Harry Potter and the Bettors of Bungay

No, the title of this post is not the title of a forthcoming Harry Potter book. The sixth book in the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, is due out one month from today. Amazon is guaranteeing delivery on July 16th (the release date), so I've preordered mine from them. In fact, I've ordered two copies, since I don't want any conflicts with my older daughter over who gets to read it first. What the heck, they're only $18 per copy, and let's face it, reading Harry Potter is really, really important.

The title of this post refers to interesting betting patterns noted (spoiler alert) in the Guardian. J.K. Rowling (the author of Harry Potter) has "hinted that a major character would meet their death" in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. This hint spawned betting markets all over the world for the purpose of betting on which character would die. As in any betting pool created by bookies, odds are set up to reflect the betting patterns, such that the bookie always gets a riskless cut, and as such, represents the best known information regarding the subject matter. Through mid-May, a large number of characters had plausible odds.

Suddenly, in the town of Bungay (in Britain), which happens to be one of the towns where Harry Potter books are printed (and they are currently being printed worldwide), a large number of bets were placed on one specific character. The odds then collapsed and no further bets are being taken. In other words, we now know which character is going to die (if we've read the Guardian article above). We can guess that someone at the printing company in Bungay sneaked a peak at the book and leaked the information.

There are (at least) two interesting things about this sequence of events. First, the character who dies in Harry Potter VI was predicted by the odds even prior to the leak. This is yet another example of the Wisdom of Crowds - the ability for the masses to accurately predict unknowable future events.

The second thing of interest, is that it lends plausibility to the concept of terrorism futures and/or betting markets. Just as someone was willing to leak information regarding Harry Potter for a profit, so might associates of terrorists be willing to leak information regarding terrorist activities for a profit. The Pentagon proposed a futures market for just that sort of thing, but it was shot down on "moral" grounds by congressmen, who in my opinion, didn't consider the issue carefully enough.

Perhaps they should reconsider it.

Arab and European Culture

The 9/11 attacks on the United States were perpertrated by Arabs. In The Netherlands, Theo Van Gogh was murdered by Arabs and Hirsi Ali, a member of parliment, is under constant and permanent police protection due to death threats from Arab immigrant groups. There's rampant poverty across Arabia and Arab immigrants to Europe are poorer and less educated than the natives.

These facts beg the following questions. Is Arab culture simply not compatible with modernity? If so, should we restrict Arab immigration (this question is being asked very seriously in The Netherlands)? Is spreading democracy to Arabia a lost cause?

I believe that the answer to all these questions is a resounding NO!!! My evidence? Consider the following excerpt from an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy:

People of Arab descent living in the United States are doing far better than the average American. That is the surprising conclusion drawn from data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000 and released last March. The census found that U.S. residents who report having Arab ancestors are better educated and wealthier than average Americans.

Whereas 24 percent of Americans hold college degrees, 41 percent of Arab Americans are college graduates. The median income for an Arab family living in the United States is $52,300 - 4.6 percent higher than other American families -and more than half of all Arab Americans own their home. Forty-two percent of people of Arab descent in the United States work as managers or professionals, while the same is true for only 34 percent of the general U.S. population. For many, this success has come on quickly: Although about 50 percent of Arab Americans were born in the United States, nearly half of those born abroad did not arrive until the 1990s.

That immigrants do better than their compatriots back home is of course no surprise. What is far less common is for immigrants to perform that much better than the average population of their adopted home.

So why do Arab immigrants to the United States do so much better than their counterparts in Europe? Consider "An Immigrant's Tale":

I arrived in Sweden in 1989 together with my mother and brother. We were refugees from Iran and since we arrived we have depended on welfare and government benefits in one way or another. In a sense I believe that this gives me a much better understanding of the Scandinavian welfare system than most ethnic Swedes have. [...]

Living in Gotland was an interesting experience. Back in Iran my brother and I went to school six days a week and wrote our homework about two hours each day. A lot of our spare time was spent at the local library. My father worked full-time and my mother had worked first as a teacher and later as a vice president in the kindergartens that we had attended. Later she became a housewife. In the refugee camp nobody did anything. Nobody learned how to speak Swedish. Nobody was integrated in the Swedish society and nobody was allowed to get a job. The strong work ethic that we had brought from our home countries simpered away and we became used to the idea that social security was responsible for our lives.

The Netherlands has a similar system. Not only are the immigrants not encouraged to work, they are not allowed to work until they become citizens (because that might take jobs from natives). By the time they finally get citizenship, their work ethic has "simpered away".

This particular immigrant goes on to say that the work ethic of native Swedes is also simpering away:

One thing that my up growing has shown me is that there is little incentive to work and educate yourself in the Swedish welfare system. According to the Institute for Labour Policies the average salary of a person who has studied at a university for three years is only five percent higher of somebody who is uneducated. Most Swedish families would have higher income if they lived off government and made some money working in the black market. For a long time the strong work ethics in Sweden has prevented people from exploiting the system. But this seems to be changing. The work ethic has dramatically fallen in Sweden. More and more people are finding ways of living off government as an alternative to working. Between 20 and 25 percent of the working age population does not work. Between 1997 and 2003 the number of people who were on sick leave increased by more than 200,000, a dramatic number for a small country such as Sweden. [...]

The European welfare systems have functioned because of strong work ethics that made people reluctant to exploit them. But these work ethics are the product of a society where you had to work in order to provide for yourself and your family. As people adjust to the political systems we have today the ideas of individual responsibility diminishes. This is exactly what has happened among the large number of emigrants who are dependent on social security. What happens when the rest of the population adjusts to the system?

In summary, Arabs are excellent immigrants to the United States and there's no reason they wouldn't be excellent immigrants to other countries. In addition, the same factors that cause Arab immigrants to be a drain on European societies may eventually cause the European natives to also be a drain on those same societies. They may then reach a tipping point, where the society rapidly disintegrates, requiring the government to intervene in a coercive fashion (no doubt with popular support if things have actually disintegrated) in order to keep things running at all. At that point everybody will essentially be a ward of the State. In other words, they will have followed "The Road to Serfdom" to its logical end.

Earthquake

I felt that one:

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. - A mild earthquake shook the desert early Sunday and could be felt in Los Angeles and San Diego. There were no immediate reports of any injuries or damage, authorities said.

The magnitude-5.6 quake struck about 8:40 a.m. and was centered 20 miles south of Palm Springs, according to a preliminary report by the U.S. Geological Survey.

No big deal though - just a mild shake.

More Like Them

Consider a game that nearly everyone has played at one time or another. There's an extra piece of candy and both you and your sister want it. Dad says, "I'm thinking of a number between one and ten, each of you guess what it is, and who ever is closer gets the piece of candy." Your sister goes first and picks two. What do you do?

Assuming that you have no way of knowing what number Dad is thinking of, clearly the best choice is three. By choosing three you win if Dad was thinking of three to ten and only lose if Dad was thinking of one or two.

But what if Dad plays this game fairly often, Dad's favorite number is nine, and that's what he usually picks? You might as well still pick three since you'll still win even if Dad picks nine.

Now let's say Dad's a bit mischievous and modifies the game. Whoever guesses the closer number still gets the candy, but there's a caveat. You have to wait however many days your number is different from the one Dad is thinking of. In other words, if you pick three and Dad was thinking of nine, you'll still get the candy but Dad won't give it to you for six days (nine minus three).

This makes the decision subjective. If the most important thing in the world is to ensure your annoying sister doesn't get the piece of candy, three is still the best choice. On the other hand, if you actually like your sister and don't mind her getting the candy, and you need instant gratification so you want the candy now or never, and Dad does usually pick nine, then your best guess is nine. Four through eight are also reasonable choices and tradeoff how quickly you get the candy if you win, with winning it in the first place.

Let's switch gears now. Let the choices of one to ten represent the spectrum of pure communism through pure capitalism. In other words, one represents pure communism and ten represents pure capitalism. Picking the optimal number will make your society the strongest possible.

It's 1917 and the communist revolution just occurred in Russia. In other words, the Russians just picked two. You have no knowledge of the future. If you choose wrong and lose, the Russians will become much stronger economically and militarily, and your society will probably end up collapsing.

If the optimal number is two, then you're sunk no matter what you do. The Russians have hit the number dead on, and will quickly become the dominant power. So we just have to hope it's not two.

Dad doesn't exist in this version of the game, but your analysis and intuition tells you the optimal point in the spectrum between communism and capitalism is nine. However, you could be wrong and you know it.

So, what do you pick? If you pick three (very socialist but not as socialist as Russia), your society will have the best shot of winning, but it may take a really long time for that victory to occur. If you pick nine (mostly capitalism, very little socialism), you think you will win and quickly, but you might lose.

During the cold war, the U.S. drifted left through FDR's New Deal, war on poverty, and other social safety nets that didn't exist prior to Russia's communist revolution. That drift was perhaps a "nine" to a "seven." So the U.S. chose seven.

Now, I'm not claiming that I somehow "know" that the self organizing complex system that was the society of the United States during the cold war explicitly chose to become somewhat more like the enemy they were fighting in order to hedge their bets. Nonetheless, it's interesting that we did become a little more like the Soviets than we had been before their revolution. I also think that if you explained the game to people of that era as I explained it above, they might also have picked something less than nine. Quite a coincidence.

Let's switch gears one last time. This time the spectrum is social conservatism to social liberalism. A choice of one indicates extreme conservatism as is found in extreme Islam or any other extremely conservative people. A choice of ten indicates the opposite; no laws against "victimless" crimes, no morality based laws of any kind, everyone can does as they please as long as they don't directly damage anyone else. There are lots of caveats with this spectrum, but you get the idea.

It's September 12, 2001. Islamic terrorists have chosen one. We're at about seven and the average opinion of where we should be on September 10, 2001 was about seven as well. What do we choose now?

Well, once again, the optimal number as far as the strength of our society against this enemy who engages in asymmetric warfare is unknown. If we get it wrong we might very well lose. It could even possibly be unwinnable no matter what we do (in this case the optimal number is one).

But if we become more like the enemy, we increase the odds of survival but our society becomes a worse place in the meantime. If we don't become more like the enemy, we may not survive.

I think this may be a factor, albeit one of many, that's causing the acceleration of the re-adoption of religiosity in America. I'll admit that it is an unprovable conjecture, but nevertheless, it is an interesting coincidence.

Amnesty's Interesting Perspective

I noticed several interesting tidbits Amnesty International's latest Annual Report:

We have documented that the use of torture and ill treatment is widespread and that the US government is a leading purveyor and practitioner of this odious human rights violation. [...]

Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998. [...]

Foreign governments that are party to the Geneva Conventions and/or the Convention against Torture - and that is some 190 countries - and countries that have national legislation that authorizes prosecution - and that is at least 125 countries - have a legally binding obligation to exercise what is known as universal jurisdiction over people accused of grave breaches of the Conventions. Governments are required to investigate suspects and, if warranted, to prosecute them or to extradite them to a country that will. Crimes such as torture are so serious that they amount to an offense against all of humanity and require governments to investigate and prosecute people responsible for those crimes - no matter where the crime was committed.

Who might those senior officials be? Amnesty International explicitly names George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Alberto Gonzales, and many others.

Let's imagine that Bush goes to Europe to visit Chirac in France. And while they're doing the wine and cheese thing, a bunch of French policemen attempt to overpower Bush's secret service contingent and arrest Bush. Given that they're French, they probably wouldn't succeed, but let's say that they did and were able to take Bush into custody. Hmmmm. Let's choose from the following list what might happen:

1. Nothing much, nobody likes Bush anyway.
2. We grovel at the feet of the French, begging for our President back.
3. We sever all ties with France (and perhaps Europe) and expel all French (and perhaps European) people from the United States precipitating a global political and economic crisis.
4. We immediately declare war on France.
5. We immediately nuke France and turn it into boiling sea of red wine and molten cheese.

I think that the probability of (1) and (2) are zero. We may not like Bush, but we like the French even less. I'm not sure what would happen, but it's hard to believe that whatever it was, that it would further Amnesty International's agenda. What are they thinking?

That Disturbing Krugman

Since Krugman has been quoted and mentioned several times in this blog, it caught my eye when Daniel Okrent, the outgoing (well, already gone, actually) public editor of the New York Times wrote:

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

Krugman responded in his usual Krugmanesque way leading to Okrent really opening up on Krugman:

When he [Krugman] says he agreed “reluctantly” to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word “reluctantly”; I can’t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they’re entitled doesn’t mean I or you have to like it, or think it’s good for the newspaper. [...]

I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I’m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.

Good luck, Barney!

Truths not Worth Knowing

Each of us has numerous beliefs that we hold essential. A Truth not worth knowing is one that refutes a belief that we hold essential. Though each of us has many essential beliefs, it is very difficult for me to give an example of one because, of course, all my essential beliefs are True and irrefutable. Nonetheless, consider the following hypothetical example.

One Truth I hold essential is that all races, ethnicities, and genders have virtually identical distributions of intelligence due to genetic composition (i.e. the nature component). In addition, the distributions of genetic based intelligence are identical for all subjects (science, math, literature, etc.). Now even though this is unprovable with certainty due to interfering factors (such as nurture), it is unarguably True.

However, let's say that in an alternate universe, I held this same belief, but it turned out to be false. In addition, somehow, irrefutable evidence (the “Truth”) was discovered that my belief was false. That evidence would qualify as a “Truth” not worth knowing because of the damage it would cause to society. I would simply choose to ignore it and continue to believe my essential belief regarding intelligence.

Now let's turn to the case of the Kansas School Board and Evolution. Let's say someone holds the following premises as essential:

1. Morality M is a critically important component of society
2. The adoption of M by the general public critically depends on Traditions T
3. Belief in Religion R is a critically important component of T
4. Creation Myth C is a critically important component required for belief in R
5. Evolution critically weakens C

From these premises it would follow that Evolution is a Truth not worth knowing because it would impede or prevent the adoption of M, a critically important component of society.

Obviously, if one disagrees with any of the premises (1) through (5), then the conclusion that Evolution is a Truth not worth knowing would not follow. I happen to disagree with several of those premises. Unfortunately, the people of Kansas, by and large, firmly believe all of those premises, and, as a result, will do whatever they can to weaken the impact of Evolution when presented to their children. Indeed, if I believed premises (1) through (5), I would do the same.

If parents believe that what is to be taught to their children will greatly damage (their) society, whether or not what is being taught is true, they have a right or even a duty, as parents, to prevent those things from being taught to their children. And if those things such as Evolution must be taught, then such parents have a right or a duty to mitigate the impact of that being taught as much as possible. In this case, they've invented an untrue story called ID for that particular purpose.

So why teach Evolution at all? There are certainly other topics that could be taught during that science slot. Perhaps that is the best solution. Just don't teach it.

However, let's say that you believe premises (1) through (5) but you think that micro-Evolution coupled with other biological sciences are important from the perspective of forward looking technology. Then, perhaps the best approach is to teach Evolution, but use something else such as ID as a method to blunt the historical implications of Evolution. Perhaps that is what the people of Kansas are doing.

At this point, I've firmly concluded that neither I, nor anybody else, will be able to convince the people of Kansas to drop their belief in premises (1) through (5); that Evolution from a historical perspective would rationally be a Truth not worth knowing given those premises and the use of a false pseudo-science such as ID gives them the best of both worlds in that it enables the introduction of an important science to their children while blunting the impact on their religious beliefs. Lastly, I don't think it my place to meddle in the parenting of the people of Kansas.

EU Who?

Referendums in both France and The Netherlands solidly rejected the proposed new constitution for the European Union (EU). My friends in The Netherlands refused to talk about it by politely changing the subject, so passions seem to be running high. My take on the history and future of the EU is a bit different that all of the rest of the pundits in the world, and given that, my take is probably wrong. However, that's never stopped me before, and it won't this time either, so here goes.

The grand project of the integration of Europe accelerated with the destruction of the Berlin wall in 1989. It's my opinion, that the elite of Europe smelled an opportunity, not to make Europe a better place, but rather to concentrate their power significantly further.

With the Soviet Union in operation balanced by the United States prior to 1989, the bipolar world limited the opportunities for the power hungry in old Europe. Their best bet was to play the Soviet Union and the United States off of each other, but there was little chance for Europe to have any real power.

But with the fall of the Soviet Union, coupled with playing the anti-American card, the elite was able to whip the European public up into a state of fear regarding having a unipolar world with the crazy Americans leading it. By promising that Europe could be a counter balance to the horrible Americans if only there was adequate political integration of the nations of Europe, the elite hoped that they could do a raw power grab by bypassing the national level democracies and concentrating power in Brussels, capitalizing on the state of fear they created in their electorates.

Indeed, I think George Bush was a godsend to the ruling elite of Europe. It was hard to keep the fires of fear adequately stoked under Clinton because he was too likeable and too European. But George Bush is everything Europeans are taught to fear about the United States. A right wing, religious cowboy, both corrupt and stupid. Add in some crazy military adventures and you have a perfect storm to help push through the consolidation of power for the European ruling elite.

Unfortunately, the elite overplayed their hand. While Iraq (and Afghanistan) have had numerous problems, the vast majority of the constantly predicted catastrophes never materialized. Add in the liberation of Lebanon (for free), the de-nuclearization of Libya, the beginnings of reform in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others, and the elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the result is that the European publics' anti-Americanism, while still quite strong, was weakened enough over the last year so that giving up control to beauracrats in Brussels forever suddenly didn't seem like such a good idea after all.

That's what I think has happened. I have no idea what Europe's future, near or long term, holds, but clearly these strong public rejections of the current path chosen by the ruling elite can't be encouraging to those that favor a strong union.

Not Anti-Bush

I don't really like Bush all that much. However, there is so much anti-Bush hysteria that I feel comfortable occasionally excerpting somethings that puts him in a positive light. The following excerpts from an article by Fouad Ajami indicate that Bush may be less hated in the Middle East than is generally thought:

"George W. Bush has unleashed a tsunami on this region," a shrewd Kuwaiti merchant who knows the way of his world said to me. The man had no patience with the standard refrain that Arab reform had to come from within, that a foreign power cannot alter the age-old ways of the Arabs. "Everything here--the borders of these states, the oil explorations that remade the life of this world, the political outcomes that favored the elites now in the saddle--came from the outside. This moment of possibility for the Arabs is no exception." A Jordanian of deep political experience at the highest reaches of Arab political life had no doubt as to why history suddenly broke in Lebanon, and could conceivably change in Syria itself before long. "The people in the streets of Beirut knew that no second Hama is possible; they knew that the rulers were under the gaze of American power, and knew that Bush would not permit a massive crackdown by the men in Damascus." [...]

To venture into the Arab world, as I did recently over four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq, is to travel into Bush Country. I was to encounter people from practically all Arab lands, to listen in on a great debate about the possibility of freedom and liberty. I met Lebanese giddy with the Cedar Revolution that liberated their country from the Syrian prison that had seemed an unalterable curse. They were under no illusions about the change that had come their way. They knew that this new history was the gift of an American president who had put the Syrian rulers on notice. ... They hang on George Bush's words in Damascus, I was told: the rulers wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future. [,,,]

As I made my way on this Arab journey, I picked up a meditation that Massimo d'Azeglio, a Piedmontese aristocrat who embraced that "springtime" in Europe, offered about his time, which speaks so directly to this Arab time: "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." It would be fair to say that there are many Arabs today keen to walk--frightened as they are by the prospect of the Islamists coming to power and curtailing personal liberties, snuffing out freedoms gained at such great effort and pain. But more Arabs, I hazard to guess, now have the wish to ride. It is a powerful temptation that George W. Bush has brought to their doorstep.

The interesting thing is that by the 2008 election we'll have more insight into whether or not little tidbits like this one have any substantial truth to them.

I Hope They're Joking

But, apparently they're not:

LONG, pointed kitchen knives should be banned as part of a concerted effort to reduce the terrible injuries and deaths caused by stabbing attacks, doctors warned today.

I would cry, but the commenters at BrothersJudd Blog have made me laugh instead. First, a new constitutional amendment:

A well regulated kitchen, being necessary to the cuisine of free-range Steak; the right of the people to keep and bear cutlery, shall not be infringed. (Hat tip: Ed Bush)

And, someone else pointed to this old, old Monty Python skit (Hat tip: Mike Earl) which is suddenly looking plausible:

Sergeant: ... Right. Now, self-defence. Tonight I shall be carrying on from where we got to last week when I was showing you how to defend yourselves against anyone who attacks you with armed with a piece of fresh fruit.

(Grumbles from all)

2nd Man: Oh, you promised you wouldn't do fruit this week.

Sergeant: What do you mean?

3rd Man: We've done fruit the last nine weeks.

Sergeant: What's wrong with fruit? You think you know it all, eh?

2nd Man: Can't we do something else?

3rd Man: Like someone who attacks you with a pointed stick?

Sergeant: Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...

Just keep in mind, "pointed" sticks will probably be outlawed soon as well...

Anti-Gay?

Due to discussions at Left2Right, I've ended up contemplating what it means to be anti-gay. Since the topic is highly charged in the current political environment, I'd like to discuss it with a metaphor outside the realm of homosexuality.

Consider the following potential statements that might be made by an individual regarding persons of ethnicity x (represented below by Eth(x)).

1. ∀ persons ρ ∈ Eth(x), I think ρ should be killed.
2. ∀ persons ρ ∈ Eth(x), I think ρ should not be killed, but should be a slave.
3. ∀ persons ρ ∈ Eth(x), I think ρ should not be a slave, but should be segregated.
4. ∀ persons ρ ∈ Eth(x), I think ρ should not be segregated, but may be discriminated against.
5. ∀ persons ρ ∈ Eth(x), I think ρ should not be discriminated against, but I don't feel comfortable with ρ, so I have no friends who are members of Eth(x).
6. I have no prejudice relative to members of Eth(x), I have good friends who are members of Eth(x), but I have never been romantically or sexually attracted to any member of Eth(x), though I don't mind if others of my ethnicity are involved with or married to members of Eth(x).
   
7. Same as (6) except I am attracted romantically and sexually to members of Eth(x) and I would certainly consider being, or already am, married to someone who is a member of Eth(x).
8. ∀ persons ρ ∈ Eth(x), ρ is superior in every way to all persons α ∈ Eth(y), where I am a member of Eth(y) and y ≠ x, and I worship the very ground that ρ walks on.

This list represents a spectrum of thoughts and feelings regarding Eth(x). Virtually everyone can make a statement somewhere between (1) and (8) that more or less expresses their belief. Each individual can be more or less accepting of members of Eth(x), and conversely, less or more anti-Eth(x). If you define someone as anti-Eth(x) who would make any statement less than (8), and you consider anyone who is anti-Eth(x) by this definition to be hostile, then that definition would find a lot more hostility toward Eth(x) in the general population than would a definition that considered only those people who would make statements less than (7) or even (6) as anti-Eth(x). By raising the bar (i.e., raising the statement number corresponding to the dividing line between anti-Eth(x) and neutral), suddenly people are defined as being anti-Eth(x) and hostile, when those same people, to the population in general, don't seem all that hostile.

Another thing to consider is that the distribution of the above statements that individuals who are not members of Eth(x) would choose as most closely representing their viewpoints forms an important context for what constitutes anti-Eth(x) and what doesn't. For example, in past centuries, depending on which ethnicity is being considered, making statement (3) might, on average, have been considered pro-Eth(x), not anti-Eth(x). At those places and times, the context might have made statement (5) incredibly enlightened and utterly unfathomable by most people of that time and place.

Right now, in the United States, regarding all races and ethnicities, the median person would probably pick something between (6) and (7) as best representing their views. Because we've evolved as a society to be getting closer to non-racist (statement (7)), we can discuss this particular spectrum pretty calmly.

If, instead of considering ethnicity, we consider homosexuality, the discussion seems to become far more charged. The spectrum for anti-gayness is different than for anti-Eth(x)ness with somewhat different categories (which I'll let someone else define). More importantly, the distribution of views across the spectrum is, at this point in the evolution of American society, far more spread out, with lots of people at both ends of the spectrum. But, that sort of spread happened for race during the civil rights movement, and we've made slow, not so steady progress toward racial equality. Another few generations and we may actually achieve true color blindness, both in heart and thought.

My guess is that gayness will also one day be a non-issue. At that point, we (or our descendents) will not even notice the difference between a man and woman getting married and two men (or women) getting married. Perhaps babies will be grown in beakers by that time so there won't even be a difference in family structures. But once again, I think we are at least one, and possibly many more, generations away from that point.

In the meantime, I'm hoping that the advocates for Single Sex Marriage (SSM) do understand, at this point in time, even if the government were to recognize SSM, most of the people would not. In other words, gay people still won't be married in the eyes of most people, even if they are in the eyes of the State. This is analogous to prejudice against blacks continuing for generations after Jim Crow laws were overturned. I've seen a number of statements indicating that SSM advocates are hoping that by having the government recognize SSM, gay people will become accepted by the general population. If that's the main motivator, I'm afraid there's going to a lot of disappointment for a long time.

Justice

Benjamin Franklin thought "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer." For "one hundred", substitute N, and probably everyone can find some N, between 0 and infinity, that they feel comfortable with. As one rather amusing essay points out, lots of people over time have put forth different values for N, with the current mean value being approximately 59.72. In other words, in the United States, we believe that on average, it is better for 59.72 guilty persons to go free than to have one innocent punished, but better to have one innocent punished than to have more than 59.72 guilty people go free. Note that an N of 0 means we would have to round up an imprison everybody and an N of infinity means that we should never punish anybody because we can never be absolutely, one-hundred percent sure of guilt. In the latter case it would be pointless to even bother to arrest anybody since we wouldn't end up punishing them. In that case, we could close down the courts, fire all the policemen, and with the expenses saved, we could cut taxes. The point is that it doesn't make sense to insist that innocent people are never punished - it will simply happen some of the time if anybody is ever punished, and indeed, in some ratio to the number of guilty who go unpunished.

I know someone who was a Public Defender for several years and a fantastic story teller. The stories she told of how she helped numerous guilty crooks escape justice were captivating and enjoyable. She saved the guilty from serving countless thousands of years of time in jail. She was proud of it too, because these guilty people were, in her opinion, the downtrodden of the earth, to be protected and kept free at all costs in that horribly oppressive and unjust society that is the United States today. We can imagine that her N is quite a bit higher than the 59.72 average. I can also imagine that she and her colleagues pushed the actual N well past the 59.72 ratio desired by the people of the United States.

Of course she also helped the innocent avoid punishment. I'm sure that was a good thing. But even here, some of the stories gave me pause. For example, a drunken homeless guy finds an unlocked parked car and crawls inside and goes to sleep. The owner (a woman) finds this guy in her car and freaks out and calls the police. The police arrests the guy and he's charged with breaking and entering a vehicle. But he was clearly innocent of breaking and entering because the vehicle was unlocked. The owner claimed otherwise, but there was no sign of breaking and entering. The guy, defended by the Public Defender, goes free and justice is served - sort of. What about the poor woman who had to deal with the rather scary situation of finding some guy in her car? I guess no real harm done, but still, I'm left with this nagging feeling that something wasn't quite right.

One of the results of hearing these stories is that it is going to very hard for me to buy into any proposal that we increase the number of Public Defenders since it's clear to me that more Public Defenders will mean yet more criminals avoiding punishment. That being said, stories like the one a of a woman in Gulfport, Mississippi who was in jail eleven months before a lawyer was appointed, was in jail two more months before the lawyer came to see her, and was in jail one more month before they went to court and pled guilty to time served, all for shoplifting merchandise worth $72 does bother me a lot. So there are a few things I might try and change.

1. Shorten trials: this would have the benefits of freeing up Public Defenders for other clients and reducing the strain on the courts of having to recruit jurors. I don't know exactly how to do this. However, having recently received a jury duty summons for a four month trial, I've thought a lot about it, and I don't see how I personally could absorb four months worth of information and make a better decision than if I had just received one month of information. I'm not a walking encyclopedic computer that can utilize all of that information. The last three of the four months would basically be a farce.

2. Make bail easier to get for non-violent criminals: the alledged shoplifter should have been out on bail (unless she had previously skipped bail). The government should pay the interest on the bail bonds when the system is too slow. Perhaps the government should even guarantee bail bonds for the poor. I realize this doesn't solve the problem regarding the right to a speedy trial, but that concept becomes a lot less important if one is free and presumed innocent. I suspect that most of those out on bail would just as soon their court date be postponed forever. Those that did want a speedy trial could be given priority. Those waiting in jail for a trial should certainly be given priority.

3. Use fines instead of jail for punishments wherever possible: the resulting revenues could be used to hire more Public Defenders or to cut taxes. Drug possession and prostitution could easily be punished by hefty fines instead of jail time.

4. Use the punitive damages portion of tort settlements to fund the court system instead of having the money go to the plaintiffs.

I'm sure that there are better ways to enhance the system, and I'm all ears. But any politician who suggests spending more money for more Public Defenders will definitely not get my vote (all other things being equal).

Jonesing for Janice

I would be thrilled to see Janice Rogers Brown sitting on the bench of a high federal court. This speech which is heavily excerpted below demonstrates that she has tremendous historical perspective. Her judicial tendencies are well leavened by a respect for precedent. Finally, she is highly competent. Lovers of liberty should strongly support her, all others should fear her!

"One cannot maintain forever one's language and judgment against the pressures of a world that works in different ways," for we are shaped by the world in which we live.2

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom.

Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.

Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase.

America's Constitution provided an 18th Century answer to the question of what to do about the status of the individual and the mode of government. Though the founders set out to establish good government "from reflection and choice,"6 they also acknowledged the "limits of reason as applied to constitutional design,"7 and wisely did not seek to invent the world anew on the basis of abstract principle; instead, they chose to rely on habits, customs, and principles derived from human experience and authenticated by tradition.

Collectivism sought to answer a different question: how to achieve cosmic justice — sometimes referred to as social justice — a world of social and economic equality. Such an ambitious proposal sees no limit to man's capacity to reason. It presupposes a community can consciously design not only improved political, economic, and social systems but new and improved human beings as well.

The great innovation of this millennium was equality before the law. The greatest fiasco — the attempt to guarantee equal outcomes for all people. Tom Bethell notes that the security of property — a security our Constitution sought to ensure — had to be devalued in order for collectivism to come of age.

Intellectuals visualized a planned life without private property, mediated by the New Man."12 He never arrived. As John McGinnis persuasively argues: "There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature. As Edward O. Wilson, the world's foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, 'Wonderful theory. Wrong species.'"13

"Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery in the name of shar[ed] resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most vast network of concentration camps ever built [for] the defense of liberty."17

Of course, given the vision of the American Revolution just outlined, you might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.

There were obviously urgent economic and social reasons driving not only the political culture but the constitutional culture in the mid-1930's — though it was actually the mistakes of governments (closed borders, high tariffs, and other protectionist measures) that transformed a "momentary breakdown into an international cataclysm."22 The climate of opinion favoring collectivist social and political solutions had a worldwide dimension.

Protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937.

Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights. This change, which occurred with remarkably little fanfare, was staggeringly significant. With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new "rights" imposed obligations, not limits, on the state.

It thus became government's job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism.

Has the constitutional Zeitgeist that has reigned in the United States since the beginning of the Progressive Era come to its conclusion? And if it has, what will replace it? I wish I knew the answer to these questions. It is true — in the words of another old song: "There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."27

Newsweek and violence

I've said and written statements like the following many times: "I just don't trust the media - any of it." So it was completely unsurprising to me that Newsweek published a false report "claiming that US guards at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention center desecrated the Koran, including an incident in which the Muslim holy book was flushed down a toilet, in order to provoke detainees into talking." Newsweek later retracted the statement saying:

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Koran abuse at Guantanamo Bay."

The problem with the report (other than the fact that it was false), was that:

"Local Muslim leaders in Pakistan and Afghanistan seized on the article and called for anti-U.S. demonstrations. Over a four day period last week at least 16 people died, a United Nations compound in Afghanistan was attacked and crowds burned American flags and effigies of U.S. president George W. Bush."

Many people, such as Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, are attributing a substantial part of the responsibility for the violence and deaths to Newsweek. I disagree completely. A magazine printed something in error. It then retracted it. Even if I loved the media and had a high degree of confidence in it, mistakes would still happen from time to time. There is nothing wrong with making a mistake and then fixing it. That is what Newsweek did.

On the other hand, there is something wrong with violence and murder. But I lay the responsibility for such actions directly at the feet of the perpetrators. That such people claim they were incited by some fact, mistaken or not, printed in a magazine half way around the world, in no way justifies their actions. We must not allow them to even think that we think it justifies the violence. Indeed, I think we need to desensitize these people. I personally am going to start flushing Korans down my toilet. Well, or at least I would, except for the minor detail that the Korans won't fit down my toilet. Nonetheless, I think the U.S. military should build a giant toilet and begin flushing Korans down it. Indeed, what a simple and gentle way to get the Guantanamo detainees to talk. That's not torture. I don't even think it qualifies as abuse.

At the same time, the message to the Muslim world is that if they're going to riot and murder because of such things, we're simply going to increase the occurrences of those actions until they learn to restrain themselves.

Back to Deflation

Well, that's what I get for posting my concerns regarding the economy a couple of weeks back before really letting the data accumulate adequately. Basically, starting the day after that post, there's been nothing but good economic news (for the United States). First, that ever so important commodity, oil, is dropping significantly in price, which should put a damper on inflationary forces:

Oil prices continued recent heavy losses Thursday as dealers focused on a glut of U.S. stockpiles, which have grown to the highest in six years. Weakness was curtailed, however, after OPEC's president said the cartel could rein in output if inventories rose too fast and after an oil workers' strike forced shut several refineries in France.

U.S. light crude for June delivery ended down 33 cents to $46.92 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after falling as low as $46.80, its lowest since mid February. U.S. crude is now nearly 20 percent below April's all-time high of $58.28 a barrel as a tide of imports fills storage tanks in the world's largest energy consumer to levels not seen since 1999.

Another sign that inflationary pressures have dissipated is that long term interest rates are gently drifting lower:

Mortgage rates fell last week, reaching a low not seen since February, despite incremental interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve.

The average rate on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages fell to 5.71 percent this week, with an average 0.7 point payable up front, from 5.77 percent last week, the government-chartered mortgage company Freddie Mac said.
Last year at this time, the rate on the 30-year fixed-rate loan stood at 6.30 percent.

I'd say Greenspan has done a more than adequate job controlling inflation. It may be time to start worrying about deflation again.

A Lone Voice Among Historians?

The vast majority of those in academia are critical of the Bush administration. During a recent lecture, John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of history at Yale, was no exception. His many criticisms of Bush included the following:

[Bush] had failed miserably in getting United Nations support for the invasion of Iraq.

The phrase “axis of evil” originated in overzealous speechwriting rather than careful thought.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had diminished, in advance, the credibility of whatever future intelligence claims Bush and Blair might make.

The so-called “coalition of the willing” there had been more of a joke than a reality.

Within a little more than a year and a half, the United States had exchanged its long-established reputation as the principal stabilizer of the international system for one as its chief destabilizer.

Nonetheless, Gaddis concludes the following:

"This historian is also leaning, somewhat more controversially, in the direction of acknowledging that George W. Bush is likely to be remembered as the first great grand strategist of the 21st century."

"Somewhat more controversially" is a stunning understatement in that as far as I can tell, he is the only one (of any stature) who thinks that. Indeed, Gaddis acknowledges that "he is ... somewhat ahead of most of his faculty colleagues ... in this respect".

We'll see if he's right.

The transcript of the entire lecture can be found here and I highly recommend it.

Having fun at the expense of the academy

Rather than bemoaning how ridiculous some ideas emanating from college professors are these days, this blogger has some fun. Here are some snippets from "Academic Cavemen."

Two years ago [in March], Alan Lowenstein, associate professor of philosophy at Harvard University, came to a fateful conclusion. "I suddenly realized that the oppression of western technology extended to my own life," he explained. "That's when I got rid of my computer, threw away my Brooks Brothers suits, changed my name to Grok and moved into a cave."

A passionate critic of Euro-American "linear thought," Grok is one of a growing number of college professors around the nation who have relocated to caves, mud huts and makeshift sweat lodges to demonstrate their disdain for western culture and technology. For Grok, 44, the move to a cave was a natural step in his intellectual progression.

The shocking realization lead Grok to a new stream of research that unveiled the oppressive nature of western civilization. He immersed himself in the writings of third world revolutionaries Franz Fanon, Rigoberta Menchu and Ted Rall. With CUNY professor Leonard Jeffries, he documented NASA's theft of earth-orbiting satellites from the K!ung bushmen of sub-Saharan Africa.

While it has been tough at times, Grok says he has no regrets. "Western culture is a cancer, and I'm committed to wiping it out. Plus, the whole cave-dwelling thing should help with my promotion case and journal articles."

I don't think Jared Diamond is anywhere near this bad, but perhaps he has aspirations!

Everybody Makes Mistakes

Even Warren Buffett:

The stubbornly resilient dollar has cost Warren Buffett a lot of money this year and has disappointed many other investors who thought that a weaker dollar would be their friend.

Buffett's bet against the dollar resulted in a $307 million loss for his company, Berkshire Hathaway, in the first quarter.

I was quite surprised to hear he had bet so heavily against the dollar. As a hedge I would understand it, but as speculation it surprised me. The dollar could certainly go lower from here relative to the Euro, but I don't think it's a great bet with the weak economic conditions in Europe and tighter monetary policy in the United States. But we'll see.

More Good News

Tax Receipts Exceed Treasury Predictions:

After three years of rising federal budget deficits, a surge of April tax receipts brought unexpected good news to fiscal policymakers -- the tide of government red ink appears to be receding.

The Treasury Department this week reported there would be a $54 billion swing from projected deficit to surplus in the April-to-June quarter, after an unanticipated gush of tax payments poured into the Treasury before the April 15 deadline. That prompted private forecasters to lower their deficit projections for the fiscal year that ends in September.

Coupled with solid job numbers, it seems like the economy is still rolling along nicely.

Economic Strength Continued

I wrote recently that "[t]he economy seems to be pulling back a little", but the latest jobs data contradicts my belief:

The latest employment report marks 24 straight months of positive job creation in the U.S. economy – more than 3 million jobs’ worth of good news. [...]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 6, 2005, report, about 3.3 million jobs have been created in the past two years. The latest numbers showed 274,000 new jobs were created in April and the report also added 93,000 jobs to previous totals. Unemployment also held steady at the low figure of 5.2 percent.

Not bad!