Interesting

I found an interesting study where someone examined post-World War II wars. It was done due to the huge number of comparisons between the Iraq war and previous wars. The study looked at wars between the five permanent Security Council members at the UN and other countries. What was particularly interesting was that the author of the study broke down the wars based on the kind of goals that the militarily stronger country was trying to accomplish. Anyway, check it out.

Follow up about blacks and Republicans

I just read a column by Colbert King. In it, he cites a Republican delegate in the Virginia House of Delegates as saying, "that instead of seeking a formal apology from the commonwealth for slavery, 'black citizens should get over it.'" Colbert also writes,

Hargrove was correct when he told the House of Delegates on Tuesday that "not a soul in this legislature" had anything to do with slavery. It was before their time. But Virginia's shameful history on race is not limited to slavery.

King then points out that, at 80, Hargrove was certainly around for the Jim Crow actions of the state that continued through the 1970s. As King acknowledges later on, he's not even sure whether an apology is worth the trouble. But any reasonable person has to ask themselves why so many Republicans continue to be so offensive when it comes to blacks in this country. In order to win black votes, in order to be a "big-tent" party, it would seem that, at a minimum, Republicans should, at least, stop insulting blacks.

However, I will argue that I don't see why it's so hard for governments in this country to make this apology. It's not as if the federal or state governments have never apologized for anything else. This would certainly not be setting a precedent. I've heard arguments that an apology opens up a government to a lawsuit, but I think that is just an excuse (in fact, there are reasons that that is not even a reasonable worry). To take this a step further, why should governments not be liable for what happened? I'm not referring to slavery because those people are long gone. I'm referring to Jim Crow laws. Aren't reparations due to all black Americans who suffered under those laws?

Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps during World War II were given reparations. Blacks suffered much more recently, and for a far longer period of time, than Japanese Americans. Moreover, the oppression of black Americans was clearly illegal and, in many states, such oppressive laws did not exist. So, what's the difference? Do we, as a country, feel OK with making reparations to Japanese Americans but not to black Americans? I cannot see any logical reason to deny reparations to Black Americans who were alive, say, prior to 1980. The only difference appears to be the depth of white America's racism -- people are less racist toward Asian Americans than to Black Americans.

As a final note, I want to point out that Virginia, despite Hargrove, has actually made progress in the idea of reparations for some Jim Crow stuff, specifically for paying for education for blacks that lived in counties that shut down their school systems rather than integrate, leaving such blacks with no education whatsoever. Unfortunately, these reparations are only for very specific, definable things, which denies the totality of the oppression suffered. So, to Hargrove, I ask: How are black Americans EVER supposed to get over any of this when such inequities, and such attitudes as yours, continue?

Frivolous Lawsuits

According to the news over the past day or two, MySpace, along with its new corporate owner News Corp., is being sued by four families because at least one underage girl in each family was (allegedly) sexually abused by an adult that the girls met via MySpace. According to a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, "In our view, MySpace waited entirely too long to attempt to institute meaningful security measures that effectively increase the safety of their underage users."

Now let's think about this for a second. MySpace is a networking site, providing a place for people to meet each other, usually friends to keep in touch with each other. Some underage girls apparently met some above-age men and were then sexually abused by these men -- outside the internet, obviously. According to the article, "The lawyers who filed the latest lawsuits said the plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl from Texas who was lured to a meeting, drugged and assaulted in 2006 by an adult MySpace user, who is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Texas after pleading guilty to sexual assault." From reading this, I have to ask: Wouldn't the most appropriate person to be sued be the man who sexually assaulted the girl?

Instead, there seems to be this idea that MySpace has a secondary responsibility in this case (after the rapist) for the rape. Fine. Let's say that MySpace was negligent in protecting children across the country. But then, it seems to me that the parents are at least as responsible for being negligent in how they monitored their children's internet usage and in monitoring their children's comings and goings from the house. Certainly, they were negligent in "allowing" their children to be lured from their house and assaulted. Shouldn't the parents, who I thought had primary responsibility for the well being of their children, have done a better job paying attention to who their children were meeting online? Shouldn't the parents be sued as well? Of course, the parents would have to sue themselves, and that wouldn't work. The parents obviously don't see any reason to sue the main perpetrators of the crimes either, most likely because there is little to gain monetarily from such a lawsuit. Instead, the parents sniffed around and realized MySpace was a great, wealthy target.

These kinds of lawsuits, and the feigned outrage by the lawyers, families, and media at the behavior of companies like MySpace, sicken me. MySpace did nothing wrong and, in my opinion, is far less responsible for the terrible acts that occurred than the parents themselves or even of the girls themselves. Yes, that's right. I said it: The girls bear a secondary responsibility as well. It was negligent of their own persons and their own well being to engage in such risky behavior as meeting strangers off their internet. My statement does not, in any way, diminish the horrible nature of the crimes perpetrated against them or decrease the ultimate responsibility of the crimes that rest with the men who committed them. Nonetheless, we have to ask ourselves: Why are these girls putting themselves in such known risky situations? We should also ask: Why are the parents not doing a better job making sure that the girls avoid such risky situations? Frankly, if these families want to start talking about secondary responsibilities and who should be sued, MySpace falls well below second place in that contest.

I guess it's time to post again

I read a column by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress that suggested to me that he was anything but interested in medical progress. In his column, Paul Howard rants about New York City's ban on trans fats before segueing (impossibly, in my opinion) to pointing out the importance of making poor urban areas more market friendly (i.e. amenable to large supermarkets). The latter point is an excellent one and couldn't be more on-target for alleviating food choice problems facing the urban poor. However, the former point that the ban on trans fats is a horrible thing is way off the mark. He argues,

Millions of Americans are trying to keep their New Year's resolution to slim down by improving what they eat and how they exercise. Unfortunately, New York's ill-conceived trans fat ban will do little to help; in fact, it will likely undermine those resolutions.

By singling out one substance, the city is sending a dangerous message that health is about eliminating "bad" foods rather than making better lifestyle choices. This is the policy equivalent of a fad diet -- it will grab the headlines for a short while without changing anyone's actual behavior.

There are so many things wrong and so many illogical points in those two paragraphs that I don't know where to begin. However, the most important thing he gets wrong is the motivation behind NYC's ban. He seems to assume that this is supposed to make New Yorkers get thinner, yet the ban was put in place NOT for how trans fats make you gain weight but for how they affect your cardiovascular system. He goes on to criticize NYC for taking a patronizing stand in their efforts to make the poor eat healthier, as if this ban were targeted solely at the poor.

Well, for starters, while fast-food places are major users of trans fats (his implication being that only poor people eat at fast food places), ALL people encounter them, regardless of where they eat, because trans fats are used in so many different ways in so many different places, including in the nicest, poshest restaurants in NYC. They were originally used because they were believed to be healthier than saturated fats yet were able to produce similar-tasting products when used in place of saturated fats.

However, the major problem with trans fats is that they are unnatural and, it turns out, the trans nature of those fats is incompatible with how human bodies process them. These fats increase LDLs while decreasing HDLs. They are like the anti-statins. Despite the abundance of scientific evidence indicating their danger, Howard also takes the cheap shot by saying that experts disagree about their danger. Note to any non-scientist out there: Regardless of the issue (e.g. gravity), you can find "scientists" who disagree with consensus opinion; such disagreement does not invalidate the basic truth.

Howard could have had his best criticism if he had made a stronger point that perhaps we don't want the government micromanaging such aspects of our lives. However, I have thought about trans fats and come to the conclusion that it is only logical that they be banned. They are an additive and, according to our laws and the FDA (if I'm remembering correctly from a past article that I can't find), all additives must be considered generally safe. Trans fats are, in fact, unnatural and are certainly additives and the consensus is that they are not safe. If someone were to invent trans fats and, before being allowed to be used in food, they were tested and found to have these dangerous health effects, I seriously doubt that anyone would even question for a moment the FDA's decision to ban them (or at least restrict their use). I think it's great that most foods in the store now must list the trans fats on their products, but, when you eat out at restaurants, it's impossible to know how much trans fat is in their food.