intelligent than Americans. (I analyzed that comment on its merits here.)
She says she never gave an interview to the paper that published the comment, though she did give a speech in Spanish. From the article:
"This is what I said. I said that Europe is a much older culture and there's a difference. I always say in America, people live to work and in Europe, people work to live. There are positives in both...Obviously I need to go back to seventh-grade Spanish!"
It could very well be she's telling the truth. But it's always struck me, in the age of the Internet, how stars think they can get away with certain comments and behavior in other countries. How could these things ever find their way back home?
Take, for example, the fact that Americans see movie commercials as "selling out" for serious actors. So those actors do commercials in Japan and blow gaskets when Web sites post them for the whole world to see.
Of course, until a biligual person who actually heard Paltrow's speech comes forward, we won't know for sure whether it really was a misquote/bad Spanish -- or just another act of overseas overzealousness.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
She says she never gave an interview to the paper that published the comment, though she did give a speech in Spanish. From the article:
"This is what I said. I said that Europe is a much older culture and there's a difference. I always say in America, people live to work and in Europe, people work to live. There are positives in both...Obviously I need to go back to seventh-grade Spanish!"
It could very well be she's telling the truth. But it's always struck me, in the age of the Internet, how stars think they can get away with certain comments and behavior in other countries. How could these things ever find their way back home?
Take, for example, the fact that Americans see movie commercials as "selling out" for serious actors. So those actors do commercials in Japan and blow gaskets when Web sites post them for the whole world to see.
Of course, until a biligual person who actually heard Paltrow's speech comes forward, we won't know for sure whether it really was a misquote/bad Spanish -- or just another act of overseas overzealousness.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
New piece up at antiMusic
My review of Marion Raven's CD is up at antiMusic. The joke accompanying the rating -- that the 2 stars I gave it are "for the boobs" -- was meant for the editor's eyes only, but it's kind of amusing he saw fit to print it. Now I can never run for public office!
Main point:
"When a debut EP has six songs, and not one of them hits the mark, it's not hard to predict the artist going nowhere. Such is the case with Marion Raven's Heads Will Roll.
The reason is "subjunctive mood," which holds that you use the normally-plural-accompanying "were" to describe singular nouns in past-tense conditional statements (follow that?). "If" makes it conditional, "it" is singular and "weren't" is past tense -- lacking any of the three, the normal "nouns and verbs should agree, for Christ's sake" rule applies.
God, I hate English grammar. I spent four years studying journalism and I'm still learning nonsensical exceptions like this. "If it wasn't so derivative" reads just fine.
Main point:
"When a debut EP has six songs, and not one of them hits the mark, it's not hard to predict the artist going nowhere. Such is the case with Marion Raven's Heads Will Roll.
"Her voice is nothing special, she can't seem to define her style and she can't write music without hiring professionals to help."
And the joke comes from:
"If you look hard at the cover you can make out a bare breast or two, and Raven spends most of the included 'Heads Will Roll' video on her back. That's good, because there are no other reasons to buy this record."
UDPATE: I've been looking for an excuse to rant about this, actually: In the review I say "if it wasn't so derivative" which, as I've learned since, is incorrect. It should read "if it weren't so derivative."
Which is stupid. "It" is singular, and it agrees with "was," not "were." I would say "if it isn't so derivative," not "if it aren't so derivative." If I removed the "if," it would be "it wasn't so derivative," not "it weren't so derivative."The reason is "subjunctive mood," which holds that you use the normally-plural-accompanying "were" to describe singular nouns in past-tense conditional statements (follow that?). "If" makes it conditional, "it" is singular and "weren't" is past tense -- lacking any of the three, the normal "nouns and verbs should agree, for Christ's sake" rule applies.
God, I hate English grammar. I spent four years studying journalism and I'm still learning nonsensical exceptions like this. "If it wasn't so derivative" reads just fine.
Lawyers to re-file Borat lawsuit
Update on the Romanians' lawsuit against Borat -- this story makes the lawyers look pretty stupid, but I have to wonder why the movie company is being allowed to maintain secrecy.
According to the story:
"A judge told lawyers who filed a $30 million (€22.5 million) lawsuit accusing the makers of the hit movie 'Borat' of misleading residents of a remote Romanian village that they must make specific allegations in their lawsuit if they want it to have a chance at success."
Yeah, when it comes to lawsuits, specific allegations tend to help.
But also from the story:
"The lawsuit alleges that 20th Century Fox Film Corp. and others involved in the film exploited the plaintiffs and other residents of Glod, telling them the film was a documentary about extreme poverty in Romania that would fairly depict their lives, living conditions, occupations, community, heritage and beliefs."
Sounds pretty specific to me, only it lacks the documents the villagers signed. But:
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
According to the story:
"A judge told lawyers who filed a $30 million (€22.5 million) lawsuit accusing the makers of the hit movie 'Borat' of misleading residents of a remote Romanian village that they must make specific allegations in their lawsuit if they want it to have a chance at success."
Yeah, when it comes to lawsuits, specific allegations tend to help.
But also from the story:
"The lawsuit alleges that 20th Century Fox Film Corp. and others involved in the film exploited the plaintiffs and other residents of Glod, telling them the film was a documentary about extreme poverty in Romania that would fairly depict their lives, living conditions, occupations, community, heritage and beliefs."
Sounds pretty specific to me, only it lacks the documents the villagers signed. But:
"Slade R. Metcalf, a lawyer for the movie company, said the lawsuit did not make a specific enough claim on behalf of the villagers to be considered by the court.
"He said the company should not have to turn over documents related to the villagers so lawyers for them could go on a fishing expedition to see if any of the papers were improperly prepared."
This is the view the judge agreed with, saying she wouldn't force the papers' turnover until more specific allegations of misleading statements were made.So let's get this straight: The problem with the lawsuit is that it's not specific enough, but the specific details of the case are protected to prevent a "fishing expedition," in other words, "getting too specific."
On a side note, I wonder how much of the allegation hinges on verbal statements that weren't consistent with the papers, and also how many of those verbal statements the lawsuit brought up.
I'd like to read some of the documents, but the court's page doesn't seem to have them (most courts only have rulings, not all noteworthy filings, so that's not a complaint).Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
WSJ: Government Internet censorship easy
This story is pretty fascinating, but I'd argue it's weighed down in so many qualifiers it's practically wrong. The thesis is that Iran's Internet censorship is showing how easy it is to control the Web.
But:
"The blockage isn't airtight, as more-savvy Internet users in the country have access to software and other measures that allow them to get around government restrictions, Internet experts say. It is uncertain how long the restrictions will last."
The other thing is, it seems they're only able to "target" specific sites, not categories of sites. So the major sites, like Amazon, imdb.com, etc., go down fast -- but on the Internet, second-tier and even lower sources are just seconds away, and word of good unblocked sites can spread through e-mail.
Another great development:
"Tools to get around restrictions are spreading quickly. The University of Toronto, for example, late last month announced a program called psiphon, which works on the principle of social networking. It enables a person in an uncensored country who downloads the software to turn his computer into an access point for users in censored countries. People in censored countries can use the computer as a proxy to access the broader Internet without detection by authorities."
China, of course, is another example of heavy-handed Internet control. (Despite Google censoring itself, even it has a tough road ahead there, both with government and its competitors.)
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
But:
"The blockage isn't airtight, as more-savvy Internet users in the country have access to software and other measures that allow them to get around government restrictions, Internet experts say. It is uncertain how long the restrictions will last."
The other thing is, it seems they're only able to "target" specific sites, not categories of sites. So the major sites, like Amazon, imdb.com, etc., go down fast -- but on the Internet, second-tier and even lower sources are just seconds away, and word of good unblocked sites can spread through e-mail.
Another great development:
"Tools to get around restrictions are spreading quickly. The University of Toronto, for example, late last month announced a program called psiphon, which works on the principle of social networking. It enables a person in an uncensored country who downloads the software to turn his computer into an access point for users in censored countries. People in censored countries can use the computer as a proxy to access the broader Internet without detection by authorities."
China, of course, is another example of heavy-handed Internet control. (Despite Google censoring itself, even it has a tough road ahead there, both with government and its competitors.)
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Monday, December 04, 2006
College student shot in PlayStation3 theft-related arrest
Police shootings are really getting press coverage lately. First the New York case made national news; now a college student and alleged Playstation 3 thief was shot in the house he shared with roommates.
The original allegation:
"The sheriff said the robbery victim had waited three days in line to buy two Playstation 3 units for $641 each at a Wal-Mart. He was unloading the units at his campus apartment when one man beat him to the ground while another took the PlayStations, Causey said."
When the police came, Strickland refused or at least hesitated to open the door, so the cops had to break in. Whatever happened then, Strickland and his German Shephard were dead before it was over.
I'll say the same thing I said about the NYPD case: There are very few details available right now, so I have no opinion. The facts currently out could mean the shooting was entirely justified, or that something was handled very, very badly. If the police were wrong, they should be held accountable. They are currently on administrative leave.
A note of caution -- the fact the boy turned out to be unarmed means absolutely nothing in terms of justification. The police were operating on the information available to them, and if the suspect went for his pocket or behaved threateningly, they could have reasonably believed he was armed and acted accordingly within proper procedure.
The family's statement:
"Our son, Peyton, was a kind and gentle boy. He was generous, thoughtful and compassionate.He was deeply loved by us and adored by his two sisters and his extended family. Only 18, he had tremendous potential and was just coming into his own.
"We want to extend our appreciation to everyone who has reached out to us with expressions of love and support. We may well want to speak more about the circumstances of his tragic death, but we plan to devote the next few days to celebrating his life."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The original allegation:
"The sheriff said the robbery victim had waited three days in line to buy two Playstation 3 units for $641 each at a Wal-Mart. He was unloading the units at his campus apartment when one man beat him to the ground while another took the PlayStations, Causey said."
When the police came, Strickland refused or at least hesitated to open the door, so the cops had to break in. Whatever happened then, Strickland and his German Shephard were dead before it was over.
I'll say the same thing I said about the NYPD case: There are very few details available right now, so I have no opinion. The facts currently out could mean the shooting was entirely justified, or that something was handled very, very badly. If the police were wrong, they should be held accountable. They are currently on administrative leave.
A note of caution -- the fact the boy turned out to be unarmed means absolutely nothing in terms of justification. The police were operating on the information available to them, and if the suspect went for his pocket or behaved threateningly, they could have reasonably believed he was armed and acted accordingly within proper procedure.
The family's statement:
"Our son, Peyton, was a kind and gentle boy. He was generous, thoughtful and compassionate.He was deeply loved by us and adored by his two sisters and his extended family. Only 18, he had tremendous potential and was just coming into his own.
"We want to extend our appreciation to everyone who has reached out to us with expressions of love and support. We may well want to speak more about the circumstances of his tragic death, but we plan to devote the next few days to celebrating his life."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Oakland gun buyback nets 20 handguns
This story further illustrates how absurd it is to buy back guns with Guns N' Roses tickets. The Oakland buyback netted a whopping 36 firearms -- 12 were rifles, and seven were from the same guy. They even took high-power pellet guns. Only 20 were handguns.
Blabbermouth story here.
Something like 85 percent of gun crimes and two-thirds of total homicides (gun and non-gun) are committed with handguns, and I would think a lot of the other problems are shotgun-related, so taking rifles off the street isn't going to do much good. Pellet crimes, I would guess, are rare and almost always non-fatal.
The cops also collected some "junk handguns," or cheap guns poor folks can afford (they're admittedly disproportionately used in crime), but that's probably because the prize they were offering was worth more than the gun. If you give a criminal a ticket he sells for $100, in return for a cruddy old gun worth $75, and he buys another one...well, you gave him $25 for ammo.
By an organizer's own admission:
"We gave away a prize average of $100 per gun...Some were worth far more, some were worth far less."
Finally, when you take into account that people who are going to commit crimes with their guns won't turn them in (unless they get more than the guns are worth), isn't there a better use for $3,600? Given, (at least) some of the buyback prizes were donated, but this is an exercise in futility that wasted police resources.
The government is melting the guns to make manhole covers.
(How's this for an idea: If you genuinely just want to get rid of your guns, give them to me instead of going all the way to Oakland -- that's right, they give prizes for non-residents' firearms.)
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Blabbermouth story here.
Something like 85 percent of gun crimes and two-thirds of total homicides (gun and non-gun) are committed with handguns, and I would think a lot of the other problems are shotgun-related, so taking rifles off the street isn't going to do much good. Pellet crimes, I would guess, are rare and almost always non-fatal.
The cops also collected some "junk handguns," or cheap guns poor folks can afford (they're admittedly disproportionately used in crime), but that's probably because the prize they were offering was worth more than the gun. If you give a criminal a ticket he sells for $100, in return for a cruddy old gun worth $75, and he buys another one...well, you gave him $25 for ammo.
By an organizer's own admission:
"We gave away a prize average of $100 per gun...Some were worth far more, some were worth far less."
Finally, when you take into account that people who are going to commit crimes with their guns won't turn them in (unless they get more than the guns are worth), isn't there a better use for $3,600? Given, (at least) some of the buyback prizes were donated, but this is an exercise in futility that wasted police resources.
The government is melting the guns to make manhole covers.
(How's this for an idea: If you genuinely just want to get rid of your guns, give them to me instead of going all the way to Oakland -- that's right, they give prizes for non-residents' firearms.)
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Spencer's Gifts sells porn-themed ornaments
Anyone who finds this story surprising (::coughDrudgecough::) has never been inside a Spencer's store before. Apparently the chain is selling porn-themed ornaments.
The thing is, Spencer's sells porn-themed everything and doesn't place age restrictions on entering the shop or buying things. Plenty of products have been controversial. One can easily make the argument Spencer's stores shouldn't be in family-targeted malls, and that it should make a better effort to keep kids out, but you can't act like this particular case is offensive and out of character.
According to Wikipedia:
"Spencer Gifts specializes in catering to young adult (16-25) audiences, comical clothing, dirtbag clothing, band merchandise, posters, teen to mature toys and other items. Some of its specialties involve items relating to alcohol, and party games. It also specializes in selling sex-enticing or enhancing items, and special furniture articles, such as soft seats, lamps and others. It has often been described as a close and convenient collection of vices."
Front-page news they'd even think about sexualizing Christmas!
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The thing is, Spencer's sells porn-themed everything and doesn't place age restrictions on entering the shop or buying things. Plenty of products have been controversial. One can easily make the argument Spencer's stores shouldn't be in family-targeted malls, and that it should make a better effort to keep kids out, but you can't act like this particular case is offensive and out of character.
According to Wikipedia:
"Spencer Gifts specializes in catering to young adult (16-25) audiences, comical clothing, dirtbag clothing, band merchandise, posters, teen to mature toys and other items. Some of its specialties involve items relating to alcohol, and party games. It also specializes in selling sex-enticing or enhancing items, and special furniture articles, such as soft seats, lamps and others. It has often been described as a close and convenient collection of vices."
Front-page news they'd even think about sexualizing Christmas!
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Still more NYPD shooting details
More details are coming out on the NYPD shooting of a soon-to-be-wed man.
First of all, it's amazing to me how some reports include the fact that the man's car hit an officer and then a police vehicle, but others -- especially ones focusing on the protests -- leave that out to make it look like the police have no evidence on their side. Same with ignoring the fact the shooting was right outside a strip club (ahem, "nightclub") after a bachelor's party while never failing to talk about his impending, more wholesome-sounding marriage.
Also, here's an explanation from NRO's John Derbyshire (based on a story first run in the New York Post and mainly ignored in the MSM -- though the AP has a somewhat similar account here) that fits all the solid available evidence:
"From things [one plainclothes cop] had heard and seen in the club, he believed a gun crime — perhaps a drive-by shooting — was about to be committed...He challenged the stationary car containing the three suspects, putting a foot up on the hood, flashing his badge, and pointing his gun at the driver, shouting: 'Police! Turn off your car! Let me see your hands!' The driver — who was the one shot dead — responded by trying to run down the officer, then backing into a following, unmarked, police van. The officer fired; one bullet went right through the car, out the rear window, towards the officers behind the car. Assuming they were being fired on from inside the car, those officers returned fire."
Not sure how shooting into a moving vehicle works in terms of police procedure (particularly when officers are on the other side), but this certainly implies the man driving the car was no victim.
On a side note, there's a lot of talk about prosecuting the cops. There's no dispute that such a prosecution would be difficult, but I disagree with some on why.
A friend of mine recently suggested the law is stacked in favor of police, using as evidence that few cops are convicted or even professionally sanctioned in shootings. I'd argue much of that is due to the cops simply having followed the proper procedures. That is, of course, the simplest explanation.
I'd also say the law is fair and consistent with the laws applied to everyone else in America (not as sure about department sanctions, as I'd guess they differ from place to place). According to a story about a different shooting:
"[To convict, prosecutors must] convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer had no justifiable fear that his life was in danger during the few seconds in which he decided to fire his weapon."
Well, according to the law police (and everyone else) can kill if there's a mortal threat. Also, to convict someone criminally you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he violated the law. So there's no special protection here.
(The exception is SWAT teams, which have a pretty wide latitude in shooting suspects during raids. Even when the officers don't ID themselves as such, disoriented, innocent homeowners who shoot at them can end up prosecuted.)
I think there are two reasons that, in practice as opposed to by law, it's difficult to convict cops. For one, these situations are incredibly murky, and if the guy on the other side of the cop's gun is dead, the police officer's side is the only one told with clarity. Even if someone is unarmed, it's easy (as it should be) to buy the logic he was acting like he had a gun -- e.g., the cop says a guy reached into his pocket. You don't and shouldn't have to wait for someone to open fire before protecting yourself, making reasonable doubt easy to achieve.
Two, jury bias makes it difficult to convict an officer. Most people are taught to trust police, and if a story sounds plausible they're unlikely to convict.
So no matter how this turns out, I have strong doubts we'll see any officers convicted.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
First of all, it's amazing to me how some reports include the fact that the man's car hit an officer and then a police vehicle, but others -- especially ones focusing on the protests -- leave that out to make it look like the police have no evidence on their side. Same with ignoring the fact the shooting was right outside a strip club (ahem, "nightclub") after a bachelor's party while never failing to talk about his impending, more wholesome-sounding marriage.
Also, here's an explanation from NRO's John Derbyshire (based on a story first run in the New York Post and mainly ignored in the MSM -- though the AP has a somewhat similar account here) that fits all the solid available evidence:
"From things [one plainclothes cop] had heard and seen in the club, he believed a gun crime — perhaps a drive-by shooting — was about to be committed...He challenged the stationary car containing the three suspects, putting a foot up on the hood, flashing his badge, and pointing his gun at the driver, shouting: 'Police! Turn off your car! Let me see your hands!' The driver — who was the one shot dead — responded by trying to run down the officer, then backing into a following, unmarked, police van. The officer fired; one bullet went right through the car, out the rear window, towards the officers behind the car. Assuming they were being fired on from inside the car, those officers returned fire."
Not sure how shooting into a moving vehicle works in terms of police procedure (particularly when officers are on the other side), but this certainly implies the man driving the car was no victim.
On a side note, there's a lot of talk about prosecuting the cops. There's no dispute that such a prosecution would be difficult, but I disagree with some on why.
A friend of mine recently suggested the law is stacked in favor of police, using as evidence that few cops are convicted or even professionally sanctioned in shootings. I'd argue much of that is due to the cops simply having followed the proper procedures. That is, of course, the simplest explanation.
I'd also say the law is fair and consistent with the laws applied to everyone else in America (not as sure about department sanctions, as I'd guess they differ from place to place). According to a story about a different shooting:
"[To convict, prosecutors must] convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer had no justifiable fear that his life was in danger during the few seconds in which he decided to fire his weapon."
Well, according to the law police (and everyone else) can kill if there's a mortal threat. Also, to convict someone criminally you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he violated the law. So there's no special protection here.
(The exception is SWAT teams, which have a pretty wide latitude in shooting suspects during raids. Even when the officers don't ID themselves as such, disoriented, innocent homeowners who shoot at them can end up prosecuted.)
I think there are two reasons that, in practice as opposed to by law, it's difficult to convict cops. For one, these situations are incredibly murky, and if the guy on the other side of the cop's gun is dead, the police officer's side is the only one told with clarity. Even if someone is unarmed, it's easy (as it should be) to buy the logic he was acting like he had a gun -- e.g., the cop says a guy reached into his pocket. You don't and shouldn't have to wait for someone to open fire before protecting yourself, making reasonable doubt easy to achieve.
Two, jury bias makes it difficult to convict an officer. Most people are taught to trust police, and if a story sounds plausible they're unlikely to convict.
So no matter how this turns out, I have strong doubts we'll see any officers convicted.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Paltrow: I am awesome. Like the Europeans.
Drudge has been making a pretty big deal about this comment from Gwyneth Paltrow:
"I like living here because I don't fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilized than the Americans."
Let's take an objective look at the assertion, starting with "civilized." It's debatable.
It's true that Britain has a lower murder rate than the U.S. does (though violent crime as a whole is actually higher), but that's largely because Britain hasn't dealt with the racial issues America has -- more than half of U.S. murder arrests are of minorities. The UK is 92 percent white. I doubt "less diverse" is what Paltrow meant by "more civilized," but at least she wasn't completely wrong.
Heck, even if you take the Hollywood liberal cause of the Iraq war, Britain took the same "uncivilized" stance the U.S. did. I would suspect that, for whatever reasons, it's simply easier for Paltrow to isolate herself from the commonfolk in Britain, though I wonder how that can be hard here. Has she ever met anyone unlike herself in either country to make a comparison?
On intelligence, she is pretty much just wrong. In IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen estimated many countries' national IQs. The UK had 100 (by definition, as the estimates were normed to the UK scores) and the US had 98, a negligible difference of about one-eighth of a standard deviation. Again, racial differences between the countries, not any European cultural superiority, explain the difference: Several of the States's large ethnic groups test below the average.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
"I like living here because I don't fit into the bad side of American psychology. The British are much more intelligent and civilized than the Americans."
Let's take an objective look at the assertion, starting with "civilized." It's debatable.
It's true that Britain has a lower murder rate than the U.S. does (though violent crime as a whole is actually higher), but that's largely because Britain hasn't dealt with the racial issues America has -- more than half of U.S. murder arrests are of minorities. The UK is 92 percent white. I doubt "less diverse" is what Paltrow meant by "more civilized," but at least she wasn't completely wrong.
Heck, even if you take the Hollywood liberal cause of the Iraq war, Britain took the same "uncivilized" stance the U.S. did. I would suspect that, for whatever reasons, it's simply easier for Paltrow to isolate herself from the commonfolk in Britain, though I wonder how that can be hard here. Has she ever met anyone unlike herself in either country to make a comparison?
On intelligence, she is pretty much just wrong. In IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen estimated many countries' national IQs. The UK had 100 (by definition, as the estimates were normed to the UK scores) and the US had 98, a negligible difference of about one-eighth of a standard deviation. Again, racial differences between the countries, not any European cultural superiority, explain the difference: Several of the States's large ethnic groups test below the average.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Rumsfeld war plan memo leaked
In light of the latest leaked Donald Rumsfeld memo -- which suggests some strategies for Iraq and shows no indication of an impending resignation -- there's been a lot of talk on where to go from here. The Baker Commission will soon release some ideas, and The National Interest (my employer) recently published a collection of recommendations.
First of all, I think the quiet assumption that things can't get worse is dangerous. Some of the drastic moves people have come up with, like partition or simply pulling out of the most violent areas, might work, but the results are incredibly unpredictable. So Rumsfeld is right in saying any changes should be temporary and reversible if things go wrong.
The interesting thing is that he calls for a kind-of phased withdrawal with a timetable:
"Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.
The question then becomes, are Iraqi forces failing now due to laziness ("the U.S. guys can take care of it") or inability? Rumsfeld's idea could work in the first case, but not the second.
Sometimes the kid concentrates and pedals better when you take your hands off the cycle seat; other times he just crashes.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
First of all, I think the quiet assumption that things can't get worse is dangerous. Some of the drastic moves people have come up with, like partition or simply pulling out of the most violent areas, might work, but the results are incredibly unpredictable. So Rumsfeld is right in saying any changes should be temporary and reversible if things go wrong.
The interesting thing is that he calls for a kind-of phased withdrawal with a timetable:
"Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.
"Retain high-end … capability … to target al-Qaida, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for Iraqi forces."
...
"Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and coalition forces (start 'taking our hand off the cycle seat') so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country."
This goes against calls for more troops, of course, but it has the advantage of getting us out. It's one of the big questions if we're going to change direction in Iraq: Are we going to make more effort to win, or are we going to try to leave in a way that doesn't look like losing? Rumsfeld walks a middle ground, characterizing withdrawals as a behavior modification tactic for the Iraqis.The question then becomes, are Iraqi forces failing now due to laziness ("the U.S. guys can take care of it") or inability? Rumsfeld's idea could work in the first case, but not the second.
Sometimes the kid concentrates and pedals better when you take your hands off the cycle seat; other times he just crashes.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
