Deinonychus antirrhopus: terrible claw

Thursday, October 31, 2002

 
Krugman Watch Who monitors the monitors? That is a question that comes up in economic theory when one is looking at incentive problems. You have a bunch of workers, and you want to make sure they all do their work. So you hire a manager (monitor) to watch over the workers and make sure they do their jobs. However, how do you know the manager is doing his job? Sometimes it is easy, you have to make 100 units or something and you can count the units. Of course, you might have a situation where some workers are free-riding on others. So the problem is still there. Who manages the managers? More managers? Then you have a problem of infinite regress. You could, I suppose monitor things yourself, but then you are now spending your time working as a manager and not what you'd otherwise be doing.

This is the problem with Paul Krugman's latest article. He seems to think that it is funny that the S.E.C. is going to investigate itself. However, this is the problem with government. When it screws up the government, in short, investigates itself. This is typical. We have the General Accounting Office which investigates other parts of the government all the time. Police departments investigate themselves via their "Internal Affairs Departments", and so forth. So if the S.E.C. investigating itself sounds funny, then welcome to the whacky world of Paul Krugman who thinks government is what we need more of.

Don't get me wrong, I think government does do some good things. I like national defense spending. I like spending on various infrastructure projects that help promote trade such as freeways (yes I know they could be toll roads, but that is something for another post). I like government agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics which compiles statitics and distributes them essentially for free (such information is much like a public good, IMO, that is if I have the information, it does not prevent you from aquiring the information as well).

But when the government gets into investigative areas it seems to me you run into the problem of who polices the government? The government? Sounds like an incentive compatibility problem to me. It should to Krugman as well.

In this particular case, ordinary investors demanded a crackdown on corporate malfeasance — and Mr. Pitt pretended to comply. But this administration is run by and for people who have profited handsomely from their insider connections. (Remember Harken and Halliburton? And why won't the administration come clean about that energy task force?) So he picked someone with an impressive but irrelevant background, whom he could count on not to get the job done.

Here we see another problem with Krugman. It is not unusual for an Administration to keep various discussions of policy issues confidential. The reason is that the confidentiality will allow the discussants to freely express their views. If I recall correctly, the Clinton health care proposal was conducted with a great deal of confidentiality. Further, and Krugman should be well aware of this next point, one's reputation is important. If you have a reputation for keeping confidential discussions confidential people will trust you. If on the other hand you don't have such a reputation then people will not trust you. Now imagine you are called upon by the President or his advisors to provide some input onto some policy. If your input also benefits you or a group you belong to; you might not be happy if that information gets out to the public. If you know the President and his advisors do not honor claims of confidentiality...are you going to put your neck on the chopping block?

Krugman should know the value/problem of reputation. There is a fairly large amount literature in the economic journals on reputation and central banks/central bankers. Since Krugman talks alot about the monetary problems of places like Japan he not only should know this, I bet he does. I guess consistency and logic are too much to ask of Prof. Krugman.
Steve 10:37 PM

 
Alterman's Disdain for Responsibility In typical fashion Alterman says some rather dumb things, amidst the rather boring remainder of his post today. First up is Eric's comments on the War on Drugs.

The drug war is, effectively, a war against poor people. I say legalize it, tax it, control it, and offer treatment instead of prison, as they do in genuinely civilized countries.

"...offer treatment"? On whos dime? Not mine, thank you. If you are dumb enough to snort, swallow, or shoot something into your body that does bad things to your body that is your problem, not mine. Find some place private and swallow, snort, or shoot, whatever your favorite poison is and get your hands out of my wallet. I am not your mother, father, nanny or babysitter. Take some damn responsibility for your own actions or get off your lazy shiftless ass and get over here and do my dishes (which I don't particularly like doing). After all, if I am going to subsidize your drug treatment I should get something out of it like having my dishes done.

Also, I am not sure taxing it is all that bright an idea too. It can result in the bizzare situation where the government never really wants to get rid of drug use and may actually want to encourage it to increase tax revenue. Sounds kind of weird, but remember this is the government we are talking about. The guys who pay $600 for toilet seats.

Then there is Alterman's dribblings about Cornel West.

I feel pretty certain Cornel wishes he had not compared Larry Summers to Ariel Sharon, but Summers behaved abominably towards him, and anyway, we are all entitled to a few stupid things said in public.

No actually Eric, you are entitled to say many, many, many dumb things in public. The thing is, you are responsible for them. If you say something idiotic about your boss in front of your boss, you should not be surprised if it has a negative impact on your job/pay/employment. This idea that you get a few passes is just stupid. Also, after that fact, regret is cheap and irrelevant, of course you are going to regret opening your mouth and swallowing your foot when the repercussions are negative.
Steve 10:09 PM

Wednesday, October 30, 2002

 
Micheal Moore Has a Website I guess I shouldn't be all that shocked, after all the Hypocrite does like to make alot of money (how he distinguishes himself between other evil people trying to get rich and himself is beyond me). It is also simply amazing that such an outspoken prick can be so ignorant of U.S. Presidential elections. I find it laughably amusing that the dolt can accuse Republicans of trampling democracy when he himself is completely unfamiliar with a well known aspect of the U.S. Consitution.

I also find it amazing that a multi-millionaire is asking other people to give their money to support candidates he likes...no I'm not, the guy supports anything that is leftist. As such he is more than willing to spend other people's money instead of his own.

From a chapter of his book Stupid White Men Moore shows what a stupid white man he is.

Frankly, I was a little freaked-out about flying so soon after 9-11 and I guess there was just no way I was going to fly without a weapon for my protection. So I took the New York Yankees-signed baseball that Mayor Giuliani had given me on "TV Nation," put it in a sock, and – presto! Whip that baby upside somebody's head, and they're going to take a little nap. Note to budding terrorfuckers: If you try something on a flight I'm on, I'll Clemens ya. That, or the smell from my ratty sock, is going to do you in.

"No way I was going to fly without a weapon..." is this the same slackwit who thinks removing the Consititutional right of citizens to own firearms is a bad thing? Oh wait, I forgot Moore doesn't know what the U.S. Constitution actually says, let alone the Bill of Rights.

Here we see Moore deomstrating his affection for the members of our Armed Services:

Though I now felt "safe" with my makeshift weapon, as I continued to fly through the fall and winter, I did NOT feel safe being greeted at airport security by weekend warriors from the National Guard holding empty M-16s and looking like they shop in the same "special needs" department at K-Mart which I visit from time to time.

I submit, that the title of his book is wrong. It should be Stupid White Man with Michael Moore being that Stupid White Man.


Steve 9:55 PM

 
Democracy: Hesiodic Style Here is a stellar example of Hesiod's childish intellect. He demonstrates that he is fact actually a 8 year old who had somebody set up a blog for him with his playground version of "He did it so now I get to do it too!", and that he thinks democracy is really something that can be twisted and corrupted to achieve the goal one desires.
Steve 9:19 PM

 
Hesiod the Addlepatted It is just amazing how somebody can be so insistent on displaying his own stupidity.

Think about that for a moment. "[S]he shoots pretty good, but she's 100 percent anti-gun." That statement isn't even internally logical! It's utter gibberish and idiocy.

Why is the statement interanally illogical? Diane Feinstien is anti-gun, but keeps a handgun in her night stand. As for Jean Carnahan's position on firearms lets see...not much. In fact, it is hard to say if Carnahan is pro-gun or not. At the very least she is working hard to ensure that the NRA is not a factor in the election.
Steve 2:47 PM

 
IBM CEO: Economy has Flattened Out I first saw that and thought he meant the economy was slowing again, but apparently he meant the economy has hit "bottom" and will now start going up. Not sure why he has said this since, the economy has been growing for some time, not fast paced growth, but there has been growth.

In fact, on October 9th NBER released a statement that the recession that started in March of 2001 may now be over.

The U.S. economy continues to experience increases in production and income with no significant growth in employment. According to recently revised data, real personal income has generally been growing over the past year. Employment grew slightly from May through August 2002, but declined in September. These and other signs indicate that the decline in activity that began last year may have come to an end. The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee will determine the date of a trough in activity when it concludes that a hypothetical subsequent downturn would be a separate recession, not a continuation of the past one. The trough date will mark the end of the recession. The committee will not issue any judgment about whether the economy has reached a trough until it makes its formal decision on this point. The committee waits for many months after an apparent trough to make its decision, because of data revisions and the possibility that the contraction would resume. For example, the committee waited until December 1992 to announce that a trough had occurred in March 1991.

You wont see this on sites such as Sit-n-spin Central or Escahton, IMO. These guys are too busy proclaiming how rotten the economy is, when it is not at all clear there that the economy is still in recession anymore.

Update: Thanks to Robin at Final Protective Fire for spotting my date mix up.
Steve 2:24 PM

 
France and U.S. Near Deal on Iraq U.N. Resolution Hmmm...I wonder if we'll see anything about this on the left side of the blogosphere? They seem so intent on using this issue as a campaign issue I wonder if they will just keep up the "Unilateralism is bad, Bush wants to be world dictator" type of rhetoric?
Steve 2:08 PM

 
An Anti-War Blog This blog is dedicated to opposing the possible war with Iraq. While I currently don't agree with their overall position check it out.

Thanks to Jay Caruso over at The Daily Rant.
Steve 1:54 PM

 
Krugman Watch With this latest Op-Ed peice Krugman displays an amazing naivete of what politicians are.

Sometimes it seems as if Americans have forgotten what courage means. Here's a hint: talking tough doesn't make you a hero; you have to take personal risks. And I'm not just talking about physical risks — though it's striking how few of our biggest flag wavers have ever put themselves in harm's way. What we should demand of our representatives in Washington is the willingness to take political risks — to make a stand on principle, even if it means taking on powerful interest groups.

I find this simply amazing. I find it amazing because Krugman has spent years doing work in economics where he assumes that the actors in the economy are rational agenst out to maximize their own gains subject to a set of constraints (such as budget constraints, time constraints, information constraints, etc). But when it comes to politics and politicians all that goes out the window. Frank Capra's movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washinton is a good movie, it makes you feel good, but for God's sake should that be a professional economists basis for thinking about politicians? Technically I agree with Mr. Krugma, I'd love it if politicians were actually people who really did try to always act in the best interest of the public, but I personally think they don't. I also think it is bordering on irresponsible for an economists of Krugman's stature (he is highly regarded as an economist--and rightfully so, his early work incorporating increasing returns into growth theory was very innovative) to hold such a naive view of politicians.

Further, this isn't what "we" demand of our politicians. We demand of them what we want, not necessarily what is right. For an economist to say, "We should demand that politicians do the right thing," is like an economist saying, "I demand consumers buy goods simply to put people to work." Its stupid.

In an age of fake populists, Paul Wellstone was the real thing. Now he's gone. Will others have the courage to carry on?

No, they wont. Wellstone was an anomaly. Politics has turned in a profession. Now we have professional politicians who crave power and wealth. This is true of Democrats and Republicans and I don't see why I should view either side as better than the other.
Steve 12:14 PM

 
Eric Alterman and the Sword Fish Sandwhich In the most recent Altercation, Eric is distraught over eating "...any kind of living being." I guess its just me, but I don't consider a swordfish a living being. When was the last time we saw swordfish gather together to help save a sick or wounded sword fish? Ooops, there I go with my anthropocentric (i.e. human oriented) view point and values system again. Still if we can't be sure a swordfish isn't a living being or not...what gives us the moral right to declare celery plants non-beings (yikes, I am suddenly reminded of Day of the Triffids). Anyhow, what silly nonsense...difficulty eating a swordfish, sheesh.

Eric also wonders about the plight of the poor children and their education

On Sunday afternoon, I took the kid to a Halloween party at a public school right next to Ground Zero. Thousands of people were standing around on line nearby —mostly people of color — and I asked the cops why. It turns out their kids were taking the test to get into Stuyvesant High School, one of the city’s best, and earn themselves a shot at success in this country.

It was a terribly moving sight, one that stirred both my patriotism and my anger. There could be dozens of Stuyvesants if we only had our priorities straight. And yet we have a governor who starves city education budgets only to earn endorsements from the teachers union, 1199, and the liberal New York Times. So we consign millions of kids to a life of stunted dreams and little opportunity, based entirely on the economic status of their parents. Here’s an account from The New York Times.

Uhhhmmm, excuse me, but why should people have to subsidize the decisions of others? By absorbing the costs of raising a child you essentially are saying, "Have more children...more children than you can afford, because we [i.e. the State...or more accurately the tax payers] will foot the bill for you." Sorry, but no. If you can't afford to have a child then maybe you should refrain from having a child.

Also, there is the question of what is the best use of that money? Is it necessarily best used for education? I don't know and neither does Eric. That is another problem with government spending; there is no way to tell if the money is being used in the best way possible. Lets suppose Eric is right, then clearly due to politics the money is being used in an manner that is less efficient. Problem is, I don't see how this characteristic can be removed from a government that rests on the notion of democracy. Politicians, who are just like the rest of us, are going to do what they percieve to be in their best interest. If that means getting re-elected they will use the power of their office to help ensure they will get re-elected. I see no reason this had to coincide with an "optimal" use of government resources.


If Mark Green’s piece while I was away piqued your interest, take a look at GeorgeWBuy.com. At this auction site, environmental policy is up for bid to generous campaign contributors to our president and the Republican National Committee. America’s national forests are going for $3.4 million. Mining interests are contributing $3 million for the right to blast the tops off mountains and dump the debris in streams. And so on.

The Website is brought to you by Public Campaign and EarthJustice, which just released a report called “Paybacks,” which has all the details on polluters, their campaign money, the political appointees who do their bidding, and the policy paybacks. Can’t we all just agree that the current campaign finance system is nothing more than legalized bribery and fix the problem already?

I suppose Alterman thinks he is being clever here, but really he isn't (not surprisingly). You see, if you are an environmental group and you buy a chunk of land, it is yours to do with as you wish. If you want to sit on it and leave it untouched as an Environmental Preserve or something that would be your right. I have to wonder, why we don't see more of this approach to environmentalism. You don't like how I am using the land, but it from me and use it in a way you think is right. Instead, we get environmental groups (by and large) trying to get laws changed, regulations put in place, and policies that have an impact on the wallet/pocket book of everybody else. It basically boils down to, "I don't like the way you are using your land, therefore I am going to have a law passed that stops you from using your land." Of course, this might end up massively decreasing the value of your land, but who gives a shit.

Alterman also lifts this letter to the New York Times Book Review

Having recently returned from a visit to Guatemala, where I met young men forcibly conscripted into the military and Mayan peasants with fresh memories of the massacres perpetrated by the army, I was especially disturbed by Clifford Krauss’s review of Daniel Wilkinson’s “Silence on the Mountain” (Oct. 6). Krauss writes, “The Guatemalan Army turned to its strategy of massive repression in large part because Congress refused to go along with the Reagan administration’s efforts to send helicopters and other hardware.”

What can be meant by this remarkable sentence? That the massacres of villagers, whose mass graves are just now being unearthed by forensic anthropologists, were somehow the fault of American lawmakers who refused to supply armaments to a military actively perpetrating human rights abuses? That there would have been fewer deaths if the Guatemalan Army had more sophisticated weaponry? Krauss criticizes the book for not describing the American role with more “nuance,” but if anything, Congressional critics of the Reagan administration’s support for Guatemala’s murderous regime should be applauded for not throwing gasoline on the fire.
Patrick Markee
New York

Well gee, isn't that the same kind of thinking that blames the economic sanctions against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children? Seems like it to me. Consistency much, Mr. Alterman? No, didn't think so.
Steve 11:53 AM

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

 
Physics vs. Intelligent Design Intelligent Design is the lates guise that Creationism (Christian Creationism) has taken on to try and weasel its way into the public school curricula around the country. Currently the battlegrounds are Washington State and Ohio. Anyhow, there are a couple of good articles over at Physics Today.Org that poke some holes into Intelligent Design. The first one, here, points out many of the problems with "design theorists". For example, Dembski's misuse of the Laws of Thermodynamics (in his book Dembski actually thinks there are only three Laws of Thermodynamics...not realizing the laws start at zero, one, two and three) when coming up with his Law of Conservation of Information. Behe's approach is actually a God of the Gaps argument (i.e. and argument from ignorance). The latter is very nicely highlighted in Dembski's second book, No Free Lunch where he points out Behe was (mostly) right, but only a slight modification is needed to Behe's notion of irreducible complexity. Dembski comes up with the notion of the irreducible core of a biological structure (e.g. the flagellum), i.e. that part of the flagellum that is irreducibly complex. This nice rhetorical trick allows Dembski to dismiss any attempt to explain, in evolutionary terms, the origin of a part of a biological structure by simply saying that part is not part of the irreducible core.

The next article offers a more serious criticism in that it points out that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory because it offers no predictions. Dembski for example has come up with his explanatory filter which relies on probability theory, information theory, and personal information/knowledge for the user to determine if something is designed or natural (i.e. the product of evolution). There is no prediction here, simple an eliminative technique much like an estimator in statistics. Further, the notion of Creationism, Creation Science, and "Goddiditism" offers no predictions because it predicts everything. You cannot discriminate between different hypotheses with such a view. One method of determining which of many hypotheses is the best is to look at the probabilities associated with each hypothesis. With the Creationist view probabilities are meaningless because an all powerful being is not constrained by them. So you cannot say, I like this hypothesis over that one, because you literally have no way to judge them.

So the new "wave" of creationism is Intelligent Desing, although its proponents are very slippery on this. They'll admit that their personal preference is that a Christian God did all this amazing stuff, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to believe it. There is even ridiculous blabbering about aliens, but this doesn't really solve the problem...for you see the aliens had to come from somewhere too. So either you get stuck with an infinite regress problem or you have to accept some sort of deity. Also, these guys are extremely well educated. In the good ol' days, the Creationists had PhD's from diploma mills and their arguments were laughably easy to debunk. Now, you have guys like Dembski who couch their theories (unnecessarily) in mathematics (for example if you don't know what these symbols mean forget it its beyond your mathematical knowledge; , , , , and ). It is all to easy to dismiss these guys as kooks or religious nuts, but that seriously underestimates them and plays into their hands.
Steve 10:30 PM

Monday, October 28, 2002

 
Grey Davis Implicated in Bribery Scheme According to unsealed court documents. Hopefully it will be in time to help prevent Grey Davis from being re-elected.

Nathanson claimed he recalled "a number of instances where Gray Davis approached Mr. Nathanson, who was then a member of the California Coastal Commission, to assist various friends or supporters of Davis who had matters pending before the coastal commission," according to a 1999 letter that was unsealed Monday by U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton.

Looks like we can add corrupt to Grey Davis' list of adjectives. Incompetent, bungling, self-serving, and corrupt.
Steve 12:18 PM

 
Its the Economy, Stupid! Yes, once more into the mire of DU. I found that thread and was...stunned. The sheer stupidity of that post and the posts that follow it is...awe inspring when you consider these are the people who run around saying, "Its the economy, stupid."

Now, we turn around and sell it for $11.

Where did the extra $1 come from? Did it poof in from thin air? You can't make something from nothing. Yes, from demand I know but... If its true value to people is $11 doesn;t that neccessarily mean that the labor was worth more than $1? I mean the material components surely didn;t get more expensive. The electric bill and price of the building lease didn;t go up in the overhead. So it must have been that the labor to create the item was actually worth more than we said... right?

The problem here is that the poster doesn't realize the same process that sets the price of the product at $11 sets the price of labor at $1 per unit. Supply and demand work for labor just like it works for other goods such as cars and candy bars. Hence the notion that labor is not getting its full share is just bunk. And no, the price is not set from demand, but by the intersection of the demand curve and the supply curve. So no, the $1 difference between the average cost and the average revenue is not something labor should have gotten.

Essentially this guy is a Marxist and doesn't even realize it.

Surely economists have addressed this problem in the logic but I have never seen it anywhere in my limited readings. How do they magic this inefficiency(if answer 2 above) or inequality(if answer 1 above) away?

Yes they have addressed just as I noted. The market for labor clears at $1 as per this guys assumptions. What happens when a single worker charges a price above the market clearing price? He does not get a job. So he lowers the price he charges and gets a job. If he lowers the rate he charges he'll get a job, but wont have as much money, and since he could charge more and still get a job and thereby have more income, he'll do that based on the assumption of rationality. Similarly for a firm. If the firm lowballs the workers they wont get any workers. If they raise the pay level they will lower profits which violates one of the initial assumptions, i.e. maximize profits.

Also I look at it from the worker's perspective. If he is truely worth $1 then he is 1/10th of the total value of the product. But, when he goes to buy it he only has accumulated 1/11th of what it will cost him.

Good God. No, the workers share of the cost is 1/10 the cost. Value does not have to be equal to cost.

The actual answer is that the guy forgot opportunity costs. If the firm is turning a profit, then the entrepreneur could go out and sell his skill. What price could he charge? The same as the profits his firm earned. Hence the accounting profits are actually counted as an opportunity cost by economists.

This post tries to answer the question but ends up babbling about money being an abstraction for labor, and concludes with some nonsense about monopolies.

The problem since Adam West [sic] has been how to prevent monopolies. Monopolies drive up the cost of merchandise beyond the fair profit. Capitalism without monopolies is a wonderful way to allocate resources to places that want or need them-- Adam Smith's invisible hand. But with monopolies, merchants can overcharge, and that difference between a legitimate profit and the monopolized profit kicks in. That additional profit--as you say-- is wasted labor.

There is no notion of fair profit in economics. Further, monopolies do not overcharge; they raise the price of the good. When this happens is those who no longer want the product at the monopoly price do not buy it, those that do still buy it. The supply curve in economics represents the demand of many customers. That is the aggregate demand is the horizontal sum of all the demands (i.e. you add up the number demanded by each customer at each price) to get the aggregate demand. Hence Joe's demand schedule (curve) might look like

Joe’s Demand

Price	Quantity
20	1
15	2
10	3
5	4

While Bob’s is

Joe’s Demand

Price	Quantity
20	2
15	3
10	4
5	5

Not at $10 total demand is 7. If the price rises to $15 then demand falls to 5. The monopolist is able to set the price at a higher level since they do not have to worry about a competitor charging a slightly lower price and taking all the business. The extra profit is not wasted labor. The waste, or more appropriately the inefficiency of a monopoly is what is termed the deadweight loss. The following graph allows us to see the deadweight loss.



The roughly triangular area enclosed by the red (curved line) on the bottom (labeled MC for marginal cost), the blue line above (labeled D) and the vertical black dashed line for quantity (Q) is the deadweight loss. Nobody gets that lost revenue, if just goes away. No labor is wasted, that is just nonsense.

The problem is this theory of monopolies has no basis in reality. There is nothing (save government interference) from preventing a firm from entering the market and driving the prices down. In fact, the monopolies very success contains the seeds of its own destruction. Monopolies cannot exist in a market where firms have free entry and exit.

This is why there is the concept of natural monopolies. But that is enough geekonomics for now.


Now, we can see that the difference is a few percentage points. Further, this does not necessarily mean the following is true

...the data shows that reported firearms MURDERS were highest, as a percentage of murders committed, in the West and the South.

What those numbers tell us is that in the South and West, firearms were more likely to be used as the murder weapon. Hesiod's wording is sloppy at best and misleading at worst. That is what Hesiod's numbers are saying is that if you look at all murders in the West and South, firearm murders were higher in those regions. We don't know that and the information we have cannot tell us this. Here is an example. Suppose each reagion has 100 murders, then Hesiod's statement is correct. If however, the South and West have only 50 murders in total and the Northeast and Midwest have 100 murders then his statement is false. Using these numbers the percentage of murders in the Northeast would be 60.2, and in the West the percentage the percentage of murders would be 66.8, but of all murders the numbers are different. For example, for the Northeast the percentage of firearms murders is about 32% and for the West it is about 18%.

That is those percentages are relevant only to the region they are taken in and give you a rough idea of the likelihood which weapon is going to be used in a murder. Going from that to saying the South and the West have more murders based on the numbers he has linked too is basically lying with numbers.

Also, it isn't an "artifact" of the data. An artifact indicates something that is artificial in the data. There might be an "artifact" in the data, but we don't have enough information to make this conclusioin.

Once again Hesiod demonstrates why he has quickly gotten the reputation as the least honest and intelligent in the entire blogosphere.
Steve 10:38 AM

 
Okay, I Really Like Med Pundit I have been reading his stuff and came across the post in that link. I must confess statistics is a field near and dear to my heart and I like that essay. I find it rather annoying when two sides discussing/debating an issue start throwing statistics around like a five year old thorwing rocks, and how the numbers go largely uncriticized.

A great example is from the "scientist" Stephen Schneider (noted for admitting to misleading the lay-public in Discover Magazine) who in discussing Global Warming on a PBS show (IIRC) said he wasn't interested in individual data points but in averages. So what is the problem? Averages are computed from individual data points. Further, one really far out data point can affect the average (this impact declines as the number of observations increases). So you should look at the individual data points. Look at the data in a graphical form to see if you might have a problem with outliers (a data point far out of line with the bulk of the other data points). Also, what should be of interest is the variance. You can have two distributions that have the same average, but different variances. What does this mean? Well the smaller the variance the "closer" the data is going to be around the average (mean). Simply looking at one statistic can give you a misleading picture. But then again we already know Schneider is perfectly willing to mislead the public so his comment should come as no surprise.
Steve 10:08 AM

 
New Link: Med Pundit I have added a new link. It is a blog offering commentary by a praciticing physician (usually on medical topics). I have only skimmed the site, but what I saw I liked. For example, check out Fat and Greasy. An excellent little post asking do we really need the government to be our food nanny. Anyway, check it out.
Steve 9:49 AM

Saturday, October 26, 2002

 
Interesting Article From World Net Daily The author points out the following:

In fact, I know of only one news agency that has vigorously pursued this angle from the beginning – WorldNetDaily.

Is it because we are so smart and the others are so stupid?

I don't think so.

It is simply that WorldNetDaily, unlike many of our colleagues in the media, are not afraid of the truth. We don't hide from it. We don't pretend the truth is a lie and vice versa. We don't allow political correctness to overcome common sense.

Then the author writes this and, IMO, sort of shoots himself in the leg credibility wise:

We saw it again in the TWA Flight 800 shootdown. Yes, I said shootdown. It was not a spontaneous explosion of the center fuel tank that brought down the airliner. It was a missile. Who fired it remains a mystery – because government investigators chose to pretend that hundreds of witnesses didn't really see what they said they saw. They chose to overlook the forensic evidence that pointed to a missile. They chose to ignore any evidence that suggested anything except a spontaneous center fuel tank explosion. That's not justice.

Such a good start and then to stumble so badly.
Steve 12:48 PM

 
From the Fine People At Democratic Underground I waded back into the muck and found this lovely picture.



Nice, huh? What a great bunch of people over there.
Steve 10:36 AM

Friday, October 25, 2002

 
Jane Galt on Michael Bellesiles Jane delivers an excellent essay and notes a couple of things I haven't seen elsewhere:

1. It took a long time to get this result.
2. It took alot of negative publicity.

To just about any "layman" looking at this it is clear Bellesiles was fabricating his numbers, pulling them out of his ass. But it took quite some time for Emory to start the investigation, and it took quite awhile for the investigation to actually complete its investigation. So why the foot dragging? Maybe, just a guess here, many of the academics dragged their feet because they liked the conclusions Bellesiles bogus data supported? And also, only when the negative publicity reached a certain level and looked like it would continue to grow and the entire field of History migth start to suffer and the overall reputation of Emory might be dragged into the mud did they decide they'd have to throw their fellow academic to the wolves to keep from all looking like idiots? Or maybe I am just being overly pessimistic.
Steve 11:45 PM

 
Democratic Underground on Wellstone I think somebody with tranquilizer guns and straightjackets needs to go in there and wipe out that nest of lunatics. Holy smokes are these guys CAAAA-RRAAZZZY

BFEE improving aim--wife killed too,

so no friendly appointment to replace him, like Carnahan. They are evil evil evil.

My boss, a crusty news editor for decades, thought the same thing.--in fact she was the first to suggest it!

wish I were wrong and this is just a horrible accident. The timing is too choice.

I am crying here! Wellstone was the best of the best and leading! aaarrrgh!!!

Wow...what do you say to that, except maybe give that person lots of Haldol.

I found it impossible to remove the tinfoil.

Is this just one "October Surprise"?

Ooops, make that two perscriptions for Haldol.

They missed Daschle and Leahey, but

got wellstone. kennedy was supposed to be on the plane, but for some reason, didn't. Caranahan, Daschle, Leahey, now Wellstone. All senators and senatorial candidates. All Democrats.

I know the freepers are cheering.

Hmmm...maybe there wont be enough Haldol.

(For the record, I went to FreeRepublic.com, but couldn't get into their boards so I don't know what they are saying).

I find this just disgusting. I suppose they could point to the asinine comments that Clinton had Vince Foster killed, but that just makes the DUers who hold these views look like stupid little playground brats who feel that if the other guy acts a certain way they are justified acting that way.
Steve 4:16 PM

 
Eric Rauchway; The Alterman Alternate Well they managed to find somebody else to play fast and loose with the facts again.

Harrison, like someone else we know, won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote, claimed the mandate of heaven anyway. then pushed through a revenue package that helped turn a surplus into a deficit by sluicing money to his supporters in industry. Then he was shocked — shocked — to have the country go against him in the midterms. We can always hope for history to repeat, whether anyone remembers it or not.

Well lets take a look at this supposed crony capitalist Benjamin Harrison. What legislation did Harrison support and was passed during his term as President?

Sherman Anti-Trust Act

Sherman Silver Purchase Act

McKinley Tariff Act

The Dependent Pension Act

Not too bad, IMO. The first one should be well known to anybody who has taken U.S. History in high school. It was the first attempt to try and regulate the huge corporations in America. At the time these were called trusts and typically had a very large market share and in many cases had price setting abilities. Hmmm, doesn't sound particularly kind to big business...but hey, what is a fact other than something that gets in Rauchway's way.

The Sherman Silver Purchase Act was for the U.S. Treasurery to purchase more silver for use in coinage. The purpose of this bill was to help debt ridden Western and Southern farmers and also silver miners. I am not an expert on farms during the late 1800's, but my guess is that most of these farms were not owned by the large corporations such as we see today. Maybe Rauchway thinks that this bill was for the benefit of ADM.

The McKinely Tariff Act was the one piece of legislation that was passed that Harrison supported that could be seen as benefitting business. Of course, the U.S. was in a recession at the time and the thinking was that the high tariffs would induce people to buy American goods, thereby employing more Americans...thus bringing about an end to the recession. The problem is that with the decrease in competition the businesses raised prices and the voters let the GOP know of their displeasure by abandoning them during the mid-term elections.

The last bit, I'm sure Rauchway would acutally approve of (I hope), in that it provided benefits for Civil War Veterans. So...doesn't look like a President overly friendly to big business. In fact, I'd say it looks pretty reasonable. To highlight further that Rauchway is just ignoring the facts here lets look at this

Not everything fit into the FT piece, so here’s a bonus lesson from the Harrison comparison: Harrison also flirted with turning a decade-old tiff with a third-rate power into a war. But in the end he managed not to go to war with Chile.

International law was against it, the Chilean navy turned out to be much larger than anyone had thought, and he backed down. Let’s hope this parallel also applies to the present situation as well. But, you know, on the pessimistic side, Harrison had himself actually fought in a war and knew it wasn’t any fun.

First off, that tiff involved, if I am not mistaken, the death of two U.S. sailors. Second, the actual outcome was that Chile apologized and paid reparations of $75,000 (about $2,000,000 in today's dollars). So, if the U.S. and Harrison "backed off" and International Law was on the other guys side....how come Chile apologized (i.e. admit an error) and pay reparations? Beats me, but lets not tell Rauchway it'd probably ruin his weekend.
Steve 12:55 PM

Thursday, October 24, 2002

 
Krugman Watch Once again we find Paul Krugman writing about Corporate Reform. He seems to feel that this is a big issue, that something is broken and it needs fixing. The problem is I am not sure something is broken. Krugman's idea of a well supported argument can be summed up in one word:

Enron.

That's right, Enron (and the other recent illegal corporate activities) point to a broken system that needs fixing. The problem is I don't see that this is necessarily the case. I have used the metaphor of motorists speeding down a road and a police officer before, and I think it is a good one. Suppose we have a stretch of road where motorists speed when travelling down the road. Is this a sign the speed limit is broken? By further lowering the speed limit will we suddenly get compliance? I doubt it. People are already breaking the law and suffering no negative consequences. However, if a police officer is put out there to stop motorists and issue citations for speeding, you'll start to see compliance.

The moral of that little metaphor, enforce the existing laws and lower the hammer on the crooks who have brought us Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Adelphia, etc. Moreover, it seems to me that the more various politicos babble about corporate reform/governance the more shaken the markets become. Once Bush shut up about corporate governance the markets calmed down. I suppose this might be Krugman's feeble attempt get the policy discussion back on corporate reform in the hopes of watching the market tank so the Democrats can use it as a campaign issue.

So what's going on? Here's a parallel. Since 1995 Congress has systematically forced the Internal Revenue Service to shrink its operations; the number of auditors has fallen by 28 percent. Yet it's clear that giving the I.R.S. more money would actually reduce the federal budget deficit; the agency estimates that it loses at least $30 billion a year in uncollected taxes, mainly because high-income taxpayers believe they can get away with tax evasion. So starving the I.R.S. isn't about saving money, it's about protecting affluent tax cheats.

Yes, this is definitely the case. You see, the Congressman or Senator goes to their rich patron and says, "We have cut the funding for the IRS so go ahead and cheat on your income taxes and you might not get audited and caught." This of course makes the rich patron very happy, now they have a slightly better chance of not getting caught.

In retrospect, it's hard to see why anyone believed that our current leadership was serious about corporate reform. To an extent unprecedented in recent history, this is a government of, by and for corporate insiders. I'm not just talking about influence, I'm talking about personal career experience. The Bush administration contains more former C.E.O.'s than any previous administration, but as James Surowiecki put it in The New Yorker, "Almost none of the C.E.O.'s on the Bush team headed competitive, entrepreneurial businesses." Instead they come out of a world of "crony capitalism, in which whom you know is more important than what you do and how you do it." Why would they turn their backs on that world?

Oh cut the crap here Paul, this problem if anything goes back quite aways to your boy Clinton and probably would have continued under Gore. I'd have alot more respect for Mr. Krugman if he didn't take such a partisan stand on an issue that spans administrations of both parties. He is exhibiting his hypocrisy yet again.

The bottom line is that you shouldn't worry about those TV images of men in suits doing the perp walk. That was for public consumption; now that the public is focused on other things, it's back to business — insider business — as usual.

My how nice of you to claim that the people working on those cases are just doing PR work. The arrogancy and pompousness is...well not amazing its actually typical.
Steve 2:14 PM

 
Democrats Evade Campaign Spending Limits Funny to hear about how the Republicans are always after the big money but hardly a peep about this.

Pelosi's second PAC, Team Majority, came on line Oct. 16, but has been collecting money and making contributions since April. As of Sept. 30, the committee had made $1,000 contributions to five key House Democratic challengers: Martha Fuller Clark (N.H.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.), Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.), Joe Turnham (Ala.) and Dan Wofford (Pa.), as well as one Senate challenger, Chellie Pingree (Maine).

"The main reason for the creation of the second PAC, frankly, was to give twice as much hard dollars" to candidates, McCarthy said in an interview this week.

Way to go guys. Do it right, do it Enron style.

Link via Final Protective Fire
Steve 1:04 PM

 
Alterman's Alternate: Charles Pierce Charles Pierce writes the following

On the other hand, God love Jimmy Breslin, who got a bit in Aaron Brown’s face last night, asking what Fearless Leader was doing out campaigning while some mystery gunman was shooting up the Beltway. “He should go for a walk in Maryland tomorrow,” thundered Breslin. Brown struggled hard to maintain his “tut-tut-my-good-man” pundit’s bonhomie, but Breslin had his teeth in someone’s leg and he wasn’t letting go. “You’re being really tough,” Brown finally chuckled. Breslin looked at him like Brown’d grown another head. Classic.

Yes, Persident Bush was supposed to stay in D.C. and do something to help catch the sniper. He was clearly far more qualified to catch such a criminal. From this site here I found the following information:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has provided to the Sniper Task Force 454 agents; 59 inspectors, nine canine handlers, and 101 support staffers to do lab and computer and intelligence analyst work. The Customs Department has provided two A-Star helicopters, which are light-lift helicopters. And to support them, Customs has provided a 20-person flight team, as well as they have made a Blackhawk helicopter available.

The United States Secret Service has provided 50 special agents to the Sniper Task Force. The FBI has 600 personnel working on this matter. They are focused on profiling, on working on the leads, the Marshals -- the Federal Marshals are involved, as well as the Drug Enforcement Agency are involved. I said earlier that all significant laboratory
work is being conducted at both the FBI and the ATF bureaus. And the FBI is coordinating all evidence and forensic work.

Yes, President Bush would have made it far more likely to solve the Sniper case if he sits in the Oval Office. He could obviously contribute something the FBI, DEA, BATF, Customs, Secret Service, and Federal Marshals (all of which are in the Executive branch and therefore under Bush) aren't capable of contributing, not to mention all the local police departments and local/state agencies involved. Yes sir, Bush sitting there in the Oval Office would have helped a Hell of alot.

It couldn't be that Pierce, Breslin and others actually don't want Bush out campaigning for various candidates? They aren't actually using the DC sniper case for crass political gain are they? Noooooo. Pierce and his ilk are fine upstanding people.
Steve 9:45 AM

Wednesday, October 23, 2002

 
Diversity at Democratic Underground This thread at DU is about a teacher out here in Pasadena who sent an e-mail to other teachers noting that of the students who misbehave at the school most of them are black. Notice the reaction at DU, all them automatically assume he is a racist. I suppose it is possible, but has this country gone so far down the racial divide that merely mentioning another person's race is racism?

Lets try this. We have an urn full of marbles. You reach in and pull out a marble and then write down its color, black or white. When you get done you sum up the number of white marbles and the number of black marbles (if you were trying to estimate the probability of drawing a black marble you'd do this). You note you have say, 63 black marbles and 37 white marbles. You then say, "Hmmm...most of the marbles in my sample are black."

Now if we moved from the urn with marbles to humans is making a similar notation racism? What if he had said that most of the people he finds best at doing homework are black? Isn't it the same thing, but this time with a positive context vs. a negative one? Why is one racist and the other not?

Further, even if he is a racist how come we don't tolerate his viewpoints? Isn't a diversity of opinions what all those people who blabber on about diversity being good thing talk about? Well unless you have an ugly opinion, then diversity is bad, bad, bad. Hypocrisy? I think so. For these same twits who argue the discrimination have just become discriminatory.

Further, if you read the actual artcile linked here and at DU it seems to me that Phelps (the teacher in question) is concerned with the academic achievements of the black students. That's the mark of a racist? Somebody who is worried about the low test scores of black students is a racist? What the Hell do you call somebody who hates black people, doesn't give a shit about their education at all, and is wants a return to the good old days of segregated schools?
Steve 10:42 PM

 
More Paranoia from Democratic Underground This poster seems to think that yesterdays attack on the internets "root servers" was somehow engineered by Bush, the Republicans, or both.

You know, I am also struck by the interesting schizophrenic thought process here. On one hand many DUers portray Bush as an idiot who only through massive mental effort keeps from drooling in public, yet at the same time he is the evil genius running the Bush Family Evil Empire...or maybe not. Maybe George W. is stupid and it is all being controlled by Dick Cheney and George H. W. Bush.
Steve 4:28 PM

 
Hesiod's Rich Fantasy Life Hesiod the Addlepatted has posted on his blog that Gov. Bush visited his daughter Noelle in jail. He also notes that the visit took place amongst a flurry of cell phone calls. Of course the linked article as no such information. Hesiod is just making crap up/guessing, or to put it bluntly he is dishonest.
Steve 12:46 PM

Tuesday, October 22, 2002

 
The Humor Stylings of Hesiod Theogeny In that that link Hesiod posts a Gary Trudeau strip (copyright violation) and then when he sees Glenn Reynolds has a link he writes this.

UPDATE PART DEUX: I was wondering why I was getting a zillion hits from "Arthur" Treacher's site, until I found this. I see Professor Reynolds elected to take a shot at me by indirectly accusing me of either a) plagarism, or b) terrible punctuation.

Of course he is making and implicit accusation that you a) commit copyright violations and b) have terrible punctuation.

I don't know about plagarism, but how about some possible copyright violations and a severe lack of imagination. Here on the very same page is an example of Hesiod's possible copyright violations. Notice that out of 18 paragraphs Hesiod has copied 7 and offers only a couple of paragraphs of commentary. Another way of looking at is out of 594 words Hesiod has directly copid 277. Further, Hesiod has underlined just a few lines that he seems to think are important out of those 277 words. The rest is...is...just there for window dressing I guess. Basically Hesiod has copied 47% (or 39% depending on how you count it) of the article and responded with...71 words. So, a "fair use" claim would seem a little shacky to me, but I'm not a lawyer. So yeah Hesiod, you are copying an pasting excessively large parts of other people's work to your website and "embelishing" these works of another person's intellect with the fecal droppings of your own mind.

Here is another example as well. And yet another example.

When I first ran across Hesiod's blog I noted he'd post short posts with a link to the relevant story. Now he has shifted to posting large amounts of text from other articles to accompany his short posts.

Update: Hesiod is whining that "plagiarism" isn't the correct word. Unfortunately he is right, oh well even the blind chicken gets the kernel of corn sometimes, so I have changed plagiarism to copyright violation and severe lack of imagination. Now there is nothing for Hesiod the Addlepatted to complain about.
Steve 11:55 PM

 
Democratic Underground Insanity Simply amazing. Democratic Undergrond has a poll going on whether or not the D.C. sniper is actually a Republican and possibly a member of the B.F.E.E., the Bush Family Evil Empire. To be fair a some of them do not think this is the case. Still many of them are spouting off amazing stuff that I'd expect only from paranoiacs.

"... the plan, which had the written approval of...the Joint Chiefs...of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets...for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere." (emphasis added)

- page 82, Body of Secrets, James Bamford's book on "Operation Northwoods"

More about the book: link

This next one was posted by Tom Paine...the horror:

I'm with you Mary Pat

I just know that I don't know.

I just know that, after the Bloodless Coup, and if LIHOP is true then it is possible nothing is beyond the Bush Crime Family.

What have the "little people" ever done for them?

But I agree, the cruel callousness of these acts makes me think that it is lower and more brutal than even the Roman-style-civilized aristocrats of the Bush Crime Family.

Then again, the reluctance to believe just how low totalitarian dictators will go always aids them when they aim to dismantle formerly free republics (no pun intended)...

Posted by el gato:

firmly raised

classic psyops: keeping the country destabilized and in a state of crisis makes the slow coup possible.

It's the next step.

The breadth of the paranoia there is simply staggering. In counting the post titles that indicated an affirmtive answer (admittedly not the most reliable method) 23 out of 115 thought a Republican "operative" or a member of the BFEE is behind the D.C. sniper attacks. The D.U. participants must be making the producers of aluminum very wealthy, what with all the aluminum in the must be using for their A.F.D.B.s.

Further, while many didn't "raise their hands" they had the equivocating "but" in their post titles. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of those answering "Yes" and "Maybe" was around 50%.
Steve 11:33 PM

 
Heterodox Economics I have been seeing a fair amount about heterodox economic theories lately, and thought the topic is worth some discussion. The big problem with heterodox theories is that for them to ulitmately be successful they have to first explain everything that neoclassical economics does and and explain some thing neoclassical economics currently does not explain. That is a pretty tall order, IMO. This is true of heterodox views such as those held by the Austrian school (which has strong market biases) as well as Post-Keynesians (like you really wanted to know there was such a thing).

Typically you'll see the hetrodox theorist poke fun at some of the problems with neoclassical economic theory. And while this is good fun (those who hold to the neoclassical view do the same to the heterodox theorists) it doesn't really get you anywhere. The final arbiter is, "How well does your theory compare to others?" If it doesn't compare well it should go (in the trashbin--or at least back the drawing board).

Of course, this doesn't mean the heterodox economists are just intellectual dilettantes. They do provide the valuable service of highlighting where neoclassical theory falls short and where more work needs to be done. So even if their grand theory fails to replace the dominant theory it can influence it. One example is the Public Choice school of thought which applied the techniqus of economic theory to political actors (politicians), political institutions, (voting, bureaucracies, committees), voters, etc. It has been so widely accepted that it is not really a "heterodox" group.
Steve 11:05 PM

 
Eric Boehlert filling in for Eric Alterman Can't Do Math and his Loose Definitions I was reading through the gloatings of the other Eric today and came across this gem.

But isn’t eight points down still doable, I hear Republican skeptics ask. Not when you consider Forrester was up 12 points in that same poll on the eve of Robert Torricelli’s farewell. Do the math; that’s a 20 point swing in a month. Buh-bye.

Now maybe his conclusion is correct, but it could also be that the voters are in a volatile mood and things are still too uncertain to call. Consider a 20 point swing in about 4 weeks, is a 10 point swing in the other direction in two weeks impossible? No, the data show that. Of course, this would require alot of effort from Forrester, but that is not the argument Eric is making, is making a prediciton based on some incredibly iffy poll numbers.

Eric also comes up with this definition of terrorism:

The dictionary calls terrorism “the state of fear and submission so produced.”

What dictionary is that Eric? I don't see that definition here.

ter·ror·ism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

By Eric's definition a large dog can be a terrorist, way to go Eric, water it down some more.
Steve 12:51 PM

 
Krugman Watch Well now Krugman has a lengthy article in the New York Times this time around. And in it Krugman spends a considerable amount of time fretting about the impact of income inequality on out country.

The first section of the article gives us a little of Krugman’s own childhood, about how he used to go look at the mansions of the “Gilded Age” when the wealthy in this country lived opulent life styles with and army of servants at their beck and call. He is clearly displaying the “class warfare” strategy. “They” [i.e. the rich] were different from the common man [i.e. the good guys]. But the world that Krugman grew up in was one that was more “fair”. Wealth was more evenly distributed and things were good. People were polite, mothers stayed home and raised the kids, and dad was the master of the house. Crime was low, social problems unheard of (well unless you were black and living in the South…but Krugman didn’t, or gay and lived anywhere…apparently Krugman is straight, or a woman who wanted more than to stay home and raise children…Krugman is not a woman). Life was…good.

Now, life sucks. We are entering a new Gilded Age where we have very rich people who live in big houses again with lots of servants. We have billionaires galore and millionaires coming out of the woodwork. But life is…bad. Because things are not fair (never mind that blacks can now vote, don’t get lynched regularly, and gays now have their own parade, and women…are often times competing evenly against men in many professions).

What is the cause of all this…this…wanton evil and degeneracy? Income inequality. Yes, the fact that those with money are getting more money at a faster rate than those with less. You see, if only we could go back to a more equal distribution of income why things would be good again (presumably this wouldn’t mean a return to Jim Crow, gay bashing, and women returning to the kitchen though). Yes, it is income inequality. Income inequality is the cause for out of wedlock childbirths (oops, that was a bad thing I mentioned this…it betrays my preference for two parent households). Income inequality is the cause of drug abuse. Income inequality is the cause of movies like Damnation Alley, the Friday the 13th movies (all 8 or however many of them), and Water World. Income inequality…it is an implement of the Satan.

Okay, I was being a tad sarcastic there, but not much. Anyhow, Krugman then goes on to note that those who disagree with him must first either deny that income inequality is increasing or that it isn’t a bad thing. Far be it for Prof. Krugman to actually do something really shocking like try and show that income inequality is actually a bad thing. Like these guys. Actually that paper points out that income inequality might be neutral, good or bad and that it depends on the “parameters of the model” or for the rest of us, it is an empirical question and one that cannot be assumed by pointing to the big houses on Long Island’s North Shore (is this what Prof. Krugman calls research these days)?

Ooops, I just played into Prof. Krugman’s hand there. I have become one of the “It Doesn’t Matter” crowd. Well, actually no, I haven’t. I am in the, “Who Knows if It Matters” crowd. I don’t think Prof. Krugman knows. I personally think he thinks he knows, or has a hypothesis. In fact, here is his hypothesis:

Some -- by no means all -- economists trying to understand growing inequality have begun to take seriously a hypothesis that would have been considered irredeemably fuzzy-minded not long ago. This view stresses the role of social norms in setting limits to inequality. According to this view, the New Deal had a more profound impact on American society than even its most ardent admirers have suggested: it imposed norms of relative equality in pay that persisted for more than 30 years, creating the broadly middle-class society we came to take for granted. But those norms began to unravel in the 1970's and have done so at an accelerating pace.

Yep, there it is in all its glory. We did not see massive salaries in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s because…of a long psychological holdover from the Great Depression and the New Deal. The same mentality that had my grandmother telling me to eat the crust on my toast was also keeping C.E.O.s from giving themselves big fat paychecks. Well, if you believe Paul Krugman; I don’t but, hey I’m and apologist for the establishment (they send me a check you know). And a couple of paragraphs latter we get to it…the real reason Krugman is blathering on:

Thirty-five years on, a cover article in Fortune is titled ''You Bought. They Sold.'' ''All over corporate America,'' reads the blurb, ''top execs were cashing in stocks even as their companies were tanking. Who was left holding the bag? You.'' As I said, we've become a different country.

Yep, Enron. That’s it, Krugman still has a thing about Enron. You see Enron and companies like it are the real problem. I am beginning to wonder if Krugman sees and Enron in every quarterly report. The economy brought to the verge of another Great Depression by the machinations of Ken Lay types.

Krugman also throws out some economic common sense when he writes:

Economists also did their bit to legitimize previously unthinkable levels of executive pay. During the 1980's and 1990's a torrent of academic papers -- popularized in business magazines and incorporated into consultants' recommendations -- argued that Gordon Gekko was right: greed is good; greed works. In order to get the best performance out of executives, these papers argued, it was necessary to align their interests with those of stockholders. And the way to do that was with large grants of stock or stock options.

The problem is that the economists were/are right. The large grants of stocks and stock options basically lined up the C.E.O.s incentives with that of the shareholders. Also, part of the blame goes on the government that put limits on the amounts C.E.O.s can get in direct compensation, but leave stocks and stock options alone.

The downside is that upper management might try to cook the books and keep up the façade long enough to allow them to cash out and walk away with a pile of money while shareholders lose a pile of money. Again, as I have noted here, here, here, and here that the thing to do is not pile on more laws and regulations (as Krugman seems to be implying) but to use existing laws and regulations to nail these crooks and hustler’s butts to the wall.

Also, during the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s things were not oh so grand as Krugman would have you believe. Remember during much of that time Krugman was literally a child. He was not working in corporate American (and in fact, he never has). I wasn’t even born, but I do work in corporate American and some of the old timers where I work tell me about the halcyon days. Back when the company had extremely generous benefits, a doctor and medical staff on site, a pharmacy for employees with very inexpensive drugs, etc. Things were cushy, expense accounts were nice and fat. Now things are much leaner, no more medical staff, doctor and pharmacy. Expense accounts are not anywhere near as fat (hell my computer was only recently upgraded, the old machine was 5-6 years old…ancient by computer standards).

So Krugman is just ranting again and wishing for the bygone golden days of his youth. Well Paul they are gone, get used to it.

Steve 12:10 AM

Monday, October 21, 2002

 
Astonishing I found this at Media Whores Online

Media Whores Online takes an unbiased, in-depth look at the astonishingly vast myriad of whores who call themselves "journalists." MWO casts a garish spotlight on the relentless screaming heads of television, the babbling paranoids of squawk radio, and the crayon scribblings of lazy print media "columnists."

Simply amazing that these guys can write this. A quick perusal of their site will show they are anything but unbiased. Funny, I don't see Atrios calling them liars.
Steve 3:30 PM

 
Interesting Observation from the NY Times (Requires free subscription)

This cheerleading is hardly unusual. Though they enjoyed more respect than Mr. Bush's money men do, the Clinton administration's economic officials did nothing to prevent the 1990's bubble. The easy money created by that bubble led to billions of dollars of unnecessary investment and to executives' current reluctance to begin new projects — a point that Mr. Hubbard, a Columbia University economist who served in the Treasury Department under Mr. Bush's father, and his colleagues like to emphasize.

"We grew so fast in the 90's," he said, "because, we know with the benefit of hindsight, we were making too much investment."

Of course, Hesiod the Dimwit thinks that Bubbles are good for the economy. Yes, Hesiod, a bubble results in rapid economic expansion that looks great...until the bubble bursts. As it clearly did in 2000.
Steve 3:24 PM

 
Inconceivable Inconsistencies Batman! It is simply amazing that Scott Ritter can hold so many contradictory views and not be aware of them. "The U.S. saw to the demise of the weapons inspeciton program [back in the late 90's]....Iraq is a defanged tiger."

If Iraq is defanged then the U.S. should have stopped the inspections, no? If the U.S. shouldn't have stopped the inspections then perhaps Iraq is not defanged. Simply astonishing.
Steve 11:47 AM

 
The Disembling and Bigotry of Media Whores Online Media Whores Online, in a tizzy over the upcoming elections, has this little bit of misinformation on their website:

Phony Mass Mailing to Seniors: In a further attempt to fool senior citizens, among the most vulnerable of Florida’s voters, the Bush campaign sent out a mass mailing implying that Bush also has the endorsement of the American Association of Retired Persons, which he most emphatically does not. The AARP has raised protests, but the Bush campaign has simply ignored them.

First, notice how the Whores think so little of the elderly. They are clearly not smart enough (nice euphemism "vulnerable") to figure out for whom to vote. Also, this part, "mailing implying that Bush also has the endorsement of the American Association of Retired Persons" is a bit misleading. What prompted a statement from the AARP were three pictures of Gov. Bush that had the AARP logo in the picture. However, the pictures were ata public event and Bush was invited to the event so they are in the public domain. Much like the pictures the Whorse use on their website (consistency much...I guess it is a bit much to expect Whores to be consistent). So the AARP made this statement:

"AARP cannot stop the mailing of this document," the group said in a statement. "We do not believe we have legal recourse to stop the Republican Party from using this picture because it is a factual picture that was taken at a public event. AARP does want to make it perfectly clear that we are not endorsing Gov. Bush nor any candidate for any elected office."

There is this bit as well:

Lipscomb said Democrats could have published a similar brochure. He said McBride was at a forum in West Palm Beach last week with an AARP logo on the lectern and an AARP banner behind him. "But he didn't have the round sticker on," Lipscomb said.

In other words, the Democrats and the Whores are upset that they didn't think of this one.

Update: Thanks to Robert Crawford over at Kloognome for this. Looks like Jean Carnahan actually claimed endorsement from the AARP when she didn't have it. I am not sure if it is the same as what Bush did in Florida, but I doubt it. If it was a picture of Carnahan with the logo somewhere in the picture and the picture was a public event then it would be fair game. What a bunch of hypocritical Whores MWO are.
Steve 10:08 AM

 
The Divisiveness of Jesse Jackson At a the Greater Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church Rev. Jesse Jackson demonstrated that he is now actually a promoter of divisiveness.

''He's [Powell] not on our team,'' Jackson told a packed house at Greater Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, which celebrated its 110th anniversary Sunday. ''If he wins, Trent Lott wins. We're not on that team. If he wins, we lose. If he wins, poor folks lose.''

"Our" team? What team is that Reverand? One could hope that Jackson is speaking to a predominantly Democrat audience and he is referring to Republicans. However, we have this also:

But Jackson's aside on Belafonte -- the singer last week called Powell the Bush administration's ''house slave'' -- was just a part of Jackson's criticism of the Bush administration, which he said is using an exaggerated threat from a country that might get nuclear weapons -- Iraq -- as an ''election trick'' to divert attention away from the county's mounting economic woes.

Seems that now that Belafonte has upped the ante on the nasty rhetoric the "Good" Reverand had to "see his bet". Further, it seems Jesse Jackson has been in a coma since 9/11/2001. He seems to think that the reason the U.S. is currently at war (the war on terrorism) was due entirely to the "stolen election". What an idiotic thing to say. Al Qa'ida and Bin Laden ultimately don't care who is President. Bin Laden started hating the U.S. when Bush (41) was President, hated us just as much if not more when Clinton was President, and still hates us now. Bin Laden's hatred of the U.S. is independent of who the President is. But not according to the "Good" Reverand, if only Gore were in office 9/11 would not have happened.

In two years under Bush, a $3.5 billion federal budget surplus has turned into a $20 billion deficit; poverty rates have climbed and family income has gone down; people have lost trillions of dollars in value from their pension and 401-K plans; funding for Medicare, public education and Bush has yet to meet even once with the NAACP, he said.

Why should he? The NAACP is a part of the Democratic Party. Not literally, but what is the percentage of blacks that vote Democrat, 90% or higher? Further, you have been all to quick to use the race card, Reverand, and one has to wonder, if he meets with you will you use it if he doesn't do what you want? Oh...and if you and the NAACP do meet with President Bush, and go "into the house" will that make you a "house slave" too?

Racism is alive and well in the United States, said Jackson, pointing to the latest criminal proceeding involving Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's daughter.

Yes it is Reverand, and I suggest you look to your own "house" first before casting stones.

Oddly enough I sort of agree with him on the drug thing...well sort of. I think the war on drugs should be called off and drugs legalized along the lines of alcohol. Hmmm,...funny I don't seem to remember the "Good" Reverand getting all up in arms about the Drug War. How many lives has that cost America? How many lives ruined? Oh well, I don't like anybody has accused the "Good" Reverand of being overly concerned with consistency.

Thanks to Croooow Blog.
Steve 9:17 AM

Sunday, October 20, 2002

 
Rationality Under Uncertainty Jane Galt has a nice post on the two recent winners of the Nobel Prize, Vernon Smith and Daniel Kahneman. Anyhow it shouldn't come as a surprise that I am have some problems with her post. First, at the risk of looking like I am trying to Fisk her, I am going to quote the parts then post my own comments.

One of the great problems for libertarians is that the longer we study economic theory, the clearer it becomes that people are apparently incapable of rationally maximizing expected value in many cases.

Not entirely correct. A better way to phrase it would be that individuals seem to have a problem maximizing expected utility (or value) according to what the researchers expect. That is expected utility theory follow a set of basic axioms. For example there is the substitution axiom which is stated thusly:

Suppose p and q are two probability distributions such that p is preferred to q and that a is a number from the open interval (0,1) and that r is another probability distribution. Then a*p + (1-a)*r is preferred to a*q + (1-a)*r.

This idea here is that the distributions a*p + (1-a)*r and a*q + (1-a)*r both have the component (1-a)*r and it should not affect the preference ordering. Not the easiest thing in the world to grasp. Of course, as has often been the refuge of the economist all that we really need is for people to behave as if they fully understand these assumptions and follow them. So the complexity of the assumptions really isn't something one can use to hide from this observation (or attack it).

The problem I have is that these problems have been known for quite some time. For example there is the Allais Paradox which was first noted in 1953! So the idea that people violate the Von Neumann-Morgenstern Axioms of Expected Utility is not a big shock. Then there was the Ellsberg paradox that was noted in 1961. The Allais Paradox goes as follows:

1. Choose between two gambles. The first gives a .33 chance of $27,500, a .66 chance of $24,000, and a .01 chance of nothing. The second gives $24,000 for sure.

2. Choose between two gambles. The first gives a .33 chance of $27,500, a .67 chance of nothing. The second gives a .34 chance of $24,000 and .66 chance of nothing.

The typical response is take the sure thing in number 1 and the first gambel in number 2. The problem? It violates the substitution axiom I have noted above.

So this isn't a big shocker. Not only that, but it isn't that devastating a criticism, IMO. Is there only one method for behaving under uncertainty? No. Herbert Simon noted that people often do not have access to all the information about a decision when making a decision. So they make the best decision they can given the information they have. Similarly here. A good survey of some of the work that has been done in this area can be found in Machina's book, The Economic Theory of Individual Choice Under Uncertainty: Theory, Evidence and New Directions.

Anyhow Jane continues:

This is due to two things: first, we don't have access to all the information we need, and second, we don't always make decisions rationally.

The first part is not a big problem. The question is how do people behave when they are confronted with new information. If, for example, they ignore salient new information in their decision making then yes, there might be a case for saying people are irrational.

And now we get to the good part, the reason why Jane has such a great blog.

Now, many on the left who had never heard of these folks are triumphantly saying "See! We told you so!" Not so fast, l'il ranger. First of all, it's not like professional economists are unaware of the work. They're working on incorporating it into theory. In some ways, some of the decisions which might appear sub-rational simply manifest themselves as preferences in the larger model which have already been accounted for: risk aversion, for example. Second of all, the great lesson of studying either regulation or people who try to make their living gaming markets, such as financial professionals, is that the technocrats are subject to the same decision-making problems as the mass of consumers.

You gotta love it. Yes, economist have known for a long time and as I (and Jane noted) they are working on these issue. That last part is particularly good. The same things that prevent individuals from achieving the optimal outcome in the market will prevent the government agency from also achieving the optimal outcome.

To a certain extent there is something similar going on in game theory. When I first studied game theory as an undergraduate one of the Teaching Assistants said, "Every solution to a game is a Nash Equiblibrium." For some reason that stuck with me, then i got my hands on the manuscript for Fudenberg and Levine's book, Learning and Games and one of the first things they noted was that, in experimental settings, the solution games settled on were not Nash!

In contrast though, there is Vernon Smith, Professor Smith notes how often the "efficient" outcome results even in situations that are less than ideal (small number of actors, less than perfect information, etc.). So, the basic conclusion that is to be drawn from this years award, I think is that there is alot more going on than the simple models first year graduate students and advanced undergrads are taught.

So, all in all a very good article with just a few measely quibbles on my part.
Steve 10:21 PM

 
New Link: Jane Galt I just found her site, although I had seen her posting over at places like the Daily Rant. A great blog, although I don't agree with her all the time, still top notch, so check it out.
Steve 9:17 PM

 
Free Republic Ickiness Feeling a little guilty for beating up on the Democratic Underground today (okay, not really) I cruised over to FreeRepublic.com to check things out and found that thread. What I find disgusting are the replies to the opening post. Some of them smack of the "Well he was asking for it..." kind of view. Here is one such example:

OMG. We are never going to hear the end of this one now. The new Matthew Shepard. Except now the cause celebre will be transexualism.

A sort of sidebar comment of mine: right or wrong---how much brains does it take to know that it isn't nice to fool young, virile males like this? Duh. Throughout history---and you don't have to be a psychologist to figure this out---men, when deceived like this, can become violent. For whatever reason, right or wrong: their masculinity threatened, peer pressure, homophobia, WHATEVER! Duh.

Makes you wonder if this guy was "cruising" like Matthew Shepard was, i.e., seeking "the rough trade"---lifestyle which many gay men live in, in which they seek out straight men hoping to get roughed up, and they get off on it (something well-known but skillfully and intentionally omitted by media in the Shepard case.)

So...if you are gay and cruising for some sex and you get murdered by some bigots...well than that's too bad, but you shouldn't be such a deviant. Nice.

Killing was a little severe; a good whipping-socially sanctioned-would have been more appropriate and ultimately more curative.

Killing a little severe? Ya, think? But yes, lets give that damn pervert a good butt kicking...oh, wait, he's dead nevermind. How simply disgusting.

Ahhh six posts down and finally somebody with the moral backbone steps up to the plate:

The fact that this is your first reaction to the brutal murder of another human being is disgusting. As is your bulls**t attempt to rationalize criminal behavior with a dismissive "Boys will be boys attitude."

If I were to say what I am feeling about you, I would be banned. You're not worth it.

Of course, I am wondering why is it not worth banning? Why keep posting at a place that harbors such intolerance?
Steve 12:29 PM

 
Racism, DU Style Yes our good buddies at Democratic Underground are having some fun. Well, to be fair some are objecting to the tone of that opening post. Of course, lets point out that the opening post once again violates the rules of Democratic Underground. Namely

Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, or religious slurs.

Inconsistent guy that Skinner.
Steve 12:13 PM

 
Same Ol' Same Ol' from Eschaton Atrios links to a post by Brad DeLong about the recent guilty plea in regards to Enron and the California Energy Crisis. The problem is that we have this claim from U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan:

U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan said the guilty plea shows the rolling blackouts and huge price increases that rocked California last year were the result of illegal conduct.``These charges answer the question that has long troubled California consumers: whether the energy crisis was spurred in part by criminal activity. The answer is a resounding yes,'' Ryan said.

Hold the phone. No. While in some instances this might be the case, but one does not need illegal shenanigans to have prices going up. Frank Wolak has demonstrated this quite nicely. Here is his model one.....more.....time

There are 3 generators each with 200 MW of capacity

The current demand is 500 MW

The last generator bidding in sets the price.

Now if you are the last generator bidding in, what price do you pick? If the hard cap is $750 then you set the price at $750. This is what we saw during the crisis in the months of say September and October. I would routinely check the PX and hour after hour the price was practically pegged at the price cap. So all one needs is demand close to capacity. With the large numer of "No-touch" days during the late summer it is not surprising that in September and even October there were plants offline for routine or forced maintenance. Also, there were some instances where plants shut down due to the cost of emissions credits. Also, once the crisis really got rolling and the utilities stopped paying generators to conserve cash many of the small generators just shut down. This is where one could make the argument that the "green power" was one factor. Granted it is a factor late in the game and a small one.

Anyhow Atrios and crew over at Eschaton just can't seem to grasp the concept that the market was badly designed and thus, the sky high prices were not just the result of illegal actions, but of just blind stupidity on the part of those who designed the market's institutional structure. Further, they get all flustered when you point out that Gray Davis, the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration dropped the ball by not responding to the crisis. Well, the last part they like, it is the inclusion of Democrats in the list.

Blind partisan nonsense.
Steve 11:52 AM

 
Democratic Underground's Poverty of Information on Poverty The artile in the link notes that the U.S. is the wealthiest nation on the planet, but that it also still has people living in poverty. However, currently at 11.7% U.S. poverty is still low by historical standards. In fact, poverty is still lower than it was during the bulk of the Clinton Administration. Now I don't metion this lightly since the buffoons at Democratic Underground are extremely partisan and love to blame anyting on Republicans, which they call Repukes or Repugs (cute, eh?). And this "essay" is no different. After starting out with some glittering generalities they immediately launch into a tirade of the Bush Administration.

The latest from the Bush administration as a solution is to give money to right-wing Christian organizations in support of faith-based charities, more than in support of the poor. That is the extent, after two centuries of recognition of the problem, of government's approach to poverty in America. That effort has more to do with defunding government programs, a backhanded form of privatization, than correcting the difficulties of the poor.....

Here's the more horrible truth. If every displaced poor person had a domicile, had a fixed address (in order to be able to vote), and could be convinced to vote for a Democrat, and every Democrat in Congress understood the value of permanently fixing the problem of poverty, the Democrats would gain close to 20 million votes in every election. Democrats would win every election, every time. Republicans would be wondering what hit `em, would be engaged in one giant circle-jerk with Richard Perle and George W. Bush holding their own little dicks and with no one to play with them.

I particularly like that last paragraph. If they just had a fixed address and if we could just convince them to vote the way we want them to vote why we'd be in charge...forever! Gee, are they really concerned about reducing poverty of grabbing power?

Anyhow, what this person doesn't realize is that in looking at the data (data?!?!? what's that??) one would immediately see that one of the big drivers of poverty are recessions. Sad to say, that when the economy tanks the poverty rate goes up. Where is this data? Why at the Census Bureau of course. In fact, here is one of the latest papers on poverty. Right there on page 2 is a handy little graph that shows poverty (in both absolute numbers and rates) and recessions. Notice something about the poverty rate in 2000? Yeah, it went up. In fact, thanks to those fine people at the Census Bureau here is the graph:



The essay also puts forward a solution:

About sixty years ago, Paul Goodman, radical, poet and social theoretician, suggested that most of the social ills of society could be corrected by the understanding that some small portion of society could take care of society's difficult tasks, the unpleasant tasks, by a program which allowed those ill-fitted to advancing in society to work for a year in the bad jobs we relegate to the poor and the disenfranchised in exchange for six years afterwards of a minimal existence guaranteeing food, shelter and health care.

Rather badly written I think, but my take on this is; we have some really crappy jobs that need to be done. Further, only a small portion of the population is needed to do them. And to help tackly the problem of poverty we'll make sure that whoever steps forward to do these crappy jobs will then get 6 years of a minimal existence of food, shelter and health care.

The condescension aside there (oh...you're one of "those" workers...well here you go your minimal shelter, food, and health care) this begs the question what are these jobs? Janitors in a public high school? I remember what those toilets looked like. Bus driver? I think I could only take that job for a year...hmmm maybe not. And what exactly is this minimal shelter, food, and housing? I don't know, but I imagine that the least cost minimally nutritious diet would consist of alot of stuff most people would not want to voluntarily eat.

So, looking back what do we have. Playing fast and loose with the statistics, some cockamamy scheme to reduce poverty, unsupported claims about poverty and homelessness (i.e. most families in poverty live in their car), and crass political pandering. A classic from Democratic Underground.

Update: This paper by Dickens and Ellwood points out that for Great Britain poverty rates have been skyrocketing lately. Of course, lets be fair here and note that in Europe poverty is often measured in reltive terms, that is if your income falls below a certain percentage of the median income you are in povert. Here is what the article says:

Of course a major reason for the differences in reported poverty trends is that the nations remain divided by a common language with a very uncommon set of definitions. In Britain and Europe, poverty is traditionally measured according to a relative scale—families are considered poor if their incomes fall below 60% of the (family size adjusted) median income.

However, with this definition it is practically impossible to reduce poverty unless all incomes are very clusterd very tightly. This would mean a wealth transfer from those at the upper end of the distribution to the lower end. The paper constructed such a poverty standard for the U.S. for 1979 and the income that would put a family of four into poverty is $32,652 . Since the official standard is slightly above $17,000 that would greatly increase the number of poor. Adjusting this relative poverty standard for purchasing parity with the U.K. would reduce the dollar amount to around $20,000.

So it seems our more enlightened European fellows aren't doing all that much better.
Steve 10:52 AM

Saturday, October 19, 2002

 
Another D.C. Area Shooting Possible connections to the D.C. sniper attacks. The victim has been rushed to a hospital and is undergoing surgery.

While the police are doing their usual schtick of, "...too early to tell if it is related to the previous sniper shootings...", the article notes this

Authorities say the victim and a female companion were walking to a car in the parking lot behind the restaurant when the victim was shot in the abdomen. The companion saw nothing, and authorities say at this point they have no other witnesses.

If this is related to the sniper shooting the sniper has moved further south in that this shooting took place in Ashland VA, which is about 70 miles south of D.C. This would also be the first time the sniper made a weekend attack.
Steve 8:40 PM

 
Wall Street pauses after recent gains I am sure the Democrats were fretting all week as the stock market just seemed to go only up for the most part. The stock market closed up almost 500 points from Monday, and up around 1,000 points since October 10th. Here is a graph.


Steve 8:29 PM

 
US economy tipped for rapid recovery Geez, better not show this to the left side of the blogosphere, most would be apoplectic. Here are some things that would have many over at Eschaton in a tizzy:

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which groups together the world's 30 leading economies, "the recession that began in March 2001 was among the mildest on record."

Undoubtedly the OECD must be some sort of RNC front organization.

An OECD report forecast economic growth this year of 2.4% and of 2.7% in 2003.

While these figures are well below the average of the later 1990s, they compare with a 0.3% trough recorded in 2001.

Ahhh, this will give them something to run with. "Well the growth is low compared to the growth under Clinton." But showing them this picture would probably cause much gnashing of teeth.



Funny, I doubt this story wont show up on such blogs, although it would be nice to be proven wrong on this one.
Steve 8:21 PM

 
Weird searches that lead to my blog In checking the referrals to my blog I occassionally see google searches. This one seemed rather odd...odd enough I thought I'd post it. Here is the search

strange tribal customs for women with neck attire

Here is the google search in case you are interested in what other hits were pulled up.
Steve 8:01 PM

 
How the CIA traced al Qaeda's regional role This is an interesting article about how al Qa'ida has been working to establish itself in Southeast Asia and in Indonesia in particular. Here is a juicy tidbit to whet your appetite:

He said, among other things, that Jemaah Islamiah operatives had obtained explosives from army people to be used to bomb the American embassy in Jakarta (the bombing never took place but the information has provided a vital clue for investigators trying to trace the origin of the Bali bomb).

But even more alarming, Western analysts say, was that al-Faruq confirmed already gathered intelligence indicating that for a decade al Qaeda had been slowly penetrating the region, co-opting Muslims, establishing independent cells and finding a common cause with local militants.

As investigators in Bali begin to piece together what led to the devastating blast outside the Sari Club, US and Australian intelligence agencies already have substantial evidence linking Jemaah Islamiah to atrocities across the region that were previously thought to be unconnected.

Steve 7:57 PM

 
Pakistan Gave Assistance to North Korea's Nuclear Weapons Program (NY Times requires free registration) Looks like the deal took place in 1997, two years before Musharraf took power. But, it looks like the two countries have continued the relationship after Musharraf took power. The details are sketchy, but some of the equipment might have been gas centrifuges that are used to produce weapons grade uranium.
Steve 7:51 PM

 
Policy Diverges on North Korea There seems to be two views on North Korea's admission to having a nuclear weapons program. The first view, call it the "Optimistic view", is that North Korea made the announcement as a sign that it is becoming more open and seeking closer ties with Western countries and Japan and South Korea.

There is something to this view in that recently North Korea has been admitting to some things that in the past it vehemently denied. For example, the kidnapping of Japanese citizens from Japan to train North Korean spies to appear more "Japanese". While many suspected that certain disappearances where connected to North Korea nothing was known for certain until North Korea admitted to such actions.

The other, "Pessimistic view", is that it was a beligerent announcement to the world. Those espousing this view argue that the 1994 agreement is dead and that the U.S. is no longer obligated to provide the 500,000 metric tons of fuel oil a year, and to stop all assistance with the light water nuclear power plant projects.

One interesting bit was this:

The secret program to obtain highly enriched uranium is only in its beginning stages. U.S. intelligence analysts estimate that North Korea would need from several years to a decade to build a working nuclear weapon from the uranium, a senior administration official said.

Steve 7:46 PM

 
Evidence Clinton Knew About North Korea's Nuclear Violations Looks like the Clinton Administration ignored intelligence indicating North Korea might be pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and that they simply "trusted" the Stalinist North Korean government not to go against the 1994 treaty. The Tampa Tribune has a similar story that notes that intelligence analysts have been issuing warnings that North Korea was pursuing a nuclear weapons program for years.

Suban said evidence included shipments to North Korea of material that could be used to build nuclear weapons, and North Korea's steadfast refusal to allow inspections.

``You had competent professional analysts saying, `You can't trust North Korea,' '' Suban said.

But every time someone raised a fresh concern, Suban said, ``you had people saying, `Show me a picture of a rocket on a launch pad with its fuse lit.' They wanted a smoking gun.''

Some wanted proof as incontrovertible as a test. But if the North Koreans began with a good blueprint for an atomic bomb, Suban said, testing wouldn't have been necessary.

Simply amazing. For eight years, the Clinton Administration not only did nothing they acutally ignored evidence and reduced the budgets for various intelligence agencies. And people wonder why we were caught off guard on 9/11. Now, I don't think it would be fair to say that Clinton is to blame for 9/11, but you can't have it both ways here. People want to blame Bush for 9/11...at least for not taking the rumors of an attack more seriously. But it seems to me that one reason why intelligence about the attack on 9/11 was so paltry and badly handled might very well be due to the cuts made by the Clinton Administration. So the Democrats and former Clinton Administration officials can't have it both ways. They can't say, "Why didn't you take this more seriously?" When by their actions (cutting intelligence budgets) the signalled that even they didn't take it seriously.

Also, this kind of "Bush is to blame!" "No, Clinton is to blame!" is really stupid political opportunism, IMO. Mistakes were made, how about trying to find ways to make sure similar mistakes are not made again in the future. Seems to me one place to start is to reverese the budget cuts in intelligence gathering and analysis that took place in the mid-1990's.
Steve 7:32 PM

Friday, October 18, 2002

 
Rice: Internatioanl Coalition to Deter North Korea Looks like the Administrations first move in light of the news about North Korea and its nuclear weapons program is to try and use a coalition to deter North Korea from continuing and even dismantle its nuclear weapons.

The article also points out that it is a mistake to equate the situation with North Korea with Iraq. I tend to agree, at least unless somebody can come up with a reason to equate the two situations. First, China and Russia seem to be very interested in having North Korea dismantle such a program and any existing nuclear weapons. There does not seem to be anybody to play that role with Iraq. Invading North Korea right now would be very risky if we also invaded Iraq. Also, China might take a very, very dim view of such an invasion. Nobody of any significance or near Iraq would take a dim view of an invasion of Iraq.

Yet, this has not stopped many (not all mind you) on the left hemisphere of the blogosphere from babbling on about hypocrisy, inconsistency and what not. What? You guys suddenly all gung-ho for invasion? No didn't think so. Why don't you let the grown ups discuss this issue while you guys go play outside.

There is also this funny bit from Tom Daschle

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said North Korea must allow international inspections of their nuclear facilities and must agree to destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction they have.

Gee, Tom you think?
Steve 4:04 PM

 
Indonesian president to sign emergency decrees It looks like the bomb attack in Bali is having the effect of re-enforcing the Indonesians will to fight terrorism

Justice Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra said the decrees to be signed by President Megawati Sukarnoputri would extend the death penalty to terrorism offences. Media reports said they would also allow authorities to detain people for three to seven days on suspicion of committing terrorist acts.

"We will issue two regulations. The first one on eradicating terrorism, and the second one will specifically cover investigations, interrogations and prosecutions regarding the Bali bombings," Mahendra told reporters.

Also, these comments by Australian Prime Minister John Howard are heartening:

"I will say without equivocation we have put the view again, urgently and strongly, to the Indonesian government since last Saturday that a much tougher approach to terrorism must be taken," Howard said, speaking to reporters after visiting the bomb site.

Steve 2:55 PM

 
Another Terrorist Attack? A bomb attack in the Philippines leaves 3 dead and injurs 23.

The explosion in Quezon City came a day after two deadly bombings in the southern Philippines, and hours after a grenade blast in the capital's financial district.

Officials said the Abu Sayyaf, which the Philippine and U.S. governments have linked to al-Qaida, was the most likely suspect for Thursday's bombings in Zamboanga city, which killed seven people and injured more than 150.

Hmmm, this makes me think my theory that al Qa'ida is attacking our allies in an attempt to get them to "un-ally" with the U.S. has a higher probability of being correct. Not a bad startegy really, the one problem I see is that such attacks might just make these allies more resolute in their support of the U.S. and the fight against terror. For example in the Philippines there has been a long running fight with Muslim sepratists in the southern island of Mindinao.
Steve 2:50 PM

 
The Glittering Generalities of Jeralyn Merritt at Altercation Jeralyn is filling in for Eric Alterman on Fridays while Mr. Atlerman is on vacation. Anyhow, Jeralyn is hoping for a Democratically controlled Congress for the following items:

I have a legislative wish-list that will be dead in the water if the Republicans get control. Here’s the short version: A moratorium on the death penalty now, abolition in the future. Passage of the Innocence Protection Act. Elimination of mandatory minimum drug sentences. Fair treatment of juvenile offenders. Preservation of our civil liberties. Preventing more anti-terrorism laws passed in haste, without adequate opportunity for review. Greater protections for non-citizens. Keeping right-wing judicial activists off the federal bench and Supreme Court.

Sounds wonderful I guess. I mean who isn't in favor of the Innocence Protection or preservation of civil liberties? But what are the details here? She is exhorting readers to vote for Democrats, but why? Sure that title sounds good, but judging something by its title sounds like a crappy decision rule. Let's see what google.com turns up. Ahhhh, here we go right at the top of the list.

Well...at first glance it doesn't look that bad. I mean who wants to see innocent people executed? Not me. Okay, so I like the goal. But wait. Look here:

The Innocence Protection Act has been introduced in the U.S. House as H.R. 912 by Reps. Ray LaHood (R-IL) and William Delahunt (D-MA). Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have sponsored the Senate version of the bill, S. 486.

Hmmm, lets see...five sponsors and three Republicans! What the?!?!?! Jeralyn was telling us to vote Democrat to make sure this bill is passed. Wouldn't it make more sense to find out what the candidates positions are on the bill and vote for them, or is this type of thoughtful voting just...wrong somehow? I don't know, but this just looks silly to me. Vote Democrat because...because...I like them, is what it really seems to be boiling down too.

Also, I like the implication that Republicans are against these things when we see that one of her specific examples it is just not true. Methinks that Jeralyn's political biases have blinded her.
Steve 2:35 PM

 
Krugman Watch Well, Krugman does it again. Throws his brain right out the window in his latest column. This time he starts decrying where Republicans have compared views and opponents to Nazis, Fascism, and Hitler. Quite right, such comparisons are often ridiculous and over the top. However, Krugman then goes on to close his piece (of crap) with this:

The strategy used to sell the Bush tax cut was simply to deny the facts — and to lash out at anyone who tried to point them out. And it's a strategy that, having worked there, is now being applied across the board.

Michael Kinsley recently wrote that "The Bush campaign for war against Iraq has been insulting to American citizens, not just because it has been dishonest, but because it has been unserious. A lie is insulting; an obvious lie is doubly insulting." All I can say is, now he notices? It's been like that all along on economic policy.

You see, some folks must be under the impression that as long as something is repeated often enough, it will become true. That was how George W. Bush got to the top.

Professor Krugman, you are a hypocrite and an ass.

Update: Hoy has a more detailed post where he takes Krugman apart. For example, Krugman whines that the top 1% recieved 40% of the tax break. Hoy poits out that the top 1% pays just under 36% of all Federal Income taxes. So if you do cut taxes it is obvious that the top income brackets will benefit more...they pay more. Duh, somebody like Krugman should know this.
Steve 10:08 AM

Thursday, October 17, 2002

 
CIA Director Tenet: Al Qa'ida Planning More Strikes on the U.S. both at Home and Abroad

``You must make the assumption that al-Qaida is in an execution phase and intends to strike us both here and overseas,'' Tenet said, noting recent attacks in Kuwait, Indonesia and off Yemen. ``That's unambiguous as far as I'm concerned.''

Seems pretty obvious to me too. The attack in Bali, if it is al Qa'ida, could be designed to try and get the Australian's to pull back their support for the U.S. in the War on Terror and Iraq. Tim Blair notes this response from an Australian academic:

We need to reassess our position on Iraq. It is no longer valid to argue that Australia will not compromise its stand on the Iraqi issue. Any position that runs the risk of disillusioning the majority of the Muslim world and of attracting negative responses from terrorists needs to be critically evaluated.

If the attitude expressed above becomes the dominant view in Australia then Australia would likely abandon the War on Terror. I think that was the goal of the bombing in Bali, to try and disuade a strong ally from supporting the U.S. I hope this does not become the dominant view in Australia...both for the U.S. and for Australia. Once you cave into terrorist tactics, it seems to me you'd always be at their mercy until you stand up and fight and kill them. I think it would be better to fight and kill them now rather than latter.
Steve 9:08 PM

 
Risk, Uncertainty and Decision Making A recent e-mail exchange with Kevin Drum of CalPundit has left me thinking perhaps some more explanation is in order here. CalPundit has a post about how people seem to behave irrationally regarding low probability events. My post was to point out that merely looking at probabilities can lead one to making the "wrong decision".

For example suppose you face the following gamble. You have to bet $100 but you will win $250 with probability 0.5 and lose the $100 with probability of 0.5. The expected payoff is $200. Now this looks pretty good, many people might take that bet. But not everybody. In economic theory there is a distinction in terms of peoples aversion to risk. There are those that are risk neutral, those that are risk averse and then there are risk lovers. From a "technical" standpoint risk aversion has to do with the curvature of the individual's utility function (a measure of individual welfare) as a function of wealth. A risk neutral person will take any gamble where the expected payoff is greater than zero. Typically individuals are assumed to be risk averse, that is it will take more than simply a positive payoff to induce a person to gamble. Large companies are typically seen as risk neutral.

Now, some people might not like the gamble above. There is a 50% chance you'll lose that $100 and if you are risk averse enough you might place more value on $100 with certainty than the uncertain expected payoff of $200. So for person who values the $100 with certainty they are not being "irrational" by turning down the bet. According to their personal prefrences they are being rational.

Now, one of the big assumptions in the above is that people have estimated the probabilities correctly. When the probabilities are given to you it is fairly straight forward to chug thourgh the computaitons and arrive at the expected payoff and then make the decision whether to take the bet or not. Life is seldom that clean cut. Without using google what is the probability you'll get struck by lightening? I don't know, but a quick google search tells me the probability is 1 in 709,260. But without that information you have to make your own probability assessment. Prior to my posting that information some answers might have been 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000. Taking actions based on these assessments is not irrational. Even though the initial assessment is wrong, it is not necessarily irrational to take some minor precautions during a thunderstorm such as avoiding standing under trees or standing on open hilltops. What would be irrational is if you continued to make your decisions based on the incorrect probability assessment. That is you do not update your probability assessment when given new information.

The problem is that lots of people are not clear how to do this in a rational manner. Bayes Theorem is one such manner of updating probabilities as you gain new information. But most people do not understand the basics of probabilties let alone something like conditional probabilities and Bayes Theorem. Does this mean that people are still irrational if they don't use Bayes Theorem? This is a good question and lots of people are looking into it. For example there is Herbert Simon's notion of bounded rationality. The basic idea is that decision making can often times be costly (in both difficulty and resources) hence people will rely on simplified rules that provide approximations to more sophisticated approaches. This was particularly true for the Bayesian methods, at least in science, until the advent of powerful computers and the development of Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Still, even with such advancements these types of techniques are well beyond the grasp of most ordinary people. So I don't think noting that people fail to be rational via Bayes Theorem means they are irrational.

So, Kevin Drum over at CalPundit does have a point to some extent. Inaccurate assessments of probabilities can cause people to make the wrong decisions and if done on a wide enough scale it can be a serious problem. I don't think this problem can be laid strictly before the "almighty" television set. I think it is a general problem of the media (television, print, and radio) to focus on the "bad" stories and people have their information/beliefs distorted in this manner. Has it gotten worse? I don't know, my first reaction is it just another example of focusing on the "bad" story in order to sell some books, but maybe I am being to cynical.
Steve 4:50 PM

 
New Opposition Link: CalPundit Even though I don't always agree with Kevin Drum, he does run a pretty good blog and does make me stop and think. So check him out.
Steve 1:33 PM

 
Goodbye Senator Carnahan? Looks like her chances at re-election are fading fast. Her stupid comment:

"I'm the No. 1 target of the White House. Since they can't get Osama bin Laden, they're going to get me."

Probably wont help much either.
Steve 1:17 PM

 
Democratic Underground Update It is amazing to watch "Skinner" the owner of the site to post his delusions of granduer.

For the next three weeks:

It is forbidden to use the DU message board in an effort to make our members withhold their precious votes from the Democratic Party, which is the only organization capable of stopping the Republican onslaught.

It is forbidden to use the DU message board to organize protests or other actions against members of the Democratic Party.

If the administrators of DU decide that the rhetoric of your posts would be more appropriate on Free Republic than on DU, then you are going to get banned.

So its either Skinner's way or the highway. Fine, he owns the site, but the claims that Republicans are control freaks, look pretty lame when compared to this.
Steve 12:35 PM

 
Update on Ohio Science Standards Looks like Creationism is explicitly prohibited from being taught. However, I think there is still some cause for concern here as indicated in the link. First, there is the specific statement that evolution is in "dispute". Sorry evolution is a fact, it has been observed. What isn't a fact is the Theory of Evolution. This theory is constantly being tested as with all sciences from physics to chemistry to geology. To single out just the Theory of Evolution sends a mixed signal. Further, the prohibition is agains "Creationism" and as I noted Dembski is not stupid. He and his fellow "Intelligent Design Theorists" have been quite careful not to couch their views in "Creationist" terms. In Dembski's books he points out that the Intelligent Agency in Intelligent Design does not have to be the Christian God. So it is hard to say that this form of "Stealth Creationism" will be kept out.

Steve 11:55 AM

 
CalPundit's Shoddy Risk Analysis CalPundit takes a look at peoples seemingly irrational behavior. He points out that many of the things that people fear have a very low probability of occuring therefore people are irrational to fear these things. There are several problems here.

1. Even though an event has a low probabilty it can still happen.
2. There is a complete absence of discussion of the payoff.

The first point should be obvious. The winning the CA state lottery has a low probability, are people irrational to buy a ticket or two? No, there is still a winner and it is also possible people like the short bit of daydreaming they can do shortly after buying the ticket.

The lack of any discussion on the payoffs is more problematic. Lets play a game. I'll write a number (integer) down on a piece of paper that is between 1 and 10,000 (inclusive). Then you write down a number as well. If our numbers match I get to shoot you in the head with a .357 magnum. Anybody want to play? Why not, the probability is very low of you getting shot. Chickens.

Or maybe not. There is no positive payoff. The negative payoff is astronomical. Further, the expected payoff is negative. That is if we calculate (9,999/10,000)*0 + (1/10,000)*(a really low negative number) you get a really low negative number. Why play? You 'd be an idiot to play. So what might look like irrational behavior given just the probabilities might very well be rational behavior given the probabilities and the payoffs.

Further, when Kevin makes the following observation:

Does this make a difference? You bet. My mother taught fourth grade for 30 years and once related to me the story of the day she found a group of children waiting outside school after class had let out. What were they doing there? It turned out the bus had left without them and they didn't want to walk home (less than mile away) because it was dangerous. "You do look both ways before crossing streets?" my guile-less mother asked. "Oh yes," they chorused. So what's the problem? "We might get kidnapped."

This is not the kind of culture we should encourage. Of course we should all be careful, but we shouldn't encourage our kids — or ourselves — to feel terrorized by extraordinarily unlikely dangers lurking behind every bush. This applies to kidnapping scares, breathless "investigative reports" about child-molesting preschools, or Oprah telling us that contaminated hamburger is everywhere. It probably boosts ratings, but it also does a lot of long-term harm to American social mores.

He is ignoring a salient point here. These are, for the most part, nine year old children. I wouldn't trust a 9 year old child to not be enticed into a car by a stranger. That is assuming it does happen, i.e. a stranger pulls up in a car and tries to talk a child into getting in, I'd say the probability is pretty high the kid might get in. So in a sense you are only banking on the low probability that a stranger will not pull up. But it is at this point, as a parent, that the payoff comes into the calculus. It is once again playing the odds, but not with your life, but your child's. Still want to play that game? How about if we change it so I get to shoot your child? Suddenly looks even less attractive doesn't it?

Still, I think there is a point here. Inaccurate probability assessments can be a problem and result in people doing strange things. However, that does not excuse this kind of sloppy thinking.
Steve 11:25 AM

 
The Doorknobs at Free Republic.com have an Enemies list...and the leftis at Eschaton are all a twitter Some are laughing at this buffoonery coming from Free Republic.com, and others are being truely Hesiodic (i.e. stupid) and taking it seriously.
Steve 10:59 AM

 
New Link: Balloon Juice I ran across this site and loved it. Especially his post on Hesiod's despicable tactics.
Steve 8:56 AM

Wednesday, October 16, 2002

 
An Austrian Economists View on the Nobel Prize Winners in Economics William Anderson focuses mainly on Vernon L. Smith, which isn't surprising given Smith's pro-market views. What I find amazing is the following:

Laws of economics in and of themselves cannot be set up for testing, as if they are found to be invalid in one place, by their very nature they would have to be invalid everywhere. For example, when David Card and Alan B. Krueger published their notorious 1994 paper that claimed that increases in minimum wage in New Jersey and Pennsylvania actually led to more employment in fast food industries, what they were saying was that there can be exceptions to the law of demand.[ii]--Emphasis added

The italicized part is what I find so amazing. Essentially what Prof. Anderson is arguing is that Austrian economic theory is a religion. The law of demand is not subject to testing. Now don't get me wrong, I am very sympathetic to the Austrian viewpoint, but one of its problems is their extreme mathaphobia. The see the formalization of economic theory as the bane of economics or something. That these mathematical models are of some minor intellectual value, but...but the real stuff is to be found in the Holy Text: Human Action and the Austrians are the high priests.

I'm sorry that is just silly. Mathematical models are a way for the researcher to strip a phenomena down to its essentials. To simplify it so that questions can be answered. A simple example is the problem facing the consumer in neoclassical economics:

maximize U(x,y)

subject to: p*x + q*y =I

That is, the consumer maximizes his utility (welfare) subject to a budget constraint. It is a very simple model...but it tells us some interesting things. Such as what can happen to the demand of good x when the price of good y increases. What happens to the demand of x and y when both are normal goods and income, I, increases. Granted these are basic questions, but the basic point is now the problem has been rendered into a very simple and transparent (to the mathematically literate) problem where the interactions of various variables can be mapped out.

One can arrive at many of the conclusions that the Austrians do via this method, you have just taken a different road. I find it amusing when the Austrians get all indignant for deviation from "True" path.
Steve 11:55 PM

 
Michael Tomasky filling in for Eric Alterman Amazing, they found somebody to come up with the same kinds of arguments that Eric Alterman does.

Anyhow near the end of that piece Tomasky writes:

But Gore isn’t the point, and batty protesters aren’t either. What kind of country this will be is the point. The Nation may print some doctrinaire stuff, but at least it cares about that. So do the millions of Americans like my mom, who are alarmed at the way things are going under this administration precisely because they believe in the country’s ideals, but who carry on in quiet desperation because it often feels to them like no one except Robert Byrd is listening to them or speaking for them. Attacking a tiny constituency instead of defending this broad one is just a way of ducking the real debate.

First I object to the notion that there is something good in what The Nation publishes simply because they care. Is caring the only quality for determining is something is good or decent? Further, there is the implication that those who don't share Tomasky's and The Nations views don't care. How sanctimonous.

Finally we are listening to you folks, the problem is you put forward nothing substantive. The arguments about not forcing Iraq to relent to unconditional inspections and then perhaps going to war just aren't there. Further, whenever such attempts to make the arguement are made they are pathetically weak at best. We see things like

1. Saddam Hussein is a murderous despot, but no one has provided credible evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda.
2. Even if Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear weapons, he could not use them without suffering massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
3. The first Bush administration did not try to conquer Iraq in 1991 because it understood that doing so could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S. interests. This remains a valid concern today.
4. The United States would win a war against Iraq, but Iraq has military options—chemical and biological weapons, urban combat—that might impose significant costs on the invading forces and neighboring states.
5. Even if we win easily, we have no plausible exit strategy. Iraq is a deeply divided society that the United States would have to occupy and police for many years to create a viable state.
6. Al Qaeda poses a greater threat to the U.S. than does Iraq. War with Iraq will jeopardize the campaign against al Qaeda by diverting resources and attention from that campaign and by increasing anti-Americanism around the globe.
Source: Bear Left

These are pretty weak, in my opinion. Number one seems to assume that the U.S.'s war on terror is limited to just al Qa'ida. I think that such a view point is unnecessarily limited and potentially very risky. By focusing solely on al Qa'ida we run the risk of leaving ourselves open to the attack by other terrorist organizations. Prior to 9/11 al Qa'ida engaged in attacks that were not massive or pivotal as the attack on 9/11. Other organizations might see such an attack and try to emulate al Qa'ida. One of the goals of terrorism is to use terror to bring about a change in policy. When people sat around after 9/11 and said, "What did we do that brought this about, we need to know so we can change it!" Were at that point quite willing to let the terrorists win. They were willing to make that policy change to prevent another terrorist attack. So we should not be limited to just a war with al Qa'ida, in my opinion. We need to fight terrorism in general, not one specific group that managed to perpetrate a large scale attack. The latter strategy will end up having us wait until there is another attack on the same or greater scale of 9/11 to go after the new group. If we should learn anything from 9/11 it is that we need to be pro-active about terrorism.

As for number 2, the deterrence argument. Was the Cold War such a good thing that we want to return to an era of mutually assured destruction? Further, once we get to that point the options for military intervention essentially go to zero.

As for number 3, different time, different situation. The two situations are not analogous, in my opinion. When the first Bush Administration went in and forcible removed Hussein from Kuwait, there had been no attack on American soil. The stated misssion was not to bring about regime change, but to remove Hussein from Kuwait.

Regarding number 4, this is precisely why Bush is willing to go to war. Since Iraq has been so determined to develop these weapons of mass destructions (WMDs), it appears that there are two approaches here, either Hussein consents to unconditional inspections with no end date, or invasion and removal of Hussein from power. If there is a third way, somebody please point it out. Further, this is risk in any military campaign.

This also ties into point number 3 in regards to regional stability, or more accurately the lack thereof. That region is already unstable and one big reason is Iraq and Hussein. Granted they are not the only sources of instability, but they are a major factor. It seems fairly clear the Hussein is playing a role in the problems between the Palestinians and Israel. He has already invaded two neighboring countries in the past 2 decades or so, and has already used weapons of mass destruction. I don't want to wait till Iraq has perfected its WMDs and maybe even used them before going in and taking care of this problem. It is like treating an infection, the longer you wait the worse the "cure" is going to be.

As for number 5, yes and? That didn't stop us with Japan. And now they are a valuable ally and trading partner. Further, a stable Iraq and with Iran quite possibly heading towards another "revolution" that could result in a more "Western friendly" country could have very positive effects in the region.

As for number 6, I think those sentiments are starting to change with the recent attack on Bali. The British are starting to realize, they they might be a target too. This goes for any country in the West, IMO.

And these objections are from top foreign affairs scholars at Ivy League schools. I'm sorry, I am just not buying their goods. I have looked them over and found them wanting. So, please spare us this indignation that nobody is listening to you. We are listening, it is just that you have nothing to say that is of any consequence. I personally consider myself a reluctant supporter of military action against Iraq (assuming it does not consent to unconditional inspections), I'd love to see a good solid argument as to why we don't have to use military force. So far I haven't seen one. So please take your hand wringing and sanctimonous pap someplace else.
Steve 11:05 PM

 
Stratfor on the Bali Bombing Stratfor notes that for both Japan and China the stability of Indonesia is important due to the shipping lanes that pass through the archipelago. However, neither country has much beyond financial assistance that can be offered to Indonesia. Of particulare importance to Japan is the flow of energy resources through the area.
Steve 2:38 PM

 
Robert Crawford of Kloognome Crawford (as I like to call him) debunks some myths that have been circulating in relation to the sniper in the D.C. area.
Steve 9:51 AM

 
Media Bias? Note these key paragraphs:

The FDLE presents its crime statistics as the number of crimes per 100,000 residents, and since the state's population continues to boom -- climbing from 15,982,378 in 2000 to 16,331,739 in 2001 -- the crime rate has decreased even though the total number of crimes has increased.

FDLE statistics, which have come under fire several times in the past few years amid concerns of reporting accuracy from various police departments, show that the violent gun crime rate decreased 24 percent in past three years. FDLE Commissioner Tim Moore said that only makes sense since criminals have been put on notice.

In other words, what this "newspaper" is pointing too is a change in the absolute number of violent crimes and violent crimes involving guns. Here is the problem. Suppose you have a population of 100 people and a crime rate of 5%. That is you have 5 crimes. Now if the crime rate stays the same and the population doubles how many crimes do you have? .05*200, or 10 crimes. What has happened in Florida is that the crime rate has declined but the population has increased. So using our example suppose the population goes from 100 to 200 but the crime rate has fallen from 5% to 3%, now the number of crimes is 6 which is actually a 20% increase in the number of crimes if you look only at absolutes.

Then there is this bit in the article:

Crime has also touched Bush personally. His only daughter, Noelle, was arrested in January on a felony charge of illegally obtaining the anti-anxiety drug Xanax at a Tallahassee pharmacy.

What? The opening line of this "article" (I'd call it an attack ad) is about crimes involving guns. I don't think Noelle had a handgun when arrested, and even if she did nothing indicates that it was a crime involving a gun. This was included simply to keep this issue in the spotlight.

This article is partisan bullshit. It should have disclaimer noting that it is in support of the McBride campaign.
Steve 9:32 AM

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

 
Tensions Between Rumsfield and Top Brass at Pentagon It is looking like there is quite a problem developing in terms of how the military will evolve over the coming years.
Steve 10:07 PM

 
Steven Den Beste vs. Aziz Poonawalla Steven Den Beste has another lengthy post that outlines some of his current thinking on Arab and Muslim culture. Needless to say, Aziz Poonawalla has a response.

I have read both, and let me tell those are some big posts. Anyhow, at the risk of sounding wishy-washy I think both gentlemen have scored some points. Here is an interesting point in the in exchange:

Steven Den Beste: To argue that an incorrect and deeply flawed interpretation of the Qur'an is the source of the problem doesn't change the fact that those who believe in that interpretation think they're basing it on their religion, and that they would be expected to defend the status quo accordingly.

Aziz Poonawalla: However, there is a difference between the average guy on the Muslim street and those people in their societies who hold the power, and who are doing the actual oppressing. The only people who really believe in the cruel interpretations of Wahabism are the ones who have authority. And most of them don't really believe in it either, but rather rely in it as a tool for political control.

It's a faulty assumption that the bulk of the Arab population supports the pernicious policies of oppression. In fact, most Arabs hate these rules as much as you or I would.

I think there is some problem here with terminology. The terms Arab and Wahabi are not synonyms. Further, I am not sure I agree with Aziz' view that a great many "Wahabi adherents" despise and would cast of Wahabism if given the chance. I don't think Aziz' argument holds water when talking about Christian Fundamentalists therefore I don't think it holds water with Wahabism. I think that many of the adherents of Wahabism believe in it, just like the Christian Fundamentalists believe in their faith. So I think on this one Steven is correct.

Steven Den Beste: Islamic apologists tend quite naturally to be deeply sensitive to any implication that Islam overall is flawed and that Islam overall must be discarded or reformed. I do not make that argument, and I do not believe it to be true.

Aziz Poonawalla: Actually, Steven has made exactly this argument before.

What Steven says in that piece is that Arab societies need to have a cultural cataclysm. The current state of their societies is the primary barrier to their people's freedom, and (proved by 9-11) our American safety. I agree! But the current state of oppression has been imposed upon Arab culture, and is not a manifestation of an inherent quality as Steven asserts. Steven often confuses cause and effect in his analyses of Islam and of Arabs.

Worse, by either deliberate choice or by simple confusion, he has interchangeably substituted "Islam" for "Arab society" (The very title itself of the piece linked above is "Defeating Islam", not "Defeating Arab tyranny"). And not only does he fail to make the distinction, he even fails to draw the distinction between the people in CHARGE of Arab societies and the people who actually live in them.

In fairness to Steven he does note that he considers this a learning process so his earlier stuff may not totally reflect his current thinking (and it is regrettable that Steven used the term Islamic apologist). Anyhow, Aziz is correct to point out the problems with assuming certain terms/phrases are "synonymous" when they aren't. Islam is not Arab culture. If it is Arab culture/tyranny that is the problem then it does not necessarily follow that Islam is the problem. I think Steven does have a point though that a corrupt reading of Islam is being used by the Arab leaders to maintain their positions of power.

I also think Aziz is being simplistic here when he writes the following:

To take a specific example - consider the rule against letting women drive in Saudi Arabia. This is easy to solve if you make a rational economic argument - currently, to get around this, families in Saudi with two working adults have to hire a male driver (usually a Pakistani immigrant) to act as chauffeur for the working woman (surprised? yes, many women are professionals, including doctors and lawyers, in Saudi Arabia). This is an enormous expense and a drain of money from Saudi middle class to Pakistan (not that there's anything wrong with that ;). This is basically a massive brake applied to one-half of the workforce in Saudi Arabia, which acts to filter out their economic impact. Were the stupid rule against women driving[1] lifted, there would be immediate economic benefit and increase in the standard of living.

Now this argument is easy to make[2]. It's easy to find the source of the injunction, which is a fat Wahabi priest sitting on his pulpit who decided one day how cool it would be to get rid of women drivers. Unseemly! The religious authority of this person is trivially easy to challenge and invalidate. Enough alternate religious authorities could be found and .. compensated.. to assert the idiocy of the rule on Qur'anic ground (3:42, 4:32, 9:71-72 , 33:35, 33:73, 48:5, 57:18, and above all, most importantly, 85:10).

However, suppose instead along comes Steven Den Beste, who says to the Saudi people, "liberate your women! you must reform Islam! Islam itself is at fault!" then the response becomes very differrent.

"See! they defame Islam! This man Den Beste has written an entire essay on Defeating Islam!" - and thus, the debate is hijacked away from the shaky foundation of the tyrant's authority, towards theological grounds. Passions are easily roused - "This man Den Beste challenges the Veracity of the Qur'an itself!" ... "An American has insulted the Prophet SAW!" and teh hold of the tyrant is strengthened, because he can position himself as a defender of Islam.

(Ralllying around your leader (however flawed) in response to challenge of war against your cherished ideals, is a trait not unique to Arab populations.)

The point is that Islam is not the problem, it's the interpretation. The solution is to replace the faulty interpretation (which is NOT supported by any actual religious authority) with a correct one (suitably referenced and supported by religious authority). The former is solely a power play, of tribal impulses. The latter is the essence of Islam, because contrary to Steven's assertions, Islam and freedom are inherently co-resonant ideas.

Sorry about the large cut and paste there, but I didn't want something to be lost by posting just a snippet or providing a summary. Anyhow, even Aziz' approach has the same problem he claims Den Beste's has. Namely the rulers will point to the Qur'an and give their interpretation and decry even somebody like Aziz (a fellow muslim) as being a heretic (I'm not a muslim, therefore I get to be an infidel!). Since many of these leaders have used religion in some way to help cement their hold on power it is inextricably part of the situation. Simply saying, "No, your interpretation of the Qur'an is wrong," isn't glint to solve the problem, although it might be the place to start.

Steven Den Beste: Islamic apologists tend quite naturally to be deeply sensitive to any implication that Islam overall is flawed and that Islam overall must be discarded or reformed. I do not make that argument, and I do not believe it to be true. But Islamic apologists cannot avoid the fact that Islam in one form or another, whether flawed or valid, is heavily implicated in the problems the Arabs face, and will also be a major barrier to solving those problems (just as Christianity was a major barrier to the same reform in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries). Islam is at the core of the problem.

The majority of the world's Muslims live in societies which do not oppress their women to the extent that the Arabs do, and it's important to note that this report was about Arabs, not about the wider Islamic world. It is possible for a Muslim to be liberal and cosmopolitan and live happily in a society which encourages diversity, and to have non-Muslim friends and live around people who do not follow Muslim teachings. Millions of Muslims do live that way. But very few of them live that way in Arab nations, and part of the deep problem which causes Arab failure is their interpretation of Islam.

The reforms advocated by this report cannot be implemented in the Arab nations unless the Arabs undergo a deep reevaluation of their interpretation of Islam and the extent to which its teachings affect public life. They must embrace and broadly practice certain policies which the dominant forms of Islam in the Arab nations declare to be mortal sins. It is hard to see how such reform can be in any way easy. (Equivalent reforms to Christianity's hold over Europe only came about as a byproduct of war.)

Ugghhh another big quote...well what do you expect it is Steven Den Beste here, he is not known for his short essays! Anyhow, I think Steven is confused here. Note that the first and second paragraphs contradict each other. On the one hand Steven is claiming that the core of Arab problems is Islam, but in the next paragraph makes the case that Muslims (adherents of Islam) can live cosmopolitan, liberal, and "normal" lives and do so in many places. If the latter is true, then it seems to me that the former isn't true...at least in a general sense. The problem for Arab's is the use of a "perversion" of Islam as a method of control, not Islam itself.

The last paragraph, I think even Aziz would agree with...provided we could be certain on what Steven thinks the terms Arab and Islam mean. Steven does not help his argument by being loose with the terminology.

In the end here, I think Aziz makes the better case. It isn't Islam that is the problem it is that some have twisted it and are using it for their own purposes. This is true of just about anything. A nice example is handguns. In and of themselves they are not evil, but it is what some people do with them that are very bad. Does it follow that we should ban handguns? I don't know if Aziz is in favor of gun control...if he is, I think he just argued himself into a rather tight spot.
Steve 3:57 PM

 
Hesiod on Ohio's Decision on Creationism I hate to do this...well no, actually I like doing this. I warned Hesiod not to take the IDer's lightly and dismiss them as morons. Hopefully the soon to follow public ridicule of the entire state will result in a reversal.
Steve 2:16 PM

 
Prof. Volokh on Unilateralism In that piece Prof. Volokh lays out the problems with multilateralism when combined with the notion of avoiding policies that could result in increased animosity/hatred for the country undertaking the policy.

Prof. Volokh puts forward the notion of Mandatory Multilateralism which means that the U.S., or any country, can only act as part of a multilateral group where each country has veto power. He then describes the belief that a country should not undertake a policy that increases the animosity/hatred for that country by others. The latter belief rests on the view that with increases in weapons technology a small group can have a large devastating impact, and that improvements in communication technology make it much easier for such small groups to form.

The conclusion is that in a Mandatory Multilateral alliance where one or more of the countries holds the second view of "minimizing animosity/hatred" could render the other countries impotent. If the country that is seeking to minimize hatred does not use its veto power to stop one of the members from pursuing a given policy then that country seeking to minimize hatred would become a target itself.
Steve 1:46 PM

 
The End of 'Cachegate' You know its funny. I see all the time, liberals saying, "You wont see this on the wingnuts", or "The rightwing-whackos aren't going to mention this!" And so far they are usually wrong. Now, I don't see many liberals posting this update. Why? Oh...it wont get them the milage like with Ganske/Harkin?

Anyhow, it looks like there was no listening device, just a technical problem with the lines.
Steve 12:55 PM

 
Jesse at Pandagon a Scientist?!?!? I don't think so. Jesse seems to think that beliefs pay no role in science. Clearly this slackwit is not familiar with science. When you formulate hypotheses, tests, and analyze data you are using subjectivity and beliefs. This is not something that is bad, but it is something that, IMO, should be made explicit in research. This is one of the reasons why I prefer the Bayesian approach to statistics. Anybody who claims that they are seperating their beliefs from their research is either not a very good scientist or is misleading you.

Evolution is not a "belief" system. I hate to break a fifteen-year old's heart, but evolution is not a belief system. At all. It is a tested and retested hypothesis stemming from observable facts, including the fossil record. I think where many get messed up is that science never claims true inviolability - nor should it, given that it is not a belief system.

I hate to break it to Jesse's scientifically illiterate heart, but evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a fact. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory and in nature. The theory of evolution is not a fact. The theory of evolution gives rise numerous hypotheses that are tested by scientists.

I'm just about done, but I'm always amazed at how blissfully ignorant anti-evolutionists are about science while they're condemning it.

Yes, and I am amazed at how blissfully ignroant some evolutionists can be as well.

Note to Jesse: You had better leave the defense of evolutionary theory to those with the brains to defend it. You just make yourself look silly. Also, I'd advise you to reconsider calling the proponents of Intelligent Design morons. Not all of them are. The leaders for example have multiple degrees from top notch schools. William Dembski is no moron, dishonest yes, a moron no.
Steve 12:26 PM

Monday, October 14, 2002

 
Larry Elder had a listener send in an e-mail suggesting the term "Turtledove" for those who oppose the war. Turtle since they seem to want to "pull their heads in" when danger or trouble is present, and given that they are "dovish" on the war. I don't know, I despise the term Chickenhawk, so I am not keen on "fighting fire with fire", but is awfully tempting.
Steve 10:01 PM

 
Links Section Update I have added some hard links to posts of mine that deal with economics.
Steve 9:55 PM

 
Krugman Watch Wow, looks like Krugman's reputation has just taken a hit. Looks like he was out to get Thomas White, former Enron exec, and now Secretary of the Army. Further, his lame retraction, looks pathetic given the facts of the matter. Looks like Mr. White couldn't have dumped his shares when Krugman alleged. Further, the "damning e-mail" appears to be a hoax. The only evidence is a fax of the "e-mail" with no headers, no e-mail address, no IP address, in short nothing to verify the e-mail as authentic. The only contact Krugman's source, Jason Leopold, had with his "alleged source" was a one minute cell phone conversation.

In short, Krugman wrote that nasty snotty op-ed piece based on nothing.
Steve 9:13 PM

 
Universal Health Care There are lots of people out there that think that universal health care (UHC) is a good idea. In the U.S. these people typically point to the large number of people who don't have health care. This is undoubtedly a view motivated by compassion and concern for others. But is this sensible? Economically speaking no it is not. In economics goods and services (hereafter referred to simply as goods) are spereated into different catagories. First there is the overall group, economic goods. From there a distinction is made in terms of exhaustability in use. If the good is "exhaustable" then that means when I consume you cannot. For example, a candy bar is exhaustable. Once I have eaten it, you cannot eat it. An example of a good that is not exhaustable is National Defense. If I consume X amount of national defense so do you. That is if I pay for X amount of National Defense there is not Y less X left for you. As soon as you have exhaustibility in use you are then concerned about private goods vs. public goods.

Public goods can be later sub-divided into other catagories, but this is the important distinction. If health care is a private good then supplying it as if it were a public good makes very little sense economically. Is health care a private good? I think so. If I recieve an injection can you get the same injection? No, typically the needles are discarded and whatever was injected into me is now running around in my body. Getting it out to use in your body is probably as close to impossible as you are likely to get. Similarly for other things such as pills, bandages, and IVs.

Some items such as monitoring equipment, stethescopes, and MRI machines can be used for different people. Again, can the machine be used while I am using it? No. So this is not a public good either. In contrast, a public good that can be used while I am using it is a freeway. Even though I am on it, you can still get on and use it as well. However, with the freeway it could be subject to congestion. That is, as more people use it the less benefit it confers on each individual user.

Anyhow, the point is that health care is not a public good. Universal health care, treats health care as a public good. What is wrong with that? Well why not make automobiles public goods? Suppose the government is to provide everyone with a car. And not just the cheapest car, but any car you think you need. If you think you need just a Yugo, then that is what you get. If however you feel you need a Porsche or a Ford Excursion, that is what you get. Now you start to see the problem. Most people are going to go for the expensive car and who is going to pay for it?

Limit it? But that puts us just back where we are now, but instead you basically condemn those who with life threatening conditions to death. Currently if such a person has medical insurance and then develops such a condition then he or she recieves the necessary treatment. In a UHC system with limited care this will not be the case. Those who have an extremely expensive condition/injury/disease dies. Right now, the market decides who who lives and dies. Yeah, that sounds rather impersonal and uncaring. But the alternative is to make such a decision a political one. What happens if you are in one of the groups that doesn't get covered? What if the government/electorate decides "your kind" are not worth saving? Now that scares me. Why hand the government that kind of control?

I have not seen anything to get around this fundamental argument. That even with universal health care there will still be those who are not properly treated. Eventually to stem the tidal wave of red ink the government will clamp down controls and limits. These limits will now be subject to political shifts, bureaucratic red tape, and other such inefficient methods of allocation.
Steve 3:51 PM

Sunday, October 13, 2002

 

Dewi Anggraeni has it precisely backwards When Mr. Anggraeni concludes it is

"...unwise to conclude that the likely suspects of this weekend's violence were directly linked to al-Qa'ida and aimed at Australians as payback for Canberra's support for the US in the war on terrorism"

Seems to me al Qa'ida linked terrorists are the most likely suspects and that to give all other possible suspects the equal probability is unwise. This article and this one suggest that the U.S. is very much interested in finding al Qa'ida terrorist cells and organizations in Indonesia.

I found this comment in the first article most intriguing

It was a reminder that while the terror war may be played out with B-52s in Afghanistan, special-forces troops in the Philippines and an overt political crackdown in Yemen, to succeed in Indonesia it must abide by local rules. A shadow war gives a weak government deniability, the security apparatus flexibility, and the moderate Muslim majority the chance to pretend that appearance is reality.

Steve 12:10 PM

 
Terrorist Bombing in Bali According to that news report 187 people are dead and 309 are injured and 90 critically. The suspected organization behind the bombing is Jemaah Islamiyah, a group that has ties to al Qa'ida.

"Jemaah Islamiyah, JI as it's known, does have links to al-Qaeda, it has financial as well as personnel links to al-Qaeda, and it's conceivable that an organisation like that could be behind this action," he said.

Check out Tim Blair's blog for more.
Steve 11:53 AM

Saturday, October 12, 2002

 
The Ramblings of Pete Stark I don't know, but perhaps we should send Dr. Carol Wolman to diagnose the good Representative from California. Maybe he is suffering from...hmm...Narcissistic personality disorder 301.81

1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance- exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements;

2) in preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love;

3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people;

4) requires excessive admiration;

5) has a sense of entitlement- unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations;

6) is interpersonally exploitative;

7) lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others;

Yes, thank you Dr. Wolman, here are your meds.

Of course that was just "in good fun", but Rep. Stark sure looks Stark raving mad. He overstates the case that voting to give the President authority to go to war with Iraq should it decide not to comply with the U.N. is not a precedent to go to war anywhere in the world at any time. First, the resolution is quite specific, I am not sure what the House resolution looks like, but I am sure it looks alot like this:

The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

I suppose that some might point to the last part on "...restore peace and security in the region," as some sort blank check, that would be just ridiculous.

But, there is a larger point that goes to the underlying principles here on the issues of Iraq and the war on terrorism. To start with there is Rep. Stark's voting record on these two issues. In 1991 Rep. Stark voted against the resolution to use the military to force Hussein out of Kuwait. In 2001, Rep. Stark voted in favor of using military force against terrorists, but now regrets that vote and if he could do it again would vote against it. Now, Rep. Stark is one of the few Representatives to vote against the House's resolution on Iraq.

These actions/viewpoints suggest that Rep. Stark thinks the U.S. is taking the wrong approach. What is the right approach with regards to the war on terror? I think it is imperative that there be some sort of military response. One that aims to crush terrorist organizations. Failure to do so is a sign of weakness and invites further attacks. It shows that when attacked the U.S. will not respond. Moreover, I think the notion that the U.S. should not only forego a military response, but also look inward at our own actions to see what provoked such an attack is totally and completely wrong. This latter approach not only demonstrates weakness, but legitimizes terrorism as a tool for bringing about policy change. This latter approach is not a solution to terrorism, it is capitulation to terrorist and their tactics. When you start to think, "if this policy is put into effect it might result in terrorist attacks so we had better not do it," means the terrorists have won. Now, some out there might think that this means we should do anything that will result in terrorist attacks; no, that is not the case. What I am saying is that one should not abandon a policy simply because of the threat of terrorism. A policy that is both bad for reasons unrelated to terrorism and might provoke a terrorist response should clearly not be implemented.

I am also not convinced that letting the United Nations handle the matter without the threat of U.S. military action would work. It has been years since U.N. inspectors were inside Iraq. The conditions under the various U.N. resolutions are unacceptable in that they allow Hussein to exempt various locations at which he could continue his quest for weapons of mass destruction. Further, the U.N. is politically ineffective due to the veto power the members of the Security Council hold. Any single member can in effect block the implementation of any resolution. This would make resolutions with long term and aggressive inspections almost impossible to obtain. Again, Hussein would be given pretty much a free hand to do as he pleases in the region.

So exactly what is the right response? I haven't seen anything of substance from Rep. Stark on this. All he seems to be is a nay-sayer. "I don't like it. I don't trust the President."

Also, I am not convinced that the potential threat Hussein poses is not sufficient cause for war. I have yet to see an actual argument against it. Typically the argument goes like this"

"We should not attack Iraq. President Bush and his Administration of Chickenhawks have no evidence that Hussein was involved in 9/11, involved with al Qai'da, or that they want to attack the U.S."

And that is about where it stops. We have no evidence Hussein has done anything bad to the U.S....therefore he wont in the future? Is that the conclusion? Sorry, but that is not logically sound reasoning. It might be the correct conclusion but the argument does not support it. I have never hit a dog with my car. Does it now follow I will never hit a dog with my car? No, such a conclusion would be absurd. Another way of thinking about it is that while often the past is a good predictor of the future it is not a perfect predictor.

I am also not impressed with the deterrence argument in that all it does is ensure that Hussein and the U.S. will be looking at each other through our respective arsenals and waging low-grade wars. A return to the cold war in a sense. I find these arguments unpersuasive as well, as I noted here and here.

So all I see is Representative Pete Stark ranting and raving, but offering nothing as an alternative. I might find him less ridiculous if he could at least put forward something other than his gibbering and frenzied attacks on President Bush.

Update: Contrary to some claims in the media Pete Stark is not a Vietnam Veteran. Mr. Stark served during 1955-1957, at least according to Roll Call.

Update II: Neal Boortz on Rep. Pete Stark's unseemly comments about J.C. Watt's children. How despicable. I can't help but wonder if the parties had been reversed, i.e. Watts a Democrat and Stark a Republican...what would we here. But of course, since Watts is a Republican and black, he is ipso facto, a traitor and Uncle Tom and thus it is perfectly fine to make such ugly statements about him. The hypocrisy stinks. Thanks to The Daily Pundit for the link.


Steve 11:04 AM

Friday, October 11, 2002

 
Protecting Social Security What a joke. It is sad that these people think there is something worth protecting. Social Security and Medicare are going to gobbling up more and more of the government's budget (what the Hell will Phil Donahue have to go on about, if Social Security and Medicare balloon out enormously Defense spending will be miniscule by comparison) over the next 30 years or so to the point that current taxes wont cover the program.

So raise taxes you say. But such taxes are highly regressive. They are a flat rate tax that hurts the low income more than the higher income people. Also, as you raise taxes you are in effect reducing the wage rate, which could induce people to leave the job market. Finally, the tax increase necessary is staggering, According to Laurence Kotlikoff the increase would have to be slightly over 63%. That is the tax rate would have to go from 15.3% to 25%. Now if the increase is implemented in the same way half is paid by the worker and half by the employer. So that means that out of every $2 you earn $.25 goes just to Social Security and Medicare. You'll also be assessed your normal Federal Taxes on the $2 on top of that. And if that isn't enough you'll still have the State taxes on that $2 too. Further, Prof. Kotlikoff's analysis was assuming the U.S. would have the budget surpluses that were predicted back in 2000! Since those are gone the number might actually be higher.

Further, you think, well it isn't that bad. Yes, it is. A tax in this manner reduces the output of whatever good is being taxed. In this case it is labor. That means fewer workers. So not only might some people opt out of the job market voluntarily, some will be shut out whether they like it or not. Also, it is quite possible that in employees will end up bearing a larger part of the burden. When you have a tax like this, the burden is borne by both the supplier and the buyer, but there is nothing that says the burden has to be split equally. The amount the buyer and supplier pay depends on the structure of the market and laws can do nothing to change that.

The Campaign for America's Future (the backers of the website above) point to analysis that points to a study noting that Social Security benefits are going to be cut. Well no kidding. You just figured it out? Of course those benefits are going to be cut, the amount of taxes necessary to keep the system running will be quite high as already noted. So high I don't think that any politician will be able to get them passed. So the most likely outcome is a cut in benefits and an increase in taxes, but once again that will just push the problem back and not deal with the basic fact. Social Security and Medicare are essentially Ponzi schemes. New members pay the older members. Great if you got in the game early, but it really sucks if your in the last group in.

Also the Campaign for America's Future badly misrepresents the conclusion of the report. The report notes that under President Bush's plan a person born on Jan. 1 2002 will have his benefits reduced by 41%. Yes, but what they don't tell you is that plan is designed to eliminate the shortfall in the Social Security program. That is, without such a change, or any change that is designed to eliminate the shortfall in Social Security revenue, there wont be enough money to pay for the benefits anyways!

Social Security and Medicare are broken, seriously broken. Further, something is going to have to be done to fix the program and it is, IMO, the height of idiocy to pretend that Social Security and Medicare can go on today without any change at all.

Link via Tapped
Steve 1:54 PM

 
Brad DeLong He has an interesting idea on how to revise NBER's recesion dating policy. He notes that if the primary indicators that are assumed to all move together don't, it is very difficult to state what is going on in the economy.
Steve 12:50 PM

 
Ward Connerly responds to Amiri Baraka Amiri Baraka is the poet laureate for the State of New Jersey who has penned a despicable poem that points to...well...everything wrong with America, at least in his view. Mr. Connerly is one of them.

Thanks to Croooow Blog! for the link.
Steve 12:19 PM

 
Bigotry: Middle Eastern Style What a nice bigoted statement from Dr. Muhammad Bassam Yusuf, a Syrian living in exile.

"Perhaps the black Condoleezza Rice, the American security advisor, has forgotten her African origins and why she was in America and not in Africa, her original homeland. She has to be reminded that she is a descendant from African slaves and that the Americans enslaved millions of them and led them to America in chains from their homeland in Africa. [The Americans] killed millions of them as they killed millions of Indians, the true owners of the American land."

Yes it is true. Condoleezza Rice is a descendant of slaves, and slavery was an institution here in the U.S. However, note who this slackwit is speaking about. Not just some black American, but the National Security Advisor. How many women in Islamic countries hold similar positions? How many Islamic countries are practicing slavery right now? I am sure that Ms. Rice is well aware of her heritage, and I doubt this buffoon has to remind her of anything.

And the Egyptians didn't want to be left out of the bigotry contest. Hani Zaid belched forth the following bile:

"Condoleezza Rice—National Security Advisor in the rank of a little prostitute":(3) "Ms. Rice persists in treating the Arabs as the masters treated the slaves or the students who have not reached the age of maturity in one of the American schools... Rice talks about teaching us democracy and freedom. She ignores the racism which prevailed when she was a child in Alabama where she attended segregated schools for blacks because she was a black Negro from African origins. She passed her holidays in parks specifically designated for blacks, and she was not allowed to enter restaurants for white people only. When she was 9, she participated in the funerals of four of her Negro friends who were murdered in a racist attack at a Baptist church in Westminster. She has forgotten all of this. What she remembers is the study of Zionism in the hands of Joseph Corwell,(4) the father of Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, in the faculty for political science at Stanford (sic) (5)... All there is for me to say to this lady and to her administration...[is] we do not need lessons from anybody."

Impressive, not only did he manage to bring up the nasty seggregation in the U.S., but also managed to tie in the evils of Zionism. Of course, I am unsure as to why he did this. Is it to justify the rotten, stinking, corrupt governments in that region? Check out the link, the level of hatred and bigotry is astounding.
Steve 12:11 PM

 
Another Article on the Winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics (NY Times Link requires free registration) This one looks at how the two winners actually have different views on economics. Kahneman is a psychologist and is interested in why people with seemingly the same information make different decisions. Smith on the other hand wanted to show how well economic thoery worked in experimental settings.
Steve 11:38 AM

 
Larry Elder on Congressman McDermott Larry basically takes the Congressman to task for his stupid statements while made in Baghdad.
Steve 11:11 AM

 
More Guilty Pleas from Worldcom Managers I have to ask again, what the Hell do we need Corporate Governance for? Just prosecute these bastards and send the signal that this kind of behavior is not tolerated and if caught we will toss your butt in jail. Instead we got a bucket full of whining, moaning, and groaning from everybody such as the President to Paul Krugman. What a waste of time and resources.
Steve 10:56 AM

 
Washington Post: Slide Show of Some Economic Indicators This is pretty neat. It is a slide show that presents graphs of GDP, CPI, Unemployment, and the Dow. Check it out.
Steve 10:47 AM

 
GDP Second Quarter of 2002 (Final) Was up 1.3% for the second quarter.

The deceleration in real GDP growth in the second quarter primarily reflected decelerations in private inventory investment and in PCE, a downturn in state and local government spending, and a deceleration in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by an acceleration in exports and an upturn in equipment and software. There was a sharp acceleration in imports in the second quarter.

Steve 10:41 AM

 
More Bad News for El Paso Corporation (NY Times Link requires free registration) El Paso Corporation is also the company that lost in a recent FERC case on manipulating natural gas prices in California (clik for my discussion). I can't say I am too upset about this having been on the other end of the pipelines that El Paso controls and apparently used to manipulate prices.
Steve 9:46 AM

 
White House Has Plans to Occupy Iraq (NY Times Link requires free registration) I suppose this is going to result in all the lefty blogs and commentators to go screaming mad about the U.S. building an empire. Of course, if they are going to model it after the occupation plans used in Japan this is clearly not the case. In fact, if it works it could result in a country in the middle east that is a source of stability and not a source of instability as is the current regime in Iraq.

Of course, this also makes me think that the prospects of a peaceful resolution to the situation with Iraq is just not going to happen. Of course, I am not sure that a peaceful resolution is even feasible, at least so long as Hussein is in power. Hussein has demonstrated that he absolutely wants to have weapons of mass destruction and thus, the only solution is harsh and continual inspections. I don't think Hussein would agree to that, nor do I think that such a policy could be implemented.

Officials say they want to avoid the chaos and in-fighting that have plagued Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taliban. Mr. Bush's aides say they also want full control over Iraq while American-led forces carry out their principal mission: finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction.

Not to mention the fact that occupying Afghanistan has been a problem for just about everybody that has tried.

Oh well, I am curious as to what the left side of the blogosphere is going to make of this.
Steve 9:25 AM

 
Jesse at Pandagon...Stock Analyst? I don't think so. Jesse thinks that if the DOW goes below 7,000 then...well its just bad. I suppose if you bought in when the market was high then yeah, currently you are not happy. However, when a market goes down like this it is also a good time to get in. Is the U.S. economy going to implode? I highly doubt it. So, with stocks taking a beating now is a good time to buy. Of course, my planning horizon is something on the order of 25 years so I don't have to worry about short term fluctuations in the market. If you are closer to retirement you do. Of course if you are closer to retirement you shouldn't have much of your portfolio exposed to such volatility.

Jesse has the same mentality of those who think that what happened to the Enron employees is the height of criminality. I have little sympathy for the Enron employees who lost more than 1/3 of their retirement funds when Enron imploded. You see, it is not very smart to have all your income coming from the same source that your retirment savings are invested with. I know it is a tired cliche, but don't put all your eggs in one basket! That is what happened to alot of the Enron employees, they got greedy and put the bulk of their retirement funds into the company the work for. Financial analysts who advise people on their retirement actually recommend against doing this since it is a huge risk.

Oh, Jesse, in case you read this I am speaking form experience. The company I work for had its stock lose a considerable portion of its value recently. My co-workers were in a panic trying to sell the amounts they had in their 401ks, but it would take several days. I wasn't. I have nothing invested with the company. Why? I know it is risky, and further that you cannot sell those shares quickly. So if something does happen you could lose alot.
Steve 9:15 AM

 
Jimmy Carter Wins Nobel Peace Prize Unfortunately, in my opinion, it had to be combined with a swipe at President Bush for his harsh stance on Iraq and the increasing likelihood of war with that country.

"With the position Carter has taken...(the award) can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," Committee head Gunnar Berge, a former labor minister, told reporters.

Asked by a reporter if it was a "kick in the leg" at Washington, Berge said: "Yes, the answer is an unconditional 'yes."' On Friday, Carter declined to comment on Iraq.

The reason this kind of pettiness is unfortunate is that first, it makes it look like they picked former President Carter just to take a shot at the President Bush. This has the appearance of diminishing the awarding of the prize to Carter, IMO. It makes it looks like somebody else would have won, except for what President Bush was doing, i.e. Carter didn't win alone on the merits of what he has done, and while I don't think Carter was a good President myself, he has, since leaving office, done alot of good things and probably did deserve the Nobel, but this casts a shadow on the whole thing.

Second of all, President Bush's stance is that Iraq should get rid of its weapons of mass destruction. Am I to take it that Mr. Berge actually wants Iraq to keep those weapons? That is the implication of his statement. The man is a fool, if awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Jimmy Carter was supposed to be a "shot at President Bush's current policy towards Iraq", then why did Berge have to open his mouth and spew idiotic comments? Actions speak louder than words.
Steve 9:03 AM

Thursday, October 10, 2002

 
Using Experiments to Inform the Privatization/Deregulation Movement in Electricity By Stephen J. Rassenti, Vernon L. Smith, and Bart J. Wilson. Yep, Vernon Smith one of the recent winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics. I have tried to find a paper by Kahneman, but no luck.

Anyhow, this looks like a very interesting paper that also happens to be in an area I work in as well.
Steve 5:14 PM

 
Eric Alterman Writes about how the Bush Administration is exaggerating claims about Hussein in an effort to drum up support for a possible war with Iraq. Alterman links to this story from the Guardian. However, I spotted the name Bob Baer and decided to see what Google would turn up on him. Seems Bob Baer has been rather busy of late. here are the results of the Google search. And here are some choice links, IMO:

A description of Bob Baer's book, See No Evil

In this book, according to the description in the link, Baer lays out the intelligence failure that took place that led up to 9/11. Note in particulare thise items:

* In 1996, Osama bin Laden established a strategic alliance with Iran to coordinate terrorist attacks against the United States.

* In 1995, the National Security Council intentionally aborted a military coup d’etat against Saddam Hussein, forgoing the last opportunity to get rid of him.

* In 1991, the CIA intentionally shut down its operations in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, and ignored fundamentalists operating there.

Gee, aren't two of those from the Clinton era? And lets be fair here, 1991 was under President George H. W. Bush and that complete abandonment of Afghanistan sure did provide any terrorists looking for a home with a choice spot.

Also there is this interview at ABC. And in reading through that one finds this:

BOB BAER at 3:16 p.m. ET
I believe that President Clinton, of all the presidents I served under, was the least interested in intelligence. If he had been a better reader of intelligence, he might have predicted the current outcome in the fighting between Israel and the Palestinians.

Also we have this exchange:

KEVIN ROBINSON from deltacom.net at 3:11 p.m. ET
Mr. Baer, in your opinion why did the CIA shut down in the 1990s? Was it the politics that were established during the '70s and '80s to "fence in" the Agency or was it the lack of leadership and willingness on CIA and executive leaders?

BOB BAER at 3:12 p.m. ET
I believe that it was a systematic failure on the part of the American government and it was not solely the fault of the CIA. Neither the White House nor Congress was pushing for better intelligence.

BRIAN LARKIN at 3:13 p.m. ET
Mr. Baer, You mentioned that the CIA has been denuded; due, in part, to a desire by those in power to make the agency more 'politically correct'. Could you give me a few examples of how this sort of thinking has damaged the CIA's effectiveness?

BOB BAER at 3:14 p.m. ET
In the mid 1990s, the CIA underwent what we called an "agent scrub." That meant that we let go of approximately 60% of our human sources, perhaps more, which seriously damaged the CIA.

When I was in charge of the Caucuses in Central Asia, for example, we had no human sources. That also was in the mid to late 1990s.

Uhhhhmmm, wasn't the mid-90's the Clinton era? How stupid can an Administration get to cut human-intel resources. This is bordering on the crimnal, IMO. Thank you Mr. Alterman for that fascinating lead.

Thanks to Croooow Blog! for the original link.
Steve 12:45 PM

 
Nathan Newman on What Davis has Accomplished in California Nathan offers a list of the things that Gov. Davis has accomplished in the state of California. Lets take a look. First we have what Nathan calls the "Marquee level legislation":

In the face of Bush’s indifference to global warming, California passed standards for cars to fight CO2 emissions that, because of size of the state’s market, will force Detroit to redesign their cars nationwide in response.

California also became the first state to mandate paid leave for new parents or those caring for a sick relative. It’s only six weeks of pay, but it’s a start that can be expanded and sets a precedent for national paid leave.

And addressing the shame of our agricultural system, California has enacted new rules to mandate binding arbitration to assure that farmworkers voting to unionize get a contract to raise their living conditions. This is a crucial continuation of the legacy of Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers.

The problem here is that the first one is countered in part by Davis going out and getting the emissions standards suspended for various electricity generation plants during the height of the electricity crisis. So it is rather a weak accomplishment, IMO. The paid family leave is probably going to be a bad thing. It will be a system ripe for abuse (how many times have we seen the stories about people on disability who aren't really disabled). Further, it is a pretty expensive program, with some estimates reaching as high as $1,000,000,000 a year which will be borne by workers and employers. What do employers typically do when the cost of employing somebody goes up? Lay workers off, so factoring in these additonal costs could drive the costs higher. The same thing applies to the last item. If the cost of hiring workers rise, firms (and this includes farms) will hire fewer workers and quite possibly layoff some current workers. One could take a pragmatic view and argue that the increase in welfare for those who are working is such that it offsets the loss in welfare due to higher unemployment/underemployment.

Nathan then has a list of less notable bills

the right to appeal to a new Department of Managed Care, the first state agency in the country devoted solely to improved managed care.

HMOs are now barred from forcing doctors to take more patients than they can handle, while patients now have the right to know if their doctor has settled multiple malpractice claims.

Insurance providers are now prohibited from charging policy holders higher co-payments and deductibles for maternity services than for other hospital services

The first two look okay to me, but the last one I am not sure about. Becoming pregnant is something one has tremendous control over and insurance works off of uncertainty. That is, you are typically uncertain if you will become sick, get into a car accident, etc. But with pregnancy you have alot more control and once you are pregnant you will be consuming some medical services and goods no matter what. So charging more might actually be economically efficient. One thing that rather bothers me is when economic efficiency is sacraficed in the name of equality, but this is probably better addressed in another post.

Nathan goes on to cover some abortion rights legislation which looks fine to me, but then again I am pro-choice. If you are really curious check out his blog. Nathan then lists these items:

a return to daily overtime pay for any work beyond eight hours per day

increased unemployment benefits and allowing students and others who work part-time to qualify as long as they cannot find the part-time work they need

allowing state government union members to vote to collect dues—ie. create a union shop -- for all employees covered by a union contract.

making it illegal to discharge, discriminate or take disciplinary action against an employee or applicant for lawful non-workplace activities.

Extending state overtime laws to the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries.

creating the highest civil fines for workplace safety and health violations in the nation.

limiting an employer's ability to adopt or enforce a policy requiring employees to speak only English in the workplace.

mandating that employers reasonably accommodate employees who wish to breastfeed at work, including increased break time and privacy.

requiring that janitorial contractors and subcontractors that are awarded contracts retain, for a period of 60 days, current employees of the previous contractor and retain them indefinitely if their work is "satisfactory."

All of these look alot like Nanny State legislation too me. The government will step in to take care of you because you, the individual, cannot. Some look downright stupid to me. Such as the one making it illegal to discriminate against employees who are engaged in legal but non-work related activities. In other words, if you want to screw off at work and not do what you are paid to do, here is your big opportunity. Stupid.

Unfortunately Nathan fails to highlight the incompetence, bungling, and downright stupidity of Gov. Grey Davis.

Entered into expensive long term electricity contracts that are now way over-valued.

Failed to take quick and decisive action to help reduce the impact of the state's energy crisis.

Hired consultants to advise him and over see the purchase of long term contracts who had conflicts of interest

Blew the state's $12,000,000,000 surplus out the window on purchasing electricity at inflated prices.

Managed to help mismanage the state budget right into a huge deficit.

These are huge, IMO, and well out weigh anything good Davis has done.
Steve 10:17 AM

Wednesday, October 09, 2002

 
Krugman Watch Wow, I'll say this for Paul, he sure does like to start of with an eye opener. "White Man's Burden", "dishonest", "...if you knew anything about Michael Oxley's legislative career, as if Prohibition-era Chicago had passed a Ness-Capone clean government ordinance." Well I take it Krugman is not a fan of Mr. Oxley.

But this summer, when plunging stocks and corporate scandals dominated the news, all sorts of unlikely people declared themselves ardent defenders of the small investor against corporate insiders. Mr. Oxley, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee — and big accounting firms' best friend on Capitol Hill — suddenly emerged as the co-sponsor of that reform bill. Harvey Pitt, chosen to head the Securities and Exchange Commission precisely because the accounting industry regarded him as a softer touch than Arthur Levitt, tried to portray himself as tougher than his predecessor. George W. Bush, whose business career consisted of a series of murky insider dealings, declared himself outraged at corporate evildoers. Fortunately, Dick Cheney didn't make any speeches about business honesty; that would really have made our heads explode.

Says somebody safely ensconced in the hallowed halls of academia (probably earning a six figure salary; when you are a big gun like Krugman you get the big bucks). Also, if you look you'll see that Krugman is no stranger to sucking up the big bucks from these big evil corporations for speeches. I admit Krugman's work in economics is really good, but do corporations really want to hear him talk about it for...what...$20,000? Maybe they like the way he dresses.

Anyhow, Krugman goes on at lenght (until I was naseaous) on the "retreat on corporate reform". As I have wondered...do we really need it. Seems to me the wheels of justice are turning on these things. Slowly but surely the higher ups at Enron, Worldcom, and Adelphia are being arrested and charged with crimes. Stripped of their property and wealth, and so forth. Seems to me alot of what happened actually was illegal and...maybe we don't need these reforms. Maybe we need stricter enforcement of existing laws. I have made these arguments before, here, here, and here.

It sure was a waste of time...right form the start, amazing Krugman only figured it out now.
Steve 10:47 PM

 
Two Americans Win Nobel Prize in Economics (Link to NY Times--free registration required) The research for both Prof. Kahneman and Prof. Smith focuses on the decision making by individuals, micro-micro economics if you will. The late Prof. Tversky, Prof. Kahneman's collaborator, was also mentioned, but as the Nobel is not awarded posthumously he is listed as one of the winners.

Update: Vernon Smith is also an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute. He is also a Professor at George Mason University which bring GMU's count of Nobel Laureates up to 2. The other being James Buchanan who is one of the early pioneers of Public Choice theory. Definitely a big day for those in favor of market economies.
Steve 12:56 PM

 
Leader of Islamic Charity Accused of Funding al Qai'da (Link to NY Times--free registration required) Wow, al Qai'da stuff all over the place today.

Enaam M. Arnaout, the director of the Benevolence International Foundation, is charged in the indictment with "conspiracy to obtain fraudulently charitable donations in order to provide financial assistance to Al Qaeda and other organizations engaged in violence and terrorism," Mr. Ashcroft said.

Link to the Benevolence International Foundation's website. From their website

Assalaamu alaikum.

I am pleased to announce to you that the United States Treasury Department today approved Benevolence International Foundation's request for the monthly release of a portion of its blocked funds, in order that it may continue to function.

This license authorizes the domestic use of the funds for such vital administrative expenses as property taxes, salaries, telephone, utilities, and postage. This will allow BIF-USA to continue working, while awaiting the outcome of the Government's current investigation of its activities.

I think it is going to be awhile before the funds are released.
Steve 12:44 PM

 
Pentagon Links Kuwaiti Gunmen to al Qai'da (Link to NY Times--free registration required) Apparently the men involved recieved training in Afghanistan at al Qai'da training camps.
Steve 12:37 PM

 
Sheesh I am still amazed at how focused on the 2000 election some people are. They can't let it go and keep going over the data looking for...I don't know, evidence that their lives have meaning? You know, I think it is a bit "dangerous" to keep looking at the data too long; to keep mining the same field looking for a preconcieved idea. It is likely that if one looks long enough eventually one will find what they are looking for. The problem is at that point isn't that they found something interesting, but that they have tortured the data till it tells them what they want to hear. Link via Croooow Blog!
Steve 12:31 PM

 
Randy West on the Donahue and Nader Lovefest Its highly amusing to watch two multi-millionaires (with reference to a third--that fun loving guy Micheal Moore) weep and beat their chests about how awful the wealthy are. Clealry they must be speaking from experience given each of the three are well into that 1% "Evil Super-Wealthy" crowd.
Steve 12:24 PM

 
Hesiod Responds Its amusing enough that I thought I’d put it up here on top as opposed to updating the previous entry.

Anyhow, Hesiod starts off with this:

First, he resorts to the usual wrongwinger "fisking" sophistry, by taking a statement I made, and parsing it to distort the entire meaning of my post. Specifically, he attacks my statement that Kennedy was trying to avoid a "military confrontation" in October 1962. How? By saying that a blockade IS a military confrontation. Case closed, I lose.

How utterly ridiculous can you get?

I don’t know, how ridiculous can you get Hesiod? Your comment was inaccurate. You claimed that Kennedy was trying to avoid a military confrontation. That is completely false, he was trying to avoid a war, a nuclear one at that. So making an analogy of the two situations becomes problematic right there. I don’t think even the most wild eyed claims from the Bush Administration is that Hussein has nuclear weapons. Kennedy precipitated a military confrontation, that is he deliberately went out and used our military to confront the Soviet military.

Hesiod continues

Given the context of the post, it was obvious that I was talking about an invasion of, or attack on Cuba. It was President Bush who disingenuously invoked the Cuban Missile Crisis to bolster his case against Iraq. Therefore, holding him to his own analogy, he fails miserably, as I pointed out by extensively quoting Bobby Kennedy. JFK avoided a military attack on Cuba. Bush has no interest in doing that with Iraq.

Kennedy wanted the missiles gone. He didn't care HOW they were removed or neutralized. Bush only sees one solution to the problem.

Yes and he in effect handed the Soviets and ultimatum. Keep heading towards Cuba and we will attack and do everything we can to sink your ships. There was also the implication that if the Soviets did not remove the missiles the U.S. would attack. Kennedy gave the Soviets conditions that were very stringent, i.e. get the missiles out of Cuba or it is war. Sounds similar to what Bush is doing. Let the inspectors back in under these conditions as laid out here or the U.S. will attack.

When you sift through the ranting incoherence of Steve's argument, he seems to be saying that, because I was not present in the situation room debates, there is no way for me to know whether the debate took place of not.

How do you know he has sided with the “Tojos”? Bush seems to be willing to let the U.N. come up with a new resolution with stiffer inspection conditions. Sure they will be harsh, but no less harsh than Kennedy saying, “If you keep on your present course (in International Waters) we will sink your ships and likely plunge the world into an other World War…maybe one that is nuclear.”

Further, if Bush did side with the “Tojos” there would be an attack, one that is unilateral, and that is done without any fanfare., i.e. a sneak attack. The U.S. rarely does a “sneak attack”. Our society is set up to make such things difficult to say the least. If Bush calls up the National Guard en masse people, reporters, and yes even you, would probably notice. Sending the kind of troops necessary to do what Bush seems to want, that is regime change would require lots of men and equipment. Such troop movements would be noticed. Have there been any?

Hesiod keeps going with this

We ARE going to war. The conditions imposed by Bush make that a certainty.

Maybe we are, I don’t know for sure and neither do you. I’d say it is a pretty high probability event, but that does not mean it is a sure thing. Kennedy gave pretty tough conditions to the Soviets during 1962. Hussein can avoid war by meeting the conditions like the Soviets did. Is it likely? I don’t think so, but one can hope.

And as for Bush acting without morals, I'm not sure I agree that I implied that. If anything, I think Bush is too simplistic, and easily persuaded by "good vs. evil" proclamations. I have no doubt that he thinks what he is doing is moral. It's his advisors, particularly Dick Cheney, about whom I have serious doubts.

Sure you impled Bush is lacking a moral compass. You strongly implied that there was no “moral” debate in the Bush Administration, and that if there was one that Bush ignored the “moral” decision. Now, you are implying Cheney has no morals either.

Steve 9:50 AM

Tuesday, October 08, 2002

 
If you are a fan of MST3K then you'll love this. It is a parody of some shrink's kooky ravings about President Bush suffering from a wide variety of mental illnesses (contradictory ones at that) that points out the good Doctor has probably perscribed too much medicine to herself. I am not a man inclined to prayer...but for goodness sake, lets all pray for her patients...on second thought let's just toss here in the loony bin too.
Steve 3:02 PM

 
Suicide Bomber's Father: Let Hamas and Jihad Leaders Send Their Own Sons From the Middle East Media Research Institute. Here is the opening paragraph from the letter, it is quite powerful, in my opinion:

"I can find no better words with which to begin my letter than the words of Allah, in his precious book [the Koran]: 'Act for the sake of Allah, and do not throw yourselves to destruction with your own hands.'(2) I write this letter with a languishing heart and with eyes that have not ceased weeping. We must, today more than at any other time, obey this Koranic verse, act for the sake of Allah, and refrain from carrying out acts that will throw us to destruction."

Read the rest of it, it is really good and highlights the vileness of those who use these young people as human bombs and the hypocrisy of the leaders.
Steve 1:11 PM

 
I just can't help it. Hesiod is simply amazing at how he can get things wrong. First, lets look at this gem

But, everyone with half a brain in their noggin knows that the ONLY reason Bush went to the UN was so that he could get diplomatic and political cover for an invasion.

Kennedy, was trying to AVOID a military confrontation. And, Bobby Kennedy famously argued against a "pre-emptive" invasion or attack because he thought it would be another Pearl Harbor.

Lets ignore the part that if you disagree with Hesiod your an idiot. The second part is, IMO more damning of Hesiod's ability to cogently form an argument. A blockade is a military confrontation Hesiod. What do you think it is when the military of one nation says to the military of another nation, "You cross this line (in International Waters) and we will do our level best to kill all of you and sink your ship"?

Hesiod then posts a big quote from Robert Kennedy's book and then concludes with this gem

Note the complete absence of a "moral" debate within Bush's national security team. Or, if there was such a debate, the President sided with the Tojo's in his administration. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

How, precisely do you know this Hesiod? Were you part of the Cabinet discussions? Note that Kennedy's book was first published in 1969, seven years after the missile crisis. It wasn't like the Kennedy Cabinet meetings were on right before the Price is Right (or whatever game show was on television back then). I don't think that prior to taking any action the Kennedy Administration was running around proclaiming their strategy and pointing out what moral good guys they were. Hesiod, this is called a double standard. Oh, and another note just in case you do read this, the Kennedy quote does not change my conclusions, I have read it, all it does is add some additional text that does not change the context. I know you have difficulty with this, but additional text does not always change the context. Also note that Hesiod is imply that Bush is lacking in morals, i.e. immoral (maybe amoral).
Steve 12:52 PM

 
The Economics of Information Often times I have seen people say that “the market results in the best outcome”. Those on the “Left” tend to make such statements in a sarcastic or sneering manner, and those on the “Right” often omit some very important details when making that statement. Further, the statement is not totally accurate, at least from a neoclassical economics standpoint.

A more correct rendition of the statement is, given that the economy is characterized by perfect competition then and only then will the market outcome be one such that no other allocation can be achieved that does not make at least one market participant worse off. (This is basically what you get from the First Fundamental Welfare theorem of micro-economics.)

Note that the this revised statement is quit a bit different than the one in the opening paragraph. First, the assumptions have been made slightly more obvious, and the final statement is one of efficiency not one of equity. Quite a few economic commentators who criticize market economies criticize the latter statement on equity grounds. The statement says nothing about equity.

Anyhow, the assumptions while now not completely hidden are still not totally obvious. The notion of perfect competition has several elements to it. These are:

1. Many consumers and seller (i.e. no single actor has market power)
2. There are no externalities (what actor 1 consumers/produces does not impact any other actor)
3. No pubic goods (public goods are very, very seldom supplied at efficient levels by a market economy)
4. Information in perfect.

It is that last one I want to focus on a bit. What that last one means is each actor knows everything. If there are 5,000 goods and services in the economy then each actor knows all the prices. So that last one is a bit extreme.

What are the implications of less than perfect information? Well let us see. Suppose we are in an economy with used cars. There are two types of used cars lemons and peaches. The buyer values the lemons at $100 and the peaches at $1,000. The seller values the lemon at $80 and the peach at $900.

Now in the case of perfect information (i.e. you know which car is a lemon and which is a peach) there are no problems. Via bargaining the sellers and buyers could settle on a price. There would be a market for lemons and a market for peaches. No problem, everybody is happy.

Now suppose only the seller knows the quality of the car. What then? Well lets suppose that the percentage of lemons is 25% (peaches 75%). The buyers will only offer $775 for a car at most. Why? Well, if you have a 25% of getting a lemon and a 75% chance of getting a peach, then your expected value from a car purchase is $775 dollars. This is less than the $900 value the seller puts on the peach so he wont sell. So all you get is a market for lemons. Ooops, this is not efficient. It is not efficient because there are trades that, with full information, would take place making people better off.

So the asymmetry in information prevents a market from forming and lowers the overall welfare. So markets are not “perfect”, and the role information plays is important, but often overlooked.

What can be done? There are ways around this problem and they are called signaling. That is where the seller can signal that the car is a peach. The problem is the signal has to be credible or else we end up in the outcome above with only a lemon market. What are some possible signals? Warranties come to mind. Also, paying for an independent mechanic to check the car (although if the cost is more than $100 in our example this will not work). Still these solutions might keep the market from reaching the point noted above, that is, “…the market outcome will be one such that no other allocation can be achieved that does not make at least one market participant worse off.”

Steve 10:54 AM

 
Text of President Bush's Speech For those who are interested. Thanks to Croooow Blog for this.
Steve 10:11 AM

Monday, October 07, 2002

 
The Amazing Lefties At Eschaton In regards to the recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the appeal by Forrester on the substitution of Lautenberg for Torricelli, the readers at Eschaton are practially in a tizzy over an AP story that notes the New Jersey Supreme Court is "dominated" by Democrats, that is 4 out of the 7 Justices are Democrats. So go check it out, be sure to read the comments, it is quite amusing to see the lefties getting upset even when they "win".

On a side note, I am kind of glad the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case. This could have turned very ugly and now hopefully it will die down and more important matter can be addressed. However, I must also confess I don't like to see this kind of playing with the "rules of the game". In my opinion, it weakens one of the basic pillars of our society.
Steve 2:48 PM

 
Iraqi Newswire from MEMRI Here are some highlights:

1. Retired Egyptian Military Officers in Iraq to Advise on Defense Plans
2. Iraq Continues to Prepare for War
3. Threatens Qatar with Destruction
4. Warns Turkey not to Intervene in the North
5. Kuwait Braces Itself for a Possible Chemical Attack

Steve 1:34 PM

 
Prof. Sa’id Compares the Holocaust and the Palestinian Disaster I am not thrilled when I see these kinds of things. They always strike me as attempts to garner more support for something you might not care to support. If you fail to agree with the author you are in a sense admitting to being a Nazi or at least thinking like one.

"Quite apart from his actual history of mistakes and misrule, Yasser Arafat is now being made to feel like a hunted Jew by the state of the Jews. There is no gainsaying the fact that the greatest irony of his siege by the Israeli army in his ruined Ramallah compound, is that his ordeal has been planned and carried out by a psychopathic leader who claims to represent the Jewish people."

Besides being disgusting in its rhetoric lets look at this critically. If Isreali troops and Sharon were to act like Nazi Stormtroopers and Hitler there would be no seige in Ramallah. Arafat's compound would be rubble and Arafat would be dead with a couple of bullets through his skull. The fact that he isn't suggests that Prof. Sa'id is not only wrong, but horribly so.

"I do not want to press the analogy too far, but it is true to say that Palestinians under Israeli occupation today are as powerless as Jews were in the 1940s."

Oh please spare us the paltry attempt at reasonableness there Ed. You have already shown us your true stripes so just go ahead and engage in an orgy of bigotry. Further, you analogy is wrong. While the Jews did put up some resistance, it does not compare to the level of resistance the Palestinians have put up. The suicide bombing campaign has done a great deal of damage.

Check out the article, good ol' Eddy goes on quite a rampage of bigotry in that putrescent screed.
Steve 1:31 PM

 
South Park Republicans? Well that is what Stephen Stanton argues in that article. That Republicans are far more diverse than Democrats like to admit.
Steve 1:19 PM

 
Eugene Volokh on the Torricelli/Lautenberg, New Jersey Mess I think Prof. Volokh is correct here. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot by going the legal route. I also think that Prof. Volokh is correct in that "the rules of the game" matter and what the New Jersey Supreme court did was essentially to say the rules don't matter. For those of you who are on the left and think this is whining consider this. Lets play a game, if I win you lose $100 and if I lose you win $100. Now, lets start. What? You want to know the rules? Oh didn't I tell you, I get to make them as we go along. Still want to play? Didn't think so.
Steve 10:00 AM

 
Krugman Watch Not much new here, in my opinion. Looks like Krguman picked up where he left off with the last Op-Ed column on increasing government spending. As such my comments here still apply. Raising and lowering government spending and raising and lowering taxes at verious points in the business cycle to help smooth out the business cycle is a nice theory, if you don't factor in the opportunism of the politicians. One thing I am cursious about is why government (deficit) spending vs. tax cuts? Why is giving people more of their own money to spend worse than giving other peoples money to government bureaucrats? Does Krugman think the bureaucrats spend it "better"? I don't know, but I find it curious.

Also of note is Krugman's retraction of his statements against Thomas White the former Enron executive and now Secretary of the Army. You know, dummying up an e-mail wouldn't be that hard. Just a bit of copy and pasting and you could create a believable looking hard copy. Not that smart for such a bright guy.
Steve 9:51 AM

Sunday, October 06, 2002

 
Supreme Court to Look at Copyright Law The Supreme Court looks at the issue of extending copyrights another 20 years. What is at stake? How about the early Disney Movies. If the extension is not upheld they could become "free" to the public. I have blogged about this briefly, but I stronly urge you to look at the paper by David Levine (follow the link) on copyright law. Copyright law currently seems to be swinging very much in the direction of "too much". If I own a CD and want to rip the contents to my computer to listen to without the CD (suppose I have something else in the CD-Rom drive), why shouldn't I be allowed too? Because I could then send copies to all my friends or put it into a file accessible by file swapping programs? I could also use my car to murder somebody. Until I actually violate somebody's copyright (and I'd also argue reduce the income they derive from their intellectual property) it seems no crime has been committed. Why punish people for crimes they have yet to commit?


Steve 7:51 PM

 
Stratfor on the French Oil Tanker Attacked off Yemen This attack (if it is a terrorist attack) is similar to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. I wonder if it is al Qai'da.

After initially backing the claims of the Limburg crew, French and U.S. officials adopted the "wait-and-see" approach taken by the government of Yemen as to the cause of the explosion. However, Reuters -- quoting an unnamed official source in Paris -- reported that France had strong indications that the blast was the result of an attack.

If it is al Qai'da it could signify a big change in attitudes towards the war on terrorism. In particular, this is a European ship that was attacked, so perhaps attitudes in Europe will begin to thaw, also the Arab nations might decide that al Qai'da is not such a good thing since further such attacks could have an impact on oil revenus. Although the latter could also work for the Arab nations. If the price hike is high enough the loss of revenue from such attacks could be offset by the increased revenue due to the price increase. Of course, the problem with this is that prolonged high energy prices would result in conservation which could counter the price increase and hurt the Arab countries in the long run.

Despite the U.S. and allied military presence throughout the region -- and intelligence-sharing by many Middle Eastern governments, particularly that in Yemen -- Washington did not anticipate the supertanker attack. Indeed, in U.S. President George W. Bush scaled back the terrorism assessment alert status in late September from "high" to "elevated," saying the al Qaeda network had been disrupted.

Hmmm, I wonder if our intelligence agencies have learned anything from 9/11. Of course maybe they have shifte resources away from international efforts to protecting the U.S. If this is an al Qai'da attack, it indicates that al Qai'da is far more resilient than believed.

Additional sources Reuters, CNN, New York Times.
Steve 7:39 PM

 
New link added Check out the Daily Rant by Jay Caruso. He mixes his astute commentary on things political with some fun commentary on such things as baseball, movies and the Winona Ryder case.
Steve 1:20 PM

 
It has been quite sometime without a dinosaur picture So here we go, Deinonychus antirrhoppus--terrible claw!



This dinosaur was discovered in 1969 by Dr. John Ostrom (the basis of the character Dr. Allen Grant in Jurassic Park). Speaking of which the "velociraptors" in Jurassic Park are actually Deinonychus. Look at the description of the two:

Deinonychus antirrhopus:

Height--6 feet
Length--2.5 to 4 meters
Mass--50kg to 75kg

Velociraptor mongoliensis:

Height--3 feet
Length--2 meters
Mass--7kg to 15kg

In fact, Deinonychus antirhoppus was classified as Velociraptor antirhoppus, but later was put into its own catagory. Also, these dinosaurs were not even from the same time period. So there is no way the velociraptors in the movie could be velociraptors. My guess is they went with the name velociraptor since is sounds more sinister than deinonychus.
Steve 12:58 PM

Saturday, October 05, 2002

 
For Jesse: Jesse over at Pandagon has been arguing with me over whether or not McDermott was a Veitnam war veteran vs. a Vietnam-era Veteran. I think this should pretty much settle it. From McDermott's own mouth even. (Actually I doubt this will settle it...LOL)
Steve 11:47 AM

 
Ted Barlow on Venom from the Right I think Ted raises some good points, but has a selective memory. Yes, venom from the right is bad, it results in people focusing on how something was said and not what was said. This diverts attention away from the issue.

Here is where I think Ted makes a mistake:

I don't see prominent liberals denying the intelligence of all conservatives, or attacking their colleagues as unpatriotic, or whatever.

How about Alec Baldwin's horrific Conan O'Brien appearance where he basically exhorts a crowd to go and kill not only Henry Hyde, but Mr. Hyde's entire family? Come on Ted if that doesn't count for over the top rhetoric then nothing, does. Link

How about some of the comments about Barbra Streisand at her last fund raiser? How about all the cracks about Bush being a moron (actually Martin Sheen has called President Bush a moron). Link

How about Mike McCurry's statement here, ""They'd like to see the (Medicare) program just die and go away. You know, that's probably what they'd like to see happen to seniors too, if you think about it ." Link, link, link.

So please Ted, get of your high horse before you fall off and hurt yourself . Not only that, but how about we both agree the nasty rhetoric is counter-productive irrespective of its source.

Let me also say, that I don't feel that Ted engages in this kind of rhetoric, he has an excellent blog. Although I disagree with him he clearly approaches things with an open mind, but from a different perspective than I do. So I am not accusing Ted of "hate speech" or "spewing venom", just that if you're going to decry it, decry it on both sides.
Steve 11:30 AM

 
DC Shootings; Right Wing Militia's? Well that is according to the story Atrios picked up. And in typical fashion some of his lefty readers are already claiming the "Right" is going to ignore this. Well this is the first I have seen about it; kind of judgemental over there at Eschaton aren't they. Sheesh.

Update: Looks like Glenn Reynolds is staying with it...not looking too good for Atrios' prediction that the issue would disappear from the "right-wing" blogs.
Steve 10:54 AM

 
Eleanor Clift Gets it Wrong

There’s not a lawyer among them. McDermott is a psychiatrist, Michigan’s David Bonior is a former seminarian and California’s Mike Thompson is a former college professor. All served with distinction in Vietnam. McDermott counseled troubled troops; Thompson was awarded a Purple Heart. They know the face of war, and they were seared by it. Their arguments against a preemptive military strike on Iraq have merit, but Baghdad is not the place to wage the debate.

No this is false. While Thompson served in Vietnam the other two did not. Counselling troubled troops (she makes it sound like it is discussing problems with teens) while noble is not serving in Vietnam, especially when it is done in Long Beach, California. And not a peep about Bonior (other than the false claim), why? Because David Bonior was stationed in sunny California.

Eleanor Clift could at least make a pretense of fact checking.
Steve 1:46 AM

 
Majority Rule: Periodically I run across the idea that democracy is a great way to decide things, even things that are typically decided by the market. However, it is often the case that the proponents of these views have not thought of the problems associated with majority-rule decision rules. One problem is when the voter's prefrences are not "single peaked". Single peaked means that all voters on a given issue have prefrences over the continuum of outcomes that first rise, attain a peak and then decline. A simple example can highlight the problem. There are three voters and three policies. The voters are John, Jane, and Mike. The policies are A, B, and C.

Further for John assume his preferences are:

A f B f C

For Jane:
B f C f A

And for Mike we have:
C f A f B

Now, if an election is held in which all three policies are on the ballot none will win. If there is a sequence of elections then whomever determines the order in which policies are voted on will determine the outcome. For example, suppose we let Mike select which two policies will be voted on in the first election. Mike will put policies A and B up first. The first election will have A win since Mike and John both favor A over B. Then in the second election of A vs. C, we have C winning since both Mike and Jave favor C over A. So by carefully structuring which policies are paired Mike can control the outcome of the election. The problem here is that preferences are not single peaked. So we get what is called "cycling". Cycling is where the outcome of the election can cycle through all the various policies depending on who controls the agenda (like Mike above). If you take turns controlling the agenda then you will be certain to never have a stable outcome.

Voting is a horrible manner in which to allocate resources. In fact, I think it should be a method that is used as little as possible. One problem is that the benefits are often highly focused while the costs are very much dissipated. So you have a group that will lobby hard for the policy and a group that will have much less incentive to lobby as hard. Throw in the fact that voters seldom vote on actual policies, but politicians that determine policy and you have a system that is ripe for abuse.
Steve 12:30 AM

 
Fisking Falwell Eugene Volokh has a good point about not going to far in the criticisms of Falwell. For example it is possible he was quoted out of context. Still, I think this episode points to the fact that the blogosphere isn't dominated just by "right-wingers" as some would like to believe. Lynn Sislo notes here that the blogophere is not just about right-wingers, but about common sense. Note this part of her post:

I come across lefty blogs all the time. I've even linked a few of them. The "problem" is not that the blogoshpere is dominated by the "Right", it's that the blogosphere is dominated by common sense. Let a blogger from the far right start preaching their own brand of lunacy - (Sept. 11 happened because God is angry...Creationism is just as valid as evolution etc.) - and that person is just as likely to get a severe fisking as any of the loonies on the far left.

While Falwell is not a blogger his comments certainly are from an extreme view and they are not being well recieved in the blogosphere, at least from what I have seen.

In that link to Lynn Sislo's site you'll also find this quote:

Why have Americans started to vilify the Guardian? Why does the actor John Malkovich want to kill the Independent foreign correspondent Robert Fisk? And why is the Princeton economics professor Paul Krugman writing with a new-found attention to detail? Answer: Fisk, Krugman and the Guardian are all victims of the latest web-publishing phenomenon: blogging.

Good! I know that with Krugman his Op-Ed writing is considerably shoddy given the quality of his academic articles. He makes very sloppy pronouncements as if they were fact. So it is a good thing that he has to tighten things up due to blogging.
Steve 12:09 AM

Friday, October 04, 2002

 
Iain Murray: The Return of Scientism An interesting article on the notions of "is" and "ought" and the notion that, "because it is natural it is good."
Steve 2:59 PM

 
Egypt takes another step towards a market economy Egypt has put into place some new law designed to protect intellectual property. Propety rights and the enforcement thereof is a critical part of any market economy. This is a step in the right direction, IMO, to help bring Egypt into the modern world and help the population there improve their lives.

But local pharmaceutical companies raised a storm after the exclusive rights were issued to Pfizer in June, accusing the ministry of health of helping multinational drug companies to exploit Egypt's poor.

What wonderful rhetoric. The poor are often the beneficiaries of this type of rhetoric, but the problem is this rhetoric does nothing to help the poor. You can't eat the rhetoric, it doesn't provide shelter, it doesn't keep you warm, etc. This kind of rhetoric is empty rhetoric. It sounds good, but that is it. Without the protection of intellectual property the owner of that property has no incentive to market it. Suppose you make a large investment in creating some intellectual good, but there is no law to ensure that you get paid for your investment. Why make the invetment? If you do, why market it? Relying on people's good will and honor to pay for something they don't have to is a good way to not get paid.

So the people who utilize the rhetoric above are either not thinking clearly or they want a "free ride" (somebody else makes the investment, but you reap part of the benefits without compensating the person making the initial investment) on the larger pharmaceutical companies tailcoats. In other words, they'd rather the people not have access to the drugs at all than at higher prices. How thoughtful of them. Did they think to ask the people first?
Steve 1:27 PM

 
$28 Billion Dollar Award in Smoking Lawsuit And in California too. How embarassing.

``Testimony during the trial showed that Ms. Bullock was aware of the health risks of smoking and was warned repeatedly of those risks by her doctors over four decades, and her daughter also urged her to quit. Her response: 'I am an adult, this is my business.'''

Apparently she is either not an adult, it is not her business or both.
Steve 1:15 PM

 
Unemployment and Payroll Employment Both Fall However, the diverging data has resulted in a skeptical view being taken of the data.

"Do you believe that?," asked David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International. "I don't. These numbers are not very credible."

Steve 1:06 PM

 
Robert Crawford on Deterring Hussein Robert essentially supports my view that during the Gulf War Hussein wasn't so much deterred from using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but that he didn't have a reliable delivery mechanism. If this is true, then it is a major setback for the "Saddam can be deterred" position.
Steve 1:01 PM

Thursday, October 03, 2002

 
Would Somebody Tell Jerry Falwell to Shut Up? Okay, yeah he has the same right to freedom of speech as the rest of us, but geez does he have to be such an ass?

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough…by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war," Falwell tells Simon. "In my opinion…Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses, and I think Mohammed set an opposite example."

Lets do a little history lesson here. The place, The Holy Land, the time August 27th, 1191. After failing to arrive at terms over the surrender of Acre King Richard the Lionheart slaughtered 2,700 Muslim prisoners of war. King Richard the Lionheart, one of Christiandoms foremost knights.

Now I am sure that we can find equally disgusting actions perpetrated by Muslims. That is not the point. This is not some sort of game where the one with the least number of horrendous actions can declare itself the morally superior groups and then proceed to condemn the other faction. It seems to me that if there are moderate Muslims out there we should be trying to support them. Help them become the dominant voices in the Islamic world and replace those of the extremists and fundamentalists. The kind of nonsense spouted by Falwell doesn't help that cause.
Steve 10:09 PM

 
Hussein to Duel with Bush?!?! Yes that is right, according to CNN the Iraqi Vice President suggested that the President and Vice President of each country select a third and neutral country in which to have this duel with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anan as the judge. So instead of a war it will pistols, swords, or maybe knives in a duel to the death.

"A president against a president and vice president against a vice president, and a duel takes place, if they are serious," the Iraqi vice president said. "And in this way we are saving the American and Iraqi people."

Steve 9:37 PM

 
Junk Science from the New Scientist The article focuses on three articles in the July 27th issue of the New Scientist on the blinding effects of lasers as weapons in warfare and the issue of depleted uranium shells (see my post here on this), and the transference of genetic material from gentically modified crops to bacteria in the human gut. The first article on lasers used in weaponry notes that the new laser system on the F-35 joint strike fighter that is used to knock out the electronics components of things like anti-aircraft batteries. Further, it notes that the laser could cause incidental blindness (from reflection), and laments such an issue is not covered by the Geneva Convention. However, a sidebar to the article notes that this issue is specifically covered by the Geneva Convention. Ooops, time to get some new fact checkers.

The depleted uranium story makes the same claim U.S. Reps. McDermott and Bonior made when in Baghdad and appearing (via satellite) on This Week that such weapons are responsible for increases in cancer. However, the New Scientist relies heavily on just one study making such a case and then notes that the research from the IAEA [the International Atomic Energy Agency] does not support the conclusions (i.e., the risk is very minor). Uhhh, guys why write the article at all then, or why make it three columns and not just a short blurb?

The last story on genetically modified crops has only one scientist (affiliated with Friends of the Earth) as the only scientist who thinks there is an issue here.

All in one issue. Amazing. For me one of the hallmarks of junkscience is the reliance on "one study wonders". If there is only one study one should not conclude that the matter has been studied sufficiently. If there is one study out of many that indicates a problem, it is likely that one study is flawed. Hence, don't rely on one study wonders unless you have an extremely good reason to do so. Another hallmark of junk science is when I see an appeal to for the safety of children. For many people (espeically parents) something that highlights the risks to children also carries with it the danger of having emotions over-ride reason. While the study maybe legit, as soon as I hear children in the discussion I give the study a much, much closer look due to the abuse of this technique.
Steve 3:59 PM

 
NY Times on the Republican Appeal of the N.J. Supreme Court Decision While it seems that the Republicans have a solid issue, as noted here and here; I also agree with Prof. Volokh that perhaps the Republicans might be pursuing this without considering the consequences. It might make them look better if they were to make a statement that in they are not going to file any appeals on this. I am not sure if an appeal can be filed after the election or that just addresses the issue, but doesn't have any immediate impact on the outcome, that is let Lautenberg remain on the ballot, but have the New Jersey Supreme Court slapped (metaphorically speaking) hard for making such a stupid decision. Going after this further just might result in voters becoming even more cynical and seeing both parties engaged in legal gaming of the system.
Steve 3:32 PM

 
Iraqis Stall for Time, Playing Weak Hand Well According to the New York Times Iraq is playing the stalling game in the hopes that doing so will result in weaker conditions set on the inspections and that the U.S. wont want to risk annoying the international community. Well so much for unconditional inspections with nothing off limits such as Presidential Palaces. I wonder whatever happened to those predictions that Hussein would call Bush's bluff and allow unconditional inspections? Although, I do conceed that Hussein has played his hand very well, but it looks like Bush is moving closer to securing Congressional approval to attack Iraq.
Steve 3:22 PM

 
Those darned evil Republicans Barbra Streisand lashes out at those who pointed out her numerous spelling errors in her fax to Rep. Gephardt.

It seems that when the Republicans don't like what you say, they attack you on the lowest and least pertinent level. At least, that was the way a Republican source leaked a private memo which had been sent by Barbra Streisand to House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. The manner in which this memo was leaked obliterated the imperative message of the note by drawing attention only to the fact that a few words had been misspelled.

Oh...you mean kind of like how people go on and on about Bush's speaking blunders. Normally I'd be quite sympathetic to this defense for I too am a horrendous speller. But I find it funny when one side starts complaining about precisely what they themselves have done.

Now we get to the good parts. Barbra's totally narcissitic, and self-centered blatherings.

"...The memo was dictated by Ms. Streisand on the phone as she was rehearsing for her performance at a recent gala to raise funds for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Unfortunately, it was taken down and typed by a new employee who sent out a first draft before it had been reviewed by Ms. Streisand or checked for spelling. On top of that, as Barbra ruefully recalls, "It was also faxed to a wrong number.. my luck, a Republican.

THE IRONIC FURTHER TRUTH.. Hidden in this example of diverted news priorities is the fact that Barbra Streisand is a great speller, meticulous in her written communications! "

Me, me, me, me. Sheesh, take about totally self-centered. And I am impressed that Streisand actually takes time out of her rehearsing to check on the spelling of her employees.
Steve 1:56 PM

 
Inconcievable Inconsistencies Batman! Well I suppose it might be a bit much to expect that only Dutch is spoken. Translations between languages that are quite disparate can often result in a loss or reduction of meaning. Also, there is the very real risk of bad translations, for example most in the West associate jihad with Holy War which is a very limited interpretation. The literal interpretation of jihad is struggle. The scriptural interpretation also carries with it a meaning of personal or spiritual struggle for "perfection" (in the Islam sense). It can also carry with it the concept of struggle against those who are enemies of Islam and this can take the form of actual physical struggle, but from what I have read (and admittedly it is very little so keep that in mind) the idea is to be one of self-defense only.

Given this interpretation of jihad it becomes clear that what Osama bin Laden and al Qai'da perpetrated on 9/11 is not in accord with Islam, but is instead a perversion of it (keeping in mind my limited knowledge on this topic).
Steve 12:40 PM

 
End Run Around Daschle The White House managed to leave Daschle out in the cold on the resolution concerning an attack on Iraq.
Steve 11:52 AM

 
Eugene Volokh on a Possible Constitutional Objection to the NJ Ruling I am not a legal scholar or even a lawyer, but I gotta admit this looks like it could have some legs.

With regard to elections, though, art. I, sec. 4 of the U.S. Constitution says that "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives" (this issue would be a "Manner" question), "shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" -- not by the state courts, but by the state legislature. Therefore, one can argue, the election rules must be set forth by the legislature, possibly with interpretation by the courts (because most legislative enactments require some interpretation); they can't just be created by the state courts, even though the courts can create law in other areas.

Note that what this is saying is that the New Jersey Supreme court violated the U.S. Constitution by making rules about an election which are left only to the State Legislatures. Prof. Volokh continues:

Now there's considerable controversy over whether the Court was right in concluding that the federal constitutional grant of power to "the Legislature" required the state courts to largely set aside the state Constitution; this controversy erupted again, of course (together with everything else), in the case that ate everything, Bush v. Gore itself. But given the Court's 9-0 decision in iBush v. Palm Beach County, a state court decision that relies pretty much entirely on the state court's judicial power, without any visible statutory authorization, seems even more likely to violate the "by the Legislature" clause (here of art. I, sec. 4 rather than art. II, sec. 1, which is applicable to presidential elections, but the principle the same).

Looks like the Democrats didn't learn anything from Florida. It is a distinct possibility that the Republicans will argue this and it could make this into a big mess...again. Perhaps it would have been better to let Torricelli remain on the ballot take his beating (like an adult) and then deal with the consequences vs. this game playing.

Prof. Volokh also notes in this post that with the New Jersey Supreme Court decision the 51 day rule has essentially been nullified and replaced with quite possibly nothing. He posits a case where a party requests a subsitution 5 days prior to the election. Given the lack of reasoning provided by the court this might be permissible. This is one of the dangers or messing with the "rules of game" so late in the game. Instead of taking the loss like adults the strategic manuevering took place and now the old rules are quite possibly no longer valid.


Steve 10:12 AM

Wednesday, October 02, 2002

 
Hesiod is Sick I am also starting to wonder if perhaps he needs help from a mental health professional. His latest entry on his blog notes that David Westerfield is a staunch Republican with a clear implication that this is not surprising, i.e. Republicans are pedophiles. Here is his post, sorry I am not going to link to it.

GRAND OLD PEDOPHILE: Well whaddaya know? Pedophile and child murderer, David Westerfield, is a "staunch Republican."

Sounds like a job for the dime-store psychoanalysis of Andrew Sullivan!

Hesiod // 10/2/2002 09:39:13 PM

Get help Hesiod, you clearly need it. (Note to Hesiod's "fans", I am not being sarcastic, I think the guy needs help.)

Steve 10:53 PM

 
NJ Supreme Court Allows Democrats to Replace Torricelli The court stated that the decision was ""in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system." Hmmm, I don't know, I wasn't aware of any laws restraining everything to just two parties. Anyhow looks like Frank Lautenberg is going to be on the ballot. No indication of whether the Republicans would appeal.

Update: Glenn Reynolds comments and has some links.

Update II: I heard on 790 KABC that the Republicans will appeal the decision.
Steve 4:18 PM

 
Debak File--Iran Sides with U.S. on Attacking Iraq I always take Debka Files reports with a several large grains of salt.

President George W. Bush and his aides must be patting themselves on the back this week over the remarkable feat of turning round an implacable foe for its line-up against Iraq: DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s military and Iranian sources report that months of laborious bargaining have produced a secret US-Iran military cooperation agreement for the operation to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime.

Interesting, Stratfor is reporting the following:

Iran's defense minister, Rear Adm. Ali Shamkhani, said Oct. 1 that Iran would not use force to oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq, AFP reported. The minister stated in a press conference that Iran will neither cooperate with Iraq nor take advantage of the anticipated turmoil there.

Steve 3:56 PM

 
Enron CFO Surrenders to FBI Remind me why we need the Corporate Governance Bill? Seems like there are plenty of laws on the books already to go after these guys. Looks like what Enron was doing was illegal from the begining and the Corporate Governance Bill only made already jittery markets even more jittery. Instead Bush had to try and out do the Democrats and kept going off about this. He claims to be a patient man...apparently only with Saddam Hussein.
Steve 3:47 PM

 
Representative Jim McDermott If you read the transcript (link courtesy of shilobucher) of Rep. McDermott's and David Bonior you'll see something interesting.

McDermott: I believe that sometimes they [the Bush Adminsitration] give out misinformation. Lyndon Johnson did it in the Vietnam War. Both David and I were in that war, and there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident. The President lied to the Congress about how many people he was going to put into Vietnam, or whether he was in Laos, or whether he was in Cambodia. It would not surprise me if they came with some information that is not provable, and they, they shift it, first they said it was Al Qaeda. Then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back and saying it's Al Qaeda again. When will that stop? Why don't they let the inspectors come, so that we can disarm Saddam Hussein? Both David and I want to disarm them. That's got to be very clear. He's not a good guy

Stephanopoulos: (Off Camera) But do you have any evidence that the President has lied?

McDermott: I think the President would mislead the American people.

Yes, I know you have all seen this before, probably many times till you are probably getting sick of it. But, and this IMO is a big butt, Representative Jim McDermott is himself misleading the American people. Yep, in the above statement he...well...lied. Yep, when he claimed he was in the Vietnam war. I'm sorry that is a falsehood. It is a lie. My source? Why Rep. Jim McDermott's own website at the U.S. House of Representatives, here.

Notice his military service. Apparently Rep. Jim McDermott's staging area for his commando ops in Vietnam was the Long Beach Naval Hospital. Its also kind of odd that the a psychiatrist would be in combat...but hey, that's the Army square peg in a round hole right? Errr...well maybe not.

U.S. Navy Medical Corps, Lieutenant Commander, Chief Psychiatrist, Long Beach Naval Station, California, 1968-70.

Rep. Jim McDermott is a Vietnam era veteran, but he was not in Vietnam.

Update: I just checked and Rep. David Bonior also was not in Vietnam either.
Steve 10:21 AM

 
Some Torricelli Updates Check out Glenn Reynolds' post here that he is going to periodically update.

Also, I recommend Jacob Levy's post on this as well. He points out that even with Torricelli dropping out the arguments that rest on the claims that "voters have a right to a choice amongst candidates" while not only flawed (i.e. there are plenty of elections where a candidate runs unopposed), it also rests on a factual error. Forrester is not running unopposed. The Libertarian and Green parties have candidates as well. Granted, they may not be the choices Democrats want, but I don't think the law states you not only get to have a choice, but a choice you find acceptable.

Another one to check out is Jay Caruso over at the Daily Rant. The comments are wonderful so check those out too. Especially this line by Mudbug

Instead of addressing the issue at hand, you are attacking Hesiod for a faulty analogy between Torricelli and Mel Carnahan.

And last, but by no means least. Don't forget to check out Counterspin for your daily dose of humor and non-sequiturs. The best part about it is that Hesiod has no idea how funny "he" is, "he" is his own straight man. Here is a great example:

Hopefully, we can have an elevated discussion of the legal issues, and seperate that from the raw political motivations of those who have been deliberately misinterpreting the Statute and the Constitution.

This is so funny. Hesiod has to be the most petulant and insulting member of the blogosphere and here "he" is hoping for an "elevated discussion". Keep it up Hesiod and your next stop will be the Laugh Factory or the Improv.

Hesiod also points to this case to support his position. I am not a lawyer, but my reading of this is as follows.

A candidate for a party in Puerto Rico was elected in 1980. Said candidate died in 1981. The governor of Puerto Rico ordered a "by-election" to find a replacement that was open to all eligible voters. The party that the deceased representative was a member of filed a law suit pointing out that according to Puerto Rico law only the and electors affiliated with the party could participate in the by-election. The suit was settled in favor of the political party bringing the suit. I don't see how in the world this applies to anything in the Torricelli case. The candidate that was being replaced had already been elected in a general election. This is a crucial distinction between this and the Torricelli case. As usual Hesiod is grabbing onto anything and throwing it out. It is like he is setting of a smoke grenade to hide his own mistakes. What makes this really funny is that these attempts to divert attention fail miserably.

Update: Eugene Volokh updates his analysis. He corrects for a mistake he made, it doesn't change the bottom line though. Prof. Volokh also brings up the issue of recusal for the New Jersey Supreme Court Justices. Link 1 and Link 2...hey, that sounds like Dr. Suess and Thing 1 and Thing 2.
Steve 9:16 AM

Tuesday, October 01, 2002

 
Krugman Watch Sigh I started reading that column and thought, "Hmmm, looks like I might not have anything to gripe about with Krugman's latest." But then I hit the seventh paragraph and things started to get sour, then it just tasted rotten by the next paragraph when Krugman's true feelings come out. Lets start with the seventh paragraph:

So what will be the U.S. equivalent? Right now we are in effect following the reverse policy: slashing domestic spending in the face of an economic slump. Some of this is taking place at the federal level; the Bush administration is nickel-and-diming public spending wherever it can, shaving a billion here, a billion there off everything from veterans' benefits and homeland security to Medicare payments. More important, the federal government is doing nothing to help as state and local governments, their revenues savaged by recession, make deep cuts in spending on everything that isn't urgently necessary, and many things that are.

This is where we see what I call the economists naivete. See in orthodox Keynesian economics you can do a couple of things to stimulate the economy, cut taxes or increase spending (three really, in that you could try both). The idea is that you increase spending (i.e. run deficits) during the recessions and run surpluses during the expansion. The idea being the surplus will cancel out the deficit (or flatten out the business cycle--see the connection to engineering here, the economy is a machine the economist can fine tune). In reality, when pols get their hands on your money they don't like to let go. During the boom years the spending is not cut back. It is not cut back because favored constituents will be upset. It is a problem in discretionary policy known as the time inconsistency problem.

What the heck is that? Good question. Imagine you are a professor and you tell the class at the begining of the year what your final is going to be comprised of. You do this so they will study what you think is important. Then on the day of the test you can improve everybody welfare by cancelling the test. The students have studied and are full of the knowledge you wanted to teach them. You have succeeded as a teacher; this makes you happy. You students can leave class early and not go through the stress of taking the final, and since they know the material they pass. This makes them happy. You can leave early too and not grade the exams. You are even more happy.

How does this relate to time inconsistency? Well I'll tell you. You, as the professor made a policy announcement that at the time was optimal, that is, there will be a final exam. The students believed you so they studied. Then on the day of the test, because the students believed you, you could change the policy at that time and cancel the test making everybody better off. But, here comes the problem. Knowing that this last minute policy change will come your students wont study. They don't learn the material, and when they get done with school they are ignorant and cannot get good jobs. Now they are worse off. You feel like a failure for failing them and you feel worse off. That is the problem with time inconsistency. When you make a policy announcement at time t as the policy maker you have a strong incentive to change policy at time t + s (s > o), to capitalize on the welfare gains. But since people are (assumed to be) rational economic utility maximizers they foresee this switch and don't believe it, making it impossible to realize those welfare gains at time t + s.

This is why professors still give final exams. It isn't optimal, but it is better than trying to achieve the optimal plan. This is why when you run a deficit in a recession you tend not to see surpluses of such magnitude to wipe out the previously aquired debt.

Krugman knows this. I am absolutely positive he knows this. How do I know he knows this. I have heard of time inconsistency and I only went to the George Washington University for graduate school, a good school, but not like M.I.T., by some accounts one of the best schools for economics in the country! The paper that introduced time inconsistency, "Rules Rather than Discretion: The Time Inconsistency of Optimal Plans", Journal of Political Economy, by Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott is a paper everybody in economics has read. It was a devasting theoretical blow to discretionary policy. The standard response is to ignore it like Krugman does. The problem is, that is bad economics and bad policy.
Steve 11:49 PM

 
Bill Herbert Points to the Other Outrage of Bonoir/McDermott That the DU used in American weapons during the gulf war are responsible for the rise in the number of cancers in Iraq. The idea that Hussein would gather sick children together for propaganda purposes never even crosses their minds. Nope, full speed ahead with the junk science. So remember, not only is President Bush a liar (a possibility) and Saddam Hussein is a paragon of truth, but the U.S. is now responsible for the children in Iraq suffering from cancer. We are, in the words of the dynamic duo in Baghdad, "a horrendous, barbaric, and horrific".
Steve 2:13 PM

 
Hesiod...Legal Scholar? I don't think so.

Note the underlined text above. The Statue CLEARLY says that if Torricelli resigns from office within 30 days of the next election, the Governor can appoint someone to the post, and they can either serve until the next general election (2004) or the Governor can set a special election.

This completely circumvents the voting process and is in violation of the U.S. Constitution (apparently Hesiod learned nothing from Florida--he obsesses about it so much I wonder if he is from there--anyways). Think about it. McGreevy appoints Democrat Y to be the Senator until 2004. Then 30 days prior to that election Senator Y resigns and McGreevy appoints a new Senator until the next general election, ad infinitum. So even if Hesiod is correct this law will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, IMO.

Hesiod then goes on to impugn Glenn Reynold's understanding of the law:

What's more, "Law professor," Glenn Reynolds, cites the article uncritically.


Really, Glenn. Any Law professor I know would give Kopel an "F" for totally misreading the statute and the Constitution.

Think about that for a minute. Hesiod knows Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, who does not give Kopel an F. Hesiod is amazingly inconsistent I read his blog just for laughs.

Update: I just read Glenn Reynolds' post and you know what? Hesiod is being misleading again. Glenn Reynoldss post is not only uncritical it is virtually comment free. I think it is a mistake to assume that simply because Glenn Reynolds does not profer an opinion it means he approves of the conclusions of a link he has posted. But this does not stop Hesiod, he'll go to any lengths to smear somebody.

Update II: Hesiod invokes the appointment of Jean Carnahan to the Senate by the Governor of Missouri after he husband died on Oct. 17th 2000 but was re-elected anyways. I don't think the cases are analogous since Mel Carnahan did not drop out of the race, and did not resign his seat. Torricelli is quiting the race, this changes the situation so Hesiod's comments are irrelevant.

Update III: Eugene Volokh thinks the Kopel's argument looks sound as well. So now we have two law professors vs. the anonymous blogger Hesiod Theogony, the writer of myths and plays. I don't know, his position is starting to look more like wishful thinking.

Update IV: Eugene Volokh has updated his comments on Torricelli's pulling out of the race. Also, check out the link to Glenn Reynolds' as he has updated his comments too. Also, Hesiod has updated his blog too. He closes with this statement:

Frankly, it's incumbant upon thsoe who claim that the statute is unconstitutional to provide some support for their argument in the form of legal citations. The 17th amendment's plain language shifts the burden to those who are arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

Okay, Hesiod how about this, the 17th Amendment is quite clear in that is says that a Senator can only serve for 6 years. Under your scheme so long as a there is a governor of the same party in New Jersey they can remain in office indefinitely simply by resigning within 30 days of the election and then getting reappointed by the governor.

Not enough, how about this part:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Hesiod, the appointment will be temporary for the remainder of Torricelli's term, the next election is Nov. 2002, not 2004. There is nothing in the 17th Amendment that says if you are within 30 days of the election the temporary appointee gets a free pass on the current election. Your reading of the Amendment is flawed. You have at least two law professors telling you this, but refuse to even address their arguments.

Update V: Volokh again hits the Torricelli thing! He points to another reason there is no getting around the upcoming election.
Steve 1:41 PM

 
Morons, idiots, and dolts lend me your eyes! Turns out that Barbra Streisand’s quote of Shakespeare is not just wrong, but completely made up. Also we have the memo Streisand sent to Dick Gephardt chock full of spelling errors such as Gebhardt (Gephardt), Sadam (Saddam), and al Queda (al Qai’da). So is she a dolt, moron, and an idiot? I suppose if we were to use the same standard that applies to President Bush then the answer is unequivocal, she is a dolt, moron and an idiot. How about Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who has said the following:

"I was happy to do crime because I think it's really tearing this
country apart," Townsend says.

Do tell Ms. Townsend, what crime were you happy to do? Is Ms. Kennedy a dolt, moron and an idiot? What about her “football gaffe” (the Baltimore Raven’s won a football…uhhh okay)? However, I think we should not use the standard that is used for President Bush for Babs and Ms. Townsend. Further, I don’t think we should use it for President Bush.

Steve 11:20 AM