More on Bill Gates and immigration
March 30th 2007 02:58
VDARE has a great piece up, though, debunking Gates's thesis that the U.S. is actually falling behind in skilled laborers.
Best point:
If, as Gates suggests, there is a shortage of scientists and engineers, the salaries paid to them should be rising. But they aren't. Starting salaries offered to computer science BAs in the Class of 2006 were 2.2 percent above the prior year's, according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers. With inflation at 3.2 percent, this translates to a 1.2 percent reduction in real salaries. And 2006 was a fairly good year for these folks. Over the prior four years (2001-2005) the real starting salaries of computer science BAs fell a whopping 12.7 percent.
Newly minted MAs suffered a similar fate. Real starting salaries for computer science MAs fell 6.6 percent, while those of computer engineering MAs fell a whopping 13.7 percent, between 2001 and 2005.
Newly minted MAs suffered a similar fate. Real starting salaries for computer science MAs fell 6.6 percent, while those of computer engineering MAs fell a whopping 13.7 percent, between 2001 and 2005.
Immigration and skill
March 27th 2007 22:28
One frustrating aspect to the immigration debate is that, whatever the law on low-wage laborers, most of them come illegally anyway. By contrast, skilled workers follow the law -- which is designed to keep American wages high and might be tightened.
The odd thing is that low-wage labor pushes native workers into poverty, albeit while lowering prices and helping people from other countries make a living. Skilled labor also lowers wages, of course, but among people who can better afford to work for less. And the net payoffs to Americans are greater with skilled/smart immigrants, who innovate as opposed to just labor.
Essentially, lawmakers are protecting jobs for the rich and letting the poor go, not so much through law as through selective enforcement. In the process, we're shutting out the best immigrants while letting the most controversial ones do as they please.
By Robert VerBruggen
The odd thing is that low-wage labor pushes native workers into poverty, albeit while lowering prices and helping people from other countries make a living. Skilled labor also lowers wages, of course, but among people who can better afford to work for less. And the net payoffs to Americans are greater with skilled/smart immigrants, who innovate as opposed to just labor.
Essentially, lawmakers are protecting jobs for the rich and letting the poor go, not so much through law as through selective enforcement. In the process, we're shutting out the best immigrants while letting the most controversial ones do as they please.
By Robert VerBruggen
Does IQ explain the college gender gap?
March 27th 2007 22:25
This Reason blog post got me to thinking. There is a significant gender gap in our nation's colleges, with females making up 57.2 percent of enrollees. I think the IQ distribution might play some small role in that.
To start off, there are a lot of things that probably affect it more. There's the whole "war on boys" thing about schools not playing to male strengths, the fact that men can easier make a living at manual labor and so have more alternatives to college, and the sheer abundance of testosterone that makes even intelligent men screw their futures up. Heck, simple numbers do some good, as 50.7 percent of Americans are women.
Anyhow, the basic fact here is that male IQs are more variable than female IQs. That is, there are more male geniuses than female geniuses, and also more male criminals, dropouts, etc. There are more females with average, slightly above average and slightly below average IQs. Put simply, women's scores cluster more closely around the mean IQ.
Here's my idea: About 63 percent of high school graduates enroll in college immediately. Something like 13 percent of high schoolers don't graduate to begin with (I used the Census data on high-school-graduates-plus for 20-to-24-year-olds), so 55 in every 100 young people go to college (63 percent * [100-13] percent).
That means pretty much anyone with an above-average IQ can go if they want to and can afford it. Men and women have the same average IQ, so half of men and half of women fall into this category. More men than women might opt for non-college jobs even in this cohort, but I'd think this would roughly cancel out with the fact more men than women would fall into the super-high-IQ category that almost always goes to college.
However, even if every single person of average-and-up intelligence attended college, 5 in every 55 college students would have below-average IQs -- almost certainly slightly-below-average IQs. Who are these people? Disproportionately women. Depending on just how many in every 55 students come from this group (significantly more than 5, I'm sure, but I have no clue how to guess how many more), it could explain a good chunk of the discrepancy.
This works well in terms of the general population, but it hits a major snag with minorities. Blacks and Hispanics have below-average mean IQs, so more men than women in these groups have IQs above 100. But in minorities, the college gender gap is more, not less, pronounced in favor of women. I'd suspect there are cultural and economic factors at work here, with women less likely to give into the temptations (disproportionate) urban poverty proposes them.
By Robert VerBruggen
To start off, there are a lot of things that probably affect it more. There's the whole "war on boys" thing about schools not playing to male strengths, the fact that men can easier make a living at manual labor and so have more alternatives to college, and the sheer abundance of testosterone that makes even intelligent men screw their futures up. Heck, simple numbers do some good, as 50.7 percent of Americans are women.
Anyhow, the basic fact here is that male IQs are more variable than female IQs. That is, there are more male geniuses than female geniuses, and also more male criminals, dropouts, etc. There are more females with average, slightly above average and slightly below average IQs. Put simply, women's scores cluster more closely around the mean IQ.
Here's my idea: About 63 percent of high school graduates enroll in college immediately. Something like 13 percent of high schoolers don't graduate to begin with (I used the Census data on high-school-graduates-plus for 20-to-24-year-olds), so 55 in every 100 young people go to college (63 percent * [100-13] percent).
That means pretty much anyone with an above-average IQ can go if they want to and can afford it. Men and women have the same average IQ, so half of men and half of women fall into this category. More men than women might opt for non-college jobs even in this cohort, but I'd think this would roughly cancel out with the fact more men than women would fall into the super-high-IQ category that almost always goes to college.
However, even if every single person of average-and-up intelligence attended college, 5 in every 55 college students would have below-average IQs -- almost certainly slightly-below-average IQs. Who are these people? Disproportionately women. Depending on just how many in every 55 students come from this group (significantly more than 5, I'm sure, but I have no clue how to guess how many more), it could explain a good chunk of the discrepancy.
This works well in terms of the general population, but it hits a major snag with minorities. Blacks and Hispanics have below-average mean IQs, so more men than women in these groups have IQs above 100. But in minorities, the college gender gap is more, not less, pronounced in favor of women. I'd suspect there are cultural and economic factors at work here, with women less likely to give into the temptations (disproportionate) urban poverty proposes them.
By Robert VerBruggen
Do they want war?
March 27th 2007 02:38
This old William F. Buckley column really shaped how I view the Iraq war. He looks at it through Saddam Hussein's eyes -- what was the dictator thinking? The only logical conclusion was that he miscalculated, plain and simple. He thought he could thumb his nose at the West and lost.
Iran capturing Western soldiers, though, in addition to developing nuclear technology, makes me wonder: Do they just want war? That doesn't make a lot of sense, for Iraq then or Iran now, but maybe it's the more logical answer. Not clear on how that's in their best interest though.
Any other ideas on why Iran would do such a thing? Maybe it is the same calculation Iran made; then we were "paper tigers," now we're bogged down in too many conflicts as it is.
By Robert VerBruggen
Iran capturing Western soldiers, though, in addition to developing nuclear technology, makes me wonder: Do they just want war? That doesn't make a lot of sense, for Iraq then or Iran now, but maybe it's the more logical answer. Not clear on how that's in their best interest though.
Any other ideas on why Iran would do such a thing? Maybe it is the same calculation Iran made; then we were "paper tigers," now we're bogged down in too many conflicts as it is.
By Robert VerBruggen
A one-day reaction to Nintendo Wii
March 27th 2007 02:32
The console I scored on eBay came today, and I am quite impressed. I have Wii Sports and a few GameCube games.
The backward compatibility with GameCube is quite nice -- I love Resident Evil 4, and it also gives me the option of gaming on the cheap (used games rule) until Wii games start coming down in price.
Wii Sports itself is an excellent showcase for what the console can accomplish. Boxing is a workout, and the tennis, baseball and bowling ones work well too. The one problem is that the game is easy to trick -- for example, in tennis, you don't even have to use the correct backhand/forehand swing. And in boxing, sometimes the machine interprets your body shifting as a punch.
Also looking forward to using Virtual Console to download some old NES games.
My arm is really sore right now. This might be the first generation of gamers to come out in shape.
The backward compatibility with GameCube is quite nice -- I love Resident Evil 4, and it also gives me the option of gaming on the cheap (used games rule) until Wii games start coming down in price.
Wii Sports itself is an excellent showcase for what the console can accomplish. Boxing is a workout, and the tennis, baseball and bowling ones work well too. The one problem is that the game is easy to trick -- for example, in tennis, you don't even have to use the correct backhand/forehand swing. And in boxing, sometimes the machine interprets your body shifting as a punch.
Also looking forward to using Virtual Console to download some old NES games.
My arm is really sore right now. This might be the first generation of gamers to come out in shape.
The remaster
March 26th 2007 00:37
I've uploaded a new version of my song "Blood in the Water" to my MySpace page . It's the same recording, but I remastered it (did not use automatic mastering) to have more low end. I also worked on the loud bridge section -- I was having problems with the compressors clamping down really hard (you could hear everything but the vocals and drums get quiet abruptly), and that's still there, but it's not as apparent.
Used Stardust for the first time. Love it. Free.
Used Stardust for the first time. Love it. Free.
Spectator debunks HPV hysteria
March 24th 2007 15:17
I did the same myself previously. (More here.)
Some interesting new material though:
"Gardasil is not all it's cracked up to be. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that among women ages 14 to 24, the rate of all 37 types of sexually transmitted HPV combined is 33.8% -- much lower than the 50% figure cited on Merck's website. More importantly, the rates for HPV 16 and 18 -- the two types responsible for 70% of all cervical cancers -- are astronomically lower: only 1.5% and 0.8%, respectively...Approximately 75% of infections in adults and 90% of those in adolescents disappear on their own."
This age difference explains why, as I said before, women who get HPV-caused cervical cancer tend to contract HPV at older ages -- even though HPV is most common among younger women who have more sex with different people. A vaccine only guaranteed for five years, given to super-young girls, is a dumb idea.
Finally, great argument:
"What if the vaccine lulls young women into a false sense of security? Gardasil only protects against the viruses responsible for 70% of cervical cancers, and women may not realize the necessity of regular Pap tests even when they've been vaccinated. When women go for an annual Pap test, they are getting a general check-up, not just a test for cervical cancer. As a result, many pre-cancerous conditions for anything from cervical cancer to breast cancer may go undetected, before it's too late."
By Robert VerBruggen
Some interesting new material though:
"Gardasil is not all it's cracked up to be. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association finds that among women ages 14 to 24, the rate of all 37 types of sexually transmitted HPV combined is 33.8% -- much lower than the 50% figure cited on Merck's website. More importantly, the rates for HPV 16 and 18 -- the two types responsible for 70% of all cervical cancers -- are astronomically lower: only 1.5% and 0.8%, respectively...Approximately 75% of infections in adults and 90% of those in adolescents disappear on their own."
This age difference explains why, as I said before, women who get HPV-caused cervical cancer tend to contract HPV at older ages -- even though HPV is most common among younger women who have more sex with different people. A vaccine only guaranteed for five years, given to super-young girls, is a dumb idea.
Finally, great argument:
"What if the vaccine lulls young women into a false sense of security? Gardasil only protects against the viruses responsible for 70% of cervical cancers, and women may not realize the necessity of regular Pap tests even when they've been vaccinated. When women go for an annual Pap test, they are getting a general check-up, not just a test for cervical cancer. As a result, many pre-cancerous conditions for anything from cervical cancer to breast cancer may go undetected, before it's too late."
By Robert VerBruggen
Message to Andrew Sullivan
March 24th 2007 15:05
There's a difference between "class act" and "class action." Good God.
By Robert VerBruggen
By Robert VerBruggen
Date rape and abstinence
March 22nd 2007 23:16
Weirdest line from a story:
"[Harvard abstinence club] True Love Revolution members say the problem starts with the university. They say Harvard has implicitly led students to believe that having sex at college is a foregone conclusion by requiring incoming freshman to attend a seminar on date-rape that does not mention abstinence..."
Well, a seminar on contraception that doesn't mention abstinence might be debatable, but...um...isn't rape a situation where abstinence really isn't an option? Then again, that's paraphrased, not a quote from a group member, so maybe there was a miscommunication.
By Robert VerBruggen
"[Harvard abstinence club] True Love Revolution members say the problem starts with the university. They say Harvard has implicitly led students to believe that having sex at college is a foregone conclusion by requiring incoming freshman to attend a seminar on date-rape that does not mention abstinence..."
Well, a seminar on contraception that doesn't mention abstinence might be debatable, but...um...isn't rape a situation where abstinence really isn't an option? Then again, that's paraphrased, not a quote from a group member, so maybe there was a miscommunication.
By Robert VerBruggen
Bong Hits 4 Jesus!
March 21st 2007 23:23
A case out of Alaska is making a lot of waves, and the Supreme Court is in the process of sorting it out. A high school let its students out to watch a parade -- and sent teachers to supervise the students to some degree -- and at said parade, a student unfurled a banner that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." A school official confiscated the banner and suspended the student.
I hate to do this, but I actually agree with the Ninth Circuit of Appeals on this: The message is protected under the First Amendment.
Let's backtrack a little bit. It was a school-related activity (as the Ninth ruled), and the student acted inappropriately. The official had every right to do what she did.
The problem, though, is that the school didn't justify the decision on the grounds that the student was misbehaving (or at least, the Ninth claimed the school didn't). Rather, it said the message on the banner ran contrary to the school's anti-drug stance. The school does not, by and large, have a right to police the opinions its students express -- under the school's argument, it could suspend a student for writing a serious pro-drug term paper.
Courts can only rule on arguments presented them, so there was no option of "you can't censor speech, but you can control bad behavior." It was "you can censor speech" versus "you can't censor speech."
As the Ninth said:
"Thus, the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'"
The thing i worry about is that schools and students won't understand these nuances, and think that disruptive behavior is constitutionally protected. In reality, schools act "in loco parentis" and can stop behaviors -- from talking out of turn to waving banners around to wearing T-shirts that say "smoke crack" -- protected in adults.
Kenneth Starr (yes that Kenneth Starr), representing the school, disagrees here. His brief to the Supreme Court is here; contrary to the way the Ninth interpreted his arguments to that court, he repeatedly calls the display "distracting," etc.
By Robert VerBruggen
I hate to do this, but I actually agree with the Ninth Circuit of Appeals on this: The message is protected under the First Amendment.
Let's backtrack a little bit. It was a school-related activity (as the Ninth ruled), and the student acted inappropriately. The official had every right to do what she did.
The problem, though, is that the school didn't justify the decision on the grounds that the student was misbehaving (or at least, the Ninth claimed the school didn't). Rather, it said the message on the banner ran contrary to the school's anti-drug stance. The school does not, by and large, have a right to police the opinions its students express -- under the school's argument, it could suspend a student for writing a serious pro-drug term paper.
Courts can only rule on arguments presented them, so there was no option of "you can't censor speech, but you can control bad behavior." It was "you can censor speech" versus "you can't censor speech."
As the Ninth said:
"Thus, the question comes down to whether a school may, in the absence of concern about disruption of educational activities, punish and censor non-disruptive, off-campus speech by students during school authorized activities because the speech promotes a social message contrary to the one favored by the school. The answer under controlling, long-existing precedent is plainly 'No.'"
The thing i worry about is that schools and students won't understand these nuances, and think that disruptive behavior is constitutionally protected. In reality, schools act "in loco parentis" and can stop behaviors -- from talking out of turn to waving banners around to wearing T-shirts that say "smoke crack" -- protected in adults.
Kenneth Starr (yes that Kenneth Starr), representing the school, disagrees here. His brief to the Supreme Court is here; contrary to the way the Ninth interpreted his arguments to that court, he repeatedly calls the display "distracting," etc.
By Robert VerBruggen
Grand jury indicts NYPD officers in Bell shooting
March 21st 2007 02:19
A grand jury decided several police officers should stand trial for shooting a man outside a strip club. Two face charges of felony manslaughter, a third of reckless endangerment.
Grand jury proceedings are closed to the public, so there isn't much analysis to offer at this point.
The story has a good summary of the two sides' positions:
"Guzman, Benefield and other members of the bachelor party claim they were on their way home after the party when the officers began firing without provocation.
"The officers assert through their lawyers that Bell and his friends, who had argued with another patron, were retrieving a gun from a parked car when police encountered them outside the club.
"When one of the officers approached Bell's car, it lurched forward and bumped the officer, then twice rammed an unmarked police minivan, prompting the officers to open fire, the NYPD says.
"The officers fired a total of 50 shots. Benefield, Guzman and Bell were seriously wounded, and Bell later died at a hospital.
"The men who were shot were not armed."
I also blogged about this case here.
By Robert VerBruggen
Grand jury proceedings are closed to the public, so there isn't much analysis to offer at this point.
The story has a good summary of the two sides' positions:
"Guzman, Benefield and other members of the bachelor party claim they were on their way home after the party when the officers began firing without provocation.
"The officers assert through their lawyers that Bell and his friends, who had argued with another patron, were retrieving a gun from a parked car when police encountered them outside the club.
"When one of the officers approached Bell's car, it lurched forward and bumped the officer, then twice rammed an unmarked police minivan, prompting the officers to open fire, the NYPD says.
"The officers fired a total of 50 shots. Benefield, Guzman and Bell were seriously wounded, and Bell later died at a hospital.
"The men who were shot were not armed."
I also blogged about this case here.
By Robert VerBruggen
Traffic shootings: The exception that proves the rule
March 21st 2007 00:05
Every time a state legislature debates letting their citizens carry concealed weapons, someone inevitably brings up a scenario where two people get into an accident, and one of them gets so mad he shoots the other.
But as John Lott once said:
"Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense."
Well, make that two, and this time it's an aggravated response to tailgating. From the Free Press:
"Police say that Headd pulled her 1993 Chevrolet Cavalier alongside the pickup as the two vehicles traveled down I-94 in Harrison Township last month.
"She then grabbed the 9mm pistol she's been licensed to carry for nine years, pointed it out of the window and fired at the tires of the truck driven by a New Baltimore man, police say."
The fact it made national news further signifies how rare this is. And even this didn't hurt anyone:
"Law enforcement officials say there's no excuse: What if the stray bullet hit someone?"
Of course, in terms of personal behavior. But statistically, the relevant fact is that it didn't. So to date, no one has died or been injured by a concealed carry permit holder after a car accident.
By Robert VerBruggen
But as John Lott once said:
"Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense."
Well, make that two, and this time it's an aggravated response to tailgating. From the Free Press:
"Police say that Headd pulled her 1993 Chevrolet Cavalier alongside the pickup as the two vehicles traveled down I-94 in Harrison Township last month.
"She then grabbed the 9mm pistol she's been licensed to carry for nine years, pointed it out of the window and fired at the tires of the truck driven by a New Baltimore man, police say."
The fact it made national news further signifies how rare this is. And even this didn't hurt anyone:
"Law enforcement officials say there's no excuse: What if the stray bullet hit someone?"
Of course, in terms of personal behavior. But statistically, the relevant fact is that it didn't. So to date, no one has died or been injured by a concealed carry permit holder after a car accident.
By Robert VerBruggen
Automatic mastering: The way of the future
March 17th 2007 19:10
Anyone who's done home recording knows how much of a pain the mastering process -- taking a final recording and tweaking it to sound loud, clear and polished -- is. You run the mix through loads of compressors, reverbs, equalizers, etc., and half the time it makes it worse.
But so much of mastering is objective: You want to get the mix to a specific loudness, with a specific frequency balance, depending on the style. Awhile back I had the idea that someone should program an automatic mastering application. Load the WAV in, tell it what style to master to, and it spits out a roughly professional-sounding mix.
I finally got around to Googling it yesterday, and it seems a few companies are doing it. I tried out AAMS, which worked out OK.
How it works is, you load in two WAVs -- one of your mix, one of a professional recording you want it to sound like. (Don't use the internal converters; make CDs WAVs in iTunes.) It analyzes both files, converts them to a special format and adds various effects to your mix to make it sound like the professional one.
I used my mix of "Blood on the Water" (I blogged about it here, and my original master is still up at my MySpace page) and matched it to Lamb of God's "Laid to Rest." I have to say I was impressed with the results; it churned out a master with a lot more low end than my own had.
A few significant problems, though. Again, the internal MP3-WAV converter is garbage, or at the very least malfunctioned when I tried to use it. Also, the interface looks quite primitive, and when you master, the status bar goes from 0 to 100 with each effect added without saying so. At first I thought the program was in some sort of infinite loop, because it kept doing the same thing without accomplishing much.
Also, it's just plain difficult to use. Ideally, you could click the two files, and it would take them and do whatever's necessary. I had to mess around with everything, putting files in different formats (WAV works best) and eventually just going through all the menus and dropping them into the program's own "source" and "reference" folders. (My Computer, Local Disk, Program Files, AAMS, AAMS Files.) Maybe there's an easier way.
Finally, the master did not match the reference recording in volume at all. I fixed this easily enough by running it through the (awesome) Classic Master Limiter a couple times, but they should really work on that. You can adjust each effect yourself -- though my philosophy is, if I wanted to to that I'd do all the mastering myself -- and maybe if I buy the full version I'll mess around with it.
All considered, it's inexpensive (less than $100), with a free trial you can use for 50 effects applications (each mastering uses 7 or so). As more companies catch on to this, it could really make amateur mastering a pretty painless process.
By Robert VerBruggen
But so much of mastering is objective: You want to get the mix to a specific loudness, with a specific frequency balance, depending on the style. Awhile back I had the idea that someone should program an automatic mastering application. Load the WAV in, tell it what style to master to, and it spits out a roughly professional-sounding mix.
I finally got around to Googling it yesterday, and it seems a few companies are doing it. I tried out AAMS, which worked out OK.
How it works is, you load in two WAVs -- one of your mix, one of a professional recording you want it to sound like. (Don't use the internal converters; make CDs WAVs in iTunes.) It analyzes both files, converts them to a special format and adds various effects to your mix to make it sound like the professional one.
I used my mix of "Blood on the Water" (I blogged about it here, and my original master is still up at my MySpace page) and matched it to Lamb of God's "Laid to Rest." I have to say I was impressed with the results; it churned out a master with a lot more low end than my own had.
A few significant problems, though. Again, the internal MP3-WAV converter is garbage, or at the very least malfunctioned when I tried to use it. Also, the interface looks quite primitive, and when you master, the status bar goes from 0 to 100 with each effect added without saying so. At first I thought the program was in some sort of infinite loop, because it kept doing the same thing without accomplishing much.
Also, it's just plain difficult to use. Ideally, you could click the two files, and it would take them and do whatever's necessary. I had to mess around with everything, putting files in different formats (WAV works best) and eventually just going through all the menus and dropping them into the program's own "source" and "reference" folders. (My Computer, Local Disk, Program Files, AAMS, AAMS Files.) Maybe there's an easier way.
Finally, the master did not match the reference recording in volume at all. I fixed this easily enough by running it through the (awesome) Classic Master Limiter a couple times, but they should really work on that. You can adjust each effect yourself -- though my philosophy is, if I wanted to to that I'd do all the mastering myself -- and maybe if I buy the full version I'll mess around with it.
All considered, it's inexpensive (less than $100), with a free trial you can use for 50 effects applications (each mastering uses 7 or so). As more companies catch on to this, it could really make amateur mastering a pretty painless process.
By Robert VerBruggen
Korn review up at antiMusic
March 17th 2007 18:50
antiMusic has my review of Korn's Unplugged.
Main point:
"MTV's long-running Unplugged series has a way of bringing out the best in talented musicians. Nirvana turned its plenty-pop-enough-for-the-mai nstream grunge into a hard-edged folk, and Eric Clapton played with a classical sensibility. Korn's contribution, no less valuable, maintains the band's odd note combinations for an exotic, often Middle Eastern feel.
"Pitter-patter hand drumming (courtesy Michael Jochum; David Silveria is on a break from the group) – most often associated with coffee shop spoken-word – becomes a primitive yet low-key backdrop for strong melodies and a mostly indispensable performance. Piano, cello, upright bass, trombone and other assorted noisemakers join in from time to time."
By Robert VerBruggen
Main point:
"MTV's long-running Unplugged series has a way of bringing out the best in talented musicians. Nirvana turned its plenty-pop-enough-for-the-mai nstream grunge into a hard-edged folk, and Eric Clapton played with a classical sensibility. Korn's contribution, no less valuable, maintains the band's odd note combinations for an exotic, often Middle Eastern feel.
"Pitter-patter hand drumming (courtesy Michael Jochum; David Silveria is on a break from the group) – most often associated with coffee shop spoken-word – becomes a primitive yet low-key backdrop for strong melodies and a mostly indispensable performance. Piano, cello, upright bass, trombone and other assorted noisemakers join in from time to time."
By Robert VerBruggen
Needless indignation, part 2
March 16th 2007 23:59
This young man has taken a brave stand against Nazism.
NY grand jury decides whether to indict cops
March 16th 2007 23:55
I've blogged previously about the Bell case -- where an evidently unarmed man suspected of planning a gun crime was shot to death outside a strip club. On Monday, the grand jury will announce its decision on whether to indict one or more cops.
Case summary here, analysis/background here.
I'm eager to hear, but for the time being I'd like to comment on this part of the story:
"Anticipation has been running high around New York City about the grand jury's decision. Extra police officers were put on standby and the mayor met with black leaders in the Queens neighborhood where shooting occurred in hopes of defusing any tensions that might arise from the decision."
Contrast this with Thomas Sowell's summary of what actually worked once:
"Even during the 1960s, riots were far more common and deadly in liberal bastions like New York City than in Chicago, where the original Mayor Daley announced on television that he had given his police orders to 'shoot to kill' if riots broke out."
From CNN's constant replaying of the Rodney King video, we know the media will not help should the jury refuse to indict the cops. The government needs to take up a less sympathetic strategy toward those who threaten violence.
Bloomberg should come up with something better than "I think you will see the people of this city behaving in an exemplary manner." There is a history of these rulings creating problems, and while the extra cops are a good idea, it doesn't seem like Bloomberg is taking the issue seriously.
By Robert VerBruggen
Case summary here, analysis/background here.
I'm eager to hear, but for the time being I'd like to comment on this part of the story:
"Anticipation has been running high around New York City about the grand jury's decision. Extra police officers were put on standby and the mayor met with black leaders in the Queens neighborhood where shooting occurred in hopes of defusing any tensions that might arise from the decision."
Contrast this with Thomas Sowell's summary of what actually worked once:
"Even during the 1960s, riots were far more common and deadly in liberal bastions like New York City than in Chicago, where the original Mayor Daley announced on television that he had given his police orders to 'shoot to kill' if riots broke out."
From CNN's constant replaying of the Rodney King video, we know the media will not help should the jury refuse to indict the cops. The government needs to take up a less sympathetic strategy toward those who threaten violence.
Bloomberg should come up with something better than "I think you will see the people of this city behaving in an exemplary manner." There is a history of these rulings creating problems, and while the extra cops are a good idea, it doesn't seem like Bloomberg is taking the issue seriously.
By Robert VerBruggen
The American Plague review up at antiMusic
March 16th 2007 03:03
Finally, I get to break my streak of Parker case posts!
antiMusic has my review of God Bless the American Plague. Main point:
"In God Bless the American Plague, the band – The American Plague, that is – walks that fine line between 'raw' and 'poorly produced.' It's quite the collection of energetic and passionate punk-infused rock tracks, albeit with a few missteps."
By Robert VerBruggen
antiMusic has my review of God Bless the American Plague. Main point:
"In God Bless the American Plague, the band – The American Plague, that is – walks that fine line between 'raw' and 'poorly produced.' It's quite the collection of energetic and passionate punk-infused rock tracks, albeit with a few missteps."
By Robert VerBruggen
Yet another defense of my Spectator op-ed
March 15th 2007 22:10
I hope this is the last I blog about the Parker case for awhile; this is supposed to be a politics blog, not just a gun one.
However, the Spectator has another reader letter, this time from David Gonzalez of Illinois:
In his piece on the recent Parker decision, Robert VerBruggen observes: "The ruling makes no issue of the fact Miller and Layton were not militia members. Rather, Miller and Layton failed to prove a militia might use a sawed-off shotgun."
My readings on the Miller decision indicate that, before the case could be heard, both men skipped bail, disappeared, and eventually were found dead. The case for militia utility of a short-barreled shotgun (called a "trench gun" by doughboys in WWI) wasn't proven because it wasn't argued. The solicitor general, in effect, got a free shot and won by default.
First of all, I mentioned the legally relevant part of this -- that no one represented Layton and Miller -- in the original piece. In fact, that statement occurred in the fourth paragraph, where the line Gonzalez cites is in the ninth, so I'm sure he read it or skipped over it.
Two, it seems his facts are wrong. I left my copy of Supreme Court Gun Cases in Wisconsin, and that would have been an authoritative source, but both Wikipedia and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership agree that while Miller died, Layton plead guilty after the decision.
Wikipedia:
"(B)y the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down."
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:
"[O]n 15 May 1939 the Court over-turned District Court Judge Ragon's decision to quash the indictment of Miller and Layton. On 12 June 1939 Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes issued an order conveying the Supreme Court's decision to Judge Ragon. That order was received on 14 June 1939. However, the District Court docket shows that on 17 June 1939, Jack Miller was reported to be dead; the prosecution of him was dropped. On 8 January 1940 Frank Layton entered a plea of 'guilty' and was placed on probation for five years."
By Robert VerBruggen
However, the Spectator has another reader letter, this time from David Gonzalez of Illinois:
In his piece on the recent Parker decision, Robert VerBruggen observes: "The ruling makes no issue of the fact Miller and Layton were not militia members. Rather, Miller and Layton failed to prove a militia might use a sawed-off shotgun."
My readings on the Miller decision indicate that, before the case could be heard, both men skipped bail, disappeared, and eventually were found dead. The case for militia utility of a short-barreled shotgun (called a "trench gun" by doughboys in WWI) wasn't proven because it wasn't argued. The solicitor general, in effect, got a free shot and won by default.
First of all, I mentioned the legally relevant part of this -- that no one represented Layton and Miller -- in the original piece. In fact, that statement occurred in the fourth paragraph, where the line Gonzalez cites is in the ninth, so I'm sure he read it or skipped over it.
Two, it seems his facts are wrong. I left my copy of Supreme Court Gun Cases in Wisconsin, and that would have been an authoritative source, but both Wikipedia and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership agree that while Miller died, Layton plead guilty after the decision.
Wikipedia:
"(B)y the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed, and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down."
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:
"[O]n 15 May 1939 the Court over-turned District Court Judge Ragon's decision to quash the indictment of Miller and Layton. On 12 June 1939 Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes issued an order conveying the Supreme Court's decision to Judge Ragon. That order was received on 14 June 1939. However, the District Court docket shows that on 17 June 1939, Jack Miller was reported to be dead; the prosecution of him was dropped. On 8 January 1940 Frank Layton entered a plea of 'guilty' and was placed on probation for five years."
By Robert VerBruggen
(Again) defending my defense of the Parker dissent
March 14th 2007 21:50
Yesterday I offered a pretty limited defense of the dissent in the Parker case, which held the Second Amendment did not apply to DC because DC was not a state. I didn't say I agreed with this, only that (A) it's consistent with the relevant precedents and (B) though liberals love it, it did not say that the Second Amendment only applies to militia members.
But in today's letters from readers, Frank Natoli of New Jersey writes (italics mine):
Robert VerBruggen writes, "In a footnote, [dissenting judge and GHWB appointee, gee thanks dad] Henderson even noted United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a case that ruled the term 'the people' meant 'a class of persons who are part of a national community' and specifically mentioned the Second Amendment. To this she responded that as the Tenth Amendment relegates some rights to the States, and not to the District, so does the Second."
But Mr. VerBruggen fails to note that the majority on page 50 in Parker directly rebutted Henderson as follows "Our dissenting colleague --in order to give a meaning to 'the people' in the Second Amendment consistent with her interpretation -- analogizes to 'the people' in the Tenth Amendment. Dissent at 5 n.5. Contrary to her suggestion, however, the Tenth Amendment does not limit 'the people' to state citizens. Rather, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to 'the States respectively, or to the people.' The dissent provides no case holding that 'the people,' as used in the Tenth Amendment, are distinct from 'the people' referred to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. The one case relied upon, Lee v. Flintkote, 593 F.2d 1275, 1278 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1979), is inapposite. That case merely contrasts the District, on the one hand, with the states, on the other; the meaning of 'the people' as used in the Tenth Amendment was not at issue. Indeed, Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 265, directly contradicts the dissent's reading of 'the people' in the Tenth Amendment, just as it contradicts the restrictive reading of 'the people' in the Second."
It's true -- and I wish the original article hadn't been long enough that it warranted sticking to my major points; that's why I didn't flesh out the whole back-and-forth on this footnote -- that the Tenth is a bad analogy. Whereas the Second Amendment uses "State" and "people" in a way that could be taken to mean the same group, the Tenth is quite clear that the States and the people are two separate entities.
I'd like to be clear, I'm not crazy about the dissent. To me "the people" should mean "all Americans." However, just as liberals have tried to write "the people" out of the Second Amendment, gun rights supporters have tried to ignore the parts about militias and states -- and how those parts could affect "the people."
In my opinion, people, militia and state are basically synonymous -- everyone in the U.S. But, as I pointed out when John Tabin challenged the dissent's interpretation of the word "state," lower courts are bound by precedent. The relevant case, US v Miller, clearly stated that in the Second Amendment "State" means the 50 states. It does not mean state as in country.
And as the original op-ed pointed out, US v. Miller also ruled a militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," or with today's gender-neutral law, everyone.
But here's the kicker, and where I think the dissenter has a point: If the Amendment has been interpreted to protect everyone's right to have a gun for the sake of state militias -- and the case also emphasized the amendment should be interpreted with that goal even today -- doesn't that mean only Americans living in states have that right? I think to get past this you have to have the Supremes overturn parts of Miller, and define "State" as "country." Until then, lower courts have to go by the existing law, and I think Henderson's interpretation is an arguable if unfortunate one.
By Robert VerBruggen
But in today's letters from readers, Frank Natoli of New Jersey writes (italics mine):
Robert VerBruggen writes, "In a footnote, [dissenting judge and GHWB appointee, gee thanks dad] Henderson even noted United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, a case that ruled the term 'the people' meant 'a class of persons who are part of a national community' and specifically mentioned the Second Amendment. To this she responded that as the Tenth Amendment relegates some rights to the States, and not to the District, so does the Second."
But Mr. VerBruggen fails to note that the majority on page 50 in Parker directly rebutted Henderson as follows "Our dissenting colleague --in order to give a meaning to 'the people' in the Second Amendment consistent with her interpretation -- analogizes to 'the people' in the Tenth Amendment. Dissent at 5 n.5. Contrary to her suggestion, however, the Tenth Amendment does not limit 'the people' to state citizens. Rather, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers to 'the States respectively, or to the people.' The dissent provides no case holding that 'the people,' as used in the Tenth Amendment, are distinct from 'the people' referred to elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. The one case relied upon, Lee v. Flintkote, 593 F.2d 1275, 1278 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1979), is inapposite. That case merely contrasts the District, on the one hand, with the states, on the other; the meaning of 'the people' as used in the Tenth Amendment was not at issue. Indeed, Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. at 265, directly contradicts the dissent's reading of 'the people' in the Tenth Amendment, just as it contradicts the restrictive reading of 'the people' in the Second."
It's true -- and I wish the original article hadn't been long enough that it warranted sticking to my major points; that's why I didn't flesh out the whole back-and-forth on this footnote -- that the Tenth is a bad analogy. Whereas the Second Amendment uses "State" and "people" in a way that could be taken to mean the same group, the Tenth is quite clear that the States and the people are two separate entities.
I'd like to be clear, I'm not crazy about the dissent. To me "the people" should mean "all Americans." However, just as liberals have tried to write "the people" out of the Second Amendment, gun rights supporters have tried to ignore the parts about militias and states -- and how those parts could affect "the people."
In my opinion, people, militia and state are basically synonymous -- everyone in the U.S. But, as I pointed out when John Tabin challenged the dissent's interpretation of the word "state," lower courts are bound by precedent. The relevant case, US v Miller, clearly stated that in the Second Amendment "State" means the 50 states. It does not mean state as in country.
And as the original op-ed pointed out, US v. Miller also ruled a militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," or with today's gender-neutral law, everyone.
But here's the kicker, and where I think the dissenter has a point: If the Amendment has been interpreted to protect everyone's right to have a gun for the sake of state militias -- and the case also emphasized the amendment should be interpreted with that goal even today -- doesn't that mean only Americans living in states have that right? I think to get past this you have to have the Supremes overturn parts of Miller, and define "State" as "country." Until then, lower courts have to go by the existing law, and I think Henderson's interpretation is an arguable if unfortunate one.
By Robert VerBruggen
Beneath the Sky review up at antiMusic
March 14th 2007 03:47
antiMusic has my review of Beneath the Sky's new record.
Main point:
"It's refreshing to hear Cincinnati's Beneath the Sky, a band that tops its metal riffs with not only drill sergeant screams but death metal hisses, screeches and growls as well. More than a little ridiculous and over-the-top – sometimes the band turns on a dime from death metal to melodic hardcore – but at least no one will confuse them with Killswitch Engage."
By Robert VerBruggen
Main point:
"It's refreshing to hear Cincinnati's Beneath the Sky, a band that tops its metal riffs with not only drill sergeant screams but death metal hisses, screeches and growls as well. More than a little ridiculous and over-the-top – sometimes the band turns on a dime from death metal to melodic hardcore – but at least no one will confuse them with Killswitch Engage."
By Robert VerBruggen
Defending my defense of the Parker dissent
March 14th 2007 03:27
John Tabin has an interesting post about my Spectator article. His point:
"The argument that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC because the District is not a state is completely implausible, at least from an originalist perspective. The 'security of a free State' language was understood at the time of ratification to mean 'security of a free country' -- as Eugene Volokh notes, it's a formulation that comes from Blackstone's Commentaries. Blackstone used 'state' as a synonym for 'nation,' and so did the Framers; the word 'state' is used in that sense in several places elsewhere in the constitution, in reference to 'foreign state[s].' And remember that when the constitution was written, the US included the Northwest Territory; does it really make sense to think that the Framers would deliberately deny rights to Americans in that region?"
My response: Great analysis from the stated "originalist perspective." Problem is, that interpretation was not on the table for the Parker court. Lower courts are bound by precedent, and US v. Miller unquestionably interpreted the Second Amendment language to refer to "State" as in "the 50 states," not as in "country":
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress."
Note "States," plural. Miller also cited the Constitution itself, when it details how the Militia functions. In this section, the Framers used "States" the way Miller interpreted the Second Amendment:
"...reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
Now, all this doesn't mean the Second Amendment meant "State" the same way, and I'm inclined to agree with Tabin and Volokh that the amendment should apply to the whole country. But within the limits of precedent, I maintain my thesis that the Parker dissent was far less anti-gun than it could have been.
By Robert VerBruggen
"The argument that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to DC because the District is not a state is completely implausible, at least from an originalist perspective. The 'security of a free State' language was understood at the time of ratification to mean 'security of a free country' -- as Eugene Volokh notes, it's a formulation that comes from Blackstone's Commentaries. Blackstone used 'state' as a synonym for 'nation,' and so did the Framers; the word 'state' is used in that sense in several places elsewhere in the constitution, in reference to 'foreign state[s].' And remember that when the constitution was written, the US included the Northwest Territory; does it really make sense to think that the Framers would deliberately deny rights to Americans in that region?"
My response: Great analysis from the stated "originalist perspective." Problem is, that interpretation was not on the table for the Parker court. Lower courts are bound by precedent, and US v. Miller unquestionably interpreted the Second Amendment language to refer to "State" as in "the 50 states," not as in "country":
"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress."
Note "States," plural. Miller also cited the Constitution itself, when it details how the Militia functions. In this section, the Framers used "States" the way Miller interpreted the Second Amendment:
"...reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
Now, all this doesn't mean the Second Amendment meant "State" the same way, and I'm inclined to agree with Tabin and Volokh that the amendment should apply to the whole country. But within the limits of precedent, I maintain my thesis that the Parker dissent was far less anti-gun than it could have been.
By Robert VerBruggen
New piece up at The American Spectator
March 13th 2007 12:59
The Spectator has my new piece on the Parker dissent.
Main point:
"Last Friday's Parker v. District of Columbia ruling ruling (pdf) was an incredible triumph for gun rights. The federal D.C. court of appeals ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, striking down the District's laws (A) mandating all guns be stored locked and unloaded and (B) effectively banning handguns. The Supreme Court will likely hear the case.
"Anti-gunners, not surprisingly, weren't happy. The Washington Post stated that 1939's U.S. v. Miller settled the issue: The Second Amendment protects the states' right to have militias, not the people's right to have guns.
"This interpretation is incorrect, as even the dissenting opinion in Parker -- which the Post credited for having 'rightly lambasted' the majority -- demonstrates."
Main point:
"Last Friday's Parker v. District of Columbia ruling ruling (pdf) was an incredible triumph for gun rights. The federal D.C. court of appeals ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, striking down the District's laws (A) mandating all guns be stored locked and unloaded and (B) effectively banning handguns. The Supreme Court will likely hear the case.
"Anti-gunners, not surprisingly, weren't happy. The Washington Post stated that 1939's U.S. v. Miller settled the issue: The Second Amendment protects the states' right to have militias, not the people's right to have guns.
"This interpretation is incorrect, as even the dissenting opinion in Parker -- which the Post credited for having 'rightly lambasted' the majority -- demonstrates."
More on the gun case: The dissent
March 11th 2007 15:06
Yesterday I pointed out that the case U.S. v. Miller, though often taken as a collective-right interpretation of the Second Amendment, actually addressed only the gun. The entire decision does not even mention that the individual was not in a militia -- only that the gun he had, a sawed-off shotgun, had not been shown to be a militia weapon.
John Lott points to the dissent in the new case, which posits an interesting interpretation of U.S. v. Miller: Even if the Second Amendment protects militia weapons, the Miller court said the Second Amendment must be interpreted with the preservation of the state militias -- at the time of the Founding, all white male residents -- in mind. DC is not a state, so its residents don't have that right.
A thought-provoking take, to be sure. And once again it's fascinating that there's no mention of the fact the guy is not in a militia.
Though I'm not sure we want to take any more constitutional rights away from DC residents; they already have "taxation without representation."
Lott also questions the wisdom of bringing the case right now:
"This is actually a very high risk gamble. IF the gun ban is struck down, it will have major implications. If not, no gun regulation will be deemed 'unreasonable.'"
By Robert VerBruggen
John Lott points to the dissent in the new case, which posits an interesting interpretation of U.S. v. Miller: Even if the Second Amendment protects militia weapons, the Miller court said the Second Amendment must be interpreted with the preservation of the state militias -- at the time of the Founding, all white male residents -- in mind. DC is not a state, so its residents don't have that right.
A thought-provoking take, to be sure. And once again it's fascinating that there's no mention of the fact the guy is not in a militia.
Though I'm not sure we want to take any more constitutional rights away from DC residents; they already have "taxation without representation."
Lott also questions the wisdom of bringing the case right now:
"This is actually a very high risk gamble. IF the gun ban is struck down, it will have major implications. If not, no gun regulation will be deemed 'unreasonable.'"
By Robert VerBruggen
More on the DC Second Amendment case
March 11th 2007 03:30
My friend Jeremy Lott has a great post up about the new case, criticizing a Washington Post op-ed.
I have three comments to add:
(A) The case in question wasn't an NRA ordeal. In fact, the NRA had a competing case that used arguments in addition to the Second Amendment; a Cato Institute scholar wanted (and got) a strict Second Amendment ruling.
(B) By "almost 70 years of precedent," I'm assuming the Post is referring to U.S. v. Miller (1939). But the paper, like so many left-wing propagandists, willfully distorts the ruling.
In the case, a man sued for the right to own a sawed-off shotgun. As I wrote in Reason: "[T]he Court ruled that a ban on sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Constitution because 'it is not within judicial notice that [such weapons are] any part of the ordinary military equipment or that [their] use could contribute to the common defense.'"
I've actually been criticized on the grounds this is an overly anti-gun interpretation; the court didn't necessarily say such bans don't violate the Constitution, just that there hadn't been enough evidence presented to show they did.
But the important part is this: The ruling doesn't say that the man can't own a sawed-off shotgun because he's not in the militia. It says he can't own a sawed-off shotgun unless he proves such a weapon is "part of the ordinary military equipment" or that its possession "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." By that logic I can own a nuclear bomb. This says nothing whatsoever about whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
The op-ed is disingenuous about another passage in the ruling, quoting the part about the Second Amendment protecting militias but not worrying about this part:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
(C) On what basis does the paper claim letting law-abiding people have guns -- to balance out the criminals who already have them -- will increase crime? There are studies it could have cited, but it doesn't bother.
The Washington Post is a major national paper. It's great that it promotes a liberal perspective, but it should do so with actual facts.
By Robert VerBruggen
I have three comments to add:
(A) The case in question wasn't an NRA ordeal. In fact, the NRA had a competing case that used arguments in addition to the Second Amendment; a Cato Institute scholar wanted (and got) a strict Second Amendment ruling.
(B) By "almost 70 years of precedent," I'm assuming the Post is referring to U.S. v. Miller (1939). But the paper, like so many left-wing propagandists, willfully distorts the ruling.
In the case, a man sued for the right to own a sawed-off shotgun. As I wrote in Reason: "[T]he Court ruled that a ban on sawed-off shotguns did not violate the Constitution because 'it is not within judicial notice that [such weapons are] any part of the ordinary military equipment or that [their] use could contribute to the common defense.'"
I've actually been criticized on the grounds this is an overly anti-gun interpretation; the court didn't necessarily say such bans don't violate the Constitution, just that there hadn't been enough evidence presented to show they did.
But the important part is this: The ruling doesn't say that the man can't own a sawed-off shotgun because he's not in the militia. It says he can't own a sawed-off shotgun unless he proves such a weapon is "part of the ordinary military equipment" or that its possession "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." By that logic I can own a nuclear bomb. This says nothing whatsoever about whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
The op-ed is disingenuous about another passage in the ruling, quoting the part about the Second Amendment protecting militias but not worrying about this part:
"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
(C) On what basis does the paper claim letting law-abiding people have guns -- to balance out the criminals who already have them -- will increase crime? There are studies it could have cited, but it doesn't bother.
The Washington Post is a major national paper. It's great that it promotes a liberal perspective, but it should do so with actual facts.
By Robert VerBruggen
Federal DC appeals court rules Second Amendment an individual right
March 11th 2007 01:21
In the June 2005 issue of Reason, I wrote about DC's Parker case, where some local gun owners challenged a handgun ban:
"Parker v. District of Columbia, in which Cato's Robert Levy serves as co-counsel, seeks a ruling based solely on the Second Amendment...[It] lost in U.S. district court. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 'indicated that he found our arguments credible, but he thought U.S. v. Miller bound him,' Levy says of his case."
People were unsure how the Supreme Court would react:
"David Hardy favors waiting, predicting a 10-year battle. He hopes the Bush administration, which has endorsed the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment, will appoint gun-friendly justices to the Supreme Court. 'Now we've got three votes for sure, and the rest are in the other camp,' he says. 'I'd like to see four or five in our back pocket, with a really good test case. Once you have a ruling you're only halfway through, because the lower courts will resist. It will be a battle to get the lower courts in line, and I doubt it would be a quick fight.'"
No one really thought twice about the DC appeals court, however, which recently and very explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It found DC's gun ban and "locked and unloaded" laws unconstitutional. It left open the issue of whether the Second Amendment protected the carrying of concealed weapons (I heartily support concealed carry, but I'm not sure it does).
This is great news for freedom. It sets a great tone for the Supreme Court case, assuming they hear it, and now we have at least four judges in our corner.
By Robert VerBruggen
"Parker v. District of Columbia, in which Cato's Robert Levy serves as co-counsel, seeks a ruling based solely on the Second Amendment...[It] lost in U.S. district court. U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan 'indicated that he found our arguments credible, but he thought U.S. v. Miller bound him,' Levy says of his case."
People were unsure how the Supreme Court would react:
"David Hardy favors waiting, predicting a 10-year battle. He hopes the Bush administration, which has endorsed the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment, will appoint gun-friendly justices to the Supreme Court. 'Now we've got three votes for sure, and the rest are in the other camp,' he says. 'I'd like to see four or five in our back pocket, with a really good test case. Once you have a ruling you're only halfway through, because the lower courts will resist. It will be a battle to get the lower courts in line, and I doubt it would be a quick fight.'"
No one really thought twice about the DC appeals court, however, which recently and very explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It found DC's gun ban and "locked and unloaded" laws unconstitutional. It left open the issue of whether the Second Amendment protected the carrying of concealed weapons (I heartily support concealed carry, but I'm not sure it does).
This is great news for freedom. It sets a great tone for the Supreme Court case, assuming they hear it, and now we have at least four judges in our corner.
By Robert VerBruggen
New federal hate crime law considered
March 9th 2007 02:40
Volokh has an absolutely indispensable post about hate crime laws. Read the whole thing. The poster systematically destroys the argument for tougher federal hate crimes legislation. Most importantly, there is no reason for the federal as opposed to state government to get involved at all.
Here's my take on hate crime laws: The most compelling anecdotes for them are the ones where they're most unnecessary. A rapist or first-degree murderer should spend the rest of his life in prison, regardless of why he committed the crime.
Where hate crime laws help, though, is in smaller cases. For instance, burning a cross on someone's front lawn -- "trespassing" just doesn't sum up the harm done.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
By Robert VerBruggen
Here's my take on hate crime laws: The most compelling anecdotes for them are the ones where they're most unnecessary. A rapist or first-degree murderer should spend the rest of his life in prison, regardless of why he committed the crime.
Where hate crime laws help, though, is in smaller cases. For instance, burning a cross on someone's front lawn -- "trespassing" just doesn't sum up the harm done.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
By Robert VerBruggen
Environmentalism, happiness, genetics and wages...oh my
March 9th 2007 02:32
This Mother Jones article by Bill Mckibben is really quite something. It argues that capitalism is (A) using up our resources and (B) not making us any happier, so (C) we should return to a more small community-based way of life. It's long, but I recommend reading the whole thing.
It's certainly true that all resources are scarce to some degree, but I think the writer underestimates humanity's ability to overcome problems:
"The doctrinaire economist's answer is that no particular commodity matters all that much, because if we run short of something, it will pay for someone to develop a substitute. In general this has proved true in the past: Run short of nice big sawlogs and someone invents plywood. But it's far from clear that the same precept applies to coal, oil, and natural gas. This time, there is no easy substitute: I like the solar panels on my roof, but they're collecting diffuse daily energy, not using up eons of accumulated power. Fossil fuel was an exception to the rule, a one-time gift that underwrote a one-time binge of growth."
It's true this is a difficult problem. Eventually, we'll have to move away from fossil fuels -- a costly process that will slow growth. But we'll find other sources of energy (like nuclear power), and it's doubtful we'll send ourselves back to the stone age doing so. Before the fossil fuel era, people thought that was unlikely.
Then, he turns to happiness, arguing that once a society passes $10,000 per capita, income no longer predicts the country's average self-described happiness. It seems that once the economy meets basic needs, other things like culture, family, etc. determine happiness.
On America:
"Throughout the postwar years, even as the gnp curve has steadily climbed, the 'life satisfaction' index has stayed exactly the same. Since 1972, the National Opinion Research Center has surveyed Americans on the question: 'Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?' (This must be a somewhat unsettling interview.) The 'very happy' number peaked at 38 percent in the 1974 poll, amid oil shock and economic malaise; it now hovers right around 33 percent."
This is true between groups of people -- countries can get richer without getting happier, and there are some poor countries where people are quite happy -- but within most any group, rich people rate themselves as happier . In short, status within a society matters regardless of the society as a whole's material wealth. The writer doesn't mention that latter part.
Overall the argument stands, however, that further economic growth almost certainly won't make people consider themselves any happier. My point is this: Even if today's Americans don't rate themselves happier than their parents did, they still have more free time, more money, etc. If you put a modern American 30-year-old next to a 30-year-old from 1950, and they compared their lives, both would probably conclude the modern American has it easy. The line "you don't realize how good you've got it" is absolutely true. But not appreciating this is not the same as having it bad.
The writer makes a few good counterarguments here. For one, if we're not going to appreciate how convenient our lives are, why stretch resources toward that end? Also, 30-year-olds from the '50s did have it better in that family and community meant more back then.
In a way, the article makes a very socially conservative point, one that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein made in The Bell Curve, and one that Steve Sailer recently made in The American Conservative: America's sense of community is dying. It's important to resurrect it. One needn't buy Mother Jones's environmental alarmism to agree with that.
Finally, I thought this was interesting:
"[Neuroscientist] Whybrow argues that many of us in this country are predisposed to a kind of dynamic individualism -- our gene pool includes an inordinate number of people who risked everything to start over."
Is there any evidence on this derived from actual genetic research, or is it Darwinian speculation? And if it is true, does it lend any credence to Sam Francis's controversial remark "The civilization that we . . . created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people."
I took out the words "as whites," and of course this changes the meaning drastically, but was Francis right that there's a genetic component to adjusting well to a democratic society? And what would this mean for immigration policy?
An aside -- it's rather funny the article works in some nonsense about "real wages" declining. If wages declined, and Americans don't rate themselves happier than their parents, wouldn't that suggest a lack of financial wellbeing contributed to the misery? The claim, of course, is bunk; "real wage" measurements overstate inflation and do not consider consumption.
It's certainly true that all resources are scarce to some degree, but I think the writer underestimates humanity's ability to overcome problems:
"The doctrinaire economist's answer is that no particular commodity matters all that much, because if we run short of something, it will pay for someone to develop a substitute. In general this has proved true in the past: Run short of nice big sawlogs and someone invents plywood. But it's far from clear that the same precept applies to coal, oil, and natural gas. This time, there is no easy substitute: I like the solar panels on my roof, but they're collecting diffuse daily energy, not using up eons of accumulated power. Fossil fuel was an exception to the rule, a one-time gift that underwrote a one-time binge of growth."
It's true this is a difficult problem. Eventually, we'll have to move away from fossil fuels -- a costly process that will slow growth. But we'll find other sources of energy (like nuclear power), and it's doubtful we'll send ourselves back to the stone age doing so. Before the fossil fuel era, people thought that was unlikely.
Then, he turns to happiness, arguing that once a society passes $10,000 per capita, income no longer predicts the country's average self-described happiness. It seems that once the economy meets basic needs, other things like culture, family, etc. determine happiness.
On America:
"Throughout the postwar years, even as the gnp curve has steadily climbed, the 'life satisfaction' index has stayed exactly the same. Since 1972, the National Opinion Research Center has surveyed Americans on the question: 'Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days—would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?' (This must be a somewhat unsettling interview.) The 'very happy' number peaked at 38 percent in the 1974 poll, amid oil shock and economic malaise; it now hovers right around 33 percent."
This is true between groups of people -- countries can get richer without getting happier, and there are some poor countries where people are quite happy -- but within most any group, rich people rate themselves as happier . In short, status within a society matters regardless of the society as a whole's material wealth. The writer doesn't mention that latter part.
Overall the argument stands, however, that further economic growth almost certainly won't make people consider themselves any happier. My point is this: Even if today's Americans don't rate themselves happier than their parents did, they still have more free time, more money, etc. If you put a modern American 30-year-old next to a 30-year-old from 1950, and they compared their lives, both would probably conclude the modern American has it easy. The line "you don't realize how good you've got it" is absolutely true. But not appreciating this is not the same as having it bad.
The writer makes a few good counterarguments here. For one, if we're not going to appreciate how convenient our lives are, why stretch resources toward that end? Also, 30-year-olds from the '50s did have it better in that family and community meant more back then.
In a way, the article makes a very socially conservative point, one that Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein made in The Bell Curve, and one that Steve Sailer recently made in The American Conservative: America's sense of community is dying. It's important to resurrect it. One needn't buy Mother Jones's environmental alarmism to agree with that.
Finally, I thought this was interesting:
"[Neuroscientist] Whybrow argues that many of us in this country are predisposed to a kind of dynamic individualism -- our gene pool includes an inordinate number of people who risked everything to start over."
Is there any evidence on this derived from actual genetic research, or is it Darwinian speculation? And if it is true, does it lend any credence to Sam Francis's controversial remark "The civilization that we . . . created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people."
I took out the words "as whites," and of course this changes the meaning drastically, but was Francis right that there's a genetic component to adjusting well to a democratic society? And what would this mean for immigration policy?
An aside -- it's rather funny the article works in some nonsense about "real wages" declining. If wages declined, and Americans don't rate themselves happier than their parents, wouldn't that suggest a lack of financial wellbeing contributed to the misery? The claim, of course, is bunk; "real wage" measurements overstate inflation and do not consider consumption.
Bill Gates on immigration
March 8th 2007 05:00
The country's richest man has some interesting comments on immigration:
"Speaking before the Senate committee on health, education, labour and pensions, Mr Gates said that tighter US immigration policies – governed partly by concerns over terrorism – were 'driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most'...
"Mr Gates said that other countries were taking advantage of restrictive US policies by catering to highly skilled workers who would otherwise choose to study, live and work in the US."
Here's the rub, though: It's very difficult for American immigration policy to sift through potential immigrants to pick the smart ones. We abandoned national quotas 40 years ago, and now we have a "flexible" worldwide ceiling of 675,000 immigrants. Job skills put immigrants in a preference category (and the more skilled, the more advantage), but so do "diversity" and family reunification. Not to mention the massive illegal immigration that uses up much of America's patience for newcomers -- the tech-savvy folks Gates wants aren't likely to sneak across the border in the back of a truck. The upshot, apparently, is that it's a pain for skilled workers to come here while unskilled workers come in droves, both with and without visas.
(This CBO document is quite helpful on U.S. policy facts, by the way.)
If Gates is right that anti-terrorism -- and generally, anti-immigration -- sentiments are keeping smart immigrants out, that's certainly a problem. But the solution is to discriminate between immigrants, not to throw open the borders. That's why his solution is right on the money, though he doesn't put it so bluntly:
"Mr Gates called on Congress to loosen rules that prevent many foreign students from settling once their studies in the US are complete. He also suggested that Congress speed the process of obtaining permanent resident status for highly skilled workers."
And good point here:
"Mr Gates acknowledged concerns over US job losses resulting from immigration but sought to distinguish between the need to encourage more highly skilled workers to enter the US and the broader debate on immigration reform."
People care more, and should, about agricultural laborers' wages going down than about computer engineers taking a hit. It would be quite sane to tighten up on low-skill immigration while making high-skill immigration super-easy.
By Robert VerBruggen
"Speaking before the Senate committee on health, education, labour and pensions, Mr Gates said that tighter US immigration policies – governed partly by concerns over terrorism – were 'driving away the world's best and brightest precisely when we need them most'...
"Mr Gates said that other countries were taking advantage of restrictive US policies by catering to highly skilled workers who would otherwise choose to study, live and work in the US."
Here's the rub, though: It's very difficult for American immigration policy to sift through potential immigrants to pick the smart ones. We abandoned national quotas 40 years ago, and now we have a "flexible" worldwide ceiling of 675,000 immigrants. Job skills put immigrants in a preference category (and the more skilled, the more advantage), but so do "diversity" and family reunification. Not to mention the massive illegal immigration that uses up much of America's patience for newcomers -- the tech-savvy folks Gates wants aren't likely to sneak across the border in the back of a truck. The upshot, apparently, is that it's a pain for skilled workers to come here while unskilled workers come in droves, both with and without visas.
(This CBO document is quite helpful on U.S. policy facts, by the way.)
If Gates is right that anti-terrorism -- and generally, anti-immigration -- sentiments are keeping smart immigrants out, that's certainly a problem. But the solution is to discriminate between immigrants, not to throw open the borders. That's why his solution is right on the money, though he doesn't put it so bluntly:
"Mr Gates called on Congress to loosen rules that prevent many foreign students from settling once their studies in the US are complete. He also suggested that Congress speed the process of obtaining permanent resident status for highly skilled workers."
And good point here:
"Mr Gates acknowledged concerns over US job losses resulting from immigration but sought to distinguish between the need to encourage more highly skilled workers to enter the US and the broader debate on immigration reform."
People care more, and should, about agricultural laborers' wages going down than about computer engineers taking a hit. It would be quite sane to tighten up on low-skill immigration while making high-skill immigration super-easy.
By Robert VerBruggen
South Park back to its old brilliance
March 8th 2007 04:28
I once read that the South Park creators make each episode from scratch the week it's to air, so that would explain why the show has been on-again/off-again in terms of quality over the last few seasons. Tonight's episode, however, was one of the best I've ever seen.
It was about Michael Richards's use of the "N" word, and I think the recent Ann Coulter controversy really makes it pertinent.
It does a superb job of combining over-the-top gags (the intro joke that ignites the controversy is classic South Park racial humor) with a message that isn't preachy. This morning's Express (a DC tabloid run by the Post) called it unremarkable or something to that effect, but I swear they must have watched the wrong show.
Also, the Sarah Silverman program had an interesting take on the word "f----t" (paraphrased): "I don't mean f-g as in homosexual, I mean f-g as in retard." (Yes, I watch too much Comedy Central.)
This makes two points. One, like it or not, many people use anti-gay slurs to denounce just about anything they don't like. Two, for some reason the word "retard," when used derogatorily, doesn't seem to offend people nearly as much as many other words do.
A random aside -- it's always amused and angered me that, in my experience at least, those most offended by the word "retarded" when applied to people who really are mentally retarded, are the same people who use "that's retarded" to mean "that's stupid/ridiculous."
By Robert VerBruggen
It was about Michael Richards's use of the "N" word, and I think the recent Ann Coulter controversy really makes it pertinent.
It does a superb job of combining over-the-top gags (the intro joke that ignites the controversy is classic South Park racial humor) with a message that isn't preachy. This morning's Express (a DC tabloid run by the Post) called it unremarkable or something to that effect, but I swear they must have watched the wrong show.
Also, the Sarah Silverman program had an interesting take on the word "f----t" (paraphrased): "I don't mean f-g as in homosexual, I mean f-g as in retard." (Yes, I watch too much Comedy Central.)
This makes two points. One, like it or not, many people use anti-gay slurs to denounce just about anything they don't like. Two, for some reason the word "retard," when used derogatorily, doesn't seem to offend people nearly as much as many other words do.
A random aside -- it's always amused and angered me that, in my experience at least, those most offended by the word "retarded" when applied to people who really are mentally retarded, are the same people who use "that's retarded" to mean "that's stupid/ridiculous."
By Robert VerBruggen
Sex offenders and the law
March 8th 2007 00:54
This column from Jacob Sullum about sex offenders is an absolute must-read. The most important part is this:
"Instead of punishing people for crimes they might commit in the future, why not punish them for crimes they've already committed? If certain offenses merit a life sentence, which is what you often get when you tack indefinite civil commitment onto a prison term, that penalty should be imposed explicitly and with due process."
Another great line:
"When sex offenders are caught and convicted, the government says they're responsible for their actions, so it locks them up. But after they serve their time, it says they can't control themselves, so it locks them up some more."
Indeed, it's ridiculous to let someone out of prison, and then impose all sorts of restrictions on where they can live and who they can consort with for the rest of their lives. It's also, in my opinion, unconstitutional to punish someone after they've served their stated sentence.
But Sullum informs us:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld civil commitment of sex offenders on the grounds that it is therapeutic and preventive rather than punitive. But the therapy is a sham, and the preventive rationale could be applied to a wide variety of criminals, all of whom have demonstrated a tendency toward anti-social behavior and many of whom are at least as prone to recidivism as sex offenders are."
Right on. Let's give them life from the get-go. Read the whole thing.
By Robert VerBruggen
"Instead of punishing people for crimes they might commit in the future, why not punish them for crimes they've already committed? If certain offenses merit a life sentence, which is what you often get when you tack indefinite civil commitment onto a prison term, that penalty should be imposed explicitly and with due process."
Another great line:
"When sex offenders are caught and convicted, the government says they're responsible for their actions, so it locks them up. But after they serve their time, it says they can't control themselves, so it locks them up some more."
Indeed, it's ridiculous to let someone out of prison, and then impose all sorts of restrictions on where they can live and who they can consort with for the rest of their lives. It's also, in my opinion, unconstitutional to punish someone after they've served their stated sentence.
But Sullum informs us:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld civil commitment of sex offenders on the grounds that it is therapeutic and preventive rather than punitive. But the therapy is a sham, and the preventive rationale could be applied to a wide variety of criminals, all of whom have demonstrated a tendency toward anti-social behavior and many of whom are at least as prone to recidivism as sex offenders are."
Right on. Let's give them life from the get-go. Read the whole thing.
By Robert VerBruggen
Needless indignation, part 1
March 7th 2007 02:30
This happens enough in the media, and it irritates me enough, that I've decided to start a series about it: When covering extremely offensive situations, the media often feels the need to abandon objectivity and tell readers just how bad, say, Holocaust denial is.
The issue today: lashing a rape victim because she chose to be around men she wasn't related to, courtesy Fox News:
"A 19-year-old Saudi woman who was kidnapped, beaten and gang raped by seven men who then took photos of their victim and threatened to kill her, was sentenced under the country's Islamic-based law to 90 lashes for the 'crime' of being alone with a man not related to her."
The scare quotes around "crime" border on factual error. It wasn't a "crime," it was a crime. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state, and the leaders have chosen to enact and enforce a law against women being alone with men they're not related to. That makes it a crime.
Besides, as this series will point out indefinitely, we don't need Fox News to tell us that lashing a rape victim 90 times is a stupid thing to do. If they just gave us the facts, we could figure it out ourselves.
Finally, I have to wonder what the law is supposed to accomplish. If it's sex they're worried about, Saudi Arabia might want to focus on keeping relatives away : "[C]lose to half of all marital pairings are between first or second cousins."
By Robert VerBruggen
The issue today: lashing a rape victim because she chose to be around men she wasn't related to, courtesy Fox News:
"A 19-year-old Saudi woman who was kidnapped, beaten and gang raped by seven men who then took photos of their victim and threatened to kill her, was sentenced under the country's Islamic-based law to 90 lashes for the 'crime' of being alone with a man not related to her."
The scare quotes around "crime" border on factual error. It wasn't a "crime," it was a crime. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state, and the leaders have chosen to enact and enforce a law against women being alone with men they're not related to. That makes it a crime.
Besides, as this series will point out indefinitely, we don't need Fox News to tell us that lashing a rape victim 90 times is a stupid thing to do. If they just gave us the facts, we could figure it out ourselves.
Finally, I have to wonder what the law is supposed to accomplish. If it's sex they're worried about, Saudi Arabia might want to focus on keeping relatives away : "[C]lose to half of all marital pairings are between first or second cousins."
By Robert VerBruggen
Andrew Sullivan says something logical
March 7th 2007 02:14
...news flash!
From his post about Ann Coulter's calling John Edwards a "f----t":
"Her defense, however, is that she was making a joke, not speaking a slur. Her logic suggests that the two are mutually exclusive. They're not. And when you unpack Coulter's joke, you see she does both. Her joke was that the world is so absurd that someone like Isaiah Washington is forced to go into rehab for calling someone a 'f[----]t.' She's absolutely right that this is absurd and funny and an example of p.c. insanity. She could have made a joke about that - a better one, to be sure - but a joke. But she didn't just do that. She added to the joke a slur: 'John Edwards is a f[----]t.' That's why people gasped and then laughed and clapped so heartily...
"Coulter's defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word f[----]t is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn't. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word 'f[----]t' is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a 'f[----]t' by his straight peers."
He's right here, thought I'm not sure he means to say the slur is "most potent" when directed at heterosexuals. Also, this later part of the post borders on political correctness itself:
"And for the slur to work, it must logically accept the premise that gay men are weak, effeminate, wusses, sissies, and the rest...gay men are not all effeminate. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen a leading NBA player and a Marine come out to tell their stories."
This is true as far as it goes, but as psychologist J. Michael Bailey has demonstrated, gay men are indeed more effeminate than straights on average. And Steve Sailer recently showed the NBA player Sullivan writes of is "exactly the kind of player you'd expect to be gay."
In other Coulter-says-the-other-F-word news, Opinion Journal has a great analysis of why the joke failed:
"*The pop culture reference is too obscure for most people to get. We knew about it only because Kathryn Lopez linked to an article about it: It seems Isaiah Washington, a TV actor, checked into a 'residential treatment facility' after a dispute with a fellow cast member in which Washington used the word 'f[----]t.'
"*Although Edwards has what people back in 2003 used to call a 'metrosexual' demeanor, as well as a history of gay-baiting, it is not clear why implying that he is gay would be funny.
"'*F[----]t' is an ugly word, redolent of hatred even if employed without hateful intent."
I planned to end the post by explaining that the word "f----t" comes from the kindling sticks earlier cultures used to burn gays, but that (like everything else I learned in the one college sociology class I took) is probably not true. From Wikipedia:
"It is often claimed that the derivation is associated directly with faggot meaning 'bundle of sticks for burning', since homosexuals were supposedly burnt at the stake in medieval England. This, however, was never an established punishment for homosexuality in England, although, according to one source, those accused of homosexual acts were sometimes doused in fuel and used in place of sticks for the burning of supposed witches. However, this practice ended centuries before the word f[----]t became associated with gay people.
"The word has also been used since the late sixteenth century to mean 'old or unpleasant woman', and this would appear the most likely derivation. Female terms, it should be noted, are often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women may be a shortening of the term 'faggot-gatherer', applied in the nineteenth century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood. It may also derive from the sense of 'something awkward to be carried', an etymology that is more plausible if one considers the use of 'baggage' as a pejorative term for old women."
On an almost unrelated note, why is every news outlet either using the word, or not using it? Why don't any use it, but blot out the middle like I've done? That seems to me the best solution -- I haven't poisoned my blog with a slur (though note I left it in when actually pertaining to wood), but I haven't left it to the imagination what Coulter said.
By Robert VerBruggen
From his post about Ann Coulter's calling John Edwards a "f----t":
"Her defense, however, is that she was making a joke, not speaking a slur. Her logic suggests that the two are mutually exclusive. They're not. And when you unpack Coulter's joke, you see she does both. Her joke was that the world is so absurd that someone like Isaiah Washington is forced to go into rehab for calling someone a 'f[----]t.' She's absolutely right that this is absurd and funny and an example of p.c. insanity. She could have made a joke about that - a better one, to be sure - but a joke. But she didn't just do that. She added to the joke a slur: 'John Edwards is a f[----]t.' That's why people gasped and then laughed and clapped so heartily...
"Coulter's defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word f[----]t is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn't. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word 'f[----]t' is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He's pretty, he has flowing locks, he's young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a 'f[----]t' by his straight peers."
He's right here, thought I'm not sure he means to say the slur is "most potent" when directed at heterosexuals. Also, this later part of the post borders on political correctness itself:
"And for the slur to work, it must logically accept the premise that gay men are weak, effeminate, wusses, sissies, and the rest...gay men are not all effeminate. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen a leading NBA player and a Marine come out to tell their stories."
This is true as far as it goes, but as psychologist J. Michael Bailey has demonstrated, gay men are indeed more effeminate than straights on average. And Steve Sailer recently showed the NBA player Sullivan writes of is "exactly the kind of player you'd expect to be gay."
In other Coulter-says-the-other-F-word news, Opinion Journal has a great analysis of why the joke failed:
"*The pop culture reference is too obscure for most people to get. We knew about it only because Kathryn Lopez linked to an article about it: It seems Isaiah Washington, a TV actor, checked into a 'residential treatment facility' after a dispute with a fellow cast member in which Washington used the word 'f[----]t.'
"*Although Edwards has what people back in 2003 used to call a 'metrosexual' demeanor, as well as a history of gay-baiting, it is not clear why implying that he is gay would be funny.
"'*F[----]t' is an ugly word, redolent of hatred even if employed without hateful intent."
I planned to end the post by explaining that the word "f----t" comes from the kindling sticks earlier cultures used to burn gays, but that (like everything else I learned in the one college sociology class I took) is probably not true. From Wikipedia:
"It is often claimed that the derivation is associated directly with faggot meaning 'bundle of sticks for burning', since homosexuals were supposedly burnt at the stake in medieval England. This, however, was never an established punishment for homosexuality in England, although, according to one source, those accused of homosexual acts were sometimes doused in fuel and used in place of sticks for the burning of supposed witches. However, this practice ended centuries before the word f[----]t became associated with gay people.
"The word has also been used since the late sixteenth century to mean 'old or unpleasant woman', and this would appear the most likely derivation. Female terms, it should be noted, are often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women may be a shortening of the term 'faggot-gatherer', applied in the nineteenth century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood. It may also derive from the sense of 'something awkward to be carried', an etymology that is more plausible if one considers the use of 'baggage' as a pejorative term for old women."
On an almost unrelated note, why is every news outlet either using the word, or not using it? Why don't any use it, but blot out the middle like I've done? That seems to me the best solution -- I haven't poisoned my blog with a slur (though note I left it in when actually pertaining to wood), but I haven't left it to the imagination what Coulter said.
By Robert VerBruggen
Dinesh D'Souza's fall
March 6th 2007 00:43
I'm not sure what's gotten into Dinesh D'Souza lately. He was one of the right wing's most articulate spokesmen, but since The Enemy at Home he's gone off the deep end.
(I reviewed that book, quite negatively, for Liberty magazine. Unfortunately, the article is only in print.)
Recently he spewed out this absurd column. The headline is "Another Vietnam? Bring it on."
Now, I'm no fan of liberalism. But the accusations are unprofessional, poorly reasoned and rather absurd; he argues the left wants Iraq to turn into another Vietnam.
Then he systematically tackles some opposing theories:
"One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
"A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers' rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America's defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left."
The reasoning error here is that it assumes the left only wants what's best for it politically, not what's best for America. It's true that people enjoy being proven correct -- the left opposed this war, and if events validate them, they can say "I told you so." Some are so far to the fringe, also, that they really do hate America and want us to lose.
But it's very possible, and I believe it to be the case, that most liberals want America to win in Iraq. They may think it's unlikely. They may have warned against the situation there from the get-go. They may even advocate withdrawal, thinking it's in America's best interest and will save lives. But given that we're there, most liberals might want America to win as opposed to lose. They're not hoping our troops die.
The burden of proof is on D'Souza to show why the above logic doesn't hold water, to show that the average left-winger really does root for the insurgent in each and every firefight. He doesn't even try. Five years ago, he would have.
By Robert VerBruggen
(I reviewed that book, quite negatively, for Liberty magazine. Unfortunately, the article is only in print.)
Recently he spewed out this absurd column. The headline is "Another Vietnam? Bring it on."
Now, I'm no fan of liberalism. But the accusations are unprofessional, poorly reasoned and rather absurd; he argues the left wants Iraq to turn into another Vietnam.
Then he systematically tackles some opposing theories:
"One possible objection to the idea that the left wants another Vietnam is the results were not an unqualified triumph for American liberalism. Historians point out that the legacy of Vietnam produced a political backlash that helped Reagan get elected in 1980. The whole conservative ascendancy of the past generation is partly a product of this backlash. Even so, the left during the Vietnam era was able to make permanent changes in American society. Gender relations were transformed. Homosexuals came out of the closet. Abortion on demand became not only legal but interwoven with the lives of millions of Americans. Even now, a quarter of a century later, conservatives can only hope to moderate, but not reverse, these sweeping changes. The left paid a political price for these victories, but it was worth it.
"A second possible objection to the theory that the left wants Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq is that the Islamic radicals are the most illiberal force in the world. The Vietnamese Communists, like Communists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, at least appealed to liberal principles such as social egalitarianism and workers' rights. So one might understand how American leftists in the 1960s and 1970s might feel sympathetic toward their cause and view America as the enemy. By contrast, the argument goes, the Islamic radicals who are likely to benefit from America's defeat in Iraq are resolute enemies of feminism, gay rights, civil liberties, and all the social causes that are a top priority on the left."
The reasoning error here is that it assumes the left only wants what's best for it politically, not what's best for America. It's true that people enjoy being proven correct -- the left opposed this war, and if events validate them, they can say "I told you so." Some are so far to the fringe, also, that they really do hate America and want us to lose.
But it's very possible, and I believe it to be the case, that most liberals want America to win in Iraq. They may think it's unlikely. They may have warned against the situation there from the get-go. They may even advocate withdrawal, thinking it's in America's best interest and will save lives. But given that we're there, most liberals might want America to win as opposed to lose. They're not hoping our troops die.
The burden of proof is on D'Souza to show why the above logic doesn't hold water, to show that the average left-winger really does root for the insurgent in each and every firefight. He doesn't even try. Five years ago, he would have.
By Robert VerBruggen
Megadeth re-records "A Tout le Monde"
March 4th 2007 17:07
...is the news from Blabbermouth . Great song, but I'm unaware of any band that's ever successfully re-done its own well known song. (I say well known because some acts put the best of their underground recording on major-label records and do well. See Staind's "Mudshovel.")
I remember Motley Crue's remake of "Shout at the Devil" was rather lame on Generation Swine. And even "unplugged" versions rarely hit the mark unless they barely change the sound.
It seems this is a personal task for singer/guitarist Dave Mustaine, not a move calculated to make the record the best it can be:
"[The original 'A Tout Le Monde'] video was banned, the single was shelved, and without [the fans'] loving support of a truly beautiful song it would have died. MTV banned it because they said it was a 'song about suicide,' as did many people, but why would the line 'I'd love to stay with you all' be in there...And I had a manager at the time that was told, along with me, by MTV not to use director Wayne Isham because we had used him too much; odd request, but I heard them loud and clear. Of course, management didn't listen and tried to slip it into MTV under a pseudonym and MTV flipped....Then after the [college] shooting in Montreal [in 2006], where someone tried tying this song into that horrific act, I knew it was time to follow something that had been haunting me from the start of that song."
Even Mustaine himself didn't plan to put it on the record:
"Well, its intention was only to soothe my wounds, and it was meant to be a 'B-side' for Japan, but that didn't happen, as you will no doubt read. The song was finished and turned in to the record company and the radio department and everyone, including people that have heard the song before, are saying, 'This is the single for America!' There was excitement and a buzz, and they ALL agreed on this, which is a feat in itself when you have some many creative people in one place at any given time."
The good news is that it's now a duet with Lacuna Coil's Cristina Scabbia. The jury is still out.
By Robert VerBruggen.
I remember Motley Crue's remake of "Shout at the Devil" was rather lame on Generation Swine. And even "unplugged" versions rarely hit the mark unless they barely change the sound.
It seems this is a personal task for singer/guitarist Dave Mustaine, not a move calculated to make the record the best it can be:
"[The original 'A Tout Le Monde'] video was banned, the single was shelved, and without [the fans'] loving support of a truly beautiful song it would have died. MTV banned it because they said it was a 'song about suicide,' as did many people, but why would the line 'I'd love to stay with you all' be in there...And I had a manager at the time that was told, along with me, by MTV not to use director Wayne Isham because we had used him too much; odd request, but I heard them loud and clear. Of course, management didn't listen and tried to slip it into MTV under a pseudonym and MTV flipped....Then after the [college] shooting in Montreal [in 2006], where someone tried tying this song into that horrific act, I knew it was time to follow something that had been haunting me from the start of that song."
Even Mustaine himself didn't plan to put it on the record:
"Well, its intention was only to soothe my wounds, and it was meant to be a 'B-side' for Japan, but that didn't happen, as you will no doubt read. The song was finished and turned in to the record company and the radio department and everyone, including people that have heard the song before, are saying, 'This is the single for America!' There was excitement and a buzz, and they ALL agreed on this, which is a feat in itself when you have some many creative people in one place at any given time."
The good news is that it's now a duet with Lacuna Coil's Cristina Scabbia. The jury is still out.
By Robert VerBruggen.
Please, please learn the term "assault rifle" before using it
March 4th 2007 03:49
That's a note to The New York Times which, as John Lott points out, screwed it up again:
"Everyone knows what a prairie dog is: a chubby North American rodent that lives in a communal burrow and grows to be about a foot long. 'Assault rifle' is a much touchier term. It is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news. But the gun lobby despises 'assault rifle,' considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons by people who want to take away others' rights."
Unless you're rather ignorant regarding gun terms, and only hang out with those who are similarly ill-informed, "assault rifle" is not "generally understood" to mean a gun for wars and terrorism.
Those would be machine guns, i.e. fully automatic weapons like a military-issue AK-47. If you hold down the trigger, they fire rapidly.
"Assault rifles," on the other hand, are semi-automatic guns that fire once per trigger pull (such as the civilian AK-47 you often read about being too easily available). They are no different functionally from hunting rifles; they just often have military-looking features like pistol grips, bayonets, etc.
By Robert VerBruggen.
"Everyone knows what a prairie dog is: a chubby North American rodent that lives in a communal burrow and grows to be about a foot long. 'Assault rifle' is a much touchier term. It is generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news. But the gun lobby despises 'assault rifle,' considering it a false, scary label tacked onto perfectly legitimate weapons by people who want to take away others' rights."
Unless you're rather ignorant regarding gun terms, and only hang out with those who are similarly ill-informed, "assault rifle" is not "generally understood" to mean a gun for wars and terrorism.
Those would be machine guns, i.e. fully automatic weapons like a military-issue AK-47. If you hold down the trigger, they fire rapidly.
"Assault rifles," on the other hand, are semi-automatic guns that fire once per trigger pull (such as the civilian AK-47 you often read about being too easily available). They are no different functionally from hunting rifles; they just often have military-looking features like pistol grips, bayonets, etc.
By Robert VerBruggen.
More people relying on government assistance
March 3rd 2007 22:14
I've taken way too long to weigh in on this story, and for that I apologize. The Associated Press recently made a big deal out of the fact that a greater number of people are relying on government poverty programs than ever before.
First of all, their definition of "Associated Press analysis":
"About 44 million people - nearly one in six in the country - relied on government services for the poor in 2003, according to the most recent statistics compiled by the Census Bureau. That compares with about 39 million in 1996."
I'm not quite clear on where they got the numbers within the Census Bureau. What's odd to me is that, by this 2004 table, more than 1 in 6 households get means-tested assistance no matter what kind of household you look at. (I stress "no matter what kind" because, for example, in a household of "unrelated individuals" one person could "rely" on the assistance, another not, but in a married couple household if one relies they all do.) I believe this doesn't include the Medicaid payments the article points out is increasing.
But here's the most important thing. Contrary to the article's pronouncement that a decade's worth of policies has aimed to "wean" people off public assistance, the 1996 welfare reform was designed primarily to change the perverted incentives that kept people from working. As Charles Murray showed in Losing Ground, when you pay people who don't work, and then take away the payments when they start working, they tend not to work. Decreasing the welfare rolls, though pointed to as an indicator of success, was a secondary goal.
So the crucial bit of the story -- that working people are increasingly using government aid -- was part of the plan, as a government official in the story points out. Using a system loosely based on Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax (where you give the poor money, even if they have jobs, and decrease it more slowly than their own earnings increase -- to make sure they have a reason to work and get promoted), the 1996 reform got people into the work force. Even if they still get some government aid, they set examples for their children, keep themselves out of trouble and start the path toward a self-sufficient career.
One thing the "Associated Press analysis" doesn't cover, interestingly -- the Census must not have asked it, and they didn't bother finding this Heritage Foundation graph -- is how much money the U.S. government is dispensing in aid for the poor, as compared to previous years. That has risen as well.
By Robert VerBruggen
First of all, their definition of "Associated Press analysis":
"About 44 million people - nearly one in six in the country - relied on government services for the poor in 2003, according to the most recent statistics compiled by the Census Bureau. That compares with about 39 million in 1996."
I'm not quite clear on where they got the numbers within the Census Bureau. What's odd to me is that, by this 2004 table, more than 1 in 6 households get means-tested assistance no matter what kind of household you look at. (I stress "no matter what kind" because, for example, in a household of "unrelated individuals" one person could "rely" on the assistance, another not, but in a married couple household if one relies they all do.) I believe this doesn't include the Medicaid payments the article points out is increasing.
But here's the most important thing. Contrary to the article's pronouncement that a decade's worth of policies has aimed to "wean" people off public assistance, the 1996 welfare reform was designed primarily to change the perverted incentives that kept people from working. As Charles Murray showed in Losing Ground, when you pay people who don't work, and then take away the payments when they start working, they tend not to work. Decreasing the welfare rolls, though pointed to as an indicator of success, was a secondary goal.
So the crucial bit of the story -- that working people are increasingly using government aid -- was part of the plan, as a government official in the story points out. Using a system loosely based on Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax (where you give the poor money, even if they have jobs, and decrease it more slowly than their own earnings increase -- to make sure they have a reason to work and get promoted), the 1996 reform got people into the work force. Even if they still get some government aid, they set examples for their children, keep themselves out of trouble and start the path toward a self-sufficient career.
One thing the "Associated Press analysis" doesn't cover, interestingly -- the Census must not have asked it, and they didn't bother finding this Heritage Foundation graph -- is how much money the U.S. government is dispensing in aid for the poor, as compared to previous years. That has risen as well.
By Robert VerBruggen
The art of the guitar pick
March 3rd 2007 14:34
I just got the new Guitar One magazine, and I have to say the article about the Dunlop Jazz III squanders a great opportunity. Picks are an often-overlooked aspect to a hard rock player's sound -- but rather than survey musicians to see what they used and why, G1 wrote an entire feature article on one specific model.
Now, the Jazz III's record is pretty impressive; a lot of great players use it. Next time I place an order on Musician's Friend, I might even get a few for myself. But the things the players say they like about it, namely its pointy tip, hardness and grip-ability, can be found elsewhere as well.
For example, I love the Wirething, a plastic pick with a metal edge you play with. (See here to get a better idea and buy one.) Compared to a hard plastic pick, it gives a great metal tone with loads of definition.
And what about applications that don't require these features? Softer picks work great for recording acoustic guitar, I've heard. Instead of educating readers, the editors have promoted a product.
Now, the Jazz III's record is pretty impressive; a lot of great players use it. Next time I place an order on Musician's Friend, I might even get a few for myself. But the things the players say they like about it, namely its pointy tip, hardness and grip-ability, can be found elsewhere as well.
For example, I love the Wirething, a plastic pick with a metal edge you play with. (See here to get a better idea and buy one.) Compared to a hard plastic pick, it gives a great metal tone with loads of definition.
And what about applications that don't require these features? Softer picks work great for recording acoustic guitar, I've heard. Instead of educating readers, the editors have promoted a product.
On police chases
March 2nd 2007 01:25
This story is about the weakest Fourth Amendment claim I've ever heard about. It does, however, bring up some questions about when and how police should chase fleeing suspects.
A man paralyzed during a car chase -- in which he sped away from police at speeds of 90 mph -- is suing on the grounds that ramming his car was an unreasonable search or seizure and excessive force. (The Fourth Amendment does not contain the words "excessive force" but has been taken to imply them. The implications for police chases are still up in the air.)
Bottom line: When an individual endangers police or others, say by waving a gun around or resisting arrest by driving at 90 mph, police have the right to do what's necessary to apprehend him. They can shoot an armed suspect through the chest, so why couldn't they ram a vehicle off the road that might very well run over a bystander or crash into an innocent person's car? A car is just as dangerous as a gun is. It's disturbing the Supreme Court even took the case.
As a matter of policy it's also quite interesting. Some argue police should not chase suspects, others that chasing is OK up to ramming (this case challenges the ramming legally).
The logic is sound at first: High-speed chases are dangerous as heck. Letting one bank robber/whatever go is a reasonable price to pay for saving lives, cars and injuries. It's just not worth it.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the future. Once criminals find out about the policy, and they will, they'll start running more. This error has happened before in public policy -- in the New York subway system, police stopped arresting turnstile jumpers because it cost more to write the criminals up than the government earned back in tickets. Turnstile-jumping increased, the subway descended into chaos and it took Rudy Giuliani to fix the mess.
The second issue, that of ramming specifically, is more debatable. The problem with the case at hand is that the paralyzed guy ran from the cops, bringing his injury on himself. I think you would have a decent argument if you could find an innocent person injured by the PIT procedure (hitting a car at an angle to force it off the road) -- I'm not aware that that's statistically common, and I'd doubt it is, but at least I'd feel sorry for the test case.
Hat tip: John Lott.
By Robert VerBruggen
A man paralyzed during a car chase -- in which he sped away from police at speeds of 90 mph -- is suing on the grounds that ramming his car was an unreasonable search or seizure and excessive force. (The Fourth Amendment does not contain the words "excessive force" but has been taken to imply them. The implications for police chases are still up in the air.)
Bottom line: When an individual endangers police or others, say by waving a gun around or resisting arrest by driving at 90 mph, police have the right to do what's necessary to apprehend him. They can shoot an armed suspect through the chest, so why couldn't they ram a vehicle off the road that might very well run over a bystander or crash into an innocent person's car? A car is just as dangerous as a gun is. It's disturbing the Supreme Court even took the case.
As a matter of policy it's also quite interesting. Some argue police should not chase suspects, others that chasing is OK up to ramming (this case challenges the ramming legally).
The logic is sound at first: High-speed chases are dangerous as heck. Letting one bank robber/whatever go is a reasonable price to pay for saving lives, cars and injuries. It's just not worth it.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it ignores the future. Once criminals find out about the policy, and they will, they'll start running more. This error has happened before in public policy -- in the New York subway system, police stopped arresting turnstile jumpers because it cost more to write the criminals up than the government earned back in tickets. Turnstile-jumping increased, the subway descended into chaos and it took Rudy Giuliani to fix the mess.
The second issue, that of ramming specifically, is more debatable. The problem with the case at hand is that the paralyzed guy ran from the cops, bringing his injury on himself. I think you would have a decent argument if you could find an innocent person injured by the PIT procedure (hitting a car at an angle to force it off the road) -- I'm not aware that that's statistically common, and I'd doubt it is, but at least I'd feel sorry for the test case.
Hat tip: John Lott.
By Robert VerBruggen
How the MSM could have saved itself
March 2nd 2007 00:46
An interesting idea from an ABC News writer:
"If newspapers could do it over again, they should have sold off their physical assets, hired more reporters, editors and freelancers at a lower initial salary, opened more news bureaus around the world (if only in the form of solitary stringers working out of their apartments) instead of shutting them down, and demanded more hard news reporting from their reporters and a lot less editorializing and analysis.
"If that sounds counterintuitive, so is the entire history of high tech. Every time a threatened industry has tried to survive by adopting the new paradigm it has failed. The only solution is to come up with an even newer paradigm of your own."
This actually isn't as counterintuitive as it sounds. The blogosphere is killing the MSM not for its reporting but for its analysis -- as you'll see even on this blog, most posts start with a link to an MSM source.
Take, for a major example, the Dan Rather fake document scandal. Rather's team did all the reporting, messed it up, and the bloggers (who have a wide range of skills and expertise) caught the problem.
Bloggers, excepting the best, very rarely make phone calls or do research beyond Google searches. Most have full-time jobs of their own, so they're not going out and covering stuff. Maybe it's not too late for the media to concentrate on news-gathering rather than analysis.
By Robert VerBruggen
"If newspapers could do it over again, they should have sold off their physical assets, hired more reporters, editors and freelancers at a lower initial salary, opened more news bureaus around the world (if only in the form of solitary stringers working out of their apartments) instead of shutting them down, and demanded more hard news reporting from their reporters and a lot less editorializing and analysis.
"If that sounds counterintuitive, so is the entire history of high tech. Every time a threatened industry has tried to survive by adopting the new paradigm it has failed. The only solution is to come up with an even newer paradigm of your own."
This actually isn't as counterintuitive as it sounds. The blogosphere is killing the MSM not for its reporting but for its analysis -- as you'll see even on this blog, most posts start with a link to an MSM source.
Take, for a major example, the Dan Rather fake document scandal. Rather's team did all the reporting, messed it up, and the bloggers (who have a wide range of skills and expertise) caught the problem.
Bloggers, excepting the best, very rarely make phone calls or do research beyond Google searches. Most have full-time jobs of their own, so they're not going out and covering stuff. Maybe it's not too late for the media to concentrate on news-gathering rather than analysis.
By Robert VerBruggen
More on HPV
March 1st 2007 02:20
This story is basically a straight-up attempt to support mandatory HPV vaccinations.
From it:
"More than one-third of American women are infected by human papilloma virus (HPV), which in rare cases can lead to cervical cancer, by the time they are 24 years old, according to a study published today.
"The new estimates suggest that there are 7.5 million girls and women aged 14 to 24 infected with the virus — about two-thirds more than an earlier but less broad-based study had found.
...
"The new findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, are likely to further encourage use of a vaccine against HPV approved in June by the Food and Drug Administration for females aged 9 to 26. Its maker, Merck & Co., until recently was lobbying state legislatures to mandate vaccination of middle-school girls, a step that more than 18 states are moving toward."
Credit to the Washington Post, though, for at least including this detail:
"News of the higher-than-expected prevalence of HPV infection was balanced by the discovery that only 2.2 percent of women were carrying one of the two virus strains most likely to lead to cervical cancer — about half the rate found in previous surveys."
As well as the fact that these results don't indicate HPV is rising, only that it's higher than previously thought.
At any rate, the numbers simply don't justify alarm that teen and early-20s women are contracting HPV cases that eventually lead to cancer. As I pointed out yesterday, cervical cancer is incredibly rare -- and HPV has a 20-year-at-most incubation period before becoming cancer in rare cases. The mean cervical cancer case is diagnosed at age 48, meaning the woman contracted HPV at 28 or later. This is not a credible argument for mandatory vaccinations at age 12. (Again, as I showed yesterday, vaccinations are only guaranteed to work for 5 years.)
The fact that 20-year-old women get HPV, but rarely develop cancer, indicates that (A) the cases often clear up without doing any damage, (B) they're having more sex with different men than older women are, not exactly a shocker and (C) for whatever reason, their cases are less likely to end up harmful. This is a reason for further research, not alarm.
Robert VerBruggen
From it:
"More than one-third of American women are infected by human papilloma virus (HPV), which in rare cases can lead to cervical cancer, by the time they are 24 years old, according to a study published today.
"The new estimates suggest that there are 7.5 million girls and women aged 14 to 24 infected with the virus — about two-thirds more than an earlier but less broad-based study had found.
...
"The new findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, are likely to further encourage use of a vaccine against HPV approved in June by the Food and Drug Administration for females aged 9 to 26. Its maker, Merck & Co., until recently was lobbying state legislatures to mandate vaccination of middle-school girls, a step that more than 18 states are moving toward."
Credit to the Washington Post, though, for at least including this detail:
"News of the higher-than-expected prevalence of HPV infection was balanced by the discovery that only 2.2 percent of women were carrying one of the two virus strains most likely to lead to cervical cancer — about half the rate found in previous surveys."
As well as the fact that these results don't indicate HPV is rising, only that it's higher than previously thought.
At any rate, the numbers simply don't justify alarm that teen and early-20s women are contracting HPV cases that eventually lead to cancer. As I pointed out yesterday, cervical cancer is incredibly rare -- and HPV has a 20-year-at-most incubation period before becoming cancer in rare cases. The mean cervical cancer case is diagnosed at age 48, meaning the woman contracted HPV at 28 or later. This is not a credible argument for mandatory vaccinations at age 12. (Again, as I showed yesterday, vaccinations are only guaranteed to work for 5 years.)
The fact that 20-year-old women get HPV, but rarely develop cancer, indicates that (A) the cases often clear up without doing any damage, (B) they're having more sex with different men than older women are, not exactly a shocker and (C) for whatever reason, their cases are less likely to end up harmful. This is a reason for further research, not alarm.
Robert VerBruggen
