You got it, and you caught it from me
June 30th 2007 16:10
Steve Sailer points to this hilarious exchange from the Democratic debate:
NPR's Michel Martin: "[W]hat is the plan to stop and to protect these young people from this scourge [AIDS]?" ...
Sen. Joe Biden: "I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS. There's no shame in being tested for AIDS. It's an important thing." ...
OBAMA: Tavis, Tavis, Tavis, I just got to make clear -- I got tested with Michelle. (Laughter, applause.)
SMILEY: Ah.
OBAMA: In -- when we were in Kenya in Africa. So I don't want any confusion here about what's going on. (Applause continues.)
SMILEY: All right. ...
OBAMA: I was tested with my wife.
SMILEY: And I'm sure Michelle appreciates you clarifying it.
OBAMA: In public. (Laughter.)
I've always found this type of thing amusing. The bottom line is that people who are sexually promiscuous should take steps to mitigate their risks. They should wear condoms and get tested for STDs.
But conversely, people who carry around condoms and stand in line for AIDS screenings tend to be promiscuous; everyone knows this, and thus there's a stigma. So health promoters are in the awkward position of telling promiscuous people that, because of their promiscuity, they should get tested, but that "there's no shame in being tested for AIDS." If anything, that pack of Trojans in your purse makes you a shining beacon of responsible living!
Obama apparently didn't get the memo. He was pretty quick to say, hey, I know it sounds bad that I got tested, but it wasn't like that. It was a publicity stunt for AIDS awareness.
By Robert VerBruggen
UPDATE: Some of the commenters at Sailer's site are taking Obama's disclaimer as a statement about homosexuality, not fidelity. In that case it's a double whammy -- Obama (A) reacted to the stigma of being tested for AIDS and (B) implied AIDS is a gay disease. (Disproportionately, it is, by the way.)
NPR's Michel Martin: "[W]hat is the plan to stop and to protect these young people from this scourge [AIDS]?" ...
Sen. Joe Biden: "I got tested for AIDS. I know Barack got tested for AIDS. There's no shame in being tested for AIDS. It's an important thing." ...
OBAMA: Tavis, Tavis, Tavis, I just got to make clear -- I got tested with Michelle. (Laughter, applause.)
SMILEY: Ah.
OBAMA: In -- when we were in Kenya in Africa. So I don't want any confusion here about what's going on. (Applause continues.)
SMILEY: All right. ...
OBAMA: I was tested with my wife.
SMILEY: And I'm sure Michelle appreciates you clarifying it.
OBAMA: In public. (Laughter.)
I've always found this type of thing amusing. The bottom line is that people who are sexually promiscuous should take steps to mitigate their risks. They should wear condoms and get tested for STDs.
But conversely, people who carry around condoms and stand in line for AIDS screenings tend to be promiscuous; everyone knows this, and thus there's a stigma. So health promoters are in the awkward position of telling promiscuous people that, because of their promiscuity, they should get tested, but that "there's no shame in being tested for AIDS." If anything, that pack of Trojans in your purse makes you a shining beacon of responsible living!
Obama apparently didn't get the memo. He was pretty quick to say, hey, I know it sounds bad that I got tested, but it wasn't like that. It was a publicity stunt for AIDS awareness.
By Robert VerBruggen
UPDATE: Some of the commenters at Sailer's site are taking Obama's disclaimer as a statement about homosexuality, not fidelity. In that case it's a double whammy -- Obama (A) reacted to the stigma of being tested for AIDS and (B) implied AIDS is a gay disease. (Disproportionately, it is, by the way.)
Freedomnomics review up at The American
Here it is.
Main point ("Freakonomics" refers to Steven Levitt's book, which John Lott responded to in the book under review):
Freakonomics was one of the worst book titles in memory, and ripping it off probably isn't the best idea (though the similarity in covers might help Lott sell books). And Freedomnomics's positioning as a response to Freakonomics means it will always sit in the latter's shadow.
What's more, the book shares Freakonomics's lack of focus. In part it's a response to Levitt, but in other ways it's a defense of the free market, even on topics Levitt didn't touch. And some essays are neither anti-Levitt nor pro-market; Freedomnomics could more accurately have been called The Brief Book of Everything John R. Lott, Jr., has Ever Written About.
Nonetheless, most of what John R. Lott, Jr., has ever written about has been fascinating. He's a great writer, especially for the general public, and the book renders lots of charts, graphs and statistical analysis into clear, uncomplicated conversation. In particular, those who haven't followed Lott's research and op-eds should read it.
What's more, the book shares Freakonomics's lack of focus. In part it's a response to Levitt, but in other ways it's a defense of the free market, even on topics Levitt didn't touch. And some essays are neither anti-Levitt nor pro-market; Freedomnomics could more accurately have been called The Brief Book of Everything John R. Lott, Jr., has Ever Written About.
Nonetheless, most of what John R. Lott, Jr., has ever written about has been fascinating. He's a great writer, especially for the general public, and the book renders lots of charts, graphs and statistical analysis into clear, uncomplicated conversation. In particular, those who haven't followed Lott's research and op-eds should read it.
Dennis Prager: Words, sadistic sexual abuse...same difference
June 28th 2007 01:14
First of all, Dennis Prager is right that the justice system did terrible things to the Duke lacrosse players. But he goes way too far with rhetoric like this:
Let's hope he never has to choose.
And two, even if you could somehow prove that the pain of slander is the same as the pain of forced sex, they are not "both rapes." Rape has a specific definition, as does slander/prosecutorial misconduct, and they're not the same thing.
The rape of a name can be as vicious a crime and as destructive an act as the rape of a body. Sometimes the rape of a body is worse, sometimes the rape of a name is worse. But they are both rapes. And morally likening the two is in no way meant to lessen the horror of rape; it is meant only to heighten awareness of the horror of intentionally destroying the name of an innocent person.
Let's hope he never has to choose.
And two, even if you could somehow prove that the pain of slander is the same as the pain of forced sex, they are not "both rapes." Rape has a specific definition, as does slander/prosecutorial misconduct, and they're not the same thing.
Is it just me...
June 27th 2007 02:20
...or does 30 Rock's Jane Krakowski look a little and sound a lot like Ann Coulter?
'Bong Hits' case: Right ruling, wrong reasoning
June 25th 2007 22:49
I've blogged previously about an Alaska high schooler who, at a parade with his classmates during school hours, held up a banner that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The school principal took the banner away and suspended him, and he sued on First Amendment grounds.
As I said previously, the student has every right to argue against drug laws and even, if he wants, for drug use. But he must do so at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. The principal did the right thing -- the student acted inappropriately and immaturely.
Unfortunately, that's not the way the case panned out. The Supreme Court says:
In other words, even if it doesn't stop other students from learning, and even if your case for drug use is stated in a scientific and honest manner, you can't say things the principal doesn't like. This is an attack on what you say, not how you say it in a school environment, and it's a shame.
By Robert VerBruggen
As I said previously, the student has every right to argue against drug laws and even, if he wants, for drug use. But he must do so at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner. The principal did the right thing -- the student acted inappropriately and immaturely.
Unfortunately, that's not the way the case panned out. The Supreme Court says:
A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
In other words, even if it doesn't stop other students from learning, and even if your case for drug use is stated in a scientific and honest manner, you can't say things the principal doesn't like. This is an attack on what you say, not how you say it in a school environment, and it's a shame.
By Robert VerBruggen
Revisiting incarceration
June 23rd 2007 21:13
Warning: This is a nerdy stats post.
Awhile back I blogged about international incarceration rates. I got some data -- diversity, murder rate and democracy index ratings -- and found the very odd fact that diversity and murder are not correlated with each other. However, both are correlated with incarceration rate.
This suggests that diversity makes people throw each other in prison more, but it doesn't actually cause more crime in and of itself. (Of course, in any immigration situation, this leaves the issue of where the diversity is coming from.)
Recently I downloaded Gnumeric, a free spreadsheet program that makes multiple correlation a breeze. This further confirms the results:
--Diversity, murder rate and degree of democracy together explain 44 percent of the variance in incarceration rates. Individually, they explain 21, 24 and 14 percent respectively.
--Diversity and murder rate together explain 42 percent, so degree of democracy doesn't mean much once these two factors have been controlled.
What I wonder now is -- is this just an oddity in the data set, or is it true that diversity increases incarceration without increasing crime?
New spreadsheet here.
Awhile back I blogged about international incarceration rates. I got some data -- diversity, murder rate and democracy index ratings -- and found the very odd fact that diversity and murder are not correlated with each other. However, both are correlated with incarceration rate.
This suggests that diversity makes people throw each other in prison more, but it doesn't actually cause more crime in and of itself. (Of course, in any immigration situation, this leaves the issue of where the diversity is coming from.)
Recently I downloaded Gnumeric, a free spreadsheet program that makes multiple correlation a breeze. This further confirms the results:
--Diversity, murder rate and degree of democracy together explain 44 percent of the variance in incarceration rates. Individually, they explain 21, 24 and 14 percent respectively.
--Diversity and murder rate together explain 42 percent, so degree of democracy doesn't mean much once these two factors have been controlled.
What I wonder now is -- is this just an oddity in the data set, or is it true that diversity increases incarceration without increasing crime?
New spreadsheet here.
Britons consider banning full Muslim veil
June 22nd 2007 00:43
These kinds of attacks on freedom really get to me:
There's a simple message here: If you don't want people wearing veils, don't let a bunch of people who believe in wearing veils into your country. It's absurd and offensive to bring them in, and then tell them to reject their religious customs.
By Robert VerBruggen
LONDON: Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes.
Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.
The past year has seen numerous examples: A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was told by a provincial school to go home. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In fact, the British education authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.
Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.
The past year has seen numerous examples: A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was told by a provincial school to go home. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In fact, the British education authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.
There's a simple message here: If you don't want people wearing veils, don't let a bunch of people who believe in wearing veils into your country. It's absurd and offensive to bring them in, and then tell them to reject their religious customs.
By Robert VerBruggen
Gay biology and aversion therapy
June 21st 2007 02:52
New York magazine has a terrific piece (hat tip Steve Sailer) about the biological markers of homosexuality.
One thing that caught my eye, though, was this (the writer is gay):
That, technically, is not aversion therapy. Aversion therapy is, as depicted in "A Clockwork Orange," the practice of showing someone a stimuli (e.g. violence or homosexual activity) while hurting them. As Pavlov's dog connected a bell ringing to food, the idea was that the subject would connect the activity to unpleasantness. They'd stop being violent or homosexual.
One thing that caught my eye, though, was this (the writer is gay):
Back then, many psychiatrists treated homosexuality with shock therapy, detention, or a mind-twisting intervention called "aversion therapy"—a practice that was still in vogue in the late seventies, when a lumpy-faced psychiatrist put me through a regimen of staring at Playboy centerfolds.
That, technically, is not aversion therapy. Aversion therapy is, as depicted in "A Clockwork Orange," the practice of showing someone a stimuli (e.g. violence or homosexual activity) while hurting them. As Pavlov's dog connected a bell ringing to food, the idea was that the subject would connect the activity to unpleasantness. They'd stop being violent or homosexual.
(D-Punjab) vs. gas station Gandhi
June 21st 2007 01:07
An Obama campaign document recently modified Hillary Clinton's name with (D-Punjab) because she favors outsourcing to India. Kerry Howley has an interesting piece at Reason about the incident.
She argues fairly convincingly that Clinton's support for a trading partner is good (and, whatever Clinton says, not all that obvious from her voting record) but seriously, how can you write about this without mentioning that Clinton once said Gandhi "ran a gas station down in St. Louis"?
She argues fairly convincingly that Clinton's support for a trading partner is good (and, whatever Clinton says, not all that obvious from her voting record) but seriously, how can you write about this without mentioning that Clinton once said Gandhi "ran a gas station down in St. Louis"?
On the gender pay gap
June 20th 2007 00:25
Matthew Yglesias has had two recent posts about women making less than men. He stays away from the load-of-bull "women make 77 percent of what men do" hogwash -- women tend to give up more work when they have kids, and that explains most of the gap.
Yglesias looks at college-educated, 24-year-old white men and women and finds the gap persists. He links to another blog's post that purports to control for field of study, and the gap still persists.
Still not buying it.
For one, the other blog lumps together fields like "engineering, math, and sciences" and "health, vocational/technical, and other technical/professional fields." There are many majors in both of these fields, so it's incredibly possible that men and women simply choose different majors. Also, it doesn't control for the schools attended within those fields -- in the sciences, I would guess, men are more concentrated at the most prestigious schools.
The other thing is that, even if it's not due to kids, women often choose to make less, either to have jobs they like more or to perform a public service. Take Teach for America, a program that encourages top-tier graduates to spend two years teaching in public schools. 70 percent are women. It's possible men make more money because they value money more, not because even employers discriminate against women.
By Robert VerBruggen
Yglesias looks at college-educated, 24-year-old white men and women and finds the gap persists. He links to another blog's post that purports to control for field of study, and the gap still persists.
Still not buying it.
For one, the other blog lumps together fields like "engineering, math, and sciences" and "health, vocational/technical, and other technical/professional fields." There are many majors in both of these fields, so it's incredibly possible that men and women simply choose different majors. Also, it doesn't control for the schools attended within those fields -- in the sciences, I would guess, men are more concentrated at the most prestigious schools.
The other thing is that, even if it's not due to kids, women often choose to make less, either to have jobs they like more or to perform a public service. Take Teach for America, a program that encourages top-tier graduates to spend two years teaching in public schools. 70 percent are women. It's possible men make more money because they value money more, not because even employers discriminate against women.
By Robert VerBruggen
My dog can play the piano
June 18th 2007 23:47
If I record him, who's up for giving me $350 ?
Bone Thugs-N-Harmony review up at antiMusic
June 16th 2007 03:20
Here it is.
Main point:
Main point:
There's nothing shocking here stylistically – if anything, they've merely fused their sound with that of the modern rap scene – but damn is it a good listen.
...
The big question: Can Strength & Loyalty rescue hip-hop from its recent decline? In March, the Associated Press reported that while CD sales in general dropped a bit between 2005 and 2006, rap sagged 21 percent.
Of course not...Gangster rap is simply too limited a style to show much growth, and most of the recent fresh sounds (Kanye West, Common, "soldier rappers" 4th25) have come from outside it. Hip-hop's savior will probably find some other things to talk about.
The ship might sink, but with Strength & Loyalty it'll go down in style.
...
The big question: Can Strength & Loyalty rescue hip-hop from its recent decline? In March, the Associated Press reported that while CD sales in general dropped a bit between 2005 and 2006, rap sagged 21 percent.
Of course not...Gangster rap is simply too limited a style to show much growth, and most of the recent fresh sounds (Kanye West, Common, "soldier rappers" 4th25) have come from outside it. Hip-hop's savior will probably find some other things to talk about.
The ship might sink, but with Strength & Loyalty it'll go down in style.
Strategery suggestions for Ron Paul
June 15th 2007 01:16
Lately I've often made the point that I usually agree with Ron Paul, but that he's been a complete moron in terms of winning people over.
Well, my friend Michael Brendan Dougherty decided that rather than whine about it like I have been, he should propose a solution:
It's a great idea: Appeal to people's growing cynicism about the Middle East, rather than trying to go through complicated theories about blowback, etc.
By Robert VerBruggen
Well, my friend Michael Brendan Dougherty decided that rather than whine about it like I have been, he should propose a solution:
Noninterventionists on the right never tire of pointing out that their policy prescriptions have roots in the Founding Fathers. Paul could learn something from their style, too.
They did not just discuss ideas dispassionately; they popularized them. Washington's farewell address, the driving document of noninterventionists, was meant to be persuasive: "Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
In other words, Europeans are crazy; young, innocent America should be wary of entering into their quarrels. You might call this "blame foreigners first isolationism."
...
In the debate, Paul began groping toward this framing of his views by saying, "I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."
...
The basic sentiment informing conservative foreign policy over the past century has been nationalism -- a dogged belief that America's involvement with the world should enhance the security, prosperity and prestige of Americans.
They did not just discuss ideas dispassionately; they popularized them. Washington's farewell address, the driving document of noninterventionists, was meant to be persuasive: "Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
In other words, Europeans are crazy; young, innocent America should be wary of entering into their quarrels. You might call this "blame foreigners first isolationism."
...
In the debate, Paul began groping toward this framing of his views by saying, "I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics."
...
The basic sentiment informing conservative foreign policy over the past century has been nationalism -- a dogged belief that America's involvement with the world should enhance the security, prosperity and prestige of Americans.
It's a great idea: Appeal to people's growing cynicism about the Middle East, rather than trying to go through complicated theories about blowback, etc.
By Robert VerBruggen
Today's immigration idiocy, part II: Linda Chavez
June 12th 2007 23:20
I'm not going to say much about Linda Chavez's NRO article , in which she apologizes for calling many conservatives racists, and instead calls a few specific conservatives racists. I think the responses do a good job of debunking it, particularly John Derbyshire's and Heather Mac Donald's.
The point I'd like to make is this: Why do immigration proponents argue their opponents are prejudiced? Obviously, it's to tar the enemy, but let's follow it out logically. Aren't they saying "America is a bigoted society, and even many of its top intellectuals are racists. Therefore, we should bring in a bunch of minorities and see what happens!"?
By Robert VerBruggen
The point I'd like to make is this: Why do immigration proponents argue their opponents are prejudiced? Obviously, it's to tar the enemy, but let's follow it out logically. Aren't they saying "America is a bigoted society, and even many of its top intellectuals are racists. Therefore, we should bring in a bunch of minorities and see what happens!"?
By Robert VerBruggen
Today's immigration idiocy, part I: Steven Landsburg
June 12th 2007 23:11
On Slate today, Steven Landsburg alleges that opponents of illegal immigration must deem immigrants' lives as worth less than one-fifth the value of Americans' lives. Here's his reasoning:
--Assume illegal immigrants' wages rise, roughly, from $2 to $9 an hour. For each immigrant who comes in, an American's wages drop $3, from $10 to $7.
--Since Mexicans are poor, even relative to low-wage Americans, they value each dollar more. As he puts it, "The most conservative standard assumption is that the value of an extra dollar is inversely proportional to your income, so an extra dollar is worth five times as much to a $2-an-hour Mexican as it is to a $10-an-hour American. The immigrant's second dollar is worth a little less, and the third a little less than that." Therefore, the immigrant's $7 gain is worth more than five times the American's $3 loss.
He makes a number of crucial errors here. For one, he claims to be calculating how much we value the lives of "immigrants," which by definition means people who've already come to another country. But his calculations apply to additional immigrants. The question he meant to ask was, "How much do we value people who live in other countries?"
The answer can only be, "Not much, beyond the right to sovereignty." To value other countries' citizens as equal (or close to equal) to our own would mean buying other nations out of poverty and intervening in every country's problems. There may be situations where we should indeed do that (the recent tsunami, Rwanda), but it's simply not practical to do for every person worldwide what we do for our own people. It's arguable we should do more than we do now, but by and large our problems are ours, and their problems are theirs.
Two, his calculations of immigration's costs are remarkably stupid. Yes, wages are a big part of the problem, but the fact is that immigrants also use government social services and cause increases in crime (for Mexicans, the latter increase is mainly among the children of immigrants, not the immigrants themselves). Some studies do indeed show immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out, but it's very difficult to add every transaction together. Landsburg doesn't even try; he just ignores these factors altogether.
Three, there's the idea of marginal utility -- that $1 means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person. He applies that principle between poor Americans and poor Mexicans, but he doesn't consider it between rich and poor Americans:
[An immigrant] bids down wages, but that's a two-edged sword: It's bad for his fellow workers, but it's good for employers and good for consumers...In the very short run, most of the gains go to employers, and a substantial fraction of those gains probably go to people named Walton.
So doesn't that hurt the workers more than it helps the employers and consumers? People who compete with illegal immigrants value each dollar more than their employers and most of their consumers do.
Finally, there's this ridiculous statement:
Sure. But if your wages fall 10 percent and prices fall 1 or 2 percent, you're a loser. I made those numbers up, but I'd bet they're a heck of a lot closer than Landsburg's. Steve Sailer once cited a Seattle Times article saying:
The bottom line is that immigration proponents have to make their arguments based on the American national interest. It's cute to act like anti-immigration pundits are actually dehumanizing other people, but it's not constructive.
--Assume illegal immigrants' wages rise, roughly, from $2 to $9 an hour. For each immigrant who comes in, an American's wages drop $3, from $10 to $7.
--Since Mexicans are poor, even relative to low-wage Americans, they value each dollar more. As he puts it, "The most conservative standard assumption is that the value of an extra dollar is inversely proportional to your income, so an extra dollar is worth five times as much to a $2-an-hour Mexican as it is to a $10-an-hour American. The immigrant's second dollar is worth a little less, and the third a little less than that." Therefore, the immigrant's $7 gain is worth more than five times the American's $3 loss.
He makes a number of crucial errors here. For one, he claims to be calculating how much we value the lives of "immigrants," which by definition means people who've already come to another country. But his calculations apply to additional immigrants. The question he meant to ask was, "How much do we value people who live in other countries?"
The answer can only be, "Not much, beyond the right to sovereignty." To value other countries' citizens as equal (or close to equal) to our own would mean buying other nations out of poverty and intervening in every country's problems. There may be situations where we should indeed do that (the recent tsunami, Rwanda), but it's simply not practical to do for every person worldwide what we do for our own people. It's arguable we should do more than we do now, but by and large our problems are ours, and their problems are theirs.
Two, his calculations of immigration's costs are remarkably stupid. Yes, wages are a big part of the problem, but the fact is that immigrants also use government social services and cause increases in crime (for Mexicans, the latter increase is mainly among the children of immigrants, not the immigrants themselves). Some studies do indeed show immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out, but it's very difficult to add every transaction together. Landsburg doesn't even try; he just ignores these factors altogether.
Three, there's the idea of marginal utility -- that $1 means more to a poor person than it does to a rich person. He applies that principle between poor Americans and poor Mexicans, but he doesn't consider it between rich and poor Americans:
[An immigrant] bids down wages, but that's a two-edged sword: It's bad for his fellow workers, but it's good for employers and good for consumers...In the very short run, most of the gains go to employers, and a substantial fraction of those gains probably go to people named Walton.
So doesn't that hurt the workers more than it helps the employers and consumers? People who compete with illegal immigrants value each dollar more than their employers and most of their consumers do.
Finally, there's this ridiculous statement:
In the somewhat longer run, all that excess profit gets competed away and shows up in the form of lower prices for consumer goods. At that point, even the workers who took pay cuts can come out ahead: If your wage falls by 10 percent while prices fall by 20 percent, you're a winner.
Sure. But if your wages fall 10 percent and prices fall 1 or 2 percent, you're a loser. I made those numbers up, but I'd bet they're a heck of a lot closer than Landsburg's. Steve Sailer once cited a Seattle Times article saying:
You might assume that the plentiful supply of low-wage illegal workers would translate into significantly lower prices for the goods and services they produce. In fact, their impact on consumer prices - call it the "illegal-worker discount" - is surprisingly small.
The bag of Washington state apples you bought last weekend? Probably a few cents cheaper than it otherwise would have been, economists estimate. That steak dinner at a downtown restaurant? Maybe a buck off. Your new house in Subdivision Estates? Hard to say, but perhaps a few thousand dollars less expensive.
The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor - whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born - represents only a sliver of the retail price.
The bag of Washington state apples you bought last weekend? Probably a few cents cheaper than it otherwise would have been, economists estimate. That steak dinner at a downtown restaurant? Maybe a buck off. Your new house in Subdivision Estates? Hard to say, but perhaps a few thousand dollars less expensive.
The underlying reason, economists say, is that for most goods the labor - whether legal or illegal, native- or foreign-born - represents only a sliver of the retail price.
The bottom line is that immigration proponents have to make their arguments based on the American national interest. It's cute to act like anti-immigration pundits are actually dehumanizing other people, but it's not constructive.
Slash, fighting for freedom worldwide
June 12th 2007 11:14
Rush review up at antiMusic
June 10th 2007 22:55
antiMusic has my review of Rush's Snakes & Arrows.
Main point:
Main point:
A casual listener will find 13 incredibly catchy and well constructed songs. It's the kind of album anyone can listen to straight through without thinking twice. The tracks end before anyone realizes six minutes have passed, and even the odd time signatures feel natural. Three instrumentals entrance the listener even when they're repetitive.
It's a shame that many will stop here, because there's much to enjoy in Snakes & Arrows' innumerable layers. The band, along with producer Nick Raskulinecz (about whose work with Shadows Fall I remarked, "One could listen to Threads of Life for days") have created a sonic masterpiece.
Acoustic and electric guitars weave together seamlessly, blending into an open and textured sound. In the superb "Workin' Them Angels," for example, gentle strumming in the pre-chorus builds into loud power chords for the chorus. And on "Faithless," the audience can hear synthesized strings in the background, reminding it that Rush was once known for heavy keyboard use.
There is no weak spot here.
It's a shame that many will stop here, because there's much to enjoy in Snakes & Arrows' innumerable layers. The band, along with producer Nick Raskulinecz (about whose work with Shadows Fall I remarked, "One could listen to Threads of Life for days") have created a sonic masterpiece.
Acoustic and electric guitars weave together seamlessly, blending into an open and textured sound. In the superb "Workin' Them Angels," for example, gentle strumming in the pre-chorus builds into loud power chords for the chorus. And on "Faithless," the audience can hear synthesized strings in the background, reminding it that Rush was once known for heavy keyboard use.
There is no weak spot here.
EBow on acoustic
June 10th 2007 18:59
This is a guitar post, so ignore it if you don't play.
I don't know why a company would shoot itself in the foot like this:
The answer should have been, simply, "yes." It works even if you don't have a pickup of any sort -- though they're right that the noise of the EBow across the strings is annoying then.
This answer doesn't do a good job of explaining how the EBow works. It doesn't rely on magnetic pickups to create the sound; rather, the magnets in the device make the string vibrate regardless of what kind of guitar it is. Magnetic pickups just do a good job of screening out the noise of the device scraping the strings.
I don't know why a company would shoot itself in the foot like this:
Will the EBow work on Acoustic?
If you have a magnetic pickup in the sound hole, the EBow should respond as it would on a solid body electric, though the strings tend to decay more quickly and activate more slowly. Acoustics with bridge transducers, piezo pickups or microphones will be much quieter and, of course, there is no HotSpot, which is necessary for bowing strokes and spiccato. However, you can get a very clean, natural sounding string tone. When moving from string-to-string on an acoustic without a magnetic pickup in the sound hole, you should mute the SupportStrings to reduce the noise of the EBow on the strings.
If you have a magnetic pickup in the sound hole, the EBow should respond as it would on a solid body electric, though the strings tend to decay more quickly and activate more slowly. Acoustics with bridge transducers, piezo pickups or microphones will be much quieter and, of course, there is no HotSpot, which is necessary for bowing strokes and spiccato. However, you can get a very clean, natural sounding string tone. When moving from string-to-string on an acoustic without a magnetic pickup in the sound hole, you should mute the SupportStrings to reduce the noise of the EBow on the strings.
The answer should have been, simply, "yes." It works even if you don't have a pickup of any sort -- though they're right that the noise of the EBow across the strings is annoying then.
This answer doesn't do a good job of explaining how the EBow works. It doesn't rely on magnetic pickups to create the sound; rather, the magnets in the device make the string vibrate regardless of what kind of guitar it is. Magnetic pickups just do a good job of screening out the noise of the device scraping the strings.
New song up at MySpace
June 10th 2007 18:46
It's a rough mix of my as-yet-untitled three-minute opus. I had quite a bit of fun recording it.
In the last year I've relocated to DC, so I only managed to bring my acoustic guitar a few months back. This is the first time I've recorded it, and I have to say the NT1-A (if you follow that link, I'm pretty sure they mean "why pay more," not "why pay less") did a superb job. As usual, the electric guitars are my Epiphone Les Paul run through a Behringer LX210 and out through the XLR ports. Recording direct is awesome.
I also managed to work in a few toys. It heavily employs the EBow, a very fun gadget I'm not very good at using. And right as I thought I was done recording, I spotted an egg shaker I bought with some birthday money a couple months ago, and presto! Listen for it on the right side of the second verse.
Composition-wise, I'm still not sure it was the best idea to have so many solos. It opens with one on EBow, then two verses, then an acoustic break with a classical-ish solo, then right into a big electric one. I think they turned out well though.
I'll mix it better sometime soon, and master it, but until then the rough mix has a decent volume. You be the judge, and let me know your thoughts.
In the last year I've relocated to DC, so I only managed to bring my acoustic guitar a few months back. This is the first time I've recorded it, and I have to say the NT1-A (if you follow that link, I'm pretty sure they mean "why pay more," not "why pay less") did a superb job. As usual, the electric guitars are my Epiphone Les Paul run through a Behringer LX210 and out through the XLR ports. Recording direct is awesome.
I also managed to work in a few toys. It heavily employs the EBow, a very fun gadget I'm not very good at using. And right as I thought I was done recording, I spotted an egg shaker I bought with some birthday money a couple months ago, and presto! Listen for it on the right side of the second verse.
Composition-wise, I'm still not sure it was the best idea to have so many solos. It opens with one on EBow, then two verses, then an acoustic break with a classical-ish solo, then right into a big electric one. I think they turned out well though.
I'll mix it better sometime soon, and master it, but until then the rough mix has a decent volume. You be the judge, and let me know your thoughts.
Why I will never go to Wales
June 9th 2007 01:04
I don't want to be anywhere where Slash can't smoke.
Why video game plots are so terrible
June 8th 2007 01:23
Wired has the scoop, from a game writer-turned-novelist:
The only thing I'd like to add is that it's not just the stories that suck; it's the dialog, too. You can play an M rated game -- supposedly designed for ages 17 and up -- and they'll still be saying ridiculous things like "Damn you, Scartorus! I'll do whatever I can to stop you!" It's like a comic book or cartoon for children.
By Robert VerBruggen
"Writing a novel was completely awesome because parts of it could suck and I could throw them away," he laughed. "I didn't have to know the ending until I got there." Stories for video games, on the other hand, are very rarely revised. Grossman recalls how game developers might start building the animation of a final battle scene right after he'd delivered an outline of the story. Even if he realized later that having the battle there was stupid, it was already coded and couldn't be changed.
He believes video game stories are stronger when designers use the "waterfall" process, beginning with a small prototype of the game, then playing and altering it continually throughout development. "Companies have to accept more uncertainty in the design process," Grossman argues. "That's the only way to get a good story."
Another problem comes when designers try to shoehorn storytelling devices like character development into games. "Video games have their own emotional vocabulary, their own language," Grossman says. "Maybe they just don't do character."
He believes video game stories are stronger when designers use the "waterfall" process, beginning with a small prototype of the game, then playing and altering it continually throughout development. "Companies have to accept more uncertainty in the design process," Grossman argues. "That's the only way to get a good story."
Another problem comes when designers try to shoehorn storytelling devices like character development into games. "Video games have their own emotional vocabulary, their own language," Grossman says. "Maybe they just don't do character."
The only thing I'd like to add is that it's not just the stories that suck; it's the dialog, too. You can play an M rated game -- supposedly designed for ages 17 and up -- and they'll still be saying ridiculous things like "Damn you, Scartorus! I'll do whatever I can to stop you!" It's like a comic book or cartoon for children.
By Robert VerBruggen
On the GOP debate tonight
June 6th 2007 01:25
Just got done watching it, and I have to say it was one of the most poorly moderated debates I've ever seen.
Wolf Blitzer was a big part of the problem. Ten seconds into every response he cut in with something like "thank you...thank you senator..." regardless of whether they were answering the question. He interrupted some very intelligent, reasonably brief and quite coherent responses.
Usually they talked over him, so he managed to distract and annoy the audience without moving the debate along. (Why not use a timer, and cut the microphone off shortly after time runs out? That would solve all these problems. But given the technical difficulties already present with CNN -- the sound dropped out numerous times in the first half of the debate -- maybe that's too much to handle.)
One thing he did right was to ask the same question multiple times when the candidates evaded him...except that, well, he couldn't do that right, either.
I just about blew a gasket when he asked Huckabee if he believed in the Biblical version of creation. Huckabee responded that God created the universe, but he wasn't sure how; he specifically mentioned that he didn't know how long it took.
Blitzer (loosely paraphrased): But the question was, do you think the Bible is literally right? Did God create the universe in six days?
RRRRRGGGGGHHHH.
The panel of additional questioners was no better. One of the morons stated as a fact that immigrants are doing jobs Americans won't. Well, as economists have explained time and again, there's no such thing as a job Americans won't do, just a price they won't do it at.
As the candidate (forget which one) responded, when the government cracks down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, the businesses hire Americans at higher wages. This makes products more expensive, but it's a blatant fallacy that lazy Americans just won't do the work. In fact, in most of the "jobs Americans won't do," a significant proportion of the employees are Americans.
Finally, I'd like to take a quick snipe at Ron Paul. I agree with the guy on a lot -- foreign intervention provokes terrorists, we need to cut back on immigration, we need less government, abortion is wrong, etc. But (and I hope I don't give away the ending here) he is not going to win the nomination. Therefore, his goal should be to gain as many supporters as he can, so that the other candidates have a reason to endorse his positions -- they can get those supporters when Paul drops out.
But it seems he has no desire to attract voters, and if anything, the other candidates gain points from distancing themselves from him. At the first debate, the moderator asked what tax he'd cut, and he said "the inflation tax" and went on some tangent about monetary policy few Americans could understand. Debate two, he played up his belief that intervention spurs terrorism, prompting Giuliani to insinuate that Paul believed we caused or deserved 9/11.
This time, when the candidates were introducing themselves, most said something like "I want to keep jobs in America" or "I want to make sure you don't die." Not Ron Paul! He said something along the lines of "I'm the candidate for the Constitution." There's a direct appeal to people's interests.
By Robert VerBruggen
Wolf Blitzer was a big part of the problem. Ten seconds into every response he cut in with something like "thank you...thank you senator..." regardless of whether they were answering the question. He interrupted some very intelligent, reasonably brief and quite coherent responses.
Usually they talked over him, so he managed to distract and annoy the audience without moving the debate along. (Why not use a timer, and cut the microphone off shortly after time runs out? That would solve all these problems. But given the technical difficulties already present with CNN -- the sound dropped out numerous times in the first half of the debate -- maybe that's too much to handle.)
One thing he did right was to ask the same question multiple times when the candidates evaded him...except that, well, he couldn't do that right, either.
I just about blew a gasket when he asked Huckabee if he believed in the Biblical version of creation. Huckabee responded that God created the universe, but he wasn't sure how; he specifically mentioned that he didn't know how long it took.
Blitzer (loosely paraphrased): But the question was, do you think the Bible is literally right? Did God create the universe in six days?
RRRRRGGGGGHHHH.
The panel of additional questioners was no better. One of the morons stated as a fact that immigrants are doing jobs Americans won't. Well, as economists have explained time and again, there's no such thing as a job Americans won't do, just a price they won't do it at.
As the candidate (forget which one) responded, when the government cracks down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, the businesses hire Americans at higher wages. This makes products more expensive, but it's a blatant fallacy that lazy Americans just won't do the work. In fact, in most of the "jobs Americans won't do," a significant proportion of the employees are Americans.
Finally, I'd like to take a quick snipe at Ron Paul. I agree with the guy on a lot -- foreign intervention provokes terrorists, we need to cut back on immigration, we need less government, abortion is wrong, etc. But (and I hope I don't give away the ending here) he is not going to win the nomination. Therefore, his goal should be to gain as many supporters as he can, so that the other candidates have a reason to endorse his positions -- they can get those supporters when Paul drops out.
But it seems he has no desire to attract voters, and if anything, the other candidates gain points from distancing themselves from him. At the first debate, the moderator asked what tax he'd cut, and he said "the inflation tax" and went on some tangent about monetary policy few Americans could understand. Debate two, he played up his belief that intervention spurs terrorism, prompting Giuliani to insinuate that Paul believed we caused or deserved 9/11.
This time, when the candidates were introducing themselves, most said something like "I want to keep jobs in America" or "I want to make sure you don't die." Not Ron Paul! He said something along the lines of "I'm the candidate for the Constitution." There's a direct appeal to people's interests.
By Robert VerBruggen
Draw what you know
June 5th 2007 02:32
Or, don't. In the Washington Post's free daily this morning, I spotted this piece of art (now on display in DC).
It's somewhat understandable when run-of-the-mill journalists mess up gun stuff; they don't know much about it and have to learn on deadline. But when you're putting that kind of effort into something -- drawing and coloring -- wouldn't you at least make sure your facts were right?
You do see what I'm seeing, right? If you don't, ask yourself: What on Earth could have propelled the bullet? The casing that contains the gunpowder is still attached.
It's somewhat understandable when run-of-the-mill journalists mess up gun stuff; they don't know much about it and have to learn on deadline. But when you're putting that kind of effort into something -- drawing and coloring -- wouldn't you at least make sure your facts were right?
You do see what I'm seeing, right? If you don't, ask yourself: What on Earth could have propelled the bullet? The casing that contains the gunpowder is still attached.
Marilyn Manson review up at antiMusic
June 4th 2007 03:17
Here it is. Main points:
Manson is better known for sulking (and sacrilege) than strutting, but here his AC/DC colors shine through. "They Say That Hell's Not Hot," for example, features jangly guitars and a swaggering, midtempo beat. The chorus to "Putting Holes in Happiness," perhaps the record's most brilliant idea, combines a fist-pumping guitar riff with subdued, angry vocals.
...
Longtime fans need not worry, though; there's something for everyone. "If I Was Your Vampire" represents Manson at his darkest and most overdramatic ("I love you so much you must kill me now"), where "Are You the Rabbit?," with its cartoon-sludge-metal vibe via super-fuzzy guitars, sounds like it's from 1994's Portrait of an American Family. The ill-titled "Mutilation is the Most Sincere Form of Flattery" has some of the vaudevillian stylings one finds on The Golden Age of Grotesque.
...
Marilyn Manson will never again seem as threatening as he did a decade ago. But he's put out an entire catalog of worthwhile material, and Eat Me, Drink Me only adds to his legacy.
...
Longtime fans need not worry, though; there's something for everyone. "If I Was Your Vampire" represents Manson at his darkest and most overdramatic ("I love you so much you must kill me now"), where "Are You the Rabbit?," with its cartoon-sludge-metal vibe via super-fuzzy guitars, sounds like it's from 1994's Portrait of an American Family. The ill-titled "Mutilation is the Most Sincere Form of Flattery" has some of the vaudevillian stylings one finds on The Golden Age of Grotesque.
...
Marilyn Manson will never again seem as threatening as he did a decade ago. But he's put out an entire catalog of worthwhile material, and Eat Me, Drink Me only adds to his legacy.
Quick thought on subsidies
June 4th 2007 02:04
Apologies to all for not blogging more lately -- I've been doing a lot of writing and traveling (went to NY this weekend) and haven't seen much in the news I have much to say about.
However, on the bus ride back to DC it struck me how a lot of economists prattle on about "getting the incentives right" for given behaviors ; that is, if there isn't enough of something, the government should subsidize it.
What they never mention, though, is that the subsidy has to come from somewhere.
So here's my random thought (a la Thomas Sowell): A subsidy is when the government takes your money, then refuses to give it back until you do what it says. It calls this "voluntary."
By Robert VerBruggen
However, on the bus ride back to DC it struck me how a lot of economists prattle on about "getting the incentives right" for given behaviors ; that is, if there isn't enough of something, the government should subsidize it.
What they never mention, though, is that the subsidy has to come from somewhere.
So here's my random thought (a la Thomas Sowell): A subsidy is when the government takes your money, then refuses to give it back until you do what it says. It calls this "voluntary."
By Robert VerBruggen
