Popperian falsification.

Skeptics of the anthropogenic thesis of climate change should read up and ponder it.

Is on incestuous amplification. Among other things.

One of the great things about the blogosphere is the degree of hyperlocal attention that can be paid to community news—items such as fires, break-ins, and block parties that matter a great deal to those in the immediate vicinity, but not to people more than a few miles away. A new kid on the block (pardon the expression) is Hills and Heights, which focuses on the Forest Hill corridor of Richmond.

It joins others such as Church Hill People’s News and West of the Boulevard News. For lots more local blogs (though not all of the hyperlocal-news variety), head over to RVAblogs.

(Thanks to River City Rapids.)

Today’s editorial, “Really Caring,” discusses Arthur Brooks’ Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (also discussed on this blog in November, here).

Brooks’ research finds that religious conservatives really do put their money where their mouths are, and give the most to genuinely charitable causes (as opposed to merely deductible “charitable” causes, such as one’s alma mater). He picks apart the numbers to show as well that religious liberals are more generous than secular conservatives—while secular liberals are the least generous of all. (N.B., these are generalities and norms; generalities and norms almost always have exceptions.)

The editorial brought a response from a local reader, who describes herself as a “somewhat informed source” but prefers not to be named. Her comments add depth to the discussion. Here they are:

As a non-profit fundraiser for more than 20 years, I can tell you that the assumptions made about liberals vs. conservatives in regard to giving to “worthy causes” are somewhat misleading.  Now that I am out of the business of begging for money for a good cause, I can share some trends that I saw over and over during those years.  Arthur Brooks probably based his findings on published information, and that is not the whole story.

In my own experience I have seen that conservative people tended to give in greater numbers than liberals when their income was modest while many wealthy conservatives give the most generously when there was perceived social benefit to their families or good public relations for their businesses.  Not surprisingly, conservatives gave extremely generously to their churches and schools.  Liberals tended to donate to causes which often cannot be classified as “charitable” (because they have a political connection) and to smaller charities with a greater need for support than the large organizations (that can offer huge social events and/or cache for donors).  Liberals also tended to make multiple smaller donations-- all of which were not officially recorded because of the smaller amounts.  Gifts from liberals were and continue to be outstanding to arts organizations.

Also, volunteer time was far greater among liberals of all income levels and lower income conservatives-- unless there was a company policy or official involvement with a charity.

Neither group is inherently better or more generous than the other.  They just have different interests and go about their giving in different ways.

Things aren’t looking so good for the Attorney General just now.

Excerpt:

At a recent “prep” for a prospective Sunday talk-show interview, Gonzales’s performance was so poor that top aides scrapped any live appearances. During the March 23 session in the A.G.’s conference room, Gonzales was grilled by a team of top aides and advisers—including former Republican National Committee chair Ed Gillespie and former White House lawyer Tim Flanigan—about what he knew about the plan to fire seven U.S. attorneys last fall. But Gonzales kept contradicting himself and “getting his timeline confused,” said one participant who asked not to be identified talking about a private meeting. His advisers finally got “exasperated” with him, the source added.

Maybe it’s time for him to reconsider his position on interrogation techniques and habeas corpus.

Image courtesy of Despair, Inc.. The text reads: “It Could Be That the Purpose of Your Life Is Only to Serve as a Warning to Others.”

Here is a fascinating piece about the ideology of offices of inspectors general. They’re not, it says, entirely impartial. (Of course, neither is the author.)

Knowing where your taxes go might help take some of the sting out of paying them.

Then again, maybe not.

It all depends on your perspective. (And on how the numbers are tallied, of course.)

A simple game of darts.

There is a demonstrable laughter gap between the sexes. Why is that?

For background on the laugh gap—including the crucial datum that laughter is less often a reaction to genuine humor than an involuntary response that functions as a social lubricant*—go here. For competing explanations, go here.

* People in groups laugh heartily at quips that are marginally humorous at best. People laugh at the boss’s weak jokes. And so on. Yet more dissection here. Laughter is a way we reassure one another that we’re “playing, not fighting.”

The Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum:

I didn’t think anyone overused clauses set off by dashes — like this one — as much as I did, but in his latest column Joe Klein manages to use four in five consecutive sentences. That’s impressive. It’s going to be hard — though not impossible — for me to top that.

A reader kindly provides a link that includes another link to this story: “Hospital Visitation for Gay Partners Considered.”

The Minnesota legislature is considering a bill that would explicitly permit the romantic partners of gay and lesbian individuals to visit their loved ones in the hospital. Visitation rights were among the set of concerns raised by foes of the Marshall-Newman marriage amendment passed by Virginians in November, and precisely the sort of concern pooh-poohed as a non-issue and a distraction by the pro-amendment side. 

Here’s the money quote from the story:

Conservative groups are fighting the proposal. Their concern is not about visitation, but putting anything into law that acknowledges same sex partnerships.

“What we object to is the creation of these domestic partner statuses, which is really marriage by another name and that’s what we see they are attempting to do”, said Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council.

Last fall in Virginia, the pro-amendment side also said the real issue was marriage, not visitation rights and whatnot. Attorney General Bob McDonnell even offered an adivsory opinion stating that the amendment would not affect such arrangements. Of course, his opinion lacks the force of law and is no more binding than anyone else’s. So perhaps Virginia should emulate Minnesota and consider legislation stipulating what the pro-amendment side said at the time: Gays and lesbians shall have hospital visitation rights, Marshall-Newman notwithstanding.

There will, presumably, be no objections—will there?

Update:: In the Comments, David draws attention to legislation, soon to become law, that addresses this very issue. The measure is HB 2730.

The trouble with capitalism, a wit once said, is that it’s run by capitalists. The trouble with government, one might add, is that it’s run by the government.

Both private enterprise and the public realm have their shortcomings. Private enterprise, though, at least tends to limit shortcomings to discreet actors. One company that pursues a foolish industrial policy might fail, but its competitors will succeed. If government imposes a foolish industrial policy across an entire economic sector, though, the entire sector could fail. (Hence, one argument for letting states be “laboratories of democracy” rather than trying to impose a blanket federal policy such as, oh, No Child Left Behind.)

On the subject of shortcomings in both the public and private spheres, Tom Firey has further thoughts here.

What if they held an election and nobody came?

Note to regulars: Your Humble Servant stricken. Flu? Viral Gastroenteritis? Something like that. Anyhow, not fun.

Back soonish.

Funny how a simple nonsense phrase can take on a life of its own.

A recent Wall Street Journal piece on classical music addressed itself to John Cage’s “Four Minutes Thirty-Three Seconds.” It’s tempting to suggest any review of the work should be nothing but blank paper, but you have to know what 4’33” is to get the joke. In 4’33”, a pianist walks onstage, sits down at a piano, and doesn’t play a note for four minutes, 33 seconds. Then he gets up and bows and walks offstage.

In the Journal piece, Peter Gutman asks, “Can such seemingly simplistic nonsense . . . be great art?” He says yes. I say no.

Sure, sure, 4’33” makes the audience think about ambient sound and how silence isn’t really silent and how (as Gutmann puts it) “even abject noise entails the interrelationship of distinct tones, durations, volumes, rhythms, and timbres.” Big whoop; five minutes in a stuck elevator will do the same thing. But when Gutmann goes on to say the work “remains ever fresh” and that “Its open design, sly humor, cosmic vision, and intimate scope ensure its timeless appeal, boundless vitality, and universal relevance,” well, that’s where the Gutster and the Bartster politely part company.

4’33” is a gag. Like a blank piece of paper, it offers no insight; any insights elicited come from beyond the work, not within it. It requires no craft or skill. It is indistinguishable from non-art, and that makes it not-art.

(And, lest your humble servant be accused of being a philistine or a reactionary prig who hates everything after Stravinsky or something along those lines, lemme remind you of the high praise I heaped on Gavin Bryars. Put that in your smipe and poke it, music world!)

Gene Nichol, president of William and Mary, has managed to move his school to the top of the heap for the Campus Outrage Awards, handed out by the Collegiate Network. It’s a banner day when you beat out Berkeley for the No. 1 spot on this annual list.

Your humble servant will be attending to other matters tomorrow, so this week’s Friday Entertainment appears on Thursday. For your diversion from the cares of the day, a fun example of those stop-the-critter-swarm desktop tower defense games, and—for those with a slightly twisted outlook—Five Minutes to Kill Yourself.

Today’s lead editorial on smoking recognize the growing popularity of smoke-free establishments, as well as the indisputable health benefits of smoke-free air. But it ends by asking whether smokers shouldn’t have a few places where they can still light up.

Apparently, for some the answer is no: Smoking is unhealthy, so people shouldn’t be exposed to smoke. Period.

The attitude raises an interesting question about the role of consent in a free society. Suppose—just supposing, now—someone were to announce plans to open the Barfupalung Restaurant and Lounge, where smoking was not only permitted, but required. Through prominent signs and heavy advertising, Barfupalung promoted itself as a smoke-filled environment and made plain the First Rule of Barfupalung: If you want to eat, you have to smoke. If you don’t want to smoke, then you can go someplace else.

Anyone who patronized such a joint clearly would be signaling his consent to inhale the foul fumes of the fumarists*. No one who walked through the doors would be surprised by the smoke. No one who applied for a job there would be surprised by what he or she was getting into.

Given all that, what would be wrong with permitting such a business? After all, we permit the existence of strip clubs and music clubs—even though lots of people find strip clubs repulsive and the music at some nightclubs can actually damage hearing—on the grounds that people who don’t want to be exposed to such elements don’t have to go to such establishments.

Here are some potential lines of rebuttal to the argument from consent: (a) Well, suppose Barfupalong wanted to discriminate against minorities. What about that? (b) Suppose Barfupalung wanted to let patrons smoke pot or shoot heroin. (c) Suppose Barfupalung wanted to host dogfights.

Here are some potential retorts to the rebuttals: (a) Smoking is a choice freely made, unlike skin color. (b1) Tobacco is legal. (b2) Exactly! What’s wrong with opium dens for consenting adults? (c) Dogs can’t express meaningful consent.

Your reproofs to the retorts to the rebuttals are hereby invited.

* Fumarist = smoker. From the Latin fumare, to smoke.

During a recent interview with Governor Tim Kaine on WRVA, host Jimmy Barrett played a tape from January in which Kaine said, regarding a smoking ban,

I just feel like, you know, so many businesses are just—a small businessman or woman who’s sunk their life savings into doing something and they just—you know, they have a place and I don’t know that the state ought to be telling them everything about what they do and just saying under no circumstances can you allow smoking.

Barrett asked Kaine if he had changed his mind (given that Kaine is now “proposing a restaurant smoking ban as an amendment to a far-less-sweeping bill the General Assembly passed in February").

Kaine’s response:

Ah, no, actually, ‘cause I think on that same show, Jimmy—I certainly know in many instances in the last year I have always said I, I do think the restaurant case is a different case. Uh, the Senate had a bill before it that would have banned smoking in every business of any kind where the public was invited and I, I’ve always thought that bill was too broad and pledged to veto that bill if it got to my desk. But a narrower bill just for restaurants in places where so many people congregate, where the health effects on the employees are so significant if smoking is allowed—I felt like that is a different case.

But wait a second. Just why is the restaurant case a different case? How is it different from another business where people congregate, such as a nail salon or a tattoo parlor? Why should employees of restaurants receive protection from second-hand smoke while cosmetologists don’t? Why should restaurant patrons receive protection while patrons of a barbershop don’t?

Or, to take the governor’s point from January as a launching pad, aren’t there any restaurants that are small businesses into which the owners have sunk their life savings? Doesn’t that actually define most restaurants that are not chain restaurants? Why should the state be “telling them everything about what they do and just saying under no circumstances can you allow smoking”?

Continuing his response to Barrett on Tuesday, Kaine said he had been talking to restaurateurs and

they would like one rule to apply to all because that way they’re not going to be disadvantaged, you know, if they are no-smoking and then their next-door neighbor or a restaurant down the street allows smoking they’re worried that they’re disadvantaged, or vice versa. The restaurant owners have told me a—one simple rule that applies to everybody would—you know, not diminish their business but would also not push people around to different businesses. I talked a lot to the restaurant association in the course of working on this.

But again, hold up a sec. Is this really government’s job—to impose uniform rules so businesses don’t face a backlash from customers who might take their consumer dollars somewhere else? Restaurants that want the state to make everyone go smoke-free aren’t interested in competing for customers, they want to avoid competing for customers. Businesses that want to avoid competition seem like the last ones the government should help—don’t they?

Like I say: nit-picky stuff. But fun to bat around all the same. 

Those of a certain age will remember with fondness “The Muppet Show,” and a rich vein of inquiry awaits anyone willing to explore which bits and shows were the best.

Whether they were the best, the Mummenschanz certainly were memorable.

Here are two skits that stick in the mind’s eye: “Mask” and another that you can try yourself with Post-It notes.

(That’s right—I’m sticking up for a mime troupe. Fighting for the downtrodden and oppressed is part of what I do, man.)