« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 29, 2007

Guns and preschool

The Syracuse Family Development program went even further. Economically deprived families with poorly educated parents were given a five year program that began with prenatal care and continued through preschool. [FN220] The families were visited weekly by highly skilled child development trainers to help improve parenting techniques and to address other problems. The children were also placed in high-quality preschool programs. A follow-up fifteen years later found that only six percent of children from those families ended up with a probation record, compared to twenty-two percent from a control group, and the offenses perpetrated by the latter group were much more serious than the offenses of the former.

By age twenty-five, the graduates of the Syracuse program had only .01 felony convictions per capita, compared to .18 for the controls. The Syracuse program was expensive; the cost in 1997 dollars was $18,037. But in the long run, the government criminal justice costs avoided amounted to $13,442; and there were $16,717 in crime victim costs avoided. [FN222] Thus, even if we do not count the improved quality of life for the children, as well as their greater economic productivity, the Syracuse program, despite its great expense, created net savings through reducing crime.

John Donohue and Peter Siegelman have evaluated the comparative benefits of increased spending on incarceration versus increased spending on early childhood programs. They point out that marginal dollars spent on prisons are less cost-effective than average prison spending: because the worst criminals are already in prison, marginal increases in prison spending allow incarceration only of less dangerous or less active criminals. Donohue and Siegelman show that if an early-childhood program can be at least half as effective as the Perry program, then reducing prison construction spending in order to spend more on early childhood education may be more cost effective. Donohue and Siegelman caution that simply throwing money at early childhood programs is no solution; the failed Head Start program (which yields no observable long-term benefits for its participants) was inspired by the Perry Preschool success. Moreover, early childhood dollars should be concentrated on the children most at risk (particularly inner-city males without two parents), but the authors warn that political needs might force too much money to be spent on groups with much lower risks of future violent delinquency (e.g., middle-class females from two-parent homes).

"Guns, Gangs and Preschools: Moving Beyond Conventional Solutions to Confront Juvenile Violence," by David Kopel, Summer 2000 (footnotes omitted)

Posted at 12:07 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America

April 27, 2007

Guns around the world

Gun confiscation, however, is correlated with homicide--in that gun confiscation is almost always a condition precedent for genocide and other murderous atrocities by government. This was historically true in Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Guatemala, Cambodia, and Idi Amin's Uganda. It is still true in Ethiopia, East Timor, Srebrenica, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, and Zimbabwe.

The experience of the Holocaust also shows that to the extent that victims do obtain firearms, they have a much greater chance of survival, even under the worst conditions.

In October 2005, the people of Brazil voted on a U.N.-backed gun confiscation plan, and 64% said "Não."

The confiscation campaign leader later warned his international allies, "First lesson is, don't trust direct democracy."

As Foreign Policy magazine observed in February 2006, the right to arms today "strikes a chord with people of very different backgrounds, experiences, and cultures, even when that culture has historically been anti-gun." Aggressively hostile to the right of self-defense against solitary criminals and criminal governments, today's international political and media elites are out of step not only with America, but with more and more people around the world.

"Are guns all-American? Should we be concerned that so much of the rest of the developed world believes U.S. gun laws are crazy?" All this week, David Kopel and Christopher Lockwood debate gun control. Today, the Independence Institute's Kopel and The Economist's Lockwood address the international view on guns. Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2007

I've heard people say "only in America" in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings. Clearly, though, it's not only in America. Terrible incidents like these have occurred and are occurring in countries across the world, including countries that severely restrict or ban the private ownership of firearms, and countries with a reputation of peace and harmony.

"'Only in America'? Gunning Down a Claim," by Steve Stanek, TCS Daily, April 20, 2007

Posted at 06:07 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America , Crime , Ignorance , Politics

April 26, 2007

History is fundamental

By now, we’re used to people like Iranian President Ahmadinejad denying that the Holocaust ever happened, even while he and his regime promise not only the destruction of Israel but the elimination of Jews internationally.

It’s bad enough hearing from a distance about the bizarre anti-Semitic theories taught by heads of state as well as schools and religious leaders. Now, according to a study funded by the British government, we find out that some schools in Great Britain have stopped teaching history that is offensive to Muslim students. The topics that have been erased from the curriculum, the study found, include both the Nazi genocide and the Crusades.

"Back to Backbone: History is fundamental," by Fred Thompson, NRO, April 25, 2007

Posted at 06:07 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America

April 25, 2007

The Audacity of Hype

Then there's Obama. I like the guy. "Too cool and laid-back to be a really good professor" is how one of my friends remembered him in a conversation we had a couple of months ago. (Our law school class overlapped with his tenure as a law prof/state senator.) I never had him as a prof, but I can picture it.

He's to the left of 87 percent of his Senate colleagues on economic issues. And I don't like that. But what I really don't like is his vacuous "up with people!" message--I'm for new ideas! and against old political labels! It offends me with its inoffensiveness. If you read Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention speech, you learn that the Audacity of Hope is the promise of redemption through presidential politics. Is audacious the right word for believing in that? The idea that the president's capable of righting all the country's wrongs is just about the stupidest thing a person could believe in, and liberals who embrace it forfeit all right to get snooty with creationist yokels. "Intelligent Design" at least seems pretty much nonfalsifiable, whereas presidential salvationism gets falsified just about every day of the week, every week of the year, every year of every administration of any living American's lifetime.

"Least Dangerous Democrat," by Gene Healy, AFF, April 16, 2007

Posted at 06:27 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Politics

April 24, 2007

"Why I Am Not An Environmentalist"

But in the 25 years since the first Earth Day, a new and ugly element has emerged in the form of one side's conviction that its preferences are Right and the other side's are Wrong. The science of economics shuns such moral posturing; the religion of environmentalism embraces it.

Economics forces us to confront a fundamental symmetry. The conflict arises because each side wants to allocate the same resource in a different way. Jack wants his woodland at the expense of Jill's parking space and Jill wants her parking space at the expense of Jack's woodland. That formulation is morally neutral and should serve as a warning against assigning exalted moral status to either Jack or Jill.

The symmetries run deeper. Environmentalists claim that wilderness should take precedence over parking because a decision to pave is "irrevocable." Of course they are right, but they overlook the fact that a decision not to pave is equally irrevocable. Unless we pave today, my opportunity to park tomorrow is lost as irretrievably as tomorrow itself will be lost. The ability to park in a more distant future might be a quite inadequate substitute for that lost opportunity.

A variation on the environmentalist theme is that we owe the wilderness option not to ourselves but to future generations. But do we have any reason to think that future generations will prefer inheriting the wilderness to inheriting the profits from the parking lot? That is one of the first questions that would be raised in any honest scientific inquiry.

Another variation is that the parking lot's developer is motivated by profits, not preferences. To this there are two replies. First, the developer's profits are generated by his customers' preferences; the ultimate conflict is not with the developer but with those who prefer to park. Second, the implication of the argument is that a preference for a profit is somehow morally inferior to a preference for a wilderness, which is just the sort of posturing that the argument was designed to avoid.

It seems to me that the "irrevocability" argument, the "future generations" argument, and the "preferences not profits" argument all rely on false distinctions that wither before honest scrutiny. Why, then, do some environmentalists repeat these arguments? Perhaps honest scrutiny is simply not a part of their agenda. In many cases, they begin with the postulate that they hold the moral high ground, and conclude that they are thereby licensed to disseminate intellectually dishonest propaganda as long as it serves the higher purpose of winning converts to the cause.
. . .
Suggesting an actual solution to an environmental problem is a poor way to impress an environmentalist, unless your solution happens to feed his sense of moral superiority

"Why I Am Not An Environmentalist: The Science of Economics Versus the Religion of Ecology," by Steven E. Landsburg, excerpt from The Armchair Economist: Economics & Everyday Life

Posted at 12:37 PM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Economics

April 20, 2007

Another heart warming use of your tax dollars...

They laughed when UNESCO announced a whole new category of cultural anxiety, the grave danger faced by humanity's "intangible cultural heritage." Ancient dances of obscure tribes, almost forgotten rituals and nearly extinct musical instruments must be saved (UNESCO said) by government intervention, naturally under UNESCO guidance.

This sounded hopelessly vague to everyone not employed in the world of professional culture-protection. But nobody at UNESCO laughed. Nobody there ever laughs. Policy comes out of the feverishly ambitious minds of a few dozen solemn owls in Paris who spend their time looking for ways the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization can extend its bureaucratic empire of taste.

Decades ago, Maclean's magazine ran a skeptical article about UNESCO, suggesting it might be no more than a trivial, wasteful boondoggle, designed to provide employment for an expanding army of well-educated civil servants. How cruel of Maclean's, I thought at the time. And how wrong and ignorant I was. Since then, extensive reading on this subject has reversed my opinion. UNESCO probably does no major harm, except addle the brains of those who take it seriously. But it's a typical UN agency in the sense that it lives in a costly world of endless meetings at which pompous committees urge, advocate, classify, deplore -- and accomplish not much.

When the heavy thinkers in UNESCO arrived at the idea of "intangible cultural heritage" (ICH) and sold it to their member nations a few years ago, they must have known they had a big winner, maybe the most lucrative gimmick in the history of cultural politics.

UNESCO expands according to how much money it can winkle out of the various nations of the world when taxpayers are looking the other way. From that standpoint, ICH shows more promise than anything else in UNESCO history. It has a unique quality. It expands infinitely. No country on Earth will ever run out of dying traditions. Local departments of culture were quick to see the job opportunities and support the UNESCO idea.

"Snake charmers of the world, unite!: The follies of a UNESCO-shaped global culture," by Robert Fulford, National Post (Canada), April 10, 2007

UNESCO - Wikipedia

Doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart?

Posted at 06:17 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America

April 19, 2007

The other white meat ... tastes like chicken?

[Ted Stevens] is officially the Senate's longest serving Republican in U.S. history. It's worth noting -- though hardly news to anyone -- how political longevity is so closely associated with a steady diet of pork. For instance, Senator Robert Byrd remains the longest serving senator ever. No word yet on whether scientists have concluded that this species of dinosaur also tastes like chicken.

"Ted Stevens," by Jonah Goldberg, The Corner, April 13, 2007

Posted at 06:07 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Fun

April 18, 2007

"So What Are We Going To Do About It?"

So What Are We Going To Do About It?

That's basically what a foreign reporter asked me today, suggesting that the answer must be some new gun control proposal. After all, if someone murdered all these people with a gun, what is America going to do about guns? After past shootings, I got similar questions. Likewise whenever I do talks or debates about gun controls: OK, people say, you say these various gun controls don't work; so what do you propose to do instead, given that there's an undoubted problem out there to be solved?

Well, it turns out that yesterday, about 25 to 40 people were killed in alcohol-related homicides, not including those that died because of their own alcohol consumption. Each year, between alcohol-related drunk driving deaths and alcohol-involved murders, about 10-15,000 Americans (not including the responsible drunk drivers themselves) die. That translates into roughly 25 to 40 deaths per day (the range is wide because the source numbers are necessarily back of the envelope estimates), about the same number as the extra homicide deaths from yesterday's mass shootings. If you counted people whose alcohol consumption killed themselves, the total would likely be far more.

So what are we going to do about it? When are we going to ban alcohol? When are we going to institute more common-sense alcohol control measures?

Well, we tried, and the conventional wisdom is that the cure was worse than the disease -- which is why we went back to a system where alcohol is pretty freely available, despite the harm it causes (of which the deaths are only part). We now only prohibit alcohol abuse, generally allow alcohol purchase and possession, and regulate alcohol purchase and possession fairly lightly. Some of the regulation, such as bans on sales to minors, are quite likely wise (at least as applied to minors; I express no opinion on bans on sales to 18-to-21-year-olds), though imperfect. Others, such as bans on Sunday alcohol sales, are pretty clearly unwise. Others are closer calls, but on balance the answer to "what are we going to do about alcohol-related deaths?" is "not much, other than trying to catch and punish alcohol abuse."

"So What Are We Going To Do About It?" by Eugene Volokh, The Volokh Conspiracy, April 18, 2007

Yeah, we all know how well Prohibition worked out... and how well the war on drugs is working out, too....

Posted at 06:47 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories:

April 17, 2007

Pink People

The blogosphere is reverberating with the drums echoing from Bill Whittle’s fine essay about the divisions of people into tribes. What follows is not exactly a summary; it’s closer to a synthesis of his ideas written for those of us with the attention span of your average Cub Scout. That being said (“that” meaning you should go read the real thing here), let’s look at Mr. Whittle’s fine images, beginning with the Pink People.

Whittle’s PP’s are typified by Hollywood types, though Pink is not confined just to Hollywood -- it’s simply that there are more Pink People per square inch in Hollywood and its environs than there are anywhere else, except perhaps in Washington, D.C., a place for which Pink People also have an affinity…

When you Think Pink, consider Sean Penn in his rescue boat -- a four person “rescue” boat which Mr. Penn fills with four people, one of whom is his personal photographer. A boat in which the plug had not been fastened so that there are many hilarious ( or hideous, depending on your sensibilities) pictures of Mr. Penn bailing the boat with a red plastic cup. Mr. Penn, Pink Person extraordinaire, was not out to rescue anyone. This was merely his trip to Iran translated to American. He was in New Orleans to appear to be rescuing someone. No doubt he left money there also, to show he was acting in good faith (since he does not act particularly well, acting in good faith may be all he has left in his small bag of tricks). Mr. Penn may even have left some of his good-faith money with the mayor, who is definitely a Pink Person -- a Pink Person appearing as a mayor. This pink-to-pink transfer allows all the Pinks to feel good, and to a Pink, feeling good is the summum bonum.

Pink people wear rose-colored glasses. They prepare for the future by grabbing as much material wealth as possible and then looking down on others, whose actions in life may originate from different motivations. Pink people do well until they are called upon to act decisively for others in situations where they themselves may be at risk. This situation does not cause a change in color. They simply scream in place until a grey person eats them or rescues them.

The grey people? Here is where I synthesize Mr. Whittle’s comments. He describes this grey as the color of concrete. Where Pink People are soft, Grey People are hard, like the graphite in mechanical pencils. They are that way on purpose because they act purposefully, wherever they are.

"Sheepdogs Driving the Bus," Gates of Vienna, September 6, 2005

Posted at 11:17 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America

April 16, 2007

The guy looked like a pervert

If black Americans in 2007 are this delicate and overreact to the slightest insults with this much unrighteous indignation, it’s pretty safe to say black people are not made the way they used to be, of stronger stuff, able to withstand truly demeaning and criminal treatment at the hands of true oppressors. It’s sad to know that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of people who faced actual oppression are so much weaker, much less discerning, and much more undignified.

"Don Imus, Booker T., and XM Radio," by La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner, April 11, 2007

What Imus said is lowdown indeed, but so is the way blacks refer to each other. And life goes on.

Street theater is not strength. It saps energy better put to other uses. The focus we'll be dedicating to the next gaffe sometime in (this time I'll give myself a little more wiggle room) May will mean that much less commitment to addressing black people's real problems.

"A dangerous detour: Cycles of outrage and apology distract blacks from confronting many big, chronic problems," by John McWhorter, The New York Daily News, April 10, 2007

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

"Imus isn’t the real bad guy: Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture," by Jason Whitlock, The Kansas City Star, April 11, 2007

Posted at 05:57 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America

April 14, 2007

"God's Gonna Cut You Down" - Johnny Cash

You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God'll cut you down
Sooner or later God'll cut you down

Go tell that long tongue liar
Go and tell that midnight rider
Tell the rambler,
The gambler,
The back biter
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down
Tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down
. . .
Well, you may throw your rock, hide your hand
Workin' in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What's done in the dark will be brought to the light

Complete lyrics from Metrolyrics

Posted at 09:37 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Spirit

April 13, 2007

The Great Global Warming Swindle

A Google video via Jim Clark.

I agree with the view that much of the global warming frenzy is driven by those who are opposed to capitalism and hold dear anti-wealth and anti-human philosophies (i.e., death culture). Seems to me that much of the environmental movement is actually a religious movement that combines modern Malthusianism (there are too many people, especially too many poor people), hubris (we are smart and benighted and we can solve it for you ignorant rubes - trust us - and we humans are more significant than, say, the sun), and despair (the danger is imminent and if it weren't for so many stupid idiots we would live in paradise - woe unto us, the sky is falling, etc.).

Also see

And why should the world's poorest people be forced to use the most expensive energy?

James Shikwati (ISIL profile), Inter Region Economic Network,


Posted at 09:07 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Politics

April 12, 2007

Easter 2007


It's NOT this Easter Bunny....

Posted at 07:27 PM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Fun

The development of real talent

"Dissatisfaction with oneself is one of the foundation stones of every real talent."
-- Anton Chekov

"We might think that Americans are eager to celebrate talented young people who can thumb their noses at the older generation and thus exorcise the lingering resentment so many harbor from being graded and evaluated in the classroom. But what American Idol reveals instead is a veritable hunger for realistic evaluation. Time and time again, contestants in the early episodes of this year's season whine obviously off key and then insist they are highly talented -- in spite of the judges' protestations. Most of those kids have not learned how to sing, but they have mastered the self-esteem and 'attitude' so valued in our culture. The persistent dynamic of these episodes is expertise putting down untalented braggadocio."

"Schooled by 'American Idol'," by Christopher Ames, The Chronicle Review, March 16, 2007

Posted at 12:17 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Good Advice

April 11, 2007

"The Only Man Nancy Pelosi Won't Meet With?"

Maybe Don Imus too -- someone might ask. But here, from CQ, the president of the United States:

"What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants," Pelosi said at an afternoon news conference in San Francisco to discuss her trip to the Middle East last week. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people. And I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind."

"The Only Man Nancy Pelosi Won't Meet With?" by Kathryn Jean Lopez, The Corner, April 11, 2007

OK to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad (and wtf was that all about?), but not the President of the United States? Ai yi yi....

See "Where in Syria is Nancy Pelosi?" (yes, we know these are photoshopped) And don't miss David Lunde's design for the Summer Olympics 2008 in China

Posted at 06:37 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Politics , Stupidity

April 08, 2007

Organ donors and organ donation

A new bill would give organ donors a medal. In other words, millions for medals but not a cent for compensation. If people weren't dying it would be funny.

Thanks to Dave Undis at LifeSharers for the link. Unlike Congress, Dave is really doing something to solve the organ shortage.

"Your Congress at Work," by Alex Tabarrok, Marginal Revolution, April 2, 2007

References:


LifeSharers - Sharing Life, Saving Lives

If you or a loved one ever need an organ for a transplant operation, chances are you will die before you get it. You can improve your odds by joining LifeSharers. Membership is free.

LifeSharers is a non-profit voluntary network of organ donors. LifeSharers members promise to donate upon their death, and they give fellow members first access to their organs. As LifeSharers members, you and your loved ones will have access to organs that otherwise may not be available to you. As the LifeSharers network grows, more and more organs may become available to you -- if you are a member.

Even if you are already a registered organ donor, you should join the LifeSharers network. By doing so, you will have access to organs that otherwise may not be available to you.

By joining LifeSharers you will also make the organ transplant system fairer by helping registered organ donors get their fair share of organs. Most organs transplanted in the United States go to people who have not agreed to donate their own organs when they die. That's not fair, and it's one of the reasons there is such a large organ shortage.

By joining LifeSharers you will help reduce the deadly organ shortage. By offering your organs first to other organ donors you create an incentive for non-donors to become donors. As more people register as organ donors, fewer people will die waiting for transplants.

LifeSharers is free to join.

More

Posted at 03:17 PM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: Free Markets

April 03, 2007

I love this country.

I got my haircut on Saturday at the same small mall chop-shop, but this time I didn’t get the same pouty little witch I’ve had the last two times. I got one of those talkative types who pauses while cutting to gesture extensively. We talked about kids -- she has a son turning nine, and his birthday’s next week, and she’s having 96 people over. Ninety six? Kids? No, no -- relatives. All the extended family. Lots of people on her side and lots of people on her husband’s, and lots of kids in both families. Hence the birthdays are big events, and the kids are spoiled beyond reason. (“Seven hundred dollars in cash last year!” she said.) I mention this because she was the daughter of immigrants; her parents came from Laos, her husband’s parents from Cambodia. Her mother had to swim across the river while pregnant to get to a refugee camp to escape to America. And now they’re here; they number 96 and they’re doing well, to say the least. I love this country.

James Lileks, The Bleat, April 3, 2007

Posted at 05:47 AM   ·  Comments (0)   ·  TrackBack (0)   ·  Categories: America