> -- Another major Stossel source, Dinesh D'Souza of the American Enterprise
> Institute, claims that compared to other countries, the United States is "a
> very mobile society in which lots of people who start out at the bottom can
> find a place at least in the middle, and some will rise to the top."
>
> D'Souza is identified as an "author and research scholar at the American
> Enterprise Institute." But viewers are not told that D'Souza is neither an
> economist nor a writer who has ever specialized in economics.
But he has written what I imagine to be a very moving biography of Ronald Reagan who despite his so called mandate from the American people never seems to have got more than 28% of the electorate to go out and bother to vote for his sorry ass.
And of course let's not forget D'Souza's book length criticism of the genetic theory of racial inequality that in the end accedes to that theory on the grounds of Occam's Razor--which as an anti nominalist injuction not to unnecesarily multiply fictional entities actually enjoins against the invocation of the pseudo entity of race to account for behavioral variance, as the French geneticist Albert Jacquard, among many, has long argued.
For pete's sake, just check out how so called races cluster together in terms of genetic distance as opposed to the yawning space that separates breeds of dogs; this is not a comparison the Jensens, D'Souza's or Sarich's even recognize for the purposes of explaining away to defend their theory of deep genetic differences between the races; they have never made a thorough refutation of the Lewontins and Shiffs, the Jacquards,the Cavalli Sforza's, the Futuyma's though they keep on claiming that on the basis of Occam's Razor the genetic theory of deep racial difference should be accepted simply because they find other explanations for racial inequality unnecessarily complicated.
Of course even Jim Heartfield, a layperson who informs us that he understands as much genetics as any lay person can reasonably hope to know, is in awe of his hero Norman Levitt who seem to think, on the basis of D'Souza's source Vincent Sarich, that it remains an open scientific question whether mean racial differences in brain size account for IQ differences. Levitt is thus de facto recommending that we recognize the scientific legitimacy of Sarich measuring the brains of as many black women as possible to get right racial mean brain weight differences and then determine whether they correspond with IQ differences vis a vis " white" or "Asian" women. Even this idiotic claim by Levitt did not prevent Richard Dawkins from falling at Levitt's feet in admiration on the dustjacket.
By the way, having suppressed my involvement in the protest against Sarich years ago, I only now remember how justified it was. I told John Roemer then (yes the 'marxist' economist, also a reporter for the SF Weekly) that Sarich was citing an unpublished study as his only evidence for the importance of brain size in intellectual attainment. Roemer followed up on this in his article without mentioning that I told him about the problem (I had read all of Sarich's lectures carefully, but noting my careful criticism may have given the impression that we were something more than just angry or moralistic or pc protestors which is how I was characterized in this article). But it was a problem that for example Laura Nader (yes Ralph's sister) clearly recognized after I pointed it out to her. It made scientific refutation of Sarich's claims impossible, and I was astonished that he would base a major part of his case on unverifiable findings.
I am beginning to conclude that despite their many sins, Ross and Aronowitz aren't one millionth the threat to scientific progress that self proclaimed science gurus are. Which is not to say that we all shouldn't try to learn some quantum mechanics or at least defer to those who have before publishing a critique of it.
You want the bourgeois attitude to science: the WSJ devoted a full page to Charles Murray's so called social darwinism while at the same time choosing Philip Johnson to express their agreement with the Kansas decision to remove the theory of evolution from the required state curriculum. Robert Bartley's head is so far up his ass he can't see the stupidest contradictions on his editorial page.
I forgot what got me started on this. Oh yes, that idiot fraternity of Stossel, D'Souza and Bartley. And now 'educational' television is like watching a bunch of stupid frat boys try to have a serious conversation before they get plastered and 'dance' to Sugar Ray or whatever.
> Stossel has long been a passionate believer in free-market economics; in
> 1994, he told the Oregonian newspaper (10/26/94): "Markets are magical and
> the best protectors of the consumer. It is my job to explain the beauties of
> the free market."
As I said long ago, he ain't half the man of Marcet or Martineau.
Yours, Rakesh