Resident Evil returns -- as rail shooter?
May 28th 2007 01:56
I have to admit I have a weak spot for dark, bloody video games -- Resident Evil 4 is by far my favorite of all time. In it, the player runs around slaying zombies in quite a gruesome fashion.
I was very much looking forward to the sequel for Wii, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, but seeing the promotional videos, I'm a bit wary. Whereas previous games let the player control the character's movement -- killing, solving puzzles, etc. -- this one takes the "rail shooter" format.
It's been years since I've played a rail shooter. Remember those old arcade games with the guns you held? You shot at a screen full of enemies, and when you killed them all, the screen changed on its own. You couldn't walk around, hide, etc., by yourself. That's the new Resident Evil, a step back in control and probably dumbed down more than a little.
At first I thought this might be due to the Wii's controls, but it's obvious one could use the nunchuk's joystick to move. In fact, this month they're re-releasing RE4 for the Wii, with just that control scheme (thanks to them for keeping the price to $30 -- it might actually be worth it to re-buy the game for the new material at that price).
Also, for some reason the colors in "Umbrella Chronicles" look brighter than those in RE4. One of the reasons I loved playing RE4 so much was how haunting it looked. After loving RE4 as much as I did, I don't think anything could stop me from buying the followup the day it came out, but I'm not looking forward as much as I was.
By Robert VerBruggen
Michael Moore: Bringing down the health insurance companiesI was very much looking forward to the sequel for Wii, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, but seeing the promotional videos, I'm a bit wary. Whereas previous games let the player control the character's movement -- killing, solving puzzles, etc. -- this one takes the "rail shooter" format.
It's been years since I've played a rail shooter. Remember those old arcade games with the guns you held? You shot at a screen full of enemies, and when you killed them all, the screen changed on its own. You couldn't walk around, hide, etc., by yourself. That's the new Resident Evil, a step back in control and probably dumbed down more than a little.
At first I thought this might be due to the Wii's controls, but it's obvious one could use the nunchuk's joystick to move. In fact, this month they're re-releasing RE4 for the Wii, with just that control scheme (thanks to them for keeping the price to $30 -- it might actually be worth it to re-buy the game for the new material at that price).
Also, for some reason the colors in "Umbrella Chronicles" look brighter than those in RE4. One of the reasons I loved playing RE4 so much was how haunting it looked. After loving RE4 as much as I did, I don't think anything could stop me from buying the followup the day it came out, but I'm not looking forward as much as I was.
By Robert VerBruggen
I love a line from this story:
Without commenting on the movie's central criticisms of the insurance system, the head of America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group in Washington, suggested Monday that discussion of the movie could advance the industry's interest in obtaining more government money for people who do not have insurance.
To bad the end result of Bowling for Columbine wasn't government money for the gun industry!
Finally, the facts on the NYPD Bell shooting
May 24th 2007 01:50
No one's been talking about it lately, and I basically forgot about it, but Heather Mac Donald of City Journal has the details:
Read the whole thing. My other blogging about the case here.
By Robert VerBruggen
The undercover officers and detectives involved had been deployed to Club Kahlua in Jamaica, Queens, because of the club's history of lawlessness. Club patrons and neighbors had made dozens of calls to the NYPD, reporting guns, drug sales, and prostitution, and the police had recently made eight arrests there.
The night of November 24, undercover officer Gescard Isnora, who fired the first shots at Bell, had observed a man put a stripper's hand on his belt to reassure her that he had a gun and would protect her from an aggressive customer. Outside the club, Isnora (who is African-American) and his colleagues witnessed a heated exchange between Bell's entourage and an apparent pimp over the services of a prostitute, during which the pimp kept his hand inside his jacket, as if holding a gun. After the hooker refused to have sex with more than two of the group's eight members, Bell—presumably referring to the pimp—said, "Let's f[---] him up," and Bell's companion, Joseph Guzman, said, "Yo, get my gun, get my gun." Isnora reported these exchanges over his cell phone to his colleagues in the area.
Feeling the danger level mounting, Isnora retrieved his gun from his unmarked car. When he returned to the scene, Bell and his two companions had gotten into their car, ready to drive away. Isnora thought that a drive-by shooting of the pimp could be imminent, and so moved to question the car's occupants. He held out his badge (by his account), identified himself as a police officer, and told the car to stop. Instead, Bell drove forward and hit Isnora and a police minivan, backed up, and then slammed into the minivan again, nearly hitting Isnora a second time.
Isnora, who was standing on the passenger side of Bell's car, claims that he saw Guzman reach for his waistband. Believing that he faced a deadly threat, Isnora opened fire. The four other undercovers and detectives at the scene also started shooting, killing Bell and wounding Guzman and Bell's other companion in the car, Trent Benefield. No gun turned up in Bell's car. (Benefield alleges that Isnora began shooting before the car started moving, which is absurd. The barrage of 50 bullets was so fast that no witness at the scene remembers hearing more than eight rounds fired off. Bell was undoubtedly killed as soon as the shooting started, and so wouldn't have been able to move the car forward and back and forward again, as he did. None of the officers had ever used their guns before, moreover, despite making hundreds of arrests, including for gun possession. These were not trigger-happy cops.)
Without question, the results of this episode are horrific. And the tactics stank—Isnora should never have left himself as exposed as he was. But was the officers' perception of a deadly threat so unreasonable as to make their shooting a criminal homicide? If a judge or jury finds that they did not reasonably believe that they faced an imminent use of deadly force, then, according to the woefully inappropriate criminal code, their actions fall within the literal definition of manslaughter.
The night of November 24, undercover officer Gescard Isnora, who fired the first shots at Bell, had observed a man put a stripper's hand on his belt to reassure her that he had a gun and would protect her from an aggressive customer. Outside the club, Isnora (who is African-American) and his colleagues witnessed a heated exchange between Bell's entourage and an apparent pimp over the services of a prostitute, during which the pimp kept his hand inside his jacket, as if holding a gun. After the hooker refused to have sex with more than two of the group's eight members, Bell—presumably referring to the pimp—said, "Let's f[---] him up," and Bell's companion, Joseph Guzman, said, "Yo, get my gun, get my gun." Isnora reported these exchanges over his cell phone to his colleagues in the area.
Feeling the danger level mounting, Isnora retrieved his gun from his unmarked car. When he returned to the scene, Bell and his two companions had gotten into their car, ready to drive away. Isnora thought that a drive-by shooting of the pimp could be imminent, and so moved to question the car's occupants. He held out his badge (by his account), identified himself as a police officer, and told the car to stop. Instead, Bell drove forward and hit Isnora and a police minivan, backed up, and then slammed into the minivan again, nearly hitting Isnora a second time.
Isnora, who was standing on the passenger side of Bell's car, claims that he saw Guzman reach for his waistband. Believing that he faced a deadly threat, Isnora opened fire. The four other undercovers and detectives at the scene also started shooting, killing Bell and wounding Guzman and Bell's other companion in the car, Trent Benefield. No gun turned up in Bell's car. (Benefield alleges that Isnora began shooting before the car started moving, which is absurd. The barrage of 50 bullets was so fast that no witness at the scene remembers hearing more than eight rounds fired off. Bell was undoubtedly killed as soon as the shooting started, and so wouldn't have been able to move the car forward and back and forward again, as he did. None of the officers had ever used their guns before, moreover, despite making hundreds of arrests, including for gun possession. These were not trigger-happy cops.)
Without question, the results of this episode are horrific. And the tactics stank—Isnora should never have left himself as exposed as he was. But was the officers' perception of a deadly threat so unreasonable as to make their shooting a criminal homicide? If a judge or jury finds that they did not reasonably believe that they faced an imminent use of deadly force, then, according to the woefully inappropriate criminal code, their actions fall within the literal definition of manslaughter.
Read the whole thing. My other blogging about the case here.
By Robert VerBruggen
Public display of (religious) affection
May 19th 2007 00:29
I'm not old enough to verify/argue with this, but Kathleen Parker says in her new column:
Is it really true that, in older times, people were less open about their religious practices? It goes against my perception of the conservative pre-'60s world, but again, I didn't live in that world. If you're an old fart, please give me some insights on the comments section.
By Robert VerBruggen
In another time, Falwell and other televangelists would have remained on society's fringes, preaching from street corners and, as Hitchens suggested, hawking pencils from cups. Not so long ago, polite people in America didn't wear their religion as raiment.
Educated Christians may have dressed up on Sundays and kept a Bible in the house, but otherwise they whispered prayers at bedside and wouldn't consider holding hands to bless food in a restaurant. It wasn't done.
But come the sexual revolution, abortion, same-sex marriage and the mainstreaming of porn -- along with a media that facilitates ``characters'' in the service of ratings -- and the street preacher got mainstreamed, too. The same forces that created pole-dancing moms and partial-birth abortion also created Jerry Falwell and the religious right.
Educated Christians may have dressed up on Sundays and kept a Bible in the house, but otherwise they whispered prayers at bedside and wouldn't consider holding hands to bless food in a restaurant. It wasn't done.
But come the sexual revolution, abortion, same-sex marriage and the mainstreaming of porn -- along with a media that facilitates ``characters'' in the service of ratings -- and the street preacher got mainstreamed, too. The same forces that created pole-dancing moms and partial-birth abortion also created Jerry Falwell and the religious right.
Is it really true that, in older times, people were less open about their religious practices? It goes against my perception of the conservative pre-'60s world, but again, I didn't live in that world. If you're an old fart, please give me some insights on the comments section.
By Robert VerBruggen
Ron Paul was (a little) right
May 16th 2007 22:04
Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul got into it at last night's debates. Ron Paul said:
Giuliani is right that it's absurd to link attacks on Iraq to Al Qaeda's rage, but as I pointed out in my review of Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, there is indeed a connection between U.S. action and terrorism:
This doesn't necessarily mean that the costs of intervention outweigh the benefits, but it does mean that increased terrorism is a cost of intervention. Jonah Goldberg sounds a similar note in his new column:
Of course, in terms of terrorism, there's the complication that the mob hangout is in another country. Nonetheless, Goldberg argues it's not so much military as political intervention (following D'Souza's argument to a degree):
By Robert VerBruggen
Have you ever read about the reason they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there...We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years...I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us.
Giuliani is right that it's absurd to link attacks on Iraq to Al Qaeda's rage, but as I pointed out in my review of Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, there is indeed a connection between U.S. action and terrorism:
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.
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.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the costs of intervention outweigh the benefits, but it does mean that increased terrorism is a cost of intervention. Jonah Goldberg sounds a similar note in his new column:
If you send cops into a mob hangout, the cops will face blowback from criminals with guns. That hardly means the cops had it coming.
Of course, in terms of terrorism, there's the complication that the mob hangout is in another country. Nonetheless, Goldberg argues it's not so much military as political intervention (following D'Souza's argument to a degree):
If you actually listen to more authentic voices than bin Laden's — both democratic activists and Islamist bad guys — you'll find that one of the real reasons "they hate us" is that we support their corrupt rulers and dictators (in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere).
By Robert VerBruggen
Fred Thompson vs. Michael Moore
May 16th 2007 01:14
Probable presidential candidate Fred Thompson recently wrote a column denouncing Michael Moore's perception of the Cuban health care system. In the latter's new documentary, he takes some ailing Americans to the communist country for treatment.
Moore responded by challenging Thompson to a debate, and here's Thompson's response.
Thompson tells the story of another documentary filmmaker whom Castro disliked and threw into a mental institution. That's all well and good, but he concludes by remarking, "a mental institution, Michael. Might be something you oughta think about."
The genius here is astounding. Thompson managed to insinuate Moore is mentally unbalanced, but if mental health advocates protest, Thompson can say: I just meant he should "think about" Castro's misuse of institutionalization, not that he should seek treatment.
Thompson is an actor, and he makes the remark seem off-the-cuff, but it's obvious he chose his words carefully.
By Robert VerBruggen
Moore responded by challenging Thompson to a debate, and here's Thompson's response.
Thompson tells the story of another documentary filmmaker whom Castro disliked and threw into a mental institution. That's all well and good, but he concludes by remarking, "a mental institution, Michael. Might be something you oughta think about."
The genius here is astounding. Thompson managed to insinuate Moore is mentally unbalanced, but if mental health advocates protest, Thompson can say: I just meant he should "think about" Castro's misuse of institutionalization, not that he should seek treatment.
Thompson is an actor, and he makes the remark seem off-the-cuff, but it's obvious he chose his words carefully.
By Robert VerBruggen
Pretty soon he'll be running the place
May 11th 2007 11:11
Classic Steve Sailer wit:
Obviously, the Secretary of Defense can't run the war because, well, his job is just too girlie-sounding. I mean, I'm surprised the Secretary hasn't demanded to be promoted to Administrative Assistant of Defense. It would be a step up. But is "Czar" really the best title this great country of ours can come up with?
Compact flourescent bulbs officially obnoxious
May 11th 2007 02:25
Heeding Instapundit's repeated endorsement of compact flourescent bulbs, I picked some up at the store tonight. Supposedly, they save more in electricity than they cost. And, they're guaranteed for five years. So what the heck.
It's too bad I don't read Jane Galt regularly, for I quickly found what she blogged about once. The things are too bright.
See, I am living a bachelor lifestyle. That means I'm too lazy to put those fancy-schmancy shields over my overhead lights to dampen the glare -- with a normal bulb, that means a little extra light for no extra cost. When the light has two sockets, I can get away with one bulb!
That also means I live in a cheap townhouse which, for some reason, situates the overhead light in a corner from which it can't illuminate the whole room. Thus, I light my desk area with a desk lamp (much like this one, only mine is a pole with several lamps on it). A compact flourescent, two feet from my head? A headache in 15 minutes. I've already put the old one back in.
I bought two bulbs; one of them is in the overhead light that only covers a corner of my room. That's the entryway, so I'm sure it will still cause pain when I walk in and flip on the light. If nothing else, it'll encourage me to use that light less.
Freaking environment. I suppose they'd work OK for shielded lights, but there's no way I'd change every bulb in the house to compact flourescent.
It's too bad I don't read Jane Galt regularly, for I quickly found what she blogged about once. The things are too bright.
See, I am living a bachelor lifestyle. That means I'm too lazy to put those fancy-schmancy shields over my overhead lights to dampen the glare -- with a normal bulb, that means a little extra light for no extra cost. When the light has two sockets, I can get away with one bulb!
That also means I live in a cheap townhouse which, for some reason, situates the overhead light in a corner from which it can't illuminate the whole room. Thus, I light my desk area with a desk lamp (much like this one, only mine is a pole with several lamps on it). A compact flourescent, two feet from my head? A headache in 15 minutes. I've already put the old one back in.
I bought two bulbs; one of them is in the overhead light that only covers a corner of my room. That's the entryway, so I'm sure it will still cause pain when I walk in and flip on the light. If nothing else, it'll encourage me to use that light less.
Freaking environment. I suppose they'd work OK for shielded lights, but there's no way I'd change every bulb in the house to compact flourescent.
Tommy Thompson shoots self in foot again
May 10th 2007 22:28
As a Wisconsinite I have some sympathy for Tommy Thompson's presidential run. When he first made some rather unpresidential remarks at a Jewish gathering, I said so but didn't rule him out completely.
Now I am. At the debate Thompson said that employers should have the discretion to fire gay employees. From the transcript:
A very daring and libertarian point to make. But now he's saying he, um, misheard the question because of his hearing aid.
He never says, though, what question he thought he heard. What other question would that response apply to?
By Robert VerBruggen
Now I am. At the debate Thompson said that employers should have the discretion to fire gay employees. From the transcript:
MR. HARRIS: Governor Thompson, same theme. If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?
MR. THOMPSON: I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.
MR. VANDEHEI: Okay. So the answer's yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
MR. THOMPSON: I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.
MR. VANDEHEI: Okay. So the answer's yes.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
A very daring and libertarian point to make. But now he's saying he, um, misheard the question because of his hearing aid.
He never says, though, what question he thought he heard. What other question would that response apply to?
By Robert VerBruggen
Sports and racism
May 10th 2007 22:19
The American Spectator's Web site published a letter of mine today regarding a column they ran yesterday. Letters tend to cycle through quickly, so I'll preserve it here for posterity:
Editor:
I tend right on racial issues, so I read "Bigotry and Sports" with interest. However, Ms. Fabrizio misses two crucial points regarding the social science of racism.
First, regarding the NBA study (it showed black and white refs call fouls differently against black and white players), she remarks that it's "junk science." Presumably, she's referring to the allegation that the researchers used box score data, which doesn't tell them which ref made which call. However, using statistical methods it's possible to determine whether a given ref (or a ref of a given race) being present correlates to a higher or lower number of penalties.
Here's the data the authors came up with (pdf): Per 48 minutes played, black players got 4.330 fouls when the majority of refs were white and 4.329 fouls when the majority of refs were black. White players got 4.954 from white refs and 5.023 from black refs. White players get more penalties, no matter the race of the ref, largely because they're "taller, heavier, and more likely to play center."
What the media hasn't played up, of course, is that black players are treated the same by white and black refs. But white players get fewer penalties when the refs are white (for every 502 penalties a black ref team calls on black players, a white ref team will only call about 495, or 98.6 percent). This means either (A) white refs go easy on white players relative to black refs (or if you prefer, black refs go hard on white players relative to white refs) or (B) white players play more aggressively in front of black refs. Regardless, it shows that a ref's race makes a difference on the B-ball court.
Two, Ms. Fabrizio dismisses evidence that whites harbor unconscious biases against blacks. Yet implicit attitude tests have shown that quite reliably. As I once wrote in the Northwestern Chronicle, a conservative college paper, summarizing my own results on one such test:
In a freshman-year psychology course, I took a computerized test -- a headshot or a word was flashed on the screen, and I pushed a button if the person was white or if the word was positive [i.e. "happiness"]. I pushed a different button in response to black faces or negative words.
But then the program switched up on me. Now I had to push one button for white faces or negative words, and another for black faces and positive words.
Like 87.9 percent of white American participants, I performed faster and with greater accuracy when asked to pair "white" with "good" and "black" with "bad."
One can certainly put these results in perspective -- it takes a professionally devised test to unearth this, and white racism probably ranks well behind gangs in hurting the black community. But it's wrong to pretend the results don't exist, or that they mean nothing.
Blog: Robert VerBruggen
Editor:
I tend right on racial issues, so I read "Bigotry and Sports" with interest. However, Ms. Fabrizio misses two crucial points regarding the social science of racism.
First, regarding the NBA study (it showed black and white refs call fouls differently against black and white players), she remarks that it's "junk science." Presumably, she's referring to the allegation that the researchers used box score data, which doesn't tell them which ref made which call. However, using statistical methods it's possible to determine whether a given ref (or a ref of a given race) being present correlates to a higher or lower number of penalties.
Here's the data the authors came up with (pdf): Per 48 minutes played, black players got 4.330 fouls when the majority of refs were white and 4.329 fouls when the majority of refs were black. White players got 4.954 from white refs and 5.023 from black refs. White players get more penalties, no matter the race of the ref, largely because they're "taller, heavier, and more likely to play center."
What the media hasn't played up, of course, is that black players are treated the same by white and black refs. But white players get fewer penalties when the refs are white (for every 502 penalties a black ref team calls on black players, a white ref team will only call about 495, or 98.6 percent). This means either (A) white refs go easy on white players relative to black refs (or if you prefer, black refs go hard on white players relative to white refs) or (B) white players play more aggressively in front of black refs. Regardless, it shows that a ref's race makes a difference on the B-ball court.
Two, Ms. Fabrizio dismisses evidence that whites harbor unconscious biases against blacks. Yet implicit attitude tests have shown that quite reliably. As I once wrote in the Northwestern Chronicle, a conservative college paper, summarizing my own results on one such test:
In a freshman-year psychology course, I took a computerized test -- a headshot or a word was flashed on the screen, and I pushed a button if the person was white or if the word was positive [i.e. "happiness"]. I pushed a different button in response to black faces or negative words.
But then the program switched up on me. Now I had to push one button for white faces or negative words, and another for black faces and positive words.
Like 87.9 percent of white American participants, I performed faster and with greater accuracy when asked to pair "white" with "good" and "black" with "bad."
One can certainly put these results in perspective -- it takes a professionally devised test to unearth this, and white racism probably ranks well behind gangs in hurting the black community. But it's wrong to pretend the results don't exist, or that they mean nothing.
Blog: Robert VerBruggen
The case for Guam reparations
May 8th 2007 23:08
I'm opposed to slavery reparations, so I was pretty sympathetic when I read Michelle Malkin's post denouncing a new bill that would give reparations to Japan's World War II victims in Guam. After all, if anyone should pay them reparations, Japan should. (Guam has been a US territory since 1898, and Japan invaded it during WWII.)
Here's the bill.
However, there's a major nuance here Malkin (and those she cites) misses. After World War II, the US government did more to help mainland US citizens than to help those residing in US territories. Guam was particularly hard hit -- indeed, brutalized both by the Japanese invasion and the American recapture -- and thus needed help as much as any area did.
The new bill implements the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission, and one advocate testifying before that commission said:
Here's the commission's report, which found the Japanese were "oppressive, cruel, and barbaric." As for America's postwar response, Guam was "one of the U.S. Navy's first priorities" but:
That doesn't sound like a major injustice -- certainly not compared to what Japan did -- but it's clear the US didn't treat the territory as well as it did its own citizens.
We can debate how much the US owes residents of its territories, and we can ask how far into the past we should go to right wrongs. (In particular, it's immoral to try to settle the scores of long-dead people by transferring wealth between live ones; that's only one of my objections to slave reparations.) But it's not fair to dismiss the issue out-of-hand, as if the US is being expected to atone for Japan's sins. Rather, the bill gives money to people, many of whom are still alive, for a lack of parity in post-World War II aid.
By Robert VerBruggen
Here's the bill.
However, there's a major nuance here Malkin (and those she cites) misses. After World War II, the US government did more to help mainland US citizens than to help those residing in US territories. Guam was particularly hard hit -- indeed, brutalized both by the Japanese invasion and the American recapture -- and thus needed help as much as any area did.
The new bill implements the recommendations of the Guam War Claims Review Commission, and one advocate testifying before that commission said:
There has been some discussion on the directive to "determine whether there was parity of war claims paid to residents of Guam under the Guam Meritorious Claims Act as compared with awards made to other similarly affected United States citizens or nationals in territory occupied by the Imperial Japanese military forces during World War II". This is the heart of the "fairness" issue and the sense among Guamanians that Guam has not been treated equally.
Here's the commission's report, which found the Japanese were "oppressive, cruel, and barbaric." As for America's postwar response, Guam was "one of the U.S. Navy's first priorities" but:
[T]here was a lack of parity in some aspects of the process and the amounts made available for payment to the residents of Guam.
That doesn't sound like a major injustice -- certainly not compared to what Japan did -- but it's clear the US didn't treat the territory as well as it did its own citizens.
We can debate how much the US owes residents of its territories, and we can ask how far into the past we should go to right wrongs. (In particular, it's immoral to try to settle the scores of long-dead people by transferring wealth between live ones; that's only one of my objections to slave reparations.) But it's not fair to dismiss the issue out-of-hand, as if the US is being expected to atone for Japan's sins. Rather, the bill gives money to people, many of whom are still alive, for a lack of parity in post-World War II aid.
By Robert VerBruggen
How the MSM could have saved itself, part II
May 8th 2007 02:17
Awhile back I commented on one idea for saving the media -- rather than trying to compete with the Internet for analyzing stories, companies should have focused on what they do that no one else can do, namely, collect news.
The Wall Street Journal today added, And charge for it.
From an op-ed by an Arkansas newspaper's publisher:
It's always seemed weird to me how the MSM gives away the one advantage it has over the blogosphere. We bloggers can pick apart articles and add our own knowledge, but we rarely even make phone calls on our posts. We almost never, unless we're one of the few bloggers who can make a living off blogging, cover events just for our Web sites. If the MSM stopped giving away its hard-earned reportage, things would look better for it.
The only objection I have to this is based somewhat on the Efficient Market Hypothesis*. There are a whole bunch of newspaper companies trying out a variety of strategies, and when all the companies converge on one strategy, it's reasonable to assume that strategy is a good one. Newspapers as a whole, as the op-ed points out, have been tending to "modernize" by integrating into the Internet. If they all came to this conclusion, it's hard to believe they're wrong.
By Robert VerBruggen
*(That theory holds that a stock's price is essentially an accumulation of information; if a lot of people think it's undervalued, they'll bid it up. Therefore, a stock's price accurately represents its worth, so it's very difficult to make more than the average amount of money from buying stocks. In other words, even the savviest investor can't consistently outperform the market, except by luck. See Wikipedia for a better and longer explanation.)
The Wall Street Journal today added, And charge for it.
From an op-ed by an Arkansas newspaper's publisher:
Why would they buy a newspaper when they can get the same information online for free?...With local radio and television stations also creating Web sites and posting their news for free, newspapers soon realized that much of the news on the broadcast Web sites had been created by the local newspaper. So, whereas before the newspapers were selling print ads while radio and TV were selling air time, now they were all selling the same medium: their Web sites. Since newspapers share their content with the Associated Press so other members can use it, radio and TV members are using much of that content to compete against the newspapers that created it.
...
Gordon Borrell, CEO of Borrell Associates, estimated that newspaper Web sites generated 78% of their revenues from classifieds in 2006...The Inland Cost and Revenue Study shows that newspapers will generate between $500 and $900 in revenue per subscriber per year. But a newspaper's Web site typically generates $5 to $10 per unique visitor per year.
...
Recently I had the opportunity to compare our Web site policy with the free news policies of other papers. For the six months ending March 31, 2007, the newspaper industry's circulation was down 2.1% daily and 3.1% Sunday. By contrast, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's circulation was up 1.24% daily and up less than 1% Sunday.
I was able to make another interesting comparison, too, with the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch. ...Columbus dropped its subscription model on Jan. 1, 2006, and began offering most of its news for free. Its Web traffic and revenues certainly increased. But what happened to its paid circulation?
The six months ending Sept. 30, 2006 was a good comparison, since it compared six months in 2006 when the Columbus Dispatch had free news on its Web site compared with six months in 2005 when it did not offer free news. The Columbus Dispatch's daily circulation was down 5.8% while Sunday was down 1.1% for the six-month period. This compared with our loss of less than 0.4% daily and 1% Sunday.
...
Gordon Borrell, CEO of Borrell Associates, estimated that newspaper Web sites generated 78% of their revenues from classifieds in 2006...The Inland Cost and Revenue Study shows that newspapers will generate between $500 and $900 in revenue per subscriber per year. But a newspaper's Web site typically generates $5 to $10 per unique visitor per year.
...
Recently I had the opportunity to compare our Web site policy with the free news policies of other papers. For the six months ending March 31, 2007, the newspaper industry's circulation was down 2.1% daily and 3.1% Sunday. By contrast, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's circulation was up 1.24% daily and up less than 1% Sunday.
I was able to make another interesting comparison, too, with the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch. ...Columbus dropped its subscription model on Jan. 1, 2006, and began offering most of its news for free. Its Web traffic and revenues certainly increased. But what happened to its paid circulation?
The six months ending Sept. 30, 2006 was a good comparison, since it compared six months in 2006 when the Columbus Dispatch had free news on its Web site compared with six months in 2005 when it did not offer free news. The Columbus Dispatch's daily circulation was down 5.8% while Sunday was down 1.1% for the six-month period. This compared with our loss of less than 0.4% daily and 1% Sunday.
It's always seemed weird to me how the MSM gives away the one advantage it has over the blogosphere. We bloggers can pick apart articles and add our own knowledge, but we rarely even make phone calls on our posts. We almost never, unless we're one of the few bloggers who can make a living off blogging, cover events just for our Web sites. If the MSM stopped giving away its hard-earned reportage, things would look better for it.
The only objection I have to this is based somewhat on the Efficient Market Hypothesis*. There are a whole bunch of newspaper companies trying out a variety of strategies, and when all the companies converge on one strategy, it's reasonable to assume that strategy is a good one. Newspapers as a whole, as the op-ed points out, have been tending to "modernize" by integrating into the Internet. If they all came to this conclusion, it's hard to believe they're wrong.
By Robert VerBruggen
*(That theory holds that a stock's price is essentially an accumulation of information; if a lot of people think it's undervalued, they'll bid it up. Therefore, a stock's price accurately represents its worth, so it's very difficult to make more than the average amount of money from buying stocks. In other words, even the savviest investor can't consistently outperform the market, except by luck. See Wikipedia for a better and longer explanation.)
More on the NBA and discrimination
May 5th 2007 14:37
The authors of the study (read my other comments here) write:
That is, if a team has one more white starter than its opponent, its chances of winning go up about 1 percent for each white ref. Conversely, given an all-white ref crew, a team's chances of winning go up 3.4 percent if they have one more white starter.
And:
Steve Sailer takes this to mean that "NBA teams would win slightly more games if they played whites more."
That would be absolutely true if you could magically turn some of the black players white. However, as it stands NBA teams simply put out the players they think are best. By hiring and/or putting in more whites, they'd be using players who aren't the absolute best. Teams have a tradeoff to make between the slight preference from the refs and the drop in quality.
By Robert VerBruggen
(I)n an average game, one team plays around 15% fewer minutes with black players than their opponent (which roughly corresponds with that team having one fewer black starter). Thus, for this team, the chances of victory under an all-black refereeing crew versus an all-white crew differ by about 0.15*0.226, or around 3.4 percentage points. As such, changing the race of just one referee typically changes the chances of winning by around one percentage point (and the chances of their opponent winning must also change by an offsetting amount).
That is, if a team has one more white starter than its opponent, its chances of winning go up about 1 percent for each white ref. Conversely, given an all-white ref crew, a team's chances of winning go up 3.4 percent if they have one more white starter.
And:
(I)n our sample, white starters win around 51.8% of their games, but race-norming the refereeing crew [to match the proportion of whites and blacks playing] would likely lower this winning percentage to 50.4%.
Steve Sailer takes this to mean that "NBA teams would win slightly more games if they played whites more."
That would be absolutely true if you could magically turn some of the black players white. However, as it stands NBA teams simply put out the players they think are best. By hiring and/or putting in more whites, they'd be using players who aren't the absolute best. Teams have a tradeoff to make between the slight preference from the refs and the drop in quality.
By Robert VerBruggen
On the NBA race discrimination study
May 4th 2007 23:21
Steve Sailer points to a new study about referee bias in the NBA. A study concluded that refs tend to go easier on people of their own race.
As usual, The New York Times gets it wrong:
Actually, no, they didn't find that at all. Rather:
...compared to white players, black players play more minutes per game (while Table 2 reports weighted means—30.7 minutes vs 27.2 minutes, the unweighted means among those with positive playing time are 25.0 vs 20.5). Black players receive about the same number of fouls per game (2.55 vs 2.53) as white players, but receive fewer fouls per 48 minutes played (4.33 vs. 4.97). The differences in foul rates largely reflect the fact that white players tend to be taller, heavier, and more likely to play center than black players.
White referees still called more fouls on whites than on blacks, but at a lesser disproportion than did black referees. The NYT would be correct if it added, "relative to black referees" after "greater rate."
Here's another interesting nuance:
The number of fouls earned by black players is, on average, roughly the same whether the refereeing crew is predominantly white or black. By contrast, white players earn many fewer fouls under white refereeing crews.
It's very important to keep in mind how small these differences are. Per 48 minutes played, black players got 4.330 fouls from majority white refs and 4.329 fouls from majority black refs. White players got 4.954 from white refs and 5.023 from black refs.
White players see the bigger difference, but look at it this way -- for every 502 fouls a black ref calls on a white player, a white ref calls about 495 (or 98.6 percent). The average game has something like 28 fouls for a team. Say an all-white team gets 28 fouls with a majority-black ref staff; with a majority-white ref staff they'll get 27.6. Since NBA teams are (to put it mildly) not all-white, the effect is even smaller.
That said, the difference could mean one of three things. One, white refs go easy on white players, while black refs call all fouls equally. Two, black refs call extra fouls on white players, while white refs call all fouls equally. Three, some combination of the two.
Heck, just to be a smartaleck, I'll propose a fourth: stereotype threat. There's a perception that white athletes are less graceful than are black athletes, and indeed they're "taller, heavier." So, fearful of confirming that stereotype, whites get nervous and play worse in front of black refs.
By Robert VerBruggen
As usual, The New York Times gets it wrong:
A coming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell University graduate student says that, during the 13 seasons from 1991 through 2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players
.Actually, no, they didn't find that at all. Rather:
...compared to white players, black players play more minutes per game (while Table 2 reports weighted means—30.7 minutes vs 27.2 minutes, the unweighted means among those with positive playing time are 25.0 vs 20.5). Black players receive about the same number of fouls per game (2.55 vs 2.53) as white players, but receive fewer fouls per 48 minutes played (4.33 vs. 4.97). The differences in foul rates largely reflect the fact that white players tend to be taller, heavier, and more likely to play center than black players.
White referees still called more fouls on whites than on blacks, but at a lesser disproportion than did black referees. The NYT would be correct if it added, "relative to black referees" after "greater rate."
Here's another interesting nuance:
The number of fouls earned by black players is, on average, roughly the same whether the refereeing crew is predominantly white or black. By contrast, white players earn many fewer fouls under white refereeing crews.
It's very important to keep in mind how small these differences are. Per 48 minutes played, black players got 4.330 fouls from majority white refs and 4.329 fouls from majority black refs. White players got 4.954 from white refs and 5.023 from black refs.
White players see the bigger difference, but look at it this way -- for every 502 fouls a black ref calls on a white player, a white ref calls about 495 (or 98.6 percent). The average game has something like 28 fouls for a team. Say an all-white team gets 28 fouls with a majority-black ref staff; with a majority-white ref staff they'll get 27.6. Since NBA teams are (to put it mildly) not all-white, the effect is even smaller.
That said, the difference could mean one of three things. One, white refs go easy on white players, while black refs call all fouls equally. Two, black refs call extra fouls on white players, while white refs call all fouls equally. Three, some combination of the two.
Heck, just to be a smartaleck, I'll propose a fourth: stereotype threat. There's a perception that white athletes are less graceful than are black athletes, and indeed they're "taller, heavier." So, fearful of confirming that stereotype, whites get nervous and play worse in front of black refs.
By Robert VerBruggen
Giuliani doesn't even know where he stands on abortion
May 4th 2007 22:27
Guiliani was asked yesterday whether it would be a good thing if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. From the debate:
First of all, the question wasn't whether a judge should decide it, it was which way a judge should decide it.
Two, his remarks are self-contradictory. If a federal judge were to "make that decision" in a pro-Roe manner, states could no longer "make their own decisions." Which is it, Mayor?
It's amazing when politicians flip-flop in seconds. He was for Roe before he was against it, I guess.
By Robert VerBruggen
MR. GIULIANI: It would be okay [to overturn].
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay to repeal?
MR. GIULIANI: It would be okay to repeal. Or it would be okay also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.
MR. MATTHEWS: Would it be okay if they didn't repeal it?
MR. GIULIANI: I think that -- I think the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it. We're a federalist system of government, and states could make their own decisions.
MR. MATTHEWS: Okay to repeal?
MR. GIULIANI: It would be okay to repeal. Or it would be okay also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.
MR. MATTHEWS: Would it be okay if they didn't repeal it?
MR. GIULIANI: I think that -- I think the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it. We're a federalist system of government, and states could make their own decisions.
First of all, the question wasn't whether a judge should decide it, it was which way a judge should decide it.
Two, his remarks are self-contradictory. If a federal judge were to "make that decision" in a pro-Roe manner, states could no longer "make their own decisions." Which is it, Mayor?
It's amazing when politicians flip-flop in seconds. He was for Roe before he was against it, I guess.
By Robert VerBruggen
Ann Coulter misleads on Obama in debate
May 4th 2007 22:14
From her column this week:
The problem is, the moderator specifically asked the candidate what he was doing in his personal life for the environment. Williams even interrupted when Obama talked about the bigger issue, suggesting the candidate talk about light bulbs:
MR. WILLIAMS: ...what in your personal life, Senator Obama, have you done recently to make for a better environment? Personal life.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, we just had Earth Day, and we actually organized 3,000 volunteers to plant trees, which --
MR. WILLIAMS: I mean like light bulbs. (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: Well, we -- (laughs) -- I thought the tree thing was pretty good. (Laughter.) But --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, but you had a lot of help.
SEN. OBAMA: -- we've also -- we've also been working to install light bulbs that last longer and save energy, and that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Melia? and 5-year- old Sasha (sp).
To prove his bona fides to the environmentalist nuts, Obama said: "We've also been working to install lightbulbs that last longer and save energy. And that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Malia and 5-year-old Sasha."
So we finally have an answer to the question: What do Democrats teach their daughters? Is it:
(a) integrity
(b) character
(c) the importance of always telling the truth
No! The answer is: (d) They teach their daughters to use low-energy lightbulbs. This is so important that it apparently bears mentioning during a debate under high-intensity TV studio lights.
(How many kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb? In the Barack household, evidently, it takes two.)
So we finally have an answer to the question: What do Democrats teach their daughters? Is it:
(a) integrity
(b) character
(c) the importance of always telling the truth
No! The answer is: (d) They teach their daughters to use low-energy lightbulbs. This is so important that it apparently bears mentioning during a debate under high-intensity TV studio lights.
(How many kids does it take to screw in a lightbulb? In the Barack household, evidently, it takes two.)
The problem is, the moderator specifically asked the candidate what he was doing in his personal life for the environment. Williams even interrupted when Obama talked about the bigger issue, suggesting the candidate talk about light bulbs:
MR. WILLIAMS: ...what in your personal life, Senator Obama, have you done recently to make for a better environment? Personal life.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, we just had Earth Day, and we actually organized 3,000 volunteers to plant trees, which --
MR. WILLIAMS: I mean like light bulbs. (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: Well, we -- (laughs) -- I thought the tree thing was pretty good. (Laughter.) But --
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, but you had a lot of help.
SEN. OBAMA: -- we've also -- we've also been working to install light bulbs that last longer and save energy, and that's something that I'm trying to teach my daughters, 8-year-old Melia? and 5-year- old Sasha (sp).
Imus sues
May 2nd 2007 23:42
This is a bizarre turn of events, to be sure:
To me, what needs to be absolutely clear is that while he hired a First Amendment lawyer, this is not a per se First Amendment case. As I said before, the First Amendment protects you against government censorship -- not against your boss firing you. If that were the case, someone who talks for a living (like Imus) could not be fired for doing his job badly.
What this case will hinge on is the clause in his contract. Without seeing it, there's no way to tell whether it applies to this specific incident, but it will be interesting to watch.
There's also this:
By Robert VerBruggen
For Imus, who made a career out of operating in the murky space between sophomoric humor and high-brow political talk, there is the little matter of about $40 million left on his contract with CBS Radio - whose boss Les Moonves fired the shock jock on April 12. CBS' lawyers contend Imus was fired for cause and not owed the rest of the money.
But Imus has hired one of the nation's premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to one person who has read the contract.
The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of - making off-color jokes. The source described it as a "dog has one- bite clause." A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.
But Imus has hired one of the nation's premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to one person who has read the contract.
The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of - making off-color jokes. The source described it as a "dog has one- bite clause." A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.
To me, what needs to be absolutely clear is that while he hired a First Amendment lawyer, this is not a per se First Amendment case. As I said before, the First Amendment protects you against government censorship -- not against your boss firing you. If that were the case, someone who talks for a living (like Imus) could not be fired for doing his job badly.
What this case will hinge on is the clause in his contract. Without seeing it, there's no way to tell whether it applies to this specific incident, but it will be interesting to watch.
There's also this:
[Employment lawyer] Bernabei also said that any contract stipulations that allow for provocative content on Imus' show are probably balanced by "something in the contract about appropriate content."
She said, "I'm sure CBS has something about conduct - that he can't use profanity and has to abide by FCC regulations."
So under this argument, the case could turn on whether Imus' comments - which referred to members of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" - meets the definition of profanity under FCC guidelines. The FCC, on its Web site, defines profanity as "including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."
She said, "I'm sure CBS has something about conduct - that he can't use profanity and has to abide by FCC regulations."
So under this argument, the case could turn on whether Imus' comments - which referred to members of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos" - meets the definition of profanity under FCC guidelines. The FCC, on its Web site, defines profanity as "including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."
By Robert VerBruggen
Libertarians: Always looking at the bright side
May 2nd 2007 02:10
From Reason's blog:
We sure ought to be happy -- we're reproducing at almost the replacement rate! Admittedly, that's more than the Europeans are doing.
But once you break those numbers down, it seems illegitimacy might explain some of it. Take race statistics, just because they're easy to find. It turns out that Hispanics (rate of about 96 babies* per 1,000 women per year) and blacks (around 69), the two races/ethnicities with the highest illegitimacy rates, are having the most kids. Whites, the largest population group with a lower illegitimacy rate, have about 58 babies per 1,000 women per year.
Nothing to worry about here! Through (A) "popping 'em out" without marrying and (B) importing people who do the same, we'll get those Europeans in the population war!
Though in fairness I should quote this:
Of course, to say this he has to concede that the Hispanic rate "touches three" and the black rate is a diminishing but still significant 9 percent higher than the white one. He doesn't use the word "illegitimacy" at all, though it's true that illegitimacy is quite high in Europe as well -- it might partly explain why Americans have so many babies, but it can't explain the difference between the two regions.
By Robert VerBruggen
*If you follow the link, you'll notice I used the NCHS as opposed to the ACS numbers. They're not much different, and my thesis holds up either way, but NCHS has the advantage of treating Hispanics of any race apart from non-Hispanic whites. ("Hispanic" can refer to those descended from Native Americans, Spanish conquerors or black slaves, so it'd not a racial term. One can be both white and Hispanic.)
Americans keeping having babies. Will Wilkinson does an excellent survey of why American women just can't stop popping 'em out.
We sure ought to be happy -- we're reproducing at almost the replacement rate! Admittedly, that's more than the Europeans are doing.
But once you break those numbers down, it seems illegitimacy might explain some of it. Take race statistics, just because they're easy to find. It turns out that Hispanics (rate of about 96 babies* per 1,000 women per year) and blacks (around 69), the two races/ethnicities with the highest illegitimacy rates, are having the most kids. Whites, the largest population group with a lower illegitimacy rate, have about 58 babies per 1,000 women per year.
Nothing to worry about here! Through (A) "popping 'em out" without marrying and (B) importing people who do the same, we'll get those Europeans in the population war!
Though in fairness I should quote this:
The single most important factor in explaining America's high fertility level these days is the birth rate of the country's Anglo majority, who still account for roughly 55 percent of U.S. births. Over the past decade and a half, the TFR for non-Hispanic white Americans averaged 1.82 births per woman per lifetime--subreplacement, but more than 20 percent higher than corresponding national levels for western Europe, and much higher if one compares "Anglo" TFRs with those of western Europe's native born populations.
Of course, to say this he has to concede that the Hispanic rate "touches three" and the black rate is a diminishing but still significant 9 percent higher than the white one. He doesn't use the word "illegitimacy" at all, though it's true that illegitimacy is quite high in Europe as well -- it might partly explain why Americans have so many babies, but it can't explain the difference between the two regions.
By Robert VerBruggen
*If you follow the link, you'll notice I used the NCHS as opposed to the ACS numbers. They're not much different, and my thesis holds up either way, but NCHS has the advantage of treating Hispanics of any race apart from non-Hispanic whites. ("Hispanic" can refer to those descended from Native Americans, Spanish conquerors or black slaves, so it'd not a racial term. One can be both white and Hispanic.)
