Mel Gibson gets roasted. Michael Richards gets roasted. Steve Lyons gets fired. The first two are bigots and should have been roasted. Lyons said nothing and shouldn't have been fired. So it leaves me scratching my head when former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver and ESPN NFL analyst Michael Irvin, who is African-American, gets a slap on the wrist for saying this of the white QB of the Cowboys:
Somewhere there are some brothers. . . . (Maybe) his great, great, great, great Grandma ran over in the hood or something went down.
snip
No, that's [being of African-American ancestry ] not the only way [to be a star athelete], but it's certainly one way. Great, great, great, great Grandma pulled one of them studs up outta the barn and said, "Come over here for a second."
Jimmy the Greek got fired for saying the same thing. Al Campanis got fired for racially insulting remarks. Why does Michael Irvin still have a job? What he said demeans two race groups: whites and African-Americans. He's saying whites are only athletic if they have African-American genes.
Why does Irvin get a free pass? Because he's African-American. Had a white analyst for ESPN, say John Clayton or Sean Salisbury, said the same thing, there'd be a national uproar. Yet when someone African-American says it, it's somehow palatable and gets swept under the rug. Can you say double standard?
No, who's on first, but who is this guy that the Yankees have won the rights to? Never heard of him before. $26 million is twice what the Mariners paid to sign Ichiro, and it seems that the Yankees are overreacting in the wake of the Red Sox snagging the rights to Matsuzaka. Say he gets a three year deal worth $24 million, which is my guess based on current market trends, that's $50 million for three years. As much money as they're paying to a known commodity in Johnny Damon for four years. Seems a bit steep. Hope this guy doesn't turn out to be another fat toad.
More of how I fit in.
If I were James Bond I would. . . sorry, but I'm married
Favorite comfort food: mashed potatoes
Time your alarm clock goes off in the morning: it's not set
If Britney Spears called, I would. . . hang up the phone
Last movie you saw in the theaters: The Departed
Person you'd most like to see in the S.I. swimsuit edition: Heidi Klum. (What's that? She's in it often? Your point?)
How do I fit in?
News story I can't get enough of: Iraq
Last time you voted: earlier this month
One thing you refuse to eat: there are a lot of things I refuse to eat because of the Crohn's disease
Most expensive traffic ticket: never received a moving violation
Favorite dance craze: Yankees Stadium grounds crew doing the YMCA
Nothing annoys me more than. . . inconsiderate people
Via Black Amazon, I found this entry on The Art of Defending Racism. If we are honest with ourselves and honest about wanting to end racism, we will admit the truth that this is what we do and watch our behavior for signs of our doing it.
Michael Richards' non-apology and the sickening defenses of his actions are all covered on this list.
Richards' non-apology - Covered under "Dismissal! Under my definition - it's not racist." Of course, under any real definition of racist, he was racist. However, he magically decides that he's just angry, not racist, and we're all supposed to buy the BS.
Defense #1 "What's the big deal, he just called a couple of hecklers some names?" - Covered under "It's not that serious. It's not a big deal because..."
Defense #2 "Yeah, but blacks call each other 'nigger' too. Look at Chris Rock or Dave Chappelle!" - Covered under "But! POC do XYZ to themselves too."
Defense #3 "Well, what else would you call a black person who acts rudely?" - Covered under "It's not that serious. You're too sensitive." Also under "Dismissal! Under my definition - it's not racist."
Defense #4 "Some blacks don't have a problem with what he said." - Covered under "But! One POC says it's cool."
This is precisely the same sort of crap we witness nearly every time a white person gets called on their racism and privilege. When white feminists get called on our racism and privilege, we also get "Yeah, but sexism!" As if somehow the existence of sexism and its impact on our lives excuses or mitigates our racism. We would never accept that the existence of racism and its impact on the lives of men of color excuses or mitigates their sexism.
Is it uncomfortable to admit our racism? Is it uncomfortable to give up our privileges? Sure. If it weren't, eradicating racism (and sexism) would be easy. So what, though? It's no one's job to make it easy for us to give up that which we never had a right to in the first place. If someone stole something from us, we would never expect to have to make it easy for them to return it to us. Even if someone's grandparents stole it from our grandparents, we would expect it simply to be returned to us. If it were something very meaningful that damaged our lives by its lack and enriched their lives by its possession, we would be very angry at those that refused to restore it to us. We would suspect them of believing they deserved more than we did. We would suspect them of willingness to profit at our expense. We would suspect them of not really giving a damn about us. We would hear their defenses and know how meaningless and self-serving they were.
We'd be right.
Piece of pie (pumpkin, that is) this time around. Used the same tune last year and will probably use it again next year. Alice's Restaurant, the old Turkey Day staple.
In the holiday spirit, name this tune:
We went to have ourselves a drink or two
But couldn't find an open bar
We bought a six-pack at the liquor store
And we drank it in her car
Remember, don't blurt, be subtle, leave a clue.
Huh. I thought that top medical expert, Bill O'Reilly, said that this never happens.
After 19-year-old Jazmina Bojorge bled to death in early November at a public hospital in the Nicaraguan capital due to complications from pregnancy, her family appeared on local television and tearfully accused doctors of delaying her treatment for fear of being prosecuted under the nation's abortion ban.
Excitement abounds. I have started work on a book about why fans root for their teams, called aptly enough "Why Fans Root". The primary basis of the book will be interviews with fans to learn about their passion for their teams, how they came to be fans, their most memorable moments (lows and highs). Basically to understand just what it is about sports that draws us to identify with specific teams and too root ardently.
I've ordered a couple of academic books on the subject, the book Friday Night Lights, and a book about the 2004 Notre Dame season, which follows fans as they become more and more disillusioned with then coach Ty Willingham. I've drafted a preliminary set of questions to use in interviews and have e-mailed several people to see if they'd be willing to be my guinea pigs as I feel my way through the subject and refine my questions. I'll also be getting a digital voice recorder to use in interviews.
If there are any readers of the blog - Rick? - who'd be interested in being interviewed, just leave a comment with contact info.
Predictably, there was major fallout in today's news following Derek Jeter's second-place finish in the A.L. MVP balloting. The N.Y. Post blamed it on anti-New-York bias, with the headline Jeeted. Mike Lupica agrees that Jeter was probably the right choice, but didn't blame it on any bias against New York. In the meantime, Chicago Sun Times writer Joe Cowley is taking serious heat for placing Jeter sixth on the ballot. I think Lupica has it right and that Cowley has no right voting for the MVP.
Jeter wasn't robbed and didn't lose because of a bias against New York. Hideki Matsui lost the A.L. Rookie of the Year balloting because of a bias against the Yankees big spending ways. All of a sudden, writers made up this rule that the best rookie had to be a true rookie, even though Ichiro won both the Rookie of the Year and MVP awards in his first season. But A-Rod won the MVP last year even though he was a Yankee. You can't blame this one on pure Yankee hating.
Jeter lost because of the misperception that he was surrounded by more good players than Hugh Hefner is surrounded by hot babes, making him less valuable than a one-man wrecking crew like Frank Thomas, and because a number two hitter is less sexy than a slugger like Morneau. The first argument is trotted out by Cowley, who left Carlos Delgado and Vernon Wells off his 2003 ballot and was suspended as a result, and is specious. Three Twins finished in the top seven of the balloting. No other Yankee finished that high. A-Rod was the next best Yankee in 13th place.
Based on the results, Morneau was indisputably surrounded by better talent than Jeter. Writers who favor Morneau point out that the Twins took off when he took off. Not quite true. The Twins made a number of roster changes right before they got hot, including adding Francisco Liriano to the starting rotation. By comparison, the Yankees lost three key players to injury for much of the season and had two other key players - A-Rod and Giambi - have off seasons. The starting pitching was spotty, too.
Jeter had arguably his finest season and was clearly the MVP on his team, something that you can't necessarily say about Morneau. For all the numbers he put up, finding a good first baseman is easier than finding someone like Joe Mauer, a catcher who led the league in hitting.
Yes, I am biased as a Yankees fan, and no, it's not the end of the world that Morneau won. He had an outstanding season. Still, I feel Jeter should have won.
Cross posted on THTRB.
Now that Thanksgiving is nearly upon us, I've been thinking about my personal strategy for this year's War on Christmas. I thought I'd run it by you all to get your feedback.
So, what do you think? Winning strategy? Stay the course, or cut and run?
More on Michael Richards' racism. Sadly, but not unsurprisingly, I've seen several defenses of Michael Richards. It's amazing how white privilege blinds us to this racist shit. Apparently any racist act can be excused as not being racist. We need to check our white privilege. Seriously, it won't kill us. Some of the horrid defenses I've seen.
No, that is not all he did. First, the word he used is used exclusively by whites derogatorily towards blacks. Second, he also referenced lynching. Funny how that fact is always forgotten in the defenses of Richards. I suppose it just makes it so much easier to excuse him.
There is a huge difference between a black person using that word and a white person. Two things. People who use this excuse are clearly unaware of the concept of reclaiming language to make it less hurtful. Whites cannot use that word in a reclamatory fashion. It was never used to hurt whites, so we cannot use it in a way that makes it less hurtful. Especially not when it's used as an insult. Insults are meant to be hurtful, so it's idiotic to pretend we can make it less hurtful in an attempt to hurt.
In addition, black comedians may use it in their comedy about their own culture as a way to subvert the power structure. White comedians CANNOT do that. White comedians represent the power structure, whether they intend to or not. When a white comedian (or person) uses it against a black person, it is an expression of power over that person and over blacks as a whole. A reminder of their "place", a way of saying "It doesn't matter how far you've gotten in life, we still have power over you, so don't get too uppity." It no way has that impact when used by a black person. Too bad if you don't like that fact. Deal.
I'm thinking "asshole". Why would anyone ever need a racially specific term to express nothing more than "You're being rude, which is making me upset." No one does, so please stop pretending.
And? I wonder how many of the people who use that excuse get pissed off when a European refers to Americans as the most dangerous people on the planet. Some Americans don't have a problem with that, so I suppose the rest should simply suck up and deal? Ha! Like that would be accepted.
I know that racism is very steeped in our culture and our interactions with each other, but if we cannot even admit it when we so blatantly see it, what hope do we have of really fixing it?
Kill Bill Vol. 2. Lesley thought I gave away too much, but I wanted the whole quote there. Tarantino writes brilliant dialogue.
A little Thanksgiving flavor for this installment. So many excellent lines to choose from. I opt for:
Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog. And then at the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one. . .
Remember, don't blurt, be subtle, leave a clue.
I am both disappointed and puzzled by the news that Derek Jeter finished second in this year's AL MVP voting. I had assumed all along it would be Jeter. He was the best player on the best team in baseball. He's been outstanding for so long that you think writers would have given him the award partially as a lifetime achievement award rather than given the award to a relative newcomer on some obscure team in the hinterlands. The NY tabloids will rip the results to shreds, claiming bias against NY. As much as I'd like to use that argument, it falls short because A-Rod took home the trophy last year. I guess it's just that Jeter doesn't put up prototypical MVP numbers. Still, does that make him less valuable than a slugger like Morneau? Jeter is captain clutch, actually I believe the most clutch player in baseball this year. He carried the Yankees through the absences of three cornerstone players. Should have won it. Probably never will.
Cross posted on THTRB.
Michael Richards on his calling two blacks "niggers" and talking about lynchings in his response to them:
"I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this," Richards said, his tone becoming angry and frustrated as he defended himself.
No. What's so insane is your denying being a racist after calling two blacks "niggers" and referencing lynchings. It doesn't matter how angry you were at being heckled. If two whites had been heckling you, you wouldn't have responded in that manner. Your apology is meaningless, because you refuse to accept real responsibility for what you said and why you said it.
What next? Blaming it on alcohol, asking blacks to help you heal, and checking yourself into rehab? You could just admit you are racist, take responsibility for what you did, really apologize, and then try to change. However, that would mean owning up to your white privilege, so I'm guessing you'll just continue to say "La la la, I'm not a racist, I just have a problem with anger."
No, that isn't what the latest study in the UK focusing on whether women who have been raped were drugged or drunk is about. It's just what I wish it where about. However, yet again, we focus on the behavior of women when it comes to rape. Even though it is the men who commit the rapes, we don't see study after study bruited about in newspapers about why men are raping. A couple of critiques of the study hit the nail on the head.
"The media doesn't want to look at why men want to have sex with comatose, drunk women, often covered in vomit, often lying in streets, on the floor, without any notion of what's happening to them."
Yes. Precisely. The standard answer you get from non-feminists of "Because that's how men are" is some of the most man-hating BS around. Most men patently do NOT do this. Most men are not rapists. But it's feminists who won't accept that answer who get accused of thinking all men are rapists, not those who spout the "That's how men are" line of thinking.
And Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said: "It is not news that women are drinking. Men drink as well but don't expect to be raped.
I'd take that one even further. I'd wager that men who get drunk are more prone to wind up in fights and get injured or killed. Really, men are the victims of violent crime more often than women are. It's only in rape that they are less often victims. So where are all the studies and hand-wringing about men drinking and getting hurt?
I don't know whether or not such studies exist. The fact that you never hear about them in the media doesn't mean someone isn't conducting them. However, the fact that you never hear about them in the media is indicative of how we view rape victims vs. victims of other violent crimes. We don't blame victims of other violent crimes for the crime committed against them.
I was once on a jury for a murder trial. The victim was shot and killed in a bar after a fight with the defendant. Let me tell you what didn't happen. The defense attorney did not suggest the victim shouldn't have been at the bar drinking. The defense attorney didn't suggest that he "asked" to get shot. The defense attorney didn't spend any time reviewing the victim's past behavior. The defense attorney only focused on whether or not the defendant was the one who committed the crime, trying to prove that we couldn't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he had.
The following things are or may be true: If the victim had not been at the bar, he would not have been murdered. If the victim had not been drunk, the initial verbal argument might not have escalated to a fight. Yet not only where neither of those things the focus of the defense, they were not even brought up by the defense. No one tried to excuse the crime by focusing on the behavior of the victim. Because we accept that it was the murderer who was responsible for the crime, and while the victim's behavior may not have been pristine, it doesn't matter.
Why don't we extend that logic to rape victims? Could it be that society protects male behavior at the expense of women?
I don't believe there are words that can express my deep dismay and disappointment in the American public to learn that there was public disorder, crime, and re-sale for obscene amounts of money when the PlayStation 3 went on sale today. When there are so many needs being unmet in so many places, including here at home, it says something profoundly sad about our society that people are willing to stand on line for days on end to buy a simple toy for their family, stand on line for days on end to re-sell it for $2500, pay $2500 a piece for a simple toy, push and shove and beat up people for a simple toy, and rob people who have been standing on line for days. Is there any wonder why people hate the U.S.? I feel slimy being an American right now, and I didn't stand on line and would never stand on line for a toy. My kids, when I have them, can live without it. When they ask why, I will tell them this story and tell them that a PlayStation 3 isn't important in the larger scheme of things.
I like King James. He's a phenomenal talent and wise beyond his years. I am glad to be a witness. Still, I can't help but marvel at the audacity of his words after the Cavaliers rebounded from a 19-point fourth quarter deficit to defeat the Celtics last night:
"We could have easily packed it up but that's not who I am," James said. "Any time I'm on the court it doesn't matter how many points we're down, we always have a chance to win."
Say what? Is this the same James who walked off the court before the end of a game earlier in the week when the Cavs were down by 7 with 17 seconds left and the Hawks were dribbling out the clock?
Different game this time around. Name the movie the following quote is from. (Lesley will know this one.)
Now, a staple of the superhero
mythology is, there's the superhero and there's the alter ego.Batman is actually Bruce Wayne,
Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker.
When that character wakes up
in the morning, he's Peter Parker.
He has to put on a costume
to become Spider-Man.
And it is in that characteristic
Superman stands alone.
Superman didn't become Superman.Superman was born Superman.
When Superman wakes up
in the morning, he's Superman.
His alter ego is Clark Kent.
His outfit with the big red "S" -
that's the blanket he was wrapped in
as a baby when the Kents found him.
Those are his clothes.
What Kent wears - the glasses,
the business suit - that's the costume.
That's the costume Superman wears
to blend in with us.
Clark Kent is how Superman views us.
And what are the characteristics
of Clark Kent?
He's weak...
...he's unsure of himself...
...he's a coward.Clark Kent is Superman's critique
on the whole human race.
Remember, don't blurt, be subtle, leave a clue.
The theory went that the Yankees would be able to get middle-level players for Gary Sheffield. Perhaps some prospects, but no one special. The reality is that the Yankees did very well in trading Sheffield yesterday to the Detroit Tigers. They received three pitching prospects, two of whom I know nothing about, save that they look like hard throwers based on their strikeout numbers, but one of whom I had heard of. He's Humberto Sanchez, who first came to my attention when he pitched in the Futures Game this past summer. He threw one scoreless inning, but the more important data is that he was touted as one of the Tigers' top pitching prospects, if not the top, and that he had put up some impressive numbers at Double A. There was talk that he could join the Tigers later in the season. He didn't, but he got a call up to Triple A, where he got off to a good start before tailing off and suffering an arm problem. The arm problem bit gets me nervous, but it sounds like the Yankees got exactly what they needed. A young hard-throwing pitcher who's Major League ready. Expect to see Sanchez in the rotation this season. Hope that he becomes a solid member of the staff, joining Wang and eventually Philip Hughes in a triumvirate of young studs who can front the rotation for a long time.
Cross-posted on THTRB.
This week's installment of the Pop Culture Grid:
Favorite blonde: is Heidi Klum blond?
City where you'd most like to retire: Vancouver
Still own a VCR: yes
At Starbucks I always order. . . I never go to Starbucks
At 10 I wanted to be _______ when I grew up: a baseball player
Naomi Campbell is: a model
It's Republicans vs. Democrats in the days leading up to the election. Each party is holding nothing back as they slug it out. The Republicans said a couple of interesting things today.
First up is Elizabeth Dole. Keeping with the tradition of casting the Democrats as weak on terror, she charged that the party is "content with losing" in Iraq. "We need to win the war, and it would be disastrous to lose. . . . To pull out and withdraw is lose." Why do I have the feeling that the same thoughts were aired by supporters of the Vietnam War?. I am not sure what the right solution is in Iraq - do we pull out and let things devolve into a civil war or do we pour more troops in and try to grab control of the country - but what I do now is that we are already losing the war in Iraq and that we may never be able to win. The Bush administration put us in this situation by invading and then by botching the job afterwards. Not to say that anyone could do any better. Once Pandora's Box was opened with the overthrow of Hussein, this outcome was likely inevitable. The divisions run too deep, and like in the former Yugoslavia, the different groups are unable to live together peacefully. Of course, nothing will change even if the Democrats regain control of Congress. It will only change with a new President who is capable of admitting his mistakes and being open minded enough to try a different approach.
The second comment came from Tony Snow. According to Snow, the Democrats have been coming after Bush personally and driving his approval ratings down. "It has had an effect in the public opinion polls." First, it's a distortion of facts to say the Democrats have been coming at Bush personally, excepting idiot du jour Kerry. Attacking a man's policy and management of a situation is not attacking him personally, no matter how much Snow wants us to believe in an effort to garner sympathy for the poor misunderstood Bush. Second, it's the war in Iraq and his complete botch job there that's driving his approval ratings down. But in the Pollyanna world of the President and his advisers, everything there is wonderful, so naturally, it must be someone else's fault.
Feh on the Republicans. Feh on the Democrats, too. Politicians suck.
No surprise there since I'm from New York.
| What American accent do you have? Your Result: The Northeast Judging by how you talk you are probably from north Jersey, New York City, Connecticut or Rhode Island. Chances are, if you are from New York City (and not those other places) people would probably be able to tell if they actually heard you speak. | |
| The Inland North | |
| The South | |
| Philadelphia | |
| The Midland | |
| Boston | |
| The West | |
| North Central | |
| What American accent do you have? Take More Quizzes | |
via Solonor.
With my recent returns in the stock market, I have decided to start my own brokerage firm, one predicated on giving people a tax shelter by guaranteeing them losses in the stock market. I will charge a 10% administration fee. Anyone interested just let me know.
Life is growing bleaker for Alan Hevesi. Elliot Spitzer has determined that Hevesi owes another $90,000 in the Driving Mrs. Hevesi scandal, the independent prosecutor George Pataki appointed to investigate the case has wrapped up his investigation, and the nose is tightening in the polls (4 to 12 points). Honestly, I'm getting a bit nervous that Hevesi may lose this election. IMO, Chris Callaghan is in no way qualified to be NYS Comptroller, and I'm afraid we may get stuck with him for four years. The best scenario, as repulsive as it seems, is for Hevesi to win the election and then get replaced once he's tossed from office. Still, I cannot bring myself to vote for him and will abstain from the Comptroller balloting.
I'm starting a new weekly posting here: The Pop Culture Grid, a feature in Sports Illustrated. Four pro athletes are asked six pop culture questions to see how they "fit in." Each week, I will give my own answers.
This week's questions:
Best thing you've ever gotten for free: the complete set of the Ella Fitzgerald song books
Number of cars in your driveway: I don't have a driveway
A pet you're dying to own: a tiger
I'm secretly afraid of: cockroaches
Scale of 1 to 10: How much do you want Madonna to adopt you: 0
My ultimate celebrity red carpet dream date would be: Heidi Klum
A couple of days ago, Steven Landsburg of Slate approvingly wrote about a study that purported to show that internet porn was a direct cause of a reduction in rape. I first read about it on Feministe. I read the study itself and did a takedown of its methodology in the comments at Feministe. To quote myself:
Ah feh, the entire methodology of the study is flawed. As Kendall himself notes, there is sampling bias in reports of rape, such that stranger rapes are more likely to be reported than acquaintance rapes. As such, you cannot possibly draw any conclusions about the impact of internet access on acquaintance rapes, which are the most common type of rape in the first place.Second, he couldn't pull apart the use of the internet for porn from the use of the internet for non-porn. Meaning, Kendall cannot really prove anything about the use of pornography on the internet vis a vis even stranger rape.
Third, since they don't have offender profiles, as Kendall himself admits, there is no way to know how much pornography the rapists consumed prior to committing rapes vs. how much non-rapists consume. So he cannot judge the impact of pornography on the rapists themselves.
Fourth, while he does factor in some demographic variables, he doesn't take into account any other changes in societal values over the last x number of years that might explain a reduction in rape vs. other violent crimes.
Fifth, with respect to the lack of statistically significant correlation between internet use and other violent crimes, without examining the factors that contribute to rape vs. other violent crimes, you cannot rule out other explanations for that phenomenon. A lack of correlation to one type of crime does not, as such, prove a correlation to another.
In short, the study contains no proof that internet porn reduces rape. For all we know, all those 15-19 year-olds were at home playing games on the internet, and, as such, weren’t out committing rape. Or they were raping their girlfriends instead, who didn’t report the crimes. Or they weren't committing rape for reasons that have nothing to do with internet access but with societal variables he didn't factor into his analysis. Or all of the above.
Now, however, Melissa Lafsky of Salon has picked up on the Slate article and approvingly quoted one of the more annoying claims made in it (which is saying something, because all the claims made in the article are annoying and completely without actual evidence):
Still, as Landsburg points out, how do we know the Web use-rape link is connected to porn? Maybe online gaming, sports chat rooms or other male-dominated sites are in fact catching the attention of potential rapists. Kendall responds to this argument by offering murder rates; while the data consistently ties increased Internet use to decreased rapes, no such correlation exists for homicides. "It's hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time," Landsburg noted. "On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape." Coming as no surprise, the effects are strongest among boys ages 14 to 19, a demographic that Kendall (and common sense) identify as the group that relies most heavily on the Internet for porn access.
For the statistically challenged, let me explain why this is an annoying argument, even if it seems to make sense to some. What Kendall, Landsburg, and now Lafsky have done is decided in advance that they believe that porn is a substitute for rape and chosen not to look any further for an explanation for the lack of correlation between internet access and homicide rates. Let me break it down further.
Kendall has proven a statistically significant negative correlation between internet access and rape rates. That much is true. He has not proven any statistically significant negative correlation between viewing internet porn and rape rates. He admits he wasn't able to break down the internet access between porn and non-porn usage. Instead he is relying on indirect methods to come up with his "evidence" for this supposed negative correlation (I'm not saying it does not exist; just that no one has actually been able to prove it does). The first thing is (my words) the "Well, lots of people use the internet for porn, so if there is a correlation between internet use and rape, then it likely is related to porn." Maybe yes, maybe no. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis, but it is just a hypothesis without any actual evidence. In order to make that determination, you would have to study it.
The second indirect method is (again, my words) "Hey, look, no correlation between internet access and other violent crimes, so what can I personally think of that would make that difference? Ooh, look, porn!" Again, there is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Kendall's inability to think of any other distinguishing factors does not mean those distinguishing factors don't exist. He didn't even bother to look at any other factors that distinguish between rape and homicide. Under what circumstances do most homicides occur, for example? I happen to think this is especially relevant given Kendall himself admits he wasn't able to study the impact of internet access on acquaintance rape, meaning that his negative correlation only has been proven for stranger rape (the least common sort of rape). Since most homicides are also committed by friends or family, you would think there might be a connection there worth studying. It's a lot harder to under-report homicide even when it's committed by a friend or family member. Does this mean that many homicides occur at home, such that using the internet wouldn't remove you from a situation in which you were likely to do something that is done outside the home? I don't know, but it's certainly worth considering as a possible explanation for the lack of correlation between internet access and homicide.
Lastly, I would remind them all that correlation does not equal causation. Kendall was only able to prove a correlation. He was not able to prove causation.
