Only Thugs Need Apply

My social media feed has been replete with this meme:

Probably not.

One of the ironies of the (I hope) now-winding-down BLM era is that the two egregiously racist mass murders of blacks didn't provoke much in the way of a lawless reaction. Unless I completely missed it (and correct me in the comments if I did), there wasn't any rioting in the wake of either the Charleston church shooting or the Buffalo supermarket shooting. Even in the specific category of deaths at the hands of law enforcement, again the most egregious case of John Crawford III got a small, quiet demonstration from, IIRC, white middle-aged members of Buckeye Firearms, and exactly nothing from his fellow blacks.

Rather, blacks reserve their propensity for riot and mayhem for career criminals who get their comeuppance. Michael Brown and Jacob Blake violently resisted arrest and were deservedly shot. Eric Garner and George Floyd passively resisted arrest and died by accident. Granted Freddy Gray should have been better secured in the back of his paddy wagon, but he certainly deserved to be there. All these guys got riots.

My theory for this -- only a hypothesis, really, since I don't have any direct evidence -- is that these riots are stoked by Antifa operatives under circumstances such as will be maximally polarizing. But my point is that a white lowlife murdering a pretty black girl on the train, were it to ever actually happen, would probably not set off a riot.

Social vs. Physical Danger

Some of the abundant commentary on the murder of Iryna Zarutska has focused on her apparent lack of situational awareness. Steve Crowder, for instance, discussed it at length yesterday. This is surely correct, but it occurred to me that while Iryna's behavior was poorly suited to protecting her from physical hazards, it did seem optimized for protecting her from social hazards.

Watching the video of her last moments, I was reminded of the scene from the movie Anora (free on Kanopy) where the title character is riding the subway home from her job at the strip club. (Apologies in advance if my vocabulary for this sort of thing hasn't been updated since the '80s.) The film leans hard into the contrast: on the clock, Anora the prostitute is warm and charming as customers stuff money in her g-string; off it, she wears baggy clothes, clamps her ears with over-the-ear headphones, clamps her face with a thousand yard stare. All calculated to convey the message: do not even thing about talking to me.

Likewise, Iryna. Whatever she might have been looking for in her personal life, she quite reasonably believed she wasn't finding it late at night on the subway. So she tucked her face under a ballcap (a style choice that I noticed had become common among young women at the gym a few years ago) and absorbed herself in her phone: don't even think about talking to me.

Religiosity vs. Time

In reference to a Pew study on intergenerational religiosity, Scott writes:

Contra compelling anecdotes, only ~5% of people raised very religious end up atheist later in life (X). Most people are about as religious as their parents; most exceptions are only slightly less religious, and most families that secularize do it over several generations.

Okay, but those generations add up.

Here is the Pew data as a matrix. I have reversed the row order such that both row and column indicies increase with religiosity. I have also subtracted 1% from element (4,4) such that the table sums to 1.0.

PEW =

0.0600	0.0100	0.0100	0
0.0400	0.0800	0.0300	0.0100
0.0300	0.0900	0.1600	0.0300
0.0200	0.0500	0.1400	0.2400

Note these are joint probabilities. To find the religious probabilities of the parent generation, we must sum all columns in each row (all code is MATLAB):

P_parent = sum(PEW,2);

P_parent'

ans =

0.0800 0.1600 0.3100 0.4500

To find the religiosity of each subsequent generation, we need the conditional probabilities, which we can derive from Bayes' Theorem:

P_child_given_parent = PEW./repmat(P_parent,1,4) 

P_child_given_parent =

0.7500	0.1250	0.1250	0
0.2500	0.5000	0.1875	0.0625
0.0968	0.2903	0.5161	0.0968
0.0444	0.1111	0.3111	0.5333

Finally, we construct a table showing the generational change over time:

for gen = 1:10

    R_gen(gen,:) = P_parent' * P_child_given_parent^(gen-1);

end

R_gen =

0.0800	0.1600	0.3100	0.4500
0.1500	0.2300	0.3400	0.2800
0.2153	0.2636	0.3245	0.1966
0.2675	0.2748	0.3050	0.1527
0.3056	0.2763	0.2899	0.1281
0.3321	0.2748	0.2795	0.1137
0.3498	0.2727	0.2726	0.1048
0.3616	0.2709	0.2682	0.0993
0.3693	0.2695	0.2653	0.0959
0.3743	0.2686	0.2635	0.0937

Which we can plot:

So, clearly, the Very Religious are the long-term demographic losers. My first thought was that we could make this up in volume, but then I realized that the initial table confounds our greater on-average fertility with the starting percentages; this is a poll of the children, so the children of very religious families were already more numerous among the respondents, assuming the poll was representative. My calculation of the conditional probability assumes fertility is equal, but I'm pretty sure I would need additional fertility data and a way to map it on to these categories in order to correct this.

My second thought is that these statistics might be biased with respect to "family" religiosity: it is plausible that children's characterization of their family's religiosity may be colored by their own. For instance, a child from a "somewhat" religious family who is personally "not at all" religious, might exaggerate family religiosity to "very". OTOH, I'm not sure this matters for predicting the trend.

Sherrod Brown Redux

I see that Sherrod Brown is trying to get back into the Senate by replacing John Husted.

Here are a couple of campaign mailers from 2024. We surmise the Democrats were only sending them to registered Republicans.

Looks like the upshot is that Bernie Moreno is a scuzzy foreigner. I would have thought this line of attack would be off-brand for the Democrats, but never underestimate your opponent's opportunism.

Similarly:

I expect few Ohio voters had ever heard of Don Kissick apart from this Democrat-funded mailing. Their points being:

• Wants the government completely out of your life

• Wants absolutely no restrictions on firearms of any kind

• Is a Navy Vet, but wants to end American foreign aid and pull us out of overseas conflicts

• Promotes a radical flat tax plan that cuts taxes and underfunds government programs

Down boy!

Of course, the Democrats never talk this way when they're actually arguing for Democrat policies. They never say "firearm restrictions", only "gun safety". They never say "government out of your life" as a general criticism, only about "reproductive health" when they're against intervention and "civil rights" when they're in favor of it. They never say "government programs" in general, only the most photogenic recipients in particular. Etc.

This was an obvious effort to siphon votes away from Moreno towards Kissick. This doesn't benefit Brown except to force a runoff election, but I assume the calculation is that Brown would have fared better in Ohio by not having Trump on the ticket. As discussed, the Democrats have the upper hand in low-turnout elections.

Which brings us to 2026, an off-year election where the Democrats can be expected to enjoy an out-of-power boost. Assuming the Democrats want to nominate an old white guy in the primary, I would expect Brown to have at least an even chance against the appointed Husted, who hasn't exactly lit the world on fire. We shall see.

The Best Defense

This article has been the occasion for some rumination.

I knew Tim when we were lieutenants. We ordinarily didn't work together directly, but we served in a unit of a size and under circumstances such that we were in regular social contact for a year or so. There is a personality type likely to ascend bureaucratic hierarchies, so . . . no, we were not friends.

That said, I don't have an informed opinion about his removal as NSA director. I'm inclined to trust the people reported to be involved, but also to say that I would have assessed Tim as likely to rationally follow the incentives as they were presented to him. I can only hope the Trump administration is working to bring those incentives into long-term alignment.

But my rumination isn't really about Tim, except in the most general way. It's really about my career-long inability to deal effectively with Random Acts of A$$holery. No, not everyone I dealt with in government service was as an asshole. But the culture doesn't seem to do much to deter it, and I personally couldn't seem to deter it when it was directed at me. The textbook solution is, I suppose, the same as it was in Junior High: it is deterred by the credible threat of retaliation. But I sucked at it in Junior High, and I sucked at it in the armed forces. It may be counterintuitive, but I have thought more about this since getting my Dream Job and realizing that, no, not all organizational cultures are toxic.

While composing this post in my head, I thought several times about giving specific examples of that toxicity, and each time become mentally buried under the avalanche of potential vignettes. There may be a limit to my trauma re-enactment. But read the linked article above about the personality type. Then read the Venkatesh Rao articles linked there. Then imagine a company of a million employees, most of whom want to grow up to be David Wallace and Jan Levinson. That was what it was like, and it gives me recurring nightmares to this day. I can only be grateful that it is now behind me.

In Defense of A$$holery

To paraphrase Henry Girard: I am not, by nature, interpersonally an asshole. But sometimes it is socially expedient for me to ask myself: what would an asshole do in this situation? Because whatever else you might say about it, assholery is almost never second-guessed. "You asshole!" Well, no, but I don't mind you thinking that if it beats the alternative.

Peachy Keenan writes of Colgan Air flight #3407 that crashed in 2009:

If you read the cockpit transcript, you will be shocked at how unsterile it is. Normally no non-essential conversation is allowed in the cockpit during takeoffs and landings. But this captain chatted the entire flight to Rebecca, regaling her with old flying stories, giving her pilot career advice, advising her on lifestyle choices, complaining about his own career decisions. To me, it’s obvious that the older man-younger woman dynamic was at play as he talked her ear off, perhaps in an effort to simply make conversation in an awkward, unnatural pairing, or perhaps to impress her, or perhaps because he just felt awkward around a cute young blonde."

Keenan writes this in the context of pointing out that this and the two recent commercial aircraft accidents all involved under-qualified female aircrew. But reading her account made me grateful that my job doesn't require me to interact with females. Who needs that sh!t.

The sad fact of the matter is that it is trivially easy for us men to be maneuvered into a headspace where we start trying to "impress" a woman. I recalled this scene from the 1996 movie "Beautiful Girls":

I hate this. I hate this enough that this is the point where I stopped watching the movie, and couldn't even get through this clip for the purpose of this post.

I must have trauma.

And lest this seem an exercise in hatin' de wimminz, let me clarify that I hate the degree to which I myself am susceptible, except by vigilant assholery, to the maneuvering.

I hate it for two reasons. I hate it because it's sterile. As a married man, I would not (I avow) be trying to cash this out, and in any case am fully aware how futile that would be anyway. That's probably true in general: like I said, I haven't seen the rest of this movie, but I predict that none of these poor guys has any interaction with Uma Thurman beyond the level we are seeing in this scene. We all of us know this. But here we are, tap dancing for loose change anyway.

The second reason I hate it is that however difficult it is to escape the "older man-younger woman dynamic" mentally, it is impossible to escape it socially. Let's take the Congan Air example. It is possible that Capt. Renslow is chatty by nature, and I'm not even judging. There is a reason that There-I-Was is a pilot cliche; we ALL do it to anyone who sits still for it, especially other pilots. But throw in a cute blond girl, and now the cliche gets mapped onto a template where That Creepy Guy Is Hitting On Me. It doesn't matter what Renslow's intentions actually were. You know that Rebecca spent the last hour of her young life thinking this; you know that the NTSB investigators listened to this tape, looked at each other, and rolled their eyes; and you know that it really sucks that Renslow's family had to mourn with this as their last memory of him. I cringe in embarrassment for all of them.

The Magical Kingdom of Little Saint James

So I see from my newsfeed that AG Bondi will start releasing The Epstein Files today.

Meh. We'll see.

A month or two ago I watched 2024's movie "Scoop" about the November 2019 Prince Andrew BBC interview in which he addressed the Epstein / Virginia Roberts allegations, and it made me realize that I have no intuitive feel for how such an interview will be broadly perceived. To summarize, during the interview Andrew denied any relationship with Virginia and claimed that the photograph of them together had to have been faked. He further expressed regret with how his friendship with Epstein had brought embarrassment to his family. This struck me as reasonable in the sense that it sounded like what an innocent person might say, but the fallout for Andrew was public excoriation and dismissal from any royal association. I guess the rule is: never submit to a media interview in which your own misbehavior is the principal subject.

I was also struck by the questions that were never asked.

The media is clamoring for the #flightlogs, which to me is the least interesting part of this story. The most interesting part is the answer to the questions:

• Who was he working for; and

• What was his agenda.

We in our corner of the internet have speculated for years that the answers to these questions are "Israeli intelligence" and "blackmail", but we don't actually know, the MSM has shown zero interest, and given that our own IC is almost certainly implicated, this is the least likely element to be included in Bondi's imminent doc-drop.

The second most interesting question is: what was it like to travel the Lolita Express?

My understanding is that Epstein would fly groups of prominent people out to Little Saint James for the purpose/pretext of discussing the Big Issues. How did the, um, sex thing happen?

1. Were the girls lined up for you to pick from? "I'll take that one."

2. Were the girls were just milling about, being friendly, flirting a little, waiting for you to make the first move?

3. Was a girl assigned to you in advance, and if so, what was that interaction like? a) Did she just tell you, "Jeffrey assigned me to you this weekend." Or perhaps b) she just flirts with you in particular, making herself look like an easy score?

What kind of reactions did these approaches get?

It seems to me that options 1 and and 3a ought to set off alarm bells. My sense is that the market for actual prostitutes is smaller than that for casual hookups, but maybe Epstein's guest list was pre-screened for people for whom this would not be a problem. (This seems plausible with respect to Prince Andrew.)

Options 2 and 3b maintains the possibility of plausible deniability / self-deception. But did anybody ever say to himself, "You know, I've never been quite this lucky, and . . . how old are you, exactly?" I recalled this scene from the movie "Heartbreakers".

I never watched past this scene. I know that "suspension of disbelief" is the attitude appropriate to a rom-com, but I can't overcome my sense of being insulted on behalf of the male half of the species when we are depicted in media as reduced to slobbering idiots by women. Wouldn't any remotely normal man in this situation slow down enough to wonder whether these girls' agenda is aligned with his own?

I must have trauma.

BTW, Mrs. Phi's theory is that the kind of people Epstein invited onto his airplane were the kind of people who (how can I put this) enjoyed a higher-than-average background level of availability signalling. (This is especially plausible with respect to Prince Andrew.) So when you're sitting there and a Virginia Roberts-level young woman is throwing herself at you, you reasonably say to yourself, "Huh, must be a Tuesday."

Were no normies ever guests? Let's suppose you're "the talent", e.g. a researcher at the MIT Media Lab invited to give a presentation. Of course you would be invited to the afterparty. And you're hanging out by the bar and you look over and there is a Prince Andrew-level celebrity sitting on the couch with a girl on his lap and his hand up her skirt. What do you do?

I would be uncomfortable. I would have multiple thoughts simultaneously. I would think that this is the kind of thing about which I would not want to be called to testify in a deposition. And at my age (now) and grouchy disposition, I would also think: this clearly isn't for me. Those of you here to hate-read are thinking this is merely envy, but if so it's envy operating a high level: I would be uncomfortable even if I had my own Epstein-assigned doxy trying to coax me onto the couch. Because everything in my Life Experience says this can't possibly be authentic.

Anyway, the point is, these are the kind of stories about Epstein I would want to read, and also the kind of stories the media does not want to tell us. Such stories would imply/recount female agency, and female agency is anathema: women can only ever be helpless victims of The Patriarchy, never mercenaries / novelty-seekers / subject to any other motivations that would have them volunteer for this kind of work.

The third most interesting question is: how did Epstein go about his grooming / recruiting? The man was a pimp, and pimping is a skill set.

And then, okay, sure, show me the flight logs. But remember that if they were subject to blackmail, they were also Epstein's victims.