Tuesday assorted links


2 We used to laugh at border guards asking questions like "Are you or have you ever been a Communist". Now the AEA ask "Are you under an investigation? We don't really need to know the outcome."

Are we sure it's a #MeToo issue? It says "accused of creating a hostile work environment."

Question: what happens if the person investigating harassament comes under investigation for harassment? Do they just withdraw the original investigation?

In another vein, what if Ivanka Trump tearfully accuses Bob Mueller of sexual harassment? Is it credible? What happens to the Russia investigation then?

Is me too creating a hostile work environment?

Very rapidly this web page will be famous among all
blogging users, due to it's pleasant articles

5. I'm always amazed at the firm, clear speaking voices of people in old newsreels. Even when they interview random bystanders, the speaker looks straight into the camera and makes his or her unrehearsed statement in direct, unhurried way, without "uh's" or "like's."

Is this the way people talked before Marlon Brando? I find it inspiring, and endeavor to speak this way in my own life.

A few years ago I read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which argues that television has caused a serious deterioration in the quality of public discourse. The crux of his book is that written word is the superior medium to share, learn, and refine ideas, and that American life and consciousness 150 years ago was dominated by it. Oration in the eighteenth century was polished, clear, structured, and rooted in what he terms a “Typographical Mind.”

I’m not as cynical as Postman about television’s effects on the public, but I think his argument can help explain why these people sound so odd to us.

I blame Horace Mann.

Agreed. American English used to be a pleasure to hear; no corporate bullshit, no pseudo-psychotherapy. Older Americans still spoke fine American English into the 60s and 70s. When was The Downfall?

While I'm on about it: when did American TV women adopt the current horrible, nasal, squawking register in their speech? And why?

It is all, as nearly everything is, about the percentiles.
It is the same activity, but it is not being carried out by the same percentile.

I wonder how much of this is a feature of social class and education. A lot of these look to be upper class people. I would imagine there was an even stronger selection bias in favor of the upper class reaching the age of 80+ a century ago. I wouldn't be surprised if well educated, upper class octagenarians today are just as erudite when interviewed as these folks.

The accent is another hint: From what I understand, high class prep schools taught erudition in their curriculum. It's really noticeable in 1940s films where everyone (except the low class characters) speaks with the "Mid Atlantic" accent, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if 19th century students were taught the "proper" way to speak as well.

I'd like to see a bit more research before condemning the current state of affairs.

The pitch is interesting. Maybe we're hearing how people really sounded, but maybe the recording gear of the time didn't catch bass tones very well? Doesn't the background noise seem to be skewed higher as well?

Good for the AEA. Now we know that any candidacy for an AEA post can be derailed by an accusation, regardless of its merit. Creates a delightfully corrupt incentive system.

I really wonder what history will say once #metoo fades to black, and it will? I wonder what high-school-gossip-strategy bandwagon women will fly their flag on next in an effort to be self-important and/or get revenge? I wonder how many more "back-fires" the movement will sustain before a groundswell of rationale people start to realize, "Holy crap there are a lot of women who lie about sexual assault!"? How many more Jackie Coakleys, Crystal Mangums, or Blasey Fords will it take? How many more college-kangaroo-court Title IX dismissals? How many more BS accusations like Stormy Daniels thrown out of court? How many more hundreds of accusations about powerful men need to be proven baseless?

Yep. Delightfully corrupt. But corruption will corrupt absolutely eventually. Congrats ladies. You've officially turned everything into high school. They're not going to like where this goes in the long run.

A serious answer would be that we have a very messy adaption to a very real problem.

It is complicated by the rationalizations of social and sexual creatures. Male and female, in case that wasn't obvious.

Not to mention Juanita Brodderick and Paula Jones, those liars.

Look the culture is changing, for the better. But changes can be messy.

"Not to mention Juanita Brodderick and Paula Jones, those liars."

Yep. Just ask Hillary Clinton.

Ask her what?

If those women were liars.

Whether you think they lied depends a lot on politics. Did EverExtruder think those gals were lying? Why not?

Juanita Brodderick was certainly lying, since she changed her story. One of the the versions was lie.

Paul Jones on the other hand seems pretty credible and the Clinton's settled with her for $850K. Certainly her story had more evidence to support it. There were two other witnesses to what happened immediately before and after the alleged sexual assault. Was far more recent. She came forward 3 years after the event transpired. The time and place was indisputable. And it was more relevant, in that it was a crime, committed by an adult, for an actively serving governor.

Despite all that, Bill Clinton suffered no official sanction, and is still a Democratic star. Granted the blatant hypocrisy is so great that even prominent Lefties are starting to question it.

Yeah his star has fallen pretty hard. He couldn't sell Hillary to the voters, and #metoo is taking down lots of lefties.

As per usual, one can turn to Dr. Hanson.

It’s another status competition between groups playing out in the realm of politics and culture.

Women increase in relative status when allegations are more readily accepted with lower levels of evidence or credulity. Men used to have higher relative status and thus the threshold for taking the allegations seriously was higher.

Before, many true allegations were dismissed due to the difference in status. As women’s relative status rises, the threshold for evidence is lowered, changing the ratio of type 1 errors to type 2 errors.

The end.

While I think this is a good analysis, this:

"Before, many true allegations were dismissed due to the difference in status."

doesn't necessarily hold. It would be more correct to say that "many possibly true allegations were dismissed due to the difference in status." We can't verify whether a single one of those allegations made under differing social conditions were true (indeed, the very definition of "rape" has changed over time), only that they were more readily dismissed socially. Unless you define "true" as "readily accepted under a lower evidence threshold", in which case it is our definition of "truth" which is changing.

For example, Dallas Cowboys HOF receiver Michael Irvin was accused in 1996 by a stripper of raping her while his teammate held a gun to her head. Several months later, she recanted her accusation after a police investigation concluded that inconsistencies in her story and other evidence led them to determine that no sexual assault had taken place. You might say that this was conclusively "a false accusation", but maybe her claim actually was true: think of how this story would have been handled today. Her inconsistencies would be explained as lapses of memory due to trauma, the other evidence contraposed against the sincerity of her testimony, the withdrawal of her accusation understood to be the result of the stress of the investigation and the imposition of male privilege. Do these changed conditions increase the chance that there was "truth" to her accusation? Of course not, it either happened or it didn't, unless you think a change in evidentiary standards necessitates a change in what makes something true.


That was truly well put. Damn. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Cherry-picking aside (there are other high profile false accusations of course), the facts are simple. It used to be ok to do stuff that it is no longer ok to do and that's a very good thing.

3, And she was

The most pilloried use of the passive voice might be that famous expression of presidents and press secretaries, “mistakes were made.” From Ronald Ziegler, President Richard M. Nixon’s press aide, through Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — not to mention Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — pols have used the passive voice to spin the news, avoid responsibility or hide the truth. One political guru even dubbed this usage “the past exonerative.”


Your repeated commentary on the specific issue of #metoo is very strange. "The culture is changing, it's a good thing, don't worry it will work out" on repeat.

And I want to be clear: it is very possible that Michael Irvin's accuser was in fact telling the truth. She was deemed "not credible" because certain facts that the police investigated indicated to them that she was lying. But if you consider other facts, ones which weren't considered back in 1996, she could easily be deemed credible. Things like evidentiary rules, relevance, how we understand ambiguity and contradiction, are key to how we interpret "facts", which is what the Irvin case demonstrates: what constitutes "the facts" is changing.

As i said during the Kavanaugh affai, i never said they couldn't be. It's entirely possible they are. They do however have a bit more evidence on their side, but it was still uncertain and not witnessed with enough proof to be certain.

Things are not changing for the better if better means baseless unfounded allegations about rape between brought up years after they happen because someone is in the spotlight. It doesn't mean outright lies about consent for sex that happen but then chicks regret. It doesn't mean better because chicks dig sex with powerful men (always have) and suddenly dislike that the dude moved on, and worse, becomes more successful.

Rape and sexual assault happen. SO DO LIES ABOUT SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE FROM BOTH SEXES. Things getting better is acknowledging that both happen, and using a system for establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it did or did not occur.

One more addition. Most guys would be absolutely shocked at how many women fantasize about rape. Many of them also have difficulty keeping fantasy and reality seperate. Food for thought.

Getting there will involve some collateral damage, but the new equilibrium will be better than the old. New norms will evolve, and life will go on.

I suppose confit has its own accordian.

Break a few eggs uh? Thanks Vladimir.

Yeah. Count me out.

You are in whether you like it or not.

So are you.

Of course, but I'm chill about it. I like the new equilibrium, I was always the decent guy, and resented the entitled jerks who were pushy with women and got away with it. Especially the Weinstein and Ailes and Clinton types who used their power to do so. Those guys are getting theirs now.

The corruption is only a part of the phenomenon. As Germaine Greer produced outrage by pointing out, a man can't physically injure a woman with his penis. Yet, in some vestige of an ancient social past, a sexual crime seems to eclipse almost all others. Many thousands of men have had the crap beaten out of them by other guys to the extent of serious permanent physical damage, like this guy, but turning another male into a vegetable is way down the list from casual frottage on a female.

In the Larry Nassar case, where Michigan State University is going to cough up $500 million to 332 female athletes that the perv doctor fingered, some of these women became gymnastic champions and college grads. But in the #MeToo era no actual damages need be shown.

In some vestige of an ancient social past, a sexual crime was a property crime. You were stealing something from another man.

The issue I have with the #metoo era is simple. It actually continues to enshrine chivalric and property right holdovers for women's reproduction, but they think it doesn't. It continues to elevate women and their reproduction as having value that it doesn't. As being somehow more valuable than a man.

I am willing to acknowledge that women technically have ultimate dominance over sexual prerogative, because quite frankly they're very good at almost everything else. But this is about the law. All are equal before the law. Women do not have the prerogative to lie as a substitution for power they do not have. For it to be effective the law cannot be 2 systems, one for women and one for everyone else.

because quite frankly they're *not very good at almost everything else.

But #MeToo isn't about changing the law, what laws have changed? It's still a crime to abuse or rape, and it's still a crime to falsely accuse someone of abuse or rape. What's changing is the culture. What was once just a known secret, that Harvey Weinstein was a huge pushy perv but you had to take it to get a movie role, that working for Bill Clinton or Leslie Moonves or Roger Ailes meant you were going to get hit on and grabbed and maybe worse but you had to shut up about it, those days are gone.

Boys and men are thinking twice about doing stuff they used to do all the time, girls and women are no longer afraid to speak up about it. These are unqualified good things.

This is a silly strawman argument you are making. There is literally no one arguing against the position, "That women shouldn't be sexually assaulted." And yet you keep responding as if posters were.

On the other hand, what posters are actually responding with is that men should be considered innocent until proven guilty. For that your response is:

"Getting there will involve some collateral damage, "

That's pretty much what anyone justifying a bad policy could say in it's defense. Usually it's phrased as "The End justifies the Means".

Yeah, sadly I don't think you're going to get this crowd to understand that the culture is actually a far more powerful and wide-spread arbiter of people than the law. There's this belief of, if I didn't break the law then I should be free of judgment, which, even if on some philosophical level it's true, has never been true for most people, certainly not women.

JSC agreed, and as I said #MeToo isn't about the law. JWatts misunderstands me, I am well aware no one thinks sexual assault is ok, but that's not #MeToo. The new cultural norms are about coercion, casting couches, lechy bosses, power imbalances. It's not about saying rape is bad, that's not the change. It's still bad to assault someone and it's still bad to make a false accusation.

What used to be ok but isn't now is the boss making lechy comments and hitting on you over and over and when you say something you get fired or demoted. Powerful men being very pushy with women who don't say anything because they won't be believed or because they worry about retaliation. That's what's changing in the culture.

Bringing up Michael Irvin and the Duke lacrosse team is missing the point. This is about better behavior from men and more transparency from women. I welcome it.

JSC - "There's this belief of, if I didn't break the law then I should be free of judgment,"

Your argument is poor and another strawman position. Nowhere on this thread has anybody made the argument that it's purely a legal issue. Nor has anybody denied that culture is important.

msgkings - "Powerful men being very pushy with women who don't say anything because they won't be believed or because they worry about retaliation."

Again, this is kind of bullshit. No one on this thread is arguing against that. Do you see one person on here defending Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton or Leslie Moonves or Roger Ailes? No you don't.

The arguments have been against Title IX kangaroo courts, vague accusations with obvious political motivations from long ago and false accusations that harm men, but even when proven false don't have any negative consequences for the accusers.

Here's an additional two cases of false #metoo style accusations that had devastating effects for the men accused that were written today.



I don't see how it's a strawman. You seem to be saying, "look, no one is defending the people who are obviously guilty of violating the law (either in the actual criminal sense or in the sense of provably violating their employment contract). It's all these people with only vague unproven accusations that we care about."

Let's agree that we probably see eye-to-eye about what should happen to the men who are obviously guilty and the ones who are obviously innocent. Where I assume we differ is that my prior going into this is that most of the men who have vague but hard-to-prove accusations lobbied against them did what they are accused of doing, and that they represent maybe 10% of the men who have been creeps towards women. I have this prior because I've encountered many more situations where women are raped/assaulted/harassed than I have situations where men were socially ostracized for doing nothing wrong. Which doesn't mean the latter never happens! Of course it happens, and when it happens it makes it to Quillette, and I'm glad that journalistic legwork is being done. But that in and of itself doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to try and stop the stream of vague unproven accusations, which are mostly vague and unproven not because they're untrue but because the nature of the sexual harassment is such that when it happens there's plenty of plausible deniability. Of course there's going to be some false accusations, and I hope they're righted, but that's how the culture changes. To say that this is ends-justify-the-means type of thinking is to miss the point that the long-time status quo ("just ignore it, honey, boys will be boys") is also ends-justify-the-means type thinking (let's brush bad male behavior under the rug to maintain social cohesion). Now we just have new and, I think, better ends.

This seems to be a thoughtful reply. However, I disagree with you strongly on several points.

"To say that this is ends-justify-the-means type of thinking is to miss the point that the long-time status quo is also ends-justify-the-means type thinking"

The conventional wisdom of "Two Wrongs don't make a Right" comes to mind.

" stop the stream of vague unproven accusations, which are mostly vague and unproven not because they're untrue but because the nature of the sexual harassment is such that when it happens there's plenty of plausible deniability. "

Your argument boils down to an appeal to emotion over reason. You claim that the accusations are True without evidence. I disagree. Luckily for me, both the law and culture are on my side. Society isn't very tolerant of vague accusations and is unlikely to elevate them to the level of effect that you espouse.

Kavanaugh is now on the Supreme Court. After the false accusations against him, he's going to be very hostile to the type of argument you are making. I suspect the days of Title IX kangaroo courts are over.

I do think we are going to see an end to the kind of behavior whereby a powerful man could repeatedly grope and threaten a female subordinate. I believe this has been on the wane for decades.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but it's not so clear cut. Think about it in terms of type I and type II errors. Your type I error is "man harasses without repercussion" and your type II error is "man doesn't harass but faces repercussion". Any instrument for social change as clumsy at "the culture at large" is going to have some of both errors, no matter what (it's even acknowledged in the legal system - let 10 guilty men walk free rather than 1 innocent go to prison etc.). The fewer you have of one, the more you have of the other. And until recently the culture was so biased in favor of the type I error that of course any movement away from that bias is going to lead to more type II errors. The question is how many, and I think overall we're still pretty from a balance that is as fair to women as it is to men. In other words, the amount of pain being done by men in the world toward women still vastly outweighs the amount of pain being done by women toward men. Many women, naturally, see this as unfair. I think the more that women keep making economic gains they have more bargaining power to make that equilibrium more fair for them.

I don't think it's fair to say I follow "emotion" (although Hume would argue the line between emotion and reason in moral judgments is pretty thin). I mean, I'm saying that my experience + inductive reasoning is leading me to believe that there is lots of creepy male behavior that is not punished. Just because I don't have the time to investigate the merits of every single accusation that comes up in the news and take a generally trusting attitude of accusations doesn't mean my stance isn't based in reason (if I dismiss all conspiracy theories without considering their merits, you wouldn't say I was acting on "emotion"; I mean, obviously on some level I am but it doesn't seem fair to knock me down a peg on account of that).

"an end to the kind of behavior whereby a powerful man could repeatedly grope and threaten a female subordinate" - yes, but I think it's a mistake to just look at the obvious cases. Why "repeatedly"? Shouldn't once be enough? And why "grope"? Why not include commenting on appearance, catcalling, asking sexual questions? This is where the vagueness comes in. Many people see these behaviors as crossing a line, but they're almost impossible to prove without he said/she said. You can't possibly catch and prove every such violation. So you make very big examples out of the few you do catch (a la Giuliani with subway fare jumpers in the 90s).

JSC you are in exact agreement with my take on this, well said.

JWatts we aren't disagreeing much. I too don't want false accusations to harm anyone. In fact the culture may be shifting on both fronts, the Kavanaugh hearings brought flimsy accusations into the public realm just like MeToo brought real accusations public. Going forward there will be a messy process but ultimately better equilibrium. This stuff will be more out in the open. Which is good for both victims of harassment and victims of false accusations.

"And why "grope"? Why not include commenting on appearance, catcalling, asking sexual questions? This is where the vagueness comes in."

Frankly, this all strikes me as Puritanical zealotry. In the real world, the way this would function is that if the woman liked the guy, then it would be flirting and no big deal. If she didn't she could destroy his life. That's not a stable equilibrium.

A reasonable cultural solution is to accept that humans are going to flirt. If the woman doesn't like it, she tells the man to knock it off. If he refuses and persists, then she should have the option of escalating the situation.

The idea of one strike and your out for normal human behavior is absurd.

Yes, did they employ a game theory model before making their decision? What does it look like?

3. Ten minutes I could do.

I think we will not care enough about the future, but future people will forgive us, as we forgive the people who killed the passenger pigeon. They will just assume "people were stupider than."

By the way, more bad news on bugs


Also, "#metoo fades to black" aka "ceases to be politically expedient."

Oh look, my favorite troll with the projection issues is back. Thanks once again for affirming my superiority! Though you should probably work on hiding your own obvious failures as a man.

Arguing with yourself is never a good sign, maybe you should take a break from commenting.

I see that my comment got under your skin Troll.

5. The dated interviews were conducted in 1929. A few were centenarians at that time, most younger. What hits you is the intensity of their voices. The semantic content of their speech is readily comprehensible. There is little filler ("uh" "like") in their conversation. Their pitch is somewhat high, their words are stressed, and you hear a series of rustic twangs of an unfamiliar sort. You don't hear a strong distinction between northern and Southern accents. What sounds like a New England accent you can hear in at least one interview.

Could they have been reading from scripts?

Don't think so.

#6. I hate to say it, but white male privilege at it's finest. It's not nearly so safe and fun to hitchhike while female, or black.

I hitchhiked across the U.S. twice in 1969. Here's what my 18-year-old white ,male, hippie self learned:
1. Expect to get picked up and propositioned by homosexuals.
2. Everybody is really interested in drugs and wants to get their hands on some.
3. Drugs quickly went from being the pastime of a small, hip elite, to becoming the obsession of trashy, low-class types.
4. Cowboys or anyone who identified with them wants to kill hippies.
5. Mexicans want to kill hippies.
6. It's possible to sleep in an empty lot in Seattle or Portland, but in L.A., you will be harassed.
6. Panhandling is the world's most humiliating activity.
7. Day labor is shockingly arduous.
8. America's roadsides are a continuous scroll of accidental beauty, dramatic vignettes, and surreal occurrences.
9. Even a single night in a small town jail is awful enough to dissuade any sane person from ever committing or coming close to committing an imprisonable offense.
10. Jesus communes and Hare Krishna people will take you in and feed you when no one else will. But they have their own problems.
11. Iowa is surprisingly beautiful.
12. We thought because we all had long hair, we were all on the same wavelength - we weren't.
12. There are lots of smart, interesting normal people out there, and from them you learn that the best thing in life is to follow the straight and narrow, observe social conventions, work a steady job, and avoid extremes.

Worthy of a post of itself.

"4. Cowboys or anyone who identified with them wants to kill hippies." We boring people just get to watch "Easy Rider".

@Faze I hitched to school a lot in college and once from Seattle to LA and once from Miami to NY city. I agree with most of what you said.

1. Expect to get picked up and propositioned by homosexuals.

Highway hooking is a thing. Not surprised that some men thought that you might be a prostitute.

My husband said he once got a ride where the guy just started driving out in the desert in the wrong direction. And he ended up just jumping out of the car and running. No idea how close he came to getting murdered by a serial killer.

#1 Only if you're good looking! Not if you're fat or ugly

#10 Chabad will too! (At least today. It wasn't a thing in the 1960s like it is now)

Yeah, and the privilege of those who can walk.

My guess is that it's actually easier for a woman to get picked up than for a man. Sure, it may be less safe for a woman, but hitchhiking is also unsafe for men, given adverse selection. (If a person intent on doing harm to a hitchhiker picks up a male rider, then at least in that person's estimation, he believes he can carry out his ill intentions, e.g., because he is stronger, armed, has the element of surprise, etc.)

In any event, female hitchhikers are not less safe due to societal or cultural factors, which is what usually is meant by "privilege". Privilege as a concept would be meaningless, even more meaningless than it already is, if athletic people were considered "privileged" when it came to sports, or strong people were privileged when it came to manual labor.

It's not just that women are less strong then men, but that men are more likely to sexually assault female hitchhikers, partly because men are more likely to be sexually interested in women, and partly because prostitution by hitchhiking is a common practice. So the men will assume that a female hitchhiker is a prostitute, and some will be angry if they are turned down, which results in rapes, assaults and murders of female hitchhikers.

Statistically, hitch-hiking with a stranger is safer for a woman than to be in a relationship with a man she knows.

I don't believe that statistic at all.

Nor should you. It almost certainly is derived from a magazine article and it's a poorly constructed measure. A proper measure assesses risk over the amount of time you spend with a person. This sort of blather is promoted by idiots who want to get attention and advance their careers by promoting counter-intuitive ideas and malicious people who want to classify ordinary men as pathological creatures. Both sorts of blatherers should be ignored and spat on.

I made the same trip in the same year with the same demographic, though a year older, but I did it in a VW Beetle and wouldn't go anywhere near Texas or the deep South. ;)

#3 I still think Tyler stole overrated vs underrated from Bill Simmons.

But YouTube is DOWN so I cannot watch 5.

It's 9:36 PM EST. Let me know when it's up again.

It's up. You should def check out that link, it was kind of mind blowing.

#3) Tyler complains that academics waste their tenure by not taking enough risk once they receive tenure. Maybe, there is a selection bias? Do tenure committees select for risk takers or do they select for people that conform to peer expectations?

Also, the notion of "job security" is somewhat illusory. If someone can earn the same or even higher (present value of) lifetime income in the private sector, then they actually are just as secure as a tenured academic, even if they get laid off. They just need to save some of their initially higher earnings to provide income for a retirement that starts earlier. Essentially, earning "FU money" upfront is even better than getting it paid out as an annuity, which is what tenure is, and one doesn't even need to keep reporting to work. Many entrepreneurs, hedge fund managers, etc. seem to lead very interesting and non-conformist lives after leaving the occupations in which they made their fortunes. Contra tenured academics, they actually do enjoy the benefits of having earned "FU money".

Academics seem to most value the opinion and praise of their peers. That's why political correctness enforcement can be so effective, even on tenured faculty. Tenure can guarantee one's job, but nothing can guarantee continuous peer approval, nothing except for conformity to peer expectations.

I have had to force myself to try it, not because of fear, but out of shyness.
But hitchhiking makes for great adventures, new friendships and a completely different look on society. I found it most interesting to do it in my own home country (Germany), where it's not too popular, and was surprised by how many people are actually happy to pick somebody up and tell their story. I could often feel that they almost didn't want to let me go.

Because this is mostly an economics blog, I would also want to point out the advantages of being poor, with regard to traveling: https://andreasmoser.blog/2017/10/26/why-travelling-with-little-money-is-the-best/ It has made it much more interesting and rewarding than when I was still traveling as a rich lawyer.

Re your point on travelling poor vs rich, my view is that you only really get to understand a country by working there, you don't have to intentionally rough it. I have had this privilege in more than 10 countries (thanks to my job), of course this way you get to meet a much wider slice of the population as well.

The older folks from 1929 illustrate the idea that maximum lifespan may not have increased even despite medical advances. I'd also guess their diction related in part to selection bias, i.e. being smarter may have helped a considerable amount in living to be older in those days given all the hazards to avoid, and being filmed was probably a big deal (and costly) and therefore used more on notable people who might also focus on speaking well.

With respect, looking at an old video of live old people, and concluding that people used to live a long time is like driving down the highway and looking at houses and then concluding most houses are near the highway.

Don't forget that it is is also possible that the smartest elderly people were chosen to appear in the video.

The boundaries of US western states are also misaligned. A better alignment would have used John Wesley Powell's proposed state borders based on river watersheds.

Comments for this post are closed