...Or gets shot in the head.
And why, oh why, did the baby seal cross the road?
Saturday, February 03, 2007
February 2007 archive
On mandatory HPV vaccinations
February 28th 2007 01:19
NOTE: Some of the links weren't working, so I removed them. The unlinked numbers are from the SEER registry.
This story has been stirring up a lot of debate. Some lawmakers are advocating a mandatory vaccine against HPV. (Oddly enough, Texas is the first state to consider it.)
The conservative response is varied -- some argue that vaccinating against an STD lowers the cost of otherwise risky sex, teaching kids it's OK, which it does to some degree. Others say parents should get to decide, which they should. An economist might point out that HPV risk varies with behavior, and it's rather dumb for someone to pay for an STD shot when they're abstinent. They're right.
But what I think the debate misses is a cost-benefit analysis. Every vaccination costs $360, plus doctor fees. For those who don't want to suffer through the painstaking math below, bottom line: For every $529,500 spent on Gardasil, the states will prevent three cancer cases. Two of these cancer cases would have been non-fatal. The dollar amount takes savings on medical bills into account.
The fact of the matter is that cervical cancer is a minimal though serious risk for American women. Some articles (including the one linked above) make a big deal about the global risk, but here (A) incidence is declining and (B) doctors often catch problems before they turn to cancer . About 8.8 in every 100,000 American women (.0088 percent) are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year.
As the San Francisco Chronicle observed:
"Cervical cancer is the second-most common cancer among women worldwide, and the third-most fatal, causing 290,000 deaths a year. It is rare in the United States, where regular screening for adult women catches most pre-cancerous cases, and about 3,700 women die of cervical cancer every year."
Browse through the government's "common cancer types," and you won't find it. In fact, of the 13 cancers that are listed, only non-melanoma skin cancer and thyroid cancer cause fewer than 7,000 deaths annually. Of all the things worth dedicating government resources to, cervical cancer should be low on the list. One wonders if the governments are more concerned about making sex risk-free than with saving lives -- but let's look strictly at the financial aspect.
One shot is only guaranteed to work for five years, but cervical cancer can take 20 years to develop (that's a high-end, see 7 to 12 for HPV 16 here), so lets say that no one vaccinated at 12 would end up with cervical cancer before 45 (20 years for incubation, 5 years of guaranteed immunity and we'll be generous and say 8 years of average extra immunity that's not guaranteed). And let's assume that Gardasil eliminates the 70 percent of cervical cancer thought caused by HPV. It is, after all, almost 100 percent effective.
A woman has a .233 percent chance of developing cervical cancer at any point between ages 0 and 45. That means .163 women in every 100 vaccinated will be saved from HPV-caused cervical cancer (.233 * .7). Divide the $36,000 spent vaccinating those 100 girls (we'll ignore doctor costs) by this and every cancer case avoided cost $220,859.
In spending this $221,000 (mind if I round?), insurance companies, patients and government programs will save $24,000 to $44,500 (2000 dollars converted to 2007 ones and rounded) in medical costs. Using the higher number (again, I'm a generous guy), the total cost of preventing the cancer was $176,500.
Also, in the end, about 33 percent of women who get cervical cancer die from it. (The lifetime risk of ever having cervical cancer is three times the risk of dying from it.) So as I summarized above, $529,500, three cases, one of them fatal, prevented.
Is that worth it? Of course we'd all agree a life -- plus two cancer ordeals, with the pain and lost work that implies -- is worth $529,000, but one important question to ask is whether state governments could have done more good by putting that money elsewhere. Even assuming the liberal model where encouraging protected-but-promiscuous sex is the best way to deal with the issue, $529,000 would buy a lot of condoms (which protect against HPV to some degree, and, of course, against pregnancy and most other STDs). That amount of money can put more cops on the street, keep dangerous criminals in jail longer, support medical research, improve dangerous roads, etc. It could buy a lot of cervical cancer screenings.
Even completely discounting the cultural effects of assuming kids will have sex, this measure is probably not the best way to save lives. Either the lawmakers haven't done their research, or they really do only care about mainstreaming sexuality.
This story has been stirring up a lot of debate. Some lawmakers are advocating a mandatory vaccine against HPV. (Oddly enough, Texas is the first state to consider it.)
The conservative response is varied -- some argue that vaccinating against an STD lowers the cost of otherwise risky sex, teaching kids it's OK, which it does to some degree. Others say parents should get to decide, which they should. An economist might point out that HPV risk varies with behavior, and it's rather dumb for someone to pay for an STD shot when they're abstinent. They're right.
But what I think the debate misses is a cost-benefit analysis. Every vaccination costs $360, plus doctor fees. For those who don't want to suffer through the painstaking math below, bottom line: For every $529,500 spent on Gardasil, the states will prevent three cancer cases. Two of these cancer cases would have been non-fatal. The dollar amount takes savings on medical bills into account.
The fact of the matter is that cervical cancer is a minimal though serious risk for American women. Some articles (including the one linked above) make a big deal about the global risk, but here (A) incidence is declining and (B) doctors often catch problems before they turn to cancer . About 8.8 in every 100,000 American women (.0088 percent) are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year.
As the San Francisco Chronicle observed:
"Cervical cancer is the second-most common cancer among women worldwide, and the third-most fatal, causing 290,000 deaths a year. It is rare in the United States, where regular screening for adult women catches most pre-cancerous cases, and about 3,700 women die of cervical cancer every year."
Browse through the government's "common cancer types," and you won't find it. In fact, of the 13 cancers that are listed, only non-melanoma skin cancer and thyroid cancer cause fewer than 7,000 deaths annually. Of all the things worth dedicating government resources to, cervical cancer should be low on the list. One wonders if the governments are more concerned about making sex risk-free than with saving lives -- but let's look strictly at the financial aspect.
One shot is only guaranteed to work for five years, but cervical cancer can take 20 years to develop (that's a high-end, see 7 to 12 for HPV 16 here), so lets say that no one vaccinated at 12 would end up with cervical cancer before 45 (20 years for incubation, 5 years of guaranteed immunity and we'll be generous and say 8 years of average extra immunity that's not guaranteed). And let's assume that Gardasil eliminates the 70 percent of cervical cancer thought caused by HPV. It is, after all, almost 100 percent effective.
A woman has a .233 percent chance of developing cervical cancer at any point between ages 0 and 45. That means .163 women in every 100 vaccinated will be saved from HPV-caused cervical cancer (.233 * .7). Divide the $36,000 spent vaccinating those 100 girls (we'll ignore doctor costs) by this and every cancer case avoided cost $220,859.
In spending this $221,000 (mind if I round?), insurance companies, patients and government programs will save $24,000 to $44,500 (2000 dollars converted to 2007 ones and rounded) in medical costs. Using the higher number (again, I'm a generous guy), the total cost of preventing the cancer was $176,500.
Also, in the end, about 33 percent of women who get cervical cancer die from it. (The lifetime risk of ever having cervical cancer is three times the risk of dying from it.) So as I summarized above, $529,500, three cases, one of them fatal, prevented.
Is that worth it? Of course we'd all agree a life -- plus two cancer ordeals, with the pain and lost work that implies -- is worth $529,000, but one important question to ask is whether state governments could have done more good by putting that money elsewhere. Even assuming the liberal model where encouraging protected-but-promiscuous sex is the best way to deal with the issue, $529,000 would buy a lot of condoms (which protect against HPV to some degree, and, of course, against pregnancy and most other STDs). That amount of money can put more cops on the street, keep dangerous criminals in jail longer, support medical research, improve dangerous roads, etc. It could buy a lot of cervical cancer screenings.
Even completely discounting the cultural effects of assuming kids will have sex, this measure is probably not the best way to save lives. Either the lawmakers haven't done their research, or they really do only care about mainstreaming sexuality.
Very brief review: Music & Lyrics
February 28th 2007 00:05
The one-word take: Adequate. It was funny, lighthearted, cute, etc. Just what you'd expect, but it's not like you'll remember it in 10 years.
Drew Barrymore and Hugh Grant are predictably amusing, delivering the one-liners well and developing characters that mesh. If you haven't seen the trailers, Grant is a washed-up 80s singer, Barrymore a "born lyricist" he runs into, and they have one week to write a song for pop princess "Cora."
The music disappoints, however. Intro song "Pop! Goes My Heart" is a hilarious take on 80s synth pop, but the track Barrymore and Grant write together is rather lame (albeit featuring respectable lyrics). Also, they're writing for a Britney Spears-like singer/dancer -- who bizarrely blends Buddhism with aggressive sexuality, yet conveys no personality -- but churn out a cheesy modern rock ballad. Considering "Cora" is a the weakest character here, the writers would have been better making the star a singer/sort-of-songwriter like Avril Lavigne.
A song Grant's character writes alone is even worse. Puke.
Bottom line, good date movie, worthwhile for a few laughs. If you're single at the moment, though, you're not missing all that much.
Drew Barrymore and Hugh Grant are predictably amusing, delivering the one-liners well and developing characters that mesh. If you haven't seen the trailers, Grant is a washed-up 80s singer, Barrymore a "born lyricist" he runs into, and they have one week to write a song for pop princess "Cora."
The music disappoints, however. Intro song "Pop! Goes My Heart" is a hilarious take on 80s synth pop, but the track Barrymore and Grant write together is rather lame (albeit featuring respectable lyrics). Also, they're writing for a Britney Spears-like singer/dancer -- who bizarrely blends Buddhism with aggressive sexuality, yet conveys no personality -- but churn out a cheesy modern rock ballad. Considering "Cora" is a the weakest character here, the writers would have been better making the star a singer/sort-of-songwriter like Avril Lavigne.
A song Grant's character writes alone is even worse. Puke.
Bottom line, good date movie, worthwhile for a few laughs. If you're single at the moment, though, you're not missing all that much.
A rant on classical guitar tab
February 28th 2007 00:04
Q: How do you get a guitarist to play quietly?
A: Give him sheet music.
I've been playing guitar for more than eight years, and I can drudge through sheet music if I have to. In high school I was even in jazz band. (For non-guitar players, sheet music puts the notes on a traditional staff, like you'd see in band or piano music. Tablature is a diagram of the guitar's neck with numbers indicating what fret to play each note on.)
But here's the bottom line: No matter what music snobs say, the guitar requires tab. Unlike most other instruments, you can play the same note up to 6 different ways (with a 24-fretter anyway) on a guitar. Simply writing the note doesn't cut it -- if you play that note higher on the neck it'll sound darker and a little muffled, and the composer can't achieve his vision without specifying.
Anyway, for some reason, lately I've been wanting to play more classical guitar, so I ran into a music store in Green Bay to pick up some books. I was shocked that only two of the five or so in stock had tabs. They're losing sales, because as soon as I saw that I put them back.
The funny thing is that most tab books (excluding some hard rock ones, and Guitar World magazine) also have the sheet music! The three guitarists who prefer notes don't lose anything when they buy a book that also includes tab. So I propose adding tab to all guitar music.
I ended up with Fingerpicking Mozart, and so far I love it. Less than $10, and the 15 short pieces range in difficulty from intermediate to moderately challenging. My favorite is "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," though the quick notes are surprisingly tricky to fingerpick. (For some reason I have trouble using two different fingers to play successive notes on the same string. Working on it.)
A: Give him sheet music.
I've been playing guitar for more than eight years, and I can drudge through sheet music if I have to. In high school I was even in jazz band. (For non-guitar players, sheet music puts the notes on a traditional staff, like you'd see in band or piano music. Tablature is a diagram of the guitar's neck with numbers indicating what fret to play each note on.)
But here's the bottom line: No matter what music snobs say, the guitar requires tab. Unlike most other instruments, you can play the same note up to 6 different ways (with a 24-fretter anyway) on a guitar. Simply writing the note doesn't cut it -- if you play that note higher on the neck it'll sound darker and a little muffled, and the composer can't achieve his vision without specifying.
Anyway, for some reason, lately I've been wanting to play more classical guitar, so I ran into a music store in Green Bay to pick up some books. I was shocked that only two of the five or so in stock had tabs. They're losing sales, because as soon as I saw that I put them back.
The funny thing is that most tab books (excluding some hard rock ones, and Guitar World magazine) also have the sheet music! The three guitarists who prefer notes don't lose anything when they buy a book that also includes tab. So I propose adding tab to all guitar music.
I ended up with Fingerpicking Mozart, and so far I love it. Less than $10, and the 15 short pieces range in difficulty from intermediate to moderately challenging. My favorite is "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik," though the quick notes are surprisingly tricky to fingerpick. (For some reason I have trouble using two different fingers to play successive notes on the same string. Working on it.)
Obituary: Nine Inch Nails
February 28th 2007 00:03
...There are two new songs from Trent Reznor up on MySpace. They're just as bad as the garbage on With Teeth. (Which I blasted here. )
From 1989-1999, Nine Inch Nails turned out some of the most beautiful, creative, complex and anguished alternative rock ever. I loved every record in high school. But since then, it seems like Reznor just throws some techno noises and half-hearted guitar riffs down and talks over them. Let's hope the rest of the record is better.
Or maybe I'm just getting old. Sorry, but it doesn't impress me that you're depressed and hate everyone anymore!
From 1989-1999, Nine Inch Nails turned out some of the most beautiful, creative, complex and anguished alternative rock ever. I loved every record in high school. But since then, it seems like Reznor just throws some techno noises and half-hearted guitar riffs down and talks over them. Let's hope the rest of the record is better.
Or maybe I'm just getting old. Sorry, but it doesn't impress me that you're depressed and hate everyone anymore!
The tax man, whoa
February 16th 2007 03:38
Did my federal taxes yesterday. Few quick points.
Regarding "tax cuts for the rich," conservatives have often made the point that most tax cut money doesn't go to the poor because the poor don't pay taxes. Regarding income inequality, they've often pointed out that income figures mislead -- people who don't make much money are often right out of college, or unemployed by choice.
My own experience is evidence they're right on both points.
I graduated in June. Before that I had a work-study job at school, and I worked at Kmart over spring break. I had a paid newspaper internship over the summer and got a job in DC from September through the end of the year.
All told, I didn't make that much, at least in the context of someone living for a whole year. In the eyes of the government, I'm pretty poor, though I never went without a meal and always had secure housing. I went to a good college and haven't been without a job since graduating. In other words, in the eyes of reality, I'm one of the richest people ever to walk the planet. I don't know how to quantify this, but I'd bet my material situation beats far more than 99 percent of homo sapiens through history.
Knock off the standard deduction, my exemption and tuition, and I only paid taxes on about $3,000.
That's $281 in taxes. I'll be getting a buncha money back from the government.
Not that I want to pay more, but there's no case that low-income earners have too much tax burden relative to the rich. And some low-income earners, like me, aren't really so low-income.
Regarding "tax cuts for the rich," conservatives have often made the point that most tax cut money doesn't go to the poor because the poor don't pay taxes. Regarding income inequality, they've often pointed out that income figures mislead -- people who don't make much money are often right out of college, or unemployed by choice.
My own experience is evidence they're right on both points.
I graduated in June. Before that I had a work-study job at school, and I worked at Kmart over spring break. I had a paid newspaper internship over the summer and got a job in DC from September through the end of the year.
All told, I didn't make that much, at least in the context of someone living for a whole year. In the eyes of the government, I'm pretty poor, though I never went without a meal and always had secure housing. I went to a good college and haven't been without a job since graduating. In other words, in the eyes of reality, I'm one of the richest people ever to walk the planet. I don't know how to quantify this, but I'd bet my material situation beats far more than 99 percent of homo sapiens through history.
Knock off the standard deduction, my exemption and tuition, and I only paid taxes on about $3,000.
That's $281 in taxes. I'll be getting a buncha money back from the government.
Not that I want to pay more, but there's no case that low-income earners have too much tax burden relative to the rich. And some low-income earners, like me, aren't really so low-income.
Gun book review, and I'm not dead...
February 15th 2007 04:38
...Just on dialup Internet from Wisconsin, and posting is a pain. Besides, this is the last vacation I'll get in awhile.
Anyway, few quick notes.
--The Washington Times, my future full-time employer, has my review of Clayton Cramer's Armed America.
--Will resume regular posting this weekend.
Anyway, few quick notes.
--The Washington Times, my future full-time employer, has my review of Clayton Cramer's Armed America.
--Will resume regular posting this weekend.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Panel: 90 percent chance global warming is man-made
I haven't said much about the global warming debate, as I'm not well read on natural sciences. Overall I've tended to think warming is real, partially man-made and a serious (but not catastrophic) problem.
This story made me think a bit though. A new report claims there's a 90 percent chance (they call that "very high confidence") that on balance, human activity since 1750 has made the Earth warmer.
First of all, the scientists are 90 percent humans cause warming to what degree? I don't think anyone has said that natural fluctuations don't affect climate at all. If emissions cause 1 percent of warming, that's not that helpful for solving the problem. Even if you're 100 percent certain.
To answer the question I read the report itself (OK, the policymaker summary, sue me). Soon after claiming a 90 percent chance that humans have caused more warming than cooling (page 3), the report claims that "most" of the warming is "very likely" (90-95 percent) to have been human-caused (page 8). Which is it -- a 90 percent chance humans caused any warming, or most warming?
Two, it's a natural tendency to wonder how much warming is man-made: If we messed it up, we should fix it. But in the end, why does it matter?
The pertinent questions should be, (A) is the Earth getting warmer, (B) is said warming harmful to human interests and (C) if yes and yes, can we do anything to stop it? If warming is man-made but harmless, there's no reason to disrupt our lives. If it's not man-made, but is harmful, we should do what we can to fix it.
(Of course, the causes of warming will matter in terms of how, exactly, to fix it. If our behavior is the problem, we need to stop that behavior; if it's not, we need to do something else. But the debate right now is about how much to inconvenience ourselves for the sake of the climate. For that decision, the cause of warming is irrelevant.)
Finally, take a look at the chart on page 7 of the report, where the researchers look at various trends -- whether they occurred, whether human activity caused them and whether they'll continue in the future. Somehow, the first two columns have "likely" and "very likely" popping up a lot, but the future predictions have two "virtually certains." In every single category, the scientists are equally or more certain about the future than the past.
Tell me how is it, exactly, that the panel is better at predicting the future than at analyzing established data? For example, it's "very likely" that there were fewer and warmer cold days in the late 20th century, and "likely" human activity contributed to it, but "virtually certain" this will continue in the future.
One minor aside, from page 3 of the report:
"Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect."
Does that make it a good thing?
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
This story made me think a bit though. A new report claims there's a 90 percent chance (they call that "very high confidence") that on balance, human activity since 1750 has made the Earth warmer.
First of all, the scientists are 90 percent humans cause warming to what degree? I don't think anyone has said that natural fluctuations don't affect climate at all. If emissions cause 1 percent of warming, that's not that helpful for solving the problem. Even if you're 100 percent certain.
To answer the question I read the report itself (OK, the policymaker summary, sue me). Soon after claiming a 90 percent chance that humans have caused more warming than cooling (page 3), the report claims that "most" of the warming is "very likely" (90-95 percent) to have been human-caused (page 8). Which is it -- a 90 percent chance humans caused any warming, or most warming?
Two, it's a natural tendency to wonder how much warming is man-made: If we messed it up, we should fix it. But in the end, why does it matter?
The pertinent questions should be, (A) is the Earth getting warmer, (B) is said warming harmful to human interests and (C) if yes and yes, can we do anything to stop it? If warming is man-made but harmless, there's no reason to disrupt our lives. If it's not man-made, but is harmful, we should do what we can to fix it.
(Of course, the causes of warming will matter in terms of how, exactly, to fix it. If our behavior is the problem, we need to stop that behavior; if it's not, we need to do something else. But the debate right now is about how much to inconvenience ourselves for the sake of the climate. For that decision, the cause of warming is irrelevant.)
Finally, take a look at the chart on page 7 of the report, where the researchers look at various trends -- whether they occurred, whether human activity caused them and whether they'll continue in the future. Somehow, the first two columns have "likely" and "very likely" popping up a lot, but the future predictions have two "virtually certains." In every single category, the scientists are equally or more certain about the future than the past.
Tell me how is it, exactly, that the panel is better at predicting the future than at analyzing established data? For example, it's "very likely" that there were fewer and warmer cold days in the late 20th century, and "likely" human activity contributed to it, but "virtually certain" this will continue in the future.
One minor aside, from page 3 of the report:
"Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect."
Does that make it a good thing?
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Cancer expert: No evidence second-hand smoke kills
On this blog, I've pretty consistently made the point that small doses of second-hand smoke are basically harmless. The studies that claim otherwise -- particularly of the "city bans public smoking, sees death drop precipitously in six months" variety -- have been pretty ridiculous.
However, I'd always had the impression that the research said something. The logical deduction was that people who lived with smokers probably really did increase their risks.
I still believe that's the case (more on why later), but one expert thinks there's no evidence it is, according to this Washington Post op-ed.
First off, the author's bio, lest readers think he's some hack:
"Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes."
Here's how he says anti-second-hand smoke studies work:
"Typically, the studies asked 60-70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures."
He points out the obvious problem: Non-smokers with cancer will be prone to report higher levels of second-hand smoke, whether or not they experienced it. The power of suggestion is strong in survey research.
Nonetheless -- and most surprising:
"[R]esults are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and astoundingly, some show a reduction of risk."
In other words, these second-hand smoke studies are garbage, and some even suggest the impossibility that inhaling toxins is good for you.
But -- a major but -- there's an easy way to get around the problems mentioned: Look only at non-smokers who live with smokers. This won't speak to very minor second-hand smoke (say, oh, in bars and restaurants), but it will show whether massive amounts can hurt.
According to the National Institutes of Health:
"Nonsmokers who live or work with smokers experience a 30 to 50 percent elevated risk for lung cancer."
Still, I think the op-ed demolishes the notion that minor smoke inhalation is a significant cancer cause. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi will change her policy.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
However, I'd always had the impression that the research said something. The logical deduction was that people who lived with smokers probably really did increase their risks.
I still believe that's the case (more on why later), but one expert thinks there's no evidence it is, according to this Washington Post op-ed.
First off, the author's bio, lest readers think he's some hack:
"Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes."
Here's how he says anti-second-hand smoke studies work:
"Typically, the studies asked 60-70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures."
He points out the obvious problem: Non-smokers with cancer will be prone to report higher levels of second-hand smoke, whether or not they experienced it. The power of suggestion is strong in survey research.
Nonetheless -- and most surprising:
"[R]esults are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and astoundingly, some show a reduction of risk."
In other words, these second-hand smoke studies are garbage, and some even suggest the impossibility that inhaling toxins is good for you.
But -- a major but -- there's an easy way to get around the problems mentioned: Look only at non-smokers who live with smokers. This won't speak to very minor second-hand smoke (say, oh, in bars and restaurants), but it will show whether massive amounts can hurt.
According to the National Institutes of Health:
"Nonsmokers who live or work with smokers experience a 30 to 50 percent elevated risk for lung cancer."
Still, I think the op-ed demolishes the notion that minor smoke inhalation is a significant cancer cause. I wonder if Nancy Pelosi will change her policy.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
New piece up at antiMusic
antiMusic has my review of Sydera's debut CD.
Main point:
"In many ways, Sydera's self-titled debut is everything mainstream heavy metal should be. The vocals are melodic, the rhythm guitars slam with solid-not-showboating riffs, the solos add to the songs, the lyrics work and classical piano and strings add a nice touch. Even the cover, a blood-drenched white rose, is pretty sweet."
One thing I wish I'd phrased better (wrote it a month or so ago) is when I say that Sydera does a better-than-average job of making the bass guitar pop out in the mix. In the next sentence, I imply that most metal albums don't bring out the "low end," which isn't exactly true.
The problem is that many albums leave too much low end in the regular guitars and mix the bass guitar down to inaudible levels. The problem isn't a lack of low frequencies in the mix; the problem is that they're coming from the regular guitar, which doesn't do a good job of producing them.
When I mix my own music (badly, I might add), I make sure to use what's called a high-pass filter on the guitars. This drains off the extreme low end to make room for the bass (which, as I don't play bass, comes from a keyboard).
Main point:
"In many ways, Sydera's self-titled debut is everything mainstream heavy metal should be. The vocals are melodic, the rhythm guitars slam with solid-not-showboating riffs, the solos add to the songs, the lyrics work and classical piano and strings add a nice touch. Even the cover, a blood-drenched white rose, is pretty sweet."
One thing I wish I'd phrased better (wrote it a month or so ago) is when I say that Sydera does a better-than-average job of making the bass guitar pop out in the mix. In the next sentence, I imply that most metal albums don't bring out the "low end," which isn't exactly true.
The problem is that many albums leave too much low end in the regular guitars and mix the bass guitar down to inaudible levels. The problem isn't a lack of low frequencies in the mix; the problem is that they're coming from the regular guitar, which doesn't do a good job of producing them.
When I mix my own music (badly, I might add), I make sure to use what's called a high-pass filter on the guitars. This drains off the extreme low end to make room for the bass (which, as I don't play bass, comes from a keyboard).
Note to the SF Chronicle on pronoun use
When you've introduced two nouns in a sentence, and the same pronoun could be used to describe either, you can't use the pronoun.
Case in point:
"San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's re-election campaign manager [Alex Tourk] resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor's office, City Hall sources said."
My first reaction was, how can Newsom have an affair with his own wife? Was it before they were married -- is Tourk mad because he thinks she got preferential treatment?
What the story means by "his," though, is "Tourk's." Our boy Newsom had an affair with Tourk's wife.
Funny detail:
"[She t]old him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse."
So honey, the drug problem is getting better...but I had sex with your boss! Wait, what's the matter?
Newsom is now dating a 20-year-old. Who drinks. That's some city.
Case in point:
"San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's re-election campaign manager [Alex Tourk] resigned Wednesday after confronting the mayor about an affair Newsom had with his wife while she worked in the mayor's office, City Hall sources said."
My first reaction was, how can Newsom have an affair with his own wife? Was it before they were married -- is Tourk mad because he thinks she got preferential treatment?
What the story means by "his," though, is "Tourk's." Our boy Newsom had an affair with Tourk's wife.
Funny detail:
"[She t]old him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse."
So honey, the drug problem is getting better...but I had sex with your boss! Wait, what's the matter?
Newsom is now dating a 20-year-old. Who drinks. That's some city.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Super Bowl myths story neglects feminist domestic violence lie
This Chicago Tribune story is atrocious. It's about Super Bowl myths, but it doesn't mention the biggest one of all -- indeed, the only one I'd ever heard of before the story -- that domestic violence spikes on that day.
The writer doesn't hesitate to call this one "slightly sexist" though:
"Lingerie sales jump in the days before the Super Bowl as women look for ways to woo their significant others away from the big game."
Apparently anti-male sexism, and the world's most oft-repeated Super Bowl myth, doesn't matter.
The writer doesn't hesitate to call this one "slightly sexist" though:
"Lingerie sales jump in the days before the Super Bowl as women look for ways to woo their significant others away from the big game."
Apparently anti-male sexism, and the world's most oft-repeated Super Bowl myth, doesn't matter.
Bozell III on Obama
Yesterday I made the point that, as the media converges on Obama's past, he'll have to answer to it. I found it particularly troubling that he admitted in print to youthful racism, and that he identified with his rather questionable father growing up.
Some lefties jumped all over me at BNN; see their hysteria and my response here. Apparently a Democrat's past doesn't matter.
Brent Bozell III makes a similar point on Townhall today:
"Let's be clear about this. The liberal media don't care what Democratic love objects do when they're in grade school, even in Indonesia, just as they didn't care what Bill Clinton was doing touring Russia and the Soviet bloc in his 20s, just as they didn't care how he dodged the draft or whether he inhaled, just as they didn't even want to know if Clinton raped a woman when he was 32.
"But Obama ought to thank his lucky liberal stars that he's not a Republican. This is not the standard the media had for George W. Bush in 1999, when the entire liberal media ran in a pack suggesting Bush was a cokehead.
...
"But the richest irony in the contrast is this: Obama has admitted in his biography to using cocaine in high school and college. CNN doesn't care. While they scour the globe to rebut madrassa stories, they're not asking him about this settled truth. Serious journalism, indeed."
Personally, I don't care whether either used drugs in college -- I think racism would affect governance on a much deeper level -- but Bozell is right that the double standard is obvious.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Some lefties jumped all over me at BNN; see their hysteria and my response here. Apparently a Democrat's past doesn't matter.
Brent Bozell III makes a similar point on Townhall today:
"Let's be clear about this. The liberal media don't care what Democratic love objects do when they're in grade school, even in Indonesia, just as they didn't care what Bill Clinton was doing touring Russia and the Soviet bloc in his 20s, just as they didn't care how he dodged the draft or whether he inhaled, just as they didn't even want to know if Clinton raped a woman when he was 32.
"But Obama ought to thank his lucky liberal stars that he's not a Republican. This is not the standard the media had for George W. Bush in 1999, when the entire liberal media ran in a pack suggesting Bush was a cokehead.
...
"But the richest irony in the contrast is this: Obama has admitted in his biography to using cocaine in high school and college. CNN doesn't care. While they scour the globe to rebut madrassa stories, they're not asking him about this settled truth. Serious journalism, indeed."
Personally, I don't care whether either used drugs in college -- I think racism would affect governance on a much deeper level -- but Bozell is right that the double standard is obvious.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
New piece up at antiMusic
antiMusic has my review of Cobra Blood Hangover by The International Playboys.
Main point:
"After a brief resurgence, garage rock seems to be fading again. The White Stripes will always rock something furious, but now is probably not the time to put out a jangly, underproduced collection of primitive rock songs.
"The International Playboys, apparently, didn't get the memo. The bottom line is that there is no particular reason to pick up Cobra Blood Hangover.
"Simply put, the songs are nothing special, with stereotypical garage rock guitar riffs and poorly yelled vocals. Where The White Stripes give a personal touch, namely weaving in elements of folk, The International Playboys stick to a formula perfected (and better executed) years ago."
Main point:
"After a brief resurgence, garage rock seems to be fading again. The White Stripes will always rock something furious, but now is probably not the time to put out a jangly, underproduced collection of primitive rock songs.
"The International Playboys, apparently, didn't get the memo. The bottom line is that there is no particular reason to pick up Cobra Blood Hangover.
"Simply put, the songs are nothing special, with stereotypical garage rock guitar riffs and poorly yelled vocals. Where The White Stripes give a personal touch, namely weaving in elements of folk, The International Playboys stick to a formula perfected (and better executed) years ago."
The Duke lacrosse scandal, the media and rape allegations
I attended a very interesting and informative Robert Taft Club meeting about the Duke lacrosse scandal Monday night. I wanted to write about it but wasn't sure what point to make. (For the record, I am not a member, though I signed up for the e-mails.)
On a half-hour delay on the subway this morning, it dawned on me: Several panelists went after the media for painting the "victim" in sympathetic terms before more facts started coming out. They alleged that left-wing anti-rich white male sentiment was to blame. It probably played a role.
But then I thought of another case of false accusation, when in the mid-'90s Susan Smith claimed a black man had kidnapped her children. She cried in TV interviews while recounting the "incident." Police later charged Smith with murder, and the jury found her guilty.
In both cases, race and class might have had some impact. It's very possible that the average journalist is likely to believe both that (A) a black man could kidnap kids in a carjacking and (B) rich white lacrosse players might feel entitled to rape a poor black stripper. (Statistically, though, the latter situation is rare.)
I think a very different common thread runs between the two stories, however. The simple fact is that it's difficult -- even callous -- to challenge a woman when she claims her sexuality and/or children have been taken from her. When a crying woman says "I was raped" or "my children were kidnapped," followed by "the person looked like this," who has the natural inkling to say "prove it"?
And let's not forget that in both cases, the truth came out. Police quickly caught on that Susan Smith lied; even if prosecutor Nifong hasn't dropped all charges against the lacrosse players, everyone in America knows there's no evidence they committed any crime that night.
These are both cases of a very natural reaction, that of believing a visibly injured woman and then closely investigating the claim to catch the perpetrator. Various aspects of the Duke case disgust me, from the professors' presumption of guilt to the prosecutor's misconduct, but I don't think the media was out of line to believe a rape had really occurred.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
On a half-hour delay on the subway this morning, it dawned on me: Several panelists went after the media for painting the "victim" in sympathetic terms before more facts started coming out. They alleged that left-wing anti-rich white male sentiment was to blame. It probably played a role.
But then I thought of another case of false accusation, when in the mid-'90s Susan Smith claimed a black man had kidnapped her children. She cried in TV interviews while recounting the "incident." Police later charged Smith with murder, and the jury found her guilty.
In both cases, race and class might have had some impact. It's very possible that the average journalist is likely to believe both that (A) a black man could kidnap kids in a carjacking and (B) rich white lacrosse players might feel entitled to rape a poor black stripper. (Statistically, though, the latter situation is rare.)
I think a very different common thread runs between the two stories, however. The simple fact is that it's difficult -- even callous -- to challenge a woman when she claims her sexuality and/or children have been taken from her. When a crying woman says "I was raped" or "my children were kidnapped," followed by "the person looked like this," who has the natural inkling to say "prove it"?
And let's not forget that in both cases, the truth came out. Police quickly caught on that Susan Smith lied; even if prosecutor Nifong hasn't dropped all charges against the lacrosse players, everyone in America knows there's no evidence they committed any crime that night.
These are both cases of a very natural reaction, that of believing a visibly injured woman and then closely investigating the claim to catch the perpetrator. Various aspects of the Duke case disgust me, from the professors' presumption of guilt to the prosecutor's misconduct, but I don't think the media was out of line to believe a rape had really occurred.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
New piece up at antiMusic
antiMusic has my hat-trick review of Endwell's, Kittie's and Smilin Liar's latest releases.
Main points:
"Of the three, Endwell's Homeland Insecurity is easily the most successful. The band molds elements of hardcore, metal, pop-punk and emo into a set of catchy, cohesive and absolutely top-notch songs. This is a CD to buy and an act to keep track of.
...
"In the end it's hard not to enjoy Funeral for Yesterday, with its admirable songwriting, capable riffing and noticeable development since the band's early days. But next time around, Kittie would do better to bring in a better producer – someone to fully develop ideas when the girls fail.
...
"[Smilin Liar's record] takes the cake in terms of musical diversity. The problem is that only one of the three tracks to incorporate heavy doses of screaming succeeds. On future releases the band might play down the metal and go after the alternative audience, because that's where its heart lies."
Main points:
"Of the three, Endwell's Homeland Insecurity is easily the most successful. The band molds elements of hardcore, metal, pop-punk and emo into a set of catchy, cohesive and absolutely top-notch songs. This is a CD to buy and an act to keep track of.
...
"In the end it's hard not to enjoy Funeral for Yesterday, with its admirable songwriting, capable riffing and noticeable development since the band's early days. But next time around, Kittie would do better to bring in a better producer – someone to fully develop ideas when the girls fail.
...
"[Smilin Liar's record] takes the cake in terms of musical diversity. The problem is that only one of the three tracks to incorporate heavy doses of screaming succeeds. On future releases the band might play down the metal and go after the alternative audience, because that's where its heart lies."
Media converges on past Obama comments
Back in October I posted a comment from Shelby Steele on Barack Obama, quoted in Time magazine:
"White people are just thrilled when a prominent black person comes along and doesn't rub their noses in racial guilt."
Shortly thereafter, I wrote in the Weekly Standard about Obama's comment that the Republican Party had "discovered black people." For the new Obama, this was a slip-up inconsistent with his normally even-toned demeanor.
Back in the Weekly Standard article, I argued that this demeanor is itself inconsistent with his far-left voting record. But Obama has only been in Congress for a few years, and presidential races aren't based only on recent activity. Media research covers one's whole life. Steele's comment doesn't ring as true anymore -- not only in terms of Obama's voting record, but in his older comments as well.
This article, and other recent ones, have made it clear Obama has had some real racial hang-ups. That may be understandable for someone who grew up mixed, but if these hang-ups still lurk under the surface, they're not acceptable in a leader who has to make decisions on race-based domestic policies.
A lengthy excerpt from the article:
"Although Obama was raised by his mother, he identified more closely with the race of his father, who left the family when Obama was 2.
"'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,' he wrote...
"Although Obama spent various portions of his youth living with his white maternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather, he vowed that he would 'never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
"Obama wrote that in high school, he and a black friend would sometimes speak disparagingly 'about white folks this or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother's smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false.'
"As a result, he concluded that 'certain whites could be excluded from the general category of our distrust.'"
Excellent -- I wonder which whites in American politics, or even in America at large, are today excluded? Also, family-values Americans won't be too thrilled that he identified with a father who left when Obama was 2, had multiple wives at once and sired eight children with several different women.
Again, this is not a personal attack on Obama. With this kind of family history, it's understandable he would have troubles dealing with everything. Sociological research has revealed that mixed-race Americans often end up identifying with one race or another. But Americans need a president without such issues. At the very least, he'll have to convince America he's past it by explicitly contradicting his published work.
Also, I hope people can focus not on Obama's father's behavior, but on Obama's reactions to it. I don't think it's fair to punish the candidate -- who so far seems a decent if extremely liberal man -- for others' sins.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
"White people are just thrilled when a prominent black person comes along and doesn't rub their noses in racial guilt."
Shortly thereafter, I wrote in the Weekly Standard about Obama's comment that the Republican Party had "discovered black people." For the new Obama, this was a slip-up inconsistent with his normally even-toned demeanor.
Back in the Weekly Standard article, I argued that this demeanor is itself inconsistent with his far-left voting record. But Obama has only been in Congress for a few years, and presidential races aren't based only on recent activity. Media research covers one's whole life. Steele's comment doesn't ring as true anymore -- not only in terms of Obama's voting record, but in his older comments as well.
This article, and other recent ones, have made it clear Obama has had some real racial hang-ups. That may be understandable for someone who grew up mixed, but if these hang-ups still lurk under the surface, they're not acceptable in a leader who has to make decisions on race-based domestic policies.
A lengthy excerpt from the article:
"Although Obama was raised by his mother, he identified more closely with the race of his father, who left the family when Obama was 2.
"'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites,' he wrote...
"Although Obama spent various portions of his youth living with his white maternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather, he vowed that he would 'never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
"Obama wrote that in high school, he and a black friend would sometimes speak disparagingly 'about white folks this or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother's smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false.'
"As a result, he concluded that 'certain whites could be excluded from the general category of our distrust.'"
Excellent -- I wonder which whites in American politics, or even in America at large, are today excluded? Also, family-values Americans won't be too thrilled that he identified with a father who left when Obama was 2, had multiple wives at once and sired eight children with several different women.
Again, this is not a personal attack on Obama. With this kind of family history, it's understandable he would have troubles dealing with everything. Sociological research has revealed that mixed-race Americans often end up identifying with one race or another. But Americans need a president without such issues. At the very least, he'll have to convince America he's past it by explicitly contradicting his published work.
Also, I hope people can focus not on Obama's father's behavior, but on Obama's reactions to it. I don't think it's fair to punish the candidate -- who so far seems a decent if extremely liberal man -- for others' sins.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Sailer on LA high schools
Steve Sailer has an excellent study of Los Angeles high schools on VDARE today. I suggest reading the whole thing.
One thing I'd like to draw attention to, however, is his assertion that raising the bar for high school graduation is a bad thing. At first pass my reaction was, "Shouldn't a high school diploma signify some academic achievement?"
But the next sentence was:
"So, the decent kids who show up for class won't have a credential to distinguish themselves with prospective employers from the juvenile delinquents and the goof-off dropouts."
Maybe that's the best way to look at it, particularly in areas with high dropout rates. A high school diploma can show diligence, high SAT scores readiness for college and a college diploma academic achievement. It's not ideal, but a high school diploma can open doors for people who are willing to work yet not smart/ambitious enough to handle advanced studies.
At any rate, Sailer is right that raising the requirement to Algebra II by 2016 is stupid when this is the case now (from the LA Times):
"In the fall of 2004, 48,000 ninth-graders took beginning algebra; 44% flunked, nearly twice the failure rate as in English. Seventeen percent finished with Ds… Among those who repeated the class in the spring, nearly three-quarters flunked again."
That's algebra I! It's like they're asking for lower graduation rates.
One thing I'd like to draw attention to, however, is his assertion that raising the bar for high school graduation is a bad thing. At first pass my reaction was, "Shouldn't a high school diploma signify some academic achievement?"
But the next sentence was:
"So, the decent kids who show up for class won't have a credential to distinguish themselves with prospective employers from the juvenile delinquents and the goof-off dropouts."
Maybe that's the best way to look at it, particularly in areas with high dropout rates. A high school diploma can show diligence, high SAT scores readiness for college and a college diploma academic achievement. It's not ideal, but a high school diploma can open doors for people who are willing to work yet not smart/ambitious enough to handle advanced studies.
At any rate, Sailer is right that raising the requirement to Algebra II by 2016 is stupid when this is the case now (from the LA Times):
"In the fall of 2004, 48,000 ninth-graders took beginning algebra; 44% flunked, nearly twice the failure rate as in English. Seventeen percent finished with Ds… Among those who repeated the class in the spring, nearly three-quarters flunked again."
That's algebra I! It's like they're asking for lower graduation rates.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Some thoughts on metal
I didn't feel like going out last night, so I brought my guitar downstairs and watched MTV2's Headbanger's Ball instead. For those of you not familiar, HBB rose to prominence in the 80s as the only show on MTV to feature metal acts like Metallica and Megadeth regularly. It died when grunge took over, but came back recently on MTV2.
As readers of this blog know, I'm a metalhead myself, and I review music frequently over on antiMusic. And I'm 22, so this rant isn't some old guy pining for the days of better metal pushed to the forefront.
That said...
One thing that struck me is how the hardcore-influenced bands have totally taken over. Excepting Bullet for My Valentine's "Tears Don't Fall" (an awesome song, by the way), pretty much every video featured some dude screaming like a drill sargeant. It was hard to tell them apart after awhile.
Two, they really plugged the heck out of Ballet Deviare, a ballet company that dances to metal. The footage is on their MySpace page here (scroll down, there's a YouTube clip). The dancers move in loose sync to each other, and in even looser sync to the music. The band is far too extreme for this kind of thing, and it comes off awkward.
The shame is that prettier metal -- especially female-fronted, synth string-using fare like Lacuna Coil or Evanescence -- could work behind a routine like this. But with all-out screaming, it just doesn't make any damn sense.
Speaking of nonsensical metal, Victory Records ran commercial after commercial for the band Beneath the Sky. For some reason, they feel compelled to combine incomprehensible Cookie Monster death vocals with pop-leaning hardcore (it's "brutal death metal core"!). The chorus to the song they used in the commercial alternates bars of death metal with bars of pop. All the instruments change gears. It sounds ridiculous. Hear them here. Try not to notice that whatever the singer is wearing on his head in the picture, it looks stupid.
As readers of this blog know, I'm a metalhead myself, and I review music frequently over on antiMusic. And I'm 22, so this rant isn't some old guy pining for the days of better metal pushed to the forefront.
That said...
One thing that struck me is how the hardcore-influenced bands have totally taken over. Excepting Bullet for My Valentine's "Tears Don't Fall" (an awesome song, by the way), pretty much every video featured some dude screaming like a drill sargeant. It was hard to tell them apart after awhile.
Two, they really plugged the heck out of Ballet Deviare, a ballet company that dances to metal. The footage is on their MySpace page here (scroll down, there's a YouTube clip). The dancers move in loose sync to each other, and in even looser sync to the music. The band is far too extreme for this kind of thing, and it comes off awkward.
The shame is that prettier metal -- especially female-fronted, synth string-using fare like Lacuna Coil or Evanescence -- could work behind a routine like this. But with all-out screaming, it just doesn't make any damn sense.
Speaking of nonsensical metal, Victory Records ran commercial after commercial for the band Beneath the Sky. For some reason, they feel compelled to combine incomprehensible Cookie Monster death vocals with pop-leaning hardcore (it's "brutal death metal core"!). The chorus to the song they used in the commercial alternates bars of death metal with bars of pop. All the instruments change gears. It sounds ridiculous. Hear them here. Try not to notice that whatever the singer is wearing on his head in the picture, it looks stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
