Über die Freiheit / de libertate

Following up from her last feature–which I would argue has to be the best article of 2008–Hanna Rosin has another feature in The Atlantic about breastfeeding. It, too, is great. I’m going to keep an eye on Rosin’s writing.

In my playground set, the urban moms in their tight jeans and oversize sunglasses size each other up using a whole range of signifiers: organic content of snacks, sleekness of stroller, ratio of tasteful wooden toys to plastic. But breast-feeding is the real ticket into the club.

Slumdog was going to be a straight-to-DVD. The piece of shit would have been a waste of a perfectly good DVD, hell it would have been a waste of Betamax too.

The Heritage Foundation has now updated its coverage with a transcript of Arnold Kling’s comments:

I think about what’s going on as an economist but I feel it as a father. My wife and I have three daughters between the ages of 19 and 25. And when I see what’s being done to their future I’m really angry. Back in September when they were talking about taking $700 billion dollars to unclog the financial system I wanted to yank Henry Paulson out of the TV screen and say to him: “Keep your hands off my daughter’s future.” But he got away with it. For me it felt like sitting there watching my home being ransacked by a gang of thugs. And now we’ve got a new gang of thugs and they are doing the same thing. So that’s how I feel, now back to how I think.

If that’s still racist, then I give up.

The last two weeks in Regina has been a good time for movies. The vast majority of award winning/nominated films opened over the past two weekends.

These films, in order of greatness are:
1. Revolutionary Road
2. Frost/Nixon
3. The Reader
4. Milk
5. The Wrestler
6. Defiance
…
7. Slumdog Millionaire

PS. Richard Roeper has lost his fucking mind.

Eastwood is at his growling best, and the cast of mostly unknown supporting actors is uniformly excellent.

A study called Women’s Bust Size and Men’s Courtship Solicitation, published in the journal Body Image, describes how Gueguen tested “the effect of a woman’s breast size on approaches made by males. We hypothesised that an increase in breast size would be associated with an increase in approaches by men.” The study ends with an 827-word ode on the topic sentence: “Our hypothesis was confirmed.”

A related experiment produced a study called Women’s Bust Size and Men’s Courtship Solicitation, published in the journal Perceptual and Motor Skills. There Gueguen reports that “1,200 male and female French motorists were tested in a hitchhiking situation. A 20-year-old female confederate wore a bra which permitted variation in the size of cup to vary her breast size. She stood by the side of a road frequented by hitchhikers and held out her thumb to catch a ride.

“Increasing the bra-size of the female-hitchhiker was significantly associated with an increase in number of male drivers, but not female drivers, who stopped to offer a ride.” [The Guardian]

You might not agree, but a study has revealed that a large number of British men prefer women with smaller breasts.

According to the study, one in three British men find a woman’s big assets too much to handle — while nine per cent of men find large breasts a turn-off, 22 per cent will hardly consider dating anyone with larger baps. [Express India]

Next to the wholly offensive video by the loathsome Naomi Klein and unscrupulous Alfonso Cuarón, Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff is the dumbest anti-business, anti-corporate, anti-market web video in existence.She starts her video with a simplistic account of the economy, consumer products, or as she calls it, “stuff”. She breaks it down into 5 parts, Extraction, Production, Distribution, Consumption and Disposal which she labels the “materials economy”. She then proceeds to explain how this “linear system” is a failure because it doesn’t account for all the variations and people in evolved. This is supposed to be a critique of the standard capitalist economy, but instead it is merely a straw man. No reputable economist would pretend that the market breaks down into such neat little categories. Indeed, the standard market-oriented economist, and indeed any economist to the right of Mao would emphasize the incredibly complex system that the international markets have become.

In the second section on production Leonard argues that world has already used one third of the world’s resources. This is nonsense for a couple of reasons. First, what defines a resource? What man considers a resource depends upon the time and technology available. Prior to the late 19^th century most discoveries of oil were a nuisance because they contaminated the land for agricultural use. Second, world market price determines the amount of exploration and extraction. With the rapid increase in oil-prices (ignoring the recent plummet of the past few months) oil companies ‘discovered’ a vast amount of new oil reserves. As such the resource base estimates have to adjust to the new discoveries. Likewise, it is possible that a resource will find a new use or an entirely new resource could be found. Thus to say that a third of the worlds resources have been irrevocably used ignores reality. If she had argued that one third of recognized reserves of products X,Y & Z had been used she would have had a point, at least to some degree.

Her example of the $4.99 radio is a prime illustration of her economic ignorance. The fact that a radio-an exemplar of modern technology if there ever was one-could cost less than $5 completely confounds her. She does, however, recognize the disparate nature of technology with various products coming from international locations, as the famous I, Pencil article by Leonard Read (and the subsequent explanation by Milton Friedman) showed. Yet, this doesn’t enlighten her to the complexity of a modern industrial economy, it instead it convinces her of a nefarious plot by multi-national corporations. To account for the seemingly impossible price of $4.99 Leonard invokes the idea of “cost externalizing”. What she means here is that the ‘true’ costs a product are dumped upon others: the environment, the workers and any other so-called victims she can invent. It appears to me that this idea is merely a bastardized version of the concept of externalities, or indirect costs placed on others (which can be both positive and negative). There is a legitimate critique here, but instead she sticks to anti-market buzzwords.

More to the point of the $5 price tag, she is woefully ignorant about the concepts of advantage (both competitive and absolute), division of labor, and productivity. The reason a radio can be sold for $5 dollars is because its cost to produce, market and sell is lower than $5. The raw materials can be extracted and sold in bulk, refined in bulk and assembled quickly in low-cost factories on a mass scale. Due to the invention of container shipping the products can be transported for very low cost and sold to consumers at stores who determine amount of shelf-space by the amount of profit that can be made. There is nothing especially difficult about understanding this. If she had wanted to say that the $5 radio is too low because it doesn’t pay for the environmental damage and low wages she’s free to do so. She’s all free to boycott radios or send money directly to affected areas.

Leonard is also bewildered-and mistaken-about computers. She claims that she opened up her desktop computer to learn about them, yet somehow she came back with the most ludicrous notions I’ve ever heard. She claims that the only than changes on a computer from year-to-year is “one little thing in the corner.” I’m going to be generous and assume that she is referring to the processor. She claims that this cannot be replaced because they deliberately-due to planned obsolescence-change the connection style. I’ll admit that Intel and AMD (the two most popular chip makers) have changed their socket design over time, but it’s just not true that you can’t upgrade.

Processors can and are upgraded. The current Intel Socket 775 has a variety of options available. But even moving beyond the processor, Leonard claims are mistaken. Much more on a computer is changed as technology is developed. The motherboard of a computer contains a number sockets, slots, chipsets and connectors. These, like all technology, are subjection to revision. Importantly many of the functions on a computer, like the chipset (Northbridge and Southbridge), are not upgradable, thus computers don’t change by “one little thing in the corner.” RAM, Hard drives, and a whole host of other things all need changing as the needs of computers and their users change. Computer makers aren’t changing things just to force people to buy new ones (though I’m sure they would like that), but they are also constrained by the need to innovate. Her ignorance about computer serves as another illustration of her dishonesty.

Leonard also likes to play fast and loose with the facts. She claims that happiness has declined in American since the 1950s citing one source. She connects this fact with the rise of consumerism as defined by Victor Lebow, ignoring any context of his article. She also claims that Americans have less leisure time than since the Feudal Era, as though the backbreaking agricultural and industrial labor provided immense free time and holiday pay. She claims that dioxins are the most toxic chemicals known to science despite the fact that dioxins are broad classification of toxins. Most of all she romanticizes the past, arguing that our relatives in the 1950s new about environmental stewardship and sustainability. No Annie, people just didn’t have money back in the day. Otherwise they were busy polluting the earth unwittingly.

Overall this “documentary” is a piece of garbage. It is a slick, sophisticated mix of lefty buzzwords and ignorant pontification. It presents a case to return the world to harshness our descendants worked so hard to get their children out of. There is plenty of room for criticism of corporations, government and of pollution, but this video only continues to spread ignorance of economics and reality.

Here is a brilliant discussion of multiculturalism and immigration.

In today’s Leader-Post,

I would like to contest the inane protests by the writers of the letters “Feist review makes her feisty” (Leader-Post, Oct. 28) and “Criticism not OK,” Leader-Post, Oct. 30) in regards to the Leader-Post’s criticism.

Both seem to completely misunderstand the purpose and meaning of criticism. “Criticism”, by definition, is a critical evaluation of a work or event.

Contrastingly, the writers appear to be under the misconception the Leader-Post’s criticism should ignore any evaluation and instead consist of merely of kind words and cheerleading.

The fact Leslie Feist was a “onetime resident of Regina” is inconsequential to the substance of the review. Geography does not dictate quality.

More concerning is the assertion that “local artists and Canadian talent” including films like Passchendaele, should get a free ride and not be critiqued simply because the creators were born in a certain geographical area.

These types of ideas are the exemplars of an uncritical nationalism that pervades a large subsection of the Canadian population.

Perhaps the reason why Canadian talent is perceived to be poorly reviewed is because it is coddled and prevented from competing on an even playing field with the international community.

Robert S. Porter
Regina

In nurseries, and boarding schools, I fear, girls are first spoiled; particularly in the latter.  A number of girls sleep in the same room, and wash together.  And, though I should be sorry to contaminate an innocent creature’s mind by instilling false delicacy, or those indecent prudish notions, which early cautions respecting the other sex naturally engender, I should be very anxious to prevent their acquiring indelicate, or immodest habits; and as many girls have learned very indelicate tricks, from ignorant servants, the mixing them thus indiscriminately together, is very improper.

To say the truth, women are, in general, too familiar with each other, which leads to that gross degree of familiarity that so frequently renders the marriage state unhappy.  Why in the name of decency are sisters, female intimates, or ladies and their waiting women, to be so grossly familiar as to forget the respect which one human creature owes to another?  That squeamish delicacy which shrinks from the most disgusting offices when affection or humanity lead us to watch at a sick pillow, is despicable.  But, why women in health should be more familiar with each other than men are, when they boast of their superiour delicacy, is a solecism in manners which I could never solve.

In order to preserve health and beauty, I should earnestly recommend frequent ablutions, to dignify my advice that it may not offend the fastidious ear; and, by example, girls ought to be taught to wash and dress alone, without any distinction of rank; and if custom should make them require some little assistance, let them not require it till that part of the business is over which ought never to be done before a fellow-creature; because it is an insult to the majesty of human nature.  Not on the score of modesty, but decency; for the care which some modest women take, making at the same time a display of that care, not to let their legs be seen, is as childish as immodest.

Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

The Atlantic has an excellent article up about transgendered children and the issues involved.

Spack’s own conception of the psychology involved is uncomplicated: “If a girl starts to experience breast budding and feels like cutting herself, then she’s probably transgendered. If she feels immediate relief on the [puberty-blocking] drugs, that confirms the diagnosis,” he told The Boston Globe. He thinks of the blockers not as an addendum to years of therapy but as “preventative” because they forestall the trauma that comes from social rejection. Clinically, men who become women are usually described as “male-to-female,” but Spack, using the parlance of activist parents, refers to them as “affirmed females”—“because how can you be a male-to-female if really you were always a female in your brain?”

I found this section, interesting and important. 

Transsexualism is far less common than homo­sexuality, and the research is in its infancy. Scattered studies have looked at brain activity, finger size, familial recurrence, and birth order. One hypothesis involves hormonal imbalances during pregnancy. In 1988, researchers injected hormones into pregnant rhesus monkeys; the hormones seemed to masculinize the brains but not the bodies of their female babies. “Are we expecting to find some biological component [to gender identity]?” asks Vilain. “Certainly I am. But my hunch is, it’s going to be mild. My hunch is that sexual orientation is probably much more hardwired than gender identity. I’m not saying [gender identity is] entirely determined by the social environment. I’m just saying that it’s much more malleable.”

Vilain has spent his career working with intersex patients, who are born with the anatomy of both sexes. He says his hardest job is to persuade the parents to leave the genitals ambiguous and wait until the child has grown up, and can choose his or her own course. This experience has influenced his views on parents with young transgender kids. “I’m torn here. I’m very ambivalent. I know [the parents] are saying the children are born this way. But I’m still on the fence. I consider the child my patient, not the parents, and I don’t want to alleviate the anxiety of the parents by surgically fixing the child. We don’t know the long-term effects of making these decisions for the child. We’re playing God here, a little bit.” 

Even some supporters of hormone blockers worry that the availability of the drugs will encourage parents to make definitive decisions about younger and younger kids. This is one reason why doctors at the clinic in the Netherlands ask parents not to let young children live as the other gender until they are about to go on blockers. “We discourage it because the chances are very high that your child will not be a transsexual,” says Cohen-Kettenis. The Dutch studies of their own patients show that among young children who have gender-identity disorder, only 20 to 25 percent still want to switch gender at adolescence; other studies show similar or even lower rates of persistence.

The most extensive study on transgender boys was published in 1987 as The “Sissy Boy Syndrome” and the Development of Homosexuality. For 15 years, Dr. Richard Green followed 44 boys who exhibited extreme feminine behaviors, and a control group of boys who did not. The boys in the feminine group all played with dolls, preferred the company of girls to boys, and avoided “rough-and-tumble play.” Reports from their parents sound very much like the testimonies one reads on the listservs today. “He started … cross-dressing when he was about 3,” reported one mother. “[He stood] in front of the mirror and he took his penis and he folded it under, and he said, ‘Look, Mommy, I’m a girl,’” said another.

Green expected most of the boys in the study to end up as transsexuals, but nothing like that happened. Three-fourths of the 44 boys turned out to be gay or bisexual (Green says a few more have since contacted him and told him they too were gay). Only one became a transsexual. “We can’t tell a pre-gay from a pre-transsexual at 8,” says Green, who recently retired from running the adult gender-identity clinic in England. “Are you helping or hurting a kid by allowing them to live as the other gender? If everyone is caught up in facilitating the thing, then there may be a hell of a lot of pressure to remain that way, regardless of how strongly the kid still feels gender-dysphoric. Who knows? That’s a study that hasn’t found its investigator yet.” 

Indeed the whole article made me rethink my views on this issue. This article puts forth both sides of the issue and put a lot of doubt in my mind that transgendered children are necessarily transgendered.

Due to some healthy nudging I have come to see political correctness in a new light. In the past I viewed all political correctness as inherently evil, that is, an attempt to make society less individualistic by forcing a particular (liberal) point of view on society as a whole. I suppose this transition merely reflects the transition in my life as a whole. I’ve gone from a Christian fundamentalist asshole to, I believe, a cosmopolitan, tolerant individualist. I would still oppose any attempt to legislate a particular viewpoint, but, in general, political correctness reflects diversity in society and a longing for tolerance. Society, I would argue, would be better served if more people reflected upon their words and actions.

What I am unconvinced of is how far political correctness should penetrate daily life. Or at least how far one should go to view society in a blind matter. Take an example: if one receives poor service at a business and you are describing the event to a friend, how would you describe the person? You might explain that “this stupid Asian guy was completely rude to me.” The question is whether pointing out the ethnicity of the person makes you a racist, or at least unnecessarily race conscious. On the surface it is tempting to say yes.

But if you look at it in reverse the situation does not change much. If you received excellent service you would probably say “this nice Asian guy was so helpful!” In this instance I would think few would call it racist to identify his ethnicity. Yet in both instances the ethnicity is completely irrelevant to the situation. When one points out a particular feature and describes the event as good, there is no problem. But when the situation is negative, pointing out such a feature is often decried as bigotry. Though I understand why the negative situation is criticized I think it is fundamentally inconsistent.

If one is to think of daily examples of our interaction with other people we often use people’s particularities to identify them. “Some old man cut me off”; “A nice lady gave me five dollars”; “A young boy stole my wallet”; “That blonde just…”. In each of these examples the larger group with which they are being identified is not the cause of the action. Yet, negative or positive, this seems to be a common social or linguistic occurrence. Gender, race, hair color or age does not explain any truths beyond vague generalities which are unreliable, yet we all use them as broad categories of identification. I’m not convinced this is necessarily a bad thing.

Society might be better off if we were not so inclined to point out the characteristics of people that they cannot change. And certainly historically such characteristics have been applied too generally and in a destructive and hateful manner. However, as I mentioned above, they are widely used in positive experiences as well. Ultimately, we would be putting too artificial a constraint on society and human expression if we expected everyone to be gender/race/age blind in every situation. Describing every interaction as taking place with a “person” would be boring and artificial. So, while such a society would undoubtedly be more equal and tolerant, it would also be sterile and contrary to human nature. Objections to persons pointing out indentifying characteristics should be limited to examples where bigoted generalities are actually being proposed.

Over at the econoblog Division of Labour Tim Shaughnessy has a post about “why libertarians don’t gain much ground”. His basic thesis is that libertarians are intolerant atheists. His post is centered around a post by Nicholas Provenzo of The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism’s blog Rule of Reason. Provenzo’s post has caused quite a stir in intarweb circles. Here is the central idea behind the post:

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

On the surface this seems like inflammatory and perhaps harsh, but I’m not sure myself. One blogger called it “pretty vile stuff” another blogger called him an asshole, repeatedly. The hate mail he received and subsequently posted has even more interesting responses: he’s a Nazi; kill yourself; you should have been aborted, etc.

Most of the backlash comes from the second sentence of the paragraph quoted above: “it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome”. If one looks at this quickly, as many seem to have done, it might appear that he is saying that all Down syndrome babies should be aborted. However, I think people might be misunderstanding the word “morality”. Rather than saying that it is only moral to abort, I believe he is saying that if one chooses so, it is moral to abort, as it is in any situation. Now obviously from the remainder of Provenzo’s post it is clear that be believes the better choice is to abort the child, but I don’t believe he is saying all should. It truly is a matter of choice, but Provenzo is attempting to argue for what he believes is the more moral choice.

Of course this is where the debate really takes off. As callous as it might seem, I think Provenzo’s moral preference has the better argument. While I would never attempt to undermine the individual choice of any woman, I think there is a good argument to be made for abortion in the case of severe disabilities in fetuses. I am uncertain of what moral good comes from bringing a child into the world where they will have no quality of life. Indeed, I think Provenzo might be right when he alludes to the fact that bringing a severely disable child into the world might ultimately be selfish and cruel.

I also cannot agree whatsoever with the standard pro-life/Christian response which attempts to say that bringing such life into the world is a beautiful act. To say that the mentally handicapped are “ambassadors of God” is profoundly misguided. To say that they are “ambassadors of God” is to show how evil the god of Christianity must be. If god would allow a such a hardship upon a innocent child just to show god’s supposed love then god is undeserving of any reverence. Likewise as the National Review article shows, Christians appear to use the disabled as pawns in a disgusting game of self-satisfaction. Take these for example (emphasis added):

• “Their presence, in short, elevates all of us.”
• “It wasn’t until my brother John lost his battle with cancer ten years ago that I truly appreciated how much he influenced those around him.”
• “He made us better people”

In each instance Franc shows that the disabled’s presence is designed to improve our lives. I don’t doubt the genuine love and care that was provided, but it seems that there is little concern for the life of the disabled person. If one person’s life is based around the self-satisfaction that another might get out of it, it seems a little troubling to me. If the primary purpose of disabled individuals is to demonstrate god or teach the rest of humanity a lesson and the comfort and happiness is in the background there is a huge problem with priorities.

All that said, I think I agree generally with Provenzo’s point, however, I think he was unnecessarily terse and probably could have crafted his post more carefully as to better deflect the criticism—though in such debates civility, especially on the anti-abortion side, is generally lacking and based primarily on guttural instinct. I also must point out that I, like most people, don’t like abortion, and wish it were unnecessary, however I believe that it is a fundamental freedom that women (and to a small extent, couples) should always have.

As for Shaughnessy’s response, I don’t much understand it. I don’t know any libertarian who is as openly hostile to religion as he claims. Reason magazine, though cosmopolitan and generally irreligious, isn’t as hostile has he states. There is nothing inherently incompatible about religion and libertarianism. It is only incompatible when religion is applied in as though it were a strict guide for political philosophy. Indeed, I think there is a strong case to me made for Jesus being a libertarian in a basic sense, though this supposes a strong Arminian view of theology. That said, religion, and Christianity specifically, are huge obstacles to a more free society. Looking at abortion, same-sex marriage and other dictated morals one can see how Christianity is, or at least has been portrayed as, the antithesis of libertarianism. The reason that many libertarians are atheists is because libertarianism puts a huge emphasis on human reason, while religion attempts to directly undermine the abilities of humanity.

More specifically, I don’t know how Shaughnessy can think that his argument for a libertarian stance on abortion has much merit. Invoking the non-aggression axiom in the case of a zygote is patently absurd. He states that he doesn’t “see how, after the two haploids become a diploid, this being is anything but human, and thus deserving of the rights any other human has.” I’m sorry, but I honestly don’t understand how one can think that a microscopic ball of cells can logically have the same rights as a rational human being. (I’ll admit this does provide a problem in respect to babies which are not “rational”, however, I think that the birthing process IS important in this respect.) If all things that are potential human beings—a zygote—are worthy of protection, shouldn’t we also include the sperm and egg within the realm of protection?

I don’t know if calling an abortion moral is necessary, but surely forcing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child is immoral. The abortion itself might not be moral (depending on one’s definition of morality) but having the choice to do so certainly is moral and any prevention of this choice is rightfully condemned.

Now I’ll agree with Shaughnessy that Provenzo’s post might not convince “an ideological fence-sitter”, but I don’t think that such fence-sitters really exist. However, in my former life as a fundamentalist Christian I completely rejected abortion and now such posts appeal to me, at least in an intellectually stimulating way. So perhaps posts will help abortion foes to at least reexamine the basis of their beliefs.

I think the strange comment about potheads is also revealing. First off, what’s wrong with potheads wanting to get their drugs cheaper? Additionally, how is calling one’s self a libertarian going to reduce the cost of marijuana? If potheads want to get cheaper drugs they’d be better off attempting to influence members of the Democratic Party. Putting a Bob Barr sign on your lawn isn’t going to accomplish anything. So when Shaughnessy can point out potheads who are calling themselves libertarians for this sole reason, I’d like to see it. Until then, he should work on stopping sounding like a moralist.

The ultimate point of this post seems to be that until the Randians stop insulting is religious faith he will “continue to be slightly embarrassed [sic] to admit my libertarian leanings.” First off, I think “leanings” is accurate since, from at least what he presents in this post, he seems more like a market-oriented conservative, rather than a libertarian. (But I’d have to see his position on same-sex marriage and other cultural issues to make a better judgment of his ‘libertarian purity’.) Secondly, I think it’s odd to be embarrassed to call yourself libertarian because some elements within the ‘movement’ disagree with you. Using this logic he should be embarrassed to call himself a member of Louisiana State University-Shreveport since presumably there are some ultra-leftists on campus or perhaps he should embarrassed to be an American since there undoubtedly some douche bags to be found within the population.

Even without fisticuffs, nightclubs are rife with violent vibes, including rampant “optic violence” such as leering, baleful stares and “cut eye” — disdainful, dismissive looks.“Other than a prison, in what place other than a nightclub is stepping on someone’s shoes or looking at them the wrong way grounds for assault?” Rigakos asks. Nightclubs also reinforce gender, class and race divisions, he says, by celebrating hegemonic masculinity and femininity, creating red-roped VIP pens for the privileged and imposing racially exclusionary dress codes and music choices. [Leader-Post]\

Of course I believe that a private business should be allowed to do what it wants, but that doesn’t mean I want to ever visit such an establishment.