#WayneSlater vs #WendyDavis — does a rainmaker need an umbrella?

Wendy Davis signed copies of her memoir "Forgetting to
Be Afraid" at Austin's BookPeople bookstore last week.
(Eric Gay/The Associated Press via Dallas Morning News)

So, is the Dallas Morning News' senior political writer, Slater, out of bounds in reporting on Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis' potential conflicts of interest between her day job and the Fort Worth City Council? Or in a follow-up on details of her divorce settlement with her husband?

Nonsequiteuse ardently thinks that's the case, speaking primarily to the first issue. And friend Perry, in a larger round-up, largely agrees. Both think that sexism is at hand.

While not denying that may be a factor, I also see other things involved.

Like Davis having a job, perhaps pre-divorce as well as post-divorce, that seemed to primarily consist of "rainmaking." In other words, practicing Politics.As.Usual, large-scale municipal division.

So, let's say Davis didn't have her Safeco position as a result of a divorce, but still had the Safeco position, otherwise exactly as described. Would people give a closer look at this issue?

Slater did himself, a few months back, this time noting the Texas Lege, not the Fort Worth City Council as the scene of possible conflicts of interest, as I blogged about, and used the word "rainmaker" at that time already. The rainmaking this time being courtesy of her partnership at the Newby Davis law firm, not a nice title (pun semi-intended) at Safeco, the successor to the title insurance agency co-owned with her husband.

And, as I blogged even earlier than that, Slater's not the only one to raise these questions. The Houston Press'  Hair Balls did more than six months ago. With this comment:

So Davis didn't make it because she just wanted it more or was willing to make those sacrifices. She had a wealthy benefactor who made her path much easier. Davis's cognitive dissonance probably prevents her from admitting this, but that's her real bio. All this does is make her not that much different from any other narcissistic politician, Democrat or Republican.

Well put. 

Even if part of this is sexism, or sometimes has a sexist edge (and maybe it does, maybe it doesn't), nonetheless, there's some serious things to consider. And, per Hair Balls' note about cognitive dissonance, it may not be limited to Davis herself.

With that said, I'm going to print another comment by Calvin TerBeek, earlier in that Hair Balls piece:

And if you're giving her a pass, the only reason why you're doing so is because she's a Democrat and so are you. If she was a conservative candidate, you'd be attacking her for her campaign spin.

I think he's pretty much right. 

Besides, per the Texas Trib, the first reporting on the conflicts of issue issue is two years old, going back to her 2012 state Senate re-election race:

Since its inception, the Newby Davis law firm has drawn scrutiny over whether its work creates conflict of interest issues for Davis, who has said the practice offers legal services for cities and other public entities as well as companies trying to do business with those entities. The firm works out of offices owned by Cantey Hanger, one of Fort Worth’s largest and oldest law firms. Newby and Davis also do legal work for Cantey Hanger individually. But their Newby Davis firm is certified as a minority-owned business, allowing it to help public entities and private firms fulfill legal requirements or best-practice recommendations that they hire such contractors.
 The line between Davis’ public and private work raised eyebrows right from the start of her new legal career. In 2010, when Cantey Hanger announced in a press release that it was hiring Davis, it listed Davis’ taxpayer-funded communications director Anthony Spangler and her district office phone number as the press contact.

Not smart, at a minimum, that last thing. 

That said, I'll be honest that some of my skepticism about her moved into cynicism, after I read the details of her lawsuit against the Star-Telegram, as I discuss here. And, per TerBeek, I'd say the same, think the same, and feel the same, if she were still married, if she were lesbian, if she were male, if she were a gay male, if she were black, if she were a black male, if she were a black gay male, or other parameters.

So, let's just say that Davis has played Politics.As.Usual, albeit without the sharp elbows and Tea Party inanity of Greg Abbott.

Is it too hard to accept that, for the fifth gubernatorial raee in a row, the Democrats have a less than ideal candidate? That said, Davis is arguably better than the previous four, who were:

1. The Candidate Who Shouldn't Have Run, Garry Mauro, 1998 (who's now been recycled as one of Davis' mouthpieces; 'nuff said).

2. The Daddy Warbucks Republican in Hispanic Dream Team Sheep's Clothing, Tony Sanchez, 2002 (one of John Sharp's many missteps).

3. Mr. Ethics, but Bland as Oatmeal, Chris Bell, 2006. (Remember when Dems were wondering who even might run, and some were talking about endorsing that pistol-packin' independent, Carole Keeton Rylander Strayhorn Shorthorn Longhorn, or that other independent, clueless, knuckleheaded Kinky Friedman?)

4. Mr. Bland Neoliberal, Bill White, 2010. (I'm not even sure what to say about him, his campaign was that lame.)

Now that Julian Castro's allowed himself to be removed from the Texas-level political scenery, and black state Senate titans Rodney Ellis and Royce West have made clear by silence that they're not running, Texas Dems need to think now about who to run for 2018. Theoretically, that's a large part of why Battleground Texas was created in the first place. As noted, as least with Davis, the party's moved in the right direction a couple of percentage points on electability.

California drought? That's climate change

Both Jeff Masters of Weather Underground and Joe Romm have details in this.

What's called the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge of high pressure, the one that sent wintertime Pacific moisture far, far north of California and continues to affect it now, is influenced by climate change.

Oh, and as for denialists who pooh-pooh computer models? With the aid of computer models, this was predicted a decade ago, Romm notes.

And, it won't get better. Romm, quoting NASA:

… it is important to note that the dipole is projected to intensify, which means more extreme future droughts for California. Historical data show that the dipole has been intensifying since the late 1970s. The intensified dipole can be accurately simulated using a new global climate model, which also simulates the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Simulations with only natural variability show a weakening dipole, which is opposite to what is currently being observed. Moreover, the occurrence of the dipole one year before an El Nino/La Nina event is becoming more common, which can only be reproduced in model simulations when greenhouse gases are introduced into the system

Romm also quotes Michael Mann noting that the UN's climate change reports have been on the conservative side on issues like this.

Meanwhile, per other modeling, Masters says that research shows that if the "polarity" of this ridge, this dipole, flips, extremely wet years in California — think El Niño winters — could be even more drenched than in the past.

That said, for the next winter, although Masters mentions a likely El Niño, and a likely strong one, ahead, the National Weather Service seems to disagree. Its winter precipitation maps show a modest chance of above normal precipitation in Southern Calfornia, south of Bakersfield, only, and nothing for the north. Those odds go up from modest to moderate from Arizona to West Texas. Still, the NWS maps seem to be saying that if there is an El Niño, it won't be huge.

Michael Shermer latest skeptic in hot water

Although former James Randi Education Foundation President D.J. Grothe is not mentioned, the issue of sexism and misogyny in movement skepticism gets a thorough walk around the block by Mark Oppenheimer in Buzz Feed. The biggie? Naming Shermer's hitherto-nameless 2008 accuser. Shermer, in turn, has issued a long denial. That said, as with other forms of abusive behavior (Ray Rice and his wife) an (alleged) abusee remaining amicable with an (alleged) abuser, whether sexual or physical, is not all that out of the blue. It's surely a minority, but how small of one? On the third hand, and I know the social justice warriors don't want to hear about it — if alcohol was involved, nobody put a gun to your head to make you drink, did they?

It is interesting that Shermer didn't comment on this Randi comment from Oppenheimer's piece, though:

“Shermer has been a bad boy on occasion — I do know that,” Randi told me. “I have told him that if I get many more complaints from people I have reason to believe, that I am going to have to limit his attendance at the conference. 

“His reply,” Randi continued, “is he had a bit too much to drink and he doesn’t remember.”

Very interesting, especially since Shermer claims, at least on the 2008 issue, to have been sober.

Let me put it this way. At age 60, Shermer is old enough, and has been around movement skepticism enough, to be part of the old guard in more ways than one. 

The overall truth, on Shermer in particular, and Oppenheimer's piece in general, is probably somewhere in the murky middle. And, again, why I can declare at least part of a pox on Skeptics™as well as Gnu Atheists.

To riff on an old cliche:

"Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. ... And, there's also often someone fanning the flames."

Know what I mean? If not ...

In other words, there's probably problems and issues on both sides of this street.

Does Oppenheimer's original piece infantilize women? I don't think so. I 'm not as much inside "movement skepticism" as some, so I don't know.

Did it perhaps put lipstick on a pig in its discussion of Rebecca Watson? Probably yes, on second read.

Update, Sept. 13: Shermer's now drawing fire from many humanist types for a letter he wrote supporting sentencing leniency for convicted conservative icon Dinesh D'Souza, who pled guilty earlier this year to a campaign finance violations charge. I agree, per a Facebook comment, that it's not that Shermer agrees with D'Souza on everything, but that, due to the number of times they've debated each other in front of paid audiences, it's a "follow the money" issue.

Special update, Sept. 26:
Special update, Sept. 24: Jeff Wagg, a non-immediate predecessor of D.J. Grothe's, albeit under different title (assuming that "general manager" = "president," and with the stipulation that at least Phil Plait was intervening), supports Alison Smith's account about an alleged sexual assault by skeptic Michael Shermer at the 2008 The Amazing Meeting, part of this piece by Michael Oppenheimer on misogyny in the skeptical community.

Per the whole thread on which Wagg comments, he adds that Smith told him at that time that Shermer had raped her, as well as her being very drunk before she went to her room.

And, Wagg says Smith's story hasn't changed.

That said, did Wagg contact police himself? It doesn't look like it. He reportedly talked to Randi, but obviously Randi didn't call police. As for why Smith didn't? Well, many rape victims, especially if away from their normal surroundings, are hesitant to do that. And, it looks like, per an Ophelia Benson post at Free the Bullies, that Smith apparently didn't want outside action.

At the same time, even if Shermer was "trying to get her drunk," nobody put a gun to her head. Nobody forced her to let Shermer in her room, either.

However, that said, we also at a minimum seemingly have further confirmation further confirmation about what Randi said about Shermer in the Oppenheimer piece: That he blamed alcohol for alleged bad behavior like this. We also have further confirmation that, in Shermer's reaction to said piece, he seems to have been lying about his relationship to alcohol.

And, per the original header of this piece, if all Randi can do is call Shermer a "bad boy," we also seemingly have further confirmation of founder's syndrome at best and toleration of unethical and possibly illegal behavior in the name of money and PR at worst.

Meanwhile, I'm going to respond to a general train of thought on Ophelia's comment list.

Per a number of the comments, reporting an alleged crime is not necessarily legally limited to the victim. In fact, adults in most states are **required** to report allegations they hear about child abuse, especially child sexual abuse. Even if the victim is an old enough juvenile to theoretically talk to police himself or herself, or even if the victim is now an adult, but statute of limitations has not expired.

Nor is someone who has heard about an alleged crime perpetrated by one adult on another necessarily morally limited. Let's say something similar to this happened in 2012, and the person to whom Smith, or some other victim, talked to, knew that Shermer had an alleged history by that time. Were I, at least, the person getting my ear bent, I would at least consider going to the police on my own.

Again, none of this is meant to blame Wagg for not doing more than he did.

And, there's further evidence of founder's syndrome at Randi anyway — the nepotism. Randi's then-boyfriend, now-husband, "Jose Alvarez," Devyi Peña of identity theft infamy, was the board's secretary at JREF. Even for an unpaid board position, that's not best practices.

Meanwhile, related to this? If more and more of this starts panning out, will skeptics, at least one of them a refugee from JREF, stay on board with Shermer's new blogging platform, Insight, at Skeptic? Again, this isn't an immediate question, as both a question to said participants and a rhetorical one, but ... it is one that at some point, per my "if," may need to be answered.

On the apparent drunkenness level of Smith, there's also the issue of liability. And not just of the hotel or whatever. If JREF had its own wet bar, and that's where she was getting sloshed, if outsiders were running it, they're responsible. If JREF ran it, ditto.

Update, Oct. 7: At the same time, an overall good roundup here of why PZ Myers has no business criticizing anybody else's sexual behavior. Liquor him up as much as Shermer may have been at times, and the yucky behavior toward women he sometimes has shown himself would probably be at the level of rumors of criminal behavior on his own part.

We all would like special powers or miraculous helpers

I admit that I'm generalizing, and it's technically a fallacy, as there are a few contented people outside the "all," I'll bet.

But, just as Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis gets comfort from this:

I’ve long believed in angels on earth, in a higher power, in moments when someone or something comes into your life out of the blue and saves you from the dangerous path you’re on.

As do many other "spiritual but not religious" types,

And, just as Albert Einstein went to see, and believed in the powers of (yes, really) a psychic, so I think most people in the world would like to have some sort of "special powers," whether we technically call them "supernatural" or not. (I still don't think Einstein believed in a personal deity, but, per his famous "dice" quotes, it is interesting to think that this opens new cans of worms as to just what sort of God = Nature of Benedict Spinoza Einstein did believe in, as for how "active" this capital-N Nature might be, etc.)

Athletes want to believe God is on their side. Taken to an extreme, an Adrian Peterson wants to believe God is OK with him abusing his own son. (Last paragraph of story.)

Per my admitting this is a generalization, yet, in informal versions of classic logic, still "inductively valid," I include a lot of people who might even be atheists. Even Gnu Atheists.

If we peeled beneath their surface objections, I suspect many a naturalist would admit they'd like special powers, or another shot at life, or similar.

I know I would.

Even though I see very good evidence that such things aren't possible.

Throwing aside the attempt to self-justify one's behaviors, as with Adrian Peterson, or the trivializing of god, common with athletes in general, and there's still this will to believe?

Is it a mix of our old evolutionary history as pattern detectors plus agency imputers, that most people, even intelligent ones, can't shrug off, especially here in the U.S.?

Or is it more or different? With a Wendy Davis, are most people simply unable, or perhaps more unwilling than unable, to accept major fear-inducing events in a naturalistic and existential way? (I once got lost, way in the backcountry of the redrock desert of Canyonlands National Park, start of August. Ran out of water, before remembering that there was some back down the trail in a tinaja. I recited, almost by rote, the names of several deities, before calming down a bit, then accepting that life "is," existentially, period, then remembering the tinaja and getting water.)

I'm still not sure what explains an Einstein. First, I'm doubtful Spinoza would have believed in psychics. But Einstein, from the link, it seems clearly wanted to believe.

According to Upton Sinclair, Professor Einstein has long been concerned with psychic matters and has done some investigation in the field.

The story doesn't say what type of investigation, but it very clearly seems this was not Harry Houdini (or James Randi) skeptical, scientific investigation. (I wonder if there's any stories about him seeing other psychics?)

This was 1932; Germany was stormy, but Hitler was not yet in power. Einstein arguably had no huge fears he faced, no existential crisis.

Back to the main point. His, or Davis', beliefs aside, both engaged in selective perception.

Why didn't Davis' "higher power" give her a healthy baby in the first place?

Why didn't Einstein's psychic foretell the Holocaust, World War II and atomic weapons?

Because, there was no real higher power nor any real psychic foresight, of course.

I had briefly wished for the same, in Canyonlands.

But then, I "accepted."

Now, many us might like the miraculous helpers or special powers on less onerous terms than fundamentalist Christianity or Salafist Islam requires. Hence, Wendy Davis with her higher power (and similar "fuzzy Christianity" or outright New Age beliefs). Hence, still shockingly, Einstein with his psychic. (Knowing the future's a pretty big special power, and, from a psychic, on relatively easy terms other than, perhaps, for your wallet.) Others might think such special gifts only via mental gymnastics such as the "submission" that is Islam's name, or the "believe because it's absurd" of traditional Christianity.

But, neither an easy way, via the power of belief itself, or the hard way of mental sacrifice, makes this real.

As for the "all"? Yes, I think even many a Gnu Atheist, after becoming or accepting that he or she was an atheist, has still wished for "something" on occasion. Maybe the thought, even under duress like mine, was fleeting.

I certainly would consider Ray Kurzweil's singularity in particular, and transhumanism in general, to be just such a wish.

Adrian Peterson adds to the #NFL plate of trouble for #FireGoodell

Adrian Peterson

Update, Sept. 15: The Vikings have reinstated Peterson. Ball's back in your court, Goodell.

Update, Sept. 17: Whether worried about the loss of Radisson corporate sponsorship money or whatever, the Vikings have changed course again and put AP on the exempt list.

Earlier this week, I blogged about how the Baltimore Ravens and National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell dumped Ray Rice to the side and then ran over him.

Other than the Shield trying to protect an increasingly tenuous job security, I wondered whether or not something like this would have happened if if Ray Rice weren't Ray Rice, but rather were Adrian Peterson or Jamaal Charles, or Marshawn Lynch or Frank Gore or LeSean McCoy. If he were triple the running back, AND had triple the cap hit and without the possibility of NFL cap relief, he might just be wearing a Ravens uniform seven weeks from now.

That said, now Peterson is in his own hot water, now updated with an arrest warrant, for child abuse. Let me say to start with that you have to hit a kit either very hard, very frequently, or both, to get charged with child abuse.

Update: And, complete with photos, showing welts, even scars, AP, proudly boasting of having a "whooping room," hit his son both very hard, and very frequently, when he had custody.

Here's your key paragraphs. I can't call them the usual journalistic term of "nut grafs," given what happened on at least one beating:

Peterson also told the boy’s mother about his son’s injury to his privates, CBS reported.

“Got him in the nuts once I noticed,” he texted.

The demented dad appeared to revel in his brutality. He didn’t think he did anything wrong.

“Never do I go overboard!” he texted. “But all my kids will know, hey daddy has the biggie heart but don’t play no games when it comes to acting right.”

Police reports obtained by the Houston station show the 4-year-old boy feared his father would punch him in the face if he reported the beating. He said his father had previously beaten him with belts.

Peterson, the boy told his mom, has a “whooping room.”

Adrian Peterson, beneath that charming outward persona, is a thug. And, I don't care if he thinks God is on his side in his thuggery, either:

Friday, Peterson posted a religious message on Twitter that may or may not have anything to do with the case.

“Its your season! Weapons may form but won’t prosper!” he posted. “God has you covered don’t stress or worry!”

Nor, beyond the sadness of his childhood, do I care that he claims he's a Christian. He's obviously violated the "go and sin no more."

Unfortunately, I think that, even more than whites in red states, "spare the rod and spoil the child" is still a commonality among small town blacks in Texas/the South.

Sadly, a lot of black NFLers are proving me right. And, per this Twitter picture, as shown, so is Peterson himself, on his Twitter feed.

The Vikings, without calling it a suspension, appear to have suspended Peterson.

That's better than the case of Ray McDonald, where it seems that his boss, 49ers head coach Jim Harbaugh, is joining the commish in the ranks of the hypocritical. From a Grantland piece, speculating on Goodell's future:

Three days after the new domestic-violence penalties were announced, Ray McDonald was arrested and charged with domestic abuse. It happened at his 30th birthday party, when police showed up to his house at 2:48 a.m. and found his pregnant fiancée with “bruises on her neck and arm,” which led police to take McDonald into custody. McDonald later professed his innocence and said “the truth will come out.” Niners coach Jim Harbaugh said, “If someone physically abuses a woman and/or physically or mentally abuses or hurts a child, then there’s no understanding. There’s no tolerance for that.”

But, McDonald played the first Sunday. Harbaugh might argue for legal due process to a conviction, but he'd still sound hypocritical. 

And, since Goodell is supposed to be the commish of all 32 teams, he now looks inconsistent if he doesn't, erm, encourage Harbaugh to, erm, "deactivate" McDonald, doesn't he?

Of course, looking inconsistent isn't as bad as looking like a liar, which more than 60 percent of fans think about Goodell's claims to have known nothing about Rice's knockout punch on his then-fiance until TMZ released the security video from that hotel. Now that we know that somebody at NFL HQ got a copy of the tape months ago,  that's obviously not true.

Now, the Peterson case isn't of the same nature as Rice's, but, per Harbaugh's toothless quote about Ray McDonald, Peterson has been indicted because he allegedly "abuse(d) ... a child."

And, to square circles, to connect Peterson and Rice, here's this:

“The Adrian Petersons of the world create the Ray Rices of the world,” wrote Kris Huson, a St. Paul woman, referring to the former Baltimore Ravens running back seen on video that emerged last week delivering a knockout punch to his now-wife. “Leaving bloody marks and bruises crosses legal line.”

That is often, sadly, what results. 

How NFL owners can tolerate having him still in charge when he's clearly, per Bill Simmons, an out-of-control idiot, I don't know. Even a league-friendly "internal investigation" doesn't have that much whitewash.

Let's also not forget that the class action brain damage lawsuit by former players also continues to involve NFL stalling and worse.

The NFL has a growing PR crisis on its hands; owners looking at their gravy trains, if nothing else, have to be getting nervous, don't they?

===

Sadly, the Peterson case also involves two other issues.

One is that Peterson has already become the father of three children by three different women. We've seen plenty of other stories about A-level athletes going broke due to child support costs. (That said, were I a woman chasing rich athletes? I'd be taking the Pill; why the ones who actually do the chasing don't to the Pill, unless they deliberately want that "little bundle of joy," or bundle of other things, I don't know.)

Second is, also per the link to the story with photos, and now, his Twitter feed, Peterson's invocation of God. This one comes off as even more phony than Tim Tebow.

Third, shouldn't genius lawyer Rusty Hardin be doing more to get AP to STFU? If that's possible?

Dear #NFL players: What AP did always has been child abuse

Adrian Peterson

I'm going to tread a bit into cultural waters here, in discussing the horrific response by many NFL players to Adrian Peterson's alleged child abuse of his son. (I use "alleged" in purely a legal sense; looking at the photos on the link ... )

Per the "horrific responses" link, Darnell Dockett, Donte Stallworth, Mark Ingram and Roddy White are all African-American. Chris Kluwe, the one voice of reason, is not.

We're not in the land of stereotyping here. We are, I think, in the land of generalizations. African-Americans still present themselves as the most religious ethnic group in America. Whether that, and a certain part of that alleged Christianity, a "spoil the rod" belief, especially from blacks that still have strong connections to the small-town South, like a lot of white with similar beliefs, is part of the issue, I can't prove, but I think it is. Generalizations are about groups, not individuals, but the claims are more legitimate than stereotypes; where the line between the two lies is a judgment call to some degree, of course, and individuals can fall outside of generalizations.

(Per friend Perry, a lot of the comments from the general public on various websites defending actions like Peterson's as "tough love" or just "love" are from white folks, as he notes with the Houston Chronicle. That said, I'll stand by what I am blogging, that, I think this is in part due to African-American culture. There, too, it's probably strongest in African-American subcultures most connected to their Southern roots, as I note above; however, African-American religiosity is stronger than that of whites nationwide. Also, more liberal versions of Christianity have shallower roots in non-white portions of America.)

That said ...

I'm "sorry," (scare quotes apply to all future uses of the word) to some NFL players defending Adrian Peterson, especially if you fall in the African-American generalization above, but it always was child abuse. "Sorry" that you grew up in the wrong culture. "Sorry" that your parents grew up in the wrong culture. "Sorry" that the last of the divarim, per Jewish counting of the 10 Commandments, is right in a secular sense, and that the sin of child abuse in the name of "love" has gotten passed down from fathers to children, not because they hate a stereotypical angry patriarchal father god, but precisely because they love him that much. I'm also sorry that plenty of other dysfunction, including but not limited to, serial absentee fatherhood also got passed along, along with the claim to still be religious. Maybe you ought to look more honestly and less defensively at your past?

Actually, per the scare quotes, I'm not "sorry" at all. I'm kind of disgusted, or more than kind of.

Here's the worst, from Dockett:

I got a ass whippn at 5 with a switch that's lasted about 40mins and couldn't sit for 2days. It's was all love though.

I had to Tweet him that his idea that that was "love" is all wrong. Whether he, and others like him, will listen? I won't hold my breath.

I'm "sorry" that it's this same religiosity, or religiosity intertwined with more general culture, that has led to gay black men remaining closeted at higher rates than in other ethnic groups, despite Michael Sam coming out, even before done with his college career. I'm "sorry" that this closeting has lead to unprotected "down low" heterosexual sex that has fueled skyrocketing HIV rates in recent years. And, ultimately, I'm not "sorry."

And, to square circles, to connect Peterson and Rice, here's this:

“The Adrian Petersons of the world create the Ray Rices of the world,” wrote Kris Huson, a St. Paul woman, referring to the former Baltimore Ravens running back seen on video that emerged last week delivering a knockout punch to his now-wife. “Leaving bloody marks and bruises crosses legal line.”

That is often, sadly, what results. 

More sadly, per this Twitter picture, as shown, Peterson himself is also proving me right, on his Twitter feed.

And, this isn't a white-vs-black thing. American Indians, for all their atrocities in fighting against other tribes or whites, were by and large tremendously indulgent to their pre-pubescent children. (Post-puberty, as initiation rites show, it's a different story.)

Update: Per Perry's link in comments, I think Charles Barkley, buffoonery and all, actually proves me right. And, Kelly Dwyer can't distinguish between stereotypes and between social-statistics based, accurately stated generalizations. Which is fine; he's a sportswriter. What else do you expect?

And, Cris Carter has an insightful response. He notes that such abuse couched as loving discipline often comes from a strongly religious environment, which gets back to what I said about blacks generally being more religious than other Americans. He finishes, though, by noting that can be transcended. You can get video clips of both him and Barkley here.

And, reinforcing these issues, in both generalizations and in stereotypes, Peterson's mom has now also spoken. Among the new notes? She said he has six kids by four mothers.

I guess all those belts and switches don't teach the love of loyalty or fidelity, do they?