Category Archives: law

bicycle helmets kill

4 Replies

There is rarely a silver lining that does not come with a cloud, and often the cloud is bigger than the lining. A fine example is bicycle helmets. They provide such an obvious good that, at first glance, you’d think everyone would wear one, even without a law mandating it. Why would anyone risk their skull in a bicycle accident if injury were prevented by merely wearing a particular hat? Yet half the people ride without, even when there are laws and fines. There are some down-side to helmets, but they are so small that even mentioning them seems small. Helmets are inconvenient, and this causes people to ride a little less, so what?

hospital admissions for bicycle related head injuries, red, left; and bicycle related, non-head injuries, blue, right. Victoria Australia.

Hospital admissions for bicycle-related, head injuries, red, left scale, and bicycle-related, non-head injuries, blue, right scale. The ratio is 1:2 before and after the helmet law suggesting that helmet law did nothing but reduce ridership.

As to turns out, helmets hardly stop accidental injury, yet cause people to ride a lot less, and this lack of exercise causes all sorts of problems — far more than the benefits. In virtually every city where it was studied, bicycle ridership dropped by 30-40% when helmets were required, and as often as not, those who still rode, rode unhelmeted. There was a 30-40% decrease in head-trauma injuries, but it appears that this was just the result of 30-40% less ridership. You’d expect a larger decrease if the helmet helped, as such.

Take the experience of Victoria, Australia; head and non-head bicycle injury data plotted above. Victoria required bicycle helmets in January 1990. Before then, in the peak summer months, hospital records show some 50 bicycle-related head injuries per month, and 100 bicycle-related, non-head injuries — a 1:2 proportion. Later, after the law went into effect, each summer month saw about 35 bicycle-related, head injuries, and 70 bicycle-related, non head injuries. This proportion, 1:2, remained the same suggesting the only effect of the helmet law was to reduce ridership, with no increase in safety. The same 30% decrease was seen by direct count of riders on major streets, though now a greater proportion of those still riding were flaunting the law, and not wearing helmets.

One reason that helmets don’t help much is that the skull is already a very good helmet. As things stand, the main injury in a bicycle flip does not come from your skull cracking, it comes from your brain hitting the inside of your skull, and a second helmet doesn’t help stop that. There’s no increase in safety, and perhaps a decrease as the helmet appears to decrease vision. In a study of bicycle-injury-related highway deaths, Piet de Jong found that countries with the highest helmet use had the highest highway death rates. The country with the highest helmet use (the USA, 38% helmeted) had the highest cyclist death rate, 44 deaths per 1,000,000,000 km. By comparison, the nation with the least helmet use (Holland, 1% helmeted) had among the lowest death rates, only 10.7 deaths per 1,000,000,000 km. There are many explanations for this finding, one sense is that the helmets hurt vision making all types of injury and death more likely.

An hour or three of exercise per week adds years to your life -- especially among the middle aged.

From the national cancer institute. An hour or three of exercise per week adds years to your life — especially among the middle aged. Note these are healthy weight individuals. 

Worse than the effect on visibility, may be the effect on exercise. Exercise is tremendously beneficial, especially for middle-aged people in a sedentary population like the US. The lack of exercise is a lot more deadly, it turns out, than any likelihood of flying over the handlebars. How do I know? From studies like the National Cancer institute, shown at right. To calculate the cost/benefit of a little riding, less say you ride 3 hours per week at 10 mph (slow roll). The chart at right suggests a middle-aged person will add 3.4 years to your life, or about 10% life extension. Now consider the risks. This person will ride 30 miles per week, or 2400 km per year. Over 35 years the chance of death is only 0.36%. In order to get a 10% chance of death, you’d have to ride, over 2.3 million km, or 1000 years. Clearly the life extension benefit far outweighs the risk from fatal accident.

But life extension isn’t the total benefit of exercise. Exercise is shown to improve metal health, reducing depression and ADD in children, and likely in adults. Exercise also helps with weight loss, and that is another big health benefit (the chart above was for healthy body weight riders). So my first suggestion is get rid of bicycle helmet laws. I would not go so far as to ban helmets, but see clear disadvantages to the current laws.

The other suggestion: invent a better helmet. While most helmets are vented, and reasonably cool while you ride. They become uncomfortably hot when you stop. And they look funny in a store or restaurant. You can’t easily take them off, either: Restaurants no longer have hat racks, and stores never had them. What’s needed is a lighter, cooler helmet. Without that, and with helmet laws in place, people in the US tend to drive rather than ride a bicycle — and the lack of exercise is killing them.

Robert Buxbaum, January 19, 2017. One of my favorite writing subjects is the counter-intuitiveness of health science. See, eg. on radiation, or e-cigarettes, or sunshine, or health food. Here is a general overview of how to do science; I picked all the quotes from Sherlock Holmes.

The straight flush

2 Replies

I’m not the wildest libertarian, but I’d like to see states rights extended to Michigan’s toilets and showers. Some twenty years ago, the federal government mandated that the maximum toilet flush volume could be only 1.6 gallons, the same as Canada. They also mandated a maximum shower-flow law, memorialized in this Seinfeld episode. Like the characters in those shows, I think this is government over-reach of states rights covered by the 10th amendment. As I understand it, the only powers of the federal government over states are in areas specifically in the constitution, in areas of civil rights (the 13th Amendment), or in areas of restraint of trade (the 14th Amendment). None of that applies here, IMHO. It seems to me that the states should be able to determine their own flush and shower volumes.

If this happen to you often, you might want to use more water for each flush, or at least a different brand of toilet paper.

If your toilet clogs often, you might want to use more flush water, or at least a different brand of toilet paper.

There is a good reason for allowing larger flushes, too in a state with lots of water. People whose toilets have long, older pipe runs find that there is insufficient flow to carry their stuff to the city mains. Their older pipes were designed to work with 3.5 gallon flushes. When you flush with only 1.6 gallons, the waste only goes part way down and eventually you get a clog. It’s an issue known to every plumber – one that goes away with more flush volume.

Given my choice, I’d like to change the flush law through the legislature, perhaps following a test case in the Supreme court. Similar legislation is in progress with marijuana decriminalization, but perhaps it’s too much to ask folks to risk imprisonment for a better shower or flush. Unless one of my readers feels like violating the federal law to become the test case, I can suggest some things you can do immediately. When it comes to your shower, you’ll find you can modify the flow by buying a model with a flow restrictor and “ahem” accidentally losing the restrictor. When it comes to your toilet, I don’t recommend buying an older, larger tank. Those old tanks look old. A simpler method is to find a new flush cistern with a larger drain hole and flapper. The drain hole and flapper in most toilet tanks is only 2″ in diameter, but some have a full 3″ hole and valve. Bigger hole, more flush power. Perfectly legal. And then there’s the poor-man solution: keep a bucket or washing cup nearby. If the flush looks problematic, pour the extra water in to help the stuff go down. It works.

A washing cup.

A washing cup. An extra liter for those difficult flushes.

Aside from these suggestions, if you have clog trouble, you should make sure to use only toilet paper, and not facial tissues or flushable wipes. If you do use these alternatives, only use one sheet at a flush, and the rest TP, and make sure your brand of wipe is really flushable. Given my choice, I would like see folks in Michigan have freedom of the flush. Let them install a larger tank if they like: 2 gallons, or 2.5; and I’d like to see them able to use Newman’s Serbian shower heads too, if it suits them. What do you folks think?

Dr. Robert E. Buxbaum, November 3, 2016. I’m running for Oakland county MI water resources commissioner. I’m for protecting our water supply, for better sewage treatment, and small wetlands for flood control. Among my less-normative views, I’ve also suggested changing the state bird to the turkey, and ending daylight savings time.

Skilled labor isn’t cheap; cheap labor isn’t skilled

2 Replies
Popular emblem for hard hats in the USA. The original quote is attributed to Sailor Jack, a famous tattoo artist.

Popular emblem for hard hats in the USA. The original quote is attributed to Sailor Jack, a famous tattoo artist.

The title for this post is a popular emblem on US hard-hats and was the motto of a famous, WWII era tattoo artist. It’s also at the heart of a divide between the skilled trade unions and the labor movement. Skilled laborers expect to be paid more than unskilled, while the labor movement tends to push for uniform pay, with distinctions based only on seniority or courses taken. Managers and customers prefer skilled work to not, and usually don’t mind paying the skilled worker more. It’s understand that, if the skilled workers are not rewarded, they’ll go elsewhere or quit. Management too tends to understand that the skilled laborer is effectively a manager, often more responsible for success than the manager himself/herself. In this environment, a skilled trade union is an advantage as they tend to keep out the incompetent, the addict, and the gold-brick, if only to raise the stature of the rest. They can also help by taking some burden of complaints. In the late 1800s, it was not uncommon for an owner to push for a trade union, like the Knights of Labor, or the AFL, but usually just for skilled trades for the reasons above.

An unskilled labor union, like the CIO is a different animal. The unskilled laborer would like the salary and respect of the skilled laborer without having to develop the hard-to-replace skills. Management objects to this, as do the skilled workers. A major problem with unions, as best I can tell, is a socialist bent that combines the skilled and unskilled worker to the disadvantage of the skilled trades.

Not all unionists harbor fondness for welfare or socialism.

Also popular. Few workers harbor a fondness for welfare or socialism. Mostly they want to keep their earnings.

Labor union management generally prefer a high minimum wage — and often favor high taxes too as a way of curing societal ills. This causes friction, both in wage-negotiation and in political party support. Skilled workers tend to want to be paid more than unskilled, and generally want to keep the majority of their earnings. As a result, skilled laborers tend to vote Republican. Unskilled workers tend to vote for Democrats. Generally, there are more unskilled workers than skilled, and the union management tends to favor Democrats. Many union leaders have gone further — to international socialism. They push for high welfare payments with no work requirement, and for aid the foreign socialist poor. The hard-hats themselves tend to be less than pleased with these socialist pushes.

During the hippie-60’s and 70’s the union split turned violent. It was not uncommon for unionized police and construction workers to hurl insults and bricks on the anti-war leftists and non-working students and welfare farmers. Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa, supported Nixon, Vietnam, and the idea that his truckers should keep their high wages at the expense of unskilled. Rival teamster boss, Frank Fitzsimmons pushed for socialist unity with the non-working of the world, a split that broke the union and cost Hoffa his life in 1975. Eventually the split became moot. The war ended, US factories closed and jobs moved overseas, and even the unskilled labor and poor lost.

Skilled workers are, essentially managers, and like to be treated that way.

Skilled workers are, essentially managers, and like to be treated that way.

The Americans with Disability Act is another part of the union split. The act was designed to protect the sick, pregnant and older worker, but has come to protect the lazy, nasty, and slipshod, as well as the drug addict and thief. Any worker who’s censored for these unfortunate behaviors can claim a disability. If the claim is upheld the law requires that the company provide for them. The legal status of the union demands that the union support the worker in his or her claim of disability. In this, the union becomes obligated to the worker, and not to the employer, customer, or craft — something else that skilled workers tend to object to. Skilled workers do not like having their neighbors show them high-priced, badly made products from their assembly line. Citing the ADA doesn’t help, nor does it help to know that their union dues support Democrats, welfare, and legislation that takes money from the pocket of any one who takes pride in good work. We’ll have to hope this split in the union pans out better than in 1860.

Robert Buxbaum, June 5, 2016. I’m running for water commissioner. I’d like to see my skilled sewer workers rewarded for their work and skill. Currently experienced workers get only $18/hour and that’s too little for their expertise. If they took off, they’d be irreplaceable, and the city would likely fall to typhus or the plague.

Flat tax countries: Russia, Mongolia, Hungary

1 Reply

For no obvious reason, many Republicans and some (few) Democrats are fans of the flat tax. That is a fixed percentage tax on every dollar earned with no deductions, or very few. They see the flat tax as better, or more fair, than the progressive, graduated tax found in the US and most industrial countries. While most Republicans don’t like high taxes, as in Sweden, France, or in the UK, the flat-taxers want a single tax rate: a constant percentage for all. A common version is what Ben Carson described earlier this month, “if you earn ten million dollars your tax will be one million; if you earn ten dollars, your tax will be one dollar.” Herman Caine (R) proposed something similar eight years ago, and (surprisingly) so did Jerry Brown (D).

Ben Carson proposes a 10% flat tax. I'm guessing his source is the Bible.

Ben Carson proposes a 10% flat tax.

As it happens, of the 230 nations on the planet, several already have a flat income tax, and none of them are industrial juggernauts. I will list the larger of these countries in order their tax rate: Mongolia and Kazakhstan, 10% flat tax and hardly any services; Russia and Bolivia, 13% flat tax: moribund, raw-material-based, police-states; Romania and Hungary 16%; Lithuania and Georgia 20%; Zambia 22%; Switzerland, 35% when you include the Cantonal and municipal flat rates, and (topping the list) Greenland at 45%. Not one of these is a productive, industrial powerhouse, like the US, and there is no indication that this will change any time soon.

I suspect that the flat tax enters the minds of conservatives from the Bible, from the 10% of grain that was given to the Levites (Numb. 18:24), and the second 10% eaten of pilgrimage festivals or given to the poor (Deut. 14:22-24). If that’s the source, let me suggest a better modern version is to give out cans of food, or to support ones church. But as a model for government finance, I’d suggest it’s best to leave more in the pockets of the poor, and tax more from the rich. Even in Biblical times, the government (king) levied a substantial tax above the 10%s described above.

A measure of tax rate is the percentage of the total GDP that goes to taxes. As things go, our tax rate isn't particularly high.

A measure of tax rate is the percentage of the total GDP that goes to taxes. As things go, our tax rate isn’t particularly high.

A flat tax does not necessarily imply a low tax, either. Greenland’s flat 45% rate is among the highest in the world, and Israel had a 50% flat tax until fairly recently. It’s also worth noting that personal income isn’t the only thing one can tax. Several countries combine moderate personal income rates with high corporate rates (Venezuela, Zambia, Argentina), or add on a high sales tax, or a transaction tax. Herman Caine’s 9-9-9 tax plan included a 9% transaction tax and a 9% federal sales tax that would have gone on top of whatever the state tax would have been. The revenue collected by the 9-9-9 plan would have been no less than we had, but would be, he claimed, simpler. Cain’s flat tax wasn’t even really flat either, as there was an exclusion, an income level below which you were taxed 0%. That is, he was really proposing a two tier system, with a 0% rate at the first tier. Rand Paul seems to favor something similar today.

The two advantages of a flat tax are simplicity, and that it reins in the tendency to tax the rich too much, a tendency found with many liberal alternatives. The maximum tax rate was 95% in England under Attlee. Their 95% tax-rate appears in the Beetles’s song, Mr Taxman: “…There’s one for you, nineteen for me; ‘Cause I’m the Taxman.” High rates like this caused the destruction of many UK businesses, and caused The Beetles’s to leave and reincorporate in the Cayman Islands. Bernie Sanders recently proposed a top rate that was nearly as high, 90%, and praised Denmark (60% maximum rate) for its high social services. Sorry to say, Denmark seems to have concluded that their 60% maximum was excessive, and earlier this year reduced their maximum to 47.794%. This is below the maximum US rate if you include New York state and city income taxes. History suggests that if you tax the rich at rates like this, they leave or do other socially unacceptable things, like go black-market. On the other hand, if you tax too little, there is no money for education or basic social services, e.g. for the desperately poor. At one point, I proposed the following version of graduated to negative scheme that manages to provide a floor, a non-excessive top rate, and manages to encourage work at every income level (I’m rather proud of it). And there are other key issues necessary for success, like respect for law, and not having excessive minimum wages or other excess regulations.

Bernie Sanders: tax the rich at 90% of income.

Bernie Sanders: tax the rich at 90%; I doubt this is a good idea.

Whatever the tax structure is, there is probably an optimal average rate and an optimal size for the government sector. I suspect ours is near optimal, but have no real reason to think so (probably just nativism). I’ve found that comparing the US tax rates to other countries’ is very difficult, too. Most countries have a substantial Value Added Tax (VAT), that is a tax applied to all purchases including labor, but we do not. Some countries have import taxes (Tariffs, I’m in favor of them), while we have hardly any. And many countries tax corporate profits (and sales) at rates above 60% (France taxes them at 66.6%). To make any sort-of comparison, I’ve divided the total tax income of several countries by the country’s GDP (I got my data here). This percent is shown in the chart above. The US looks pretty average, though a little on the low side for an industrial nation: just where I like to see it.

Robert E. Buxbaum, November 29, 2015. I imagine myself to be a centrist, since all of my opinions make sense to me. When I change my mind on something, I stay at the center, but the center moves. If this subject interests you,  seems to have dedicated his life to following the flat tax.

Republicans vs conservatives

4 Replies

Most of the great divides of the 1800s pitted conservatives against Republicans. This was the Divide in the Mexican civil wars of the 1800s, and there were several; it is the divide in the South American wars of Independence, and in much of the US and European political debate of the 1800s as well.

Ned Flanders, cartoon conservative from "The Simpsons" He's generally well meaning and helpful, but also a bit creepy.

Ned Flanders, cartoon conservative from “The Simpsons” He’s generally well-meaning and helpful, but also a bit creepy.

In general, the difference between conservatives and republicans is that conservative governments favor religion, and religion-based leadership, while republicans favor individual liberty. In 1800s Mexico, conservatives backed two emperors (Maximilian I and Agustin I) and Santa Anna, the ruler who suspended all personal rights an ignited the war of Texan independence. Conservatives generally favor the religion of the majority: Protestantism in England, Catholicism in Central and South America, Judaism in Israel, and Islam in most of the Muslim world. This tends to annoy the irreligious and minority religious populations, who tend to become republicans. Cinco de Mayo celebrates the 1862 victory of Mexican republicans over the French-backed, conservative Maximilian I, at the battle of Puebla. The US Civil War, in essence, pitted the irreligious, industrial, republican north against the conservative, evangelical South; slavery is in the Bible so it must be good.

Conservatives usually favor government actions against sin in all it’s forms: miserliness, drunkenness, drugs, pornography, wild music, money-making, and freedom as such. Conservative-ruled countries have generally had anti-blasphemy laws and enforced “blue laws”, restrictions on business on holidays. Republican governments have few, or none of these. In pre-revolution France, the penalty for blasphemy was death, just as the Bible mandates. This changed when the republicans came into power. In England, private blasphemy was prosecuted as late as 1977. Similar penalties are still in force in Iran and other conservative Islāmic countries. Many US states still restrict the sale of alcohol on Sunday, for similar, conservative reasons. Conservatives usually favor sexual morality laws, putting strong restrictions on homosexuality, abortion, and divorce. In England, amicable divorce wasn’t legalized until 1930, and homosexuality was illegal until 1970. In the US, sexual laws are a fairly bizarre mix, in my humble opinion, the result of republicans, liberals, and conservatives making inelegant compromises.

In republican democracies like modern-day France, Holland, and Germany, sexual immorality laws are more lax than in the US. Republican governments strive to protect the rights of the individual; among these their right to property and to a fairly unbridled pursuit of pleasure. Republican countries tend to suffer from (or benefit from) significant income inequality. People can become rich due to hard work, talent, luck, or birth. And they very often become arrogant and obnoxious after they become rich — and sometimes before — to an extent that bothers conservatives and liberals alike. People can also become very poor: from laziness or bad choices, or just from bad luck or having been born to the wrong parents. Conservative and liberal elements then strive to help the very poorest, providing them with food, money and basic housing — generally achieved by taxing the rich. This is good in moderation, but taken to excess, this can lead to dependency of the poor, and redirection of the rich into less-productive fields like politics and the church. Conservatives very rarely leave a good pathway for the poor out of dependency, nor have they found a way to keep scoundrels out of the government and the church.

Scrooge McDuck. he'd likely be a Republican, if only to protect his wealth.

Scrooge McDuck, banker, railroad tycoon, steel magnate; he’d likely be republican, though not likely conservative. Motivated by money and power, he may do good, but not in any direct way, usually.

At present, the US Republican Party, the GOP, consists of approximately equal halves conservatives and republicans. That is, GOP leadership is currently an approximate balance between kindly folks like Ned Flanders who would rule by the Bible, and an equal number of rougher individuals, more like Scrooge McDuck who would rule by money.  in a sense, this is a wonderful compromise as the excesses of each group reins in the excesses of the other. In another sense though, the balance between conservatives and republicans is an ungovernable mess that leads to regular de Condorcet failures. I’m not sure how this will play out in the 2016 elections.

Fortunately, not all irreconcilable differences are as irreconcilable as one might think. Many de Condorcet problems are solvable by compromise, or by the effects of time. Compromise between charity and commerce can produce the best of all worlds, a major theme point, as I understand it, of Dickens’s Christmas Carol.

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 20, 2015. I use these essays to refine my thinking — here, more than usual. Any help you can provide will be welcome, feedback, corrections, comments. I’m trying to figure out what I, myself think. The divide between Conservatives and Liberals produces some of the most wonderful quote – exchanges, e.g. between Churchill and Attlee in 1950s England. Liberals, and I have not quite made up my understanding here, seem like a sort of like conservatives in that they believe in wealth redistribution, but without the guidance of a church, or church-based morality. At some point in the future, I’ll hope to arrange my thoughts about them, and about the difference between liberals and democrats.

Marie de Condorcet and the tragedy of the GOP

3 Replies
This is not Maire de Condorcet, it's his wife Sophie. Marie (less attractive) was executed by Robespierre for being a Republican.

Marie Jean is a man’s name. This is not he, but his wife, Sophie de Condorcet. Marie Jean was executed for being a Republican in Revolutionary France.

During the French Revolution, Marie Jean de Condorcet proposed a paradox with significant consequence for all elective democracies: It was far from clear, de Condorcet noted, that an election would choose the desired individual — the people’s choice — once three or more people could run. I’m sorry to say, this has played out often over the last century, usually to the detriment of the GOP, the US Republican party presidential choices.

The classic example of Condorcet’s paradox occurred in 1914. Two Republican candidates, William H. Taft and Theodore Roosevelt, faced off against a less-popular Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. Despite the electorate preferring either Republican to Wilson, the two Republicans split the GOP vote, and Wilson became president. It’s a tragedy, not because Wilson was a bad president, he wasn’t, but because the result was against the will of the people and entirely predictable given who was running (see my essay on tragedy and comedy).

The paradox appeared next fifty years later, in 1964. President, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) was highly unpopular. The war in Vietnam was going poorly and our cities were in turmoil. Polls showed that Americans preferred any of several moderate Republicans over LBJ: Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., George Romney, and Nelson Rockefeller. But no moderate could beat the others, and the GOP nominated its hard liner, Barry Goldwater. Barry was handily defeated by LBJ.

Then, in 1976; as before the incumbent, Gerald Ford, was disliked. Polls showed that Americans preferred Democrat Jimmy Carter over Ford, but preferred Ronald Regan over either. But Ford beat Reagan in the Republican primary, and the November election was as predictable as it was undesirable.

Voters prefer Bush to Clinton, and Clinton to Trump, but Republicans prefer Trump to Bush.

Voters prefer Bush to Clinton, and Clinton to Trump, but Republicans prefer Trump to Bush.

And now, in 2015, the GOP has Donald Trump as its leading candidate. Polls show that Trump would lose to Democrat Hillary Clinton in a 2 person election, but that America would elect any of several Republicans over Trump or Clinton. As before,  unless someone blinks, the GOP will pick Trump as their champion, and Trump will lose to Clinton in November.

At this point you might suppose that Condorcet’s paradox is only a problem when there are primaries. Sorry to say, this is not so. The problem shows up in all versions of elections, and in all versions of decision-making. Kenneth Arrow demonstrated that these unwelcome, undemocratic outcomes are unavoidable as long as there are more than two choices and you can’t pick “all of the above.” It’s one of the first great applications of high-level math to economics, and Arrow got the Nobel prize for it in 1972. A mathematical truth: elective democracy can never be structured to deliver the will of the people.

This problem also shows up in business situations, e.g. when a board of directors must choose a new location and there are 3 or more options, or when a board must choose to fund a few research projects out of many. As with presidential elections, the outcome always depends on the structure of the choice. It seems to me that some voting systems must be better than others — more immune to these problems, but I don’t know which is best, nor which are better than which. A thought I’ve had (that might be wrong) is that reelections and term limits help remove de Condorcet’s paradox by opening up the possibility of choosing “all of the above” over time. As a result, many applications of de Condorcet’s are wrong, I suspect. Terms and term-limits create a sort of rotating presidency, and that, within limits, seems to be a good thing.

Robert Buxbaum, September 20, 2015. I’ve analyzed the Iran deal, marriage vs a PhD, and (most importantly) mustaches in politics; Taft was the last of the mustached presidents. Roosevelt, the second to last.

Racial symbols: OK or racist

2 Replies
Washington Redskins logo and symbol. Shows race or racism?

Washington Redskins lost protection of their logo and indian symbol. Symbol of race or racism?

In law, one generally strives for uniformity, as in Leviticus 24:22: “You shall have one manner of law; the same for the home-born as for the stranger,”  but there are problems with putting this into effect when dealing with racism. The law seems to allow each individual group to denigrate itself with words that outsiders are not permitted. This is seen regularly in rap songs but also in advertising.

Roughly a year ago, the US Patent office revoked the copyright protection for the Washington Redskin logo and for the team name causing large financial loss to the Redskins organization. The patent office cited this symbol as the most racist-offensive in sports. I suspect this is bad law, in part because it appears non-uniform, and in part because I’m fairly sure it isn’t the most racist-offensive name or symbol. To pick to punish this team seems (to me) an arbitrary, capricious use of power. I’ll assume there are some who are bothered by the name Redskin, but suspect there are others who take pride in the name and symbol. The image is of a strong, healthy individual, as befits a sports team. If some are offended, is his (or her) opinion enough to deprive the team of its merchandise copyright, and to deprive those who approve?

More racist, in my opinion, is the fighting Irishman of Notre Dame. He looks thick-headed, unfit, and not particularly bright: more like a Leprechaun than a human being. As for offensive, he seems to fit a racial stereotype that Irishmen get drunk and get into fights. Yet the US Patent office protects him for the organization, but not the Washington Redskin. Doesn’t the 14th amendment guarantee “equal protection of the laws;” why does Notre Dame get unequal protection?

Notre Damme Fighting Irish. Is this an offensive stereotype.

Notre Dame’s Fighting Irishman is still a protected symbol. Is he a less-offensive, racist stereotype?

Perhaps what protects the Notre Dame Irishman is that he’s a white man, and we worry more about insulting brown people than white ones. But this too seems unequal: a sort of reverse discrimination. And I’m not sure the protection of the 14th was meant to extend to feelings this way. In either case, I note there are many other indian-named sports teams, e.g. the Indians, Braves, and Chiefs, and some of their mascots seem worse: the Cleveland Indians’ mascot, “Chief Wahoo,” for example.

Chief Wahoo, symbol of the Cleveland Indians. Still protected logo --looks more racist than the Redskin to me.

Chief Wahoo, Still protected symbol of the Cleveland Indians –looks more racist than the Redskin to me.

And then there’s the problem of figuring out how racist is too racist. I’m told that Canadians find the words Indian and Eskimo offensive, and have banned these words in all official forms. I imagine some Americans find them racist too, but we have not. To me it seems that an insult-based law must include a clear standard of  how insulting the racist comment has to be. If there is no standard, there should be no law. In the US, there is a hockey team called the Escanaba (Michigan) Eskimos; their name is protected. There is also an ice-cream sandwich called Eskimo Pie — with an Eskimo on the label. Are these protected because there are relatively fewer Eskimos or because eskimos are assumed to be less-easily insulted? All this seems like an arbitrary distinction, and thus a violation of the “equal protection” clause.

And is no weight given if some people take pride in the symbol: should their pride be allowed balance the offense taken by others? Yankee, originally an insulting term for a colonial New Englander became a sign of pride in the American Revolution. Similarly, Knickerbocker was once an insulting term for a Dutch New Yorker; I don’t think there are many Dutch who are still insulted, but if a few are, can we allow the non-insulted to balance them. Then there’s “The Canucks”, an offensive term for Canadian, and the Boston Celtic, a stereotypical Irishman, but also a mark of pride of how far the Irish have come in Boston society. Tar-heel and Hoosiers are regional terms for white trash, but now accepted. There must be some standard of insult here, but I see none.

The Frito Bandito, ambassador of Frito Lays corn chips.

The Frito Bandito, ambassador of Frito Lays corn chips; still protected, but looks racist to me.

Somehow, things seem to get more acceptable, not less if the racial slur is over the top. This is the case, I guess with the Frito Bandito — as insulting a Mexican as I can imagine, actually worse than Chief Wahoo. I’d think that the law should not allow for an arbitrary distinction like this. What sort of normal person objects to the handsome Redskin Indian, but not to Wahoo or the Bandito? And where does Uncle Ben fit in? The symbol of uncle Ben’s rice appears to me as a handsome, older black man dressed as a high-end waiter. This seems respectable, but I can imagine someone seeing an “uncle tom,” or being insulted that a black man is a waiter. Is this enough offense  to upend the company? Upending a company over that would seem to offend all other waiters: is their job so disgusting that no black man can ever be depicted doing it? I’m not a lawyer or a preacher, but it seems to me that promoting the higher levels of respect and civil society is the job of preachers not of the law. I imagine it’s the job of the law to protect contracts, life, and property. As such the law should be clear, uniform and simple. I can imagine the law removing a symbol to prevent a riot, or to maintain intellectual property rights (e.g. keeping the Atlanta Brave from looking too much like the Cleveland Indian). But I’d think to give people wide berth to choose their brand expression. Still, what do I know?

Robert Buxbaum, August 26, 2015. I hold 12 patents, mostly in hydrogen, and have at least one more pending. I hope they are not revoked on the basis that someone is offended. I’ve also blogged a racist joke about Canadians, and about an Italian funeral.