Anyone who may be curious about the deficits the CBO is listing for Medicare as opposed to the more commonly referred to surpluses should visit here. A short excerpt:

"The difference between the income and expenditures credited to the trust funds of the Social Security and Medicare programs, the nation's two largest social insurance programs, is often viewed as a measure of the impact that those programs have on the financial condition of the federal government. Under the Congressional Budget Office's latest budget projections for the next 10 years, those trust funds are estimated to run sizable surpluses. However, those surpluses reflect more than an excess of dedicated revenues over spending. A substantial portion results from internal transfers between Treasury accounts--credits from the general fund of the Treasury to the trust funds. Thus, although the trust fund surpluses may accurately reflect the programs' spending authority, using them to gauge the programs' budgetary impact distorts their net effects.

That distortion, which is large, obscures the growing strains that the programs are placing on the government's finances. When the intragovernmental transfers are excluded, instead of running a combined surplus of $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years, the two programs are expected to run a deficit of $96 billion. Similarly, from 2003 to 2026, instead of running a cumulative surplus totaling $6.5 trillion, as estimated by the Social Security and Medicare trustees, the programs would run a cumulative deficit totaling $6.6 trillion.

Expressed as a percentage of the nation's gross domestic product, spending for the programs under the trustees' projections would rise from 6.7 percent today to 12.1 percent in 2040, while revenues for the programs would hover around 7 percent. Trust fund accounting, which by law includes intragovernmental transfers, masks much of that widening gap and thus the growing amount of resources that may have to be drawn from the economy to cover the programs' expenditures. "

Now let's get back to Krugman's narative on Greenspan's clearly diabolical plan to screw the poor and middle class and give their money to the well off. It was apparently amazingly well thought out, and unfolded over a span of 20 years. Yes, twenty years. Boy, I thought only the "illuminati" were so far-sighted. (BTW, if you don't know who the illuminati are (or is it the luminati?), you really don't want to know - tinfoil hat time. The people who talk about them make Oliver Stone almost seem rational in comparison.)

What's quite interesting is, though Krugman talks of the huge surplus in SS, he somehow neglects to mention Medicare's huge deficit. However, if you look at SS and Medicare combined, while there is still a surplus, it is minor. According to the CBO, revenues for them combined amounted to 7.0% of GDP in 2002, while outlays for the two programs amounted to ... drumroll ... 6.9% of GDP. The Medicare deficit nearly offsets the Social Security surplus!

Given Krugman's history of intentional distortions, does it surpise anyone that, after ommitting any mention of Medicare when discussing the Social Security surplus, he does NOT forget to mention it as a Bush "target" for "squeezing spending". Did you get that? Something like six months after Bush passes a huge new increase in Medicare spending, Krugman has the incredible gaul to talk of Bush trying to "squeeze" Medicare spending! I wish!

And Krugman wants to write about Greenspan's alleged "chutzpah"? Amazing.

If the Greenspan Commission's recommendations (or something similar) hadn't been followed, these programs would be in the red today. Some conspiracy!

BTW, while the official title was The Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform, and didn't specifically mention Medicare, from their recommendations it is clear that their proposals were concerned with, and dealt with both:

"The major reasons for this proposal are:

(1) Americans are living longer.

(2) Older workers will be in a greater demand in future years.

(3) The disability benefits program can be improved to provide cash benefits and Medicare to those between age 62 and the higher normal retirement age who, for reasons of health, are unable to continue working.

(4) Because the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is projected to decline after the turn of the century, younger generations are expected to pay significantly increased taxes to support the system in the 21st century. An increase in the normal retirement age will lessen the increase.

(5) Given sufficient notice, coming generations of beneficiaries can adjust to a later retirement age just as earlier generations adjusted to age 65."

One final thing. Look at the first and final items above. They were already talking about reducing benefits (increasing the retirement age) as Americans continued to grow older into this new millineum. Their plan at the time - out in the open, all the way back in 1983 - was to gradually increase the retirement age from 62 in 2000 to 66 in 2015. Some bait and switch!

From the CBO, another major variable that would have to be estimated far into the future, any changes in real benefits:



This shows their estimates for changes from now until 2075.

More interesting information from the same location regarding the estimates for death rates:

"Life expectancy for people currently age 65 is estimated to be 83 years. In 2035, it is estimated to be 85 years, and in 2075, 87 years. "

So, for people who actually live long enough to receive benefits, they currently expect them to, on average, collect them for 18 years. They only expect this figure to grow by TWO YEARS over the next 31 years, and by a mere FOUR years over the next 71. I'm sorry, but that is insane. With so many exciting new medical fields in their infancy, and so many prospective wonder drugs in trials right now, and so many new insights into the human body opening up, and they seriously think this (not to mention the inevitable advances that aren't even contemplated yet) is only going to add a measley four years to life expectancy??

I knew they were lowballing it, buy I had no idea how absurd the numbers were.

How people who, from their accomplishments, HAVE to be extremely intelligent can yet write monumentally stupid things - especially within their area of expertise - has always puzzled me. Strangely enough, I have noticed this with far more frequency from the Left, though those on the Right certainly make a solid effort to hold up their end on occassion. In general, I would say that the more partisan and less temperate someone is, the more likely they are to expose themselves to well-earned ridicule.

And what widely read person - with the credentials to make you believe he MUST be intelligent - is more partisan and intemperate these days than Paul Krugman?

He wrote in today's column:

"the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042."

Um, let me put this gently - What the HELL is he talking about? Social Security is "fully financed" to 2042"??? Is that in that lockbox that Gore was droning on about in 2000? Where exactly is that kept? Sorry Paul, but that money is SPENT. I giant stackfull of IOUs doesn't really count. Where exactly is the money for those going to come from?

As a 36 year old, I've known for half a lifetime that I would never see any of "my" "retirement funds". Tens of thousands of dollars now, not including any potential appreciation.

This also reminds me of yet another of my pet peeves - supposedly intelligent people who seemingly believe that these types of economic projections, DECADES into the future, are even somewhat accurate. What happens to this projection as cancer is by and large cured over the next 10 years? What happens when the causes of heart attacks and other serious ailments are discovered and countered? What happens when the effects of aging are better understood and we possibly begin to learn to halt and/or reverse them?

It seems to me that with average lifespans set to increase by 10, 20 or more years within the forseeable future, SS as we know it is about to be in a serious cash crunch, and a hell of a lot sooner than 2042 too. And let's not forget the other hidden estimates that had to have gone into whatever figure Krugman is relying on here:

1. Birthrates over the next several decades. How much confidence should we put into this guestimate?
2. Economic growth, also over several decades. How accurate were such estimates from the early 70's? What would someone have estimated the future to hold in the midst of Reagan's recession? Hell, what were people estimating for the future just at the end of Clinton's term?
3. Unemployment rates. SS taxes are only collected from people who work, after all.
4. Average retirement ages.
5. Future changes to the income level caps on SS taxation, and the timing thereof
6. Future changes to payout amounts and possible changes with regard to eligibility (means testing, raise in age to begin receiving it)

I'm sure there are others, but these are the most important ones. So how much uncertaincy is there in that estimate that Krugman is throwing around as a fact? Enough to more properly term it a wild assed guess.

PS You know, I just realized how we could solve the Social Security ponzi scheme problems AND our budget deficits in one fell swoop: Take the money out of wherever Krugman says they've stashed it for this "fully financed" program and have our Senators invest it. Just think what the roughly 22% compound interest could fund within only a couple of years! Why, we could soon eliminate taxes entirely and just run the government off of the nation's investment income.

Instapundit wonders if Bush just lost the election due to the Senate passage of gun control legislation.

He then seems to think better of it, and thinks that it will probably die without ever getting to Bush's desk. I also think that is the most likely scenario. It would seem to me that this turn of events will work pretty well in Bush's favor. With Kerry (and Edwards) making rare appearances at their actual jobs, expressly to vote FOR gun control, this will be a strong motivator for NRA members and other 2nd Amendment supporters to vote for Bush and therefore against Kerry (or Edwards). Contrast this with Bush, who probably never has to use the veto here, and so he antagonizes no one.

It simply seems that there are more people who support a strong 2nd Ammendment than there are who want to water it down even further, and they are also more likely to be a "one issue voter" and/or feel more strongly about it.

The only way I can see for this to hurt Bush is if it passes both houses and he actually signs the thing.

John "Cut and Run" Kerry. I like it.

Hmm, Andrew Sullivan is now running the good news. Only hours after I E-mailed him a link to my peice below, and referencing the same site as I did. It must just be a case of "great minds" thinking alike.

Well, link or no link, it's good that the news is getting some exposure.

I haven't seen this noted anywhere, but February seems to mark an important turning point in the aftermath of the Iraqi War: American military deaths plummeted to 20. This is in contrast to the previous three months in which an average of over 56 American military personnel died each month. In the last 9 days, only two American soldiers have died in Iraq, and that may not have been due to hostile fire, the incident is still being investigated. There were 3 Coalition deaths this month, including an Estonian today.

This dramatic decline in American soldiers being killed is terrific news, though surprisingly, (or should I say NOT so surprisingly) it has not merited a story in the major press as far as I'm aware. However, it does have a dark cloud. One of the reasons that fewer Americans are being killed is that our opponents are more and more targetting Iraqis. As I noted earlier this month, this is in keeping with the letter we aquired from al-Zarqawi and it's recommendations for future attacks. This itself is both good and bad news. The good news is twofold:

1. We are winning! Our enemies have recognized this, so they are being forced to adjust their strategy.
2. These attacks are ultimately going to prove, IMHO, counterproductive for them. They are just going to further alienate the average Iraqi and push them even more toward us.

The bad news is more straightforward. Our Iraqi allies are suffering, and will continue to suffer for the near future. They are not nearly as well equipped or well trained as our soldiers are, and they are also much more vulnerable, with their homes and families available as potential targets (in addition to themselves). An attack which would likely be a mere nuisance to our troops will be much more effective and bloody against Iraqi policemen. I'm not religious, but my prayers are with them.

Instapundit links to a fascinating article in the NY Sun, that raises some interesting questions.

Various pundits have speculated on Kerry's refusal to release all of his own military records, but it didn't seem that there would be much "there" there. After reading this article, now I'm not so sure. A few possible damaging revelations that I can think of off the top of my head, from least to most damaging:

1. Kerry's Purple Heart medals were for TRULY insignificant wounds, not just as is now assumed to be relatively minor scrapes.

2. He was given less than glowing evaluations.

3. The reason that he was allowed to leave so quickly on the technicality of recieving three minor wounds is that he was, as reported, "out of control", and that this was the easiest way to get him out of the country, especially given that he was politically "connected".

4. They knew or suspected him of war crimes - and actually recorded such knowledge or suspicion. This is hinted at in Professor Thompson's recollection of Zumalt's remarks.

It would be highly ironic if the 1971 Kerry statement I most despise him for, where he stated:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...."

was in part proven correct, because HE committed such incidents and his superiors, rather than bringing him up on charges instead hustled him out of Viet Nam with a bogus Silver Star.

PS Instapundit also made reference to LBJ and his own Silver Star. I thought that I might link to a CNN(!) page that pretty much proves that award was DEFINITELY bogus.

Sometimes when I am reading or watching something, I get something that I can only call a "click". It's a flash of insight, where something that I'm focusing on suddenly seems connected to some other bit(s) of knowledge which on it's face seems unrelated, if I had even conciously thought of it. However, on further (concious) reflection, it's clear that they are very much related.

In reading a post at Belmont Club called Darkworld, I felt such a click. He is discussing, as usual, the conflict we find ourselves in. Not just the Iraqi War and it's aftermath, but the entire regional or global struggle. When I read the following early on in the piece, "It's most striking feature is the absence of a Great Power threat to the general peace", I felt that click.

What has happened to all the great empires of antiquity? They have eventually fallen. There seem to be 3 major causes, though they sometimes act in concert: major environmental change (as seems to have befallen Egypt's Old Kingdom, for example), conflict with another great empire (Carthage would seem to be the best example here), or they fell to barbarian hordes (there are many, many examples of this, but the (Western) Roman Empire is what popped into my mind when I had my "click".) I suppose you could also argue a fourth cause due to internal struggles: rebellion, revolution, or succession struggle.

So why did ancient Rome suddenly pop into my head at reading that sentance? Arguably the greatest empire of human history up to the Renaissance was felled by (mostly) uncivilized barbarians. We aren't facing a "Great Power", we are essentially facing the same opponent Rome was. Neither Rome nor the US was/is facing an opponent which is remotely in their/our league in any relevant statistic save perhaps population.

So how did Rome lose when the deck was so seemingly stacked in it's favor, and what can we learn from that? I used a Heinlein quote in an earlier post, and I will again now (and most likely will again, and again, and again...):

"Roman matrons used to tell their sons to come back with their shields or on them. Later that tradition declined. So did Rome."

I did that from memory, so it may be a bit off, but it's essentials are accurate. The Romans became soft, so soft that they wouldn't even put up much of a fight to keep from being slaughtered by the barbarian hordes that over-ran them. This inner decay was a slow process, of course. But ultimately, the Germanic tribes that eventually finished off the old Roman empire really weren't the cause of it's death. It had already rotted from within.

Are we ourselves in that poor of a shape? After Afganistan and Iraq, the answer would seem to be a resounding NO! And yet. And yet ... the seeds are there.

What if a Gore, or a Kerry had been President?

There is a solid number of "Peace at any costers" and "Blame America firsters". These aren't the Conscientious Objectors of earlier wars. Their numbers have doubtless been wildly exagerated by our feckless press corps, but they are there none-the-less, and they have a strong influence within one of the two major political parties.

While I believe the current dearth of politicians' and upper class children in the military is due to a number of causes, it does make you think of Lincoln's son serving on Grant's staff, of wealthy Teddy Roosevelt recruiting his own men to ultimately charge up San Juan Hill, of his sons, Quentin being shot down and killed in WWI and Theodore leading the first assault at Normandy (before dying of a heart attack a few weeks later), or of wealthy JFK and George HW Bush's own dangerous services during WWII.

I don't think that we are in any danger right now of being defeated by today's barbarians. Kerry won't get within spitting distance of Bush in this year's elections. But in 10, 20, 30 years down the road, what will our response be to the barbarians then? While the rot took centuries to topple Rome, things are much more fast paced nowadays - look at the USSR/Russia or Germany in just the space of the 20th Century.

This potential long term problem is another reason why we need to remake the Middle East now. If we take the barbarism out of all the barbarians now, while we still have the will, this possible lack of will in the future may not prove as disasterous as it has to our predecessors.

I've tried to focus this blog pretty specifically on politics, but it seems that by the time I've heard of something, thought about it, and decided I had an opinion or though on th issue interesting enough to write about, someone with essentially the same point has already been linked all over the blogosphere. When I do write about something, it tends to take me quite some time to get the wording "just right", and even then I'm usually not that happy with the result. Words are slippery little suckers.

That said, I've decided to take this in a somewhat different, more personal direction. I'm just going to write about whatever I feel like at the time, and I'll try not to be such a perfectionist about the wording. I think the first thing I'm going to choose is my voyage from essentially conventional views on education into fairly radical homeschooling and beyond. This will probably take awhile, though maybe not. If it does, I'll just break it up into smaller bites.

I do intend to continue to blog about political issues, and have a couple percolating right now on the "dismal jobs" and the "looming social security disaster" talking points. Hopefully I'll get to at least one of them in the next week.

Donald Sensing writes about a potential cure for cancer. It doesn't sound as promising to me as it seems to be to him, but it did put me in mind of a serious peeve of mine: The FDA.

Hundreds of thousands of people die of cancer every year in the US alone. According to www.cancer.org, over a half million Americans are expected to die of cancer this year. Yet promising treatments have to go through years and years of increasingly large trials before they could EVER come to market. Let's say that this particular treatment, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, or this one.... or some combination of them really does cure cancer. How many millions of people will die between the time that such a cancer cure drug first shows it's promise and the time 5+ years later when it finally earns FDA approval?

While the FDA has recently made strides toward shortening the time required to bring certain types of drugs to market, it is not enough.

My wife will be leaving for NYC in a week for a trip of several days. She will be meeting with some of our current suppliers and a couple of potential vendors as well. She's also been happily scheduling Broadway shows (two), a trip to the Wax Museum, etc. She has also looked at possibly taking the "Sex and the City" tour, as she is a huge fan of that show. She's not sure that she would enjoy it though. If anyone has any information on that (or anything else related to spending a quick few days in NYC enjoyably), please let me know.

Sorry for the lack of posting, but I've had a wisdom tooth taken out.

I recently read an article on John Kerry, and his service in Viet Nam, that has left me with more questions than answers. Particularly regarding the details of what he did to be awarded a Silver Star:

"PCF-94 soon encountered small-arms fire that day, and Kerry put the boat's bow on the shoreline to allow the South Vietnamese troops ashore. A little farther up the river, a rocket attack suddenly blew out the vessel's port side windows.

Kerry ordered helmsman Del Sandusky to steer PCF-94 directly toward the point of ambush on the shoreline, where the crew spotted a "spider hole," a narrow sort of foxhole where the enemy Viet Cong often stashed food and other supplies.

"Standing in this particular hole, to the horror of the Swift crew, was a VC guerrilla holding a B-40 rocket launcher aimed right at them," writes Douglas Brinkley in his new book, Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War. "With the grace of God he was more startled than they were."

The Viet Cong soldier fled. A bullet from an M-60 machine gun hit him, but he continued down a trail, rocket launcher in hand. Kerry grabbed an M-16 rifle, jumped off the boat and pursued him, followed by crewman Michael Medeiros.

"With my adrenaline racing, I started following him off the boat," Medeiros recalls in Brinkley's book. "So I was right behind him. . . . As the VC guerrilla got 20 or 30 meters down the path, just about in front of a lean-to, the (future) senator shot the guy. He had been standing on both feet with a loaded rocket launcher about to fire. He fell over dead."

"I don't have a second's question about that, nor does anybody who was with me," Kerry told the Boston Globe last year. "He was running away with a live B-40, and, I thought, poised to turn around and fire it."

Huh? It seems like he was awarded a Silver Star for shooting a wounded Viet Cong in the back! While I'm certainly not, from the safety of my house, going to second guess the decision to shoot someone in the back when this happened in the middle of a war zone (and immediately after having been attacked), I can't imagine why this would actually merit any medal, much less a Silver Star.

Interestingly, his Divisional Commander also had misgivings, though for a completely different reason:

Referring to the February 1969 incident, Division Commander George Elliott told the Boston Globe last year that he initially wondered if Kerry should be commended or disciplined. "When (Kerry) came back from the well-publicized action where he beached his boat in the middle of an ambush and chased a VC around a hootch and ended his life, I said, John, I don't know whether you should be court- martialed or given a medal, court-martialed for leaving your ship, your post.

"But I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that." A Silver Star commends distinctive gallantry in action.

This reminded me of something written by the great Robert Heinlein, who was not so incidentally a graduate of the US Naval Academy:

"Very well. It was one of those bush wars that hared up on the edges of
the Napoleonic wars. This young officer was the most junior in a naval
vessel -- wet navy, of course -- wind-powered, in fact. This youngster was
about the age of most of your class and was not commissioned. He carried the
title of temporary third lieutenant' -- note that this is the title you are
about to carry. He had no combat experience; there were four officers in the
chain of command above him. When the battle started his commanding officer
was wounded. The kid picked him up and carried him out of the line of fire.
That's all -- make pickup on a comrade. But he did it without being ordered
to leave his post. The other officers all bought it while he was doing this
and he was tried for `deserting his post of duty as commanding officer in
the presence of the enemy.' Convicted. Cashiered."

I gasped. "For that? Sir."

"Why not? True, we make pickup. But we do it under different
circumstances from a wet-navy battle, and by orders to the man making
pickup. But pickup is never an excuse for breaking off battle in the
presence of the enemy. This boy's family tried for a century and a half to
get his conviction reversed. No luck, of course. There was doubt about some
circumstances but no doubt that he had left his post during battle without
orders. True, he was green as grass -- but he was lucky not to be hanged."

So, should Kerry have been given a medal, or should he have been instead court-martialed? As best I can determine, his actions in this instance, if truly objectionable would fall under the Universal Code of Military Justice Article 99 (3):

?Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy? .... (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

This is explained in more detail further down:

(3) Endangering safety of a command, unit, place, ship, or military property.

(a) Neglect. ?Neglect? is the absence of conduct which would have been taken by a reasonably careful person in the same or similar circumstances.

(b) Intentional misconduct. ?Intentional misconduct? does not include a mere error in judgment.

So do the actions of the commander of a boat who beaches it in the middle of an ambush to personally go haring off after a singe wounded enemy, leaving most of his men behind, rise to the level of "neglect"?

Let's just say that I don't believe that a "reasonably careful person" would perform as John Kerry did.

Joanne Jacobs has a post on yet another reason to keep your kids out of public schools, one I had never even heard of - the language police. Even if I had heard of such an absurd practice, I never could have imagined how bad it could be:

New York identified as biased such male-based words as "masterpiece" and "mastery." Among the other words singled out for extinction were white collar, blue collar, pink collar, teenager, senior citizen, third world, uncivilized, underprivileged, unmarried, widow or widower, and yes man. The goal, naturally, is to remove words that identify people by their gender, age, race, social position or marital status.

Thus the great irony of bias and sensitivity reviewing. It began with the hope of encouraging diversity, ensuring that our educational materials would include people of different experiences and social backgrounds. It has evolved into a bureaucratic system that removes all evidence of diversity and reduces everyone to interchangeable beings whose differences we must not learn about -- making nonsense of literature and history along the way.

This bit just had me shaking my head in utter disbelief:

A college professor informed me that a new textbook in human development includes the following statement: "As a folksinger once sang, how many roads must an individual walk down before you can call them an adult." The professor was stupefied that someone had made the line gender-neutral and ungrammatical by rewriting Bob Dylan's folk song "Blowin' in the Wind," which had simply asked: "How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?"

I highly recommend reading the entire WSJ piece.

On my earlier post talking about Iraq and how we can measure our success or failure there, I mentioned that there could be questions about the authenticty of the al Qaida letter purported written by al-Zarqawi which was recently discovered by US forces. The strategy now being employed by our foes, in targeting Iraqi police stations and army recruiting centers would seem to support the letter's authenticity, as these attacks follow it's recommendations very closely:

C. The Iraqi troops, police, and agents these are the eyes, ears, and hand of the occupier. With god's permission, we are determined to target them with force in the near future, before their power strengthens.

and:

Fighting the Shi'a is the way to take the nation to battle. The Shi'a have taken on the dress of the army, police, and the Iraqi security forces, and have raised the banner of protecting the nation, and the citizens.

Returning to the recent controversy at Duke, I couldn't help but notice with amusement this part of Brandon's own defense:

"So I agree with the DCU that conservative Duke students will in fact take a large number of their courses with a significant political content from professors whose politics differs from theirs. Why not see this as an opportunity to hone your political thinking rather than see it as an obstacle to the sort of education you want? "

This must explain why the arguments of conservatives usually seem to be be so sharp and make so much sense, while those of the self-described liberals always seem so ... dull and un-thought-out. They simply haven't had the chance to hone their political thinking much.

On the Volokh Conspiracy they are discussing songs about obsession, but they seem to have missed the obvious "Every Break You Take" by The Police.

BTW, I think that Tyler Cowen is confusing Buddy Holly's "Every Day" with his "That'll Be the Day".

For my money, the best song about obsession is Tom Waits' "Alice":

It's dreamy weather we're on
You waved your crooked wand
Along an icy pond with a frozen moon
A murder of silhouette crows I saw
And the tears on my face
And the skates on the pond
They spell Alice

I disappear in your name
But you must wait for me
Somewhere across the sea
There's a wreck of a ship
Your hair is like meadow grass on the tide
And the raindrops on my window
And the ice in my drink
Baby all I can think of is Alice

Arithmetic arithmetock
Turn the hands back on the clock
How does the ocean rock the boat?
How did the razor find my throat?
The only strings that hold me here
Are tangled up around the pier

And so a secret kiss
Brings madness with the bliss
And I will think of this
When I'm dead in my grave
Set me adrift and I'm lost over there
And I must be insane
To go skating on your name
And by tracing it twice
I fell through the ice
Of Alice

And so a secret kiss
Brings madness with the bliss
And I will think of this
When I'm dead in my grave
Set me adrift and I'm lost over there
And I must be insane
To go skating on your name
And by tracing it twice
I fell through the ice
Of Alice
There's only Alice

It's his best album as well, and I don't say that lightly.

Woo Hoo! Back blogging for a few days, and I've already been linked by Instapundit!

TNR is arguing that the coverage of the false "Bush was AWOL" story vs the non-coverage of the possibly false Kerry adultery story is a demonstration that the press is trying to be "scrupulously honest". How can the facts possibly begin to support this spin, you say? Well, according to the author, Ryan Lizza, the only reason that the AWOL story was run was because it was being talked about by Clark and other major Democratic figures, while the Republicans have been silent on the Kerry story.

That might almost sound plausable if you didn't know any of the facts surrounding either story.

First off, the AWOL story was discussed in major media outlets (the NY Times and Boston Globe, at the very least) in the 2000 campaign. As this was obviously several years before Moore's statements, that pretty much explodes the TNR story from that end.

From the other end, from all indications, the Kerry story seems to have originated from ... the Clark campaign; and not just over-eager staffers, but Clark himself participated. So how can you argue that the AWOL story should be covered because it was being discussed by a major Democratic candidate, but NOT cover the Kerry adultery story even though it was being shopped around by the exact same person?

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

Eugene Volokh attempts a (limited) defense for Professor Brandon, the self-parodying Duke professor.

The problem with his attempt is that, in defending the 'implicit' assumption in Brandon's statements, he has to make an explicit assumption that is wildly incorrect on it's face - that a full SIXTY PERCENT (!) of Americans are "stupid"! That would necessitate calling a decent number of people of ABOVE AVERAGE intelligence "stupid", plus also disparaging people of average or only slightly below average intelligence. Absurd.

Let's use Professor Volokh's numbers using a more reasonable percentage. To make things as simple as possible, let's halve his figure, and instead use 30% (though I'd say that even that is too high) while keeping all his other estimates. This gives us, per his stated formula:

(400-(.3*.6)/(1000-300))=220/700= 31%

This would give us three times as many "smart" conservatives.

Way back last year, I was thinking about ways to determine how the war was going in Iraq. This was a week or two before Rumsfeld's memo discussing the same problem was publicized. As a matter of fact, I asked people on a politically oriented board I frequent (or, rather, used to frequent, but that's another story) for help on coming up with ideas and data, but didn't get a single response to the post.

With the recent revelations about the al Qaida letter detailing the many problems that they are now having in Iraq (assuming it's genuine), the answer would seem to be that we are, in fact, doing quite well there. But is the letter genuine? If it is, then we seem to be well on the road to victory, barring a disaster.

However, this matter made me think of the original problem (how to measure our efforts in Iraq, especially given the abysmally poor job the news services were doing) in a somewhat different way. Originally I had thought to compare objective things like death rates over time, major Iraqi figures caught, money seized, etc. The real problem, I thought, was how to weigh the multitude of factors. Plus the problem of whether certain developments are positive or negative. For example, if we arrest and kill 20% more anti-US forces, is this good because we are decimating our foes' ranks, or is it bad because it indicates that their forces are swelling?

Now, it looks like we may be able to in a sense by-pass all of that, and instead do something akin to a meta-analysis.

What "studies" do we have to incorporate into this meta-analysis?

Obviously, the al Qaida letter would be a good starting point. They have made their own analysis that the peace is being won by the US. But again, is the letter genuine?

A second "study" would be the numerous statements by various American generals to the effect that we are winning, that we are capturing the heads of the various factions against us, that we are gaining better and better intelligence, that their funding is going down, etc. However, this has the obvious problem that it could be simply "feel good" propaganda, just designed to keep the people at home happy. Or at least not angry.

So we have two knowledgeable sources, both indicating that we are winning the peace, and seemingly by a comfortable margin. Unfortunately, they both have potential problems. Is there any other source of analysis free of any of these issues? Actually, there is. While this has, as far as I'm aware, been completely overlooked due to other (WMD) ramifications, Kaddafy's decision to come clean is another strong indication of how the peace is being won.

He's obviously knowledgeable regarding the Middle East. He is equally obviously not biased in favor of the US. So what was his judgement of the state of affairs? Do you thing that if he thought there was a reasonable chance that we would lose the peace that he would have taken the actions that he has? I don't. I think that he saw that not only were we winning, but that it was highly unlikely that we would not achieve our aims in Iraq.

So we have three independent and knowledgeable estimates of how things are going in Iraq. They ALL point to it going very well for American interests. It seems pretty conclusive to me.

Back once again. Nothing in particular to write, but everyone is fine and I should have time on my hands pretty soon to try my hand at blogging again.

Einstein Lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction!!!

Inexcusable intelligence failures!!

Despite the absurd fears and warnings of those "in the know", Nazi's never had an advanced nuclear program!!


Well, that's how it seems that modern journalists would cover the story, anyway.

Some applicable quotes from the above two links:

After a German and an Austrian discovered fission in 1938, almost everyone thought Germany would be the first to build nuclear weapons. In August 1939, Albert Einstein warned President Roosevelt of the threat. Dread of a Nazi A-bomb drove the Manhattan Project. Yet an Allied mission code-named Alsos, following on the heels of troops liberating Europe, found only a primitive program. No working nuclear reactor. No large quantities of separated Uranium-235, a basic bomb ingredient. No credible bomb design. "Sometimes we wondered if our government had not spent more money on our intelligence mission than the Germans spent on their whole project," wrote Alsos scientific director Samuel Goudsmit.

and

From as early as 1939, those "in the know" in the United States worked under the constant fear that Germany might have as much as a two-year lead in the development of a nuclear weapon. Unless and until the United States had positive knowledge to the contrary, we had to assume that the most competent German scientists and engineers were working on an atomic program with the full capacity of German industry at their disposal. Anything less would have been derelict.

and

The Alsos III mission entered Germany on February 24, 1945. However, now an additional urgency occupied much of their time. None of Germany's nuclear materials and absolutely none of the German scientists must be allowed to fall into Russia's hands. This new element was the source of much intrigue as the Allies advanced toward Berlin. For instance, one key German facility lay square within the planned Russian zone. There was no way that the Americans could reach the facility first so General Groves made a request to General Marshall to have it destroyed. On March 15th, 612 Flying Fortresses of the 8th Air Force dropped close to 2,000 tons of high explosives on the Auergesellschaft Works in Oranienburg just to the north of Berlin. The plant was totally destroyed.

Further intrigue ensued with a little known tactical Alsos mission labeled Operation Harborage. After France fell to the Allies, it was decided to give the French a "zone of occupation" in Germany when they finally surrendered. The zone given to the French was originally designated as an American zone. A few suspected nuclear research facilities, including the research center reputed to be in the Hechingen area was in the planned French zone. General Groves states: " As I saw it, there could be no question but that American troops must be the first to arrive at this vital installation, for it was of the utmost importance to the United States that we control the entire area that contained the German atomic energy activities...I was forced to initiate some drastic measures to accomplish our purpose."

The strategy behind Operation Harborage was to have a sizeable force, perhaps at the Corps level, cut diagonally across in front of the advancing French army and seize the area long enough to capture the people we wanted, seize and remove all available records, and destroy any remaining facilities. The operation was initiated in April 1945 and Hechingen was captured on April 24th. Col. Pash seized a large atomic physics laboratory and took into custody several sought-after scientists including Otto Hahn, Carl von Weizacker, and Max von Laue. It was learned that Heisenberg, Gerlach, and a few others had left Hechingen two weeks prior and were possibly in Munich or at Urfeld in the Bavarian Alps. On the 27th, the German scientists were transferred to Heidelberg for further questioning, where information on the whereabouts of German atomic research records were revealed by von Weizacker. They were sealed in a metal drum which was stored in a cesspool in back of von Weizacker's house.

Here's another:

I've been following the Valerie Wilson saga pretty much from the beginning, though (as with most things) I haven't commented on it here. I have made a few comments on it (under the SN ENDER) here. I also made comments on an earlier thread, but it seems to be history. They do tend to delete unused threads very quickly there, so don't be surprised if the above link no longer works.

Anyway, the entire matter is extremely troubling and the Bush Administration needs to get on top of it in a hurry. I never thought Ari was very good, but his replacement looks to be even worse. They need to investigate it and charge whoever is responsible if appropriate, fire them if not, or, failing that, explain why neither of those options were best. It seems quite clear to me that whoever did it, did it with malice aforethought - and if they didn't, they need to be fired for stupidity anyway. It seems to me that Mark Kleiman has done the best job keeping abreast of the unfolding story, and although I have historically disagreed with the majority of his positions and conclusions (he is a lefty after all), I have also found him to be quite honest. In fact, I am making this post in something of a response to his noting that the "right" blogosphere hasn't been commenting much. Though let's note that my readership probably hovers between 0 and 1 (and that's only when I'm looking myself).

I myself don't quite know what to think. It's crystal clear to me that whoever Novak's source was tried to smear Joe Wilson, but in possibly the most moronic way possible. It's astounding how short-sighted it was. In fact, it's so obviously a stupid thing to do (even absent the other reasons not to do it) that the whole thing doesn't make sense from the few pieces of the puzzle currently available. The aforementioned Mark Kleiman has thought of a scenario that would seem to resolve the contradictions somewhat, and I think that it may turn out that the real truth of the matter is somewhat similar to what he envisioned. As a bonus, it would put Bush in perhaps the best light of any other scenario I can imagine. Whatever the case may be, Bush & Co. need to do the right thing and clean house.

PS I do have ONE single bit of information that I seem to be the only one to come across. Or maybe it's so insignificant that no one else has bothered. That's me though, dealing in overlooked minutia. The information pertains to what her name really is. Though most people I have seen have decided to call her Valerie Plame, let it be noted that in all of Joe Wilson's online bios it says that he is married to "the former Valerie Plame". It seems pretty clear that she doesn't go by Valerie Plame anymore. This would seem to leave two choices: Valerie Wilson or Valerie Plame-Wilson. If you'll note, I refered to her above with the simpler Valerie Wilson. I chose it because I came across the following website:

http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/Polonnoye/PolList.htm

This appears to be a geneology list on people investigating certain names from a particular Ukranian city. Someone who identified themself as Valerie Wilson was looking into the background of the name Plame. The E-mail account given would seem to match her husband's name (with her first initial substituted for his middle initial), so I think that Valerie Wilson is the most appropriate name to use at this juncture. Unfortunately, nailing down the right name didn't help me turn up any more information from Google as I had hoped. The E-mail address didn't help either.

Fascinating column on California politics:

So I wondered: who had the recall crowd recruited to speak to Latinos at this well- attended Capitol press conference, just as the story was making national news? Would it be somebody big, like the hip, new vice-chairman of the California Republican Party who is working to open up his party, Mario Rodriguez?

Dave Gilliard returned a blank look to the Latina reporter. Clearly, it hadn't even crossed anyone's mind to have a Spanish speaker on hand.

This is just the sort of gaffe that tells you exactly how people in the California Republican Party still think. It's still as white as snow. It's still as out of it as a comatose patient in an intensive care ward.
.....
I told this story to Pat Caddell, former pollster for Jimmy Carter and George McGovern, and a national Democratic commentator who was probably the first public figure to push the idea of recalling Davis last year. "California Republicans are the dumbest people I have ever met," Caddell harrumphed of the crowd currently overseeing the recall.
....
So what did Mulholland really say that day?

He attacked the homeless.

"Voters should know the kind of people bused in to do the circulating!" Mulholland boomed. "The Republicans don't want judicial review of the types of people they had circulating petitions! The homeless! And convicted felons!"
Does the Democratic Party condone the idea that these petition-gathering jobs, which require no previous experience, should not be offered to the homeless? Perhaps the homeless are not even worthy of the right to vote?

I called Steve Smith, the well-to-the-left laborista who Davis appointed as California's top labor bureaucrat in order to placate state labor unions.
.....
Smith is now campaign manager of Davis' humorously named Taxpayers Against the Governor's Recall. Smith's spokesman Nick Velasquez assured me they'd call back, but they never did. Was it because their "two felons" allegation has gotten too embarrassing now that the San Francisco Chronicle has reported that the two felons worked at Rescue California just a short time---and were then promptly hired by the Gray Davis side to gather signatures for a non-binding pro-Davis petition?

via Mickey Kaus

Foxnews is reporting that we might have gotten dumb and dumber, Saddam's sons! Great news if true.

Fox

Interesting Q&A Wilson did for the WAPO on April 03, 2003.

Some highlights:

Boston, Mass.: Mr. Wilson, thank you for taking our questions. What happens if we do not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Joseph C. Wilson: Whether we find them or not is now immaterial. The liberation is now the rationale. If we don't find them, discussion about them will cease and we will focus on the other reasons the administration has articulated. If we do find them, world public opinion will only change on the margins.

and a follow up:

Bethesda, Md.: I don't understand. In the first answer you say the rational is liberation so WMD do not matter. While I couldn't disagree more, in the second answer you say this isn't a war of liberation. Does this make sense?

Joseph C. Wilson: The administration has offered a menu of reasons for the war. WMD was one of them. The answer was to the question of whether finding WMD would make a difference in how the war is perceived. And the answer is no. Here in the US we have bought off on the other reasons so for us it does not matter. Overseas, they think there are any number of other reasons behind what we are doing so again if we find WMD it wown't change their position as to why we are doing what we are.

This sentiment seems to be in direct contrast to what he wrote in his piece for the NYT, What I didn't find in Africa, when he wrote:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

THIS is supposed to be a NEWS story? The title, "White House Tries to Defend Uranium Claim", alone gives it away. The WH didn't 'defend' the claim, because, of course, it is indefensible. Instead they merely 'tried' to defend it. The story is a rather pathetic hack job.

This makes three - THREE - different ways that anti-Bush partisans have attempted to twist what he said. Amazing how much 16 words can be spun. Let me list them:

1. Cut off the first 4 words. Nothing like removing a clarifier to change a sentence's meaning.

2. Change a broad claim - "from Africa" - into a much narrower one - "from Niger".

3. Completely change the base charge, from 'seeking to purchase' to 'actual purchase'. I bet there are people in jail all over the country, convicted on conspiracy charges, who now wish their juries had been comprised soley of journalists and pundits.

Let's set the scene:

Someone is on trial for conspiracy to commit murder. The defense has just called their star witness, a former investigator for the police who did some investigation on the case at his former employer's behest.

Defense attorney: "What evidence did you uncover to substantiate the prosecution's charges?"

Star witness: "Nothing! There was no evidence that the defendant committed a murder. Everyone I spoke with knew that no murder had been committed. Why, the alleged victim is in court, so how could a murder have been committed?"

Defense attorney: "No further questions."

Sounds absurd, doesn't it? It get's worse.

DA: "Did you uncover any evidence that the defendant attempted to hire someone to murder the victim?"

Star Witness: "Well, I did find someone who said that a freind of the defendant approached him about committing the murder."

DA: "Well, doesn't that support the charge?"

Star Witness: "Is that the best evidence you have? Get real. What I uncovered doesn't prove that he conspired to murder anyone."

What is this farce an analogy of? The claims made by Joe Wilson and the various "Bush Lied"TM proponents, of course.

Re-read Wilson's screed printed in the NYT. Some relevant quotes:

I was not surprised when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq, and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.

and:

It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Now the conflation begins:

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

and:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

However Bush never charged that Saddam purchased uranium from Niger, he instead charged (that the British had intelligence which indicated) that he had ATTEMPTED to purchase uranium from Africa. The actual "16 words" from the SOTU:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

What did Wilson write which contradicted this simple statement? Not a single thing. Yet, as in my analogy, it gets worse.

From Tenet's July 11th statement:

He [Wilson] reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

From Condoleeza Rice:

The other thing is that the reporting, at least, of what Ambassador Wilson told the CIA debriefers says that, yes, Niger denied that there had been such a deal made, that they had sold uranium to the Iraqis.

It also apparently says, according to this report, it also apparently says that one of the people who was meeting with the Iraqis thought that they might, in fact, be trying to use commercial activity to talk about yellow cake.
So what the director says in his statement is that they believed, when they looked at what was reported about the Wilson trip, that it was inconclusive. They therefore did not brief it to the president, the vice president or any senior officials.

From British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw:

But, as CNN have reported, Ambassador Wilson's report also noted that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation sought the expansion of trade links with Niger -- and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake.

"Uranium is Niger's main export. In other words, this element of Ambassador Wilson's report supports the statement in the government's dossier.

So, according to three different officials who had access to Wilson's debriefings, he DID uncover evidence regarding Saddam seeking to purchase uranium. This evidence SUPPORTED Bush's statement. Yet, somehow, the only truly relevant information that Wilson uncovered missed being included in his article. I wonder how that happened.

To make matters even worse, when Wilson was informed that his lie of ommission had been uncovered and exposed, what was his response? In an interview by Time:

Wilson dismissed the suggestion, included in CIA Director George Tenet's own mea culpa last week, that this validates what the President claimed in this State of the Union address: "That then translates into an Iraqi effort to import a significant quantity of uranium as the President alleged? These guys really need to get serious."

Of course, no Administration source has made the claim that his report was the only basis for the claim. In fact, they readily acknowledge that his report in and of itself was 'weak' and 'inconclusive'. What they DO say, a charge that is completely supported (in stark contrast to, say, Wilson's), is that his investigation in fact buttressed the claim Bush made in the SOTU, and did nothing to dimish it.

PS Most of the information here came from:

Justoneminute

However, as Mickey Kaus might say, he completely buried the lead (or does Kaus use the pretentious 'lede'?), by instead haring off against one of Josh Marshall's more flagrant inaccuracies.

Micky Kaus had a post about an apparent conflict between two reasonable sounding Republican complaints against a prescription drug benefit.

The first complaint is that, like all other government benefits, spending on this one will go way, way up in the future. Once the camel gets it's nose under the tent, spending on this new entitlement will spiral out of control.

The second Republican criticism is that drug companies will no longer make as much money, and will thus not have as much money to spend on R&D to develop new drugs.

He points to the apparent inconsistency of government drug spending growing out of control, and yet having drug companies not being able to afford R&D. He requested that someone E-mail him if they could resolve this, but while I E-mailed a response solving the problem, he hasn't posted anything to his site. I thought that I would post it here, on the off chance someone actually drops by, and the even smaller chance that they would be interested.

What will get government spending spiraling out of control are two factors, increasing numbers of people eligible for the program, and increasing numbers of drugs covered. As the Baby Boomers retire, and life expectancy rises, more and more people will qualify for a "seniors" drug benefit. Just an obvious conclusion from current demographics and trends. While the case for the benefits received by this growing number of government benefactees is less strong, the chance that they will in fact grow must approach 100%.

Both of these trends will act to dramatically increase government spending, but will also act to reduce drug company profits. The government will, like the governments of Canada and Europe, act to push prices down on the drugs that they include for any benefit. This will, likewise, push drug company profit margins down. As increasing numbers of people are covered for an increasing number of decreasingly profitable drugs, drug companies profits will be severely squeezed, leading to substantial cuts in R&D. Not only will lower profits (and therefore lower cash flow) hurt R&D, the very likelihood of potential drugs being included in a government price sceme will make the cost/benefit analysis numbers for potential drugs come out much worse, decreasing the likelihood of them being attempted.

On a tangent, I can see this having other effects as well. The Law of Unintended Consequences is alive and well. In addition to cutting R&D, what other things will drug companies do in effort to maintain profitability? It seems to me that they would try to divert whatever R&D money they have left to drugs which would be unlikely to be covered by any drug benefit. This would, of course, lead to an even greater lack of new drugs for the very people that Congress wants to assist.

Steven Den Beste notes that any debt we may owe to France from the American Revolution has long been paid, after both World Wars. I've noticed many people talking about this supposed debt we owe France, usually in response to someone talking about the debt they owe us from WWII. It's usually accompanied by a snide comment, as in "You don't know much about history, do you? If it wasn't for France, we would be a part of the UK!"

I've actually never expected France to show much, if any, gratitude for our actions in WWII. That war ended more than 20 years before I was born, and in fact before the vast majority of either country's populations were born. It's been almost 60 years from France's liberation, and people just don't think that way. This line of reasoning is, of course, even stronger with regard to a 200+ year old 'debt'.

What makes the case for any US debt to France completely nonsensical, however, is related to another point Den Beste raised in a later post . Any debt we may owe is to the French monarchy, not to the heirs of it's opponents. If you want to talk about debts from the American Revolution, there is actually a far stronger case to be made that it is the French Republic who owes the US.

Our revolution was their inspiration, we began the series of revolutions which swept away the old monarchies.

We provided the proof that other forms of government, which gave power to a much broader range of people, were viable.

We weakened the French Monarchy by draining soldiers and funds.

I just don't understand why anyone would believe that we owe France anything. The closest equivalent I can think of (and it's really not that close), is to say that Communist China owes Russia for the support Mao received from the USSR.

Anyway, this talk of historical debts is really much ado about nothing. As I stated earlier, I don't expect anyone from either country to let this history influence them much one way or another. What I DO expect, is for someone who claims to be an ally to act like one. And if they fail to do so, then I will modify my actions accordingly. When a country's actions contradict their words, I know which to give credence to.

France is no ally of ours, and they are fast approaching enemy status as far as I am concerned.

STATISTICS

Statistics are essential for dealing with most political issues nowadays. What are the effects of a tax cut? What would ratifying the Kyoto Accord cost? What would the benefits be? Are we in a recession? How much do the 'poor' pay in taxes? The answer to all these questions lie in statistics.

That partisans spin statistics like a top, when they aren't lying about them or outright making them up, is well established. I'm not interested in rehashing any of that, though a few days ago I found a good example in Newsweek. What I'm interested in exploring now is the extent that even solid figures, used appropriately in the correct context and by a fair and honest person, can STILL be misleading and wrong.

There is a concept in mathematics, the name of which unfortunately escapes me right now, in which the answer to a particular problem can only be taken to the decimal place of the least exact term in the equation. For example, in multiplying 102*10.5*2.05*7.055794654661, your answer should not contain ANY numbers to the right of the decimal point, because one of the figures being multiplied didn't have any. (By the way, if the 102 was given as 102.00, you would be justified in answering in tenths (the degree of precision now being limited by the 10.5)) Giving an answer out to tenths, or hundredths, or thousandths would give the illusion that your result is that precise, but that would not truly be the case. This rule really didn't really mean anything to me as a student, it was just one more thing to learn to keep from tripping up on a test. It wasn't until much later that I realized the wisdom of it.

Back to statistics, I wish there was a way to find a similar easy way to clue people in on the precision of any particular statistic, but I have never been able to come up with anything remotely feasable. Unfortunately, the very rule used in mathematics above actually acts to give users of various statistics a false sense of reliability.

Do I have an example? Sure, tons. Let's use a biggie - GDP. How is GDP calculated? I would bet that most people don't have a clue, perhaps even a majority of those who use GDP figures to buttress their own arguments or tear down someone else's. Here is a decent primer for the various methods used to calculate it. The most common (it has the benefit of being the easiest to understand and use) is the expenditure model:

GDP=C+I+G+NT

Which means that GDP is made up of C (consumer spending) plus I (investment) plus G (government purchases) plus NT (net trade, export minus import).

Remember that the growth of this figure is constantly being reported, and is always given - annualized - to the tenth of a percent. What does this indicate to someone with some vague recollection of their Jr. High math class? First off, it's given out to tenths. Hey, it must be pretty solid. Then remember that they are extrapolating an annual number from monthly results, and realize that they really seem to be claiming accuracy into the hundredths.

But how accurate are GDP figures really? According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP increased (in chained 1996 dollars (ie. adjusted for inflation)) from 8508.9 in 1998 to 9439.9 in 2002. But let's think about what we were buying in 1998, and for how much. In 1998, you could buy a brand new Pentium II, for the bargain price of about $1500. Contrast that with 2002, when I bought one of the then new Pentium IVs for about 1500. Today you can get Pentium IVs for quite a bit less than 1000. (I bet you could easily buy a computer today for less than $500 that would run circles around a 'top of the line' 1998 Pentium II.)

Let's try a quick test now: How much would selling 10 million Pentium IIs at 1500 in 1998 have added to the calculated national GDP? And how much would selling 15 million Pentium IVs at 1000 this year add to our GDP? If you came up with 15 billion in each case, have a beer on me. But how can this be? How can increasing our computer production by 50%, and the quality of our product by several magnitudes possibly leave our Gross Domestic Product figures... unchanged? The answer is, even though it appears to be a solid, precise figure, GDP is actually a rather blunt instrument, and the longer the period you are looking at, the worse it does. The next time you see someone trying to compare GDP growth between decades, remember this page, it's implications on the GDP comparisions, and try not to laugh in their faces.

THIS phone, weighing 'just 28 ounces' with a battery life 'for 30 minutes of talk time and eight hours of standby', was selling for 3995.00 in the 1980s!

Another problem inherent is the inclusion of government spending. The examples of government overspending have been with us for my entire life, with the $100 hammer, and the $200 toilet seat cover being particularly ubiquitious. But even those examples don't come close to illustrating the waste that the G component includes. For an example of what I'm talking about, let's say the federal government builds a bridge. Let's further assume, to be more than fair, that it is built on schedule and on budget, and is built with the proper materials and within code specifications - a beautiful 25 million dollar bridge. This is what GDP is supposed to measure, right? Now for the other shoe to drop: it is named the Byrd Bridge, and built in a location in WV that not more than 50 people a day use. Will we really get 25 million dollars of utility out of that bridge? Of course not. I'm certainly not saying that there isn't waste in any of the other figures, but all governments are prodigiously wasteful, they always have been, and almost certainly always will be. The bigger the 'G' in the equation, the more the GDP figure overstates the 'true' GDP in my opinion.

Keep this in mind whenever you see comparisons between various country's GDPs. How much of each consists of individual decisions, and how much that of such and such a country's government.

And how much should military spending count towards GDP? I understand why it is counted in full now, but, especially when you consider how much of the US military spending is actually being devoted to protecting our allies, I wonder if this component could be better if treated a little differently.

I could go on, but it's getting late, and I think I've made my point.

Statistics are indispensible. It's impossible to make an informed decision about so many things without the use of various statistics. However, you always need to keep in mind the limitations, both real and potential, inherent in each one.

Well, here's some news on Yahoo, from the AP:

French strikers disrupted train and bus service and sanitation workers dumped garbage in the street in the fourth day of a nationwide protest Friday against government plans to reform pensions.

The strikes came as tourist season gathered pace ahead of summer. On Friday, tourists were seen waiting in vain for airport buses.

Angry strikers stepped up their provocative action. Demonstrators cut power lines at the Gare de Lyon train station in Paris, halting all outbound traffic for several hours, a spokesman for state-run rail authority SNCF said.

Overall, one of every three trains in Paris was affected by the action on Friday. In the southern city of Marseille, only one tramway was running.

The trouble was expected to mount next week. Tuesday — the day Parliament begins debate on pension reform — is marked for major bus, train and airport strikes.

The transport workers, led by the Communist-linked CGT, have been joined by teachers and other public sector workers. Sanitation workers protesting in Lyon dumped garbage in front of City Hall in protest.

Not quite calling it rioting, but at least it's something.

And yes, if something like this were happening in the US, it would dominate news coverage not just here but all over Europe. While this can partly be explained by the fact that we are "the last superpower", while France is ... well, France - it doesn't explain the near news blackout.

Both Instapundit and USS Clueless have items noting the current labor riots in France. Both have also noted the remarkable absence of media coverage of said riots. I thought that SURELY I would be able to find SOMETHING relevant in European papers. No luck so far, but I did manage to find this rather ironic item, in the UK's Observer:

Let's help rebuild Iraq's labour movement

Trade unionists around the world must help Iraqis create one of the vital building blocks of a free society - whatever the US corporations think.

Yes! Who wouldn't be thrilled to have the Iraqis unionized? Only those 'evil' US corporations, of course.

Great piece by Jonah Goldberg the other day:


Diversity is another of those words we imbue with all nobility and goodness without question or reservation. And that's nonsense. If diversity were always and everywhere good we would be clamoring for more midgets in the NBA. We would demand that mobsters get jobs at the FBI and we would consider it a grave problem that not enough blind men — and women! — were applying to be crossing guards, snipers, and surgeons.


Indeed, if diversity were always a boon to the educational process, we would decry the ghettos of backwardness we call all-women's colleges and historically black universities. After all, are not blacks and women in the most need of educational support? Lee Bollinger, the former president of the University of Michigan (and current president of Columbia University) recently declared:

Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare. For our students to better understand the diverse country and world they inhabit, they must be immersed in a campus culture that allows them to study with, argue with and become friends with students who may be different from them. It broadens the mind and the intellect — essential goals of education.

Well, if it's an essential goal of education, let's diversify Morehouse College right now before one more black kid is forced to study without the benefit of experiencing the glories of sharing a dorm with a few Asian and white kids. And since it's an established fact that blacks are more educationally disadvantaged than most, doesn't that mean that integrating black schools is even more of an imperative than getting a few more African Americans at Harvard?


Many of our greatest scientists, statesmen, soldiers, and artists attended remarkably un-diverse institutions. Indeed, many of our greatest black leaders attended all black, and often all black male, institutions of higher learning. And yet, if I were to say that a black man can't be properly educated unless some of whitey rubs off on him, I'd get in a lot of trouble.


But that's the diversity argument in a nutshell.

Last month I was flipping channels before going to bed, and I happened to land on Austin City Limits. They had a re-broadcast of a concert by Tom Waits from 1978, and I was absolutely mesmerized. I had a vague familiarity with his name, but I'm pretty sure that I had never actually heard his music before.

I've now bought a few of his older albums, and highly recommend them. (Not that that anyone reading this will likely give a damn about my musical choices.) He does a mixture of blues, jazz, and other influences. It has a strong feel to me of an older period (1930's?). Great, soulful, raspy voice.

On a message board that I frequent, two separate people have quoted from a Newsweek column regarding the federal court nomination disputes written by Eleanor Clift a couple of weeks ago. Amazingly, the article doesn't seem to be available on the internet anywhere, at least that I have been able to find (and I devoted more than a few minutes to locating it). I've refuted it both times, once in depth, and a second time on the fly. They tend to remove threads very quickly there, and so I actually (gasp!) visited my local library and made a copy of the article (Newsweek May 19, 2003 Page 9) to discuss here. Now if it comes up again, I will just link to this post.



The majority of the article is OK. With the exception of the final paragraph, the only quibble I have with it is that it lists the Democrat's complaints regarding a particular nominee without presenting the Republican response, but this is minor. However, the final paragraph is a major, major problem. I'll do a mini-Fisk on it:



"Battles over court nominees have intensified since 1996"



Sorry, they've 'intensified' since at least the Bork nomination battle, to say nothing of the Thomas fiasco. To establish the beginning date of the escalating nomination battles at 1996 places any blame or change in approach at the feet of a Republican majority, instead of at that of the Democrats where it belongs.



"when the Republicans unveiled a deliberate strategy to slow President Bill Clinton's appointees. The GOP put secret holds on nearly 60 nominees."



Prior to this article, I've never heard of any allegations, let alone solid proof of this allegation of the GOP's use of 'secret holds'. Ms. Clift certainly offers none. While it is extremely hard to prove a negative, I will offer substantial evidence that she is flat out wrong on this point. Judicialselection.org has a spreadsheet which gives various information regarding federal judicial vacancies for every month from January 1991 to February 2003. It makes for some quite interesting reading. On January 1, 1996, there were a total of 50 vacancies - the lowest total in Clinton's presidency. On January 1, 1997, there were a total of 83. While this rise may look a little suspicious, please note that a mere three months before, there were only 62 vacancies. Clearly there many new vacancies in this period, and the Senators were undoubtedly a little pre-occupied with the elections of that time.



While the vacancy figure continues to climb to a maximum of 100, it is also important to note the small fraction of the vacancies which Clinton even bothered to submit a nominee. While the site has an unfortunate gap in the information on pending nominees in this timeline, it appears that in the period from 8/96 to 6/97 - the time frame that the vacancy rate climbed so precipitously - Clinton NEVER HAD MORE THAN THIRTY nominees pending! It's sort of hard to blame the Senate for the vacancies when less than half of the judgeships have nominees pending. It's also rather difficult to have "secret holds on nearly 60 nominees" when the most nominees during the period seems to be 42.



Even without taking into account the normal time needed to perform (legitimately) the Senate's duty of advise and consent, I think that it is safe to say from these numbers that this claim is complete and utter bunk.



"When Clinton left office, the vacancies on the federal bench were at a record high"



THIS is the most obvious and egregious lie in the piece. I honestly cannot believe she wrote it, and that some fact checker and/or editor allowed it. It is so far wrong that it's almost breathtaking. According to Judicialselection.org, when Bush Sr. left office the vacancy rate was in triple digits. On 5/1/91 the vacancy figure was 146! When Clinton left office, it was in single digits. Could she have really made such an obvious and easily checked lie? Could it be Judicialselection.org instead which is peddling such trash? Let's let the ABA be the judge:



In total, during the 106th Congress, President Clinton nominated 116 individuals and the Senate confirmed 73 nominees (15 to the U.S. courts of appeals, 57 to the U.S. district courts, and one to the Court of International Trade) and rejected one. At the close of the 106th Congress 67 vacancies remained (25 in the U.S. courts of appeals and 42 in the U.S. district courts) and 41 nominations were returned to the President. In December 2000, President Clinton exercised his recess appointment power by appointing Roger Gregory to the 4th Circuit.



Note that this figure of 67 vacancies agrees with Judicialselction.org's number as of 12/4/2000. While the vacancy figure went up during the period between the election and President Bush's inauguration, this is also normal. Should the Senate be blamed for the 13 additional vacancies by January 2001, or should we use the ABA's figure of 67 for the "record high" number of vacancies at the end of Clinton's term. Ultimately, the lie is so huge it doesn't matter, so let's use 80.



The ABA has this to say for vacancies in the recent past:



• The current vacancy rate is high, but certainly not the highest in recent memory. During past-president George Bush’s term of office, there were 129 vacancies at the beginning of the 102nd Congress and 131 the following year. When Clinton took office in 1993, there were 115 vacancies on the bench and this climbed to 122 in 1994. The vacancy rates at the end of various sessions of Congress also have been as high or higher than now: 131 in 1991, 103 in 1992, and 112 in 1993.



This also agrees with Judicialselection.org's figures. Were the vacancies at the end of Clinton's term a "record high" or did she write a blatant lie? You be the judge. (My apologies for channeling Johnny Cochran for a moment).



"today they are the lowest in 13 years."



She's finally back on truthful ground, but she's spinning for all she's worth. We are currently at 45 vacancies, according to the federal government. This is actually the lowest in more than 13 years. What she doesn't mention is that under Clinton we were, not once, but TWICE down to 50 vacancies. One of these was in 1996, the year of those mysterious 60 "secret holds". Note that both of these lows came under a REPUBLICAN MAJORITY! With the Senate in the opposition party's hands, Clinton twice achieved a vacancy rate he never approached with a Democratic Senate. In contrast, Bush had to wait for the Senate to fall into his own party's hands before he could approach the low under Clinton.



Making this contrast worse, is that Bush (with the exception of the period immediately after his inauguration) has been far more proactive in nominating judges. In the same period of their respective Presidencies, where Clinton had only nominated people for roughly a third of the vacancies, Bush has actually already nominated people for several judgeships that aren't even vacant yet! Today there are more nominees than vacancies, pending announcements of people known to be retiring, etc.



"But Republicans say the system is broken, and Bush accuses Democrats of damaging judicial independence. That's a hard case to make: of the 13 circuit courts in the country, Republicans control eight, Democratic appointees control three, and two are divided between the parties"



This is simple a red herring. What does the make-up of the circuit courts have to do with "judicial independence"? Would having them all equally split between Republican nominated judges and Democratic judges mean that they are "independent" in any meaningful way? This split has nothing to do with "judicial independence" at all, they are simply a function of who has been getting elected President. While the last 10 years have been split 7-3 Democratic - Republican, over the last 20 it's been 12-8 Republican-Democrat, and over the last 30 years it's been 18-12 Republican-Democrat. Judges last a LONG time, so looking at these longer time frames is appropriate. The breakdown simply reflects the political realities of our system of government. So why the blather? I guess it's better to obfuscate than dwell on the actual arguments when you cannot answer them.



This final paragraph consists of nothing but blatant lies, lies of omission, exaggerations, and obfuscations. Pathetic.

It looks like Andrew Sullivan is a reader! At least, he seems to have picked up on the exact two quotes that I did below.

Some interesting tidbits on the NY Times scandal at Seth Mnookin's Raw Copy. First is NY Times reporter Tim Egan - "Hopefully, we’ll go back to valuing what we have: people who care about the drift of this country, and are given the time and respect to tell it right.”

So what the Times has is ... a bunch of people who care about the (apparently rightward) drift of the country. It seems that in his opinon, this is, if not the only common trait they share, at least the most important. I'm sure that in 'telling it right' they all make sure to eliminate their common bias.

The second item is from Todd Purdum, where he says in part, "But Rick Bragg’s method is not typical. It’s aberrant and repellent. Some of our colleagues have known this for years. Now the world knows it, and we’re all the poorer.”

So Bragg's methods were known 'for years', with no repurcussions. As if this isn't bad enough, Purdum seems to be at least as upset that the truth has gotten out, and as a consequence "we're all the poorer". I always thought that reporters were supposed to believe in exposing truth. I have to wonder who the 'we' that he refers to are. Are 'we' the NY Times, because of the loss of respect, deference, and influence? Are 'we' reporters in general for much the same reason? Or are 'we' Americans, poorer for losing an untrue illusion regarding the NY Times' standards and 'balance'?

Hmm. I guess I should have first read the rules. I would say that as my blog first started last year, however fitfully, I'm disqualified. Oh well.

I didn't have much to say today anyway.

Well, it's obviously been quite awhile since I posted. I saw the news about NZ Bear's little contest, and thought I might as well start it up again. The chances of my actually winning a week is pretty slim, but what the heck.

Let's talk a little about statistics, data, and the uses they are put to in public analysis. Probably due to my accounting background, I tend to easier recognize problems inherent in certain types of comparisons. I want to use three different subjects to illustrate the basic point: education, crime (with a focus on the specific crime of murder), and economy.

With the ongoing problems with our public school system, it is natural for people to look to find some objective criteria to judge which schools, states, programs, etc. are working and which aren't. Given the importance of this area, obviously there is a lot of attention focused on the problem. Unfortunately, almost all of the data that people try to use to perform this task are woefully inadequate and/or misused. That those who use this data are by and large unaware of the problem only compounds it. Two of the most egregious examples, to my mind, are drop-out rates and SAT/ACT scores.

While drop-out rates are important in some respects, it is important to keep in mind the accounting principle of comparability. When comparing the financial statements of two different companies, it is vitally important for any type of meaningful analysis that they are following the same rules in recognizing income, expenses, etc (see. Enron et. al). It is just as important when comparing drop-out rates between states, and thus in effect makes any such valid comparison impossible. The reason is that differing states can have wildly differing stances on social promotion, widely different demographics, varied levels of difficulty in curricula, require passing grades on a certain standardized tests (versus not doing so), etc. etc. Drop-out rates can be a valuable tool for evaluating a particular school, or school district, but it's usefulness does not extend much farther in scale. It's also important to keep in mind that drop-out rates generally say something about how well a school or school system does with the children at the bottom, but says little about it's utility for the average or 'gifted' student .

SAT scores are just as bad. First, they have the converse problem to drop-out rates: they only measure the students who are planning to go (or at least wish to go) to college. The fact that the percentage of students who fit this criteria varies from school to school, from school district to school district, from county to county, and from state to state, should thus put you on your guard that composite SAT scores are highly misleading. Yet every year, state rankings are announced with great fanfare across the country, generally with only token or no acknowlegement of the limitations. This is one of the few pieces I have seen to highlight these limitations, though it is notable that it is in response to a politician trying to make hay out of the raw numbers.

With regard to murder rates, you would think that it would be pretty easy to come up with a murder rate that would compare quite well between different states and countries. It seems that you would be wrong. From this Reason article comes the startling news:

[i]"The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn’t subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible. [/i]

In other words, if someone kills another in self defense, that death would be counted as a 'murder' in the US, but not in the UK. Also, if someone drives recklessly and kills another in a car accident and eventually pleads to vehicular manslaughter that would be counted as a murder in the US, but not in the UK. There are clearly any number of similar scenarios which would result in something counted as a murder here but not there. This goes a VERY long way to explaining how the UK can have such a higher violent crime rate, and yet have a lower murder rate. The disconnect had puzzled me for years, and, as far as I have been able to determine, the Reason article is the only place that this difference of methods has been articulated, and even here it was somewhat buried in the middle, and not given nearly the attention it deserves.

We finally get to the economy and where the idea for this post originated. When looking over what John Quiggin wrote (see below), he was relying in part on country-wide productivity measures.