I have no special talent.
I am only passionately curious.
Albert Einstein
The Paula Deen Kerfuffle
One of the hottest topics on the Internet is the latest incident of political correctness run amok: the Food Network dumped the queen of Southern comfort cuisine after word emerged about Ms. Deen having admitted, under oath, that IN THE PAST she had occasionally referred to people of color using the infamous N word (rhymes with 'trigger'), widely regarded as a racial slur. This word was never used on the job where she has hosted cooking shows since 2002. When I heard the story, the first thing that stuck with me is the fact she had made the admission under oath. Ms. Deen and/or her brother own restaurants; a disgruntled former manager filed suit making allegations of a hostile work environment. The woman's lawyer, no doubt trying to establish a pattern of behavior, asked Ms. Deen under oath whether she had ever used the term in the past, and Ms. Deen answered the question honestly. The transcript of this testimony somehow made it into the public domain; Ms. Deen went into damage control with multiple video apologies, to no avail, as the Food Network dumped her over her radioactive admission.
The conservative bloggers are having a field day over this since Paula Deen had endorsed Obama in 2008 and it's yet another example of Democrat hypocrisy with the late Sen. Byrd (WV) a one-time member of the KKK, not to mention prominent segregationist governor and former Presidential candidate George Wallace (AL). Woodrow Wilson supported segregation policies and it took an executive order by Truman decades later to integrate the troops. The Republicans paid a political price for its political leadership during the Civil War and Reconstruction: political exile for the better part of the following century. I view the morally bankrupt Jim Crow (racial segregation) laws as a form of regional rebellion against federal micromanagement of the South. A number of rationalizations were used to justify segregation, including preventive policy against racial conflict.
Ms. Deen is financially set for life, although her food empire may experience additional setbacks as her endorsement sponsors and/or retailers try to avoid being tainted by the scandal. Personally I think the Food Network overreacted; our last 3 Presidents all but admitted past alcohol abuse and/or recreational drug use during their salad days. It should be treated differently than if she had abused her show staffers or used the word on the air; I think network management could have made their point by sending her to a diversity training class. Ms. Deen has a more forgiving audience and I suspect like Don Imus and others, she'll do her penance and move on (I bet Oprah Winfrey is just dying to interview her now) if not back to the Food Network, another cable network or a syndication deal.
My position, as I've stated in past posts, I generally think as a matter of civility, one should refer to people in terms they prefer, but I'm more concerned by people's reactions to uncivil behavior. I believe that most people use discourteous speech to provoke a disproportionate response, and it's more prudent and effective not to give them the undue attention they're seeking. Personally, I don't value the opinions of people I consider bigoted--I think they're self-destructive and end up losing the respect from others they crave; I prefer to reinforce positive behavior.
The Zimmerman Trial is Underway
Let me say first of all I think the death of Trayvon Martin is tragic, and I think Zimmerman's tracking of Martin was aggressive. But as I read about the disputed source of screams overheard on a call, the fact remains that Zimmerman was much shorter and in worse shape than Martin, I do not see how Zimmerman, who had been shadowing Martin in a car, decided to leave his car and managed to chase Martin down, provoking a physical attack in which he was obviously overmatched. I think it more likely that Martin resented the fact that he was being followed and when Zimmerman stopped the car (e.g., to get a better look at street signs in the dark to provide the police better directions), Martin decided to confront him by surprise. Obviously Martin was not aware that Zimmerman was armed. I doubt that Zimmerman had intended to shoot Martin given the fact he had gotten the worst of the scuffle before the fatal shot was fired.
I find it interesting that Zimmerman is facing an all-female jury. I don't bet on trials, but I don't see how the jury gets past reasonable doubt given the size difference between the two. The judge has decided to disallow testimony by conflicting audio expert results. The prosecution witness claimed he could rule out it was Zimmerman's voice based on other Zimmerman voice samples. Again, Martin's body showed little evidence Zimmerman hurt him during the fight (other than the fatal gun shot wound, of course) while Zimmerman had been subsequently treated for head wounds. Why would a young man getting the better of another in a physical shuffle be screaming for help?
What I'm particularly concerned about is a negative public reaction to the likely verdict; this case has been heavily politicized with Obama all but calling Martin the son he never had.
My Favorite EconTalk (So Far): Roberts v Frank Debate On Infrastructure
I'm still working through a backlog of the weekly podcasts going back to 2006. There's an eclectic selection of topics, many of which I find interesting and others which are more of an acquired taste. For example, Eric Topol has a fascinating discussion of the dumbing down of the medical profession, of undue reliance of reducing individual cases, as it were square pegs in round holes, into standard treatment units. Another talk, with Jonah Lehrer, focused on creativity (a topic which, as a creative person, I find fascinating--for instance, sometimes I'll dream new songs, and I'll jot them down when I wake up), including a discussion of some companies externally posting problems that have stumped internal resources, often solved by people in different fields, and companies like MMM which cross-pollinate product teams; the idea is sometimes people in a discipline can be tunnel-visioned, and people who come from other backgrounds sometimes conceptualize a problem differently, questioning certain assumptions, etc.)
In this case, Russ Roberts (of Cafe Hayek), who indicates elsewhere he's become more Austrian (School) in perspective over the years, took on Robert Frank, a Cornell economist, on infrastructure spending. Frank is, quite obviously, a Keynesian pro-infrastructure spending economist who at times lapses into progressive politics, not unlike Paul Krugman, at one point bitterly lapsing into a rant on GOP use of the filibuster. [Russ Roberts tries to avoid tipping his hand on politics; most libertarians, in fact, will go out of their way to tweak the GOP as unprincipled or hypocritical Big Spenders Lite.]
From a big picture perspective, some infrastructure is more equal; take, for instance a canal that connects an internal waterway to a coast. The ability of a ship to travel directly from the waterway to overseas ports without having to unload and transport (say, via truck or rail) to the coast and reload on another vessel, can be more efficient. There are diminishing returns, however, when there are multiple paths or modes (say, air, car, or rail) between locations.
Russ Roberts does a good job pointing out the vested self-interests, say, of civil engineering groups, and distinctions between federal and state/local government responsibilities. I wish he would have gone a little bit more into taxpayer subsidies of user fees (e.g., AMTRAK, mass transit, highway use by electric cars, etc.), political raids of highway trust funds, high-speed rail boondoggles, etc. I think at one point he starts to talk about private-sector bridge construction, but quickly retreats for unspecified reasons, I found myself pounding the table for privatization, noting overcapacity "free" highways, poorly maintained roads, bridges, levees, etc., with funding diverted elsewhere for political priorities. Another blogger has also noticed that Roberts as a libertarian disappointingly seemed all too willing to concede infrastructure to the public sector.
Still, on my scorecard, Roberts won this debate going away. I intensely loathe morally hazardous policies which under-invest in infrastructure during flush times and in bad times engage in budget shell games.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
The Beatles, "Please Mr. Postman". The Beatles prove they can do justice to a Motown song...
