Alphecca has extensive coverage of a new study on gun control. The site critiques the study on several grounds, most interestingly pointing out it was funded by an anti-fun (oops, gun, Freudian slip) organization.
From the Harvard press release:
"Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher."
My reaction to all this is, so what? It's a basic correlation-causation problem. There's no way to tell whether the guns cause the crime, or whether people buy guns to protect themselves from the crime.
But:
"The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership."
If people were buying guns in response to crime, you'd expect gun ownership rates to be associated with crime regardless of whether the crime was gun-related.
Here's the most important, thing, though. As Alpecca cites from this story:
"After dividing the states into four groups based on how many households had guns, the researchers found the states in the highest quartile of firearm ownership had overall homicide rates 60 per cent higher than states in the lowest quartile."
Anyone with basic knowledge of statistics (I have little beyond that) would ask: Why divide the states into four groups? There's no reason a competent mathematician with access to Excel (or even Google Spreadsheets) couldn't run all the controls, regressions and correlations on all the individual pieces of data. That's what John Lott did for his study on gun control -- at the county level, even, not the state one. Incredibly powerful computers have made shortcuts like this unnecessary.
Alphecca alleges that the study also lumps suicides and murders together, a grave flaw if true, but the available information on the study always says "homicide," not "firearm death."
I also love this conclusion from the abstract:
"Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States."
Well, duh. The DOJ has documented that, in 1991, "among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft, and 28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence [who presumably stole the guns themselves]."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
UPDATE: Pro-gun scholar John Lott weighs in extensively here with lots of data.
Lott's main contention:
"The bottom line is that their results comes from two factors: the exclusion of DC and the use of other crime rates to explain the murder rate. Changing these two factors causes their result to go from positive and significant to negative and significant."
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Police officer draws gun on student
**IMPORTANT UPDATE ADDED**
This clip is the latest in a series of police conduct controversies. It's hard to tell just what's going on through much of it, but viewers see an officer wrestle a student into a wall, draw a gun, aim the firearm at the student briefly and then put the weapon back in the holster.
After more wrestling the scene cuts to another room, where a door opens and the officer comes tumbling in, back to the floor. The student attacks the officer, who draws his gun again. The student backs out the door, and the clip ends.
I'm no expert on police procedure (though I've researched and weighed in on it for other blog posts; in the interests of disclosure, my father is a retired Wisconsin State Trooper). It's important here to compare the officer's behavior to other incidents and established procedures, rather than to act appalled by any sign of violence.
For starters, it seems that drawing weapons is common. From the Examiner:
"Every day Cincinnati police officers might draw their guns dozens of times.
"They'll tell you it depends upon their shift, how busy the day is and whether they work, for example, in Mount Lookout or Avondale."
(Dozens of times a day seems a bit much, but you get the point.)
But from the same report, the rule is:
"An officer can 'display' a firearm when he perceives a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others."
There may well be a backstory viewers don't see (such is often the case with "brutality" videos), but from the looks of things the first draw was unnecessary. It happens with the suspect firmly held at arm's length -- indeed, that's the only time the officer seems to control the situation. The kid's back is to the officer. Instead of handcuffing the student, the officer drew his gun, put it back, and kept on wrestling. From there, things apparently spiraled out of control.
That said, the second draw seems completely justified. The officer was in a compromised position, literally flat on his back, with an aggressive suspect physically assaulting him.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
UPDATE: A very perceptive commenter has noticed that, according to the two different cameras' timestamps, the second clip actually happened first. As the commenter said, "That changes the dynamic significantly." Indeed, it now appears that after being attacked, the officer wrestled the offender outside, pushed the student to the wall, drew his gun, and then led the suspect off (though said suspect is still resisting a bit). The lack of handcuffs -- and the gun drawn while the student is facing away -- still bothers me, but this is an important observation.
I've often pointed out how misleading police videos are, but that's usually because the camera clicks on after the offender punches the cop, and just before the cop punches the offender. This one appears edited to make the cop look bad, presuming the timestamps, just seconds apart, are accurate on the two cameras.
This clip is the latest in a series of police conduct controversies. It's hard to tell just what's going on through much of it, but viewers see an officer wrestle a student into a wall, draw a gun, aim the firearm at the student briefly and then put the weapon back in the holster.
After more wrestling the scene cuts to another room, where a door opens and the officer comes tumbling in, back to the floor. The student attacks the officer, who draws his gun again. The student backs out the door, and the clip ends.
I'm no expert on police procedure (though I've researched and weighed in on it for other blog posts; in the interests of disclosure, my father is a retired Wisconsin State Trooper). It's important here to compare the officer's behavior to other incidents and established procedures, rather than to act appalled by any sign of violence.
For starters, it seems that drawing weapons is common. From the Examiner:
"Every day Cincinnati police officers might draw their guns dozens of times.
"They'll tell you it depends upon their shift, how busy the day is and whether they work, for example, in Mount Lookout or Avondale."
(Dozens of times a day seems a bit much, but you get the point.)
But from the same report, the rule is:
"An officer can 'display' a firearm when he perceives a threat of loss of life or serious physical harm to himself or others."
There may well be a backstory viewers don't see (such is often the case with "brutality" videos), but from the looks of things the first draw was unnecessary. It happens with the suspect firmly held at arm's length -- indeed, that's the only time the officer seems to control the situation. The kid's back is to the officer. Instead of handcuffing the student, the officer drew his gun, put it back, and kept on wrestling. From there, things apparently spiraled out of control.
That said, the second draw seems completely justified. The officer was in a compromised position, literally flat on his back, with an aggressive suspect physically assaulting him.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
UPDATE: A very perceptive commenter has noticed that, according to the two different cameras' timestamps, the second clip actually happened first. As the commenter said, "That changes the dynamic significantly." Indeed, it now appears that after being attacked, the officer wrestled the offender outside, pushed the student to the wall, drew his gun, and then led the suspect off (though said suspect is still resisting a bit). The lack of handcuffs -- and the gun drawn while the student is facing away -- still bothers me, but this is an important observation.
I've often pointed out how misleading police videos are, but that's usually because the camera clicks on after the offender punches the cop, and just before the cop punches the offender. This one appears edited to make the cop look bad, presuming the timestamps, just seconds apart, are accurate on the two cameras.
Judge lets Lott-Levitt dispute proceed
Steven Levitt's Freakonomics got a lot of attention, largely for its discussion of the abortion-cut-crime hypothesis (debunked here and here). Fewer people know, however, about gun scholar John Lott's lawsuit against Levitt.
In the book Levitt claimed that other researchers disproved Lott's study -- finding that concealed carry reduces crime -- by failing to replicate it. Lott sued, pointing out that every time a researcher repeated Lott's methods on Lott's data, the results were the same.
Lott also argued Levitt's e-mail to another economist, stating that Lott basically bought an issue of an academic journal to run research he agreed with, was libelous.
The judge ruled against the first allegation. The word "replicate" does have a specific meaning in science: repeating an experiment precisely. However, the book was in large part marketed to the general public, which would take the sentence to mean that other scientists, using different methods and statistics, have come to different conclusions.
In defamation law, there's a practice of "innocent reading," that is, if a statement can be taken two ways and one of them is not libelous, the non-libelous one should prevail. What's interesting here is that there are two audiences; one could read it two ways, but the other could only read it in the libelous way. The judge ruled that the general public's reading was the one that counted, even though many academics also read the book (it is, after all, an application of econometric methods).
One thing I would like to point out is that, even if Levitt's statement is read innocently, it's misleading though not libelous. On his Web site Lott has an extensive collection of research by various authors, published in various journals, that supports his thesis. There are those who disagree, saying that concealed carry does not affect or even increases crime, but Levitt implies there's a broad consensus that Lott is wrong, and that's simply not the case. Even James Q. Wilson, writing in a dissent from a National Academies of Science report (the report itself found no difference in either direction), said a wide variety of methods confirmed Lott's results.
The judge deemed the second allegation "actionable," meaning not that Lott has won but that, if Lott proves the allegation is true, he will win. As a public figure (one who knowingly entered the previously existing public controversy of gun control), Lott will have to demonstrate actual malice, that Levitt sent the e-mail knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether it was.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
In the book Levitt claimed that other researchers disproved Lott's study -- finding that concealed carry reduces crime -- by failing to replicate it. Lott sued, pointing out that every time a researcher repeated Lott's methods on Lott's data, the results were the same.
Lott also argued Levitt's e-mail to another economist, stating that Lott basically bought an issue of an academic journal to run research he agreed with, was libelous.
The judge ruled against the first allegation. The word "replicate" does have a specific meaning in science: repeating an experiment precisely. However, the book was in large part marketed to the general public, which would take the sentence to mean that other scientists, using different methods and statistics, have come to different conclusions.
In defamation law, there's a practice of "innocent reading," that is, if a statement can be taken two ways and one of them is not libelous, the non-libelous one should prevail. What's interesting here is that there are two audiences; one could read it two ways, but the other could only read it in the libelous way. The judge ruled that the general public's reading was the one that counted, even though many academics also read the book (it is, after all, an application of econometric methods).
One thing I would like to point out is that, even if Levitt's statement is read innocently, it's misleading though not libelous. On his Web site Lott has an extensive collection of research by various authors, published in various journals, that supports his thesis. There are those who disagree, saying that concealed carry does not affect or even increases crime, but Levitt implies there's a broad consensus that Lott is wrong, and that's simply not the case. Even James Q. Wilson, writing in a dissent from a National Academies of Science report (the report itself found no difference in either direction), said a wide variety of methods confirmed Lott's results.
The judge deemed the second allegation "actionable," meaning not that Lott has won but that, if Lott proves the allegation is true, he will win. As a public figure (one who knowingly entered the previously existing public controversy of gun control), Lott will have to demonstrate actual malice, that Levitt sent the e-mail knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard as to whether it was.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Pelosi shuts down House smoking haven
Some places just ache for the haze and scent of tobacco smoke. Bars, for example, depend on it for their dark, nightlifey atmosphere -- at least until legislators step in with "public" smoking bans ("public" is Orwellian for "privately-owned business").
In the U.S. House, the Speaker's Lobby had such a reputation for smoker-friendliness, reports the Washington Post:
"For generations, the Speaker's Lobby has been the most visible space where smokers gather inside the Capitol. It is an ornate space dotted with fireplaces, leather armchairs and chandeliers. Lawmakers relax there between votes and debates, often meeting with staff members, reporters or the public and huddling in informal groups. Cigarette smokers tended to dominate the daytime hours there; at night, the cigar smokers took over."
Not anymore. Thanks to tobacco-, freedom- and tradition-hating Nancy Pelosi, smokers can now retire to "lawmakers' offices...two designated smoking rooms in the House office buildings and...a small, concrete room in the Capitol's basement." As speaker, Pelosi has control over the lobby's policies.
I could respect this a little more if Pelosi were honest about her motives. She hates smoking, it's her lobby, and therefore there will be no smoking in the lobby.
But:
"Pelosi said she was banning smoking from the area to protect the health of the staff, reporters and public who spend time in the lobby. 'Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example,' Pelosi said in a statement. 'The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over.'"
Yeah, right. The place was well known as a smoker's haven, and anyone who didn't like that didn't have to go. The "staff, reporters and public" who went there went to smoke, or to be around smokers. And as I've previously pointed out, secondhand smoke is primarily a danger to those who live or work around it constantly, not reporters who once in awhile might talk to lawmakers on cigarette breaks.
Hat tip: Wonkette.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
In the U.S. House, the Speaker's Lobby had such a reputation for smoker-friendliness, reports the Washington Post:
"For generations, the Speaker's Lobby has been the most visible space where smokers gather inside the Capitol. It is an ornate space dotted with fireplaces, leather armchairs and chandeliers. Lawmakers relax there between votes and debates, often meeting with staff members, reporters or the public and huddling in informal groups. Cigarette smokers tended to dominate the daytime hours there; at night, the cigar smokers took over."
Not anymore. Thanks to tobacco-, freedom- and tradition-hating Nancy Pelosi, smokers can now retire to "lawmakers' offices...two designated smoking rooms in the House office buildings and...a small, concrete room in the Capitol's basement." As speaker, Pelosi has control over the lobby's policies.
I could respect this a little more if Pelosi were honest about her motives. She hates smoking, it's her lobby, and therefore there will be no smoking in the lobby.
But:
"Pelosi said she was banning smoking from the area to protect the health of the staff, reporters and public who spend time in the lobby. 'Medical science has unquestionably established the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke, including an increased risk of cancer and respiratory diseases. I am a firm believer that Congress should lead by example,' Pelosi said in a statement. 'The days of smoke-filled rooms in the United States Capitol are over.'"
Yeah, right. The place was well known as a smoker's haven, and anyone who didn't like that didn't have to go. The "staff, reporters and public" who went there went to smoke, or to be around smokers. And as I've previously pointed out, secondhand smoke is primarily a danger to those who live or work around it constantly, not reporters who once in awhile might talk to lawmakers on cigarette breaks.
Hat tip: Wonkette.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
New piece up at antiMusic
antiMusic has my review of Unwritten Law's The Hit List.
Main point:
"There's a thin line between value and listener fatigue in best-of collections, and Unwritten Law crosses it with The Hit List. At 19 tracks and 63-plus minutes, everything starts to sound the same in a hurry.
"That said, anyone looking for that song he heard on the radio will certainly find it here. Unwritten Law was among the better pop-punk bands of the '90s, with deeper songwriting, better guitar riffs and catchier vocal harmonies than Green Day or Blink-182 could ever muster."
Main point:
"There's a thin line between value and listener fatigue in best-of collections, and Unwritten Law crosses it with The Hit List. At 19 tracks and 63-plus minutes, everything starts to sound the same in a hurry.
"That said, anyone looking for that song he heard on the radio will certainly find it here. Unwritten Law was among the better pop-punk bands of the '90s, with deeper songwriting, better guitar riffs and catchier vocal harmonies than Green Day or Blink-182 could ever muster."
House moves on minimum wage
I hate to bash the media twice in one day, but this lead paragraph is terrible, biased journalism:
"After not budging for 10 years, the federal minimum wage could be going up, increasing paychecks for hundreds of thousands of janitors, fast food clerks and other workers at the bottom of the wage scale."
Yup, that's the debate! Do we pay people more, or not? No tradeoffs here.
But as I said in response to a commenter on my blog:
People don't live off minimum wage often, at least not here in the USA. Minimum wage workers are frequently teenagers, or married people pulling in some extra money.
Also, regardless of whether it's livable, minimum wage does little if anything to help the poor. The philosophy is that you force employers to pay more, and they reach in their big bags of money, do so and keep on as before.
But in fact, it's undeniable that minimum wage hikes cost people their jobs. Rather than pay people more, business owners have to fire some of them -- this is especially true of small business owners who operate at slim profit margins to begin with. If an employee creates $6 in value per hour, it's worthwhile to hire him at $5.15. It's not at $7.25.
So the tradeoff is between some people getting fired and others getting paid a little more, with most of these people not even living on the jobs they're in. For a long time the consensus was that job losses far overcame the wage increases. But now there are some economists who make the argument that the wage increases outweigh the job loss in terms of poverty reduction, so I'm not saying either side is right.
It's completely irrelevant, however, whether you can "live on" $5.15. It's a lot harder to live on nothing.
Most of the facts I discussed here are in this article, hat tip Andrew Sullivan:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/12/can-600-economists-all-be-wrong.html
...Yet AP/CBS puts it front and center that fast-food workers will make more, without mentioning that some will get fired. That's called "liberal bias," folks. It's also callousness in the face of a policy that could hurt the poor.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
"After not budging for 10 years, the federal minimum wage could be going up, increasing paychecks for hundreds of thousands of janitors, fast food clerks and other workers at the bottom of the wage scale."
Yup, that's the debate! Do we pay people more, or not? No tradeoffs here.
But as I said in response to a commenter on my blog:
People don't live off minimum wage often, at least not here in the USA. Minimum wage workers are frequently teenagers, or married people pulling in some extra money.
Also, regardless of whether it's livable, minimum wage does little if anything to help the poor. The philosophy is that you force employers to pay more, and they reach in their big bags of money, do so and keep on as before.
But in fact, it's undeniable that minimum wage hikes cost people their jobs. Rather than pay people more, business owners have to fire some of them -- this is especially true of small business owners who operate at slim profit margins to begin with. If an employee creates $6 in value per hour, it's worthwhile to hire him at $5.15. It's not at $7.25.
So the tradeoff is between some people getting fired and others getting paid a little more, with most of these people not even living on the jobs they're in. For a long time the consensus was that job losses far overcame the wage increases. But now there are some economists who make the argument that the wage increases outweigh the job loss in terms of poverty reduction, so I'm not saying either side is right.
It's completely irrelevant, however, whether you can "live on" $5.15. It's a lot harder to live on nothing.
Most of the facts I discussed here are in this article, hat tip Andrew Sullivan:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/12/can-600-economists-all-be-wrong.html
...Yet AP/CBS puts it front and center that fast-food workers will make more, without mentioning that some will get fired. That's called "liberal bias," folks. It's also callousness in the face of a policy that could hurt the poor.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Media: Woman bought Xbox, got dirty socks
The media coverage of this story has been quite disappointing. The official line is that a lady bought an Xbox at Wal-Mart, only to get home and discover the box was full of dirty socks and a stack of magazines. The mean old retailer won't let her return it.
This is all stated as fact:
"Marissa Gonzales says the box the XBOX came in did not look tampered with when she picked it up from the Wal-Mart layaway department. She wrapped the present and placed it under her Christmas tree. But what she didn't know is that it was full of dirty socks and a stack of magazines.
"Since Christmas day, Marissa has spent a lot of time on the phone. She says she has talked to five Wal-Mart store managers ranging from department, district and general managers. A store who 'Always promises low prices, Always' has $460 of Marissa's hard earned money and all she has in return is useless dirty socks and magazines, not the XBOX 360 she thought she purchased."
Then of course there's the human interest component:
"'When Playstation first came out, I told them I'll get you one of those. Well, I never did because I couldn't afford it. Now, the XBOX 360 came out, I wanted to get them one of those. Then this happened. It hurts me,' she said."
Wal-Mart says it hasn't had any problems with the store's layaway department -- the woman says employees told her otherwise -- and that the company is investigating.
Now, it's very possible that some employee was just being stupid. (I think it's less likely the console was stolen; a thief would have destroyed the box with the tons of cardboard stores go through, rather than stuffing it full of socks and pretty much guaranteeing management and police would see it.) Simply by virtue of this possibility, not to mention the media attention the story is getting, it would probably be smart for Wal-Mart to just give the money back.
But here's what the media fails to even consider: It's also very possible that the woman tried to return an empty box, got caught and now is making waves rather than forgetting about it. I worked at a Kmart off and on in high school and college, and we had problems with this very thing -- I remember a woman got a refund for a vacuum cleaner box weighed down with something or other, and the manager lectured the service desk staff about checking inside all boxes before processing refunds.
Bearing this in mind, the company's behavior is understandable. The last thing it would want to do is give criminals ideas by immediately capitulating.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
This is all stated as fact:
"Marissa Gonzales says the box the XBOX came in did not look tampered with when she picked it up from the Wal-Mart layaway department. She wrapped the present and placed it under her Christmas tree. But what she didn't know is that it was full of dirty socks and a stack of magazines.
"Since Christmas day, Marissa has spent a lot of time on the phone. She says she has talked to five Wal-Mart store managers ranging from department, district and general managers. A store who 'Always promises low prices, Always' has $460 of Marissa's hard earned money and all she has in return is useless dirty socks and magazines, not the XBOX 360 she thought she purchased."
Then of course there's the human interest component:
"'When Playstation first came out, I told them I'll get you one of those. Well, I never did because I couldn't afford it. Now, the XBOX 360 came out, I wanted to get them one of those. Then this happened. It hurts me,' she said."
Wal-Mart says it hasn't had any problems with the store's layaway department -- the woman says employees told her otherwise -- and that the company is investigating.
Now, it's very possible that some employee was just being stupid. (I think it's less likely the console was stolen; a thief would have destroyed the box with the tons of cardboard stores go through, rather than stuffing it full of socks and pretty much guaranteeing management and police would see it.) Simply by virtue of this possibility, not to mention the media attention the story is getting, it would probably be smart for Wal-Mart to just give the money back.
But here's what the media fails to even consider: It's also very possible that the woman tried to return an empty box, got caught and now is making waves rather than forgetting about it. I worked at a Kmart off and on in high school and college, and we had problems with this very thing -- I remember a woman got a refund for a vacuum cleaner box weighed down with something or other, and the manager lectured the service desk staff about checking inside all boxes before processing refunds.
Bearing this in mind, the company's behavior is understandable. The last thing it would want to do is give criminals ideas by immediately capitulating.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Maine municipality makes it illegal to smoke in cars with kids present
The media coverage of this story makes it sound much more dire than it really is. The headline is "Bangor Makes it Illegal to Smoke in Cars," but the municipality didn't really do that at all.
From the story:
"The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present."
Those last four words are kind of critical, wouldn't you say (note to Drudge, who parroted the headline)? I'm as big a smokers-rights activist as any (it blows my mind when people go to bars to get smashed and often "hook up," then want the government to protect them from delicious-smelling smoke), but the state does have a compelling interest in protecting children. No matter how libertarian one is, it should be illegal to abuse them, for instance.
So, the question is, does 18 years of second-hand car smoke warrant state intrusion into the parent-child relationship? I've been critical of second-hand smoke hype in terms of public areas -- occasional contact with it really won't hurt you -- but I don't think anyone seriously argues that extensive exposure to smoke, especially in enclosed areas, is harmful to health.
One side, from the story:
"People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker."
I can't say I'd support the legislation in my own town -- parents should have a pretty wide latitude in raising their kids, and subjecting children to a moderately unpleasant and unhealthy atmosphere falls pretty solidly within that, just as feeding kids fatty food does -- but I do think a municipality has the right to pass this law if they so choose. It's a far cry from the impression the headline gives, that of a municipality dictating consensual adult behavior on private property. Adult treatment of children, who rarely consent to the conditions imposed on them and couldn't legally if they did, has long been a subject of government regulation.
Another surprising tidbit from the story:
"When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
From the story:
"The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present."
Those last four words are kind of critical, wouldn't you say (note to Drudge, who parroted the headline)? I'm as big a smokers-rights activist as any (it blows my mind when people go to bars to get smashed and often "hook up," then want the government to protect them from delicious-smelling smoke), but the state does have a compelling interest in protecting children. No matter how libertarian one is, it should be illegal to abuse them, for instance.
So, the question is, does 18 years of second-hand car smoke warrant state intrusion into the parent-child relationship? I've been critical of second-hand smoke hype in terms of public areas -- occasional contact with it really won't hurt you -- but I don't think anyone seriously argues that extensive exposure to smoke, especially in enclosed areas, is harmful to health.
One side, from the story:
"People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker."
I can't say I'd support the legislation in my own town -- parents should have a pretty wide latitude in raising their kids, and subjecting children to a moderately unpleasant and unhealthy atmosphere falls pretty solidly within that, just as feeding kids fatty food does -- but I do think a municipality has the right to pass this law if they so choose. It's a far cry from the impression the headline gives, that of a municipality dictating consensual adult behavior on private property. Adult treatment of children, who rarely consent to the conditions imposed on them and couldn't legally if they did, has long been a subject of government regulation.
Another surprising tidbit from the story:
"When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Naked parties common at Ivy League schools
This is the weirdest story I've read in a long time. Apparently at some Ivy League schools, "naked parties" are common.
At first my reaction was, yeah, a bunch of guys standing around looking awkward. The college I attended had things of that nature from time to time, like a "naked run" in winter and a naked Facebook group. Almost all participants were male.
So what surprises me is that, judging by the story -- which, as the writer does not seem to have attended a party, may or may not be accurate -- the parties are low-key, female-friendly and somewhat sophisticated.
From the report:
"[S]tudents who attend the six to eight parties held each year say it can be a life-changing experience, far from the 'frat-house' bawdiness portrayed in films such as Animal House. Megan Crandell, a final-year Yale student who has attended six naked parties, said: 'The dynamic is completely different from a clothed party. People are so conscious of how they're coming across that conversations end up being more sophisticated. You can't talk about how hot that chick was the other night.'
"Another Yale student, who did not want his name to become known by campus authorities - which do not try to stop the parties but do not encourage them - said: 'Part of it is just the mystique of not knowing where you're going. It's become a hip thing to do.'
...
"Touching, beyond a salutary greeting, is not encouraged.
"Of party etiquette, Mollie Farber, a senior student at Yale, said: "You're allowed to give everyone a quick once-over as you say, 'Hey, what's up?', but after that, you've got to maintain pretty good eye contact."
...
"Birk Oxholm, who graduated from Columbia in 2006, was not convinced of the liberating effect of the parties: 'To pretend you're feeling great and happy to be overcoming the oppressiveness of clothing overlooks the more authentic feeling, which is, 'I feel kind of weird'."
I'll say. Goofy college kids.
Also, I really doubt these things are all that common, though a coworker of mine who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania said she'd heard about them.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I spoke to another friend of mine, a Yale graduate, about this story. He agreed they happen, and that everyone knows about them. However, he took issue with the notion that conversations there are sophisticated -- he'd never been to one (I don't think) but said "75 percent of the people who go have to get so drunk to feel comfortable that there's no way that's true."
At first my reaction was, yeah, a bunch of guys standing around looking awkward. The college I attended had things of that nature from time to time, like a "naked run" in winter and a naked Facebook group. Almost all participants were male.
So what surprises me is that, judging by the story -- which, as the writer does not seem to have attended a party, may or may not be accurate -- the parties are low-key, female-friendly and somewhat sophisticated.
From the report:
"[S]tudents who attend the six to eight parties held each year say it can be a life-changing experience, far from the 'frat-house' bawdiness portrayed in films such as Animal House. Megan Crandell, a final-year Yale student who has attended six naked parties, said: 'The dynamic is completely different from a clothed party. People are so conscious of how they're coming across that conversations end up being more sophisticated. You can't talk about how hot that chick was the other night.'
"Another Yale student, who did not want his name to become known by campus authorities - which do not try to stop the parties but do not encourage them - said: 'Part of it is just the mystique of not knowing where you're going. It's become a hip thing to do.'
...
"Touching, beyond a salutary greeting, is not encouraged.
"Of party etiquette, Mollie Farber, a senior student at Yale, said: "You're allowed to give everyone a quick once-over as you say, 'Hey, what's up?', but after that, you've got to maintain pretty good eye contact."
...
"Birk Oxholm, who graduated from Columbia in 2006, was not convinced of the liberating effect of the parties: 'To pretend you're feeling great and happy to be overcoming the oppressiveness of clothing overlooks the more authentic feeling, which is, 'I feel kind of weird'."
I'll say. Goofy college kids.
Also, I really doubt these things are all that common, though a coworker of mine who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania said she'd heard about them.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
UPDATE: I spoke to another friend of mine, a Yale graduate, about this story. He agreed they happen, and that everyone knows about them. However, he took issue with the notion that conversations there are sophisticated -- he'd never been to one (I don't think) but said "75 percent of the people who go have to get so drunk to feel comfortable that there's no way that's true."
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Analysts challenge Israel-to-attack-Iran story
Yesterday I blogged about a Sunday Times report that Israel had plans to attack an Iranian weapons facility. Since then people have challenged the report on two grounds, and Israel has denied it. Some say that no one would leak such information; others challenge the likelihood of the plan itself.
The first objection is, for the most part, rubbish. It's one thing to say that Israel keeps a tighter lid on its information than other countries do, quite another to say leaks don't happen. Take this quote from the AP:
"Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies and a former senior army intelligence officer, also dismissed the report.
"'No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times,' Kam said."
Kind of like how no reliable source would talk about Watergate? Or about the Pentagon Papers? Or how no one would ever break a major story on the Comedy Central blog? The sheer fact of the matter is that sometimes people pass sensitive information to the press for whatever reason. The very concept of "leak" assumes this.
And let's look at the plan as the Times describes it:
"Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters', according to several Israeli military sources."
Two entire squadrons -- not to mention everyone involved with drawing up the tactics, etc. -- knew about the plan (assuming it exists). It's not conceivable that someone, somewhere found it in his best interest to leak it?
Now, that's not to say I'm defending the story. Just as government sources leak from time to time, journalists get stuff wrong more often than they should. I'm just saying this "leaks don't happen" statement is absurd.
A more plausible line of argument is to say that the plan as described doesn't match what a real plan would look like.
A very logical idea from an AP source:
"'I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran,' Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP. 'It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.'"
As I pointed out yesterday, though, these aren't "nuclear weapons" in the sense most people think of. They're tactical nukes, meant to be used in battlefield applications. Strategic nukes, by contrast, are meant to take out cities.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
The first objection is, for the most part, rubbish. It's one thing to say that Israel keeps a tighter lid on its information than other countries do, quite another to say leaks don't happen. Take this quote from the AP:
"Ephraim Kam, a strategic expert at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Strategic Studies and a former senior army intelligence officer, also dismissed the report.
"'No reliable source would ever speak about this, certainly not to the Sunday Times,' Kam said."
Kind of like how no reliable source would talk about Watergate? Or about the Pentagon Papers? Or how no one would ever break a major story on the Comedy Central blog? The sheer fact of the matter is that sometimes people pass sensitive information to the press for whatever reason. The very concept of "leak" assumes this.
And let's look at the plan as the Times describes it:
"Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters', according to several Israeli military sources."
Two entire squadrons -- not to mention everyone involved with drawing up the tactics, etc. -- knew about the plan (assuming it exists). It's not conceivable that someone, somewhere found it in his best interest to leak it?
Now, that's not to say I'm defending the story. Just as government sources leak from time to time, journalists get stuff wrong more often than they should. I'm just saying this "leaks don't happen" statement is absurd.
A more plausible line of argument is to say that the plan as described doesn't match what a real plan would look like.
A very logical idea from an AP source:
"'I refuse to believe that anyone here would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran,' Reuven Pedatzur, a prominent defense analyst and columnist for the daily Haaretz, told the AP. 'It is possible that this was a leak done on purpose, as deterrence, to say someone better hold us back, before we do something crazy.'"
As I pointed out yesterday, though, these aren't "nuclear weapons" in the sense most people think of. They're tactical nukes, meant to be used in battlefield applications. Strategic nukes, by contrast, are meant to take out cities.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
