Best of the Web Today - June 23, 2006
By JAMES TARANTO
Liberals Are Racist, Study Suggests--II
Two weeks ago, we noted an article by the Washington Post's Richard Morin, who conducted a study along with Shanto Iyengar of Stanford University that purported to find that Americans' attitudes toward Katrina victims were colored by race, to the disadvantage of blacks.
We pointed out that the sample was highly skewed toward liberals and Democrats (as well as toward the well-educated and, to a lesser extent, toward whites), and said, "if this study shows that the participants are racially biased, that doesn't prove that Americans are racially biased. At most it proves that well-educated liberal white Americans are."
Now Morin has done a follow-up column, in which he shows that we were right:
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.
Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.
But for Democrats, race mattered--and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues." . . .
Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
Very interesting, and kudos to Morin and Iyengar for the follow-up. We should say, though, that although these results are consistent with our own prejudices about those on the liberal side of the political spectrum, we doubt this study comes anywhere near proving anything. This is for several reasons:
o Although it's not specified how the survey participants were chosen, it seems clear that they are a self-selected rather than representative sample. The follow-up work corrects for political bias but apparently not for other biases (e.g., toward highly educated whites).
o As we understand the description of the study, each individual participant saw either a white face or a black face (or another variant), not both. Thus the disparities found were between the averages of two different groups of people. It may be that the differences were the result of some unknown factor, whether random or systemic, that differentiates the two groups.
o Even if we assume that the disparity is the result of liberals "being affected by racial cues," such cues do not necessarily reflect racist attitudes (in the classic sense of believing that blacks are inferior). It could be that liberals believe blacks are more resilient and thus need less help to recover, or that they believe (correctly) that blacks have lower incomes on average and thus need less to compensate for lost wages.
Also, we take issue with the characterization of Democrats as "generous" because they are willing to "give" more money to they hypothetical victims. Participants were not asked how much of their own money they were willing to contribute, but rather how much "government aid" they thought the victims should receive.
If Democrats are more eager to spend "government" money than Republicans are--and, with the possible exception of members of Congress, it is a commonplace that they are--does this mean that Democrats are more "generous"? Or does it mean that Republicans are more apt to think of government as spending their money, while Democrats think of it as other people's?
Little Drummer Boy
John Kerry* appeared on "Imus in the Morning" the other day and objected to the most common characterization of his proposal for surrender in Iraq:
"Stay the course" is not a plan. And what this administration wants is to have a fake debate, as usual. Uh, they're--you hear the drumbeat on every television show from every commentator, "cut and run, cut and run, cut and run, cut and run." That's their phrase. They've found their three words, they love to do that, and they're gonna try to make the elections in November a choice between "cut and run" or "stay the course." That's not the choice. My plan is not "cut and run." Their plan is "lie and die."
But Sen. Skedaddle was singing quite a different tune before the last selection. This is from a Dec. 3, 2003 Kerry speech before the Council on Foreign Relations:
I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election.
Kerry was right then to oppose a cut-and-run strategy. He is wrong now to support it, just as he was wrong then to accuse the administration of doing so.
* Who served four months as a junior officer in Vietnam and thus obviously is qualified as a military strategist.
Terrorist Wannabes
"Seven people are in custody after a sweep by law enforcement authorities in connection with an alleged plot against targets that may have included the Sears Tower," CNN reports from Miami:
Law enforcement sources told CNN that the arrests disrupted what may have been the early stages of a domestic terrorist plot to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois, the FBI building in Miami, and possibly other targets. . . .
Federal law enforcement sources said five of the seven men were Americans, one was an illegal immigrant from Haiti whose visa had expired and the seventh was a resident alien.
Sources told CNN that the arrests culminated a monthslong undercover operation. The suspects believed they were dealing with an al Qaeda operative but the person was actually a government informant, the sources said.
Here's the full indictment, in PDF. The Los Angeles Times adds some local detail:
Thursday night, neighbors of the Liberty City warehouse told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that the suspects had said they were organizing a karate school. . . .
Neighbors told the paper the suspects had said they were Muslim and had tried to recruit young people to join their group. . . .
They slept in the building, said Tashawn Rose, 29.
"They would come out late at night and exercise," she told the paper. "It seemed like a military boot camp that they were working on there. They would come out and stand guard."
She said she had talked to one of them about a month ago.
"They seemed brainwashed. They said they had given their lives to Allah," Rose said.
It's good that the FBI put a stop to this alleged plot before it turned into an imminent threat. On the other hand, no actual al Qaeda member was implicated in the sting, only a bunch of apparent wannabes. Beating this enemy will require more than law enforcement.
'Unclear' in Reuterville
From a Reuters dispatch on the Miami arrests:
It was unclear what impact if any the arrests might have on public opinion ahead of mid-term congressional elections in November, and amid a deep slump in President George W. Bush's popularity and in public support for the Iraq war.
It is unclear what if anything this completely information-free paragraph has to do with the story. Looks as though Reuters just can't resist throwing in a jab in against President Bush and Iraq.
The 'Shopping for Father's Day' Defense
"Terror Suspects Sought Ties With al-Qaida"--headline, Associated Press, June 23
We Say Kill All of Them
"US-Led Troops Say Kill 14 Taliban Rebels"--headline, Reuters, June 23
What Would We Do Without Polls?
"Poll Finds Discord Between the Muslim and Western Worlds"--headline, New York Times, June 23
'Saving the Planet'
From an Associated Press dispatch on CNN.com:
The Bush administration has maintained that the threat [of "global warming"] is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs. (Watch as lawmakers argue saving the planet could ruin our economy-- 2:24)
The text in parentheses is inserted by CNN. You've gotta love that editorializing about "saving the planet"--and if you click through to the video link, you'll find the only lawmakers it shows are Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom are in favor of costly "solutions" to "global warming."
A little-publicized ABC News poll suggests that Americans are not buying this media hysteria over global warming. Although 59% tell the pollsters they are "convinced global warming [is] under way," only 33% "think it will affect [their] own life" and 38% "favor immediate government action."
Why haven't journalists trumpeted poll results like these as loudly as they do when surveys show regrets about the liberation of Iraq? But the question answers itself.
What if They Gave a War and Nobody Came?
A year and a half after the breakup of Kedwards, "former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), sketching out themes for a possible 2008 presidential campaign, said yesterday that the nation should set a goal of eliminating poverty over the next three decades," the Washington Post reports:
In his 2004 campaign, Edwards talked about an America divided between haves and have-nots, and after leaving the Senate he helped establish a poverty center at the University of North Carolina. But it was Hurricane Katrina, he said, that gave new urgency to the 37 million Americans living below the poverty line. . . .
Edwards said wiping out poverty would cost $15 billion to $20 billion a year, which he said he would pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and preserving the estate tax, which the Republicans are seeking to eliminate.
Hmm, seems as though someone else said it more eloquently:
Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope--some because of their poverty, and some because of theft color, and all too many because of both. Our task is to help replace their despair with opportunity.
This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America. I urge this Congress and all Americans to join with me in that effort.
It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until that war is won.
That was Lyndon Johnson, Jan. 8, 1964. Unfortunately, he went to war without a plan to win the peace. But we guess Edwards is too young to remember this anyway.
What Would We Do Without Doctors?
"People should not use mobile phones outdoors during thunderstorms because of the risk of being struck by lightning, doctors said on Friday," Reuters reports.
Doctors also advised that people should not use mobile phones while driving drunk or having unprotected sex with strangers.
Finally, the Answers
Click on the link above to see the answers to our rather difficult presidential trivia quiz, and here to see the questions. Congrats again to winner Brian Kalt and thanks to all those who tried.
A 20-Century Recount
"Votes Still Being Counted in AD 51 Election"--headline, Los Angeles Wave, June 21
Life Imitates 'South Park'
"You know, I had a guy in Jackson county. He had a little drum circle in his backyard. It turned into a drum circle four miles in diameter. You get a few hippies playing drums and next thing you know, you got yourself a colony."--Eric Cartman, "Die, Hippie, Die," an episode of "South Park," originally aired March 16, 2005
"The Rainbow gathering is scheduled for the first week of July, but hundreds of people already have set up camp at the site, a grassy meadow known as Big Red Park. . . . Many residents and business people are worried that the trouble is just beginning. 'When it's over, all that's left is going to be one square mile of feces,' said Alicia Spanhake of Steamboat Springs. 'I hate hippies.' "--Denver Post, June 21, 2006
'So, Uh, Do You Come to the Fertility Clinic Often?'
"Fertility Guidelines Aim to Jumpstart Conversations"--headline, American Cancer Society press release, June 15
'But Enough Conservation . . .'
"Lack of Sex Blamed for Low Birth Rate"--headline, News.com.au, June 22
Thanks for the Tip!--LXXXIV
"Health Tip: Help Your Child Get a Good Night's Sleep"--headline, HealthDayNews, June 22
Bottom Stories of the Day
o "Snapping Turtle Spotted Twice Crossing Roads in Orono"--headline, Bangor (Maine) Daily News, June 23
o "Episcopalian General Convention Adopts Vague Resolution"--Christianity Today, June 22
o "Eminem Divorce Proceedings Held in Private"--headline, Associated Press, June 22
o "Saddam Ends Hunger Strike After Missing Lunch"--headline, MSNBC.com, June 23
It's Ghana Get Better
At first this Associated Press dispatch sounded like bad news:
There was no glory for the United States at this year's World Cup, only frustration and failure.
Done in by their own mistakes and a crucial penalty call, the Americans lost to Ghana 2-1 Thursday in a game they had to win to advance past the tournament's first round.
But don't worry. We did some research, and it turns out they were only playing soccer. And let's be honest: People who play soccer deserve to lose to Ghana. |
