Thursday, March 31, 2005

Almost completely Irrelevant

So it turns out US intellegence is "Dead wrong" about WMDs in Iraq (Post, BBC). The good news is the administration is pretty much exonerated. No foul. Now there may be some wacky conspiracy theorists who believe that the administration stacked the committee that cleared them.

Says Adam Entous Reuters:
Democrats have derided the commission as "wholly owned" by the executive branch
since its members were all appointed by Bush.

That's a little heavy for me. After reading the profiles of the committee members I couldn't tell if it was biased or not, so instead let me underscore a completely irrelevant oddity. Holy children Batman! Those members sure are prolific!!

BABY TIME!
Larry Silberman 1 son 2 daughters
Chuck Robb 3 children
Rick Levin 2 sons 2 daughters
John McCain 5 sons 2 daughters (Go John!! though iirc some are adopted)
Henry Rowen 3 daughters 3 sons
Walter Slocombe 2 daughters 1 son
Bill Studeman 2 daughters 1 son
Charles Vest 1 daughter 1 son
Patricia Wald 3 daughters 2 sons

Thats an average of 4 kids compared to the current national average of 2.14 per female (let's assume each committee member only begets children with one female). Kinda odd, but maybe the current numbers don't apply since these folks aren't exactly current:

AGES
Larry Silberman 69
Chuck Robb 65
Rick Levin 57
John McCain 68
Henry Rowen 79
Walter Slocombe 63
Bill Studeman 65
Charles Vest 63
Patricia Wald 76

For an average age of: 67. What's up with that? Couldn't the administration have found a younger panel? How about a handful of these guys' kids? I'm sure the investigation was conducted with vim and vigor, but I still feel underrepresented.

And then the dark voice in the back of my head says "maybe they didn't want anyone who would be around too much longer...." My dark voice reads too much Fafblog. Which is an appropriately irrelevant ending to a completely irrelevant post.

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Weapons for sale

I admit it. It bothers me that the US is becoming an international arms dealer. I know the dollar is tanking, but this isn't the way to improve our GDP.

BBC: US Defends Pakistan F-16 Jet Deal

India - which may also buy F-16s in the future - has warned the US deal with Pakistan risks creating an arms race.

.................................................................................

A spokesman for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said he had expressed "great disappointment" on Friday about the decision to supply F-16s to Pakistan. But India is contemplating a "very large" purchase of fighter planes, a state department official said.


Color me suspicious. Do India's new planes come from Lockheed Martin too? Arms race sounds good for business. But we'd better wait until we get what we want from Pakistan first. We shouldn't let whoring ourselves to the defense industry get in the way of pimping dimpolmacy with weapons.


For those of you out there who don't oppose wars, but do favor strong foriegn policy: consider the reason we had embargoed Pakistan...
It marks a change in US policy, which blocked the sale of F-16s in 1990 over Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme.

OK, so we were unhappy that they chose to become a nuclear state and punished them. For like 15 years. Now that they actually have nukes, we're cool again. Plus, we can sell them vehicles to deliver them. I gotta say if I were Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, any of the hundreds of countries that don't have nukes yet, I wouldn't be too worried about the US taking a hard line on non-proliferation. Weak foreign policy. Weak national defense.

I'll end this with a tidbit from Dr. Rice:

"What we're trying to do is break out of the notion that this is a hyphenated relationship somehow, that anything that happens that's good for Pakistan has to be bad for India and vice versa."


Maybe if you decontextualize it enough that could make sense: clean water in the Punjab would be good for both. But get a clue. These are weapons of war. Of course it is bad for India!!

These idiotic spin comments are what drive me to vote Democrat. It's only vaguely a matter of morals, economy, or policy. Formost it's a matter of accountability. When you insult people's intellegence with this nonsense you deserve to be voted out of office.

While we're at it let's break some other hyphenated relationships. Maybe appointing a UN-basher to the UN will make it stronger. Maybe bank bought bankruptcy bills aren't bad for consumers. Maybe the abolition of the House Ethics Committee will result in more ethical congresspersons.

Maybe if we fill people's heads with enough non-sequiturs they'll give up trying to think rationally and just repeat what we say.

Sure. Maybe donating money to Democrat politicians won't be bad for Republicans.

Sleeping with the Enemy

Perhaps it is a little extreme to call Pakistan the enemy, but aren't they the radical extremist pseudo-dictator types who stand in the way of democracy? Guess not. We've just decided to sell them a couple F-16s. Says" a Bush Administration official":


The sale of F-16s will not change the overall balance of military power in the region and are vital to Pakistan's security as President Musharraf prosecutes the war on terror.


Which is another example of how
1: anything can be justified by fear in the post-9/11 age and
2: people will believe a total load of shit.

Notice how the implication is that the fighters are of use in the war on terror. The primary purpose of military fighters is to destroy other aircraft or penetrate ground defenses. They are capable of hiting ground targets as well, but not designed for it as well as bombers. Last I knew, Al Queda wasn't flying MIGs. The planes are not directly a component of the war on terror. They are an appeasement to General Musharraf. It is his security we are worried about. You know, in case India decides to give up decades of passivism.


This is close on the heels of a Washington Post article describing how the US omitted/minimized Pakistan's role in the transfer of weapons grade Uranium from Korea to Libya. See US Misled Allies about Nuclear Export. In fairness see White House rebuttal: Our Allies were not Misled. And then for fullness we have US demands Pakistan nuclear help. In which it appears Pakistan at least knows about the nuclear transfers but isn't talking without some bribe money. Or perhaps bribe airplanes?

As an aside: Who is reporting on this the day it happens? The BBC obviously. No doubt Pakistani/Indian news...but in the US? CNN? No. MSNBC? No. My favorite paper, the Washington Post? No. Fox News? Yes. Yes?! Yes indeed. For all that Fox is supposed to be conservatively biased, is it possible that it has better news sources? Aside over.

Well after the rousing speech by the President after his inaguration, we have sunk to selling weapons of war to dictators: most likely to be used against nearby democracies. Now I don't think a democratic state is intrinsically more moral than any other, but hypocracy gets to me.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist. After all it worked out fine last time we gave arms to people in Pakistan, right? Those Afgani freedom fighters sure were thankful.


A few quickies / old business

So evidently writing a blog is harder than I thought. Sorry for the sporadic posting. When things get busy with academic research or social commitments I lose track of current events. No current events generally means no blogging...but we'll see.

First, best wishes to Publius from Legal Fiction in his absense. His was the first blog that I read and liked. It had a fresh view, and his ability to convey legal aspects to the uninitiated spoke of a deep patience and thoughtful mind. More than anything else I appreciate his calculated arguments, advocacy of empiricism, and rejection of pathos. His arguments were fun to read even when I did not agree, and his links introduced me to many of my favorite blogs. Godspeed Publius. In my greed I hope you find blogging too hard to give up.

Second, I'm losing faith in John McCain. The things I've heard over the years had led me to generally believe that he was a man of integrity. I'm starting to re-think. A few months ago, I checked out his voting record, and I'm sorry to say it is not nearly as moderate as I had hoped. (more later on easy ways to do this) Ok so maybe he's more conservative than I thought, but I still idolized his personal history and moral character. When he visited Guantanimo years ago, I thought "Good. Like no one else in politics, he will see to it that prisoners are treated with humanity." But what has happened? And what has he done about it? He wasn't exactly a whistle-blower, now was he? Did he see "persuasion" at work? Did he endorse it? I don't know. This Op-Ed is another disheartening piece. I'd rather see his quotes in context, but it looks like he's selling out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for a bit of Republican Primary capital. Was it unfair of me to have higher expectations?

Friday, March 25, 2005

Fox News

3/27 Apologies: This should have been written and posted on Friday, but I had this research to do or something....

3/25
I admit that I'm turned off to Fox News by the surrounding programs (ie O'Rielly) and their biased coverage of things like the Democratic convention. However, it might not be time to burn them at the partisan stake just yet...

The top 3 stories on their politics page: 3/25/05 noonish

Scrapped Tech System Leaves FBI Wanting
Trashed Virtual Case File project has some angry at cost, lack of intel-sharing

President a Hypocrite?
In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed Texas law to take patients off life support
Pols Work Together

DHS Tackles Anthrax
Department to probe D.C. anthrax 'attacks,' local officials say Pentagon's response lacking

3 bylines critical of the administration.

Now maybe in the articles under the bylines they pull the punches and act as Republican damage control (and they do, some). Certainly their F-16 story was more administration sympathetic than the BBC's. It just seems less biased than I've been led to believe. More tests are in order.

Most people believe in either a "liberal media" or a "Republican noise machine". I'm generally opposed to such terms. Not because they aren't true, but because they are apparitions to raise when one side wants to justify not hearing the other's argument. Arguing is fine. Not hearing the other's points is wrong. The big question though: which do I believe in? I don't know. Is it possible to believe in neither? Both? Maybe. I am always interested in who's selling what, when, and why. Trust but verify.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

Fallacy of the Day : Culprit NYT

Shame on the NYT for poor reporting. Kudos to Matt Yglesias.

Says the NYT:


To pay all scheduled benefits over the next 75 years, the government would have to raise an additional $4 trillion in today's dollars, $300 billion higher than the figure projected last year.

This is an interesting one, it refers to an estimate that appears to have changed. In reality, it is just the value of the dollar dropping. The estimate was and is 3.7 trillion in 2004 dollars. I went to fallacy files to try to classify exactly what they would call this, (fallacy of ambiguity, in the term dollar or higher?). I don't have time at the moment to really dig into it, but I did find a perfect parallel.

Gas prices are higher than ever, no? Well that depends on how you view it. In today's dollars gasoline was over $3.00 a gallon in 1981.

Of course inflation (the gasoline example) is a normal phenomenon, a few percent per year. The dopping dollar (2004 -> 2005) is a bit more concerning. As the dollar continues to fall, expect it to get worse. Conservatives have been quick to point out that there are benefits to a falling dollar. I used to presume they meant more competitive exports, but having social programs become too expensive is another boon to them.

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Deception 101:

My heart goes out to journalists. As difficult at it is to write an unbiased report, it is even harder to conduct logical and unbiased analysis. Pretty much everywhere you look you find arguments that are unsound or otherwise wrong. At least journalists tend to do it accidentally. Pundits and bloggers are worse. They don't (generally) have the pretense of being unbiased, and under the cover of personal opinion intentionally invoke all manner of fallacy. Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Moore are all masters of it. If something about these individuals strikes you as a bit slimy, it could be your brain recoiling from their abuse of logic. Fallacy is omnipresent, and we are so thoroughly steeped in it, we adopt it subconsciously. I've used a few in this short passage, try to find them.

I've provided a link to Fallacy Files. You can use it to see through the false arguments of others, or if so inclined, to improve your own deception skills. I don't advocate use of fallacy, (the argumentative equivalent of fighting dirty) but it is also important to remember that a flawed argument doesn't necessarily make the conclusions untrue (see fallacy fallacy).

Oh and a final note: one of my professors once used the word "fallacial" as an adverb form for false/fallacy. That word does not exist. You shouldn't use it anyway, because it sounds like "fellatial", which happens to also not exist, but might confuse people.

Monday, March 21, 2005

And more....

More on the same. I can't help it. This whole article is makes my head spin...

From Washington Post:
Calling the bill a "Palm Sunday Compromise" that will keep Terri Schiavo, 41, alive, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said, "It won't take a miracle to help Terri Schiavo. It will only take the medical care and therapy that all patients deserve." In a rare gesture, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) presided over the three-hour debate, and he quoted Pope John Paul II on the subject of life-sustaining treatments.

Now Republicans discover the Pope. They weren't quoting him when he said the the Iraq War was not a just war, nor when he said that "Washington and its allies will be judged by God."

In his Senate speech yesterday, Frist denounced an unsigned memo circulated to Republican lawmakers over the weekend calling the Schiavo case "a great political issue." Frist said he had not seen the memo, adding: "I condemn the content of the memo and reaffirm that the interest in this case by myself, and the many members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, is to assure that Mrs. Schiavo has another chance at life."

You really think Frist didn't see the Republican policy memo? Is he, like, not on the distribution list?

The Senate, operating under unanimous-consent rules, passed the legislation yesterday afternoon with no debate and with only three members present.

Three lucky senators, not even up past their bedtimes. Yeah, that shows a lot of "interest in the case" by "the many members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle".

Voting 203 to 58 at 12:42 a.m., the House joined the Senate in approving the measure and rushing it to Bush. He signed the bill into law at 1:11 a.m., saying, "I will continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities."

A bold stand: better than the alternative at least. Though if you aren't American, the value of your life goes way way down...

And one final dig:


Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said it is foolish to think the bill will not become a legal precedent. "Every aggrieved party in any similar litigation now will go to Congress, come to Congress and ask us to make a series of decisions," he said. "This is a terribly difficult decision which we are, institutionally, totally incompetent to make."

Find me one time where being incompetent has stopped Congress....

Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri Terri

I can't believe all the news about Terri Schiavo. I guess it's a big deal and something I should be dreadfully worried about: Federal government pushing aside state courts, overriding a married next-of-kin. I just can't get too worked up about it either way. Maybe it's because I don't watch television and don't see the tearful pleas from whomever to whomever. I do think it's interesting that Republicans: who don't want to pay "entitlements" for people like Terri, generally allow hospitals to pull the plug if families don't pay, and have now removed bankruptcy protections for people who lost all their savings in medical expenses... these are the people who really want to keep Terri alive. Hmm.

Politically it's a nice tangle of yarn. Clearly Republicans are throwing the religous right a bone. (By the way, sorry for not following up on the marrige ammendment, that was just election talk.) Almost half of the House Democrats who voted went along with the bill, possibly afraid to chant "Kill, kill, kill, starve bitch starve!". 5 Republicans did vote against the bill (including Christopher Shays: not much of an ass-kisser, that one) and a huge number abstained. Whether they abstained because they didn't come back to the emergency session or because they tactily opposed it is interesting. In fact I think abstaining is the right course of action. This bill doesn't deserve a no vote. It deserves a solid note of this is not federal business. Emergency or otherwise.

I guess it's a political win for Republicans: when you pass an anti-consumer bankruptcy bill, lie to your allies, torture people, and try to weaken the most significant social insurance program ever...well that's the time to trumpet your compassionate conservative values the loudest.

The whole thing smacks of Eilian Gonzales: sensationalist mind candy waste of time.

With perhaps a little more...this is could be a nice litle trap. Potential outcomes:
1. Dems block bill. We hear about it for 100 years: 'They let that poor woman starve to death!'
2. Bill passes. Media preoccupied, we get to talk about values. Until...
3. Federal court rules the same as the previous 10 courts. ACTIVIST JUDGES!!

There are only 2 ways this could backfire for Republicans.
1. Dems push the pedulum into social reform. 'Government should provide for all disabled, etc...' (which won't happen)
2. The libertarian element of the conservative movement revolts. Not sure how influential they are anymore, but they're unlikely to make a stink over 1 person.

Since I too have now wasted undue time on the topic here is an issue much higher priority on my moral outrage scale. While Terri's malady is beyond medical and political help, these poor souls have a chance at a quality life.

Statutory rape by humanitarian workers in the Congo : Is it still statutory rape if you pay a dollar for it? How about if if it's in the middle of Africa and no one cares?

Final thoughts:
1. However you view the Terri Schiavo issue, say a prayer for Terri. She has been and is going through a terrible ordeal.
2. What kind of sick ass society lets someone die by starvation/dehyrdation? We wouldn't be allowed to kill criminals by starvation: surely loved ones deserve better?

Saturday, March 19, 2005

And Leahy too

Also a fan of Pat Leahy. Not a lot of crossover, but he's fun on c-span.

Friday, March 18, 2005

Viva New England

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Senators from New England for being almost universally cool. Of course everyone knows Kerry and Kennedy, but I'd like to emphasize one Republican: Snowe, and an Independent: Jeffords. Jeffords is pretty much a personal hero of mine. (I too caucus with the Democrats from digust with todays Republicans). Anyway, they're a great crop from a great bunch of people. I hear a lot of stereotypes about New Englanders: they're a huge part of the "liberal east-coast elitist" persona, and they're unfriendly, stuffy, and arrogant. New Englanders are supposed to be wealthy and go to country clubs when they aren't electing Kennedys. Now that I've been out for 10 years I guess I have some perspective. I can see where these stereotypes come from. They are understandable, but they aren't fully correct.

Here's the deal: New England is old US. It's no more pure or blue-blooded than the rest of the country, and despite the New York suburbanite wealth in Western CT and the real estate prices of Boston it's not generally more wealthy. But it is old. What makes New England different is the echoes. Echos of Puritanism, revolt in the harbor, and if you listen carefully, of burning witches. Liquor stores have short hours and are higly taxed. People live by pretty strict mores and neighbors watch each other. New Englanders aren't unfriendly, but they are very reserved and rather judgmental. You might watch over a neighbor for 10-20 years before deciding they're ok. Local government is participatory, voluntary, and minimal. When it snows, locals plow the roads in their pickup trucks. When merging in traffic, you let others in. You don't do it because it's the law, or because you like merging: you do it because it's the right thing to do. But if someone lets you in, you better wave to them. You owe them a wave and you're an ass if you don't give it to them. That's a rule. It's hard to explain the rules because no one talks about them, or tells you if you break them. Instead you get dirty looks, Scarlet Letter style.

But once you're recognized as a member of the community it's a different story. You carpool, borrow eggs, and have the neighborhood kids and dogs play in your yard. You wave to strangers at the bank or movie rental store, just because you've seen them around for years. Not a big deal, just a smile and a nod to acknowledge that you recognize them. They're strangers, but not total strangers. They're part of the community, a recogonized member of the society with all rights and privelledges pertaining thereto. You're still an ass if you don't follow the rules, but it's never an issue because you know the rules and you subconsciously follow them, because they have become your cultural values.

I guess if I were really out to defend New England I would detail these values and how they are just and good. Accountability is big up North and one of my favorites. Instead, I'm going to cherry-pick the one that makes for good senators: you have a right to make up your own mind. I would take it even farther: you are supposed to make up your own mind, and you're a fool if you let others influence you. Pursuant to this, education is very important, and not just your education or that of your child, but public education. Everyone should be able to think clearly and rationally to decide for themselves what they believe in. The beauty of this cultural value is that it provides a limited resistance to peer pressure and group-think.

Especially politically. Massacheutsets has 2 of the more liberal senators and a Republican governor. Throughout much of my childhood CT had an independent governor. Jeffords from VT is the only independent in the senate (in all of congress?). Snowe ME, Collins ME, Jeffords VT, Chafee RI, and lately Lieberman CT are all swing voters. (Note: There are many who criticize Lieberman for "breaking ranks" with the Democrats. I support the breaking of ranks in many cases: dogmatic adherence to platforms doesn't make for a good democracy. However, Lieberman is an embarassment to Connecticut because he has bad policy. I reserve the right to praise the fact that he thinks for himself and later criticize that he does it poorly.) There are Representatives who show indepedent thought as well, and the best case is that of Christopher Shays CT who stands virtually alone among House Republicans in the support of higher ethical standards.

The point is that New England is not the liberal hippieland that conservatives portray it as. While it may appear staunchly Democrat, it is probably more accurate to say that it is staunchly independent and caucuses with the Democrats on a federal level. New Englanders live by a moral code and perhaps they don't like people who live too far outside of it. (Especially faux Texans. Honestly, real Texans are questionable too.) They tend to be a bit libertarian, with echos of the founding fathers desire to limit power. "Live Free or Die" is more than a motto in New Hampshire: they mean it.

New Englanders don't universally fit party labels, and don't expect their elected officials to either. It's silly to think that everyone is going to share either party's view on war, abortion, gun control, taxes, gay marrige, death penalty, education, environment, etc... (If you follow your party's platform to the letter, you're either a statistical anomoly or a partisan blindered lackey.) New England voters are more likely to see past black and white and consider shades of grey. By comparison, dithering in those shades of grey proved Kerry's downfall nationally. Neither party is right a majority of the time, and the concept of a democracy depends on rationally following the best ideas. Bush has yet to veto a single bill. A senate fillibuster by itself does not constitute a balance of power. The political pressures to conform to one's party are becoming a recipe for disaster. I wish the senators from the rest of the country could see that...or does their strict party adherence actually represent their electorate?

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Mountains from molehills...

Posted today to the New England Journal of Medicine, is a special report on A Potential Decline in Life Expectancy in the United States in the 21st Century. (Olshsky et. al). The report opens by citing current thoughts in life expectancy increases. Some say we will reach a life expectancy of 100 by 2060, another by 2300.

The Social Security Administration has it's own estimates of course, yet a recent panel has advised the SSA to project longer life expectancies earlier in the future. In case I have to spell this out: Longer life expectancies equate to higher costs, or at current tax rates, less solvency. The Bush administration would love for social security to look as expensive as possible. It is currently politically fashionable to predict people will live longer because it exacerbates our crisis. Here it comes, our worst case scenario....we all live to 100. Fear the day.

So maybe the old actuaries who set up social security were wrong (and maybe they weren't: they've been very good so far). We may have to increase our expenditures on social security.

But there's good news from Olshsky et. al! The life expectancy estimates don't need to be moved up, they should go down. And why down? Because America is getting fatter! Back in the 60's and 70's people were hip and fit, but all throughout the selfish 80's and sluggish 90's obesity was on the rise, with a 50% increase each decade. Now it's so bad that 2/3rds of us are overweight and roughly 1/3 are obese. Look to your left, look to your right: if they aren't obese, then it's probably you. But the good news is you won't be poor from taxes, because everyone will get fat and die young.

There's a few good things to notice about math: the rate of increase in obesity has to drop soon because at the current rate every American adult will be obese by 2035. If you think I'm being farcical, you get a cookie. I disagree with much of the science behind this, but I'll just toss one example out:

Obesity is calculated by body mass index (BMI) which is your weight in kilograms divided by your height meters squares. I gotta say this index trips me out. A freshman in engineering could tell you that isn't dynamic scaling. Consdier 2 people: one of whom is twice as tall, twice as thick, and twice as wide as the other. The large person should have 8x the mass. But the BMI would double even in a proportionately fit person. (I guess the medical argument is people don't scale dynamically). You might also note that people tend to shrink and become more cylindrical as they age...even at a constant weight a little shrinkage puts a hurting on one's BMI.

Anyway, the paper has a few probabilistic models and graphs that assist in it's value. Let's suppose it's good science. The conclusion? Overall life expectancy is 0.3 to 1 year lower than it would be if no one were obese. All this hubub over less than a year? Yeah way to go. The authors point out that this is not negligible, the cumulative loss of life is more than all accidental deaths combined (car accidents, homicides, drownings...etc). But seriously, I don't see a persusive argument that life expectancy is going to drop. I don't even see a persuasive argument not to help myself to seconds.

C'mon, everybody's doing it.

Is it possible to start a blog without a cliche phrase and a justification? Maybe. But why break with tradition?

There are tons of great reasons to start a blog. It seems a fabulous enterprise for an idealist out to change the world, or a pessimist looking for solace, for those who are bored and have too much time, and for those who are boring (but at least considerate enough to bore people online rather than in person). Blogs are the new frontlines of democracy and quicksand of demogogery.

My personal justification? I don't know. Guess I have things to get off my chest, and this is cheaper than therapy.