Ain't We Got Fun! Look out, Bill Bennett is shooting his mouth off again:

Bennett, who held prominent posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told a caller to his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down."

The story does make it obvious in the next paragraph that Bennett was not outlining what he believes to be proper policy, but he's still going to regret this one, I predict. Look, I don't much like Bennett. He's a prig and a hypocrite, and I think he should just fade away. That said, I'm a little tired of every public figure needing to apologize for every third word simply because someone found it "hurtful" or "insensitive." It's silly.

First, the majority of crime most urban areas, especially violent crime, is attributable to the black population. It's a fact; you can't argue with it, though you don't have to like it. Second, some analyses have shown an apparent link between the rise of legal abortion and the drop in crime. Now, Bennett's facile connection of the two may or may not be correct (simply as a numerical matter, I would guess that crime would drop, if only based on the reduced numbers of people born into circumstances that correlate with crime, which happens, indisputably, to a higher proportion of black children), but the point is that it's not necessarily racist, or even wrong, to speculate upon. That said, it's probably stupid to say it really loudly in public these days.

This reminds me of the "Bell Curve" controversy of the last decade. Now, I read The Bell Curve, and I didn't find any racism in it, though Herrnstein and Murray, it's authors, were accused of just that. What I did find was that two respected social scientists saw an unusual statistical anomaly -- that among Asians, whites, and blacks, Asians generally measure highest on standard IQ tests, whites lower, blacks lower still. (They took the unusual step of publishing all of their data, too.) Then they asked, why might this pattern occur? And the usual suspects stepped forward and shouted, "How dare you ask that!" Brilliant. Better that we all remain ignorant than ask a question that might offend someone's delicate sensibilities.

Now, I'll grant you, Bennett's comments don't amount to an academic treatise, nor is he publishing data on the subject. Still, we shouldn't be afraid to say these things. I'm nominally pro-choice (for philosophical reasons), but with what I consider a healthy distate for abortion itself. Still, there are policy matters to be considered in light of statistical evidence that legal abortion lowers crime. Nobody sensible is saying that because of this correlation, we should encourage abortion, and particularly among black people. But there are social implications in this that are unrelated to abortion. Who gets pregnant? What are the economic and social circumstances? What are the social sevices/welfare incentives to have children? To avoid pregnancy? Throw in the questions that do directly relate to abortion policy/legality, and you've got a big ol' mess that people aren't talking about much, if only because some of the conclusions they might draw are, to be frank, politically incorrect.

If you disagree with Bennett, that's fine, but tell me why. Explain to me where he's wrong. But if you just think he shouldn't say such things because they are "hurtful" and "insensitive" then you need to get yourself a goddamn life.

Runaway brides: Just imagine, Eno, if J. Howard Marshall had married a dozen Anna Nicoles. We'd need a couple Supreme Courts plus federalized Sally Jesse to handle the estate.

Stay Off the Toboggan! Glen Whitman, guest posting at Balko's place, has this post on gay marriage. Relevant bit:

The reason we should care -- and the reason gay-marriage advocates do care -- about gay marriage is that we support freedom of association, freedom of contract, and self-ownership. But if these claims provide the basis for gay marriage, they provide a strong argument for polygamy as well-- so long as it is practiced voluntarily by all parties involved. Outlawing polygamy means interfering with people's ability to intimately associate with whomever they wish on terms they find mutually agreeable. So the right-wing slippery slope argument makes a good deal of sense. But it's a slippery slope toward freedom, the kind we should jump on with a toboggan.

Yikes! First things first: I support gay marriage, for the rather pragmatic reason that the government gives benefits to married couples that gay couples generally cannot have. My preferred solution, as we've been over, is no bennies for anybody. Second best, gay couples get bennies too. Now, that said, I'm strictly opposed to polygamy until and unless enforceable law or policy is established that sombody's 28 spouses won't be hijacking my wallet by way of those benefits. Imagine, for instance, a near future in which John Q. Swinger passes away, and all the Mrs. Swingers (and a couple of Mr. Swingers with impeccable fashion sense) insist that they are entitled to a fair settlement from Social Security. Now imagine your Social Security "contribution" rates on a Saturn V trajectory.

I've argued this before, and others have said, "Of course the government wouldn't let that happen." Why the hell not? This is just the kind of thing that the federal government f*cks up, in many small ways, day after day. Look at the kinds of people who have sued to sneak under the ADA umbrella since that bill became law, for example.

The only freedom at the end of this slippery slope is the freedom to live off my tax dollars. Homosexual marriage, multiple marriage, vegisexual marriage, whatever the hell you want. Screw your cocker spaniel for all I care, as long as I don't pay for the Alpo and the 2-in-1 collar.

Non-Pajamas: Over to the right you'll see that Michael Totten has been added to the Second Opinions list. He's on his way to Beirut right now, and I'm looking forward to some good reporting, from one of the few bloggers actually plying the hard reporting beat. If there's one drawback to blogging, it's that most of it is semi-informed bloviating from people watching TV. (Us, for example.) Nice to see that it's not true for everyone. Good luck, Totten. Better to travel hopefully . . .

Wanna Bet?: You know what Scalia is doing right now?

Having his clerks scour the Constitution for where it says that in the event of a death of the sitting Chief Justice, the position has to go to the sweatiest remaining justice on the Bench.

International Freedom Center - buh-bye: From Take Back The Memorial:

Alliance of 15 Major 9/11 Family Groups Says: Thank You, Governor!

New York, N.Y.---September 29, 2005---The alliance of 15 major 9/11 family groups applauds the decision by Governor George E. Pataki to remove the International Freedom Center (IFC) from the World Trade Center Memorial site. Responding to concerns voiced by 9/11 families and New York City's first responders that the IFC would dilute and detract from the history of the 9/11 attacks and engage in controversial programming which would dishonor the victims on a site dedicated to their memory, the governor demanded that the IFC be moved elsewhere.

We are deeply grateful to Governor Pataki for taking this decisive action after the IFC issued its latest report on their plans for the center. We believe he did so after giving its organizers a fair opportunity to demonstrate that their institution would respectfully fulfill the memorial's mission.

We also appreciate the important bi-partisan support of Senator Hillary Clinton, Congressmen Peter King, Vito Fossella and John Sweeney, as well as the support of the UFA, FASNY, UFOA, PBA, Rudy Giuliani and others who all understood that this memorial belongs to all Americans, and that we have a public trust to future generations who will come to this site hoping to pay their respects and learn the important story of that day, a day of heartbreaking loss, uncommon valor and the coming together of a nation.

We look forward to their continued support as we pursue our common goal of ensuring that from the ashes of the World Trade Center site rises a 9/11 Memorial and Museum on a Memorial site dedicated solely to the stories of September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993 and their aftermath with enough space to accommodate visitors safely and tell the story fully. As the future of the Memorial site is honed, the tactic of portraying the 9/11 families as divided must end. The goal is clear. The mission joined by the majority. We sincerely hope that the LMDC and the WTC Memorial Foundation will not ignore these voices as we attempt to resolve the outstanding issues in unity.

We and the tens of thousands of supporters who fought for this memorial did so, not because we wish to turn these few acres in Lower Manhattan into a cemetery or convert the site into one of enduring sadness. We did so because of our unshakable belief that this is Sacred Ground, that the truth should be told there, and that the core values of our nation will be amply demonstrated by the lives remembered, the deeds done and the spirit reawakened.

Blogging Suspended: The thing with Chicago didn't work out, so I'm off to NY...well, NJ, for my latest tryout.

Zimmerman: I'll skip the Dylan lecture. It's all there in the FauxPolitik archives. I'll just say this: The "Dylan" generation is unwilling to admit that this guy's stuff made a lot of sense in the midst of LSD's claw-like grip on the reasoning centers of the brain, but not so much 30-40 years down the road.

At best, I'm willing to grant him an exception on the basis of my "Bringing Up Baby" rule, which states that a modern audience cannot be expected to recognize everything that was groundshaking, rulebreaking, or just plain new in a cultural artifact. Even so, within the folk tradition, he was certainly pretty mainstream until he rocked out. One could argue, in fact, that his only genuine innovation occurred when he did plug his goddamn guitar in and drove the folkies nuts.

He was a minor, overrated talent, and represented a victory of public desires and perception over actual musical/literary skill.

The baby boomers keep the Dylan flame alive because, naturally, everything from their generation is the apotheosis of cultural experience. But the groovy, Woodstock-y, nascent "no-nukes" spirit that they all remember so fondly is not the defining moment of the generation. Elvis integrating rock and roll would be less of a stretch, or Little Richard and Chuck Berry integration radio airplay and record sales, or four musically uneducated Liverpudlians completely rewriting the rules of pop music. But more likely, it would be the rise of so-called corporate rock. Or disco. This was the generation, after all, that moved into early middle age to the sounds of Bread, the Bee Gees, and "Hooked on Classics."

Protein subtlety: Ever so soft-spoken:

THE WORLD AWAITS THE GRAINY INTERNET PICS OF REPUBLICAN DAN DREIER’S GAY REPUBLICAN COCK OF INTERIM HOUSE LEADERSHIP, John!

Mixing Up the Medicine: No one has mentioned yet the Scorsese treatment of Dylan in his three-plus-hour movie that recently aired on PBS. I don't remember if this is the week that Eno doesn't like PBS, but in any event, I thought I'd give it a shout-out.

The "movie" (which is really just an editing job by Scorsese with a few interviews thrown in) covers Dylan's rise to folk-glory, and leaves us just as he's turning on the amps, and belting out "Like a Rolling Stone". Here's what made an impression on me:

1. We all know Dylan's debt to Guthrie. He is the first to acknowledge. What I didn't know was that he really went out of his way to meet the man, and then, rather than just copy him, he decided to take the spirit of Guthrie's songs (hope tinged with cynicism, stripped down message, no holds barred), and then invent his own version of folk. He did a spot-on mimicry job of Woody, when the moment took him, but he never was reduced to just flat-out copying.

2. Dylan was a master with the press. Some of the funniest scenes were these "square" newspeople trying to get Dylan to define himself or his songs. I really don't think he was trying to be evasisve; Dylan spent time working on his songs, but didn't ever consider where they fit in the "protest movement," or try to market his image. So, when one moron wearing a Trotskyite fur hat and thick-framed glasses tries to get Dylan to state what the significance there was to his wearing a Triumph Motorcycles t-shirt on the cover of "Highway 61 Revisited", we get this response: he just happened to be wearing the shirt on a day he was sitting on the steps on a day someone took his picture. The interviewer, not to let his dissertation topic be so utterly eviscerated, then said, well, what about your use of motorcycles throughout your songs as imagery? Dylan responds: "Well, we all like motorcycles, don't we?" The room erupts. Other similar examples follow (my other favorite is the woman who asks him whether he likes subtle or direct imagery in his songs. Dylan asks what that means. She admits she read in a movie magazine that he prefers subtle imagery -- essentially confessing she has never heard one of his songs).

3. I never quite grasped the collective angst over Dylan turning to the dark side of "rock" (i.e. electric guitars). People would boo him, yell at him, and give these awful reactions to anything that wasn't a straightforward rendition of "Hard Rain" or "Tambourine Man". It was funny seeing him play half a concert with acoustic and harmonica, then invite what was soon to become The Band out to get bluesy. Near riots; amazing. Like the audience is ever right. Dylan was obviously conflicted about it, as he idolized some of the folkies (like Seeger), but he wasn't, again, about to pigeonhole himself for the comfort of others.

Anyway, a good show for those who needed to brush up on Dylan, like me. Even during his current interview, that runs throughout, he comes across as sensible and likeable, which, quite obviously, have not always been his strong suits.

The DeLay Indictment: Information is scarce, to say the least. So far, this is the best thing I've read on the subject:

I loved what Nancy Pelosi said about this. The Republicans have a "culture of corruption." Yes, we are unworthy to breathe the same air as the party of Traficant, Rostenkowski, Ted Kennedy, Bob Torricelli, Bill Clinton, Webb Hubbell, Charlie Trie, Bert Lance, Sandy Berger. . . do I really have to repeat the whole list of crooks and weasels? Please, Nancy. Give it a rest.

The best thing about the Pelosi quote is the total disregard for the presumption of innocence. It's funnier when a Democrat does that, because they work so hard to enlarge the rights and privileges of violent criminals, and they whine about the presumption until you bleed from the ears. Couple that with the fact that the prosecutor has refused to reveal his evidence -— meaning it is completely impossible for Pelosi to know what she’s talking about -— and you have to laugh, unless you’re a totally humorless liberal beyond the reach of irony.

ANY liberal who says DeLay is guilty, while the grand jury proceedings are kept secret and the evidence has not been revealed, is a complete idiot and hypocrite. In fact, I would say the announcement of the indictment will serve as a good litmus test as to whether a given liberal is a reasonable person or a hopeless moonbat.

I'm not a big fan of Tom DeLay. He represents most of what I hate about the modern "conservative" movement. People tend to call him "effective" and "a strong majority leader." I haven't seen him leading any charges to cut spending in any serious way, reduce pork and waste, and eliminate the totally unserious federal projects and responsibilities that glut up the budget. In my mind that makes him an asshole. But the Democrats are grandstanding in an unforgivable way. Call me when there is a smoking gun, or a blue dress. From what's available publically, Tom DeLay is being indicted on less evidence, and less clear evidence, than existed to indict Al "Consecutively Numbered Money Orders from Buddhist Monastics" Gore.

Damned Norwegians: Are they gone yet? Is it safe to blog again?

Hello, Oslo! We love you, and you're giving us Instapundit-like traffic (well, not really). But I have to ask you to please drop a note in the comments. Let us know why the sudden surge in FP's popularity in Norway. I'm almost afraid to ask, since I'm imagining Babelfish rendering one of Flyer's typically evenhanded posts into something rather controversial up Norway . . . uh, way.

Anyhow, welcome. I thought I'd bone up on (that is, familiarize myself with) your country. Now, here is Oslo in the winter. Or is it summer? Can't tell. It looks a bit like a New England town, but with no drunken Irish people visible on the streets. Nobody visible on the street, since it's probably -54 degrees in this picture.

Here is the airport train, which is called, I believe, the Flytoget. A perfect name, really, for a train that you fly to get. Note the almost preternatural cleanliness. Two days ago, I never heard of the place. Today, I'm moving there. What are your political asylum laws like? Any special slots for people who live under the jackboot of America's totalitarian smoking laws?

Here's something cool about Norway: When Hitler tried to establish a puppet regime in Norway, under Vidkun Quisling, the Norwegians -- unlike the French -- would have none of it, and the Nazis were forced to remove Quisling. (Look here to read why the paperclip, worn as a lapel pin, was the symbol of the Norwegian resistance.)

This is Trondheim, where the University is. Jesus, eh? What the hell are you doing on the internet with that outside? This is what my city looks like. Here's a picture of our City Hall. It's hard to walk inside.

Lies, Damned Lies, and . . .: No Child Left Behind statistics? That's how it's looking. I'm currently working on a project that requires sorting and analyzing data reported under NCLB requirements. (The data for Massachusetts are here, sorted by county, if you're interested.) The system is pretty straightforward. You can see figures like enrollment, poverty level, MCAS scores (that's our standardized test, for you non-Massholes), and percent of teachers considered "highly qualified." Two things jump out from the data.

First, the "highly qualified" techer percentage doesn't appear to correlate at all with school success. I think it's probably an empty designation, like the teacher with the master's degree who sleeps through class, versus the paraprofessional-certificate teacher's aide who is awake and contributing.

Second, the poverty rates at inner city schools are astounding, which leads me to believe they're being fudged, or the designation is wide-ranging. It's not unusual to look at an inner city school (this "magnet" school, for instance) and see an 83.9 percent "low income" figure. That means that you are buying lunch for 83.9 percent of the kids at that school. Look, I understand poverty. I used to live in the very neighborhood where that magnet school is located. It's not pretty (and neither were the hookers). But I'm sure that more that 16 percent of the families can afford to make lunch for their kids. A hell of a lot more than 16 percent of the kids who went to that school had clothes that were no more than a degree off the fashion curve. Their older brothers all had plenty of bling and enough money for gin or Cisco.

The odd thing is that, while poverty seems to correlate with low MCAS scores, it's not a simple relationship. One school with a 7 percent poverty rate had 40 percent profieciency in 6th grade math. (Statewide average for 2004 was 42.) Another school with a 48 percent poverty rate showed higher profieciency (45 percent) for the same grade and subject. Those aren't the rule, mind you, and it's certainly easy to see how a typical social scientist would look at these figures and "see" the evidence of low-income Americans getting shafted in school. My feeling is that it's more subtle than that.

Another thing: alternative schools. Would you expect a technology-focused school called the "Accelerated Learning Lab" to feature higher math scores? Only 9 percent of their 6th graders were proficient on the math test. Privitization fans? City charter schools were almost uniformly well below average, though not as low as their neighboring public schools. Magnet schools did no better either. (Though, it seems to me, that the argument for both charter and magnet schools still holds water.)

Anyhow, if anything interesting turns up in the analysis, I'll mention it.

Fashion Assassin: No, not yet another fl*p-fl*p (I dare not speak their name) diatribe. Summer is officially over, and it's bound to get cold enough soon, so their days are numbered.

I'm over the male persuasion. Just a list of mistakes I'm seeing young men (mostly), who seem about 2-5 years out of college making as they try to adjust from ripped cargoes, team jerseys, and yes, fl*p-fl*ps:

1. Goatees are over. Unless you're a bounty hunter or maybe a professional poker player, give it up, take out your newly-purchased eighteen-blade razor and give it a whirl (well, not a whirl, you'd kill yourself).

2. Dark grey dockers, maroon button-down, maroon tie, quasi-futuristic too-shiny black "shoes". No, no, no f*cking no. Unless you're in an area without electricity and you simply cannot see what you're putting on in the morning.

3. Hair gel. Read the directions -- the tubes always say use a "nickel-sized" dollop and apply evenly. Not, squeeze half the bottle and use only on the front of your head. A little body, some lift -- all acceptable. But when detrius from the street becomes affixed to one of the three horns just above your hairline, well, maybe ease off next time.

4. Ear-lobe expanding "jewelry". Not sure when that ever became acceptable. If you ride a bike delivering packages for a living, then fine, such adornment is de rigeur. But I haven't met a woman yet (and I meet a lot, if you know what I mean) who though large gaping holes in your ears was a sign of mating compatability. You know, that stuff don't close up by itself. On the other hand, you do have two handy places to put stuff, like pencils, cigarettes and christmas ornaments.

5. And those god ugly Scandinavian-patterned shirts...I mean, what is up...Oh...hi Sven. Good to see you again here at FP. What's that? No...did I type Scandinavian?

He just wanted to get in my briefs: Diane Feinstein wasn't satisfied with John Roberts' legal credentials and impersonal answers to her probing questions on end-of-life issues.

I attempted to get a sense of his temperament and values. And I asked him about the end-of-life decisions: clearly, decisions that are gut-wrenching, difficult and extremely personal. Rather than talking to me as a son, a husband, a father--which I specifically requested he do--he gave a very detached response.

He's just like those guys that hurt her in the past. They pretend to listen, but they don't really care. And share their feelings? Not a chance. Guys just want one thing.

Hey DiFi, two scoops of Rocky Road and Beaches on DVD will make everything better.

Via James Taranto.

Down, Boy! From Rolling Stone's "The Briefing" feature:

No More Mr. Nice Guy Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has been heralded as Mr. Clean -- a sunny and genuinely likable. But judging by his record, Mr. Mean may be closer to the mark. In his legal opinions and memos, Roberts brandishes an acid with that barely conceals his contempt for women, minorities, children and even animals. An endangered species is nothing but a "hapless toad." Police should "treat children like children," even if it means arresting kids for eating a single french fry on the subway. Affirmative action requires "the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates." The coup de grace? In a 1984 case, Roberts tarred future Sen. Olympia Snowe and two other female Republican House members as "radical" for their efforts to secure equal pay for women. Roberts suggested the women adopt a quasi-Marxist slogan: "From each according to his ability, to each according to their gender."

Jesus. Just think, this Middle American Mussolini, this Reaganite Radical, is allowed to walk free -- nay, allowed to sit like Zeus at the top of our judicial branch of government! -- while a true hero and patriot like Mumia languishes in jail. Liberals of the world, you might as well just kill yourselves now. Go ahead, use my legal, registered, no-safety-lock firearm. You don't want to be around when Bush nominates an actual conservative to the bench.

How the hell Scalia ever got out of committee, I'll never know.

F*cked: Imagine you're homeless thanks to Katrina. Imagine you have no options, no family nearby. What're you going to do? Then, the friendly, patriotic, god-fearin' citizens of Houston take you in. You're saved, your kids can go to school. You're thanking god for this sprawling oasis that Exxon built when suddenly . . .

It's like a nightmare, ain't it.

An Unusual Statistic: Over the past 48 hours, 59% of out blog's visits have been from here: the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Mostly, though not exclusively, one page view per visit. The exceptions are interesting, though: Multiple page views, some over an hour surfing Fauxpolitik. No referring URL available for any of the visits.

Just out of curiousity, have either of you been making derogatory comments about Scandanavian geeks? If so, the bastards are on to you.

And you can fit a case of chaw in it: Quick, you only have a short amount of time left to bid on some priceless memorabilia. No, not an Elvis jumpsuit. Nope, not a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Silly, it's Robbie Gordon's helmet -- you know the one he threw at Darryl Waltrip in last week's race in New Hampshire? Now, how much would you bid for something so ummmm, memorable as that? $20? Well, okay, brand new it's probably worth like $1000, so given a few dents, nicks, and scars from uhhhh, being thrown across the track, let's say $750.

What's that you say? Freaking over $9 million???

Oh, the proceeds go to Katrina relief. Big E would approve.

I wonder how much we could get for Roddick's racquet from the U.S. Open --- hardly used! Yukyukyuk.