Public mall shooting in Missouri, with 'AK-47'
April 30th 2007 02:07
As has been my policy, I'm going to refrain from too much political commentary the day of a disaster, but I just wanted to do my part in getting the facts out:
Again, not to get too political about it, but I can pretty much guarantee the gun was not a real AK-47. (I was right about this kind of thing once before, oddly enough, also in a Missouri shooting.)
The AK-47 most people think of is a fully automatic weapon, meaning it fires rapidly and continuously when one holds the trigger down. The civilian model fires once per trigger pull, just like a semi-automatic hunting rifle does, and has a similar bullet size to those rifles. Fully-automatic guns have been virtually banned in the U.S. since the 1930s, and crimes with them are extremely rare.
By Robert VerBruggen
Sony slaughters goat, asks partiers to eat 'intestines'?THREE people have been shot dead including the assailant in a shooting spree at a Kansas City shopping mall - and a fourth death may be connected.
US police were today investigating whether an earlier homicide at a house 10km away involved the shopping mall gunman, who was killed by an officer.
Kansas City officers said a man, whom they did not immediately identify, pulled into a car park outside the mall that was filled with "hundreds and hundreds" of shoppers and immediately fatally shot two people who were parked on each side of him.
The gunman went into the mall and wounded at least two other people, according to Sergeant Tony Sanders.
...
Local media reported that the gun was an AK-47.
US police were today investigating whether an earlier homicide at a house 10km away involved the shopping mall gunman, who was killed by an officer.
Kansas City officers said a man, whom they did not immediately identify, pulled into a car park outside the mall that was filled with "hundreds and hundreds" of shoppers and immediately fatally shot two people who were parked on each side of him.
The gunman went into the mall and wounded at least two other people, according to Sergeant Tony Sanders.
...
Local media reported that the gun was an AK-47.
Again, not to get too political about it, but I can pretty much guarantee the gun was not a real AK-47. (I was right about this kind of thing once before, oddly enough, also in a Missouri shooting.)
The AK-47 most people think of is a fully automatic weapon, meaning it fires rapidly and continuously when one holds the trigger down. The civilian model fires once per trigger pull, just like a semi-automatic hunting rifle does, and has a similar bullet size to those rifles. Fully-automatic guns have been virtually banned in the U.S. since the 1930s, and crimes with them are extremely rare.
By Robert VerBruggen
I certainly don't mind violent video games (just beat Resident Evil 4 today, in fact), but this Sony-hosted event is way over the top:
Electronics giant Sony has sparked a major row over animal cruelty and the ethics of the computer industry by using a freshly slaughtered goat to promote a violent video game.
The corpse of the decapitated animal was the centrepiece of a party to celebrate the launch of the God Of War II game for the company's PlayStation 2 console.
Guests at the event were even invited to reach inside the goat's still-warm carcass to eat offal from its stomach.
Sickening images of the party have appeared in the company's official PlayStation magazine – but after being contacted by The Mail on Sunday, Sony issued an apology for the gruesome stunt and promised to recall the entire print run.
...
At the event, guests competed to see who could eat the most offal – procured elsewhere and intended to resemble the goat's intestines – from its stomach.
They also threw knives at targets and pulled live snakes from a pit with their bare hands.
Topless girls added to the louche atmosphere by dipping grapes into guests' mouths, while a male model portraying Kratos, the game's warrior hero, handed out garlands.
The corpse of the decapitated animal was the centrepiece of a party to celebrate the launch of the God Of War II game for the company's PlayStation 2 console.
Guests at the event were even invited to reach inside the goat's still-warm carcass to eat offal from its stomach.
Sickening images of the party have appeared in the company's official PlayStation magazine – but after being contacted by The Mail on Sunday, Sony issued an apology for the gruesome stunt and promised to recall the entire print run.
...
At the event, guests competed to see who could eat the most offal – procured elsewhere and intended to resemble the goat's intestines – from its stomach.
They also threw knives at targets and pulled live snakes from a pit with their bare hands.
Topless girls added to the louche atmosphere by dipping grapes into guests' mouths, while a male model portraying Kratos, the game's warrior hero, handed out garlands.
I'm about as anti-PETA as they come (love hunting), but even I draw the line at slaughtering an animal just to watch it bleed.
Also, the game is targeted to adults (M rating here, 18 rating there), but it's not good for a major corporation to have its name on a promotion like this.
In fact, it's hardly believable. It is Europe, though.
By Robert VerBruggen
Snoop Dogg agrees with me
April 28th 2007 00:28
Therefore I am right.
In a series of posts following the Don Imus controversy, I made the argument that rappers and Don Imus were not comparable. Specifically, when rappers speak of "hos," they really are talking about loose women. Don Imus was slurring basketball players.
Take it away, Snoop:
Well said. Er, not quite.
By Robert VerBruggen
In a series of posts following the Don Imus controversy, I made the argument that rappers and Don Imus were not comparable. Specifically, when rappers speak of "hos," they really are talking about loose women. Don Imus was slurring basketball players.
Take it away, Snoop:
It's a completely different scenario...[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."
Well said. Er, not quite.
By Robert VerBruggen
Ann Coulter on guns
April 27th 2007 01:03
This is what turns people off to gun nuts:
The fact of the matter is that the killer passed a background check. If the proper mental health information had been in the database, he wouldn't have gotten a gun. Would he have gotten one illegally? Perhaps. But arguing that unstable people should be outright allowed firearms is simply absurd, as pro-gun as I am.
Democrats are promoting a mental health exception to the right to bear arms. We've banned mass murder and that hasn't seemed to work. So now we're going to ban mass murderers. Yes, that will do the trick!
This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don't kill people).
This is a feel-good measure that is both wildly under-inclusive (the vast majority of nutcases receive no formal court adjudication of their nuttiness) and wildly over-inclusive (the vast majority of nuts don't kill people).
The fact of the matter is that the killer passed a background check. If the proper mental health information had been in the database, he wouldn't have gotten a gun. Would he have gotten one illegally? Perhaps. But arguing that unstable people should be outright allowed firearms is simply absurd, as pro-gun as I am.
Is the judicial system too prosecution-friendly?
April 25th 2007 22:38
This Radley Balko piece is interesting, jumping off from the Duke lacrosse scandal to make the claim that many innocent people are behind bars. To be sure, DNA evidence is freeing some people, and that's great.
But I really have to take issue with the notion that prosecutors run rampant, imprisoning the innocent at will. Balko relies on anecdotes rather than statistics; there have been millions of prosecutions over the last few decades, so no number of individual cases can really show a trend.
In fact, the system is set up so that guilty people go free (the reasonable doubt standard), and if the cops screw up, judges throw away good evidence and (often) let criminals walk (the exclusionary rule). In theory, the latter is to punish the cops, but it punishes future victims more.
If you want to say certain reforms could help the innocent, fine. Better DNA collection is one of those. But the notion that, on the whole, the innocent face a harder time than the guilty, is almost certainly false. I would like to see some real statistics on the percentage of inmates eventually cleared, though.
One other thing to bear in mind is that there's a certain continuum between easy to punish the innocent and hard to punish even the guilty. (Though I should note that DNA frees the innocent and fingers the guilty.) With some policies, you could let 20 guilty people go to save 1 innocent, which is hard to justify.
By Robert VerBruggen
But I really have to take issue with the notion that prosecutors run rampant, imprisoning the innocent at will. Balko relies on anecdotes rather than statistics; there have been millions of prosecutions over the last few decades, so no number of individual cases can really show a trend.
In fact, the system is set up so that guilty people go free (the reasonable doubt standard), and if the cops screw up, judges throw away good evidence and (often) let criminals walk (the exclusionary rule). In theory, the latter is to punish the cops, but it punishes future victims more.
If you want to say certain reforms could help the innocent, fine. Better DNA collection is one of those. But the notion that, on the whole, the innocent face a harder time than the guilty, is almost certainly false. I would like to see some real statistics on the percentage of inmates eventually cleared, though.
One other thing to bear in mind is that there's a certain continuum between easy to punish the innocent and hard to punish even the guilty. (Though I should note that DNA frees the innocent and fingers the guilty.) With some policies, you could let 20 guilty people go to save 1 innocent, which is hard to justify.
By Robert VerBruggen
A closer look at Hillary's accent
April 25th 2007 22:30
This Michelle Malkin column made me think a little more closely about Hillary's tendency to take on accents when talking to different constituencies. It is, beyond debate, disgusting.
But I don't think that in this case she really sounded "black." Rather, she sounded like a white Southerner. Why you'd use a white Southern accent in front of blacks is an odd question indeed, but this isn't Ebonics (that's a technical term black scholars coined, by the way):
Compare that with Malkin's jab at Clinton:
Now, it's true that blacks picked up many speech patterns from Southern whites, as Thomas Sowell showed in Black Rednecks and White Liberals. But since then, blacks have come up with a variety of other speech patterns and expressions, none of which Hillary employed.
I think the message here, more than anything, is to appeal to a broad constituency without pretending to be something you're not. People see through a fake in a hurry, and in this case it's hard to tell whether Clinton tried to sound like a black person or the descendant of a plantation owner.
By Robert VerBruggen
But I don't think that in this case she really sounded "black." Rather, she sounded like a white Southerner. Why you'd use a white Southern accent in front of blacks is an odd question indeed, but this isn't Ebonics (that's a technical term black scholars coined, by the way):
We have ta reform our government. The abuses that have gone on in the last six years -- I don' think we know the half of it yet. You know, when I walk into the Oval Office in January of 2009, I'm afraid I'm gonna lift up the rug and I'm goin' to see so much stuff uh-nder thar. . . . You know, what is it about us always havin' to clean up after people? . . . But this is not just going to be pickin' up socks off the floor. This is going to be cleanin' up the government...Us always havin' to clean up after people
Compare that with Malkin's jab at Clinton:
You be trippin', girl.
Now, it's true that blacks picked up many speech patterns from Southern whites, as Thomas Sowell showed in Black Rednecks and White Liberals. But since then, blacks have come up with a variety of other speech patterns and expressions, none of which Hillary employed.
I think the message here, more than anything, is to appeal to a broad constituency without pretending to be something you're not. People see through a fake in a hurry, and in this case it's hard to tell whether Clinton tried to sound like a black person or the descendant of a plantation owner.
By Robert VerBruggen
Evolution and Intelligent Design officially the same thing
April 25th 2007 22:22
From Volokh Conspiracy:
Evolution doesn't dispute that development might be "guided," i.e. nonrandom? Really?
By Robert VerBruggen
The theory of evolution explains how human beings and other species evolved, and is a very effective way of understanding biological systems. Evolution does not purport to answer the question of how things began, or whether there was a Prime Mover who initiated the evolutionary process or perhaps even guided it.
Evolution doesn't dispute that development might be "guided," i.e. nonrandom? Really?
By Robert VerBruggen
The Virginia Tech shooting and immigration
April 25th 2007 00:06
This VDARE article has a worthwhile discussion, positing an "Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome" in which foreigners, having trouble adjusting to a new culture, essentially snap.
Searching news archives, the writer concludes:
I certainly agree that people from other cultures can feel alienated or offended by the American way of life. Dinesh D'Souza has even argued those feelings explain 9/11 (though I dismantled that claim here).
I think the VDARE argument fails on two counts. One, virtually all the other murderous immigrants the writer cites are non-Asian. I think, in terms of fighting crime, it would be better to accept immigrants based on their country of origin. This young man, the available evidence seems to indicate, was quite an exception for South Koreans. Therefore, no intelligent immigration policy could have stopped this massacre.
Two, to make a convincing case against immigration as a whole, you'd have to document not only that some immigrants murder, but that immigrants are more likely to murder than the native-born. People in general murder sometimes, so pretty much by definition each person brought in will increase the raw number of murders.
What matters is the murder rate, and the writer doesn't even try to quantify it. There are millions of immigrants, so "238 dead" doesn't really tell us much. I suspect immigrants as a whole do murder more, but again, South Koreans probably don't contribute much to that.
By Robert VerBruggen
Searching news archives, the writer concludes:
[O]ur latest tally of the Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome cost: 23 killers, about 238 dead, some 111 wounded. And counting.
I certainly agree that people from other cultures can feel alienated or offended by the American way of life. Dinesh D'Souza has even argued those feelings explain 9/11 (though I dismantled that claim here).
I think the VDARE argument fails on two counts. One, virtually all the other murderous immigrants the writer cites are non-Asian. I think, in terms of fighting crime, it would be better to accept immigrants based on their country of origin. This young man, the available evidence seems to indicate, was quite an exception for South Koreans. Therefore, no intelligent immigration policy could have stopped this massacre.
Two, to make a convincing case against immigration as a whole, you'd have to document not only that some immigrants murder, but that immigrants are more likely to murder than the native-born. People in general murder sometimes, so pretty much by definition each person brought in will increase the raw number of murders.
What matters is the murder rate, and the writer doesn't even try to quantify it. There are millions of immigrants, so "238 dead" doesn't really tell us much. I suspect immigrants as a whole do murder more, but again, South Koreans probably don't contribute much to that.
By Robert VerBruggen
Tommy Thompson on Iraq
April 23rd 2007 04:19
Tommy Thompson, former governor of my home state, said some pretty unpresidential things recently.
George Will's new column, however, outlines Thompson's Iraq strategy:
Clearest thinking I've heard in a long time.
By Robert VerBruggen
George Will's new column, however, outlines Thompson's Iraq strategy:
Regarding Iraq, he would challenge that country's government to re-legitimize the U.S. presence by voting to ask U.S. forces to remain. If the government does not, the U.S. would leave. If it does, it should then encourage voluntary ethnic rearrangements by establishing federalism -- strong governments in all 18 provinces -- where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds can cluster under governments of their kind. Then it should divide oil revenues, one-third to the national government, one-third to the provincial governments and one-third to Iraqi individuals, much as Alaska does with its oil trust fund.
Clearest thinking I've heard in a long time.
By Robert VerBruggen
Being skeptical about McCain's 'Bomb Iran' song
April 20th 2007 02:08
Drudge has been making a big deal out of the video, but if you watch it, there's a rather out-there questioner who asks when we should "send an air mail message to Tehran." McCain starts with the song, then launches into an actual answer.
The video conveniently stops before the answer, but Drudge summarizes:
He was clearly making a joke and poking a little fun at the nutty questioner, and it's not something to get bent out of shape over.
By Robert VerBruggen
The video conveniently stops before the answer, but Drudge summarizes:
McCain went on to discuss the seriousness of the issue, saying he supports the President, and he will not allow Iran to destroy Israel.
He was clearly making a joke and poking a little fun at the nutty questioner, and it's not something to get bent out of shape over.
By Robert VerBruggen
CBS reporter sees gun, faints
April 19th 2007 00:14
This has to be the most gun-ignorant passage I've read, courtesy CBS:
Powerful? A 9mm is about the weakest gun you could conceivably buy for killing people; anything smaller is suitable only for small game. A 9mm's stopping power is nothing compared to that of, say, a .357 magnum.
I'm sorry whatever city slicker wrote the article got scared in the presence of a firearm, but there's no reason for him or her to spread the fear. The language is hysterical and anti-gun to the point of absurdity.
The writer's ignorance of guns continues:
This contradicts itself. The thing with magazines is that they're easy to switch, not that they can hold up to 30 rounds. CBS should pick one thing to hyperventilate about at a time.
As the sheriff says, you can switch magazines in a second or two. This is as opposed to a revolver, where you have to put in each individual bullet whenever you run out (usually six rounds) rather than slapping in a pre-loaded clip. So three magazines of 10 rounds don't fire much quicker than one of 30, and it's the fact of a magazine, not the size, that's the major difference.
Also, nice grammar on this quote; it's been up all day:
I'm pretty sure the guy said "err on the side of caution."
On a side note, I'm not sure turning down sales to people you don't think look "clean cut" is a bright idea. You open yourself up to lawsuits, particularly if your conception of "clean cut" excludes a higher proportion of one race or another.
By Robert VerBruggen
When you see a powerful 9mm semi-automatic pistol in action, you begin to understand how one man could kill so many innocent people in a short time.
Powerful? A 9mm is about the weakest gun you could conceivably buy for killing people; anything smaller is suitable only for small game. A 9mm's stopping power is nothing compared to that of, say, a .357 magnum.
I'm sorry whatever city slicker wrote the article got scared in the presence of a firearm, but there's no reason for him or her to spread the fear. The language is hysterical and anti-gun to the point of absurdity.
The writer's ignorance of guns continues:
But it's not just the gun that can turn a shooter into a mass killer. It's also the size of the magazine or clip that contains the ammunition that allows a shooter to fire several rounds without having to reload.
"Now when the clip comes in, you just kick it out, grab another one, kick it in and your are ready to go again," the sheriff explains.
Asked how long it takes to reload, Fontoura says, "If you are really go at it, you can do it in a matter of seconds."
"Now when the clip comes in, you just kick it out, grab another one, kick it in and your are ready to go again," the sheriff explains.
Asked how long it takes to reload, Fontoura says, "If you are really go at it, you can do it in a matter of seconds."
This contradicts itself. The thing with magazines is that they're easy to switch, not that they can hold up to 30 rounds. CBS should pick one thing to hyperventilate about at a time.
As the sheriff says, you can switch magazines in a second or two. This is as opposed to a revolver, where you have to put in each individual bullet whenever you run out (usually six rounds) rather than slapping in a pre-loaded clip. So three magazines of 10 rounds don't fire much quicker than one of 30, and it's the fact of a magazine, not the size, that's the major difference.
Also, nice grammar on this quote; it's been up all day:
We turn down gun sales every day literally, there are so many sales we turn down to air on the side of caution, but this just looked like a clean cut young man.
I'm pretty sure the guy said "err on the side of caution."
On a side note, I'm not sure turning down sales to people you don't think look "clean cut" is a bright idea. You open yourself up to lawsuits, particularly if your conception of "clean cut" excludes a higher proportion of one race or another.
By Robert VerBruggen
Virginia Tech shooter's background check did not include mental health issues
April 19th 2007 00:00
Yesterday, based on the information available, I made a tentative case that common gun control measures could not have prevented this shooting. I worked on two assumptions I conceded might change with new information: He bought the gun from a licensed dealer and had no documented mental health issues severe enough to disqualify him from gun ownership.
The first assumption proved right, and he even passed a background check. But it turns out that "a temporary detention order was issued resulting in Cho being sent to a mental health facility independent of the university."
The problem here is that the right to medical privacy often prevents important mental health information from getting into the federal government's instant background check system.
According to Firearms Law Center:
I'm not sure if a "temporary detention order" counts as "committed," which the ATF defines as "a formal commitment" by a "lawful authority." It does not include someone in an institution "voluntarily" or for "observation."
At any rate, whether the guy's commitment barred him from owning a gun or not, the current system likely wouldn't have caught it.
According to MSNBC:
Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement...[Just 21] states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.
The NICS Improvement Act of 2005 would have required more record-keeping, and even the NRA supported it despite its proposal by an anti-gunner:
It sat around for a year and never passed. Maybe the 2007 version will have more luck.
By Robert VerBruggen
UPDATE: On Face the Nation, Sarah Brady stated that Virginia is one of the states that does provide mental health information for background checks. However, the state uses its own guidelines for doing this rather than the federal government's, so this individual was able to "slip through the cracks."
I rarely agree with Brady, but I do support the instant check system, and I think it's important that said system have all the relevant information.
The first assumption proved right, and he even passed a background check. But it turns out that "a temporary detention order was issued resulting in Cho being sent to a mental health facility independent of the university."
The problem here is that the right to medical privacy often prevents important mental health information from getting into the federal government's instant background check system.
According to Firearms Law Center:
Although persons who have been adjudicated as mental defectives or committed to mental institutions are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms, the current status of the FBI databases makes it difficult to prevent such a person from obtaining firearms if the person undergoes only an FBI background check...[A] great deal of information...is not reported to the FBI, and that agency does not currently have access to state mental health records.
I'm not sure if a "temporary detention order" counts as "committed," which the ATF defines as "a formal commitment" by a "lawful authority." It does not include someone in an institution "voluntarily" or for "observation."
At any rate, whether the guy's commitment barred him from owning a gun or not, the current system likely wouldn't have caught it.
According to MSNBC:
Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement...[Just 21] states provide NICS at least some names of people with serious mental illness, a disqualifier for gun purchases under federal law since 1968.
The NICS Improvement Act of 2005 would have required more record-keeping, and even the NRA supported it despite its proposal by an anti-gunner:
The NRA agrees that NICS records are inadequate -- and it notes that inaccurate or incomplete records can delay firearm purchases and result in "wrongful denials" of law-abiding gun-buyers.
It sat around for a year and never passed. Maybe the 2007 version will have more luck.
By Robert VerBruggen
UPDATE: On Face the Nation, Sarah Brady stated that Virginia is one of the states that does provide mental health information for background checks. However, the state uses its own guidelines for doing this rather than the federal government's, so this individual was able to "slip through the cracks."
I rarely agree with Brady, but I do support the instant check system, and I think it's important that said system have all the relevant information.
How could this guy get a gun?
April 17th 2007 22:14
Many details have yet to come out, so I'll preface this with a warning it might change.
However, many on the left have rushed to point to a variety of policies that could have prevented yesterday's tragedy. Sadly, they're wrong on all counts.
From the accounts I've seen (check Google News for the latest), the individual bought the gun in March and had a receipt for it.
Mother Jones makes a point about secondary sales -- in all but 17 states, only licensed dealers have to perform background checks when selling guns. Even I see some logic in requiring private people to call in their buyers' information before selling, but again, there's no evidence the shooter bought it from anyone but a licensed dealer. A receipt doesn't prove that, but it points in that direction.
What's amazing to me is how this case skirts around gun control proponents' biggest arguments. Waiting periods, so angry people can't immediately procure guns? There was a month between purchase and killing. Background checks? So far, there's no evidence he would have failed one. Checks for mental instability? He was possibly depressed, but there's nothing to indicate his case had been documented to the point the government could take away a constitutional right. Trigger locks and training (as Mother Jones also notes)? The guy was trying to hurt people. An "assault weapons" ban? The killer's two guns were quite reasonable .22 and 9 mm size handguns.
The only credible argument is that the constitution doesn't fully apply to non-citizens, but liberals don't want to go down this road. So I ask: If a 23-year-old, with (we'll assume) no criminal record and no documented, severe mental illness can't buy a gun, who can? The only way to prevent this case would have been to ban all guns, confiscating tons of property and ripping the Constitution to shreds. And you'd have to do that nationally (probably internationally), not just in one city or state, as big cities with gun bans have shown us.
By Robert VerBruggen
However, many on the left have rushed to point to a variety of policies that could have prevented yesterday's tragedy. Sadly, they're wrong on all counts.
From the accounts I've seen (check Google News for the latest), the individual bought the gun in March and had a receipt for it.
Mother Jones makes a point about secondary sales -- in all but 17 states, only licensed dealers have to perform background checks when selling guns. Even I see some logic in requiring private people to call in their buyers' information before selling, but again, there's no evidence the shooter bought it from anyone but a licensed dealer. A receipt doesn't prove that, but it points in that direction.
What's amazing to me is how this case skirts around gun control proponents' biggest arguments. Waiting periods, so angry people can't immediately procure guns? There was a month between purchase and killing. Background checks? So far, there's no evidence he would have failed one. Checks for mental instability? He was possibly depressed, but there's nothing to indicate his case had been documented to the point the government could take away a constitutional right. Trigger locks and training (as Mother Jones also notes)? The guy was trying to hurt people. An "assault weapons" ban? The killer's two guns were quite reasonable .22 and 9 mm size handguns.
The only credible argument is that the constitution doesn't fully apply to non-citizens, but liberals don't want to go down this road. So I ask: If a 23-year-old, with (we'll assume) no criminal record and no documented, severe mental illness can't buy a gun, who can? The only way to prevent this case would have been to ban all guns, confiscating tons of property and ripping the Constitution to shreds. And you'd have to do that nationally (probably internationally), not just in one city or state, as big cities with gun bans have shown us.
By Robert VerBruggen
John Tierney on what people want in a mate
April 17th 2007 21:57
I got a kick out of this John Tierney post about dating.
He cites one study:
Women in particular get offended when you tell them "you don't know what you want," but it's true.
For example, I know a girl who came to a Chicago area college, from rural Missouri, to get away from all the gun-owning, right-wing hicks. That girl and I celebrated four years yesterday. Go figure.
I wonder if there were any gender differences in how accurately people predicted what attracted them?
Hat tip: Instapundit.
By Robert VerBruggen
He cites one study:
People's self-reported mate preferences might be unrelated to the characteristics that actually appeal to them once they meet potential prospects. In other words, we all think we know what we want in a mate, but these stated preferences don't really seem to predict what people actually want when they meet a living, breathing human being.
Women in particular get offended when you tell them "you don't know what you want," but it's true.
For example, I know a girl who came to a Chicago area college, from rural Missouri, to get away from all the gun-owning, right-wing hicks. That girl and I celebrated four years yesterday. Go figure.
I wonder if there were any gender differences in how accurately people predicted what attracted them?
Hat tip: Instapundit.
By Robert VerBruggen
Technically, it should be 'If I Were Your Vampire"...
April 17th 2007 03:11
...but the new Marilyn Manson song is pretty promising nonetheless. Heavy and dark, very direct.
One downside is that until now, pretty much every record had its own personality. Portrait was kind of cartoonish, Antichrist raw and bloody, Mechanicals glam, Holy Wood a more mature version of Antichrist and Grotesque a look at Alice Cooper-esque vaudeville. "If I Was Your Vampire" could have fit on Holy Wood, or maybe as one of the less-swingy Grotesque tracks. It's nothing we haven't heard from Manson before (which is to say it's awesome, of course).
Another criticism I have is that the lyrics are overdramatic at times. "I love so much you must kill me now"?
By Robert VerBruggen
One downside is that until now, pretty much every record had its own personality. Portrait was kind of cartoonish, Antichrist raw and bloody, Mechanicals glam, Holy Wood a more mature version of Antichrist and Grotesque a look at Alice Cooper-esque vaudeville. "If I Was Your Vampire" could have fit on Holy Wood, or maybe as one of the less-swingy Grotesque tracks. It's nothing we haven't heard from Manson before (which is to say it's awesome, of course).
Another criticism I have is that the lyrics are overdramatic at times. "I love so much you must kill me now"?
By Robert VerBruggen
D'Souza falls further
April 16th 2007 22:20
I've noted before how Dinesh D'Souza has abandoned respectability in favor of cheap partisanship. I negatively reviewed his latest book.
His new column, though, takes the cake:
Well, the difference is that Imus' employers had every right to fire him. No one has a right to riot and kill people. If you're "silent" on that, that's a problem.
And then:
It's hard to tell what debate Dinesh has been following, because as I've documented, people have constantly piped up about free speech even though it doesn't apply. There's a huge difference between government censorship/public violence and private employers' decisions.
Let's put it this way: To say you can't fire a radio host for something he said is to say that you can't fire a radio host for doing his job poorly. To say you can't riot in response to a cartoon is to say, well, that rioting is wrong. They're not equal attacks on people's right to say what they please.
D'Souza proceeds to write The Politically Correct Guide To Insulting People, giving a few useful bits with a lot of garbage thrown in.
Take this:
He's right that men and women are, as groups, different intellectually. But the idiocy here is that he completely misunderstands the science of it.
There are two differences. One, women offset men's spatial skills with superior language skills. This is why, as Summers pointed out, men excel in engineering. But the sexes have (at least roughly) the same average IQ.
Two, men's IQs are more variable. That means there are more very dull and very smart men, with women tending more toward the middle. Thus, there are tons of individual women more than the "intellectual equal" of the average or even above-average male.
In fact, if you pick a random woman and a random man, the odds are 50/50 the woman will have a higher IQ. One could say a random man is more likely to be a genius than a random woman is, but I'd counter that a random man is more likely to be a dullard, too. So as a whole, women are indeed "as intellectually capable as men." It's great D'Souza gets a kick out of offending people, but he could at least do that via honest analysis.
By Robert VerBruggen
His new column, though, takes the cake:
The traditional Muslims were right: I've noticed that the Middle Eastern media is treating the Imus story--and how our little scandals travel worldwide!--with a certain degree of relish. And I think I know why. Remember the Muhammad cartoon scandal? When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed the cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, many in the West viewed this solely through the lens of free speech. The media coverage suggested a confirmation of Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis. We believe in free speech and they don't. Many conservatives rallied to this viewpoint.
Clearly the embassy-burnings and rabid protests of the Islamic radicals showed that there is a faction in the Muslim world that completely rejects open debate. But the traditional Muslims fell silent. They did not join with the radicals, but neither did they defend the cartoons. And indeed some commented that the way in which the West was treating the controversy was unfair and hypocritical.
Clearly the embassy-burnings and rabid protests of the Islamic radicals showed that there is a faction in the Muslim world that completely rejects open debate. But the traditional Muslims fell silent. They did not join with the radicals, but neither did they defend the cartoons. And indeed some commented that the way in which the West was treating the controversy was unfair and hypocritical.
Well, the difference is that Imus' employers had every right to fire him. No one has a right to riot and kill people. If you're "silent" on that, that's a problem.
And then:
The Imus controversy vindicates the argument of these traditional Muslims. How often during the Imus brouhaha have you heard the words "free speech"? Hardly.
Did the First Amendment even come up? Nyet.
Did the First Amendment even come up? Nyet.
It's hard to tell what debate Dinesh has been following, because as I've documented, people have constantly piped up about free speech even though it doesn't apply. There's a huge difference between government censorship/public violence and private employers' decisions.
Let's put it this way: To say you can't fire a radio host for something he said is to say that you can't fire a radio host for doing his job poorly. To say you can't riot in response to a cartoon is to say, well, that rioting is wrong. They're not equal attacks on people's right to say what they please.
D'Souza proceeds to write The Politically Correct Guide To Insulting People, giving a few useful bits with a lot of garbage thrown in.
Take this:
Rule Number 5: Never question that women are as intellectually capable as men. Ask Larry Summers, who tried to raise the issue in a scholarly way, but it didn't matter. Summers is now the sommelier at the dining room of the Harvard Club. I knew a guy at Dartmouth who liked to retort that "any man who thinks a woman is his intellectual equal is probably right." Much wittier than anything Imus will ever think of, but I haven't heard of the guy since. Probably he was found dead in a back alley, stabbed with a hat-pin.
He's right that men and women are, as groups, different intellectually. But the idiocy here is that he completely misunderstands the science of it.
There are two differences. One, women offset men's spatial skills with superior language skills. This is why, as Summers pointed out, men excel in engineering. But the sexes have (at least roughly) the same average IQ.
Two, men's IQs are more variable. That means there are more very dull and very smart men, with women tending more toward the middle. Thus, there are tons of individual women more than the "intellectual equal" of the average or even above-average male.
In fact, if you pick a random woman and a random man, the odds are 50/50 the woman will have a higher IQ. One could say a random man is more likely to be a genius than a random woman is, but I'd counter that a random man is more likely to be a dullard, too. So as a whole, women are indeed "as intellectually capable as men." It's great D'Souza gets a kick out of offending people, but he could at least do that via honest analysis.
By Robert VerBruggen
On today's shooting
April 16th 2007 21:58
Last year, I blogged extensively about how school shootings appeared to make a comeback. I even noted how the shooters have moved up in age from high school to college and older. After a brief lull, today's incident showed they are, indeed, back.
As someone active in the gun control debate, I certainly see the urge to analyze. The Brady Campaign has the right to make its point. But seriously, can't we wait until the blood dries first?
That goes for those on the right as well.
By Robert VerBruggen
As someone active in the gun control debate, I certainly see the urge to analyze. The Brady Campaign has the right to make its point. But seriously, can't we wait until the blood dries first?
That goes for those on the right as well.
By Robert VerBruggen
Yglesias on health care
April 16th 2007 03:46
I've never read Matthew Yglesias regularly, but I guess it's high time to start. I love this point about government involvement in health care:
Being a regular D.C.-New York commuter (heading up to visit my girlfriend this coming weekend, in fact), I particularly like the inter-city transit thing. Also, I think Yglesias is unusual for a liberal because he has a keen sense of tradeoffs. It doesn't matter whether X amount of health care is "worth" Y government dollars; what matters is whether the best thing to do with Y dollars is to spend it on X health care. Even restricting the options to improving health, it's a great point that health care might not be the best investment.
By Robert VerBruggen
Meanwhile, the range of alternative[s]...that would do far more than health care to make people healthier is huge. Better inter-city trains and regional mass transit would mean less driving, which would be a huge life saver. It would also lead to somewhat more walking, which would be good for people. You could subsidize fresh produce, or gym memberships, or build more public pools and better parks to get people to adopt healthier lifestyles. Lead paint abatement. Virtually anything is a potentially more effective means of improving health outcomes than is health care...I basically stole this idea from Philip Longman...
Being a regular D.C.-New York commuter (heading up to visit my girlfriend this coming weekend, in fact), I particularly like the inter-city transit thing. Also, I think Yglesias is unusual for a liberal because he has a keen sense of tradeoffs. It doesn't matter whether X amount of health care is "worth" Y government dollars; what matters is whether the best thing to do with Y dollars is to spend it on X health care. Even restricting the options to improving health, it's a great point that health care might not be the best investment.
By Robert VerBruggen
Introducing the Newsweek/MSNBC Imus fallacy parade!
April 15th 2007 22:18
From one article:
Well, it would be kind of nice to hear from some whites and blacks who see these remarks in "starkly different ways," because all the whites I know agree Imus was out of line. Whites might be more likely to think it was overkill to can Imus, but that's hardly "stark."
The O.J. Simpson verdict is a good example of how this sometimes happens (many blacks actually believed the guy didn't do it, or said they did), but even Katrina doesn't fit the mold. Katrina might show how horrible black poverty is, and it might have shown how our government doesn't react well to it, but again, white people weren't standing around going "that's fine" while blacks disagreed.
Where blacks and whites, on average, disagree is that blacks think they should have a certain degree of racial solidarity. Whites would prefer to "get beyond race" and sometimes can't see why blacks won't go along. That played into the O.J. case but doesn't really touch the other two debates.
Then there's this:
Thank you for telling me which causes are "good." I dunno what I'd do without you. I'm sure those charities are relieved to have your approval.
Another article is headlined "Imus makes free speech a much tougher issue." As I said before, no, it doesn't.
It only gets worse from there:
The problems:
(A) The legal term "public figure," in regards to the free speech debate, means it's easier to say bad things about an individual, not that the individual has to watch his mouth. The point is a good one -- if you're talking to your friend, there's a lower chance of getting in trouble than if you're talking to thousands of people -- but that's really, really poor word choice.
(B) The media are "purveyors of America's moral code"? Enough said.
Also, this passage could hardly be more self-righteous:
Don't you understand, old white guys? Miki Turner is better than you.
Then there's this idiocy:
Again, back to another of my posts: "Free speech means speech free of government consequences, not of any consequences." A company firing its own employee has nothing to do with the principle of free expression.
Finally, the basketball team managed to "stand tall" despite some doofus shooting off his mouth. They must not have gotten the memo that "white men don't matter" anyway.
By Robert VerBruggen
The remark and its aftermath brought renewed attention to a perennial fissure in American life: the starkly different ways in which blacks and whites can see the world. (The Imus saga now joins the O. J. Simpson verdict and Hurricane Katrina as vivid chapters in the story of race in America.)
Well, it would be kind of nice to hear from some whites and blacks who see these remarks in "starkly different ways," because all the whites I know agree Imus was out of line. Whites might be more likely to think it was overkill to can Imus, but that's hardly "stark."
The O.J. Simpson verdict is a good example of how this sometimes happens (many blacks actually believed the guy didn't do it, or said they did), but even Katrina doesn't fit the mold. Katrina might show how horrible black poverty is, and it might have shown how our government doesn't react well to it, but again, white people weren't standing around going "that's fine" while blacks disagreed.
Where blacks and whites, on average, disagree is that blacks think they should have a certain degree of racial solidarity. Whites would prefer to "get beyond race" and sometimes can't see why blacks won't go along. That played into the O.J. case but doesn't really touch the other two debates.
Then there's this:
For years Imus has raised millions for charity; pressed to put autism on the national agenda; championed the construction of a veterans' rehabilitation hospital in San Antonio, Texas; campaigned to raise the death benefit for families of fallen warriors, and raised awareness about sudden infant death syndrome and sickle-cell anemia, among other good causes.
Thank you for telling me which causes are "good." I dunno what I'd do without you. I'm sure those charities are relieved to have your approval.
Another article is headlined "Imus makes free speech a much tougher issue." As I said before, no, it doesn't.
It only gets worse from there:
Common people, however, say stupid stuff all the time and get away with it. Why? Because the First Amendment says that they can. Public figures, however, are held to different standards. Those of us who work in the media know that we are in essence the purveyors of America's moral code. That means we can push the envelope, but we know there's a limit as to how far we can actually go.
The problems:
(A) The legal term "public figure," in regards to the free speech debate, means it's easier to say bad things about an individual, not that the individual has to watch his mouth. The point is a good one -- if you're talking to your friend, there's a lower chance of getting in trouble than if you're talking to thousands of people -- but that's really, really poor word choice.
(B) The media are "purveyors of America's moral code"? Enough said.
Also, this passage could hardly be more self-righteous:
But, while I was saddened that the young Rutgers players had to deal with all this drama during a time when they should have been celebrating their remarkable accomplishments, I cannot honestly say that I was angered or shocked by what Imus said. After having been born at the tail end of the Jim Crow era, and having lived through the Kennedy-King-Kennedy assassinations and the Civil Rights movement, I'm never surprised by anything an older white person says or does.
Don't you understand, old white guys? Miki Turner is better than you.
Then there's this idiocy:
[Freedom] is what America is supposed to be about. It is, but the truth is America has never abided by the laws of her constitution. All men were not created equal. Freelance writer Kenneth Eng found that out after he wrote a piece called "Why I Hate Black People" for AsianWeek.
Those were obviously feelings he needed to keep to himself. He was canned for his freedom of expression.
Those were obviously feelings he needed to keep to himself. He was canned for his freedom of expression.
Again, back to another of my posts: "Free speech means speech free of government consequences, not of any consequences." A company firing its own employee has nothing to do with the principle of free expression.
Finally, the basketball team managed to "stand tall" despite some doofus shooting off his mouth. They must not have gotten the memo that "white men don't matter" anyway.
By Robert VerBruggen
Germany, the draft and nationalism
April 15th 2007 14:29
I found this story surprising:
For starters, these represent a pattern of incidents but a minority of sentiment. I don't think this proves Germans in general are racists.
However, I do think it strikes at the notion that Germans are uniquely non-racist and non-nationalist. Those in the U.S. often see it as an enlightened, liberal country that opposed the war in Iraq and took the lessons of World War II to heart. It even has universal health care.
In some ways that's true. For example, they give up some free speech rights in order to ban hateful propaganda. They are also less likely than Americans to agree you should support your country whether or not it's right (sorry, can't find the poll online).
But the racism here is not only blatant, it's bizarre. Germany is home to practically no blacks, and New York is an ocean away. What reason do they have to spread stereotypes about Big Apple blacks? Maybe it's anti-Americanism via making fun of our cities' problems. Or maybe it's old-fashioned Aryan supremacy.
And look at two other words in the story: "conscript army." Why in the world would an enlightened country, not under attack and staying out of the Iraq war, force people to join the military?
Wikipedia has a list of countries that do that. It's surprising how many Scandinavian countries are on it, until one reads another Wikipedia page:
That pretty much leaves Germany and Austria unexplained. Neither is particularly small or particularly neutral, though half of Germany belonged to the Soviets.
My idea, though I can't really think of a way to test it against opposing ones, is that the nationalism of decades past isn't as beaten out of the Germans as one would think. Even though they aren't using the army for anything, they see it as a matter of pride to have one (especially since the Allies dissolved one forcefully).
Again, I'm no historian. Please comment, particularly if you've spent any time in Germany.
By Robert VerBruggen
A German army instructor ordered a soldier to envision himself in New York City facing hostile blacks while firing his machine gun, a video that aired Saturday on national television showed...
The clip shows an instructor and a soldier in camouflage uniforms in a forest. The instructor tells the soldier, "You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting your mother in the worst ways. ... Act."
The soldier fires his machine gun several times and yells an obscenity several times in English. The instructor then tells the soldier to curse even louder...
The existence of the video was first reported on the home page of the German news magazine Stern on Friday and excerpts were aired on the news television channel n-tv on Saturday.
According to Stern, the 90-second clip had been posted on a Web site used by soldiers to exchange private videos. A soldier who used the site alerted his superiors, the magazine reported.
The video is the latest embarrassment for the German army. Eighteen army instructors are currently on trial for allegedly abusing and humiliating 163 recruits in 2004. Last year, newspapers published photos of German soldiers in Afghanistan posing with a skulls — including one who exposed himself while holding a skull.
The clip shows an instructor and a soldier in camouflage uniforms in a forest. The instructor tells the soldier, "You are in the Bronx. A black van is stopping in front of you. Three African-Americans are getting out and they are insulting your mother in the worst ways. ... Act."
The soldier fires his machine gun several times and yells an obscenity several times in English. The instructor then tells the soldier to curse even louder...
The existence of the video was first reported on the home page of the German news magazine Stern on Friday and excerpts were aired on the news television channel n-tv on Saturday.
According to Stern, the 90-second clip had been posted on a Web site used by soldiers to exchange private videos. A soldier who used the site alerted his superiors, the magazine reported.
The video is the latest embarrassment for the German army. Eighteen army instructors are currently on trial for allegedly abusing and humiliating 163 recruits in 2004. Last year, newspapers published photos of German soldiers in Afghanistan posing with a skulls — including one who exposed himself while holding a skull.
For starters, these represent a pattern of incidents but a minority of sentiment. I don't think this proves Germans in general are racists.
However, I do think it strikes at the notion that Germans are uniquely non-racist and non-nationalist. Those in the U.S. often see it as an enlightened, liberal country that opposed the war in Iraq and took the lessons of World War II to heart. It even has universal health care.
In some ways that's true. For example, they give up some free speech rights in order to ban hateful propaganda. They are also less likely than Americans to agree you should support your country whether or not it's right (sorry, can't find the poll online).
But the racism here is not only blatant, it's bizarre. Germany is home to practically no blacks, and New York is an ocean away. What reason do they have to spread stereotypes about Big Apple blacks? Maybe it's anti-Americanism via making fun of our cities' problems. Or maybe it's old-fashioned Aryan supremacy.
And look at two other words in the story: "conscript army." Why in the world would an enlightened country, not under attack and staying out of the Iraq war, force people to join the military?
Wikipedia has a list of countries that do that. It's surprising how many Scandinavian countries are on it, until one reads another Wikipedia page:
Small countries often have mandatory military service, citing the inability to form a professional army of sufficient size. Neutral countries, in particular, institute conscription to organize an independent defense, that is, to eliminate the need for foreign support.
Communist countries, particularly the Soviet Union and its satellites, used conscription. The tradition continues in Russia and in numerous other countries formed in the collapse of Soviet Union.
Communist countries, particularly the Soviet Union and its satellites, used conscription. The tradition continues in Russia and in numerous other countries formed in the collapse of Soviet Union.
That pretty much leaves Germany and Austria unexplained. Neither is particularly small or particularly neutral, though half of Germany belonged to the Soviets.
My idea, though I can't really think of a way to test it against opposing ones, is that the nationalism of decades past isn't as beaten out of the Germans as one would think. Even though they aren't using the army for anything, they see it as a matter of pride to have one (especially since the Allies dissolved one forcefully).
Again, I'm no historian. Please comment, particularly if you've spent any time in Germany.
By Robert VerBruggen
Obama flip-flops, decides misogynistic rappers are bad
April 14th 2007 17:56
This story -- both Obama's actions and the story itself -- is absolutely shameful. The politician is comparing Don Imus to rappers who use the word "ho."
Well, for starters, Obama met with Ludacris sometime back, not to chastise the star but to discuss empowering youth or some such hogwash. The story doesn't mention that! And, as I've said before, the comparison is a false one. Cheap political maneuvering at its worst, from a guy I once thought decent (if very liberal).
By Robert VerBruggen
Well, for starters, Obama met with Ludacris sometime back, not to chastise the star but to discuss empowering youth or some such hogwash. The story doesn't mention that! And, as I've said before, the comparison is a false one. Cheap political maneuvering at its worst, from a guy I once thought decent (if very liberal).
By Robert VerBruggen
What 'free speech' is and is not
April 13th 2007 22:24
I must have made this point a thousand times, but free speech means speech free of government consequences, not of any consequences. Don Imus' firing may or may not have been overkill, but it trampled on neither his rights nor the principle of free expression. He has a right to say what he wants, not to demand that other people give him a forum.
Note to the Detroit Free Press.
By Robert VerBruggen
Note to the Detroit Free Press.
By Robert VerBruggen
The Enemy at Home review posted
April 12th 2007 22:46
Wii exercise piece up at The American
April 12th 2007 22:29
Check out my new piece about the Nintendo Wii.
Main point:
I go on to argue that (A) most games don't require as much movement as the popular Wii Sports does and (B) due to the controller's setup, it's easy to "cheat" by not really acting out the techniques you're supposed to.
Thanks go to Jeremy Lott, who remembered a joke I made, suggested I write it up and helped edit the piece.
By Robert VerBruggen
Main point:
Journalists and academics have toyed with the thesis that the Wii will launch a kind of unintentional fitness revolution. One British study projected that the average gamer could burn 27 pounds per year for his investment of 12.2 hours per week.
Some personal trainers use Wii as a tool, so the console works as an aid to intentional fitness. But beefed-up nerds are unlikely in the short term.
Some personal trainers use Wii as a tool, so the console works as an aid to intentional fitness. But beefed-up nerds are unlikely in the short term.
I go on to argue that (A) most games don't require as much movement as the popular Wii Sports does and (B) due to the controller's setup, it's easy to "cheat" by not really acting out the techniques you're supposed to.
Thanks go to Jeremy Lott, who remembered a joke I made, suggested I write it up and helped edit the piece.
By Robert VerBruggen
Barack Obama and Ludacris
April 12th 2007 22:22
Drudge is right to complain that Barack Obama met with Ludacris some time ago. A mainstream politician should not ally himself with a disgusting rapper. I said so myself at the time.
But in linking to the song "Ho," I think Drudge proves my point from yesterday: When rappers say "ho," they really are talking about loose women. When Don Imus said "ho," he was talking about basketball players.
From the song:
Certainly, rap doesn't speak well of black women. But I think often, and including in this case, it's clear that "ho" doesn't mean "black woman," it means "loose woman." Say whatever you want about singing of loose women, but it's been around forever.
So again, there's no real comparison between Don Imus calling basketball players "hos" and rappers writing songs about hos.
By Robert VerBruggen
But in linking to the song "Ho," I think Drudge proves my point from yesterday: When rappers say "ho," they really are talking about loose women. When Don Imus said "ho," he was talking about basketball players.
From the song:
You doin ho activities
With ho tendencies
Hos are your friends, hoes are your enemies
...
Cant turn a ho into a housewife
Hos dont act right
...
Its a ho wide world, that we livin in
feline, feminine, fantastical, women
Not all, just some
You ho who you are
With ho tendencies
Hos are your friends, hoes are your enemies
...
Cant turn a ho into a housewife
Hos dont act right
...
Its a ho wide world, that we livin in
feline, feminine, fantastical, women
Not all, just some
You ho who you are
Certainly, rap doesn't speak well of black women. But I think often, and including in this case, it's clear that "ho" doesn't mean "black woman," it means "loose woman." Say whatever you want about singing of loose women, but it's been around forever.
So again, there's no real comparison between Don Imus calling basketball players "hos" and rappers writing songs about hos.
By Robert VerBruggen
More on Duke
April 12th 2007 22:10
It's funny how the media has been covering the Duke lacrosse case. Liberal bias explains why they're still not letting out the false accuser's name (Crystal Gail Mangum) -- though it's arguable the woman's troubled enough as it is.
What I'm surprised about, though, is that none of the retrospectives I've seen have pointed to an e-mail one of the players sent shortly after the stripper left. It read:
By Robert VerBruggen
What I'm surprised about, though, is that none of the retrospectives I've seen have pointed to an e-mail one of the players sent shortly after the stripper left. It read:
To whom it may concern
tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the b[-]tches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while c[---]ing in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond
41
Now, the names the accuser gave did not match his. But this does give a reason to suspect him, and it explains why the DA behaved the way he did -- at first. Of course, when all the other evidence came out Nifong should have backed down, but this case wasn't the right-from-the-start clearly-wrong situation some in the conservative media portray it as. It's great the tide has turned in the players' favor, but let's not act like they weren't pretty irresponsible.tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. i plan on killing the b[-]tches as soon as the walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while c[---]ing in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond
41
By Robert VerBruggen
Imus in the mourning
April 12th 2007 03:25
MSNBC just killed its simulcast of his radio show.
Also, Ann Coulter has a fairly amusing (except in the middle, where it's just rambling) column about the incident.
I like one of the distinctions she draws:
And this is classic Coulter:
However, I think she's wrong here:
OK, she's right about Al Sharpton, but here I go back to something I said about Michael Richards. In that case, the two hecklers deserved what they got, but Richards chose to put it in terms that insulted a whole community. I argued he needed to apologize to the community, but not to the individuals.
Here, even the specific targets did not have it coming, so Coulter's right that Imus should concentrate on apologizing to the specific women he spoke of. But the term "nappy-headed" is racially charged and thus insults blacks as a group. Groveling in front of Al Sharpton isn't the way to fix anything, but Imus does owe blacks an explanation, an apology and some effort toward making up for it.
By Robert VerBruggen
Also, Ann Coulter has a fairly amusing (except in the middle, where it's just rambling) column about the incident.
I like one of the distinctions she draws:
The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy.
They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose...he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.
They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose...he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate.
And this is classic Coulter:
If Imus had called me a "towheaded ho"...it would be what's known as "funny."
However, I think she's wrong here:
Imus should apologize to the Rutgers women — and those women alone — send them flowers, and stop kissing Al Sharpton's ring.
OK, she's right about Al Sharpton, but here I go back to something I said about Michael Richards. In that case, the two hecklers deserved what they got, but Richards chose to put it in terms that insulted a whole community. I argued he needed to apologize to the community, but not to the individuals.
Here, even the specific targets did not have it coming, so Coulter's right that Imus should concentrate on apologizing to the specific women he spoke of. But the term "nappy-headed" is racially charged and thus insults blacks as a group. Groveling in front of Al Sharpton isn't the way to fix anything, but Imus does owe blacks an explanation, an apology and some effort toward making up for it.
By Robert VerBruggen
Call (only) a ho a ho
April 12th 2007 00:28
It's taken a few days, but the conservative media has gotten around to (A) piling and Don Imus, but then (B) quickly pointing out that rappers say things that bad all the time. See Kathleen Parker and Michelle Malkin. The latter even got away with using the N-word in her title.
But the comparison is wrong-headed. To see why, consider the source, then consider the target.
First of all, rappers are entertainers for teenage males. They're supposed to be disgusting, and they're supposed to push offensiveness to its limits. Also, they're typically black themselves, and for whatever reason, people are given a pass on disparaging their own race. Don Imus is something of a shock-jock, but he has respected guests and a reputation for bringing news. And he's white.
But more importantly, look at the "hos" rappers talk about. Like all rebellious musicians of the last many decades, rap stars essentially lead dangerous, sex-filled lives and report back to their audience. Is it demeaning to portray black women as Ludacris does? Sure. But it's demeaning to portray white women the way Motley Crue and Led Zeppelin did in their songs, videos and behaviors.
More importantly, these portrayals are honest, not about women in general, but about the "groupie" class of women musicians write about. However horrible rappers are, when they refer to "hos," they're talking about sexually loose women (who may not charge money as the literal translation, "whore," would have it). Don Imus was talking about accomplished basketball players.
It's great that conservatives want to lessen the depravity of a popular art form. But there's no real double standard between Jay-Z and Don Imus.
By Robert VerBruggen
But the comparison is wrong-headed. To see why, consider the source, then consider the target.
First of all, rappers are entertainers for teenage males. They're supposed to be disgusting, and they're supposed to push offensiveness to its limits. Also, they're typically black themselves, and for whatever reason, people are given a pass on disparaging their own race. Don Imus is something of a shock-jock, but he has respected guests and a reputation for bringing news. And he's white.
But more importantly, look at the "hos" rappers talk about. Like all rebellious musicians of the last many decades, rap stars essentially lead dangerous, sex-filled lives and report back to their audience. Is it demeaning to portray black women as Ludacris does? Sure. But it's demeaning to portray white women the way Motley Crue and Led Zeppelin did in their songs, videos and behaviors.
More importantly, these portrayals are honest, not about women in general, but about the "groupie" class of women musicians write about. However horrible rappers are, when they refer to "hos," they're talking about sexually loose women (who may not charge money as the literal translation, "whore," would have it). Don Imus was talking about accomplished basketball players.
It's great that conservatives want to lessen the depravity of a popular art form. But there's no real double standard between Jay-Z and Don Imus.
By Robert VerBruggen
Jacob Sullum on Giuliani's bizarre gun beliefs
April 12th 2007 00:13
I never mentioned it on this blog, but Giuliani's statement about why the government should fund abortions always annoyed me. He argued that constitutional rights -- as abortion is, like it or not -- should be available to all, so the government should take care of those who can't afford to "terminate" their pregnancies.
This "logic," of course, is absurd. I have the right to free speech, but the government doesn't owe me a telephone, a computer, a printing press, a microphone or a TV station.
Jacob Sullum, though, takes it one step further:
Since Giuliani also claims to support "the right to bear arms" (a right that is actually mentioned in the Constitution), he should, by similar logic, advocate the use of taxpayer money to buy guns for poor people.
He goes on to say:
Read the whole thing.
This "logic," of course, is absurd. I have the right to free speech, but the government doesn't owe me a telephone, a computer, a printing press, a microphone or a TV station.
Jacob Sullum, though, takes it one step further:
Since Giuliani also claims to support "the right to bear arms" (a right that is actually mentioned in the Constitution), he should, by similar logic, advocate the use of taxpayer money to buy guns for poor people.
He goes on to say:
But the idea would never occur to him, because his sudden interest in the Second Amendment, like his sudden interest in strict constructionism, is merely an affectation intended to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters.
Read the whole thing.
Duke players exonerated
April 12th 2007 00:05
Finally! A few interesting things about the attorney general's speech:
--First of all, typically, the legal system aims to prosecute those who are not only guilty but can be proven guilty. They tend not to care about innocence per se; thus the "guilty" and "not guilty" courtroom rulings. But he went so far as to say "we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges."
--Two, I'm not sold on this suggestion:
My objections are twofold. One, while it's good to have checks and balances, too many checks and balances clog the works, and the country has gotten along fine for years and years without the courts butting in on pre-trial prosecutions. Bad things will happen, and this is one of them; unless crazy prosecutions like this are demonstrably common, there's no reason to change policy and risk making it worse.
Two, the problem here was that someone abused his power. By spreading the power, you increase the chance that someone will check an abuse of power, but you also increase the chance that said other entity (in this case the court) will abuse their power instead. "Limited circumstances" tend to expand over time (as in the Commerce Clause), and who would be deciding when those criteria had been met? Presumably, the court -- it would decide whether its own judgment was needed.
Finally, a look back at my previous comments about the case, including an analysis of black-on-white vs. white-on-black rape.
By Robert VerBruggen
--First of all, typically, the legal system aims to prosecute those who are not only guilty but can be proven guilty. They tend not to care about innocence per se; thus the "guilty" and "not guilty" courtroom rulings. But he went so far as to say "we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges."
--Two, I'm not sold on this suggestion:
I propose a law that the North Carolina Supreme Court have the authority to remove a case from a prosecutor in limited circumstances. This would give the courts a new tool to deal with a prosecutor who needs to step away from a case where justice demands.
My objections are twofold. One, while it's good to have checks and balances, too many checks and balances clog the works, and the country has gotten along fine for years and years without the courts butting in on pre-trial prosecutions. Bad things will happen, and this is one of them; unless crazy prosecutions like this are demonstrably common, there's no reason to change policy and risk making it worse.
Two, the problem here was that someone abused his power. By spreading the power, you increase the chance that someone will check an abuse of power, but you also increase the chance that said other entity (in this case the court) will abuse their power instead. "Limited circumstances" tend to expand over time (as in the Commerce Clause), and who would be deciding when those criteria had been met? Presumably, the court -- it would decide whether its own judgment was needed.
Finally, a look back at my previous comments about the case, including an analysis of black-on-white vs. white-on-black rape.
By Robert VerBruggen
The Enemy at Home review
April 11th 2007 08:30
Here is my review of Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home, originally published in Liberty :
Since September 11, 2001, pundits left and right have been rushing to tie their favorite political causes to the roots of Al Qaeda's anger. For religious conservatives such as Jerry Falwell, it was America's sins that got Osama seeing red. For neocons, it was Clinton's intervention-happy but weak-willed foreign policy. For pacifists and historical grievance mongers, it was the history of Western domination of the Middle East – going back to the Crusades. For the "social justice" types it was "poverty." And so on.
Political scientists have put together data on terrorists, looking at their stated goals, economic status, and countries of origin. They've even found a few correlations that shed light on the "root causes" of terrorism.
It's too bad that Dinesh D'Souza didn't take any of this research to heart before writing "The Enemy at Home." He'd soon have realized that his central thesis, that cultural leftism is "responsible" for 9/11, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's doubly a shame because three-quarters of the book teems with important insights, analyses, and observations.
But first, to refute the thesis. D'Souza's view, as explained best in chapter three's subtitle, is that "foreign policy is not the main problem." Rather, the problem is that American cultural decadence enrages traditional people. Those who get particularly mad become terrorists, and others often provide tacit support.
One might expect, then, that the Muslim societies that have imported the most Western culture – D'Souza mentions Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia – would have exported the most terrorists. Whatever else sets these three countries apart, the supposed driving force of the phenomenon is most pronounced there. The traditionalists should be stark raving mad and disproportionately inclined to blow things up.
But in a different section of the book D'Souza summarizes an analysis of foreign insurgents caught in Iraq. Out of about 300, "78 were Egyptian, 66 Syrian, and 41 from the Sudan. Only 32 were Saudis [despite most of the 9/11 hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia]. The rest came from Jordan, Iran, Tunisia, Algeria, and the West Bank." If Western culture is the main temptation into terrorism, people from Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia must be good at resisting it, because they are able to live near discos without strapping bombs to their chests.
[Note: The edit of this piece removed Indonesia, I think because some Indonesian terrorists were in the news at the time. I believe, however, that the point still stands: Even if all three countries had some terrorists, you'd need to show they have more than their share to support D'Souza's thesis. As the foreign insurgents study shows, that's simply not the case.]
Scholarly analyses have reached conclusions that make more sense, even if they too can't provide a complete explanation. Researchers have found that terrorists come from countries where (A) they cannot participate in government and (B) anger at foreign involvement gives them an alternative outlet.
Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova have argued for the former principle. They find that, statistically, "apart from population – larger countries tend to have more terrorists – the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties."
From this they argue that terrorism is actually a form of political expression. When there is no legitimate way for angry citizens to make themselves heard, some of them seek other means. This is consistent with the fact that terrorists tend to be educated and well off, because these are the kinds of people who care most about politics.
Alberto Abadie came to similar conclusions, adding the nuance that the relationship doesn't hold in cases of extreme authoritarianism – some countries are so repressive they actually squelch terrorism.
One might say that if a lack of rights is the problem, America should spread rights, through force if necessary. But there are tradeoffs to this approach as well.
The Defense Science Board noticed a historical link between intervention and terrorism in 1997, and the Cato Institute followed with a detailed report the next year. More recently journalist Afshin Molavi pointed out that the more a regime caters to U.S. interference, the more anti-American the regime's country becomes. Iran has one of the most pro-America populations in the Middle East.
Statistical work by Robert Pape found the same trend. In "Dying to Win," he looked at 315 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003. About 95 percent were linked to political objectives, and he argued that foreign occupation was terrorism's primary cause.
This shouldn't shock anyone. A terrorist does not choose the U.S., halfway around the globe, by throwing darts at a map. American leaders know (or should) that wedging themselves into a country's affairs is bound to create a backlash.
A plausible supporter of intervention will make the case that the benefits outweigh the costs, not that war has no costs and liberals are to blame for the problem. Democracies are less likely to breed terrorism, and it's arguably worth war to try to establish a democracy in the Middle East. Even National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg conceded the point about costs and benefits when a National Intelligence Estimate found that the Iraq invasion increased terrorism:
"Confrontation tends to increase the chances of violence in the short term but decreases its likelihood in the long term. Any hunter will tell you that the most dangerous moment is when you've cornered an animal, and any cop will tell you that standing up to muggers puts you in danger."
Of course, no factor or even group of factors can explain 100 percent of terrorist activity. In "The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism," Robert Atlan criticized Pape's work by pointing out the role of Muslim fanaticism – including martyrdom's place in some interpretations of Islam – and the fact that some terrorist groups strike merely to compete with other terrorist groups for support. A Muslim-world Pew survey found a link between pro-terrorist beliefs and the notion that Islam is under threat.
So there's plenty of room for one more factor, and D'Souza does a good job of showing that the cultural left did play some small role in 9/11, even if "responsibility" is too strong a word. He also demonstrates that popular foreign policies, both of the left and of the right, can hurt American interests.
D'Souza argues that left-wing values, when taken into the Muslim world against those societies' wishes, give terrorists a rallying cry. This runs contrary to D'Souza's idea that the cultural left causes terrorism in and of itself (especially when he comes right out and says, "As they see it, if we in America want to wreck our families and ruin the lives of our children, that is our choice"), but it's convincing nonetheless.
Liberal activists have taken on an international crusade that many mainstream Americans, to say nothing of devout Muslims, object to. Planned Parenthood has handed out "contraceptives to unmarried young girls in traditional cultures." Women's Link Worldwide opposes Muslim divorce and abortion laws in the interest of "human rights." These efforts may not cause the very trend of terrorism, but it's not unreasonable to point out that they've been great for recruiting.
Even Middle East objectives that most Americans applaud are problematic. Both the left and the right tend to support foreign leaders with Western values – the left because of civil liberties and the like, and the right because it thinks having such leaders in the Middle East is in our best interest. Activists across the spectrum support invasions that stop human rights abuses.
Pro-American leaders can help fight the War on Terror by sending troops and policing terrorism (a notion D'Souza chooses not to explore), but with the tradeoff that radical Muslims in those countries will hate America more.
Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt and Abdullah in Jordan comprise D'Souza's trinity of "Little Satans." He says that "[t]hese dictators typically restrict or even eliminate Islamic laws and rules, replacing them with Western laws and institutions." Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and bin Laden himself have publicly protested this phenomenon. Paradoxically, pro-America leaders have an anti-American effect.
And even if bashing Democrat-style foreign policy has been done to death, D'Souza impressively shows how poorly run, humanitarian-themed interventions can embolden terrorists. Jimmy Carter helped bring down the Shah of Iran because the foreign leader wasn't liberal enough, and he ended up with Khomeini instead. Bill Clinton invaded Somalia in 1993 despite his unwillingness to deal with a backlash killing 18 soldiers. Terrorists saw these events and found that hitting America brought no consequences.
Bin Laden himself noted on a recruiting tape that the "paper tigers" "fled [Somalia] in the dark as fast as they could." D'Souza takes all this to mean we should invade and follow through, but he provides all the facts needed to argue we should stay out altogether.
After imparting this wisdom, though, D'Souza returns to his suggestions for solving the problem. His main points here are that (A) the War on Terror must go on, with assurances to traditional Muslims that we're trying to become a more moral people, and (B) conservatives don't link liberals to Osama bin Laden often enough.
The problem with the first assertion is not so much that it's wrong on its face – though the evidence continues to mount that it is, at least in Iraq – but that it is insufficiently argued. D'Souza makes a half-hearted case that the war is going better than the media let on. It is true the U.S. has built schools, held elections, etc. It's also true that civilian deaths might have been higher if Saddam were still in power, tossing dissidents into mass graves at will. What's needed, though, is a cost-benefit analysis that pits the war's accomplishments against its price in American soldiers' lives, increased terrorism, money, and injured U.S. world standing. There is none.
The second recommendation is by far the book's most shocking. D'Souza notes that both Osama bin Laden and the American left would like the U.S. out of the Middle East (here and throughout his book he ignores "Old Right"-style anti-interventionists). He argues that the Right should point this out at every opportunity. But the biggest problem is that D'Souza's own recommendations are often consistent with bin Laden's objectives. For example, the pundit and the terrorist leader would both like to see a more wholesome America; indeed, the point of "The Enemy at Home" is to encourage such a cultural shift. D'Souza spends an inordinate amount of space pointing out how "Will and Grace," Eminem and Howard Stern endorse despicable values, arguing that if these folks toned it down, traditional Muslims would be less inclined to quietly support terror.
So liberals are not alone in espousing a "give them what they want and they'll leave us alone" strategy. Those on the left simply choose a different avenue of appeasement.
Also, Americans have been known to see these kinds of attacks as cheap shots. For example, Democrat Senator Tim Johnson (S.D.) once referred to the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party." He's admitted it was a mistake. See also Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin's (D) comments comparing Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet gulag, and his apology.
Despite these often severe flaws, "The Enemy at Home" is a worthwhile read. Sandwiched between an empirically false thesis and questionable policy recommendations are some terrific factoids and arguments regarding the Middle East and its culture.
By Robert VerBruggen
Since September 11, 2001, pundits left and right have been rushing to tie their favorite political causes to the roots of Al Qaeda's anger. For religious conservatives such as Jerry Falwell, it was America's sins that got Osama seeing red. For neocons, it was Clinton's intervention-happy but weak-willed foreign policy. For pacifists and historical grievance mongers, it was the history of Western domination of the Middle East – going back to the Crusades. For the "social justice" types it was "poverty." And so on.
Political scientists have put together data on terrorists, looking at their stated goals, economic status, and countries of origin. They've even found a few correlations that shed light on the "root causes" of terrorism.
It's too bad that Dinesh D'Souza didn't take any of this research to heart before writing "The Enemy at Home." He'd soon have realized that his central thesis, that cultural leftism is "responsible" for 9/11, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's doubly a shame because three-quarters of the book teems with important insights, analyses, and observations.
But first, to refute the thesis. D'Souza's view, as explained best in chapter three's subtitle, is that "foreign policy is not the main problem." Rather, the problem is that American cultural decadence enrages traditional people. Those who get particularly mad become terrorists, and others often provide tacit support.
One might expect, then, that the Muslim societies that have imported the most Western culture – D'Souza mentions Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia – would have exported the most terrorists. Whatever else sets these three countries apart, the supposed driving force of the phenomenon is most pronounced there. The traditionalists should be stark raving mad and disproportionately inclined to blow things up.
But in a different section of the book D'Souza summarizes an analysis of foreign insurgents caught in Iraq. Out of about 300, "78 were Egyptian, 66 Syrian, and 41 from the Sudan. Only 32 were Saudis [despite most of the 9/11 hijackers coming from Saudi Arabia]. The rest came from Jordan, Iran, Tunisia, Algeria, and the West Bank." If Western culture is the main temptation into terrorism, people from Malaysia, Turkey and Indonesia must be good at resisting it, because they are able to live near discos without strapping bombs to their chests.
[Note: The edit of this piece removed Indonesia, I think because some Indonesian terrorists were in the news at the time. I believe, however, that the point still stands: Even if all three countries had some terrorists, you'd need to show they have more than their share to support D'Souza's thesis. As the foreign insurgents study shows, that's simply not the case.]
Scholarly analyses have reached conclusions that make more sense, even if they too can't provide a complete explanation. Researchers have found that terrorists come from countries where (A) they cannot participate in government and (B) anger at foreign involvement gives them an alternative outlet.
Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova have argued for the former principle. They find that, statistically, "apart from population – larger countries tend to have more terrorists – the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties."
From this they argue that terrorism is actually a form of political expression. When there is no legitimate way for angry citizens to make themselves heard, some of them seek other means. This is consistent with the fact that terrorists tend to be educated and well off, because these are the kinds of people who care most about politics.
Alberto Abadie came to similar conclusions, adding the nuance that the relationship doesn't hold in cases of extreme authoritarianism – some countries are so repressive they actually squelch terrorism.
One might say that if a lack of rights is the problem, America should spread rights, through force if necessary. But there are tradeoffs to this approach as well.
The Defense Science Board noticed a historical link between intervention and terrorism in 1997, and the Cato Institute followed with a detailed report the next year. More recently journalist Afshin Molavi pointed out that the more a regime caters to U.S. interference, the more anti-American the regime's country becomes. Iran has one of the most pro-America populations in the Middle East.
Statistical work by Robert Pape found the same trend. In "Dying to Win," he looked at 315 suicide attacks between 1980 and 2003. About 95 percent were linked to political objectives, and he argued that foreign occupation was terrorism's primary cause.
This shouldn't shock anyone. A terrorist does not choose the U.S., halfway around the globe, by throwing darts at a map. American leaders know (or should) that wedging themselves into a country's affairs is bound to create a backlash.
A plausible supporter of intervention will make the case that the benefits outweigh the costs, not that war has no costs and liberals are to blame for the problem. Democracies are less likely to breed terrorism, and it's arguably worth war to try to establish a democracy in the Middle East. Even National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg conceded the point about costs and benefits when a National Intelligence Estimate found that the Iraq invasion increased terrorism:
"Confrontation tends to increase the chances of violence in the short term but decreases its likelihood in the long term. Any hunter will tell you that the most dangerous moment is when you've cornered an animal, and any cop will tell you that standing up to muggers puts you in danger."
Of course, no factor or even group of factors can explain 100 percent of terrorist activity. In "The Moral Logic and Growth of Suicide Terrorism," Robert Atlan criticized Pape's work by pointing out the role of Muslim fanaticism – including martyrdom's place in some interpretations of Islam – and the fact that some terrorist groups strike merely to compete with other terrorist groups for support. A Muslim-world Pew survey found a link between pro-terrorist beliefs and the notion that Islam is under threat.
So there's plenty of room for one more factor, and D'Souza does a good job of showing that the cultural left did play some small role in 9/11, even if "responsibility" is too strong a word. He also demonstrates that popular foreign policies, both of the left and of the right, can hurt American interests.
D'Souza argues that left-wing values, when taken into the Muslim world against those societies' wishes, give terrorists a rallying cry. This runs contrary to D'Souza's idea that the cultural left causes terrorism in and of itself (especially when he comes right out and says, "As they see it, if we in America want to wreck our families and ruin the lives of our children, that is our choice"), but it's convincing nonetheless.
Liberal activists have taken on an international crusade that many mainstream Americans, to say nothing of devout Muslims, object to. Planned Parenthood has handed out "contraceptives to unmarried young girls in traditional cultures." Women's Link Worldwide opposes Muslim divorce and abortion laws in the interest of "human rights." These efforts may not cause the very trend of terrorism, but it's not unreasonable to point out that they've been great for recruiting.
Even Middle East objectives that most Americans applaud are problematic. Both the left and the right tend to support foreign leaders with Western values – the left because of civil liberties and the like, and the right because it thinks having such leaders in the Middle East is in our best interest. Activists across the spectrum support invasions that stop human rights abuses.
Pro-American leaders can help fight the War on Terror by sending troops and policing terrorism (a notion D'Souza chooses not to explore), but with the tradeoff that radical Muslims in those countries will hate America more.
Musharraf in Pakistan, Mubarak in Egypt and Abdullah in Jordan comprise D'Souza's trinity of "Little Satans." He says that "[t]hese dictators typically restrict or even eliminate Islamic laws and rules, replacing them with Western laws and institutions." Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and bin Laden himself have publicly protested this phenomenon. Paradoxically, pro-America leaders have an anti-American effect.
And even if bashing Democrat-style foreign policy has been done to death, D'Souza impressively shows how poorly run, humanitarian-themed interventions can embolden terrorists. Jimmy Carter helped bring down the Shah of Iran because the foreign leader wasn't liberal enough, and he ended up with Khomeini instead. Bill Clinton invaded Somalia in 1993 despite his unwillingness to deal with a backlash killing 18 soldiers. Terrorists saw these events and found that hitting America brought no consequences.
Bin Laden himself noted on a recruiting tape that the "paper tigers" "fled [Somalia] in the dark as fast as they could." D'Souza takes all this to mean we should invade and follow through, but he provides all the facts needed to argue we should stay out altogether.
After imparting this wisdom, though, D'Souza returns to his suggestions for solving the problem. His main points here are that (A) the War on Terror must go on, with assurances to traditional Muslims that we're trying to become a more moral people, and (B) conservatives don't link liberals to Osama bin Laden often enough.
The problem with the first assertion is not so much that it's wrong on its face – though the evidence continues to mount that it is, at least in Iraq – but that it is insufficiently argued. D'Souza makes a half-hearted case that the war is going better than the media let on. It is true the U.S. has built schools, held elections, etc. It's also true that civilian deaths might have been higher if Saddam were still in power, tossing dissidents into mass graves at will. What's needed, though, is a cost-benefit analysis that pits the war's accomplishments against its price in American soldiers' lives, increased terrorism, money, and injured U.S. world standing. There is none.
The second recommendation is by far the book's most shocking. D'Souza notes that both Osama bin Laden and the American left would like the U.S. out of the Middle East (here and throughout his book he ignores "Old Right"-style anti-interventionists). He argues that the Right should point this out at every opportunity. But the biggest problem is that D'Souza's own recommendations are often consistent with bin Laden's objectives. For example, the pundit and the terrorist leader would both like to see a more wholesome America; indeed, the point of "The Enemy at Home" is to encourage such a cultural shift. D'Souza spends an inordinate amount of space pointing out how "Will and Grace," Eminem and Howard Stern endorse despicable values, arguing that if these folks toned it down, traditional Muslims would be less inclined to quietly support terror.
So liberals are not alone in espousing a "give them what they want and they'll leave us alone" strategy. Those on the left simply choose a different avenue of appeasement.
Also, Americans have been known to see these kinds of attacks as cheap shots. For example, Democrat Senator Tim Johnson (S.D.) once referred to the "Taliban wing of the Republican Party." He's admitted it was a mistake. See also Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin's (D) comments comparing Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet gulag, and his apology.
Despite these often severe flaws, "The Enemy at Home" is a worthwhile read. Sandwiched between an empirically false thesis and questionable policy recommendations are some terrific factoids and arguments regarding the Middle East and its culture.
By Robert VerBruggen
Nublu scene review up at antiMusic
April 11th 2007 02:49
antiMusic has my opinion of a CD collection Nublu records provided for review. I never much got into dance or jazz, but some of the bands' innovations really piqued my interest.
I gave quick takes on a bunch of CDs, but here's my overarching thesis:
I especially like that last line. I did rate several of the CDs quite highly, though, so if that sounds remotely interesting click over to antiMusic.
By Robert VerBruggen
I gave quick takes on a bunch of CDs, but here's my overarching thesis:
Dance music certainly earned bad rap amongst much of the population. Between disco, Britney Spears and everything else on pop radio, listeners aren't illogical when they conclude it's vapid club music for teenyboppers and easy young women.
Likewise, jazz hasn't been doing too well lately, losing the sense of intrigue and danger it had in its heyday. GQ even ran a feature article called "Why Jazz Sucks."
That's why New York's "Nublu" scene – centered around a record label of the same name – has so much going for it. Its artists typically start with a dance or jazz template and add elements of techno, trance, R&B and blues. Combining the two uninspired genres, and sprinkling in other kinds of music, might be the best way to save both.
Problem is: Many Nubluers take cues from their city's elitist fashion scene, valuing originality too far above accessibility. They often end up in John Cage territory, too boring to sit through and too distracting for background music.
Likewise, jazz hasn't been doing too well lately, losing the sense of intrigue and danger it had in its heyday. GQ even ran a feature article called "Why Jazz Sucks."
That's why New York's "Nublu" scene – centered around a record label of the same name – has so much going for it. Its artists typically start with a dance or jazz template and add elements of techno, trance, R&B and blues. Combining the two uninspired genres, and sprinkling in other kinds of music, might be the best way to save both.
Problem is: Many Nubluers take cues from their city's elitist fashion scene, valuing originality too far above accessibility. They often end up in John Cage territory, too boring to sit through and too distracting for background music.
I especially like that last line. I did rate several of the CDs quite highly, though, so if that sounds remotely interesting click over to antiMusic.
By Robert VerBruggen
Note to plaigarists
April 11th 2007 02:35
(A) Don't do it for a TV news program a lot of people watch;
(B) Don't do it from a newspaper a lot of people read; and
(C) Most definitely don't combine (A) and (B). Someone will see both. Probably an editor at the news program or newspaper.
This life lesson courtesy Robert VerBruggen
(B) Don't do it from a newspaper a lot of people read; and
(C) Most definitely don't combine (A) and (B). Someone will see both. Probably an editor at the news program or newspaper.
This life lesson courtesy Robert VerBruggen
Why, Billy Corgan, why?
April 11th 2007 01:59
Man, seriously.
Bruce Bartlett on taxes
April 11th 2007 01:35
Bruce Bartlett has a very informative column today about the tax burden, and how the rich disproportionately pay it. It's a common point to make, but there are some valid statistics I hadn't heard before.
I do take some issue with how this is worded, though:
He's very honest about the way he compiled the statistic, and I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't even whether people paid more than they received in government services; it's whether they paid anything at all. That said, people at the very bottom of the ladder get more money than they pay (from EITC), and as you move up people pay more and more. $40,000 happens to be the cutoff where the two cancel.
People making quite a bit less than $40,000 pay something, so there's no reason to imply they're not contributing. It's not a useful number.
And this is encouraging:
However, I think he might be too optimistic about this:
I would guess that (A) those people don't use too many government services and (B) the ones who do don't want a cut in their government services.
By Robert VerBruggen
I do take some issue with how this is worded, though:
Those with incomes below $40,000 paid no federal income taxes at all in the aggregate; the positive liability for those who paid anything was more than offset by tax rebates from the Earned Income Tax Credit for many more who paid nothing. In total, the EITC put $41 billion into the pockets of low-income workers in 2005, 91 percent of it being paid to those with no income tax liability. However, according to the Tax Foundation, three-fifths of Americans believe that it is wrong for anyone to pay no taxes at all, that everyone should pay something to finance the government.
He's very honest about the way he compiled the statistic, and I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't even whether people paid more than they received in government services; it's whether they paid anything at all. That said, people at the very bottom of the ladder get more money than they pay (from EITC), and as you move up people pay more and more. $40,000 happens to be the cutoff where the two cancel.
People making quite a bit less than $40,000 pay something, so there's no reason to imply they're not contributing. It's not a useful number.
And this is encouraging:
By better than a 2 to 1 margin, taxpayers would be willing to give up major tax deductions, such as that for mortgage interest or state and local taxes, in order to get lower income tax rates.
However, I think he might be too optimistic about this:
About a third of taxpayers would support a reduction in government services in order to achieve further tax cuts; just eight percent favor bigger government financed with higher taxes.
I would guess that (A) those people don't use too many government services and (B) the ones who do don't want a cut in their government services.
By Robert VerBruggen
Shadows Fall review up at antiMusic
April 9th 2007 23:51
antiMusic has my review of Shadows Fall's Threads of Life.
Main point:
By Robert VerBruggen
Main point:
One could compare Shadows Fall's Threads of Life to many records. The most important parallels, though, point to Korn's Take a Look in the Mirror and Poison's Flesh and Blood. None of the three releases sounds remotely like another.
The common thread: As nu- and hair-metal wore out their welcomes, those genre's leading acts released final statements of artistic conviction – then moved on. That's what Threads of Life does for metalcore, a brilliant movement finally gone stale.
Put simply, Threads of Life is the record Shadows Fall was made to make. The 11 tracks boast boatloads of catchy melodies, demanding musicianship and amazing songcraft.
The common thread: As nu- and hair-metal wore out their welcomes, those genre's leading acts released final statements of artistic conviction – then moved on. That's what Threads of Life does for metalcore, a brilliant movement finally gone stale.
Put simply, Threads of Life is the record Shadows Fall was made to make. The 11 tracks boast boatloads of catchy melodies, demanding musicianship and amazing songcraft.
By Robert VerBruggen
The saying goes...
April 8th 2007 20:12
...that some bands could fart on a record, and people would still buy the thing. There's no doubt Trent Reznor's Nine Inch Nails has such a dedicated fan base.
But really, did he have to try it? Seriously. Listen to track 13, "The Great Destroyer," from the new record. About two-thirds of the way in. Pretty sure it's digital though; a whole fart ensemble.
By Robert VerBruggen
But really, did he have to try it? Seriously. Listen to track 13, "The Great Destroyer," from the new record. About two-thirds of the way in. Pretty sure it's digital though; a whole fart ensemble.
By Robert VerBruggen
First impressions of Zelda: Twilight Princess
April 7th 2007 02:09
Thanks to my sweetheart girlfriend, I received Zelda: Twilight Princess for the Wii yesterday. Two quick points.
One, the play control is really incredible. Swinging your arm like a sword (gently, warns the instruction manual) really adds to the experience, and I like that they continued the practice of putting a controller diagram on the right-hand side, indicating what buttons do what at each point of the game. The idea of turning Link into a Wolf...well, I haven't played like that much, but it's different.
Two, my biggest criticism is that the game progression isn't intuitive. Even on the early stages I've played, I've referenced the online guide quite a bit. And right after praising the idea of a controller diagram, it's incomplete -- I couldn't figure out for the life of me, even with the instruction manual right there, how to reel in a fish. Again, the online guide is a blessing.
I hope later in the game there are more genuine puzzles, as opposed to "where the heck do I go now?" questions with absurd answers.
By Robert VerBruggen
One, the play control is really incredible. Swinging your arm like a sword (gently, warns the instruction manual) really adds to the experience, and I like that they continued the practice of putting a controller diagram on the right-hand side, indicating what buttons do what at each point of the game. The idea of turning Link into a Wolf...well, I haven't played like that much, but it's different.
Two, my biggest criticism is that the game progression isn't intuitive. Even on the early stages I've played, I've referenced the online guide quite a bit. And right after praising the idea of a controller diagram, it's incomplete -- I couldn't figure out for the life of me, even with the instruction manual right there, how to reel in a fish. Again, the online guide is a blessing.
I hope later in the game there are more genuine puzzles, as opposed to "where the heck do I go now?" questions with absurd answers.
By Robert VerBruggen
Type O Negative review up at antiMusic
April 3rd 2007 01:36
antiMusic has my review of Type O Negative's Dead Again.
Main point:
By Robert VerBruggen
Main point:
Since settling on a sound with 1993's 'Bloody Kisses,' Type O Negative has often faced charges of writing the same material again and again. They most certainly fix that with 'Dead Again,' a thoroughly listenable, slightly underproduced record combining punk and Black Sabbath influences.
The thing is, there was a reason most Type O Negative tracks sounded similar. Peter Steele's dour, deep voice – especially when combined with Kenny Hickey's bassy, thick and instantly recognizable guitar tone – lent itself to slow, gothic metal. Lighthearted moments cropped up from time to time (who could forget "My Girlfriend's Girlfriend," "I Like Goils" or "Kill All the White People"?), but on 'Dead Again' the upbeat tracks are more common and less funny.
The thing is, there was a reason most Type O Negative tracks sounded similar. Peter Steele's dour, deep voice – especially when combined with Kenny Hickey's bassy, thick and instantly recognizable guitar tone – lent itself to slow, gothic metal. Lighthearted moments cropped up from time to time (who could forget "My Girlfriend's Girlfriend," "I Like Goils" or "Kill All the White People"?), but on 'Dead Again' the upbeat tracks are more common and less funny.
By Robert VerBruggen
Jews and IQ
April 3rd 2007 01:24
It's been a long-standing controversy: Why do Jews, and particularly Ashkenazi Jews, score so highly on IQ tests?
Charles Murray has a brilliant essay in Commentary, and he considers the theses that (A) persecution played the part of evolutionary selection pressure, making it so that only smart Jews were able to survive or remain Jews and (B) historically, in Jewish culture, the mating game placed high value on brainy occupations -- scholars and businesspeople rarely died single and thus had more children.
However, he posits a third idea, one I have not heard before:
In this way of thinking, Jews didn't evolve intelligence; rather, the unintelligent simply made themselves not Jewish. Then, the higher-IQ folks intermarried -- Jews tend to marry other Jews -- to create the brainpower inequality we still see today.
My only issue is that the first explanation (that Judaism forced education, which cost farmers without benefiting them) is less a leap of faith than Murray's. The former is in straight-up economic terms, whereas Murray's idea involves looking at social pressures from centuries past and declaring them significant. It would have helped to cite some literature indicating that some Jews indeed found it embarrassing to read out loud, so much so they'd renounce their faith.
By Robert VerBruggen
Charles Murray has a brilliant essay in Commentary, and he considers the theses that (A) persecution played the part of evolutionary selection pressure, making it so that only smart Jews were able to survive or remain Jews and (B) historically, in Jewish culture, the mating game placed high value on brainy occupations -- scholars and businesspeople rarely died single and thus had more children.
However, he posits a third idea, one I have not heard before:
In 64 C.E. ...the Palestinian sage Joshua ben Gamla issued an ordinance mandating universal schooling for all males starting at about age six. The ordinance was not only issued; it was implemented. Within about a century, the Jews, uniquely among the peoples of the world, had effectively established universal male literacy and numeracy.
...
Between the 1st and 6th centuries C.E., the number of Jews in the world plummeted from about 4.5 million to 1.5 million or fewer. About 1 million Jews were killed in the revolts against the Romans in Judea and Egypt. There were scattered forced conversions from Judaism to another religion. Some of the reduction may be associated with a general drop in population that accompanied the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. But that still leaves a huge number of Jews who just disappeared.
What happened to them? Botticini and Eckstein argue that an economic force was at work: for Jews who remained farmers, universal education involved a cost that had little economic benefit. As time went on, they drifted away from Judaism. I am sure this explanation has some merit. But a more direct explanation could involve the increased intellectual demands of Judaism...Since worship of God involved not only prayer but study, all Jewish males had to read if they were to practice their faith—and not only read in private but be able to read aloud in the presence of others.
In this context, consider the intellectual requirements of literacy. People with modest intelligence can become functionally literate, but they are able to read only simple texts. The Torah and the Hebrew prayer book are not simple texts[, and] few people enjoy being in a position where their inadequacies are constantly highlighted... I suggest that the Jews who fell away from Judaism from the 1st to 6th centuries C.E. were heavily concentrated among those who could not learn to read well enough to be good Jews—meaning those from the lower half of the intelligence distribution.
...
Between the 1st and 6th centuries C.E., the number of Jews in the world plummeted from about 4.5 million to 1.5 million or fewer. About 1 million Jews were killed in the revolts against the Romans in Judea and Egypt. There were scattered forced conversions from Judaism to another religion. Some of the reduction may be associated with a general drop in population that accompanied the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. But that still leaves a huge number of Jews who just disappeared.
What happened to them? Botticini and Eckstein argue that an economic force was at work: for Jews who remained farmers, universal education involved a cost that had little economic benefit. As time went on, they drifted away from Judaism. I am sure this explanation has some merit. But a more direct explanation could involve the increased intellectual demands of Judaism...Since worship of God involved not only prayer but study, all Jewish males had to read if they were to practice their faith—and not only read in private but be able to read aloud in the presence of others.
In this context, consider the intellectual requirements of literacy. People with modest intelligence can become functionally literate, but they are able to read only simple texts. The Torah and the Hebrew prayer book are not simple texts[, and] few people enjoy being in a position where their inadequacies are constantly highlighted... I suggest that the Jews who fell away from Judaism from the 1st to 6th centuries C.E. were heavily concentrated among those who could not learn to read well enough to be good Jews—meaning those from the lower half of the intelligence distribution.
In this way of thinking, Jews didn't evolve intelligence; rather, the unintelligent simply made themselves not Jewish. Then, the higher-IQ folks intermarried -- Jews tend to marry other Jews -- to create the brainpower inequality we still see today.
My only issue is that the first explanation (that Judaism forced education, which cost farmers without benefiting them) is less a leap of faith than Murray's. The former is in straight-up economic terms, whereas Murray's idea involves looking at social pressures from centuries past and declaring them significant. It would have helped to cite some literature indicating that some Jews indeed found it embarrassing to read out loud, so much so they'd renounce their faith.
By Robert VerBruggen
More thoughts on Wii
April 1st 2007 13:36
Some quick takes on different aspects:
Virtual Console is great, though I'd like to see more games. So far I've downloaded the Zelda games from NES and N64. My only issue is that I wish they'd changed the text in the N64 one to refer to the Classic Controller -- it's annoying to try and figure out what button now does what.
Speaking of the Classic Controller, that's probably the biggest disappointment. Video game companies have long struggled to incorporate directional pads and joysticks onto the same device, and N64 actually solved the problem; you could hold it two different ways, though if you held it the joystick way you couldn't use the D-pad and vice versa. GameCube worked well with the joystick, but when someone programmed Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance so only the D-Pad worked, it pretty much killed the game. Too uncomfortable.
The Classic Controller is about the worst of both worlds, as neither the joystick nor the D-pad is comfortable to use. They tried to combine the NES, SNES and N64 controllers, and didn't do such a great job. I wonder why the stupid thing doesn't just look like an N64 controller, with two of the "C" buttons assigned to do X and Y functions on the SNES games.
Mario Kart Double Dash, a GameCube game, is so childish I'm ashamed I like it so much. It's actually fairly difficult on 100cc, though.
--
www.therationale.com
