The New Yorker: Fact
Another Hersh article worth reading. If he didn't have such a good track record, and if Bush were not brutally wilfull, this would not be believable. As it is, I trust Hersh more than Bush. Where, though, will we get all the soldiers?
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Monday, January 17, 2005
AuthenticGOP.com
AuthenticGOP.com
My favorite "A person of tolerance and diversity keyed my car."
This is indeed a well titled site. "Authentic GOP" indeed.
My favorite "A person of tolerance and diversity keyed my car."
This is indeed a well titled site. "Authentic GOP" indeed.
The Darwinian Society
Ownership Society
Darwin was an outstanding scientist and an exceptional human being. Alas, his name is not his own any more. So, with apologies to the great scientist and humanist, let us declare that the "ownership society" is social Darwinism in the Spenglerian tradition.
In social Darwinism "excellence" is rewarded by wealth (theoretically by progeny, but that part didn't work out). Weakness is punished -- by misery and death.
The Ownership Society is about rewarding Strength and Excellence. And, conversely, by elimination of the weak.
That's the agenda underlying "social security reform". Those who are strong will do well, those who misjudge, who are frail, who are weak, will perish. Unless, of course, they have wealthy families who will save them.
Only the poor and the weak will truly perish.
Sound familiar?
I don't like the idea of living in that world. I don't want my children to grow up in that world. The saddest irony of all is that Bush was elected, in part, by those who were too "weak" to see through his agenda. They and their children will pay the price -- unless, by some miracle, we turn this back.
..An ownership society values responsibility, liberty, and property. Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings.
Darwin was an outstanding scientist and an exceptional human being. Alas, his name is not his own any more. So, with apologies to the great scientist and humanist, let us declare that the "ownership society" is social Darwinism in the Spenglerian tradition.
In social Darwinism "excellence" is rewarded by wealth (theoretically by progeny, but that part didn't work out). Weakness is punished -- by misery and death.
The Ownership Society is about rewarding Strength and Excellence. And, conversely, by elimination of the weak.
That's the agenda underlying "social security reform". Those who are strong will do well, those who misjudge, who are frail, who are weak, will perish. Unless, of course, they have wealthy families who will save them.
Only the poor and the weak will truly perish.
Sound familiar?
I don't like the idea of living in that world. I don't want my children to grow up in that world. The saddest irony of all is that Bush was elected, in part, by those who were too "weak" to see through his agenda. They and their children will pay the price -- unless, by some miracle, we turn this back.
NYT Magazine has an in depth review of social security
The New York Times > Magazine > A Question of Numbers
This detailed article is robust evidence that this is a battle about ideology, not demographics and not economics. Social security is fundamentally "socialist" (progressive) -- those that have give to those that have not. It's easy to see why extremists, like Bush, want to eliminate it.
Among all the details and surprises in the article, one impression stands above all. The politicians who did this, and the people who worked for and with them, tower over our current leadership. It's not that America was any better; the historical context is very familiar. Bile spouting morons on the radio, whacko extremists proposing radical revisions, the dark specter of fascism off to one side -- heck, the American people were then as they are now. What puzzles me is why the politicians, and the bureaucrats who built social security, were so superior to what we now endure.
PS. Social security is mandated by law to do 75 year predictions. This is pathetically funny. We may not even be human in 75 years.
... Overall, the [Bush] plan is gentler toward lower-income seniors than wealthier ones, but all seniors would be poorer than under present law. In other words, absent a sustained roaring bull market, the private accounts would not fully make up for the benefit cuts. According to the C.B.O.'s analysis, which, like all projections of this sort should be regarded as a best guess, a low-income retiree in 2035 would receive annual benefits (including the annuity from his private account) of $9,100, down from the $9,500 forecast under the present program. A median retiree would be cut severely, from $17,700 to $13,600. On the plus side, budget deficits would be lower in the future. But, because of the lengthy transition, that ''future'' is exceedingly remote -some 50 years down the road. In the interim, deficits would rise by up to 1.5 percent of the country's G.D.P....An in depth review. How many people know that since 1997 the insolvency date has moved back 13 years -- because lifespans have not extended as much as expected. The obesity epidemic perhaps?
This detailed article is robust evidence that this is a battle about ideology, not demographics and not economics. Social security is fundamentally "socialist" (progressive) -- those that have give to those that have not. It's easy to see why extremists, like Bush, want to eliminate it.
Among all the details and surprises in the article, one impression stands above all. The politicians who did this, and the people who worked for and with them, tower over our current leadership. It's not that America was any better; the historical context is very familiar. Bile spouting morons on the radio, whacko extremists proposing radical revisions, the dark specter of fascism off to one side -- heck, the American people were then as they are now. What puzzles me is why the politicians, and the bureaucrats who built social security, were so superior to what we now endure.
PS. Social security is mandated by law to do 75 year predictions. This is pathetically funny. We may not even be human in 75 years.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
My home town paper shows some spine ... callling a lie a lie
Editorial: Social Security/Blacks get more, not less, from it
Wow. The Strib is usually as dull as dishwater. Someone must have put something in the water coolers. Good for them.
Of all the lies -- let's call them by their right name -- that the Bush administration is spreading about Social Security, none is as vile as the canard Bush repeated last Tuesday, when he said, 'African-American males die sooner than other males do, which means the [Social Security] system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people. And that needs to be fixed.' That is an entirely phony assertion; it has been debunked by the Social Security Administration, by the Government Accountability Office and by other experts. Bush and those around him know that. For them to repeat what they know to be a blatant lie is despicable fear-mongering.
Wow. The Strib is usually as dull as dishwater. Someone must have put something in the water coolers. Good for them.
A just sentence for Graner -- but an unjust world
Graner Gets 10 Years for Abuse at Abu Ghraib (washingtonpost.com)
On the night shift at One-Alpha, Graner said, the Army assigned two low-ranking reservists to guard 80 to 100 prisoners, ranging from common criminals to veteran terrorists. He showed a picture of the guards' cellblock 'office' -- a closet-size space surrounded by sandbags to protect against the guns and grenades that he said were regularly smuggled to the prisoners.Graner deserves his 10 years. So, probably, do the people he's named. Problem is, so does Rumsfeld. And maybe, so does Bush.
Graner said the guards were told to 'terrorize' the inmates to make it easier for CIA agents and military intelligence officers to question them.
'They would say . . . give this prisoner 30 seconds to eat,' Graner recalled. 'It's pitch black in your cell. I shine a light in your eyes to blind you. I haul you out, naked, and I hand you the [packed lunch] and the whole time you're trying to eat I'm screaming at you. Then time's up. We gave you the opportunity to eat. You just didn't eat.' ...
...Graner named a series of Army officers, ranking from lieutenant to full colonel, who gave orders, he said, to mistreat prisoners -- particularly those described as "intelligence holds" who were believed to have information about the Iraqi insurgency that grew up after the fall of Baghdad. Those he named included Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade in charge of the prison; Lt. Col. Steven Jordan, the senior Military Intelligence officer; Capt. Donald J. Reese, commander of the 372nd Military Police Company; Capt. Christopher Brinson, platoon leader; and 1st Lt. Lewis Raeder, platoon leader in the military police command.
Confusion about medical errors, sigh
A Health Care Cost Shift (washingtonpost.com)
There's no evidence that the US has a higher medical error rate than other wealthy nations. In fact, based on my experience in Canada, our error rates are probably about the same or a bit lower than elsewhere. (It's not that US physicians are more virtuous or better trained, it's that US consumers are more aggressive and have more lawyers.)
This is not a chance bit of confusion. It's a deliberate smokescreen by the insurance companies and payors. Of course journalists at the Washington Post are readily bamboozled by this kind of thing.
We know from studies in the 80s and 90s why our costs are higher than other nations. We use more subspecialists, we pay far more in overhead to payors and insurance companies, we're more aggressive in neonatal and end-of-life care, we pay our physicians and nurses more than other nations. (Note we pay our CEOs far, far more than other nations). It's no great mystery.
Reducing medical errors might reduce costs -- it depends how you define "error". In the popular sense of a "mistake that causes harm" reducing those might increase costs! Most the mortality from medical errors comes near the end of life, to vulnerable people who can't survive commonplace mistakes. Since most of those people would die even with perfect care, medical errors are reducing costs. (This is a common mistake about medical errors btw. The years-of-life-lost to medical error are far less than years-of-life-lost to other causes.)
If by "error" one means duplicate testing, "unnecessary care" (MRI for sore shoulder -- one man's luxury is another's necessity), etc. then indeed reducing these "medical errors" would reduce costs. That's in part what "managed care" is about. It's not what Leape et al were writing about in the 80s and 90s when they made their mark.
Of course there's no way any journalist will get this straight. They have been betrayed by their publishers/editors and are massively outgunned by the insurance/payor industry.
'So we're spending a third more than any advanced industrial country, but half of that money is wasted and people are hurting,' Darling said. 'The employer has to pay more just to undo the damage done' by medical mistakes.
There's no evidence that the US has a higher medical error rate than other wealthy nations. In fact, based on my experience in Canada, our error rates are probably about the same or a bit lower than elsewhere. (It's not that US physicians are more virtuous or better trained, it's that US consumers are more aggressive and have more lawyers.)
This is not a chance bit of confusion. It's a deliberate smokescreen by the insurance companies and payors. Of course journalists at the Washington Post are readily bamboozled by this kind of thing.
We know from studies in the 80s and 90s why our costs are higher than other nations. We use more subspecialists, we pay far more in overhead to payors and insurance companies, we're more aggressive in neonatal and end-of-life care, we pay our physicians and nurses more than other nations. (Note we pay our CEOs far, far more than other nations). It's no great mystery.
Reducing medical errors might reduce costs -- it depends how you define "error". In the popular sense of a "mistake that causes harm" reducing those might increase costs! Most the mortality from medical errors comes near the end of life, to vulnerable people who can't survive commonplace mistakes. Since most of those people would die even with perfect care, medical errors are reducing costs. (This is a common mistake about medical errors btw. The years-of-life-lost to medical error are far less than years-of-life-lost to other causes.)
If by "error" one means duplicate testing, "unnecessary care" (MRI for sore shoulder -- one man's luxury is another's necessity), etc. then indeed reducing these "medical errors" would reduce costs. That's in part what "managed care" is about. It's not what Leape et al were writing about in the 80s and 90s when they made their mark.
Of course there's no way any journalist will get this straight. They have been betrayed by their publishers/editors and are massively outgunned by the insurance/payor industry.
Yahoo squashes Google -- again
Yahoo! Search Results for "fermi paradox" "intelligent design"
I'd just posted on the results of a Google search on "fermi paradox" and "intelligent design". That search didn't come up with much, hence my post.
Then it occurred to me to try Yahoo Search. I already know that Yahoo does a far better job of indexing Blogspot (Blogger) than Google does (Google owns Blogger/Blogspot).
Sure enough, the same search in Yahoo finds many more posts. These aren't just "noise" results, the Yahoo search is simply much better than the Google search.
So it does look like the intelligent design folks are starting to tenderly inch their way towards the Fermi Paradox. Tenderly, because the ones doing this are smart enough to see the perils of this line of inquiry. My old Fermi Paradox page is still the top result, but not for long I'd guess. This should become interesting in a year or two.
In the meantime, Yahoo is a better search engine than Google! It's not really much of a contest. It will take me a while to switch over -- Google is so embedded in my workflow. Fortunately Firefox can be readily reconfigured, though Safari is stuck on Google.
I like Google as a company and an innovator, but they're clearly struggling in their core domain. If Yahoo can beat them, then so can Microsoft.
I wonder why Yahoo doesn't get more credit for their new search excellence? Yahoo is still dumb in a lot of things (their map/address book/directions integration has been broken for years) and often fails to deliver (of course my needs & criteria are not typical) -- but they are showing flickers of excellence. Maybe they'll join Amazon and Google in the top ranks of the innovators this year ...
Update 1/16: It occurs to me that Yahoo has a significant advantage over Google. It's the same advantage OS/X has over XP. Google is the dominant player, so the bad guys target their hacks against Google's search algorithms. It's a constant war, and it often means Google has to use suboptimal algorithms to thwart easy attacks. Yahoo isn't a dominant player, so they can use the algorithms Google has passed over or has abandoned (once Google abandons them, so do the bad guys, they need to track Google).
Of course if Yahoo's current search excellence gets noted, they'll be targeted too. The costs of targeting both Yahoo and Google are high however, indeed techniques that work for one may fail for another.
If this sounds familiar to you, then perhaps you're a life sciences person. This is the same kind of struggle one sees in ecosystems, and in antimicrobial therapy. HIV multidrug therapy works because HIV can readily adapt to one drug, but that adaptation makes it more vulnerable to another.
Again I wonder, how do the anti-evolution folks make any sense of the universe around them?
I'd just posted on the results of a Google search on "fermi paradox" and "intelligent design". That search didn't come up with much, hence my post.
Then it occurred to me to try Yahoo Search. I already know that Yahoo does a far better job of indexing Blogspot (Blogger) than Google does (Google owns Blogger/Blogspot).
Sure enough, the same search in Yahoo finds many more posts. These aren't just "noise" results, the Yahoo search is simply much better than the Google search.
So it does look like the intelligent design folks are starting to tenderly inch their way towards the Fermi Paradox. Tenderly, because the ones doing this are smart enough to see the perils of this line of inquiry. My old Fermi Paradox page is still the top result, but not for long I'd guess. This should become interesting in a year or two.
In the meantime, Yahoo is a better search engine than Google! It's not really much of a contest. It will take me a while to switch over -- Google is so embedded in my workflow. Fortunately Firefox can be readily reconfigured, though Safari is stuck on Google.
I like Google as a company and an innovator, but they're clearly struggling in their core domain. If Yahoo can beat them, then so can Microsoft.
I wonder why Yahoo doesn't get more credit for their new search excellence? Yahoo is still dumb in a lot of things (their map/address book/directions integration has been broken for years) and often fails to deliver (of course my needs & criteria are not typical) -- but they are showing flickers of excellence. Maybe they'll join Amazon and Google in the top ranks of the innovators this year ...
Update 1/16: It occurs to me that Yahoo has a significant advantage over Google. It's the same advantage OS/X has over XP. Google is the dominant player, so the bad guys target their hacks against Google's search algorithms. It's a constant war, and it often means Google has to use suboptimal algorithms to thwart easy attacks. Yahoo isn't a dominant player, so they can use the algorithms Google has passed over or has abandoned (once Google abandons them, so do the bad guys, they need to track Google).
Of course if Yahoo's current search excellence gets noted, they'll be targeted too. The costs of targeting both Yahoo and Google are high however, indeed techniques that work for one may fail for another.
If this sounds familiar to you, then perhaps you're a life sciences person. This is the same kind of struggle one sees in ecosystems, and in antimicrobial therapy. HIV multidrug therapy works because HIV can readily adapt to one drug, but that adaptation makes it more vulnerable to another.
Again I wonder, how do the anti-evolution folks make any sense of the universe around them?
Why don't the creationists chase after the Fermi Paradox?
Google Search: "fermi paradox" "intelligent design"
I mentioned in a previous post that I think the creationists/intelligent design folks are barking up the wrong tree. They attack natural selection, a very robust model with wide applicability. Natural selection offends them because it makes man a happenstance -- rather than a deliberate creation of a God who has made Man "in his own image". (Of course any decent theologian could find a vast number of workarounds to this problem, but the anti-Darwinists are weak theologians.)
They ought instead to be chasing physics. In particular, the Fermi Paradox is a uniquely interesting argument for intelligent design. Since I'm not a creationist by inclination it took me a few months of puzzling about the Fermi Paradox to come to the (duh) obvious realization that one of the explanations is that we exist in a created environment -- an environment designed for rare or singular sentience.
My favored explanation for our solitude is still the 'Singularity' thesis -- that all sentiences experience Singularities and none go traveling afterwards. To be fair, however, I have to admit that "intelligent design" feels like it's in the same range of implausibility. So why don't the creationists go after the Fermi Paradox?
I did a google search to see if this theme was emerging in creationist discussions. My search returned only a handful of pages, of which my old SETI Fail/Fermi Paradox page was at the top (a peculiar and fleeting glory -- for a year or two my old skijoring page led that search).
I do hope they'll chase this one down. It's much more interesting than a bizarre ideological attack on Darwin.
I mentioned in a previous post that I think the creationists/intelligent design folks are barking up the wrong tree. They attack natural selection, a very robust model with wide applicability. Natural selection offends them because it makes man a happenstance -- rather than a deliberate creation of a God who has made Man "in his own image". (Of course any decent theologian could find a vast number of workarounds to this problem, but the anti-Darwinists are weak theologians.)
They ought instead to be chasing physics. In particular, the Fermi Paradox is a uniquely interesting argument for intelligent design. Since I'm not a creationist by inclination it took me a few months of puzzling about the Fermi Paradox to come to the (duh) obvious realization that one of the explanations is that we exist in a created environment -- an environment designed for rare or singular sentience.
My favored explanation for our solitude is still the 'Singularity' thesis -- that all sentiences experience Singularities and none go traveling afterwards. To be fair, however, I have to admit that "intelligent design" feels like it's in the same range of implausibility. So why don't the creationists go after the Fermi Paradox?
I did a google search to see if this theme was emerging in creationist discussions. My search returned only a handful of pages, of which my old SETI Fail/Fermi Paradox page was at the top (a peculiar and fleeting glory -- for a year or two my old skijoring page led that search).
I do hope they'll chase this one down. It's much more interesting than a bizarre ideological attack on Darwin.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Preventing child abduction
Schneier on Security: Fingerprinting Students
Schneier, a security guru, points out that fingerprinting children, or attaching RFID tags to them, is a waste of energy and, by creating an illusion of action, is actually harmful.
I was surprised by the 1/1200 risk for non-family abduction. This is about 10 times higher than I'd have guessed. I'm skeptical. If it were so high, I should have a personal acquaintance who's suffered a child abduction. It's not the kind of thing that people stay quiet about. Still, I don't want my wife to hear this number ...
...Child kidnapping is a serious problem in the U.S.; the odds of a child being abducted by a family member are one in 340 and by a non-family member are 1 in 1200 (per year)...
Schneier, a security guru, points out that fingerprinting children, or attaching RFID tags to them, is a waste of energy and, by creating an illusion of action, is actually harmful.
I was surprised by the 1/1200 risk for non-family abduction. This is about 10 times higher than I'd have guessed. I'm skeptical. If it were so high, I should have a personal acquaintance who's suffered a child abduction. It's not the kind of thing that people stay quiet about. Still, I don't want my wife to hear this number ...
Darkness in America. Who cares?
The New York Times > Books > Sunday Book Review > Book Review: Atrocities in Plain Sight
Blah, blah blah. Torture. Deception. Betrayal. Stupidity. Cruelty. Who cares? Freedom was a heavy burden, we're better off without it.
...Whatever happened was exposed in a free society; the military itself began the first inquiries. You can now read, in these pages, previously secret memorandums from sources as high as the attorney general all the way down to prisoner testimony to the International Committee of the Red Cross. I confess to finding this transparency both comforting and chilling, like the photographs that kick-started the public's awareness of the affair. Comforting because only a country that is still free would allow such airing of blood-soaked laundry. Chilling because the crimes committed strike so deeply at the core of what a free country is supposed to mean. The scandal of Abu Ghraib is therefore a sign of both freedom's endurance in America and also, in certain dark corners, its demise.
Blah, blah blah. Torture. Deception. Betrayal. Stupidity. Cruelty. Who cares? Freedom was a heavy burden, we're better off without it.
Venezuala is the future
Salon.com Arts & Entertainment | Thong warfare and a kidnapped beauty queen
Is Venezuala our future? It reads like the majority of modern dystopian science fiction. A bright, spoiled and corrupt elite, a dull, corrupt and spoiled dictatorship, and the faceless masses below. Actually, it's mostly Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil'. Come to think of it, isn't Brazil nearby? (joke)
Read it.
This is one of our possible futures.
Is Venezuala our future? It reads like the majority of modern dystopian science fiction. A bright, spoiled and corrupt elite, a dull, corrupt and spoiled dictatorship, and the faceless masses below. Actually, it's mostly Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil'. Come to think of it, isn't Brazil nearby? (joke)
Read it.
This is one of our possible futures.
A contrarian view of dog training
Train in Vain - Why dog training fails. By Jon Katz
Jon Katz loves dogs. Not just his dogs, but dogs as a people (species is not quite the right word.)
This is a good essay on training. It reminds me of the many years I spent with Molly at Marly's Canine College (which was of the "old school", she regarded me somewhat affectionately as a soft-hearted wimp). At Marly's I saw what Katz writes. Every dog needs his or her own approach to training. Ever trainer needs his or her own approach. The two compromise. Mostly it takes a long long time for most dogs and trainers.
Molly was a bit high strung, and jealous of our attention. She did very well with our kids even in her middle-age, but that was a result of a lot of work from us and her. There are resemblances between the lessons Katz outlines and those I've learned from our children.
...Training also requires that we understand the animal nature of dogs, their love of rules, ritual, food, and reinforcement. Let dogs be dogs—it's an honorable thing to be. Because many owners prefer to view their pets as soul mates, therapists, ethereal beings, even mind-readers, we give them too much credit, make them too complex, muddying our communications.
Seeing dogs as piteous, abused, and pathetic creatures doesn't help either. Many dogs are mistreated, including my elder border collie. But I never refer to Orson as an abused dog. I don't want to see him that way, and when it comes to training, it doesn't really matter. I treat him well, love him wildly, train him carefully, and have high expectations. We will work until we get there; he deserves no less. If one more well-meaning owner tries to explain that his dog is biting my ankle or attacking my dog because 'he was terribly abused,' I might go buy some mace. And not for the dog....
Jon Katz loves dogs. Not just his dogs, but dogs as a people (species is not quite the right word.)
This is a good essay on training. It reminds me of the many years I spent with Molly at Marly's Canine College (which was of the "old school", she regarded me somewhat affectionately as a soft-hearted wimp). At Marly's I saw what Katz writes. Every dog needs his or her own approach to training. Ever trainer needs his or her own approach. The two compromise. Mostly it takes a long long time for most dogs and trainers.
Molly was a bit high strung, and jealous of our attention. She did very well with our kids even in her middle-age, but that was a result of a lot of work from us and her. There are resemblances between the lessons Katz outlines and those I've learned from our children.
Friday, January 14, 2005
Who will save American journalism?
The New York Times > Arts > Frank Rich: All the President's Newsmen
DeLong returns often to this theme. The current ethos of American journalism is a mirror of NPR's talk shows. Present the words of one side, then present the words of another side. Pay no attention to who contradicts reality -- reality is constructed, hence it cannot be objectively defined and it cannot be defended.
We are suffering terribly for the sins of the deconstructionists.
Who will resurrect journalism in America? Not the New York Times! Not the Washington Post. Who?
ONE day after the co-host Tucker Carlson made his farewell appearance and two days after the new president of CNN made the admirable announcement that he would soon kill the program altogether, a television news miracle occurred: even as it staggered through its last nine yards to the network guillotine, 'Crossfire' came up with the worst show in its fabled 23-year history....
I do not mean to minimize the CBS News debacle and other recent journalistic outrages at The New York Times and elsewhere. But the Jan. 7 edition of CNN's signature show can stand as an exceptionally ripe paradigm of what is happening to the free flow of information in a country in which a timid news media, the fierce (and often covert) Bush administration propaganda machine, lax and sometimes corrupt journalistic practices, and a celebrity culture all combine to keep the public at many more than six degrees of separation from anything that might resemble the truth...
DeLong returns often to this theme. The current ethos of American journalism is a mirror of NPR's talk shows. Present the words of one side, then present the words of another side. Pay no attention to who contradicts reality -- reality is constructed, hence it cannot be objectively defined and it cannot be defended.
We are suffering terribly for the sins of the deconstructionists.
Who will resurrect journalism in America? Not the New York Times! Not the Washington Post. Who?
The National Intelligence Council predicts the future
NIC - Mapping the Global Future: Executive Summary
The site is unreachable at the moment, but it should slow down in a day or two.
The site is unreachable at the moment, but it should slow down in a day or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)