Hmm...
Friday, November 09, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Don't Tase him while he's sleeping, bro
I've been critical of police use of Tasers in the past, but it's kind of frustrating that no one is hesitating at all in judging the officers in the Shawn Hicks case. So far as I can tell, no one's even gotten the cops' side of things.
I mean, seriously, if Reason's description is actually how it happened, these officers and their superiors are inhuman:
I mean, seriously, if Reason's description is actually how it happened, these officers and their superiors are inhuman:
Earlier this year, North Braddock, Penn. resident Shawn Hicks came back from a night out and plopped down on his own couch in his own home. Unfortunately, he failed to deactivate the silent alarm on his home security system. According to Hicks, two police officers responded to the alarm, entered his home, and woke him with a taser between the shoulder blades. When Hicks tried to explain that the whole thing was a misunderstanding, and that the officers were in his own home, they tasered him again. They next checked his wallet and ID, which confirmed his name and address. Then they tasered him again. The police then removed the taser pellets from Hicks' bloody back, refused to get him medical treatment, and arrested him for "being belligerent." They threw him in a holding cell until 5 am the next morning, when they released him without filing any charges....They were cleared of any wrongdoing.
A new insight on interracial dating
In Slate, a researcher who ran a speed-dating service and kept stats on it. He found men tend to go more by looks, women by smarts. Also:
My only problem with this is that I personally know white men with Asian preferences, and that stereotype certainly didn't come from nowhere. They may not be enough to show up statistically as a "white male preference for East Asian women," but the notion is not a "myth."
Also, it's pretty interesting that, regarding interracial dating, women are more racist than men. Which is kind of odd, because often times it's a male figure (the cranky father, say) who's portrayed as wanting racial purity.
[A] clear gender divide, this one less expected, emerged in our findings on racial preferences, reported in a forthcoming article in the Review of Economic Studies. Women of all the races we studied revealed a strong preference for men of their own race: White women were more likely to choose white men; black women preferred black men; East Asian women preferred East Asian men; Hispanic women preferred Hispanic men. But men don't seem to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating. A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices.
Two wrinkles on this: We found no evidence of the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women. However, we also found that East Asian women did not discriminate against white men (only against black and Hispanic men). As a result, the white man-Asian woman pairing was the most common form of interracial dating—but because of the women's neutrality, not the men's pronounced preference.
My only problem with this is that I personally know white men with Asian preferences, and that stereotype certainly didn't come from nowhere. They may not be enough to show up statistically as a "white male preference for East Asian women," but the notion is not a "myth."
Also, it's pretty interesting that, regarding interracial dating, women are more racist than men. Which is kind of odd, because often times it's a male figure (the cranky father, say) who's portrayed as wanting racial purity.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Blame Canada
Michael Medved puts forth a rather weird argument in his latest column:
Those who claim that the United States has become a rapacious, arrogant, destructive, domineering and imperialistic power must somehow explain the continued independent existence of the nation of Canada.
Alongside our allegedly bellicose, land-hungry and bellicose empire, the Maple Leaf Republic has flourished for more than two centuries --- vast, under-populated, resource rich and virtually defenseless. Unlike our Mexican neighbors to the south, the Canadians presented no substantial cultural or linguistic differences to sour the prospect of swallowing the Great White North. On three different occasions, Americans attempted or considered a push to absorb all or part of Canada: in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and during the complicated Venezuela Boundary Crisis with Great Britain in 1895. Nevertheless, the Yankee imperialists stopped well short of conquest and in the 21st Century era of unchallenged US hegemony, Canada has gone its own quirky way more notably than ever before, reveling in its separate destiny and distinctive institution.
The history of U.S. respect for Canada's continued sovereignty hardly comports with the prevailing anti-American clichés, suggesting that Americans long to impose on all the world the same "genocidal" approach we deployed against the Indians.
This is, of course, a straw-man argument: No one is promoting the "anti-American cliches" Medved attributes to "those." The argument from the left and isolationist right isn't that America wants to take over the world (bwa ha ha!) but that, through an overaggressive foreign policy, it seeks to impose its way of life on as much of the world as possible. Medved himself notes that Canada already shares our culture and language, so it's not much of a counterexample to the argument.
Macs are cheaper?
That's the argument on Salon.com:
That seems to be true, but how many people really sell their computers when they're done with them? The situation the article bases its calculations on -- keeping a computer for a year and selling it -- seems very unlikely.
In fact, I'd guess I'm pretty rare in that I switched computers when my four-year-old one was still functioning (I started recording music in high definition, so I needed something that could process mountains of data in real time). Most people probably run their PCs into the ground; in the U.S., we throw out 30 million computers annually, though it's unclear how many had multiple owners before biting the dust. Even if you bought your computer five years ago, unless it's virused-up to the point of being useless, it probably still does the basic stuff (high-speed Internet, word processing) as fast as you really need.
To me, a better price argument in favor of a Mac would be that it lasts longer, so you spend less per year of use, if in fact that is the case. (Macs are less prone to virus infections, but anecdotally, the Dell PC I started college with outlasted the Mac my girlfriend did.)
Why this should be has to do with an economic truth that has not recently mattered much in the computer industry, but that, in an age of eBay and unyielding obsolescence, is now crucial. It is resale value. Macs fetch far more on the aftermarket than do PCs -- and after years of use, you can offset that cash-register premium by selling your Mac for a better price than you could your PC.
That seems to be true, but how many people really sell their computers when they're done with them? The situation the article bases its calculations on -- keeping a computer for a year and selling it -- seems very unlikely.
In fact, I'd guess I'm pretty rare in that I switched computers when my four-year-old one was still functioning (I started recording music in high definition, so I needed something that could process mountains of data in real time). Most people probably run their PCs into the ground; in the U.S., we throw out 30 million computers annually, though it's unclear how many had multiple owners before biting the dust. Even if you bought your computer five years ago, unless it's virused-up to the point of being useless, it probably still does the basic stuff (high-speed Internet, word processing) as fast as you really need.
To me, a better price argument in favor of a Mac would be that it lasts longer, so you spend less per year of use, if in fact that is the case. (Macs are less prone to virus infections, but anecdotally, the Dell PC I started college with outlasted the Mac my girlfriend did.)
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Another fake hate crime
This century, I have not heard of a campus graffiti hate crime that was solved -- and turned out to actually be the work of a bigot. It seems they're quite frequently the product of minority students looking for attention.
A Fox station, via Michelle Malkin:
Sarah Marshak was the student "faking anti-Semitic hate against herself." This is GWU's second fake hate crime this year.
UPDATE: Now I have heard of one:
A Fox station, via Michelle Malkin:
After evaluating evidence from a hidden camera positioned in response to the swastika postings in [GWU's] Mitchell Hall, University Police have linked the student who filed the complaints to several of the incidents.
Sarah Marshak was the student "faking anti-Semitic hate against herself." This is GWU's second fake hate crime this year.
UPDATE: Now I have heard of one:
Racial intimidation is a crime that needs to be taken seriously, regardless of which race the perpetrators happen to be. It is important to note, in that regard, that the George Washington University student's confession came a couple of days after another student, a male whose name also was withheld, was charged by campus police with painting a swastika on a door in another dormitory after a hidden camera caught him in the act.
You're my Playmate of the year
It's the return of my nerdy statistical tinkering!
Over at Reason, Steve Chapman takes a look at a study positing that Internet access, through pornography, reduces rape. I blogged about that myself here and here.
He does a good job in questioning the thesis:
However, he takes the study as disproof of the opposite thesis, that pornography increases rape. He writes:
Those numbers are based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, a random survey that asks people about their experiences with crime, whether they reported it to police or not. However, my computations from this table (the FBI's Crime in the United States, which only tabulates reported crimes) reach the opposite conclusion: From 1993 to 2006, the reported violent crime rate fell from 747.1 to 473.5 (per 100,000). Reported rape fell from 41.1 to 30.9. Violent crime as a whole fell almost 37 percent, but rape only fell 25 percent.
In fact, the ratio between total rapes and incidents of every single individual violent crime the FBI included increased to some degree in that time, excepting larceny/theft (the ratio wavered a little, but ended up right about where it started). This means reported rape did not fall as much as any of these crimes did.
This could, of course, be due to the fact that while there are fewer rapes, a higher percentage of them are reported. Chapman writes, "In fact, given everything that has been done to educate people about the problem and to prosecute offenders, victims are probably more willing to come forward than they used to be." However, there's such a big gap between reported crime and the NCVS (the FBI says violent crime as a whole fell 50 percent more than rape did, while the NCVS says rape fell 25 percent faster) that it strains credibility.
Also, Steve Sailer pointed out how, in the '60s and '70s, porn availability increased as rape did the same. So given all the uncertainty -- survey data is notoriously iffy, and in this case it doesn't square with the other information available -- there's no reason whatsoever to dismiss the thesis that pornography could increase rape.
Over at Reason, Steve Chapman takes a look at a study positing that Internet access, through pornography, reduces rape. I blogged about that myself here and here.
He does a good job in questioning the thesis:
That, of course, is only a theory, and the evidence he cites is not conclusive. States that were quicker to adopt the Internet may be different in ways that also serve to prevent rape. It's not hard to think of other explanations why sexual assaults have diminished so rapidly -- such as DNA analysis, which has been an invaluable tool in catching and convicting offenders.
Changing social attitudes doubtless have also played a role. Both young men and young women are more aware today of the boundaries between consensual and coercive sex. Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, thinks the credit for progress against rape should go to federal funding under the Violence Against Women Act and to education efforts stressing that "no means no."
However, he takes the study as disproof of the opposite thesis, that pornography increases rape. He writes:
As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.
This is part of a broad decrease in criminal mayhem. Since 1993, violent crime in America has dropped by 58 percent. But the progress in this one realm has been especially dramatic. Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent. Even in the last two years, when the FBI reported upticks in violent crime, the number of rapes continued to fall.
Those numbers are based on the National Crime Victimization Survey, a random survey that asks people about their experiences with crime, whether they reported it to police or not. However, my computations from this table (the FBI's Crime in the United States, which only tabulates reported crimes) reach the opposite conclusion: From 1993 to 2006, the reported violent crime rate fell from 747.1 to 473.5 (per 100,000). Reported rape fell from 41.1 to 30.9. Violent crime as a whole fell almost 37 percent, but rape only fell 25 percent.
In fact, the ratio between total rapes and incidents of every single individual violent crime the FBI included increased to some degree in that time, excepting larceny/theft (the ratio wavered a little, but ended up right about where it started). This means reported rape did not fall as much as any of these crimes did.
This could, of course, be due to the fact that while there are fewer rapes, a higher percentage of them are reported. Chapman writes, "In fact, given everything that has been done to educate people about the problem and to prosecute offenders, victims are probably more willing to come forward than they used to be." However, there's such a big gap between reported crime and the NCVS (the FBI says violent crime as a whole fell 50 percent more than rape did, while the NCVS says rape fell 25 percent faster) that it strains credibility.
Also, Steve Sailer pointed out how, in the '60s and '70s, porn availability increased as rape did the same. So given all the uncertainty -- survey data is notoriously iffy, and in this case it doesn't square with the other information available -- there's no reason whatsoever to dismiss the thesis that pornography could increase rape.
Are children is learning.
Edwin Rubenstein makes a point I've made before -- given the students the U.S . educational system has to work with, it's doing OK. International rankings don't take into account the fact that our schools have to deal with issues (race, immigration, foreign languages) that other countries' systems don't.
Of course, this isn't to say there aren't some real failures, especially in low-income communities. But by and large, the picture isn't as bad as some would have you believe.
Of course, this isn't to say there aren't some real failures, especially in low-income communities. But by and large, the picture isn't as bad as some would have you believe.
Interesting moral dilemma of the day
I'm a bit late on this news, but in honor of the one-week countdown to Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles for the Wii, I'd like to get into a controversy Resident Evil 5 (a future release now only slated for Playstation 3 and Xbox 360) has raised.
First, some background. The whole point of Resident Evil is that a team of agents travels around killing zombies. The first four games (RE Zero through 3) were set in the Midwest, so you killed undead American whites. In Resident Evil 4, some folks in Spain had gotten a virus that made them into zombie-ish creatures, so you killed infected Spaniards.
And apparently, in RE5's current state of development, at least part of the story takes place in Africa. (Violent video here.)
Obviously, there isn't much of a rational reason to oppose this. You're not killing them because they're black; you're killing them because they're zombies. And there's a real racial double standard if you can only make video games where you kill white people (or undead people who were white before their skin started rotting). But given the history of white colonialism of Africa, this clearly has some rather dark connotations. To get away with this, the developers will probably have to couch it into a storyline that's sympathetic to Africans.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the Japanese developers will realize the intonations and change the product. Either they'll set the whole thing elsewhere, or at least they'll make the playable character black to avoid the whole racial subjugation thing.
Normally I'd bemoan the political correctness, but I can see why it would feel wrong to play a white character who saves Africa by massacring natives-turned-zombies. I prefer my wholesale slaughter free of bigotry!
In a related debate, Alternet absurdly accuses the entire RE series of "nakedly racist overtones" and "very dangerous depictions of nonwhites." The best part is this quote:
It also refers to the game "targeting immigrants for extermination."
Well, I can't differentiate between Mexico- and Spain-dialect Spanish. But, um, dude...they're in Spain. They're not "Mexican" and they're not "immigrants." And they're not "nonwhite" (another violent video here).
UPDATE: Welcome Spectator readers! I replaced the embedded videos, which stopped working, with links to YouTube.
First, some background. The whole point of Resident Evil is that a team of agents travels around killing zombies. The first four games (RE Zero through 3) were set in the Midwest, so you killed undead American whites. In Resident Evil 4, some folks in Spain had gotten a virus that made them into zombie-ish creatures, so you killed infected Spaniards.
And apparently, in RE5's current state of development, at least part of the story takes place in Africa. (Violent video here.)
Obviously, there isn't much of a rational reason to oppose this. You're not killing them because they're black; you're killing them because they're zombies. And there's a real racial double standard if you can only make video games where you kill white people (or undead people who were white before their skin started rotting). But given the history of white colonialism of Africa, this clearly has some rather dark connotations. To get away with this, the developers will probably have to couch it into a storyline that's sympathetic to Africans.
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the Japanese developers will realize the intonations and change the product. Either they'll set the whole thing elsewhere, or at least they'll make the playable character black to avoid the whole racial subjugation thing.
Normally I'd bemoan the political correctness, but I can see why it would feel wrong to play a white character who saves Africa by massacring natives-turned-zombies. I prefer my wholesale slaughter free of bigotry!
In a related debate, Alternet absurdly accuses the entire RE series of "nakedly racist overtones" and "very dangerous depictions of nonwhites." The best part is this quote:
The most recent Resident Evil movie is based on extremely popular video games like last year's smash-hit Resident Evil 4, which places players in the position of fighting parasitically controlled Spaniards (called "Los Ganados" or "the cattle") with stereotypical Mexican accents.
It also refers to the game "targeting immigrants for extermination."
Well, I can't differentiate between Mexico- and Spain-dialect Spanish. But, um, dude...they're in Spain. They're not "Mexican" and they're not "immigrants." And they're not "nonwhite" (another violent video here).
UPDATE: Welcome Spectator readers! I replaced the embedded videos, which stopped working, with links to YouTube.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Girls rock the boys
Grammy.com has a look-the-other-way article about how there are just so many women in heavy metal:
The key word here is "fronting." There are female singers here and there, but men play the guitars and drums, even in those bands. Let's take a look at the numbers; in fact, why don't we only look at the first 10 bands the article specifically mentions. It turns out that not one of them has a female member besides the frontwoman:
Evanescence (1/6 female)
Lacuna Coil (1/6)
Flyleaf (1/5)
Arch Enemy (1/5)
Within Temptation (1/6)
In This Moment (1/5)
Leaves' Eyes (1/6)
Agonist (1/4)
Within Temptation (1/6)
Epica (1/6)
Total female: 10/55 or 18 percent
OK, so...bands chosen for mention in this article specifically because of their high-female membership were 18 percent female. What overwhelming parity!
Gender-equality advocates can be glad that there's a style of metal that calls for female vocals. And in blues-based rock, there have even been all-female acts like the Donnas and Crucified Barbara. But as long as rock as a whole depends on testosterone-addled songwriting and fleet-fingered, big-handed guitar playing -- and not to mention that musical accomplishment has been primarily male through history -- it will be first a man's game. The last nail in the coffin? Hardly.
Hat tip: Blabbermouth.
If the clichéd debate over the presence of women in rock music isn't dead, the often gothed-out females fronting a number of today's metal bands should literally put the last nail in the coffin.
The key word here is "fronting." There are female singers here and there, but men play the guitars and drums, even in those bands. Let's take a look at the numbers; in fact, why don't we only look at the first 10 bands the article specifically mentions. It turns out that not one of them has a female member besides the frontwoman:
Evanescence (1/6 female)
Lacuna Coil (1/6)
Flyleaf (1/5)
Arch Enemy (1/5)
Within Temptation (1/6)
In This Moment (1/5)
Leaves' Eyes (1/6)
Agonist (1/4)
Within Temptation (1/6)
Epica (1/6)
Total female: 10/55 or 18 percent
OK, so...bands chosen for mention in this article specifically because of their high-female membership were 18 percent female. What overwhelming parity!
Gender-equality advocates can be glad that there's a style of metal that calls for female vocals. And in blues-based rock, there have even been all-female acts like the Donnas and Crucified Barbara. But as long as rock as a whole depends on testosterone-addled songwriting and fleet-fingered, big-handed guitar playing -- and not to mention that musical accomplishment has been primarily male through history -- it will be first a man's game. The last nail in the coffin? Hardly.
Hat tip: Blabbermouth.
Megadeth review up at antiMusic
Here's my take on the four-CD-plus-DVD set Warchest.
Main point:
Main point:
Seriously, $64? A true fan already has virtually all these songs in some form or another – the promotional blurbs claim 33 unreleased tracks, but those are mostly demos and live performances – and a newcomer would do far better heading online and ordering used copies of Peace Sells…But Who's Buying; So Far, So Good...So What; Rust in Peace; Countdown to Extinction; Youthanasia; Cryptic Writings; and The System has Failed. He'd get far more material, organized as it was originally intended, for about the same price. If he shopped carefully, he could probably snag the band's whole catalog.
Social Security smoke and mirrors
I don't write about Social Security all that much, but I think Jim Antle makes an important point in today's Spectator:
This is absolutely true: When you look at your paycheck, you see a certain amount has been taken out for "Social Security." This is more than actually is spent on SS, so the rest is put into a trust fund. Except not really: The government spends the money on other programs and replaces it with IOUs.
The bottom line is that SS taxes are just like other taxes -- surplus SS revenues go into the general budget, and in 2017, when SS will cost more than the taxes collected in its name, the difference will come out of the general budget. Earmarking certain dollars as "for Social Security" has no effect whatsoever.
The year 2041, when the surpluses accrued before 2017 will equal the deficits accumulated since, is meaningless as well. Again, the trust fund that will supposedly be exhausted isn't real. SS can't be bankrupt if it doesn't exist as an independent entity.
What matters is that Social Security is going to get more and more expensive until it drives us into fiscal crisis, not that it will cross some magical financial boundary.
The Social Security trust fund is a polite fiction, an accounting gimmick. The system's surpluses have been used to augment general revenues and spent on other budget priorities. Preserving those surpluses will probably do more to perpetuate this trend than promote long-term solvency, ensuring that every so many years it will be 1983 all over again.
This is absolutely true: When you look at your paycheck, you see a certain amount has been taken out for "Social Security." This is more than actually is spent on SS, so the rest is put into a trust fund. Except not really: The government spends the money on other programs and replaces it with IOUs.
The bottom line is that SS taxes are just like other taxes -- surplus SS revenues go into the general budget, and in 2017, when SS will cost more than the taxes collected in its name, the difference will come out of the general budget. Earmarking certain dollars as "for Social Security" has no effect whatsoever.
The year 2041, when the surpluses accrued before 2017 will equal the deficits accumulated since, is meaningless as well. Again, the trust fund that will supposedly be exhausted isn't real. SS can't be bankrupt if it doesn't exist as an independent entity.
What matters is that Social Security is going to get more and more expensive until it drives us into fiscal crisis, not that it will cross some magical financial boundary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
