Apparently a growing number of researchers are saying so, even alleging it partly explains the severe black-white mortality gap. To a certain degree they're right -- some infant deaths are stress-related, racism causes stress, and blacks face more racism than whites.
John Lott needed little more than a Google search to prove it's not that big a cause, though. He cites one report:
The infant mortality rate for Black Americans in 1999 was 2.5 times the rate of White Americans. In 1950 the mortality rate of black infants was only 1.5 times the rate of white infants. This is a 67% increase between 1950 and 1999 in the gap between black and white infant mortality.
Since racism improved for blacks but not so much for whites in that time span, if it's a major cause we'd expect black infant mortality to have improved more than white mortality.
However, there are a bunch of different ways to look at the data, and I'm not sure which is right for the question at hand. Overall infant mortality fell from 29.2 to 7.1 per 1,000 births between 1950 and 1999. For blacks the numbers are 43.9 and 14.6, whites 26.8 and 5.8.
(Because of the different ways the data were collected in different years, I had to conflate "white/black children" with "children born to white/black mothers." For the years where the numbers overlap, they're pretty similar.)
One might point out that the black mortality rate improved by about 30 deaths per 1,000, whereas whites only improved by 20. Maybe racism was causing 10 or more deaths for every 1,000 black infants, and now it's causing 10 fewer. Much of the remaining gap has to do with current racism. But then again, whites had fewer than 30 lives to improve by to begin with, so there's no way to test this.
Alternately, the changes between 1950 and 1999 dropped the white rate by 78.4 percent, the black rate by 66.8 percent. The overall rate fell by 75.3 percent. This -- blacks' rates improving less than whites' when they should have improved more -- fits with Lott's thesis.
And we should bear in mind that stress, nevermind specifically racism-related stress, is but one of many factors that could impact the disparity:
In trying to narrow the gap, the government could work on any one of those and have more success than in trying to ameliorate subtle, modern racism.
Finally, one interesting thing I saw in the data is that overall infant mortality fell from 20 to 12.6 between 1970 and 1980. There were significant improvements at other times (26 to 20 in the 1960s, for example), but I would guess that's largely a Roe v. Wade effect. I'd imagine mothers who wish they could abort their kids, but can't, don't work too hard to stave off birth complications. Not to go all Steven Levitt or anything.
John Lott needed little more than a Google search to prove it's not that big a cause, though. He cites one report:
The infant mortality rate for Black Americans in 1999 was 2.5 times the rate of White Americans. In 1950 the mortality rate of black infants was only 1.5 times the rate of white infants. This is a 67% increase between 1950 and 1999 in the gap between black and white infant mortality.
Since racism improved for blacks but not so much for whites in that time span, if it's a major cause we'd expect black infant mortality to have improved more than white mortality.
However, there are a bunch of different ways to look at the data, and I'm not sure which is right for the question at hand. Overall infant mortality fell from 29.2 to 7.1 per 1,000 births between 1950 and 1999. For blacks the numbers are 43.9 and 14.6, whites 26.8 and 5.8.
(Because of the different ways the data were collected in different years, I had to conflate "white/black children" with "children born to white/black mothers." For the years where the numbers overlap, they're pretty similar.)
One might point out that the black mortality rate improved by about 30 deaths per 1,000, whereas whites only improved by 20. Maybe racism was causing 10 or more deaths for every 1,000 black infants, and now it's causing 10 fewer. Much of the remaining gap has to do with current racism. But then again, whites had fewer than 30 lives to improve by to begin with, so there's no way to test this.
Alternately, the changes between 1950 and 1999 dropped the white rate by 78.4 percent, the black rate by 66.8 percent. The overall rate fell by 75.3 percent. This -- blacks' rates improving less than whites' when they should have improved more -- fits with Lott's thesis.
And we should bear in mind that stress, nevermind specifically racism-related stress, is but one of many factors that could impact the disparity:
poverty, poor nutrition, inadequate prenatal care, teen pregnancy, heredity, high blood pressure, stress, obesity, low birth weights and prematurity.
In trying to narrow the gap, the government could work on any one of those and have more success than in trying to ameliorate subtle, modern racism.
Finally, one interesting thing I saw in the data is that overall infant mortality fell from 20 to 12.6 between 1970 and 1980. There were significant improvements at other times (26 to 20 in the 1960s, for example), but I would guess that's largely a Roe v. Wade effect. I'd imagine mothers who wish they could abort their kids, but can't, don't work too hard to stave off birth complications. Not to go all Steven Levitt or anything.
Sex news roundup!
Some people have made a lot of noise about Durex's new sex partners survey . Worldwide, on average, it found straight men have had 13 partners, straight women seven, gay men 108 and gay women 11. Problem number one is that it was conducted via online interviews, and even in the most developed countries, Internet access and use varies significantly by demographic.
Two, as various math-types have pointed out before, it's not possible for straight men and straight women to have a different average number of partners (save for whatever small effects bisexuals, the fact there are slightly more women than men in the world, partners dying, etc., have). Every time two people have sex who haven't had sex with each other before, each adds one to their total partners, so the gender balance stays the same. I would suggest both women and men are lying -- women underestimating, men overestimating -- and the true number is around 10.
(Men and women could, of course, have a different median number of sex partners. I would guess there's a sort of female dichotomy, with some women quite loose and others quite modest. Men probably cluster more closely around the mean.)
Also, Foreign Policy has a quite-terrible summary of the study. It claims to debunk the notion that "married couples are more cautious," as if unprotected sex between spouses is remotely comparable to unprotected sex between strangers. It also claims gays, straights and bisexuals have "comparable rates of unprotected sex" -- when the difference between gays and straights is substantial (58 vs. 46 percent unprotected) and gays (at least gay men) have somewhere around nine times as many sex partners as straights do. Even if gays and straights both had 50 percent unprotected sex, gays would be doing it with 54 partners, straights seven.
***
In other sex news, Slate.com has a series about it. The site asks sex experts what they still don't understand about it. Most respond, "How can I be so smart about sex and everyone else so stupid?" Um, because you spent your whole life studying it.
Then there's an argument that the HPV vaccine doesn't promote promiscuity:
Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would "promote promiscuity" among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don't get cervical cancer; only "loose" ones do—and they may get what they deserve.
Yeah...no. No one says the promiscuous "deserve" cancer.
What they're saying is that (A) HPV is sexually transmitted, so it's pointless to force prudes to get a $300 shot, (B) HPV is one risk of promiscuity, so eliminating that risk makes promiscuity more attractive, however slightly, and (C) a parent who takes a child in for an STD vaccination communicates the assumption that the child will be sexually irresponsible. All these arguments are pretty much true on their face. One can argue the benefits outweigh these costs, but these are in fact costs.
And not to mention (D), the vast majority of cancer-causing HPV cases are contracted at ages much older than the girls being vaccinated by law are. The vaccine is proven effective for such a short time that it will wear off before most cancer-causing cases take place.
Two, as various math-types have pointed out before, it's not possible for straight men and straight women to have a different average number of partners (save for whatever small effects bisexuals, the fact there are slightly more women than men in the world, partners dying, etc., have). Every time two people have sex who haven't had sex with each other before, each adds one to their total partners, so the gender balance stays the same. I would suggest both women and men are lying -- women underestimating, men overestimating -- and the true number is around 10.
(Men and women could, of course, have a different median number of sex partners. I would guess there's a sort of female dichotomy, with some women quite loose and others quite modest. Men probably cluster more closely around the mean.)
Also, Foreign Policy has a quite-terrible summary of the study. It claims to debunk the notion that "married couples are more cautious," as if unprotected sex between spouses is remotely comparable to unprotected sex between strangers. It also claims gays, straights and bisexuals have "comparable rates of unprotected sex" -- when the difference between gays and straights is substantial (58 vs. 46 percent unprotected) and gays (at least gay men) have somewhere around nine times as many sex partners as straights do. Even if gays and straights both had 50 percent unprotected sex, gays would be doing it with 54 partners, straights seven.
***
In other sex news, Slate.com has a series about it. The site asks sex experts what they still don't understand about it. Most respond, "How can I be so smart about sex and everyone else so stupid?" Um, because you spent your whole life studying it.
Then there's an argument that the HPV vaccine doesn't promote promiscuity:
Much less understandable, though, is the position taken by many opponents: namely, that a cervical-cancer vaccination would "promote promiscuity" among teenage girls. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that good girls don't get cervical cancer; only "loose" ones do—and they may get what they deserve.
Yeah...no. No one says the promiscuous "deserve" cancer.
What they're saying is that (A) HPV is sexually transmitted, so it's pointless to force prudes to get a $300 shot, (B) HPV is one risk of promiscuity, so eliminating that risk makes promiscuity more attractive, however slightly, and (C) a parent who takes a child in for an STD vaccination communicates the assumption that the child will be sexually irresponsible. All these arguments are pretty much true on their face. One can argue the benefits outweigh these costs, but these are in fact costs.
And not to mention (D), the vast majority of cancer-causing HPV cases are contracted at ages much older than the girls being vaccinated by law are. The vaccine is proven effective for such a short time that it will wear off before most cancer-causing cases take place.
IQ, race and prediction
September 28th 2007 01:13
I'm a little skeptical of this J. Philippe Rushton VDARE piece.
One of the common points made about standardized testing is that tests predict life outcomes for blacks as well as they do for whites. A white person and a black person with the same SAT or IQ will do about the same in school and life, and if anything the black person will do a little worse -- if IQ tests were biased against blacks, they would underpredict black achievement, and blacks would do better than their scores predicted.
But this is what the VDARE article says:
The Bell Curve documented that IQ scores predict equally well for all groups. For example, Blacks with IQs of 114 have an equal (or better) chance of graduating from college than Whites and Latinos with the same IQs—68%, 50%, and 49%, respectively, and also of getting top jobs (likely a result of affirmative action programs).
Actually, those numbers indicate that IQ tests are biased against blacks. A higher ratio of blacks than whites with a given IQ will graduate college -- that means IQ scores are underpredicting black performance. Did Rushton get his numbers messed up?
Of course, affirmative action does as good a job explaining this as underprediction does, but the numbers don't have the meaning Rushton ascribes to them at all.
One of the common points made about standardized testing is that tests predict life outcomes for blacks as well as they do for whites. A white person and a black person with the same SAT or IQ will do about the same in school and life, and if anything the black person will do a little worse -- if IQ tests were biased against blacks, they would underpredict black achievement, and blacks would do better than their scores predicted.
But this is what the VDARE article says:
The Bell Curve documented that IQ scores predict equally well for all groups. For example, Blacks with IQs of 114 have an equal (or better) chance of graduating from college than Whites and Latinos with the same IQs—68%, 50%, and 49%, respectively, and also of getting top jobs (likely a result of affirmative action programs).
Actually, those numbers indicate that IQ tests are biased against blacks. A higher ratio of blacks than whites with a given IQ will graduate college -- that means IQ scores are underpredicting black performance. Did Rushton get his numbers messed up?
Of course, affirmative action does as good a job explaining this as underprediction does, but the numbers don't have the meaning Rushton ascribes to them at all.
Stupid, lazy college kids these days...
September 26th 2007 21:59
Lisa Fabrizio weighs in on the college debate with this. She's right that kids misbehave in college more than they should, and even that some folks encourage going to college for no particular reason. It's quite arguable that too many people are pursuing degrees these days.
But this is wrong:
No, "short generations ago," sending kids to college depended on whether you could afford it, and whether you had the right pedigree to get a child in. Only recently have college admissions become extremely tied to academic ability, affirmative action notwithstanding -- more people in general get in, but they're drawn more specifically from the high-IQ population. "Short generations ago," most very smart people didn't go to college. The Bell Curve. Read it.
Then there's this:
So it's a birthright...but only for two-thirds of the population? I could see saying it's a birthright for the rich, or for the very-high-IQ holders, but many people face quite a bit of uncertainty.
But this is wrong:
Short generations ago, sending kids to college was an easy choice. Your child either did or did not demonstrate the willingness and capability required to learn at the university level. This meant that he was prepared to hunker down to study in a serious manner in order to secure the education needed for a pre-chosen profession. If this was not the case, he got off his duff and found some other kind of work for which a degree was not needed.
No, "short generations ago," sending kids to college depended on whether you could afford it, and whether you had the right pedigree to get a child in. Only recently have college admissions become extremely tied to academic ability, affirmative action notwithstanding -- more people in general get in, but they're drawn more specifically from the high-IQ population. "Short generations ago," most very smart people didn't go to college. The Bell Curve. Read it.
Then there's this:
In modern America, a college degree is now almost a given, a birthright for the nearly two-thirds of all high school graduates who go on to higher education.
So it's a birthright...but only for two-thirds of the population? I could see saying it's a birthright for the rich, or for the very-high-IQ holders, but many people face quite a bit of uncertainty.
Question for the day
September 25th 2007 00:19
Why is it that anti-smoking zealots are angry enough ban tobacco use in bars -- but not enough to boycott smoking bars and patronize non-smoking ones? If this happened, and if the zealots have as much of popular opinion as they claim, a large number of bars would go non-smoking to attract customers.
My first theory is that smokers are just really cool. If nonsmokers all went to the same bars, the coolness factor would go down, so that's not an option. By banning smoking they get both clean air and cool people.
My other theory is that the people who vote for the laws don't go to bars. Something has to explain the facts that (A) smoking bans are big with voters but (B) the market creates few non-smoking-by-choice bars.
This post dedicated to Huckabee, who lost any chance he had of my support by backing a federal "public" smoking ban . ("Public" means "open to the public, even if privately owned.") As much as I oppose local smoking bans, local governments have the right to pass them. But Huckabee's law is simply unconstitutional.
My first theory is that smokers are just really cool. If nonsmokers all went to the same bars, the coolness factor would go down, so that's not an option. By banning smoking they get both clean air and cool people.
My other theory is that the people who vote for the laws don't go to bars. Something has to explain the facts that (A) smoking bans are big with voters but (B) the market creates few non-smoking-by-choice bars.
This post dedicated to Huckabee, who lost any chance he had of my support by backing a federal "public" smoking ban . ("Public" means "open to the public, even if privately owned.") As much as I oppose local smoking bans, local governments have the right to pass them. But Huckabee's law is simply unconstitutional.
New song up at MySpace
September 24th 2007 00:13
I have an unmastered recording of a song I wrote called "Complete" up at my MySpace page. It's a bit punkier and faster than the stuff I usually write. I don't feel like detailing the whole recording process now, so I'll update this post tomorrow sometime. 'Til then, listen.
It's harder being green than you thought
September 23rd 2007 15:00
My brother refers me to this Sad Kermit video on YouTube. He plays the Nine Inch Nails song "Hurt," working in some ideas from Johnny Cash's spectacular cover video.
You get to see the little guy shoot heroin, wash a bunch of pills down with beer, puke and curl up in the fetal position at the bottom of a bathtub!
You get to see the little guy shoot heroin, wash a bunch of pills down with beer, puke and curl up in the fetal position at the bottom of a bathtub!
Huge (if true) Jena 6 news
September 23rd 2007 02:19
Via Steve Sailer, quoting Eddie Thompson, a local minister:
I will say that I already knew some of the things Thompson claims to be "correcting" about the media's coverage. No one questions that the "fight" was in fact six black students on one white one. I've read elsewhere that the fight was unrelated to the noose incident, though said incident did exacerbate racial tensions, to which the fight was related. The DA's speech was given to the entire student body -- the allegation is that he addressed the comment to black students, not that only black students were present.
And for God's sake, the saying is "judge not lest ye be judged," not "judge not unless you be judged." The idea is that you shouldn't judge others, because you're a sinner. Not that if others judge you, you have permission to judge others. A minister ought to know that.
(Lest means "for fear that.")
The actions of the three white students who hung the nooses (on a tree at the high school) demonstrate prejudice and bigotry. However, they were not just given "two days suspension" as reported by national news agencies. After first being expelled, then upon appeal, being allowed to re-enter the school system, they were sent to an alternative school, off-campus, for an extended period of time. They underwent investigations by Federal and S[t]ate authorities. They were given psychological evaluations. Even when they were eventually allowed back on campus they were not allowed to be a part of the general population for weeks.
I will say that I already knew some of the things Thompson claims to be "correcting" about the media's coverage. No one questions that the "fight" was in fact six black students on one white one. I've read elsewhere that the fight was unrelated to the noose incident, though said incident did exacerbate racial tensions, to which the fight was related. The DA's speech was given to the entire student body -- the allegation is that he addressed the comment to black students, not that only black students were present.
And for God's sake, the saying is "judge not lest ye be judged," not "judge not unless you be judged." The idea is that you shouldn't judge others, because you're a sinner. Not that if others judge you, you have permission to judge others. A minister ought to know that.
(Lest means "for fear that.")
What 'free speech' is and is not, part II
September 22nd 2007 01:07
I've been critical of the police for Tasering a student recently, but for the reason that they used excessive force. Over at Salon.com, Joe Conason makes the absurd argument that the cops stifled the kid's free speech rights.
Let's reiterate: The student was at a school event, standing in line to ask John Kerry a question (or three). When the end of the Q&A was announced, he was still toward the end of the line, so he elbowed his way forward, yelling, and started talking into the microphone. He was told repeatedly to stop. Eventually the cops had to stop him.
Free speech allows you to say what you want. It does not allow you to disrupt an event, and ignore the event's managers, to do so.
A similar point I made in another context here.
Conason also calls Kerry "wholly innocent" in the matter, but he's wrong .
In other don't Tase me news, Wonkette features a pretty rockin' remix of the event.
Let's reiterate: The student was at a school event, standing in line to ask John Kerry a question (or three). When the end of the Q&A was announced, he was still toward the end of the line, so he elbowed his way forward, yelling, and started talking into the microphone. He was told repeatedly to stop. Eventually the cops had to stop him.
Free speech allows you to say what you want. It does not allow you to disrupt an event, and ignore the event's managers, to do so.
A similar point I made in another context here.
Conason also calls Kerry "wholly innocent" in the matter, but he's wrong .
In other don't Tase me news, Wonkette features a pretty rockin' remix of the event.
Abortion on demand, except when it makes me feel icky
September 22nd 2007 01:02
Doctors are worrying that parents are genetically screening their kids, then aborting when the kids will have very minor diseases.
Over at Slate, William Saletan summarizes the abortion-rights supporters' debate:
If a fetus isn't a human life, you should be able to abort it for whatever the hell reason you want. The very fact abortion-rights supporters are having this debate indicates they realize that fetuses are, to some degree, human lives -- they just value the right to promiscuous, consequence-free sex more highly than that.
Over at Slate, William Saletan summarizes the abortion-rights supporters' debate:
Acceptable pro-choice reactions: 1) It's "debatable" whether "termination of pregnancy of fetuses either treatable or likely to be asymptomatic … represents a true benefit." 2) "To avoid termination of pregnancies for generally mild conditions," we need "a combination of traditional, nondirective genetic counseling" with expert medical counseling. Unacceptable reaction: Aborting these kids is wrong.
I think it's really funny how liberals get all women's-rights hysterical when someone has careless, random sex, but when women use the very same process to have the best kid they can, all of a sudden everyone gets queasy and starts making nuanced arguments. Is it wrong to kill a fetus, or not?If a fetus isn't a human life, you should be able to abort it for whatever the hell reason you want. The very fact abortion-rights supporters are having this debate indicates they realize that fetuses are, to some degree, human lives -- they just value the right to promiscuous, consequence-free sex more highly than that.
No, it's not ironic
September 22nd 2007 00:59
I can tell I'm getting way too obsessed with language. I read a piece about gun control, one of the issues I care most about, and this is what stood out to me:
That is not ironic. It's coincidental that, as they're having this debate, there's a new development in the case. But it's not ironic.
My number one piece of advice to writers on this topic: Do not use any form of the word "irony." Ever.
If you insist, here's Wikipedia's useful definition:
"A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities," McCain said.
Ironically, a federal court in New York will hear arguments Friday on the lawsuit Giuliani filed as mayor against gun makers and distributors over violent crimes involving guns.
Ironically, a federal court in New York will hear arguments Friday on the lawsuit Giuliani filed as mayor against gun makers and distributors over violent crimes involving guns.
That is not ironic. It's coincidental that, as they're having this debate, there's a new development in the case. But it's not ironic.
My number one piece of advice to writers on this topic: Do not use any form of the word "irony." Ever.
If you insist, here's Wikipedia's useful definition:
Irony is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is a gap or incongruity between what a speaker or a writer says and what is generally understood (either at the time, or in the later context of history). Irony may also arise from a discordance between acts and results, especially if it is striking, and seen by an outside audience.
Rock out with your Taser out
September 21st 2007 00:23
National Review has a piece by a police officer defending the Taser cops.
He gets it all wrong, though:
Those aren't "the questions" at all. They're not even really questions. Of course the police had every right to stop him and to make him comply -- he was disrupting an event, the organizers requested the police intervene and his erratic behavior raised the possibility of Sen. Kerry being in danger.
The actual question is, once you've got someone face-down, surrounded by five or so cops and half-handcuffed, is it reasonable to use a Taser instead of manual force to get the other hand in the cuff?
With a 7-foot-3 weightlifter hopped up on PCP and trying to hurt the cops, absolutely. But by my viewing of the video, the answer in this case is no. He was physically resisting, but he was pulling away rather than violently striking the officers. I could have supported it if they'd Tased him earlier in the confrontation (the police report contends he pushed a couple of cops when they initially grabbed him), but it seems a little ridiculous at that point.
And this argument is at least feasible, but I don't really buy it:
If five cops can't prevent a not-particularly-buff college student from getting up with his hands free, we need better training. Though admittedly it is hard to bring someone under control without hurting him.
And as I've said every time I've posted on this, the kid had it coming. I enjoyed hearing him scream. But procedurally, I don't think the cops made the right decision.
He gets it all wrong, though:
Now the questions arise: Did the police officers at the University of Florida have a lawful reason for wanting Meyer to stop his diatribe and retake his seat or leave the auditorium? If so, did they use reasonable force in trying to make him comply with their demands?
Those aren't "the questions" at all. They're not even really questions. Of course the police had every right to stop him and to make him comply -- he was disrupting an event, the organizers requested the police intervene and his erratic behavior raised the possibility of Sen. Kerry being in danger.
The actual question is, once you've got someone face-down, surrounded by five or so cops and half-handcuffed, is it reasonable to use a Taser instead of manual force to get the other hand in the cuff?
With a 7-foot-3 weightlifter hopped up on PCP and trying to hurt the cops, absolutely. But by my viewing of the video, the answer in this case is no. He was physically resisting, but he was pulling away rather than violently striking the officers. I could have supported it if they'd Tased him earlier in the confrontation (the police report contends he pushed a couple of cops when they initially grabbed him), but it seems a little ridiculous at that point.
And this argument is at least feasible, but I don't really buy it:
If Meyer had been able to get to his feet and flail his arms has he had earlier, the dangling handcuff could have caused serious injury to the officers or any of the spectators nearby.
If five cops can't prevent a not-particularly-buff college student from getting up with his hands free, we need better training. Though admittedly it is hard to bring someone under control without hurting him.
And as I've said every time I've posted on this, the kid had it coming. I enjoyed hearing him scream. But procedurally, I don't think the cops made the right decision.
A quick word on the Jena 6
September 21st 2007 00:20
By all means, it appears the school did a horrendous job handling anti-black racism. And if the allegation that the victim "taunted black students on campus continuously" is true, he could have used an ass-kicking.
But six kids ganged up on one and knocked him unconscious. He ended up in the hospital, albeit briefly. I think "aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery" pretty much sums up what they did.
If you want to protest the racist incidents at the school, fine. If you want to say the kids who hung nooses on a tree outside deserved more than three days' suspension, fine. If you want to argue for some modest leniency -- dropping the "aggravated" if the white student was asking for it, perhaps -- fine.
But were the tables reversed -- and some white kids, picked on at a mostly black school, ganged up on a cracker-hating bully and knocked him out -- we all know what side liberals would be on. They certainly wouldn't be clamoring to drop the charges.
But six kids ganged up on one and knocked him unconscious. He ended up in the hospital, albeit briefly. I think "aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery" pretty much sums up what they did.
If you want to protest the racist incidents at the school, fine. If you want to say the kids who hung nooses on a tree outside deserved more than three days' suspension, fine. If you want to argue for some modest leniency -- dropping the "aggravated" if the white student was asking for it, perhaps -- fine.
But were the tables reversed -- and some white kids, picked on at a mostly black school, ganged up on a cracker-hating bully and knocked him out -- we all know what side liberals would be on. They certainly wouldn't be clamoring to drop the charges.
Thank God we elected Bush
September 19th 2007 22:25
Didn't think I'd be saying that nowadays, but Michelle Malkin has the police report on yesterday's Taser incident. What does Kerry do when a student shoves himself forward in line during a Q&A session that's already over, shouting obscenities and demanding the senator take his question?
Why, he takes the question. He rewards the terrorist for acting out.
The report also contends the kid lifted one officer up, and pushed and kicked another. Which makes it all the more OK -- morally, but not procedurally -- for them to Taser him after knocking him down and surrounding him with five or so cops.
The police response was pretty embarrassing. It was a catfight. There was no speed, no force to the arrest, even once it was clear he was resisting. They pushed him around and let him fight, even grabbing his shirt to keep him from running.
An aggressive tackle, followed by handcuffs and carrying him out, would have ended the controversy immediately, probably before any cameras turned on. The problem -- as with the last student-Tasering incident -- was that the police pussyfooted around until the situation got out of control, then overreacted with a Taser. They claim that with all the people they had, they still couldn't get the second hand into the cuff. Ten arms can't move one.
Why, he takes the question. He rewards the terrorist for acting out.
The report also contends the kid lifted one officer up, and pushed and kicked another. Which makes it all the more OK -- morally, but not procedurally -- for them to Taser him after knocking him down and surrounding him with five or so cops.
The police response was pretty embarrassing. It was a catfight. There was no speed, no force to the arrest, even once it was clear he was resisting. They pushed him around and let him fight, even grabbing his shirt to keep him from running.
An aggressive tackle, followed by handcuffs and carrying him out, would have ended the controversy immediately, probably before any cameras turned on. The problem -- as with the last student-Tasering incident -- was that the police pussyfooted around until the situation got out of control, then overreacted with a Taser. They claim that with all the people they had, they still couldn't get the second hand into the cuff. Ten arms can't move one.
Test your American civic literacy
September 19th 2007 22:12
For the record, I got a 90 percent on the civics quiz the NRO people are all talking about. They always call their mistakes "mortifying" or "careless" or whatever, but I'm not making excuses. I didn't know, or didn't know well, those six topics.
Don't read this until you've taken the test (if you want to):
--I wasn't sure whether Congress could receive ambassadors, or if they technically got to "approve" treaties. (No and yes.)
--I remembered that the Monroe Doctrine had something to do with America wanting to have control of the surrounding area in some way, but I confused it with Manifest Destiny. It was the desire that no other European powers take colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
--For whatever reason, I managed to graduate college with a polisci major without knowing what just-war theory was.
--OK, this is a little embarrassing. I forgot the Bay of Pigs was before the Cuban Missile Crisis, not after.
--I'll actually make an excuse for my answer about real income by class. There's been a big deal in the media about how real income has been declining for the past so-many decades for this-or-that group of people. The question asked about "households" for 40 years. During that time, income has increased for households in all classes.
That's a pretty obscure question. It demands you not only know that real income has been declining, but that it hasn't been declining long enough on the household level to make the last 40 years a net loss. Men's incomes specifically have been . Besides, it's a horrible measure of how well people are living, anyway -- even as "real" median income declines, people have more and more stuff.
--And like everyone, I got the banking question wrong.
UPDATE: Jeremy Lott gets a 95, but that doesn't count because he just wrote a book about American history. Two of his mistakes, of course, were "should-have-been-obvious."
Don't read this until you've taken the test (if you want to):
--I wasn't sure whether Congress could receive ambassadors, or if they technically got to "approve" treaties. (No and yes.)
--I remembered that the Monroe Doctrine had something to do with America wanting to have control of the surrounding area in some way, but I confused it with Manifest Destiny. It was the desire that no other European powers take colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
--For whatever reason, I managed to graduate college with a polisci major without knowing what just-war theory was.
--OK, this is a little embarrassing. I forgot the Bay of Pigs was before the Cuban Missile Crisis, not after.
--I'll actually make an excuse for my answer about real income by class. There's been a big deal in the media about how real income has been declining for the past so-many decades for this-or-that group of people. The question asked about "households" for 40 years. During that time, income has increased for households in all classes.
That's a pretty obscure question. It demands you not only know that real income has been declining, but that it hasn't been declining long enough on the household level to make the last 40 years a net loss. Men's incomes specifically have been . Besides, it's a horrible measure of how well people are living, anyway -- even as "real" median income declines, people have more and more stuff.
--And like everyone, I got the banking question wrong.
UPDATE: Jeremy Lott gets a 95, but that doesn't count because he just wrote a book about American history. Two of his mistakes, of course, were "should-have-been-obvious."
On 1980's conservative Supreme Court
September 19th 2007 22:09
Cass R. Sunstein has a pretty absurd article about the Supreme Court. It says, accurately, that the court has tended right over the past few decades.
It goes horribly wrong, though, in characterizing the 1980 court as "conservative" to begin with. Here's said court, right to left as the author sees it:
The second-, third- and fourth-most-conservative members voted with the majority on Roe v. Wade (Rehnquist and White dissented). Some right-wing, strict-constructionist court. Only compared to the Warren court was that group's conservatism worth talking about.
In fact, the 1980 court was so conservative, the writer gets nostalgic about its -- well, liberalism:
Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.
They must not have read the document, because my copy doesn't say anything like any of that. It's really too bad we don't have this diversity of opinion anymore -- even Ginsberg, a former ACLU head, knows how to read.
And here a statistic rendered useless by the writer's complete lack of context:
Maybe an example or two, so readers can gauge what effects these overrulings had? No? Might as well assume they weren't too significant, then, and that's why they're "widely unknown."
If there's any place liberals can push their policies, it's the courts -- with or without public opinion (or for that matter, the laws the courts purport to interpret) on their side. It's arguable the court is pretty balanced today, and it's true it has moved to the right. But it moved from left to center, certainly not from right to far-right.
It goes horribly wrong, though, in characterizing the 1980 court as "conservative" to begin with. Here's said court, right to left as the author sees it:
Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist.
The second-, third- and fourth-most-conservative members voted with the majority on Roe v. Wade (Rehnquist and White dissented). Some right-wing, strict-constructionist court. Only compared to the Warren court was that group's conservatism worth talking about.
In fact, the 1980 court was so conservative, the writer gets nostalgic about its -- well, liberalism:
Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.
They must not have read the document, because my copy doesn't say anything like any of that. It's really too bad we don't have this diversity of opinion anymore -- even Ginsberg, a former ACLU head, knows how to read.
And here a statistic rendered useless by the writer's complete lack of context:
A widely unknown fact: Between 1984 and 2000, the Court overruled more than 40 precedents, specifically rejecting the law as it was understood in 1980. And on many more occasions, the Court significantly reoriented the law without overruling particular decisions.
Maybe an example or two, so readers can gauge what effects these overrulings had? No? Might as well assume they weren't too significant, then, and that's why they're "widely unknown."
If there's any place liberals can push their policies, it's the courts -- with or without public opinion (or for that matter, the laws the courts purport to interpret) on their side. It's arguable the court is pretty balanced today, and it's true it has moved to the right. But it moved from left to center, certainly not from right to far-right.
What you've got is electricity
September 18th 2007 23:58
There's been another incident of a police officer wrongly Tasering a student. The kid deserved to be arrested -- at a John Kerry speech he refused to leave the Q&A microphone when told to, and then he physically resisted the officers who came. It's hard not to enjoy watching the cops electrocute him. AAAAAHHHHH!!!!
But they had him on the ground, surrounded by officers, before Tasering him. One officer said, "Put your hands behind your back -- you will be Tased."
I'd like to reiterate my research from the last time this happened:
Tasers are potentially harmful, and they're not made to be used as a punishment for disobeying officers' orders -- they're strictly to prevent physical danger. With the manpower they had, there's no reason the cops couldn't have forced the guy's hands behind his back. He was resisting, but he was not striking officers, and from the camera angles provided it does not appear he could have hurt anyone.
I should point out, though, that the Police Executive Research Forum holds that Tasers can be used against "actively resisting" suspects, with no stated exception for situations where the resistance poses no serious threat. It does warn against "punitive" uses. (And regarding that previous case I wrote about, it expressly forbids zapping "passive" suspects.)
Michelle Malkin has more info. Apparently the kid asked his question after the Q&A was supposed to end, and even rushed ahead in line to do so. One witness claims, "The other videos do not show that Meyer was handcuffed, before he was tasered." If this is true, it's even more likely a wrongful Tasering. However, the PERF guidelines explicitly permit Tasering a handcuffed suspect if he's still resisting.
But they had him on the ground, surrounded by officers, before Tasering him. One officer said, "Put your hands behind your back -- you will be Tased."
I'd like to reiterate my research from the last time this happened:
According to Taser's official Web site, "TASER systems use proprietary technology to immediately incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk individuals who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves."
Tasers are potentially harmful, and they're not made to be used as a punishment for disobeying officers' orders -- they're strictly to prevent physical danger. With the manpower they had, there's no reason the cops couldn't have forced the guy's hands behind his back. He was resisting, but he was not striking officers, and from the camera angles provided it does not appear he could have hurt anyone.
I should point out, though, that the Police Executive Research Forum holds that Tasers can be used against "actively resisting" suspects, with no stated exception for situations where the resistance poses no serious threat. It does warn against "punitive" uses. (And regarding that previous case I wrote about, it expressly forbids zapping "passive" suspects.)
Michelle Malkin has more info. Apparently the kid asked his question after the Q&A was supposed to end, and even rushed ahead in line to do so. One witness claims, "The other videos do not show that Meyer was handcuffed, before he was tasered." If this is true, it's even more likely a wrongful Tasering. However, the PERF guidelines explicitly permit Tasering a handcuffed suspect if he's still resisting.
What do you do for money honey
September 18th 2007 23:50
A lot of Internet folks are hailing The New York Times's decision to tear down its subscriber wall. Now readers won't have to pay for online content. The Times rationalizes that it can make more money from online ads than from Web subscriber fees.
I'm not really convinced they made the right decision, though. The beauty of charging for online content isn't so much that a lot of people pay for it, but that it reduces the incentive for print subscribers to cancel. Why buy a newspaper -- and, in doing so, view far-more-profitable print advertising -- when the articles are online for free?
Ad revenue-wise, in the course of a year, one typically has to add about 100 unique visitors to a Web site to make up for a single lost print subscriber.
Hit & Run cites a TechBlorge post that crunches the numbers:
Shouldn't preserving 90 percent of one's money overshadow a modest increase in the remaining income?
Of course, the obvious counterargument is that the Times spends a lot of time and money making these decisions, whereas I read a few articles and pontificated. Very few major newspapers charge for online content anymore, so it seems the market has decided that free is the most profitable way to go.
I'm not really convinced they made the right decision, though. The beauty of charging for online content isn't so much that a lot of people pay for it, but that it reduces the incentive for print subscribers to cancel. Why buy a newspaper -- and, in doing so, view far-more-profitable print advertising -- when the articles are online for free?
Ad revenue-wise, in the course of a year, one typically has to add about 100 unique visitors to a Web site to make up for a single lost print subscriber.
Hit & Run cites a TechBlorge post that crunches the numbers:
[T]he two-year experiment was earning the Times about $833,000 each month - or $10 million a year - but that's about a third of the $80.9 million earned by all digital businesses at the Times. And even then, almost 90% of the company's money was coming from its non-digital offerings.
Shouldn't preserving 90 percent of one's money overshadow a modest increase in the remaining income?
Of course, the obvious counterargument is that the Times spends a lot of time and money making these decisions, whereas I read a few articles and pontificated. Very few major newspapers charge for online content anymore, so it seems the market has decided that free is the most profitable way to go.
Immigration and poverty
September 17th 2007 22:09
I don't agree with everything the site runs, but this article is why I read VDARE.com every day. Edwin Rubenstein looks at the War on Poverty -- which hasn't made the slightest bit of progress in decades -- and concludes that immigration is one major thing keeping it back.
Here's the crux of his argument:
But I think it's this analysis that really shocks:
The Census counts illegal immigrants in its poverty estimates! That might be, in part, why the 1996 welfare reform didn't drive down poverty as well as one might have hoped. In the mid-'90s, illegal immigration dramatically increased.
Here's the crux of his argument:
Immigrants, legal and illegal, accounted for 12.6 percent America's population, but 15.6 percent of the its poor in 2006. Of course, we should also include their native-born "anchor babies" to gauge their full impact. My estimate: immigrants and their children are 23.0 percent of the U.S. poverty population.
But I think it's this analysis that really shocks:
Illegals are a particularly acute problem. They are included among "non-citizens," who amount to 7.7 percent of the U.S. population and 11.8 percent of its poverty population. But this category also includes highly educated guest workers, students, and others who are not likely to be poor. Calculating poverty rates for the illegal alien population is tricky, not the least because (needless to say) the Census does not record the legal status of respondents to its annual poverty survey.
The Census counts illegal immigrants in its poverty estimates! That might be, in part, why the 1996 welfare reform didn't drive down poverty as well as one might have hoped. In the mid-'90s, illegal immigration dramatically increased.
You assimilate so well
September 17th 2007 22:05
If there's one thing I find more frustrating than neoconservative we-can-fix-the-Muslim-world attitudes, it's liberal there's-nothing-wrong-with-th e-Muslim-world ones.
From Steve Chapman:
Um. Hmm.
One interesting thing here is the use of "American." It's true that here, Muslim havoc is mainly the problem of a few bad apples. That's because we have so few Muslims to begin with -- the real question in terms of allowing larger-scale immigration is better answered by looking at Europe. That picture isn't pretty.
From Steve Chapman:
The striking thing about American Muslims is not how poorly they fit into a tolerant society, but how well.
Um. Hmm.
One interesting thing here is the use of "American." It's true that here, Muslim havoc is mainly the problem of a few bad apples. That's because we have so few Muslims to begin with -- the real question in terms of allowing larger-scale immigration is better answered by looking at Europe. That picture isn't pretty.
Why discrimination isn't incriminating
September 17th 2007 22:00
I've been defending the concept of discrimination for a long time, and a new Reason article says it well:
To say that someone was discriminating was once a compliment. It meant he was a man of taste, the sort of person who could see fine gradations in value and parse the good from the bad.
In later years, discrimination became a dirty word -- inverted from it its original sense to mean someone who separated people into unfair and irrelevant categories and the treated some of them badly for no good reason at all.
In later years, discrimination became a dirty word -- inverted from it its original sense to mean someone who separated people into unfair and irrelevant categories and the treated some of them badly for no good reason at all.
Sometimes it (really) hurts
September 17th 2007 04:01
Over time I'm realizing just how severely growing up without cable deprived me as a child. In high school one of my favorite bands was Stabbing Westward -- Darkest Days was an excellent record, and their self-titled one, after which they broke up, never got the props it deserved. All they did was whine about how mean women were, and how much they hated themselves for not getting more women, and I related.
I always thought their best song was "Sometimes it Hurts." I especially loved the climactic, self-deprecating bridge, set to one of the weariest melodies I've ever heard: "And after all this time, you'd think / I'd understand the way you feel / But no / I only think about myself / And it's driving you away / I always knew it would one day."
But finally seeing the music video, I have to ask: What's with the midgets? And the crane that drops the lead singer on his face? Confusing times, those teenage years.
I always thought their best song was "Sometimes it Hurts." I especially loved the climactic, self-deprecating bridge, set to one of the weariest melodies I've ever heard: "And after all this time, you'd think / I'd understand the way you feel / But no / I only think about myself / And it's driving you away / I always knew it would one day."
But finally seeing the music video, I have to ask: What's with the midgets? And the crane that drops the lead singer on his face? Confusing times, those teenage years.
Submit yourself to the Collective good
September 16th 2007 18:20
The New York Times has an interesting article about how Ayn Rand's anti-collectivist philosophy still affects businesspeople today. It's rather amusing that her inner circle was called "the Collective." Maybe they were aware of the irony.
I loved Atlas Shrugged when I read it in college, but I've come to be pretty ambivalent in the years since then. It does have a lot to say about capitalism's superiority to socialism.
But for one, her philosophy purports to apply to life in general, but she has little of value to say about the importance of family. Her characters sleep around and cheat on their spouses, as Rand herself did.
The Fountainhead is about a man who refuses to learn the basics of the architecture profession, preferring to design buildings his own way. His natural ability seems to make learning what came before unnecessary, but by and large that's an idiotic creed to follow -- Ayn Rand herself studied others' philosophies before creating her own. Then the character rapes a woman, and she likes it.
Beyond that, it seems the central tenet of her worldview is that life is fair. There's no need, no obligation to help others, since they're responsible for themselves.
I loved Atlas Shrugged when I read it in college, but I've come to be pretty ambivalent in the years since then. It does have a lot to say about capitalism's superiority to socialism.
But for one, her philosophy purports to apply to life in general, but she has little of value to say about the importance of family. Her characters sleep around and cheat on their spouses, as Rand herself did.
The Fountainhead is about a man who refuses to learn the basics of the architecture profession, preferring to design buildings his own way. His natural ability seems to make learning what came before unnecessary, but by and large that's an idiotic creed to follow -- Ayn Rand herself studied others' philosophies before creating her own. Then the character rapes a woman, and she likes it.
Beyond that, it seems the central tenet of her worldview is that life is fair. There's no need, no obligation to help others, since they're responsible for themselves.
David Brooks on IQ
September 15th 2007 14:19
Steve Sailer runs and goes after David Brooks's assertion that IQ has waning influence in the scientific world.
Sailer's got a point, but I think he conflates Brooks's column, which focuses more on scientists, with IQ expertise among journalists.
Brooks is mostly right. Scientists are indeed learning to break down "g," or general intelligence, into smaller and smaller factors. Brooks himself notes that the factors tend to correlate with each other -- the kids in advanced English tend to overlap with the ones in advanced math.
But he severely understates what g alone is capable of.
He pretty much invents a controversy:
Some people think intelligence is the ability to adapt to an environment, others that capacity to think abstractly, and so on.
I've read a lot about IQ, though I'm no expert, and I can safely say I've never heard anyone claim IQ was "the ability to adapt to an environment." The latter definition, to my experience, is the accurate one. It's mental horsepower.
And this statement is objectively false:
It measures something, but it's not clear...whether it's good at predicting how people will do in life.
As The Bell Curve amply demonstrated, IQ in fact correlates quite strongly -- better than parental income -- with a whole variety of wellness indicators, including income, incarceration, illegitimate childbearing, etc.
Sailer's got a point, but I think he conflates Brooks's column, which focuses more on scientists, with IQ expertise among journalists.
Brooks is mostly right. Scientists are indeed learning to break down "g," or general intelligence, into smaller and smaller factors. Brooks himself notes that the factors tend to correlate with each other -- the kids in advanced English tend to overlap with the ones in advanced math.
But he severely understates what g alone is capable of.
He pretty much invents a controversy:
Some people think intelligence is the ability to adapt to an environment, others that capacity to think abstractly, and so on.
And this statement is objectively false:
It measures something, but it's not clear...whether it's good at predicting how people will do in life.
As The Bell Curve amply demonstrated, IQ in fact correlates quite strongly -- better than parental income -- with a whole variety of wellness indicators, including income, incarceration, illegitimate childbearing, etc.
The easiest decision a government can make
September 14th 2007 22:02
The New York Review of Books has a great article about immigration today.
One quibble:
Yes there is: Natives win. A government's job is to protect its own people's interests.
UPDATE: Actually, one other quibble:
Second-generation immigrants have plenty of problems, but these problems are a consequence of assimilation, not its absence. Second-generation immigrants have sex at an earlier age than their parents did; they also drink more, and are more likely to join violent gangs. All these changes make the children of immigrants more like the children of natives, which is one reason why many immigrants resist the idea of across-the-board assimilation.
Actually, at least regarding Hispanics, it doesn't make them "more like the children of natives." It makes them worse than the children of natives .
One quibble:
Nor is there any simple way to balance the economic desperation of immigrants against the economic claims of poor natives, especially if the natives are African-Americans or second-generation immigrants.
Yes there is: Natives win. A government's job is to protect its own people's interests.
UPDATE: Actually, one other quibble:
Second-generation immigrants have plenty of problems, but these problems are a consequence of assimilation, not its absence. Second-generation immigrants have sex at an earlier age than their parents did; they also drink more, and are more likely to join violent gangs. All these changes make the children of immigrants more like the children of natives, which is one reason why many immigrants resist the idea of across-the-board assimilation.
Actually, at least regarding Hispanics, it doesn't make them "more like the children of natives." It makes them worse than the children of natives .
Out of the park
September 14th 2007 22:00
Larry Thornberry has a terrific piece in The American Spectator. It's about the "dearth" of blacks in baseball.
To me this fact stood out the most:
...27 percent of Major League Baseball players in 1975 were African American, but "only" 8.4 percent are now...
America is about 13 percent black, so if anything, the new number is closer to that magical formula of every race being proportionately represented in every field. The new number signifies about 35 percent underrepresentation, compared to more than 100 percent overrepresentation previously.
That's important because, you know, no ethnic group has higher or lower ability for, or places higher or lower emphasis on, any field than any other ethnic group does.
If anything, their bemoaning the current numbers indicates that liberals believe blacks are better athletes, and therefore should have higher representation.
To me this fact stood out the most:
...27 percent of Major League Baseball players in 1975 were African American, but "only" 8.4 percent are now...
America is about 13 percent black, so if anything, the new number is closer to that magical formula of every race being proportionately represented in every field. The new number signifies about 35 percent underrepresentation, compared to more than 100 percent overrepresentation previously.
That's important because, you know, no ethnic group has higher or lower ability for, or places higher or lower emphasis on, any field than any other ethnic group does.
If anything, their bemoaning the current numbers indicates that liberals believe blacks are better athletes, and therefore should have higher representation.
Y consirvatives R stoopid
September 11th 2007 21:56
Since I write about IQ now and then, I suppose I should comment on the new study that shows conservatives have more rigid thought patterns than do liberals. I kinda like Mother Jones's tongue-in-cheek response .
Here's the LA Times's summary:
Very cute how they managed to work in the term "knee-jerk" to refer to conservatives.
This study does show that conservatives tend to get into one way of thinking. It also shows they're resistant to change (um, that's why they're called conservative) and tend to dislike ambiguity. But it's not an IQ test.
And in fact, I think a resistance to ambiguity is often a good thing -- it compels people to look hard at issues and find a theory that integrates the relevant information, rather than settling for a bunch of muddled "nuance." It's also good when the time comes to take whatever information is available and make a decision.
And is it really to liberals' credit that their brains got all worked up over Ms and Ws? Maybe they're just easily entertained. And besides, all testing is racist and irrelevant anyway, remember?
Here's the LA Times's summary:
Participants were college students whose politics ranged from "very liberal" to "very conservative." They were instructed to tap a keyboard when an M appeared on a computer monitor and to refrain from tapping when they saw a W.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.
M appeared four times more frequently than W, conditioning participants to press a key in knee-jerk fashion whenever they saw a letter.
Each participant was wired to an electroencephalograph that recorded activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain that detects conflicts between a habitual tendency (pressing a key) and a more appropriate response (not pressing the key). Liberals had more brain activity and made fewer mistakes than conservatives when they saw a W, researchers said. Liberals and conservatives were equally accurate in recognizing M.
Very cute how they managed to work in the term "knee-jerk" to refer to conservatives.
This study does show that conservatives tend to get into one way of thinking. It also shows they're resistant to change (um, that's why they're called conservative) and tend to dislike ambiguity. But it's not an IQ test.
And in fact, I think a resistance to ambiguity is often a good thing -- it compels people to look hard at issues and find a theory that integrates the relevant information, rather than settling for a bunch of muddled "nuance." It's also good when the time comes to take whatever information is available and make a decision.
And is it really to liberals' credit that their brains got all worked up over Ms and Ws? Maybe they're just easily entertained. And besides, all testing is racist and irrelevant anyway, remember?
If at first you don't succeed, bomb, bomb again
September 11th 2007 21:53
It's amazing how far I've drifted from neoconservatism in the last couple of years. I just kind of shook my head at this statement in the Weekly Standard:
Yes, that's it. They go after the U.S. -- halfway around the world and much more powerful than they are -- and blow themselves up because they can't stand the thought that somewhere, someone has a different lifestyle than they do. It has nothing to do with our imposing that lifestyle on them. In fact, imposing that lifestyle on them is the solution! Why didn't I think of that!
Critics of U.S. foreign policy can cite many reasons for Islamist rage. But they overlook a more fundamental problem: To al Qaeda and its sympathizers, nothing is more deserving of contempt than the idea of faith as a free and rational choice--a concept more integral to American identity than any other Western democracy.
Yes, that's it. They go after the U.S. -- halfway around the world and much more powerful than they are -- and blow themselves up because they can't stand the thought that somewhere, someone has a different lifestyle than they do. It has nothing to do with our imposing that lifestyle on them. In fact, imposing that lifestyle on them is the solution! Why didn't I think of that!
Is your top side heavy?
September 11th 2007 00:25
I'm no economics expert, but this Slate article seems ridiculously misguided. It argues that the rich are getting an increasing proportion of the income (they are), then says:
As far as taxes go, this is right. If you give $100 to a rich person as opposed to a poor person, he'll fork over more of it to the government because he's in a higher tax bracket.
But as Bruce Bartlett recently showed, and as I noted while guest-blogging for Jeremy Lott, the rich actually spend a lower proportion of their income than the poor do, even if they spend more in absolute dollars. So as far as consumer expenditures and consumption (the main focus of the Slate article) go, a poor person will use more of a $100 bill than a rich person will. So if the rich are getting a disproportionate share of the economy's growth (again, they are), that's not "good" for spending.
Of course, this whole thing is an exercise in absurdity. Having determined the poor will spend more than the rich will, what are we going to do, have the government steal the money from the rich, who already pay more in taxes? The very poorest people already get more back in taxes than they pay. And if we increase taxes, we reduce the incentives for growing the economy, so rich people will work less hard. The economic gains won't be around for us to whine about.
It's really a pointless discussion in a capitalistic system.
Given the top-heaviness of the economy, one could make the case—one could, but I'm not—that the continuing upward redistribution of income is good for the economy and good for all of us. As they earn more, and keep more of their income, the rich and the very rich spend more, thus keeping the growing number of residents of Richistan gainfully employed. The fact that the rich are getting richer is one of the reasons that federal tax revenues—which are much less progressive than they were in 2000 but still somewhat progressive—are growing so smartly, up 7.4 percent year over year.
As far as taxes go, this is right. If you give $100 to a rich person as opposed to a poor person, he'll fork over more of it to the government because he's in a higher tax bracket.
But as Bruce Bartlett recently showed, and as I noted while guest-blogging for Jeremy Lott, the rich actually spend a lower proportion of their income than the poor do, even if they spend more in absolute dollars. So as far as consumer expenditures and consumption (the main focus of the Slate article) go, a poor person will use more of a $100 bill than a rich person will. So if the rich are getting a disproportionate share of the economy's growth (again, they are), that's not "good" for spending.
Of course, this whole thing is an exercise in absurdity. Having determined the poor will spend more than the rich will, what are we going to do, have the government steal the money from the rich, who already pay more in taxes? The very poorest people already get more back in taxes than they pay. And if we increase taxes, we reduce the incentives for growing the economy, so rich people will work less hard. The economic gains won't be around for us to whine about.
It's really a pointless discussion in a capitalistic system.
Nikki Sixx review up at antiMusic
September 10th 2007 11:03
antiMusic has my review of the Sixx A.M. CD.
Main point:
Main point:
It's an interesting, if far from indispensable, concept album.
Though the music is meant to depict the height of '80s excess – Sixx was actually declared dead from drug use once – it does so through the '90s sounds of compressed guitars, bottom-heavy mixing and therapeutic lyrics. It's more a trip to the psychologist than a journey into the Crue's warped heyday.
Though the music is meant to depict the height of '80s excess – Sixx was actually declared dead from drug use once – it does so through the '90s sounds of compressed guitars, bottom-heavy mixing and therapeutic lyrics. It's more a trip to the psychologist than a journey into the Crue's warped heyday.
The prisoners' dilemma and school shootings
September 8th 2007 18:16
Jeremy Lott's post about my American Spectator article on the Virginia Tech panel pointed out how the massacre was pulled off by a novice -- the panel uncovered no evidence that the shooter had any experience with firearms beyond practicing with his new guns for an hour once. Multiple-victim public shootings have shown time and again that one armed person can murder tens of unarmed people without much resistance.
That got me to thinking about the prisoners' dilemma. Obviously, looking at the shooting from the third person, the 32 people Cho killed (not to mention the additional victims he wounded) would have been better off ganging up on him. He would have killed a few, no doubt, but it would have been a much smaller-scale tragedy.
But look at it from the standpoint of any one victim: If other people rush the shooter, you're better off letting them do the dirty work and keeping yourself out of harm's way. If no one else does, your bravery will likely get you killed -- an armed person trumps an unarmed one, and the odds of other people joining you are low for the very reason you'd hang back if they rushed. Not to mention the paralyzing effect of fear. So what ends up happening is that no one takes action, which is worst for everyone.
Then again, the whole dynamic changes when one or more of the potential victims is armed.
That got me to thinking about the prisoners' dilemma. Obviously, looking at the shooting from the third person, the 32 people Cho killed (not to mention the additional victims he wounded) would have been better off ganging up on him. He would have killed a few, no doubt, but it would have been a much smaller-scale tragedy.
But look at it from the standpoint of any one victim: If other people rush the shooter, you're better off letting them do the dirty work and keeping yourself out of harm's way. If no one else does, your bravery will likely get you killed -- an armed person trumps an unarmed one, and the odds of other people joining you are low for the very reason you'd hang back if they rushed. Not to mention the paralyzing effect of fear. So what ends up happening is that no one takes action, which is worst for everyone.
Then again, the whole dynamic changes when one or more of the potential victims is armed.
Virginia Tech panel analysis up at The American Spectator
September 8th 2007 02:29
This piece of mine is getting a pretty strong response. Thanks to everyone who linked to it, including David T. Hardy at the Arms and the Law blog, John Lott at his blog and Jeremy Lott at his.
Main point:
Main point:
[R]egarding guns, the panel shirked its responsibilities. The report pronounces on policies that had nothing to do with the massacre, wildly speculates about what would have happened had given factors been different, and ignores entire bodies of evidence.
Bush's problem: Not believing the Iraqi PR flack
September 8th 2007 02:25
Matthew Yglesias reads Sidney Blumenthal's article about how Bush "knew" Saddam had no WMDs, and has pretty much the same reaction I did yesterday (though I didn't blog about it):
...[Regarding] Sidney Blumenthal's report into information the president apparently got from Naji Sabri about Saddam's WMD programs[, t]he essential problem . . . is that Sabri was Saddam Hussein's foreign minister. Obviously, in retrospect we know that Sabri's claims that Iraq had no WMD were completely accurate. But given the context, the fact that Sabri said Iraq had no WMD had no real probative value. In particular, the headline "Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction" seems incredibly overblown. What Bush "knew" was that Saddam's foreign minister said Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, which isn't at all the same thing.
The court is right because it evolved to be right
September 6th 2007 23:36
I don't have a whole lot to say about John Derbyshire and Tom Bethell's fight in the American Spectator's letters column -- I tend to agree with Derbyshire that Darwinian evolution happens, but I share Bethell's skepticism that it explains every development in life for millions of years. I question Bethell's assumption that if Darwinian evolution didn't create something, though, that some "designer" did.
I just wanted to point out an absurd point from Derbyshire, which he's repeated in other contexts:
So if a court finds it, it's true? A court could never reverse itself under this formulation.
And Derbyshire does a good job of summing up the Great Mystery of Life, though he acts like it's a unique problem of Intelligent Design theories:
Of course, one could do that with evolution, too. What did we evolve from? What did they evolve from? What did they evolve from? "The only way out of that infinite regress is to invoke some force outside the natural world."
This doesn't prove that the theory of evolution is "supernaturalist" -- it's an attempt to explain as much as possible without resorting to the supernatural. But if Derbyshire's right that "infinite regress" demands a supernatural explanation, it's life itself that's "supernaturalist." So far as the natural world goes, everything has to come from something else, whether the predecessor is more intelligent or less evolved than the successor.
I just wanted to point out an absurd point from Derbyshire, which he's repeated in other contexts:
Intelligent Design is creationism. This has been proved to courtroom standards of evidence.
So if a court finds it, it's true? A court could never reverse itself under this formulation.
And Derbyshire does a good job of summing up the Great Mystery of Life, though he acts like it's a unique problem of Intelligent Design theories:
Who is the designer? If he's part of the natural world, he needs to be more intelligent than the things he's designing. But then who designed him? You get an infinite regress. The only way out of that infinite regress is to invoke some force outside the natural world. Ergo, Intelligent Design is supernaturalist. Q.E.D.
Of course, one could do that with evolution, too. What did we evolve from? What did they evolve from? What did they evolve from? "The only way out of that infinite regress is to invoke some force outside the natural world."
This doesn't prove that the theory of evolution is "supernaturalist" -- it's an attempt to explain as much as possible without resorting to the supernatural. But if Derbyshire's right that "infinite regress" demands a supernatural explanation, it's life itself that's "supernaturalist." So far as the natural world goes, everything has to come from something else, whether the predecessor is more intelligent or less evolved than the successor.
We invade, they don't react!
September 6th 2007 23:33
James Taranto is right that it's not the AP's job to connect intervention and terrorism, but he's wrong in disagreeing with that notion:
Maybe because the terrorists were Saudi, not Afghani or Iraqi? Al Qaeda was formed to fight the U.S.'s strong influence in Saudi Arabia (we had stationed troops there and cultivated a relationship with the unpopular royal family).
Well, six years ago, America had no military presence in Afghanistan, and its presence in Iraq was limited to fly-overs. We were not spared terrorist attacks. How does the AP explain this?
Maybe because the terrorists were Saudi, not Afghani or Iraqi? Al Qaeda was formed to fight the U.S.'s strong influence in Saudi Arabia (we had stationed troops there and cultivated a relationship with the unpopular royal family).
Tap that (foot)
September 6th 2007 23:31
Ann Coulter has a great point about Larry Craig and hypocrisy:
Not so sure about her enthusiasm on this, though:
Don't stop being gay, just don't have sex for your entire life!
Assuming the worst about Craig, the Senate has not held a vote on outlawing homosexual impulses. It voted on gay marriage. Craig not only opposes gay marriage, he's in a heterosexual marriage with kids. Talk about walking the walk!
Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."
Did Craig propose marriage to the undercover cop? If not, I'm not seeing the "hypocrisy."
Not so sure about her enthusiasm on this, though:
Unlike liberals, the "family values caucus" that the Times loathes has only one position on homosexuality: Whatever your impulses are, don't engage in homosexual sex. In fact, don't have any sex at all unless it is between a husband and wife.
Don't stop being gay, just don't have sex for your entire life!
The inalienable right to kill stuff
September 4th 2007 23:25
John Lott has the scoop on how fewer and fewer people identify themselves as hunters. I think he nails the reasons (as he has in the past; most of the links below are to his blog):
A lot of these have affected me lately. I grew up in Green Bay, Wis., and hunted with my dad pretty much every year between turning 12 and heading off the college. College was a little tougher, but I still hunted for the most part.
Now it's getting really difficult. I live in DC-suburban Virginia without a car, and no one I know even owns a gun, so hunting around here is out of the question. I'm starting out career-wise and don't have vacation time to use, so I had to plan to fly home for Thanksgiving (when the deer season is) instead of Christmas. Then, the state I lived in for 22 years socked me with a $160 licensing fee for being "out of state" (in-staters get $24) , even though I'll only be in town to hunt for two days -- in my case, this feels rather like a penalty for obeying the law (I changed my drivers license over when I moved, and then admitted that to the Wisconsin DNR instead of just using my old customer ID number).
I love hunting, so I'm willing to go through all that, but it's not surprising that the less dedicated just give it up. I suppose there's a certain libertarian argument for this; people who hunt should pay the licensing and forest upkeep costs, and if people aren't willing to, that's the market saying hunting isn't viable.
The problem is, hunters aren't the only people who enjoy the nature their fees (and equipment taxes ) maintain, and in fact someone has to hunt, whether paying or being paid for the privilege. Hunting is actually a needed service -- deer populations have gotten out of control, and (for example) the Green Bay area has even had special seasons so they wouldn't have to call in snipers to manage the numbers.
To some degree hunting's decline is unavoidable, but when states go out of the way to discourage returning children from hunting with their dads, it's not like there's nothing anyone can do about it. For a long time people were willing to pay to essentially act as wildlife management. Now people like that have become scarce, and many states respond by demanding hunters, particularly out-of-state ones, pay more ?
Why don't states do with hunting like some do with college tuition -- reciprocity agreements for in-state fees? If they keep jacking up the charges the way they have been, the only message to take from it is that they don't think hunting is worth saving. We'll see if they change their minds when they start hitting deer with their cars.
Fewer people have grown up in rural areas raising the costs of them learning how to hunt, [there are more things to do besides hunting], increased licensing requirements raising the costs of getting started, and having to travel farther to go hunting.
A lot of these have affected me lately. I grew up in Green Bay, Wis., and hunted with my dad pretty much every year between turning 12 and heading off the college. College was a little tougher, but I still hunted for the most part.
Now it's getting really difficult. I live in DC-suburban Virginia without a car, and no one I know even owns a gun, so hunting around here is out of the question. I'm starting out career-wise and don't have vacation time to use, so I had to plan to fly home for Thanksgiving (when the deer season is) instead of Christmas. Then, the state I lived in for 22 years socked me with a $160 licensing fee for being "out of state" (in-staters get $24) , even though I'll only be in town to hunt for two days -- in my case, this feels rather like a penalty for obeying the law (I changed my drivers license over when I moved, and then admitted that to the Wisconsin DNR instead of just using my old customer ID number).
I love hunting, so I'm willing to go through all that, but it's not surprising that the less dedicated just give it up. I suppose there's a certain libertarian argument for this; people who hunt should pay the licensing and forest upkeep costs, and if people aren't willing to, that's the market saying hunting isn't viable.
The problem is, hunters aren't the only people who enjoy the nature their fees (and equipment taxes ) maintain, and in fact someone has to hunt, whether paying or being paid for the privilege. Hunting is actually a needed service -- deer populations have gotten out of control, and (for example) the Green Bay area has even had special seasons so they wouldn't have to call in snipers to manage the numbers.
To some degree hunting's decline is unavoidable, but when states go out of the way to discourage returning children from hunting with their dads, it's not like there's nothing anyone can do about it. For a long time people were willing to pay to essentially act as wildlife management. Now people like that have become scarce, and many states respond by demanding hunters, particularly out-of-state ones, pay more ?
Why don't states do with hunting like some do with college tuition -- reciprocity agreements for in-state fees? If they keep jacking up the charges the way they have been, the only message to take from it is that they don't think hunting is worth saving. We'll see if they change their minds when they start hitting deer with their cars.
Who's my little hypocrite?
September 4th 2007 23:06
It's too bad Andy McCarthy couldn't have posted this statement yesterday, when I was still blogging on hypocrisy expert Jeremy Lott's blog:
Uh, no, they wouldn't, because hypocrisy is preaching that everyone should act in a given way, but failing to do so yourself. There's nothing hypocritical about thinking something should be legal but choosing not to do it. Otherwise I'd be a hypocrite for opposing a ban on tackle football.
If by contrast someone believed everyone should be gay, yet chose to be straight himself, that would be hypocritical.
Would anyone call a heterosexual who favors gay rights and gay marriage a hypocrite?
Uh, no, they wouldn't, because hypocrisy is preaching that everyone should act in a given way, but failing to do so yourself. There's nothing hypocritical about thinking something should be legal but choosing not to do it. Otherwise I'd be a hypocrite for opposing a ban on tackle football.
If by contrast someone believed everyone should be gay, yet chose to be straight himself, that would be hypocritical.
--
www.therationale.com
