I usually don't listen to much folk -- Nick Drake is about the only artist I've bought much from -- but one of my roommates was playing a music sampler he got from Paste magazine, and the song "Ain't No Reason" by Brett Dennen really stood out to me. I bought So Much More and have been listening to it for a few days straight.
I still think "Ain't No Reason" is the best track on here. The lyrics (with guitar chords here) are incredible, a mix of pessimism and hope that creates a wonderful tension. The becomingly simple guitar work really serves the song.
The thing that puts me off, though, is the weakly-reasoned left-wing worldview. Drug companies are bad, war is bad, all cultures are equal in all ways, blah blah blah. Sometimes politics in music can liven things up (think Kanye West) or even challenge the listener, but here it's just kind of annoying.
I've often wondered why folk musicians are so liberal. They come from and appeal to rural areas, so if anything a right-leaning populism is the best fit. Singing about poverty isn't so odd, but the all-out hippie assault perplexes me.
If you're open to folk, though, I'd definitely recommend So Much More. None of the other tracks best "Ain't No Reason," but they beat the heck out of most modern music.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Trends in interracial rape, 1996-2005
Over at Blogger News Network, a commenter challenged a critique I did of a Nicholas Stix article. Stix had asserted the black-on-white rape rate was 200 times the white-on-black one; I argued that the 200 number wasn't meaningful, but that blacks indeed rape whites more than the reverse happens. The commenter said even that was wrong. Check out the comment and my response here.
Dealing with such a touchy subject, I should say what interested me in the first place: the Duke lacrosse scandal. Liberals, including school faculty, painted the supposed rape as a common example of whites exercising power over blacks. The thesis of the original post was that, while white racism works its way into many aspects of American life, rape isn't statistically one of them.
Anyway, the exchange inspired me to look up the National Crime Victimization Survey survey data of crime victims to see how things have changed over the years. The government collects information about perpetrators' races (this is where Stix got his information). Numbers are available from 1996-2005, and I arranged them chronologically in this Google spreadsheet.
The first thing I would like to make clear is that the vast majority of rapes are intraracial -- the data do not justify panic by whites that black rapists are out to get them, even if, as I showed in the previous post, that scenario is more likely than its reverse by the NCVS data.
Also, many of the data points were astericked, indicating they were based on small sample sizes. Due to the large fluctuations, I had to run statistical correlations instead of simply looking to see if the numbers rose or fell. I present this not as hard fact but as the best information available.
White-on-black rape is so rare there really isn't any way to measure its ups and downs. 5 of the 10 years, the NCVS put the number at 0 for its respondents.
However, since 1996, white rape victims have been increasingly likely to report a black assailant. The first three years, 10, 10 and 11 percent of white rape victims reported black assailants; the last three, 21, 11 and 43 (as I said, the bouncing is worrisome).
Presuming the data reveal an actual trend, this could be due to (A) blacks raping whites more, (B) whites raping whites less or (C) some change in NCVS-answering trends.
(The NCVS is given to a sample of households, not only to crime-reporters, so it's an admittedly incomplete way to answer the "people report rapes by blacks to the police more" argument. The survey, to some extent, can show differences between actual and reported crime.)
Nerdy stats stuff:
Looking at the raw data in the spreadsheet, we see a negative, statistically significant (bold) correlation between the year and the likelihood a white victim reported a white assailant. You see a statistically significant positive one for black assailants.
One thing I noticed was that 2005 was a drastic year -- only 44.5 percent of white victims reported same-race assailants, and 33.6 reported black rapists. Those are the lowest and highest numbers respectively by quite a margin, so I re-ran the correlation without 2005. The correlations remain, but the increasing likelihood of a black assailant drops out of statistical significance.
Another thing I noticed was that the "Other" and "Unsure" categories varied significantly over the years. So, in the five columns on the right, I controlled for that by removing those categories. In other words, the right-side data only considers rapes within the white and black communities, not rapes involving other or unknown races.
The results were basically the same -- significant correlations when 2005 is included. However, once you exclude 2005, both correlations fall just shy of significance at the 5 percent level.
Dealing with such a touchy subject, I should say what interested me in the first place: the Duke lacrosse scandal. Liberals, including school faculty, painted the supposed rape as a common example of whites exercising power over blacks. The thesis of the original post was that, while white racism works its way into many aspects of American life, rape isn't statistically one of them.
Anyway, the exchange inspired me to look up the National Crime Victimization Survey survey data of crime victims to see how things have changed over the years. The government collects information about perpetrators' races (this is where Stix got his information). Numbers are available from 1996-2005, and I arranged them chronologically in this Google spreadsheet.
The first thing I would like to make clear is that the vast majority of rapes are intraracial -- the data do not justify panic by whites that black rapists are out to get them, even if, as I showed in the previous post, that scenario is more likely than its reverse by the NCVS data.
Also, many of the data points were astericked, indicating they were based on small sample sizes. Due to the large fluctuations, I had to run statistical correlations instead of simply looking to see if the numbers rose or fell. I present this not as hard fact but as the best information available.
White-on-black rape is so rare there really isn't any way to measure its ups and downs. 5 of the 10 years, the NCVS put the number at 0 for its respondents.
However, since 1996, white rape victims have been increasingly likely to report a black assailant. The first three years, 10, 10 and 11 percent of white rape victims reported black assailants; the last three, 21, 11 and 43 (as I said, the bouncing is worrisome).
Presuming the data reveal an actual trend, this could be due to (A) blacks raping whites more, (B) whites raping whites less or (C) some change in NCVS-answering trends.
(The NCVS is given to a sample of households, not only to crime-reporters, so it's an admittedly incomplete way to answer the "people report rapes by blacks to the police more" argument. The survey, to some extent, can show differences between actual and reported crime.)
Nerdy stats stuff:
Looking at the raw data in the spreadsheet, we see a negative, statistically significant (bold) correlation between the year and the likelihood a white victim reported a white assailant. You see a statistically significant positive one for black assailants.
One thing I noticed was that 2005 was a drastic year -- only 44.5 percent of white victims reported same-race assailants, and 33.6 reported black rapists. Those are the lowest and highest numbers respectively by quite a margin, so I re-ran the correlation without 2005. The correlations remain, but the increasing likelihood of a black assailant drops out of statistical significance.
Another thing I noticed was that the "Other" and "Unsure" categories varied significantly over the years. So, in the five columns on the right, I controlled for that by removing those categories. In other words, the right-side data only considers rapes within the white and black communities, not rapes involving other or unknown races.
The results were basically the same -- significant correlations when 2005 is included. However, once you exclude 2005, both correlations fall just shy of significance at the 5 percent level.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Amazon ads promote David Duke, David Irving
Imagine visiting a blog you contribute to. On the side: A set of Amazon ads featuring a David Duke book. The next day, another David Duke book. A day or two later, a book by Holocaust denier David Irving.
That's what life has been like for me with Robert's Rationale (though I hope most of you have started reading Orble-based The Rationale instead). I e-mailed Amazon support a couple of days ago, but they didn't get back to me. I took all my Amazon ads down; I haven't sold a single book since joining anyhow.
The funny thing is that I tend to write about America's racial problems, which focus on the black/white/Hispanic tension. I've mentioned both David Duke (I think it's hilarious he lives in New Orleans) and Holocaust denial (the media does a terrible job of covering it), but most of my race writing has concerned immigration, diversity, IQ, poverty and the like.
In slight defense of Amazon, here's how the ads work. A computer program reads my blog, matches the topics to various books Amazon sells and places ads for those books on my site. Again, I write about race on a fairly frequent basis, though from nothing resembling David Duke or David Irving's perspectives. So it's not like an Amazon employee picked out "My Awakening" as a great book to market.
I'm certainly not saying Amazon should shy away from selling controversial or even racist books; people researching those subjects need access to them. But when a program selects products to promote, Amazon should remove such fare from the pool.
Not only does it make client sites look bad. It makes Amazon, in effect, promote hateful material.
What's scariest is that Jew-run blogs probably experience the same thing, particularly if they talk about the KKK or the Holocaust often.
Since I killed my Amazon ads, you can't confirm this yourself. However, I made a PDF of my blog's homepage with two David Duke books promoted on it. E-mail me at robertv4311[at]gmail.com for an attachment.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
That's what life has been like for me with Robert's Rationale (though I hope most of you have started reading Orble-based The Rationale instead). I e-mailed Amazon support a couple of days ago, but they didn't get back to me. I took all my Amazon ads down; I haven't sold a single book since joining anyhow.
The funny thing is that I tend to write about America's racial problems, which focus on the black/white/Hispanic tension. I've mentioned both David Duke (I think it's hilarious he lives in New Orleans) and Holocaust denial (the media does a terrible job of covering it), but most of my race writing has concerned immigration, diversity, IQ, poverty and the like.
In slight defense of Amazon, here's how the ads work. A computer program reads my blog, matches the topics to various books Amazon sells and places ads for those books on my site. Again, I write about race on a fairly frequent basis, though from nothing resembling David Duke or David Irving's perspectives. So it's not like an Amazon employee picked out "My Awakening" as a great book to market.
I'm certainly not saying Amazon should shy away from selling controversial or even racist books; people researching those subjects need access to them. But when a program selects products to promote, Amazon should remove such fare from the pool.
Not only does it make client sites look bad. It makes Amazon, in effect, promote hateful material.
What's scariest is that Jew-run blogs probably experience the same thing, particularly if they talk about the KKK or the Holocaust often.
Since I killed my Amazon ads, you can't confirm this yourself. However, I made a PDF of my blog's homepage with two David Duke books promoted on it. E-mail me at robertv4311[at]gmail.com for an attachment.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Serious gun crime up in the UK
They just don't get it. Yesterday I noted how DC's mayor admitted his city has both the strictest gun control laws and close to the highest crime rate in the country. Now, folks in the UK are complaining of their high (and once again increasing) severe gun crimes. Both governments ban handguns completely.
Odd thing: Both called for more and better gun control. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, you know the drill.
From UK's The Times:
"Robberies at gunpoint increased by 10 per cent last year in England and Wales...
"The figures include armed robberies in the street, which rose by 9 per cent, and armed robberies in homes, which almost doubled. The figures have been falling for the past four years...
"The total number of robberies at gunpoint rose to 1,439 and the number of gun robberies at residential properties jumped by 46 per cent to 645, an increase of 204 and more than five times the level recorded when Labour came to power...
"Overall, gun crime fell last year...But killings by strangers have almost doubled to 302 since Labour came to power."
A quick note on severe gun crime having fallen in previous years: It may be true, but the UK's ban went into effect ten years ago, not four. So, neither this specific increase nor the previous decrease is due to gun control, because gun laws didn't change in those years.
But the UK's overall gun crime problem got worse after the ban went into effect. It's very likely that, at least in part, this is due to criminals knowing their victims won't bear arms. Gun robberies at residential properties are a case in point -- in the US, thieves make sure homeowners aren't home to avoid gunfights, but in the UK there is a much higher rate of "hot burglary."
And John Lott has written:
"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.
"The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."
Tell all that to the UK's government. Even if they disagree that gun control actually increases gun crime, they should be admitting that it doesn't solve it, either.
But:
"David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, said: '...Gun crime is mainly fuelled by gang warfare and drug addiction, which is a consequence of Labour’s failing drugs policy. It is exacerbated by our porous borders, which allow illegal weapons to flow into the country.'”
This would at least hold some logic if England had loosened its borders policy, which I can't seem to find any evidence of -- Davis is addressing the increase in crime, not the overall high incidence of it. When explaining a change in one variable, you need to find another variable that also changed. If border security stays the same and gun crime rises, the border security can't very well cause the gun crime increase.
It's a common response from gun-grabbers, though, as the DC mayor example showed. When gun control doesn't work, say other countries or areas -- with lower crime rates than yours -- are flooding your gun-free zone with illegal weapons.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Odd thing: Both called for more and better gun control. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, you know the drill.
From UK's The Times:
"Robberies at gunpoint increased by 10 per cent last year in England and Wales...
"The figures include armed robberies in the street, which rose by 9 per cent, and armed robberies in homes, which almost doubled. The figures have been falling for the past four years...
"The total number of robberies at gunpoint rose to 1,439 and the number of gun robberies at residential properties jumped by 46 per cent to 645, an increase of 204 and more than five times the level recorded when Labour came to power...
"Overall, gun crime fell last year...But killings by strangers have almost doubled to 302 since Labour came to power."
A quick note on severe gun crime having fallen in previous years: It may be true, but the UK's ban went into effect ten years ago, not four. So, neither this specific increase nor the previous decrease is due to gun control, because gun laws didn't change in those years.
But the UK's overall gun crime problem got worse after the ban went into effect. It's very likely that, at least in part, this is due to criminals knowing their victims won't bear arms. Gun robberies at residential properties are a case in point -- in the US, thieves make sure homeowners aren't home to avoid gunfights, but in the UK there is a much higher rate of "hot burglary."
And John Lott has written:
"Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.
"The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."
Tell all that to the UK's government. Even if they disagree that gun control actually increases gun crime, they should be admitting that it doesn't solve it, either.
But:
"David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary, said: '...Gun crime is mainly fuelled by gang warfare and drug addiction, which is a consequence of Labour’s failing drugs policy. It is exacerbated by our porous borders, which allow illegal weapons to flow into the country.'”
This would at least hold some logic if England had loosened its borders policy, which I can't seem to find any evidence of -- Davis is addressing the increase in crime, not the overall high incidence of it. When explaining a change in one variable, you need to find another variable that also changed. If border security stays the same and gun crime rises, the border security can't very well cause the gun crime increase.
It's a common response from gun-grabbers, though, as the DC mayor example showed. When gun control doesn't work, say other countries or areas -- with lower crime rates than yours -- are flooding your gun-free zone with illegal weapons.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Hmmm...
From the Washington Post:
"'We have one of the highest homicide rates in the country but at the same time have the strictest [gun] law,' [DC mayor] Fenty said, joining other urban chief executives at the bipartisan summit on the issue yesterday on Capitol Hill."
So naturally, you need federal government intervention to stop trafficking! You see, those lax-gun-law redneck areas -- with far lower crime rates than your city has -- are screwing it all up.
"'We have one of the highest homicide rates in the country but at the same time have the strictest [gun] law,' [DC mayor] Fenty said, joining other urban chief executives at the bipartisan summit on the issue yesterday on Capitol Hill."
So naturally, you need federal government intervention to stop trafficking! You see, those lax-gun-law redneck areas -- with far lower crime rates than your city has -- are screwing it all up.
Must've been my article
My rise to international fame
BBC Russian has linked to and discussed one of my articles from The National Interest. Apparently "Po6epTa Bep6parreHa" means "Robert VerBruggen" in Russian.
I translated the site with Babel Fish:
"The article of Robert verbraggena, printed in periodical National Interest, is entitled 'Russia less it is similar on us than we thought'. [It] tells about the appearance of the director of the Swedish institute of international relations Thomas riyes in the Washington Niksonovskom center."
Original article in (hopefully) much better English here.
UPDATE: A previous version of this post said the article referred to me as "she." Unfortunately, my transnational transsexuality has been revoked. My boss, fluent in Russian, informs me that the "she" the translation program picked up on refers to the article. Russian gives gender to objects, and "article" is female. Too bad.
I translated the site with Babel Fish:
"The article of Robert verbraggena, printed in periodical National Interest, is entitled 'Russia less it is similar on us than we thought'. [It] tells about the appearance of the director of the Swedish institute of international relations Thomas riyes in the Washington Niksonovskom center."
Original article in (hopefully) much better English here.
UPDATE: A previous version of this post said the article referred to me as "she." Unfortunately, my transnational transsexuality has been revoked. My boss, fluent in Russian, informs me that the "she" the translation program picked up on refers to the article. Russian gives gender to objects, and "article" is female. Too bad.
My AmSpec Iran piece
Jim Bono of Midlothian, VA, a reader of my new American Spectator piece, has proved me utterly and undeniably wrong. I committed "a fallacy common among modern conservatives: thinking that words mean what they say."
I missed the Iraq authorization's subtle nuances:
"For example, I discovered in the text a right to privacy guaranteeing our entitlement to abort Iran. You can't see it, but it's there. Further reading revealed the authorization says Iran should be banned since it contains trans fats."
I apologize to my readers, hope I can regain their trust and will do more thorough research in the future.
I missed the Iraq authorization's subtle nuances:
"For example, I discovered in the text a right to privacy guaranteeing our entitlement to abort Iran. You can't see it, but it's there. Further reading revealed the authorization says Iran should be banned since it contains trans fats."
I apologize to my readers, hope I can regain their trust and will do more thorough research in the future.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Suburban Atlanta wants a separate county
The media is going out of its way to turn this story racial (the AP headline is "White Atlanta suburbs push for secession," as if a suburb can be "white" rather than "predominantly white," and as if they were just trying to work in a Dixie reference). There's no doubt a racial undercurrent, but I suspect it's as much class as race.
Here's the gist:
"A potentially explosive dispute in the City Too Busy to Hate is taking shape over a proposal to break Fulton County in two and split off Atlanta's predominantly white, affluent suburbs to the north from some of the metropolitan area's poorest, black neighborhoods.
"Legislation that would allow the suburbs to form their own county, to be called Milton County, was introduced by members of the Georgia Legislature's Republican majority earlier this month."
It's not hard to see why upscale suburbanites would want to leave this:
"[One supporter] cited the county's troubled library and public transit systems and a jail that was taken over by a federal judge because it was filthy and unsafe."
Not to mention having to deal with city lawmakers who spout off threats like these:
"'If it gets to the floor, there will be blood on the walls,' warned state Sen. Vincent Fort, an Atlanta Democrat and member of the Legislative Black Caucus who bitterly opposes the plan. Fort added: 'As much as you would like to think it's not racial, it's difficult to draw any other conclusion.'"
Milton County actually has a history:
"The legislation calls for amending the Georgia Constitution to allow the return of Milton County, which succumbed to financial troubles during the Depression and was folded into Fulton County in 1932."
As bad a rep as anything reasonably called "segregation" gets -- and as painful as the history of U.S. secession is -- it really is important for people to live in areas that reflect their policy preferences and values. Democracy irons out differences peacefully, but oftentimes entire areas live under laws they despise.
Take Illinois, for example. Liberal Chicago and conservative down-state interests collide constantly, from issues like gun control to legislators giving Chicago transportation money from the whole state's taxes. Sometimes there's less friction when different kinds of people have different governments.
Similarly, city ways of managing things aren't working in the Atlanta suburbs, and any government would find the current county's huge, cumbersome population difficult.
Finally, it's hard to see where the city lawmakers are coming from in opposing it. Say the suburban representatives really are racists. Why would you want them in your county?
The only real reason is that the suburbs pay more taxes. This motivation doesn't seem quite so noble as the I-oppose-this-because-I'm-anti-racism line.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Here's the gist:
"A potentially explosive dispute in the City Too Busy to Hate is taking shape over a proposal to break Fulton County in two and split off Atlanta's predominantly white, affluent suburbs to the north from some of the metropolitan area's poorest, black neighborhoods.
"Legislation that would allow the suburbs to form their own county, to be called Milton County, was introduced by members of the Georgia Legislature's Republican majority earlier this month."
It's not hard to see why upscale suburbanites would want to leave this:
"[One supporter] cited the county's troubled library and public transit systems and a jail that was taken over by a federal judge because it was filthy and unsafe."
Not to mention having to deal with city lawmakers who spout off threats like these:
"'If it gets to the floor, there will be blood on the walls,' warned state Sen. Vincent Fort, an Atlanta Democrat and member of the Legislative Black Caucus who bitterly opposes the plan. Fort added: 'As much as you would like to think it's not racial, it's difficult to draw any other conclusion.'"
Milton County actually has a history:
"The legislation calls for amending the Georgia Constitution to allow the return of Milton County, which succumbed to financial troubles during the Depression and was folded into Fulton County in 1932."
As bad a rep as anything reasonably called "segregation" gets -- and as painful as the history of U.S. secession is -- it really is important for people to live in areas that reflect their policy preferences and values. Democracy irons out differences peacefully, but oftentimes entire areas live under laws they despise.
Take Illinois, for example. Liberal Chicago and conservative down-state interests collide constantly, from issues like gun control to legislators giving Chicago transportation money from the whole state's taxes. Sometimes there's less friction when different kinds of people have different governments.
Similarly, city ways of managing things aren't working in the Atlanta suburbs, and any government would find the current county's huge, cumbersome population difficult.
Finally, it's hard to see where the city lawmakers are coming from in opposing it. Say the suburban representatives really are racists. Why would you want them in your county?
The only real reason is that the suburbs pay more taxes. This motivation doesn't seem quite so noble as the I-oppose-this-because-I'm-anti-racism line.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Soldier insulted by mattress company; employee fired
I understand the outrage over this story, but I really think it's counterproductive. A soldier serving in Iraq contacted a mattress company -- he wanted to order some mattresses.
From the Fox News story:
"Army Sgt. Jason Hess, stationed in Taji, Iraq, with the 1st Cavalry Division, said he emailed his request to www.discount-mats.com because he and his fellow soldiers sleep on the cold ground, which contains sand mites, sand flies and other disease carriers."
He got this e-mail response from the Web site:
"We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq."
Crucial bit Fox News hasn't come across yet: The owner fired the employee who wrote the e-mail.
From another story:
"The Web site's owner, 23-year-old Faisal Khetani, fired the employee who wrote the e-mail. Khetani told TODAY'S TMJ4 the e-mail does not express the views of his company.
"His father, Ramzan Khetani, told TODAY'S TMJ4's Mick Trevey that he felt offended by the e-mail saying, 'whatever the person said - was not fair - should not have said that.'
"The answering machine at the Khetanis' West Allis home was filled with vulgar messages. One caller ranted, 'You terrorist-loving jihad mother ((expletive)). This is America you son of a ((expletive)). You get the ((expletive)) out of this country.'
"The Khetanis say they get calls every few minutes from people who feel angry about the e-mail. They also say they received angry phone calls in the middle of the night.
"Trevey asked Ramzan Khetani if his son feels bad that the employee sent the e-mail. Khetani said, 'Yes, he is feeling bad and he let the guy go so it says how he felt about it.'
"The Khetani family immigrated from Pakistan in 1992. They became U.S. citizens. Ramzan Khetani insisted his family supports the troops in Iraq and feels patriotic about the United States."
Also, by going to the media, the sargeant got tons of publicity for the little known Wisconsin retailer (heck, I'm from Wisconsin, and I've never heard of them). I'd be willing to bet that sales to assorted leftists will go through the roof, even if some potential customers will shy away because of the e-mail.
Bad publicity can hurt a big company, but for an operation this size, any publicity is good publicity.
Michelle Malkin, who's publicized the incident on her blog and in a Hot Air Internet video, has basically declared war on the company. Good luck with that. Real fair to punish a business for one (fired) employee's mistake.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
From the Fox News story:
"Army Sgt. Jason Hess, stationed in Taji, Iraq, with the 1st Cavalry Division, said he emailed his request to www.discount-mats.com because he and his fellow soldiers sleep on the cold ground, which contains sand mites, sand flies and other disease carriers."
He got this e-mail response from the Web site:
"We do not ship to APO addresses, and even if we did, we would NEVER ship to Iraq. If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq."
Crucial bit Fox News hasn't come across yet: The owner fired the employee who wrote the e-mail.
From another story:
"The Web site's owner, 23-year-old Faisal Khetani, fired the employee who wrote the e-mail. Khetani told TODAY'S TMJ4 the e-mail does not express the views of his company.
"His father, Ramzan Khetani, told TODAY'S TMJ4's Mick Trevey that he felt offended by the e-mail saying, 'whatever the person said - was not fair - should not have said that.'
"The answering machine at the Khetanis' West Allis home was filled with vulgar messages. One caller ranted, 'You terrorist-loving jihad mother ((expletive)). This is America you son of a ((expletive)). You get the ((expletive)) out of this country.'
"The Khetanis say they get calls every few minutes from people who feel angry about the e-mail. They also say they received angry phone calls in the middle of the night.
"Trevey asked Ramzan Khetani if his son feels bad that the employee sent the e-mail. Khetani said, 'Yes, he is feeling bad and he let the guy go so it says how he felt about it.'
"The Khetani family immigrated from Pakistan in 1992. They became U.S. citizens. Ramzan Khetani insisted his family supports the troops in Iraq and feels patriotic about the United States."
Also, by going to the media, the sargeant got tons of publicity for the little known Wisconsin retailer (heck, I'm from Wisconsin, and I've never heard of them). I'd be willing to bet that sales to assorted leftists will go through the roof, even if some potential customers will shy away because of the e-mail.
Bad publicity can hurt a big company, but for an operation this size, any publicity is good publicity.
Michelle Malkin, who's publicized the incident on her blog and in a Hot Air Internet video, has basically declared war on the company. Good luck with that. Real fair to punish a business for one (fired) employee's mistake.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
The Bush Administration and Iran
My new piece is up at The American Spectator. It addresses the fact that the Bush Administration has increasingly talked about Iran in the context of its meddling in Iraq. Some fear the administration could use the 2002 Iraq war authorization to invade -- if Iran is harming Iraq, they're part of the same war Congress OKed.
I argue that (A) even if the adminstration won't flat-out admit it, the authorization won't cover Iran, and that (B) while Iran does pose a threat to Iraq, our biggest problem with Iran is its nuclear program. It would be ridiculous to invade on the grounds that Iran is hurting Iraq.
I argue that (A) even if the adminstration won't flat-out admit it, the authorization won't cover Iran, and that (B) while Iran does pose a threat to Iraq, our biggest problem with Iran is its nuclear program. It would be ridiculous to invade on the grounds that Iran is hurting Iraq.
Monday, January 22, 2007
The case against puppies
The Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 came up in a story I read awhile back, but I forgot to read up on it and weigh in. Here goes.
From the government:
"On November 9, 2000, the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 was signed, prohibiting '....imports, exports, sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution in the United States of dog and cat fur products.' The Act is designed to deter any operations that may cause brutality, suffering, or torture to cats and dogs and that may expose them to unjustifiable, inhumane living conditions.
"The Act is a result of an 18-month undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) that exposed the widespread brutal slaughter of more than two million domestic dogs and cats each year by Chinese and other Asian manufacturers. The fur of these dogs and cats is commonly used in the manufacture of products such as fur coats, fur-trimmed gloves, hats, and figurines, which are then sold in the United States and around the world."
First of all, the rationale is disingenuous. If all dog and cat fur is linked to conditions of "brutality, suffering, or torture" that are "unjustifiable, inhumane," why would the protection be limited to dogs and cats? Ban all fur.
What's really behind this is that American culture holds cute puppies and kitties above other animals.
I've long objected to this norm. Enjoy Fido and Frisky as pets, but let your neighbor use Lassie and Puffy how he wants to. Wear dog fur, just not my dog's fur.
Animal shelters put plenty of dogs and cats down when they can't take care of the critters -- 3 to 4 million per year in the U.S. by the Humane Society's own estimate. Wouldn't it be less wasteful to give the meat to the homeless and sell the fur to someone who could profit from it?
That said, the legislation is, in an odd hippie way, a defense of U.S. values in the face of foreigner behavior. Asians don't share our dog-and-cat worship, and this is a way of saying "if you're here or selling your products here, you'll abide by our traditions."
From the government:
"On November 9, 2000, the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000 was signed, prohibiting '....imports, exports, sale, manufacture, offer for sale, transportation, and distribution in the United States of dog and cat fur products.' The Act is designed to deter any operations that may cause brutality, suffering, or torture to cats and dogs and that may expose them to unjustifiable, inhumane living conditions.
"The Act is a result of an 18-month undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) that exposed the widespread brutal slaughter of more than two million domestic dogs and cats each year by Chinese and other Asian manufacturers. The fur of these dogs and cats is commonly used in the manufacture of products such as fur coats, fur-trimmed gloves, hats, and figurines, which are then sold in the United States and around the world."
First of all, the rationale is disingenuous. If all dog and cat fur is linked to conditions of "brutality, suffering, or torture" that are "unjustifiable, inhumane," why would the protection be limited to dogs and cats? Ban all fur.
What's really behind this is that American culture holds cute puppies and kitties above other animals.
I've long objected to this norm. Enjoy Fido and Frisky as pets, but let your neighbor use Lassie and Puffy how he wants to. Wear dog fur, just not my dog's fur.
Animal shelters put plenty of dogs and cats down when they can't take care of the critters -- 3 to 4 million per year in the U.S. by the Humane Society's own estimate. Wouldn't it be less wasteful to give the meat to the homeless and sell the fur to someone who could profit from it?
That said, the legislation is, in an odd hippie way, a defense of U.S. values in the face of foreigner behavior. Asians don't share our dog-and-cat worship, and this is a way of saying "if you're here or selling your products here, you'll abide by our traditions."
Reconsidering the Pottery Barn Rule
Colin Powell once said the "Pottery Barn Rule" would apply in Iraq. You broke it, you bought it. Since World War I left Germany impoverished and ripe for the Third Reich, the United States has tried to help its vanquished foes into better situations. There's a good deal of logic there.
Maybe it's time to reconsider that, though. In Iraq, it's arguable we should have settled for ousting Saddam, making sure there were no WMDs and then getting out. Saddam himself was a tradeoff, with authoritarianism and many killings but also stability -- so even in that case, we might have left Iraq better than we found it.
If prolonged involvement can fail to improve a country, there should be no rule demanding prolonged involvement after each and every invasion. In other words, break it if you have to, but don't buy it if you can't take care of it.
Discuss. (I don't feel like going on about it now.)
Maybe it's time to reconsider that, though. In Iraq, it's arguable we should have settled for ousting Saddam, making sure there were no WMDs and then getting out. Saddam himself was a tradeoff, with authoritarianism and many killings but also stability -- so even in that case, we might have left Iraq better than we found it.
If prolonged involvement can fail to improve a country, there should be no rule demanding prolonged involvement after each and every invasion. In other words, break it if you have to, but don't buy it if you can't take care of it.
Discuss. (I don't feel like going on about it now.)
Anti-AIDS group sues Viagra manufacturer
I haven't read a news story this amusing in awhile. An anti-AIDS group is suing Viagra manufacturer Pfizer. Pfizer is using sex appeal to sell a sex product, you see, and that's just wrong.
Viagra is meant for old people, and old people sex doesn't work so well in ads (remember Bob Dole?). So Pfizer uses 40- and 50-somethings to walk the line between "too young to appeal to ED suffers" and "too old for good TV."
From the story:
"The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) told Reuters it wants Pfizer to be barred from marketing Viagra as a lifestyle or sexual enhancement drug. The nonprofit organization said Pfizer's actions had led to risky behavior by men and an increase in HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases."
Also:
"AHF, in its legal arguments, pointed to several Viagra promotions from recent years, including a 2005 newspaper ad that featured a smiling man asking, 'What are you doing on New Year's Eve?'
"Another ad that ran near the 2006 Super Bowl urged men to 'Be this Sunday's MVP' and ask their doctors about Viagra.
"Pfizer's Viagra Web site asks readers, 'Want to improve your sex life?' and says the drug can help men who have erection difficulties 'once in a while.'"
And this is just hilarious:
"In 2004, the FDA objected to a television commercial suggesting Viagra could return a man to the 'wild thing' of his younger days. The FDA said the ad, showing a man sprouting devilish horns, made an unproven claim that men could regain a youthful level of sexual desire. Pfizer halted that campaign."
I've made this point before, especially about gun control, but the fact is that in American law following the law does not exempt you from civil liability. It may be perfectly legal to have something dangerous in my yard, but if someone gets hurt on it I can still be sued.
However, some industries -- like guns and drugs -- are incredibly regulated. In these cases, following the law should provide immunity from civil lawsuits. Pfizer shouldn't have to fear wacky you-cause-AIDS arguments after jumping through one bureaucratic hoop after another, including the requirement that all Viagra users obtain prescriptions first.
Those AIDS arguments are amusing enough in themselves. Any sexual product encourages sex, and sex transmits AIDS. If this lawsuit succeeds, a whole lot of companies could go down.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Viagra is meant for old people, and old people sex doesn't work so well in ads (remember Bob Dole?). So Pfizer uses 40- and 50-somethings to walk the line between "too young to appeal to ED suffers" and "too old for good TV."
From the story:
"The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) told Reuters it wants Pfizer to be barred from marketing Viagra as a lifestyle or sexual enhancement drug. The nonprofit organization said Pfizer's actions had led to risky behavior by men and an increase in HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases."
Also:
"AHF, in its legal arguments, pointed to several Viagra promotions from recent years, including a 2005 newspaper ad that featured a smiling man asking, 'What are you doing on New Year's Eve?'
"Another ad that ran near the 2006 Super Bowl urged men to 'Be this Sunday's MVP' and ask their doctors about Viagra.
"Pfizer's Viagra Web site asks readers, 'Want to improve your sex life?' and says the drug can help men who have erection difficulties 'once in a while.'"
And this is just hilarious:
"In 2004, the FDA objected to a television commercial suggesting Viagra could return a man to the 'wild thing' of his younger days. The FDA said the ad, showing a man sprouting devilish horns, made an unproven claim that men could regain a youthful level of sexual desire. Pfizer halted that campaign."
I've made this point before, especially about gun control, but the fact is that in American law following the law does not exempt you from civil liability. It may be perfectly legal to have something dangerous in my yard, but if someone gets hurt on it I can still be sued.
However, some industries -- like guns and drugs -- are incredibly regulated. In these cases, following the law should provide immunity from civil lawsuits. Pfizer shouldn't have to fear wacky you-cause-AIDS arguments after jumping through one bureaucratic hoop after another, including the requirement that all Viagra users obtain prescriptions first.
Those AIDS arguments are amusing enough in themselves. Any sexual product encourages sex, and sex transmits AIDS. If this lawsuit succeeds, a whole lot of companies could go down.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Diversity and academic performance
A few days back I went through national IQ scores and compared them to school performance, finding that the two were related, but that there were many exceptions -- some countries performed better, and some worse, than they should have. I created a measure, called the IQ Utilization Score (IUS), to measure how a country's academic test scores measured up with its potential in IQ. The data is up here.
I e-mailed The Audacious Epigone about the post, because he has a much better grasp on statistics than I do. He remembered an old blog post I did comparing diversity (measured by the ELF, which asks, "what are the odds two random people in a country will be of different ethnicities?") to incarceration rates. That data here.
He hypothesized: Greater diversity might make education more difficult, driving down test scores relative to IQ. Therefore, there should be a negative correlation between the ELF and my IUS.
So, I ran the numbers. At first it seemed like yet another waste of spreadsheet-building time, with a correlation of .15 (that number squared is .02, meaning that diversity explains only 2 percent of the IUS data). What's more, it was positive, meaning that diversity actually increased test scores.
What I did was divide the countries into the top and bottom halves of IQ. The results are fascinating -- the top half has a correlation of .54, meaning that diversity explains 29 percent of the IUS data. The number is positive, meaning that greater diversity means better test scores relative to IQ in smart countries.
The lower-IQ countries get the short end of the stick, though, with a correlation of -.32. Diversity explains 10 percent of the IUS data, and greater diversity means worse test scores relative to IQ.
I e-mailed The Audacious Epigone about the post, because he has a much better grasp on statistics than I do. He remembered an old blog post I did comparing diversity (measured by the ELF, which asks, "what are the odds two random people in a country will be of different ethnicities?") to incarceration rates. That data here.
He hypothesized: Greater diversity might make education more difficult, driving down test scores relative to IQ. Therefore, there should be a negative correlation between the ELF and my IUS.
So, I ran the numbers. At first it seemed like yet another waste of spreadsheet-building time, with a correlation of .15 (that number squared is .02, meaning that diversity explains only 2 percent of the IUS data). What's more, it was positive, meaning that diversity actually increased test scores.
What I did was divide the countries into the top and bottom halves of IQ. The results are fascinating -- the top half has a correlation of .54, meaning that diversity explains 29 percent of the IUS data. The number is positive, meaning that greater diversity means better test scores relative to IQ in smart countries.
The lower-IQ countries get the short end of the stick, though, with a correlation of -.32. Diversity explains 10 percent of the IUS data, and greater diversity means worse test scores relative to IQ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
