Stereotypes, Evenly Distributed?

Reading the Post sports pages today, enjoying the Skins victory which I didn't see all of because we went off to see the ABT Nutcracker and all the little girls dressed up in holiday finery. An interview with some rapper, maybe "chamillionaire"?

THECHAT: "You're against the dress code, then?

I don't see a real reason for it. The only people it affects are the people in the urban world. I don't think it's a bad influence on the NBA for people to wear what they grew up wearing. No chains, and no do-rags? That's my culture. I feel like it's discrimination against people like us. I dress the same way. I wear a chain, I got jewelry on, I got a do-rag, but that don't mean I can't come to the job and conduct myself right. I think people always have those stereotypes [emphasis added]. I think what they did in the NBA is just another form of that. I mean [the code] is not even when they're on the job. When they're on the court, if you want to make them tuck in their jersey, fine. If they want to say your pants can't be sagging below your booty, fine. That I can see."

Obviously Mr Rapper is referring to "people" not like "us", i.e. whites who didn't grow up in the ghetto. At first I agreed. I have "those stereotypes" of rappers and kids who wear their pants around their knees, listen to vulgar rap songs, etc. But a question for all social scientists--are stereotypes evenly distributed? I assume we'd all agree that people have stereotypes, but is "people" just WASP's and upper class types? Or is it everyone except you and me? (A related question is whether there's any difference in harm: are ghetto blacks more harmed by the stereotypes WASP's hold of them, or by those they hold of WASP's?)

I could argue, not having any facts, either way: either everyone, disregarding differences of personality and so forth, has stereotypes to get them through their life; or, the more life people have experienced (i.e., the older, the more widely traveled, the more exposure through reading, etc) the fewer stereotypes; or, the older the more set in their ways and the more stereotypes.

I don't know the answer.

When Is Anti-War Speech Harmful to the War Effort:

Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy site has had several discussions on anti-war speech and its impact and morality. See The Volokh Conspiracy - When Is Anti-War Speech Harmful to the War Effort:: among others.

I've a number of thoughts. I started to post a comment there, but decided not to cast my pearls before swine but to hide them here. (Actually, I'm too slow a writer to compose comments on this complex a subject, I need the time.)

His recent conceptualization of the issue, as stated here, seems to me to be an example of "tunnel vision".

"I'd like to focus a bit on the broader question of when speech during wartime is harmful to the war effort -- not necessarily when it's immoral, but only when it harms the war effort. To do this, let's first shift the discussion from the war on Iraq to World War II.

What speech (if any) by Americans during World War II do you think would have been harmful to the war effort, even if it weren't deliberately aimed at helping the Nazis win?"

How do I justify my "tunnel" description? The post narrows the issues to helping or hurting the war effort, ignoring (for the sake of discussion) the other benefits and costs of speech in relation to other goals. Implicitly the discussion is devoted to effects on us and our military and our enemy and its combatants, and to the course of the war, not to the longer history of our nation and the world

But societies, as individuals, should be judged not only by what they achieve, but by how they achieve it. The test of morality is not only what you achieve, but how you achieve it. I seem to remember that Athenian democracy was overthrown in the Peloponnesian wars but the founding fathers remembered Athens more than Sparta.

It's an old chestnut, but true: adversity builds character. So too for societies. Taking the easy course would be, as Nixon so often said, wrong. In the 50's there was much argument over the virtues of totalitarian societies versus democracies. Many, such as Whittaker Chambers, believed that a totalitarian society was more efficient and effective than a democracy. Another example--the way we fought WWII was important. Putting Japanese-Americans in camps and dropping the A-bomb might have been important to the war effort, but they were lasting stains on our honor. We may have jailed Copperheads during the Civil War and Eugene Debs in WWI, but we've learned better. The short term gain in cohesion was outweighed by the betrayal of our ideals.

By giving priority to the war effort, one can justify X, where X may be limitation of free speech or war crimes. For example, in the battle of Fallujah, once the military had cordoned off the city and urged all civilians to leave, we could have saved many casualties by using gas. We, the world, have made the judgment that use of gas, even tear gas, in such situations is abhorrent. But when you take a longer and wider perspective you decide that the end does not justify the means.


Writing of "the war effort" implies that there is one effort by one actor--the nation. In another post Volokh talks of "the enemy". But that reification is misleading. We are individuals, as are our enemies. Based on my experience in Vietnam (noncombat), I'd guess this rule is pretty valid: the impact of anti-war speech on DOD employees is inversely proportional to their danger. In other words, as I've said elsewhere, Rep. Murtha didn't have much effect on a Marine rifleman, but he came close to ruining Rumsfeld's day. If you're in danger, your mind is focused on getting through the days. If you're up in the chain of command, you start worrying.

I suspect the same rule applies to the "enemy". The big bosses pay attention to what is going on within the opposite camp, but the peons don't. Didn't Hector know that Achilles was sulking in his tent? But the peons do know what concerns them--is the enemy treating captives well or poorly. Remember in the Civil War that the Confederacy threatened to execute captive black soldiers, leading Lincoln to promise reprisals.

All this may have changed some--given electronic media the ranks of our military and the enemy are more porous and open to new information than before. The spread of these media further empowers the onlookers--those in the Moslem world not actively engaged in insurgency, those in the non-Moslem world who have their own dealings with America and want to know what sort of polity it is, and those who have been friendly in the past who want to know whether we've changed. But that makes it even more important to adhere to our ideals, and to recognize that we define our ideals by the way we act under duress. (Also see Dan Drezner on this issue, as I cited here.)

Of course as always an underlying assumption, not raised in the discussions, is key: just how serious is the insurgency/Iraq unrest/war on terrorism? The pro-Bush conservatives agree with him that it's of life and death importance to the US. I disagree, believing that if you define a continuum between communism in the 1950's vis a vis the US and the IRA in the 1960's vis a vis the Protestants, Moslem terrorism is much closer to the second than the first. The real test of my principles would be whether, if I were the Brits in 1940, would I throw Oswald Moseley into jail?

Big brain means small testes

This article is depressing.

New Scientist Breaking News - Big brain means small testes, finds bat study: "The brainier male bats are, the smaller their testicles, according to a new study. Researchers suggest the correlation exists because both organs require a lot of energy to grow and maintain, leading individual species to find the optimum balance."

It's another reminder that you can't have it all. Or, as the great science fiction writer Heinlein said, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

In Berlin, Every Cheer Casts an Eerie Echo - New York Times

The Times has an interesting article on the renovation/reconstruction of Berlin's Olympic stadium, the one in which Jesse Owens won his medals and Hitler posed. But am I the only one struck by this statement from the architect in charge?

"'What we had to do was to change a people's stadium into a class stadium,' Marg said. 'During Nazi times, there was only one V.I.P. Today, there are several classes of V.I.P.'s.'"

Pearl Harbor Day--American Victory?

I'm too young to remember it, but I do remember writing a college paper on it. I took the view that it was an American victory (an early example of my contrarian nature, if not my idiocy).

To sketch the argument as I recall:

• on the tactical level, while the Japanese achieved surprise, they attacked old battleships that never contributed to the war anyhow, while missing the carriers and the oil tank farms that were critical to American success
• on the strategic level, they (with Hitler's help, as he declared war on us when we declared war on Japan) solved FDR's dilemma of how to bring a reasonably united U.S. into the war on Britain's side. (Churchill said he rejoiced at the attack and slept soundly that night comfortable that he was now on the winning side.)
  

Pearl Harbor was thus a key step in the eventual conquest of the Axis and therefore a victory.

I still think my logic holds up. And I'd say it's a caution against the easy talk of "winning" and "losing" wars. You can never be sure how history is going to work out.

Bad Day at Cloudcroft

Today was a bad day. We have two cats, Carrie and Ginny, who both find going to the vets very traumatic. Over the years we've learned that it's less traumatic for the humans if we take both cats on the same day. Of course, our cats have learned as well (if they couldn't learn, they couldn't train us so well). So when Carrie sees the two carriers out, and both her people bustling around, and feels the tension in the air she heads for cover, i.e., under the biggest bed she can find. And when Ginny sees Carrie being grabbed, she heads for cover too.

In the car, Carrie carries on with an unending series of meows, ranging from yeowels to just the emphatic MMeeoowWW in her robust mezzo soprano voice. Ginny adds high notes, meoow, judiciously interspersed in her smaller soprano.

Carrie usually totally disgraces herself at the vets, with discharges from all orifices, drooling and the rest. Today was better though--drooling from both sides of her mouth was all she did.

Both cats have gained weight over the last year, after being reasonably steady for several years. I guess that says something about their humans, as does the guilt we feel at inflicting the suffering and humiliation on them. It also says something about humans, and cats, to reflect that while they learn and feel and suffer, they show no signs of bearing grudges, unlike humans.

Applebaum on "Winning"

For those who disagree with Howard Dean and think we can win the "war", Anne Applebaum has a good column, It's Not Whether You 'Win' or 'Lose' . . . in today's Post:

"But what if all of this vocabulary -- winning, losing, victory, defeat -- is simply misplaced? There are, after all, wars that are not actually won or lost. There are wars that achieve some of their goals, that result only in partial solutions and that leave much business unfinished. There are wars that do not end with helicopters evacuating Americans from the embassy roof but that do not produce a victorious march into Berlin, either. There are wars that end ambivalently -- wars, for example, such as the one we fought in Korea."

She points out that war results in both bad and good, using Korea as a parallel. I'd quibble some.
I put "war" in quotes, because it's not clear that we're in a war, or at least what war we're fighting. Apparently the Pentagon isn't sure who we're fighting in Iraq--is it Rummy's "bitter-enders", or "foreign terrorists", the Sunnis, or anyone who uses terror to advance their cause? Is Iraq the "whole war", or just a front in a bigger war? Was the British Army in a "war" with IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland from 1968 on? Did they "win" it? I don't think so. They didn't lose and the parties (at least most of them) finally got exhausted enough at the violence that they were willing to negotiate. It's sort of like a parent-child conflict--neither one wins but time changes the terms. So too in Iraq. Whether the parties will exhaust themselves and work out their future better and faster if we stay than if we go is anyone's guess, and that's about all it is--a guess.

Dreams and Reality--The Fate of Restaurants

Every day I run I go past the Ariake restaurant.

I've seen the progress of the renovations of what used to be a McDonalds, before that a Popeyes, before that something else. The site seems like it should be ideal for a restaurant of some sort. It's across from the entrance to the Hunter's Woods Plaza (strip shopping), located on and near main Reston roads. But the site's never been overwhelmingly successful, as witness the changes over the years. It sat vacant for maybe 2-3 years before new owners got it, and started their changes.

My guess is that they are novices. Why--because work started on the building, then was halted for a long while. When it resumed, building permits for renovations were posted on the windows, so I'm guessing they started work without getting all the bureaucratic permits. From the outside (never been inside), they've done a good job. Merrifield Gardens redid the grounds to provide a water feature and plantings that feel Japanese; they put down slate tiles outside for the outside seating area. The inside was redone as well.

As the review says, they opened in the spring. Googling them, they've had a couple reviews and a couple of organizations meeting there. But I'd fault their outreach. The Chinese restaurant in Fox Mill regularly mails their menu out to the homes in the area, including a buy one, get one free offer. The Ariake hasn't done that; they don't even post a menu in the window. Neither my wife nor I are that familiar with Japanese cuisine, so we need a little impetus to cross the threshold. It's too bad, because if the food matches the care taken with the building it's good.

But many restaurants start and fail for each one that succeeds in becoming a neighborhood fixture.

Jesse Helms the Best Friend of the UN?

Ruth Wedgwood, a conservative foreign policy expert, opines in today's Times about the failure of the UN to reform. This is the most recent news on the issue, following up on the Volker report, the impending removal of the UN's expert on running elections, and the reinstatement of one of the people who screwed up the oil for food program because of bureaucratic process. (If I were a good blogger, I'd have links for each of these, but I don't--you'll just have to trust me.)

Question: remember Jesse Helms, the antediluvian chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee? Madeline Albright and Richard Holbrooke spent much effort seducing him into paying our UN dues, at least in part. But maybe he was the best friend the UN had.

Liberals like me automatically support anything that someone like Helms opposes. So his opposition to the UN over the recent past insulated the UN from criticism from the left. Now that he's gone, I'm thinking there's something to the conservatives' case against the UN. I know there's problems in our own bureaucracy, which is subject to controls by political forces. When Bush I's FEMA screws up in Florida, Clinton comes in and fixes the problem. Bush II screws it up again, but at least we had an effective agency for a while. As far as I can see there's nothing similar in the UN--it's all "who you know", mutual backscratching and logrolling, and quota system. There are times and institutions where expertise and selection from within can work well. But those cases are relatively few.

Liberals believe in multinational institutions and are skeptical of nationalism. But we need to be sure the multinationals are effective.

Murtha and Duke

In the past week or so, two Vietnam vets have made the headlines: Rep. Murtha of PA has come out against Bush's strategy in Iraq and Rep. Cunningham of CA has pled guilty to felonies.

Cunningham was a conservative Republican, Murtha is a Democrat of the old-line socially conservative, economically liberal kind. Meanwhile anti-war liberals have been busily tweaking Republicans like Cheney for being "chicken hawks" just as conservatives have been trying to tar liberals for being soft on terrorism.

Speaking as a draftee who despised officers, it would be nice to forget such approaches. Experience in war gives no warranty for views; truth is independent of the background of the speaker. Hitler was a decorated WWI veteran, Lincoln had a couple weeks in the militia, and Christ, as far as we know, never served in the Roman legions. It may be emotionally satisfying to contrast Cheney's hawkish views with his Clinton-like background, but nothing more.

Arguments on all sides have to be confronted on their merits (if any), not through emotion based on military experience, or lack thereof.