The first step to completing my basement was to have some HVAC and plumbing work done. The furnace and water heater were smack in the middle, which just cut up the space horribly. Figuring that we'll be in the house for the next 14-16 years (and maybe more, who knows?), I decided that it would pay back to have both replaced with high efficiency units that could be mounted at the crawl space wall and vented horizontally - which allowed for the placement away from my existing flue (the existing units couldn't be moved far because of flue rise/run requirements.)
I called five companies, got four to visit the house, three provided bids. I fired questions back about each to ensure they were doing what I wanted (and had accounted for the various complexities of the job!). Additionally, I researched each with the BBB and time in service. Through the question period, two took themselves out of the running due to lax responses (one company decided that their estimator perhaps didn't do a good job and wanted to send another person back out!) The final company, based upon everything, decided that they could do it for a little less than initially proposed, had a spotless BBB record, and 63 years in business. How could I go wrong?
My wife calls them Frick and Frack, the clowns. I think they are just good Christians, and since it took God 6 days to create the universe, and not wanting to show God up, they'll get nothing done in less time. (Mind you, the initial estimate was for two full days, one for furnace, one for water heater.) They started last Monday. That was a 14 hour day. Tuesday was a parts gathering day. Wednesday was 8 hours, as was Thursday. The furnace was installed on Monday, and up and running Monday night (11:30pm!), but it was the wrong unit (not what was specified on my bid sheet.) Wednesday they brought in the water heater, (after carrying out my old one) and replaced the blower motor on the furnace. Thursday, the water heater was set in place, hooked up, vented, complete: But wouldn't light. Diagnostics indicated a bad gas valve (that's just pure, dumb luck!). After they left, the furnace wouldn't run. Turns out the plumber had had to do a little electrical to hook up the water heater, and had mis-wired the switch to the furnace, robbing it of power. I looked up the schematics, and rewired the switch myself, restoring power (and heat)at 9pm Thursday night. (It was in the low 20s outside, and down to 65 degrees inside when I got it restarted.) Friday, they showed up late, which required that we get a house sitter so my wife and I could leave to pick up our dog from the vet (another story, another time.) While we were gone, they determined that they couldn't repair the water heater, and removed it. To make us feel good, the HVAC guy wanted to install a humidifier, free of charge. I told him no. I wanted the correct furnace and water heater (oh, yes, it was an incorrect unit too, same part #, but not correct type per the bid sheet), and didn't want anything else with water. Did I mention that the furnace dripped water for 4 days due to a leak in the flue? That the overburdened condensate pump they installed also overflowed for 4 days? Both of those problems were fixed on Friday with the repair of the flue and the installation of a floor drain, rendering the pump unnecessary. I don't want anything else that can leak water!
It appears that they can't get either of the units specified (furnace or water heater) - although both are in the catalogs of the respective companies. They are upgrading me to a very nice tankless water heater, installation was begun yesterday (Saturday), but couldn't be completed because they failed to load enough vent piping (specifically elbows) onto the plumber's truck. We nixed any work for today, wanting a quiet day without workers tramping in and out of the house during the late afternoon and early evening. We are scheduled to begin Monday at 10am (that will be the sixth work day!). I'm not sure what happens with the furnace - we'll have to sit down next week (the company salesman and I) and decide. It would appear that the one installed will work fine (heating), the only question will be if it has sufficient airflow to prevent the AC coils from freezing in the summer. They are talking about giving me a 2 year full replacement guarantee.
Funny thing: On Wednesday, the main office called and indicated that I hadn't filled out the paperwork nor paid for the furnace installation. I told them that I would be doing paperwork and writing checks after the City Inspector passed the work specified in the permits (oh, yes! We do have permits!) - and they should be neither surprised nor ask again. They haven't. And if the inspector indicates anything is not up to code, they will have to fix that before any money changes hands. I'm holding that over them.
It's interesting. The company stands behind their 100% satisfaction guarantee, and they seem to be trying to live up to the promise. They haven't done anything unprofessional, other than make mistakes (and have some bad luck on the way to compound it!) The furnace install took at least an hour longer because the breaker failed - and when power didn't come on to the furnace initially, the installers assumed it was some of the wiring they had done, and started investigating there. It wasn't until last that they thought to check the breaker, which after 11 years on, had given up the ghost when switched off for the first time! Four of the five guys who've been out to the house I wouldn't mind having a beer with. And I understand work taking longer than estimated: It sometimes happens to me in my job; I'll think that it will only take a day or a week to fix some problem in the software, and then the time will be up and the software will not run due to some interactions that weren't visible initially. Again, the professionalism they exhibit: There have been no excuses, no complaining, no "you didn't specify that" from them. Just attempts to get it done. So, I have a rough time working up much anger (frustration and disappointment is closer to what I feel.) It has been a little strange living without hot water since Wednesday, kind of like camping (but in my own house!)
No, I'll not name the company at this time. Yesterday, they still were working to earn my satisfaction and referral to neighbors and friends. I see that as a leverage point during the negotiations for what I'll finally pay and what additional guarantees I'll get - no sense bad-mouthing them. I'm going to give them that I'm just one of the unlucky 5% who has to endure mix-ups and defective products during what should otherwise be just a big job.
Then again, perhaps I'm caught as the principle in an old Jerry Lewis' movie or a Lemony Snicket novel - help! Let me out of here! (Oh, and do you mind if I stop by for a shower?)
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Senate Spending Bill Loaded with Earmarks?
According to the Bloomberg report on the $1.2 Trillion Senate Omnibus Spending bill, it is a monstrosity loaded with spending earmarks. Senate Republicans are indicating that they will vote to kill the bill, a “porked-up monstrosity [who's supporters] would forfeit any claim to fiscal responsibility and economic conservatism”.
So, just what constitutes a 'loaded' or 'packed' spending bill? Well, reading a little deeper, it means that more than 88 of the 100 Senators have obtained earmarks for their projects. Which means that at least 29 of the Republicans now vowing to kill the bill worked to gain earmarks for their pet projects! (I'm not picking on Republicans per se here, I'm not so naive as to believe Democrats have never pulled this same tactic.) What a win-win for them: They can posture that they are fiscally conservative, denounce the earmarking practice, but just in the off-chance that the bill succeeds, their home state gets some dough, and they can go home, and in a political two-face, tell their constituents about how much money they brought home to them to create jobs!
And, how much money are we talking here? What does 'porked-up' mean? Well, it means that the bill contains....wait for it.....
....wait for it....
$8 billion dollars in earmarks!
Stop. The entire bill is $1200 billion dollars. That means that without the earmarks, it would still be roughly $1200 billion dollars. $8 billion comprises just 2/3rds of 1% of the total.
Wow. Definitions in DC just don't match how we define words in the rest of the country. Like porker. If you were 1% overweight, I wouldn't refer to you as a porker, I probably wouldn't even notice (you'd be, what, 1.5 lbs heavier than you should be? Maybe 2 lbs?)
Like monstrosity. As Utah Senator Bob Bennett points out, the earmarks (300 pages of the 1294 page document), by indicating where some money is to go, provide transparency and prevent the White House from diverting that money to its pet projects. Maybe not a best practice, but certainly far from anything monstrous.
Like Integrity. Out here, integrity means you do and say the same thing everywhere, to everyone - that you can be trusted. In DC, however, it appears that you stand up for your ideology when you can be heard and seen, all the while sneaking some extra money in for your folks back home under the pretense that...hell, we don't actually know what pretense those hacks would make! But, do you suppose that when they are congratulating themselves about the $91 million (on average) each brought home to their state, that they are admitting that they did it via the very process they claim to loathe?
Like Bias. Due to media bias towards conflict and sensationalism*, the real details of the bill, things that really matter (how much for Defense? how much for Medicaid/Medicare? How much for Federal government? How much for Education? How much for roads/bridges/infrastructure?) aren't even mentioned.
Like Honesty. Doesn't have a separate meaning to folks back home, because it is a word that has been stripped of all meaning within our governing chambers.
*Borrowed from my friend Cameron who, correctly, pointed out that the media doesn't really have a left/right bias, but is biased towards whoever is creating the most strife.
Bibliography (just in case you can't follow the link above)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/trillion-dollar-bill-packed-with-earmarks-in-u-s-senate.html
So, just what constitutes a 'loaded' or 'packed' spending bill? Well, reading a little deeper, it means that more than 88 of the 100 Senators have obtained earmarks for their projects. Which means that at least 29 of the Republicans now vowing to kill the bill worked to gain earmarks for their pet projects! (I'm not picking on Republicans per se here, I'm not so naive as to believe Democrats have never pulled this same tactic.) What a win-win for them: They can posture that they are fiscally conservative, denounce the earmarking practice, but just in the off-chance that the bill succeeds, their home state gets some dough, and they can go home, and in a political two-face, tell their constituents about how much money they brought home to them to create jobs!
And, how much money are we talking here? What does 'porked-up' mean? Well, it means that the bill contains....wait for it.....
....wait for it....
$8 billion dollars in earmarks!
Stop. The entire bill is $1200 billion dollars. That means that without the earmarks, it would still be roughly $1200 billion dollars. $8 billion comprises just 2/3rds of 1% of the total.
Wow. Definitions in DC just don't match how we define words in the rest of the country. Like porker. If you were 1% overweight, I wouldn't refer to you as a porker, I probably wouldn't even notice (you'd be, what, 1.5 lbs heavier than you should be? Maybe 2 lbs?)
Like monstrosity. As Utah Senator Bob Bennett points out, the earmarks (300 pages of the 1294 page document), by indicating where some money is to go, provide transparency and prevent the White House from diverting that money to its pet projects. Maybe not a best practice, but certainly far from anything monstrous.
Like Integrity. Out here, integrity means you do and say the same thing everywhere, to everyone - that you can be trusted. In DC, however, it appears that you stand up for your ideology when you can be heard and seen, all the while sneaking some extra money in for your folks back home under the pretense that...hell, we don't actually know what pretense those hacks would make! But, do you suppose that when they are congratulating themselves about the $91 million (on average) each brought home to their state, that they are admitting that they did it via the very process they claim to loathe?
Like Bias. Due to media bias towards conflict and sensationalism*, the real details of the bill, things that really matter (how much for Defense? how much for Medicaid/Medicare? How much for Federal government? How much for Education? How much for roads/bridges/infrastructure?) aren't even mentioned.
Like Honesty. Doesn't have a separate meaning to folks back home, because it is a word that has been stripped of all meaning within our governing chambers.
*Borrowed from my friend Cameron who, correctly, pointed out that the media doesn't really have a left/right bias, but is biased towards whoever is creating the most strife.
Bibliography (just in case you can't follow the link above)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/trillion-dollar-bill-packed-with-earmarks-in-u-s-senate.html
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Bias and Randomness
After discussing how bias can enter the hiring process, someone brought up this wrinkle:
Suppose, that after analyzing your success at hiring, you realize that all your interviewing and selecting doesn't actually improve your selection of new hires. In other words, you realize (as the HR manager) that statistically, you discern that in predicting who will do well, who will stay with the company, you are doing no better than if you had randomly selected the individuals for hire (and your process is certainly introducing bias).
So, you propose, that instead of an expensive personal interviewing process, you conduct a few random phone interviews (to weed out those who can pass your written test but lack the ability to actually speak with another person), and then you place all remaining candidates into a pool, and randomly select those who will receive offers from your company. You argue that, since you can't actually discern which candidates will go on to successful careers at your company, and you are certainly (although inadvertently) introducing bias against some groups, randomly selecting the candidates for hire will remove bias, and do no worse in selecting potential employees.
Is your idea feasible? Is it recommendable (i.e., there won't be negative fallout that you can't address)? Will it be acceptable to the candidates themselves? To Society?
Suppose, that after analyzing your success at hiring, you realize that all your interviewing and selecting doesn't actually improve your selection of new hires. In other words, you realize (as the HR manager) that statistically, you discern that in predicting who will do well, who will stay with the company, you are doing no better than if you had randomly selected the individuals for hire (and your process is certainly introducing bias).
So, you propose, that instead of an expensive personal interviewing process, you conduct a few random phone interviews (to weed out those who can pass your written test but lack the ability to actually speak with another person), and then you place all remaining candidates into a pool, and randomly select those who will receive offers from your company. You argue that, since you can't actually discern which candidates will go on to successful careers at your company, and you are certainly (although inadvertently) introducing bias against some groups, randomly selecting the candidates for hire will remove bias, and do no worse in selecting potential employees.
Is your idea feasible? Is it recommendable (i.e., there won't be negative fallout that you can't address)? Will it be acceptable to the candidates themselves? To Society?
Friday, December 3, 2010
Bias
From a lively lunchtime discussion:
We know, from the experiences of the Standardized Aptitude Test (SAT), commonly used for college admissions, and from the folks that develop the various IQ tests, that aptitude tests can exhibit a bias against people who come from a different ethnic or cultural background (i.e., different life experiences and emphasis) than the test creators. For reference, let's refer to this type of bias as Test Bias.
We also have experience that education is not evenly distributed (at least in America). We have experience that where schools are poor, where often minority ethnic or cultural groups reside, that the education they receive is not as effective at imparting the skills and knowledge they need to pursue the more technical and often higher paying jobs. Let's refer to this type of bias as Education Bias.
Assume that you are the head of HR for a large, national corporation. You've observed that a significant minority, comprising 25% of the population, is represented at only 5% in you company. You've gone to the effort of developing a pre-screening test that you administer to all applicants to weed out those unlikely to succeed based upon their not having the required skills and knowledge. Since you are large (over 70,000 employees), you find yourself in the position of hiring nearly 3000 new college graduates each year. After the recent such hiring, you sit back and look at the numbers.
Nearly 20% of the applicants did identify with the minority group, so the percentage of applicants was not too much lower than their representation in the population. However, you observe that only 1/2, 10% of those applicants who passed the pre-screening skills test and qualified for a personal interview where of the minority.
The question you have: Is it true that a much lower percentage of the minority group have acquired the necessary skills and knowledge to work in your business (evidence of Education Bias), or is your aptitude test biased against this group? How would you go about discerning which?
(Extra credit: After the personal interviews, you observe that only 5% of the applicants who receive offers are of the minority group. Is that further evidence of Education Bias (the minority applicants do not have the necessary skills and knowledge), or is your company reducing its minority representation through a 'personal' bias exhibited by your interviewers?)
We know, from the experiences of the Standardized Aptitude Test (SAT), commonly used for college admissions, and from the folks that develop the various IQ tests, that aptitude tests can exhibit a bias against people who come from a different ethnic or cultural background (i.e., different life experiences and emphasis) than the test creators. For reference, let's refer to this type of bias as Test Bias.
We also have experience that education is not evenly distributed (at least in America). We have experience that where schools are poor, where often minority ethnic or cultural groups reside, that the education they receive is not as effective at imparting the skills and knowledge they need to pursue the more technical and often higher paying jobs. Let's refer to this type of bias as Education Bias.
Assume that you are the head of HR for a large, national corporation. You've observed that a significant minority, comprising 25% of the population, is represented at only 5% in you company. You've gone to the effort of developing a pre-screening test that you administer to all applicants to weed out those unlikely to succeed based upon their not having the required skills and knowledge. Since you are large (over 70,000 employees), you find yourself in the position of hiring nearly 3000 new college graduates each year. After the recent such hiring, you sit back and look at the numbers.
Nearly 20% of the applicants did identify with the minority group, so the percentage of applicants was not too much lower than their representation in the population. However, you observe that only 1/2, 10% of those applicants who passed the pre-screening skills test and qualified for a personal interview where of the minority.
The question you have: Is it true that a much lower percentage of the minority group have acquired the necessary skills and knowledge to work in your business (evidence of Education Bias), or is your aptitude test biased against this group? How would you go about discerning which?
(Extra credit: After the personal interviews, you observe that only 5% of the applicants who receive offers are of the minority group. Is that further evidence of Education Bias (the minority applicants do not have the necessary skills and knowledge), or is your company reducing its minority representation through a 'personal' bias exhibited by your interviewers?)
Thursday, November 25, 2010
High Frequence Trading and A Book Recommendation
This article on High-Frequency Trading over at Balkinization (a collection of legal scholars and lawyers) caught my eye. It is a subject that I think we need to think about a lot more as a nation - executing market trades is a fundamental aspect of capitalism as we have designed it, but is buying, holding, and then selling stocks in only 11 seconds (or less) beneficial? Does it smooth the market value function, or does it instead introduce noise and volatility, and create possibilities for sabotage? Read author Frank Pasquale's thoughts at: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/11/martial-finance-case-of-high-frequency.html
The whole thing made me recall a book I read two years ago: The Tenured Professor, by economist John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith buried insights into our markets and our behavior that it has taken me time to appreciate, but the one of the themes of the book, that we behave relative to investing more based on what others are doing and less on what we think of as value, is especially pertinent to the subject of computer based trading, and High Frequency Trading in particular.
The whole thing made me recall a book I read two years ago: The Tenured Professor, by economist John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith buried insights into our markets and our behavior that it has taken me time to appreciate, but the one of the themes of the book, that we behave relative to investing more based on what others are doing and less on what we think of as value, is especially pertinent to the subject of computer based trading, and High Frequency Trading in particular.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
oweno.com should be Oh, No! What a Load of Crap!
Nothing bothers me more than dishonesty in pushing national policy. I saw a commercial for oweno.com last night and again tonight while watching the news, and from the content, my 'National Scare' radar jumped into high gear. So, I checked out the site, and it is awful! But, just to demonstrate to you how awful (and why you should treat anything this bunch advocates with more than a little prejudice), I'll take it apart for you...
Can you imagine 13 trillion? Neither can I. oweno starts out by telling us that the National Debt is 13.6 trillion dollars. But, they never tell us what it means. And, because we can't imagine 13 trillion, we assume that must be a 'Big Deal'. However, this is to commit the fallacy of large numbers: Just because a number used to describe something is unusually large doesn't correlate that its meaning is similarly big.
We need something to compare it to. I have an idea: Let's compare the National Debt to our country's National Yearly Income: The GDP. Pulling numbers from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (bea.gov), we can see that the US GDP for 2009 was 14.1 trillion dollars - so another way of expressing the US Debt would be to divide it by the US Income, and we get... 1 (One). Yep. The US Debt is 1. Consider this: Most US households, those that own their home, have a Debt of 2 or greater. So, is a US Debt of 1 a big deal?
If I told you that the US Debt over the last 100 years has ranged from .35 to 1.21, you would have a little more information. And If I told you that the debt of 1.21 occurred at the close of WWII (1945), and the most recent low of .5 occurred during the Carter Presidency, you would have a little more information. Yes, our debt has been growing since Reagan took office, after a long decline during the presidency's of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It rose during Reagan and Bush, dropped during Clinton, and has risen again during Bush and Obama.
I could go on dragging up information about the US Debt, looking at other countries' debt, what economists would have to say, but you get the point: oweno.com starts out by telling its readers nothing, and instead attempts to scare them using very large numbers. Not a very auspices beginning for an organization 'dedicated to raising awareness about America’s fiscal challenges and accelerating action on them.' It takes information to raise awareness...
The second paragraph continues the fallacy of large numbers, as does the third. Hmmm, not doing very well in the information department yet...
Oh, the third then attempts to scare us again with the statement that 'half this money [$200 billion interest on the debt] goes overseas to foreign governments that own our debt.'
Yep, foreign governments do own our debt. They do so because we trade with them, and instead of importing and exporting in equal measure, we have been running a trade imbalance for the last decade: Foreign goods come into America, and American dollars go overseas to pay for them. The overseas nations then purchase US Treasury Bonds, since they can't purchase a like amount of American Manufactured goods. Economists from Krugman to Baker to Galbraith to Salmon to Thoma and on and on have been pointing this out for the last 10 years - you would think that a 'former Secretary of Commerce (Peter G. Peterson)' would also understand this: It's the overvalued US dollar that contributes to the 'fact' that foreign countries 'own' our debt, not our profligate ways.
The fourth paragraph is the most egregious of all, however. The foundation claims that the debt could 'double' by 2020, 'triple' by 2030, and 'quadruple' by 2040. Why the scare quotes? Because, they are being inherently dishonest with these statements (and one suspects they 'know' it, but are doing a little cya.)
Sure, the National Debt could 'quadruple' to $50 trillion by 2040, but where do you suppose the National Income could be in 2040? That's 30 years from now - Let's take a quick look at our historical change in National Income (GDP): Looking at numbers (again from bea.gov), we can see that the National GDP was $2.5 trillion in 1979, $5.4 trillion in 1989 (more than 'double'), $9.4 trillion in 1999 (more than 'triple'), and $14.1 trillion in 2009 (more than 'quadruple', in fact, almost 'sextuple'!!!!!) Oh, My, Gosh! Peter G. Peterson and oweno just gave away the game: If our debt were to continue at the current rate of 1 (One), and our GDP were to grow at historical rates, then our debt would become $50 trillion in 2040, which would be UNCHANGED from today!
That is how you lie with big numbers, folks. The fourth paragraph reveals the foundation for the dishonest charlatans that they are - they attempt to scare us using big numbers without grounding those numbers in anything meaningful to which they apply. An honest organization would look at the debt in a meaningful way, using meaningful language to describe it. They would honestly say that we don't know whether the debt will grow or shrink in the coming years, and not attempt to scare us by showing how big of a number could by used to describe it if it were to remain equal to our GDP. An honest organization would look at the factors that increase the debt, and what occurred during the period from 1945 to 1980 that coincided with a steady decline of the debt, and the factors that accompanied its rise since then (and I deliberately say 'coincided' and 'accompanied', because causation is very, very difficult to determine in the noisy system that is our economy.)
I suspect that the Peter G. Peterson Foundation has something in mind, and it's not something that will be universally, or even majorly, good for Americans. I'll keep looking at (and rebuking) oweno until we figure out just what they want, and why they aren't willing to be honest in their evaluations in their attempt to get it.
Can you imagine 13 trillion? Neither can I. oweno starts out by telling us that the National Debt is 13.6 trillion dollars. But, they never tell us what it means. And, because we can't imagine 13 trillion, we assume that must be a 'Big Deal'. However, this is to commit the fallacy of large numbers: Just because a number used to describe something is unusually large doesn't correlate that its meaning is similarly big.
We need something to compare it to. I have an idea: Let's compare the National Debt to our country's National Yearly Income: The GDP. Pulling numbers from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (bea.gov), we can see that the US GDP for 2009 was 14.1 trillion dollars - so another way of expressing the US Debt would be to divide it by the US Income, and we get... 1 (One). Yep. The US Debt is 1. Consider this: Most US households, those that own their home, have a Debt of 2 or greater. So, is a US Debt of 1 a big deal?
If I told you that the US Debt over the last 100 years has ranged from .35 to 1.21, you would have a little more information. And If I told you that the debt of 1.21 occurred at the close of WWII (1945), and the most recent low of .5 occurred during the Carter Presidency, you would have a little more information. Yes, our debt has been growing since Reagan took office, after a long decline during the presidency's of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. It rose during Reagan and Bush, dropped during Clinton, and has risen again during Bush and Obama.
I could go on dragging up information about the US Debt, looking at other countries' debt, what economists would have to say, but you get the point: oweno.com starts out by telling its readers nothing, and instead attempts to scare them using very large numbers. Not a very auspices beginning for an organization 'dedicated to raising awareness about America’s fiscal challenges and accelerating action on them.' It takes information to raise awareness...
The second paragraph continues the fallacy of large numbers, as does the third. Hmmm, not doing very well in the information department yet...
Oh, the third then attempts to scare us again with the statement that 'half this money [$200 billion interest on the debt] goes overseas to foreign governments that own our debt.'
Yep, foreign governments do own our debt. They do so because we trade with them, and instead of importing and exporting in equal measure, we have been running a trade imbalance for the last decade: Foreign goods come into America, and American dollars go overseas to pay for them. The overseas nations then purchase US Treasury Bonds, since they can't purchase a like amount of American Manufactured goods. Economists from Krugman to Baker to Galbraith to Salmon to Thoma and on and on have been pointing this out for the last 10 years - you would think that a 'former Secretary of Commerce (Peter G. Peterson)' would also understand this: It's the overvalued US dollar that contributes to the 'fact' that foreign countries 'own' our debt, not our profligate ways.
The fourth paragraph is the most egregious of all, however. The foundation claims that the debt could 'double' by 2020, 'triple' by 2030, and 'quadruple' by 2040. Why the scare quotes? Because, they are being inherently dishonest with these statements (and one suspects they 'know' it, but are doing a little cya.)
Sure, the National Debt could 'quadruple' to $50 trillion by 2040, but where do you suppose the National Income could be in 2040? That's 30 years from now - Let's take a quick look at our historical change in National Income (GDP): Looking at numbers (again from bea.gov), we can see that the National GDP was $2.5 trillion in 1979, $5.4 trillion in 1989 (more than 'double'), $9.4 trillion in 1999 (more than 'triple'), and $14.1 trillion in 2009 (more than 'quadruple', in fact, almost 'sextuple'!!!!!) Oh, My, Gosh! Peter G. Peterson and oweno just gave away the game: If our debt were to continue at the current rate of 1 (One), and our GDP were to grow at historical rates, then our debt would become $50 trillion in 2040, which would be UNCHANGED from today!
That is how you lie with big numbers, folks. The fourth paragraph reveals the foundation for the dishonest charlatans that they are - they attempt to scare us using big numbers without grounding those numbers in anything meaningful to which they apply. An honest organization would look at the debt in a meaningful way, using meaningful language to describe it. They would honestly say that we don't know whether the debt will grow or shrink in the coming years, and not attempt to scare us by showing how big of a number could by used to describe it if it were to remain equal to our GDP. An honest organization would look at the factors that increase the debt, and what occurred during the period from 1945 to 1980 that coincided with a steady decline of the debt, and the factors that accompanied its rise since then (and I deliberately say 'coincided' and 'accompanied', because causation is very, very difficult to determine in the noisy system that is our economy.)
I suspect that the Peter G. Peterson Foundation has something in mind, and it's not something that will be universally, or even majorly, good for Americans. I'll keep looking at (and rebuking) oweno until we figure out just what they want, and why they aren't willing to be honest in their evaluations in their attempt to get it.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Dennis Cauchon of USAToday Should Be Fired
As a journalist, he is either incompetent or, worse, he is a biased hack that wants to mislead us. Either way, he has no use holding a reporting position at a major US newspaper.
The dual articles that have caught my attention (and caused my ire) are this one and this one. You probably heard both on the national nightly news: In the first, he outlines that the number of workers being paid more than $150,000 has risen tenfold in the last five years, and doubled in the last two. In the second, he purports to tell us that federal workers earn double their private counterparts.
I don't have the time to dissect each and every claim he makes (although they appear to be universally incorrect!), but I'll start, and you can understand the underlying problems in his 'reporting'.
First: Mr Cauchon doesn't cite his sources. Although he does indicate that the information comes from the Office of Personnel Management, they have hundreds of documents available to the public. I was able to find a couple that surely he looked at, but not all. That's shoddy on his part (or deliberately obfuscating).
Second: The claim that the number of federal workers making more than $150,000 has ballooned.
If Mr Cauchon had the least bit of economic knowledge, he would realize two things that would have to be investigated underlying this. First, he would have to account for inflation: Using a nominal 3% figure for the last five years, we would find that any worker who was making $130,000 or more in 2005 we would expect to be making $150,000 or more today. I was able to find a figure for 2004: There were over 34,000 federal civilian employees making more than $130,000 at that time. So we would expect that if their salaries had just kept pace with inflation, there would be at least that many making more than $150,000 today. Now, Mr Cauchon does show that there are more than 82,000 making above $150,000 today. So, the news is not that we have 75000 more people earning at that rate, but that we have 40,000 more earning. Second, since Mr Cauchon is paid to do his reporting (as opposed to you and I who have to take time away from our personal lives to find this information), he should have dug a little deeper into where the extra high paying employees existed: Is there legislation passed during the last five years that created these jobs? Are they located in one area of the country? What is the underlying cause?
That would be useful information with which to inform our opinion.
Third: The Claim (from the second article) that Federal Pay is double its private counterparts.
That appears to be completely bogus and misleading. From the reports that I did find at the OPM site, they conduct extensive studies every year in an attempt to pay federal employees the same amount for the same job as their private counterparts: They compare the required education and experience to arrive at comparable salaries. They are open about their methodology, and in fact conclude that, on average, federal employees are paid slightly less than their private counterparts. In the second article, Mr Cauchon admits that they study he or his counterparts are using disregards eduction and experience - i.e., it is useless for doing any sort of pay comparison! What a load of crap!
Finally, the point that the numbers growing exponentially during the last two years: We would expect that also. If you think about the pay of all individuals as a pyramid, with ever larger numbers at lower pay, and the pyramid rising out of the water (the $150,000 pay line), you would expect that each year a greater number of individuals would rise above that line - reproducing the numbers in his article tells us nothing useful about the movement in pay: The same effect is occurring in the private sector...
The real reasons Mr Cauchon has gained my ire are these: First, we count on our reporters to inform our opinion, so that we can make considered decisions about various subjects. When a report does his or her job so shoddily that they provide mis-information at best, we are not capable of doing our jobs as citizens in a democracy. Since the implicit undertone of his dual articles is that Federal workers are being paid above their skill, education, and experience levels, I want to turn that back on Mr Cauchon and have shown how he is obviously being paid way above his level of expertise as well.
Second, as the aforementioned citizen in a democracy, I take affront to these wholesale attacks on our government. We form our government and use it to achieve collectively those objectives we cannot achieve alone. Sure we have the military to protect us from outside attackers, but we have also found the need to protect ourselves from the rapacious, wealthy elite, who would, in many cases, poison us with our food, their chemicals, drugs; take advantage of us through obfuscated contracts, unsafe working conditions, and more. We've used our government time and again to stipulate our interactions, and provide laws to regulate their behavior, and qualified individuals to oversee the enforcement of those regulations.
Like a cancer in an otherwise healthy body, there are pockets of graft, corruption, perhaps nepotism that form within our otherwise healthy and useful government. I want, nay, depend upon intrepid, intelligent, and well informed reporters who will ferret out those pockets and expose them, so that we can act to control, reform, or remove them.
Unfortunately, Mr Cauchon displays none of those qualities in his writings of Nov 10. Instead, he opens the door for wholesale assaults on our entire federal employee system (See, for example, Mr Beohner's comments on freezing all government pay). That would surely undermine our collective goals as a citizenry, since it is less than 4% of all federal civilian employees who make a great deal; most federal employees are paid down in a scale commensurate with their private counterparts, a scant 1.4% raise this year likely falls behind inflation, and they become poorer, too.
Mr. Cauchon has not informed us, has not uncovered corruption or a frightening trend, has not even told the truth in any meaningful way. Although, I am probably wrong in calling for his firing: He could be sent back to the copyroom, etc for more training. His editor is probably the individual who should be fired for dereliction of duties in allowing Mr Cauchon's piece to even appear!
The dual articles that have caught my attention (and caused my ire) are this one and this one. You probably heard both on the national nightly news: In the first, he outlines that the number of workers being paid more than $150,000 has risen tenfold in the last five years, and doubled in the last two. In the second, he purports to tell us that federal workers earn double their private counterparts.
I don't have the time to dissect each and every claim he makes (although they appear to be universally incorrect!), but I'll start, and you can understand the underlying problems in his 'reporting'.
First: Mr Cauchon doesn't cite his sources. Although he does indicate that the information comes from the Office of Personnel Management, they have hundreds of documents available to the public. I was able to find a couple that surely he looked at, but not all. That's shoddy on his part (or deliberately obfuscating).
Second: The claim that the number of federal workers making more than $150,000 has ballooned.
If Mr Cauchon had the least bit of economic knowledge, he would realize two things that would have to be investigated underlying this. First, he would have to account for inflation: Using a nominal 3% figure for the last five years, we would find that any worker who was making $130,000 or more in 2005 we would expect to be making $150,000 or more today. I was able to find a figure for 2004: There were over 34,000 federal civilian employees making more than $130,000 at that time. So we would expect that if their salaries had just kept pace with inflation, there would be at least that many making more than $150,000 today. Now, Mr Cauchon does show that there are more than 82,000 making above $150,000 today. So, the news is not that we have 75000 more people earning at that rate, but that we have 40,000 more earning. Second, since Mr Cauchon is paid to do his reporting (as opposed to you and I who have to take time away from our personal lives to find this information), he should have dug a little deeper into where the extra high paying employees existed: Is there legislation passed during the last five years that created these jobs? Are they located in one area of the country? What is the underlying cause?
That would be useful information with which to inform our opinion.
Third: The Claim (from the second article) that Federal Pay is double its private counterparts.
That appears to be completely bogus and misleading. From the reports that I did find at the OPM site, they conduct extensive studies every year in an attempt to pay federal employees the same amount for the same job as their private counterparts: They compare the required education and experience to arrive at comparable salaries. They are open about their methodology, and in fact conclude that, on average, federal employees are paid slightly less than their private counterparts. In the second article, Mr Cauchon admits that they study he or his counterparts are using disregards eduction and experience - i.e., it is useless for doing any sort of pay comparison! What a load of crap!
Finally, the point that the numbers growing exponentially during the last two years: We would expect that also. If you think about the pay of all individuals as a pyramid, with ever larger numbers at lower pay, and the pyramid rising out of the water (the $150,000 pay line), you would expect that each year a greater number of individuals would rise above that line - reproducing the numbers in his article tells us nothing useful about the movement in pay: The same effect is occurring in the private sector...
The real reasons Mr Cauchon has gained my ire are these: First, we count on our reporters to inform our opinion, so that we can make considered decisions about various subjects. When a report does his or her job so shoddily that they provide mis-information at best, we are not capable of doing our jobs as citizens in a democracy. Since the implicit undertone of his dual articles is that Federal workers are being paid above their skill, education, and experience levels, I want to turn that back on Mr Cauchon and have shown how he is obviously being paid way above his level of expertise as well.
Second, as the aforementioned citizen in a democracy, I take affront to these wholesale attacks on our government. We form our government and use it to achieve collectively those objectives we cannot achieve alone. Sure we have the military to protect us from outside attackers, but we have also found the need to protect ourselves from the rapacious, wealthy elite, who would, in many cases, poison us with our food, their chemicals, drugs; take advantage of us through obfuscated contracts, unsafe working conditions, and more. We've used our government time and again to stipulate our interactions, and provide laws to regulate their behavior, and qualified individuals to oversee the enforcement of those regulations.
Like a cancer in an otherwise healthy body, there are pockets of graft, corruption, perhaps nepotism that form within our otherwise healthy and useful government. I want, nay, depend upon intrepid, intelligent, and well informed reporters who will ferret out those pockets and expose them, so that we can act to control, reform, or remove them.
Unfortunately, Mr Cauchon displays none of those qualities in his writings of Nov 10. Instead, he opens the door for wholesale assaults on our entire federal employee system (See, for example, Mr Beohner's comments on freezing all government pay). That would surely undermine our collective goals as a citizenry, since it is less than 4% of all federal civilian employees who make a great deal; most federal employees are paid down in a scale commensurate with their private counterparts, a scant 1.4% raise this year likely falls behind inflation, and they become poorer, too.
Mr. Cauchon has not informed us, has not uncovered corruption or a frightening trend, has not even told the truth in any meaningful way. Although, I am probably wrong in calling for his firing: He could be sent back to the copyroom, etc for more training. His editor is probably the individual who should be fired for dereliction of duties in allowing Mr Cauchon's piece to even appear!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Dr. John Ioannidis is Revealing our Lack of Knowledge
Dr. John Ioannidis is a meta-researcher, and in this piece at The Atlantic, he explains how bias and a lack of true understanding of randomness renders many of our medical studies equivocal. Researchers go in to a study looking for a correlation, and viola! they find it. Sometimes, another team goes in looking for the opposite correlation, and viola! they find it. Frequently, however, the hallmark of science: That another team will attempt to duplicate your study and either add to the evidence or highlight an error - never occurs.
Naturally, drug studies are the worst. Naturally, because most of us intuitively grasp that where big money is involved, where a great deal is at stake, the research can easily be corrupted. It's corrupted in this sense because the researchers want to see the correlations between their new drug and the benefits - and that inherent bias leads them to set up a study that will naturally prove, rather than disprove the efficacy of their new product.
I've seen the type of bias Dr. Ionnidis is capturing first hand, amongst myself and my peers. It's much easier to set up a test or study that duplicates our beliefs about how something works; it is much, much harder to devise a test that could actually disprove (and hence validate if passed) our belief in how a system works.
Correlation and causation continue to be difficult to tease out of the world around us - we don't know much, and Dr. Ionnidis research has cast doubt on much of what we thought we knew. Read the article: It is fascinating!
I think my next project will be to download the study mentioned and read about the 45 pivotal studies Dr. Ionnidis concentrated on - what medical and nutrition advice that we take for granted is uncertain?
(If you can't follow the links, here is the complete url:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
)
Naturally, drug studies are the worst. Naturally, because most of us intuitively grasp that where big money is involved, where a great deal is at stake, the research can easily be corrupted. It's corrupted in this sense because the researchers want to see the correlations between their new drug and the benefits - and that inherent bias leads them to set up a study that will naturally prove, rather than disprove the efficacy of their new product.
I've seen the type of bias Dr. Ionnidis is capturing first hand, amongst myself and my peers. It's much easier to set up a test or study that duplicates our beliefs about how something works; it is much, much harder to devise a test that could actually disprove (and hence validate if passed) our belief in how a system works.
Correlation and causation continue to be difficult to tease out of the world around us - we don't know much, and Dr. Ionnidis research has cast doubt on much of what we thought we knew. Read the article: It is fascinating!
I think my next project will be to download the study mentioned and read about the 45 pivotal studies Dr. Ionnidis concentrated on - what medical and nutrition advice that we take for granted is uncertain?
(If you can't follow the links, here is the complete url:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
)
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Jail Time
I heard this story on the news yesterday: Hungary has jailed the executive of MAL Co., the company that appears to have disregarded safety and maintenance provisions that led to the collapse of a holding tank wall, releasing a million gallons of post aluminum processing sludge (which contains the toxic chemicals cyanide, cadmium, and chromium.) Eight people have died as a result of the spill, and hundreds evacuated.
It's an interesting action. We often give corporate cover to the individuals who manage and work at a company, allowing their malfeasance to go unpunished (we punish the shareholders instead, by fining the company and reducing it's profits.) I understand well the thinking behind this strategy: Sometimes, in the course of business, unforeseen events occur, property receives damage, people get hurt: We don't want to go on a hunt every time, else few (if any) people would be willing to run a business, and we all would suffer. Besides, if the actions and fines are large enough, presumably the shareholders would sack the management of the company, and install new leaders who will work to ensure that profits aren't endangered by carelessness or neglect.
But we must also be mindful of the fact that businesses and corporations have no intrinsic morals: Only people are moral agents capable of determining their course of action. As a society, we should certainly demand moral behavior -- and we can communicate our definition of moral behavior by the rules and regulations we levy upon the conduct of a business. When those rules or regulations are disregarded, willfully ignored or knowingly violated by employees, it is those same employees that should pay restitution to society, not others.
We don't yet know if there was criminal misconduct at MAL Co., and will have to wait for the outcome of the Hungarian Courts. However, since they justify their high salaries upon the idea that a CEO imbues his company with his philosophy, drive, and vision, if the individuals of a corporation have been found to be acting immorally, we should certainly start at the top in filing criminal charges, as Hungary has done.
I've often wondered how much corporate wrongdoing would be cured by the simple expedient of jailing the CEO. Neglect to follow established procedures for cleanliness, and your eggs become tainted with Salmonella, sickening consumers? Go to jail. Rush the process in violation of regulations and procedures, having your oil rig explode and spill millions of gallons of oil? Go to jail. Violate OSHA standards, causing workers to be injured or killed on the job? Go to jail.
It'd be interesting to try. I'll be very curious to see the outcome in Hungary.
It's an interesting action. We often give corporate cover to the individuals who manage and work at a company, allowing their malfeasance to go unpunished (we punish the shareholders instead, by fining the company and reducing it's profits.) I understand well the thinking behind this strategy: Sometimes, in the course of business, unforeseen events occur, property receives damage, people get hurt: We don't want to go on a hunt every time, else few (if any) people would be willing to run a business, and we all would suffer. Besides, if the actions and fines are large enough, presumably the shareholders would sack the management of the company, and install new leaders who will work to ensure that profits aren't endangered by carelessness or neglect.
But we must also be mindful of the fact that businesses and corporations have no intrinsic morals: Only people are moral agents capable of determining their course of action. As a society, we should certainly demand moral behavior -- and we can communicate our definition of moral behavior by the rules and regulations we levy upon the conduct of a business. When those rules or regulations are disregarded, willfully ignored or knowingly violated by employees, it is those same employees that should pay restitution to society, not others.
We don't yet know if there was criminal misconduct at MAL Co., and will have to wait for the outcome of the Hungarian Courts. However, since they justify their high salaries upon the idea that a CEO imbues his company with his philosophy, drive, and vision, if the individuals of a corporation have been found to be acting immorally, we should certainly start at the top in filing criminal charges, as Hungary has done.
I've often wondered how much corporate wrongdoing would be cured by the simple expedient of jailing the CEO. Neglect to follow established procedures for cleanliness, and your eggs become tainted with Salmonella, sickening consumers? Go to jail. Rush the process in violation of regulations and procedures, having your oil rig explode and spill millions of gallons of oil? Go to jail. Violate OSHA standards, causing workers to be injured or killed on the job? Go to jail.
It'd be interesting to try. I'll be very curious to see the outcome in Hungary.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Surf's Up!
A storm whips the seas of the Pacific. For days, the winds feed energy into the ocean, whipping the waves higher. One collection of energy, for unknown reasons, usurps the power of its neighbors, growing substantially larger. Perhaps its alignment and the wind's alignment correlated longer. Perhaps the input energy achieved something akin to resonant frequency with the wave energy, and each little push caused it to grow. Whatever the cause, this wave and its energy grew to more than twice the average of the storm frenzied sea.
First on its path eastward is a low slung bulk container ship. Built in the 70's to manage 40 foot oceans, the ship has been taking on small amounts of water as the waves of the storm crash over its bow. The metal and ore below deck has started shifting from the constant rolling and pitching. The captain's best course would be to slow to a crawl and wait the storm out, but he's on a timetable: Payday doesn't occur until he docks, and his next paycheck depends upon unloading this load and getting another. So, he presses on.
A sister wave to the one we're tracking, not quite as big, but substantially larger than the 30 foot seas rears up and crashes over the ship's bow, straining hatches. The cargo moves some more. The ship plunges into the trough, and then the captain sees it: The biggest wave of his experience. A 90 foot monster rears ahead, crashes into his ship. Hatches are burst under the weight and the twisting, water floods the fore compartments. The 70000 ton vessel is suddenly much heavier, up front, and driven by its motors and momentum, literally drives itself into the ocean. A little over a minute later the ocean closes over its stern; the ship and its crew gone. No mayday was sounded, no transmission released to aid in finding the vessel.
The wave continues on, undeterred, heading for the California coast. Alerted to the presence of the storm, the big wave surfers are gathering, waiting. What size waves will arrive? Will they get a chance at the XXL prize for surfing a 100 foot wave? Jet skis are readied, surf boards are waxed, the ocean is scanned. As the storm surge starts rolling in, the surfers head out for a day testing themselves against the enormous energies of the ocean. The swells increase, first 40, and then 50 foot waves. Finally, the big ones arrive: 60, 65 feet, and then the one they'll talk about for years: Perhaps 70, maybe 75 feet tall. A ride is made, pictures are taken. The energy dissipates.
The wave scientists gather in Maui. They've gotten solid evidence from instrumented oil rigs in the North Sea, from scientific ships that didn't meet the fate of the freighter, from data relayed back from weather satellites: 100 foot waves, once only sailor's legends, routinely rise out of 30 and 40 foot seas. The problem: Their models don't predict them. The models used are accurate in predicting when a storm will whip up 30 foot waves, when it will whip up 40 foot waves – but they tend to predict uniform wave heights, not the regular monster that they now know occurs.
The information sheds light on another mystery: Lloyd's of London, a major insurer of shipping companies and ships, reveals that 2 major cargo ships disappear every month carrying their cargo. If the bulk of the ships built over the last 30 years were designed for a maximum wave of 60 feet, what happens when the crew meets a monster? Simulations back up the scenario with which I opened this essay: They drive themselves into the ocean after water breaches the hatches, after it floods the fore storage areas.
Susan Casey weaves these elements together, and more, in her book “The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean.” The majority of the book follows the big wave surfers as they hunt out the biggest waves to ride, and then underscores what they're doing with a search to understand how the waves gain their energy and what science is discovering. After reading the book I am in awe of guys like Laird Hamilton, Brett Lickle, and Dave Kamada, fascinated by the energies of the ocean, and have a reinforced understanding that the key to predicting the future climate of the earth rests on a deeper knowledge of the oceans – knowledge that scientists are just now beginning to gain.
I also won't be sailing or surfing anytime soon!
(Casey, Susan. “The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean.” Doubleday, New York. 2010)
First on its path eastward is a low slung bulk container ship. Built in the 70's to manage 40 foot oceans, the ship has been taking on small amounts of water as the waves of the storm crash over its bow. The metal and ore below deck has started shifting from the constant rolling and pitching. The captain's best course would be to slow to a crawl and wait the storm out, but he's on a timetable: Payday doesn't occur until he docks, and his next paycheck depends upon unloading this load and getting another. So, he presses on.
A sister wave to the one we're tracking, not quite as big, but substantially larger than the 30 foot seas rears up and crashes over the ship's bow, straining hatches. The cargo moves some more. The ship plunges into the trough, and then the captain sees it: The biggest wave of his experience. A 90 foot monster rears ahead, crashes into his ship. Hatches are burst under the weight and the twisting, water floods the fore compartments. The 70000 ton vessel is suddenly much heavier, up front, and driven by its motors and momentum, literally drives itself into the ocean. A little over a minute later the ocean closes over its stern; the ship and its crew gone. No mayday was sounded, no transmission released to aid in finding the vessel.
The wave continues on, undeterred, heading for the California coast. Alerted to the presence of the storm, the big wave surfers are gathering, waiting. What size waves will arrive? Will they get a chance at the XXL prize for surfing a 100 foot wave? Jet skis are readied, surf boards are waxed, the ocean is scanned. As the storm surge starts rolling in, the surfers head out for a day testing themselves against the enormous energies of the ocean. The swells increase, first 40, and then 50 foot waves. Finally, the big ones arrive: 60, 65 feet, and then the one they'll talk about for years: Perhaps 70, maybe 75 feet tall. A ride is made, pictures are taken. The energy dissipates.
The wave scientists gather in Maui. They've gotten solid evidence from instrumented oil rigs in the North Sea, from scientific ships that didn't meet the fate of the freighter, from data relayed back from weather satellites: 100 foot waves, once only sailor's legends, routinely rise out of 30 and 40 foot seas. The problem: Their models don't predict them. The models used are accurate in predicting when a storm will whip up 30 foot waves, when it will whip up 40 foot waves – but they tend to predict uniform wave heights, not the regular monster that they now know occurs.
The information sheds light on another mystery: Lloyd's of London, a major insurer of shipping companies and ships, reveals that 2 major cargo ships disappear every month carrying their cargo. If the bulk of the ships built over the last 30 years were designed for a maximum wave of 60 feet, what happens when the crew meets a monster? Simulations back up the scenario with which I opened this essay: They drive themselves into the ocean after water breaches the hatches, after it floods the fore storage areas.
Susan Casey weaves these elements together, and more, in her book “The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean.” The majority of the book follows the big wave surfers as they hunt out the biggest waves to ride, and then underscores what they're doing with a search to understand how the waves gain their energy and what science is discovering. After reading the book I am in awe of guys like Laird Hamilton, Brett Lickle, and Dave Kamada, fascinated by the energies of the ocean, and have a reinforced understanding that the key to predicting the future climate of the earth rests on a deeper knowledge of the oceans – knowledge that scientists are just now beginning to gain.
I also won't be sailing or surfing anytime soon!
(Casey, Susan. “The Wave: In Pursuit of the Rogues, Freaks, and Giants of the Ocean.” Doubleday, New York. 2010)
Sunday, September 12, 2010
A Better Example
I have one gripe with Harry Potter. Although the series is fascinating, Harry the Hero leaves some to be desired. As the chosen one to defeat Voldemort, he doesn't have to work to achieve success. Sure, at times he believes he needs to, but he never puts forth the effort it would take to really become better or more powerful. His friend Hermione, in contrast, works diligently and long to improve her abilities as a wizard, but there is a sense throughout the story that she, although much, much better than any of her classmates (and one of the best students in decades), will never learn enough or develop enough skill to defeat Voldermort. Only Harry can do that, because only Harry possesses the innate talent necessary. Harry succeeds not because of what he does, but because J.K. Rowling decided that he would, and creates him with an innate quality imbued to him by his parents that will enable him to prevail.
What a self-defeating message! If you are chosen, you can succeed, but if not, no level of effort or work will enable you.
As studies have shown, repeatedly telling a child that he or she is smart or talented sets them up for failure. Why? Because, if their smartness is innate, and nothing which they can influence by practice or effort, then when the inevitable struggle comes, they quit, believing that they've reached the limit of their talent. “I just wasn't smart enough for physics” or “Calculus was okay, but differential equations was beyond me” or maybe “I could memorize anything until confronted with Gray's Anatomy.” Each represents a failure to believe in the power of practice, the power of effort, the power of self.
We need to get away from the hero who achieves success through innateness, and instead demonstrates those qualities that lead to success in the actual world in which we live: Effort, practice, mentoring, honesty, and more practice. Heroes that fill our children's minds with the ideas and ideals that we would pass on as parents, if only we had the gift of storytelling ourselves.
Fortunately, John Flanagan is such an author and parent. He started the “Rangers Apprentice” series for his son Michael, and infuses the story with exactly the sort of messages that I'm advocating. His characters have innate qualities that predispose them to certain activities (Horace has size and strength, Will has grace and control, Jenny an ebullient personality) – but it is the practice and effort each puts in after being selected (at age 15) for their respective training that reveals growing levels of competence. Horace is bullied, and the extra work he does hoping to appease his tormentors naturally leads to higher skill as a future knight (plus, the bullying situation is brought to a neat resolution, as an adult recognizes and steps in to help the students understand that accepting and perpetuating bullying is unequivocally wrong.)
Will is the main protagonist, and undergoes some initial frustrations (and defeats) as he finds that his small size limits him from Battle School, his heart's desire. However, selected by the ranger Halt to be his apprentice, and through Halt's mentoring and lots of practicing (“I know, practice!” grumbles Will at one point), Will's skills improve, and he receives accolades for his earned abilities, not his innate talents. Author Flanagan uses scenes with Will's former wardmates (he is an orphan) to show the satisfaction gained from earned recognition to drive home the point.
Flanagan even manages to weave in traits such as honesty into the story. Will learns that Halt watched him two years previously as he snuck into the kitchen to steal some cakes. Will was caught at that time, and when confronted by the cook, deliberates, and decides to tell the truth. He takes the punishment, and forgets the incident. However, Halt reveals to Will that the moment of honesty two years previously has had an enormous impact:
The point may be lost on many of the young readers, but then again, maybe not. It never hurts to emphasize that honesty's rewards may not be readily apparent, or that a lack of honesty may take 1 or 3 or 5 years before it returns to haunt you.
The rest of the book delights, too. There are exciting battles, mythical creatures, and the growing back story of a power-hungry antagonist returning for another attempt to conquer the kingdom. Will and his friends are young, and we expect as the series continues, that they will play ever larger roles in defending, not because they are the innately Chosen Few, but because they will be the ones who have invested more effort into developing their skills, and so are the ones who will ultimately be able to rise to the challenge.
I'd much rather see a series like Flanagan's in the hands of our young readers, with heroes like Will and Horace imitated and idolized by our sons (and daughters) than stories with empty, predestined “heroes” like Harry. Through John Flanagan's storytelling, Will's story sets a much better example of how success over challenges can be obtained, and hopefully, a better message that developing one's skills is not an innate process, but one very much determined by effort and attention.
(Flanagan, John. "Ranger's Apprentice, Book One: The Ruins of Gorlan." Puffin Books, 2005.)
What a self-defeating message! If you are chosen, you can succeed, but if not, no level of effort or work will enable you.
As studies have shown, repeatedly telling a child that he or she is smart or talented sets them up for failure. Why? Because, if their smartness is innate, and nothing which they can influence by practice or effort, then when the inevitable struggle comes, they quit, believing that they've reached the limit of their talent. “I just wasn't smart enough for physics” or “Calculus was okay, but differential equations was beyond me” or maybe “I could memorize anything until confronted with Gray's Anatomy.” Each represents a failure to believe in the power of practice, the power of effort, the power of self.
We need to get away from the hero who achieves success through innateness, and instead demonstrates those qualities that lead to success in the actual world in which we live: Effort, practice, mentoring, honesty, and more practice. Heroes that fill our children's minds with the ideas and ideals that we would pass on as parents, if only we had the gift of storytelling ourselves.
Fortunately, John Flanagan is such an author and parent. He started the “Rangers Apprentice” series for his son Michael, and infuses the story with exactly the sort of messages that I'm advocating. His characters have innate qualities that predispose them to certain activities (Horace has size and strength, Will has grace and control, Jenny an ebullient personality) – but it is the practice and effort each puts in after being selected (at age 15) for their respective training that reveals growing levels of competence. Horace is bullied, and the extra work he does hoping to appease his tormentors naturally leads to higher skill as a future knight (plus, the bullying situation is brought to a neat resolution, as an adult recognizes and steps in to help the students understand that accepting and perpetuating bullying is unequivocally wrong.)
Will is the main protagonist, and undergoes some initial frustrations (and defeats) as he finds that his small size limits him from Battle School, his heart's desire. However, selected by the ranger Halt to be his apprentice, and through Halt's mentoring and lots of practicing (“I know, practice!” grumbles Will at one point), Will's skills improve, and he receives accolades for his earned abilities, not his innate talents. Author Flanagan uses scenes with Will's former wardmates (he is an orphan) to show the satisfaction gained from earned recognition to drive home the point.
Flanagan even manages to weave in traits such as honesty into the story. Will learns that Halt watched him two years previously as he snuck into the kitchen to steal some cakes. Will was caught at that time, and when confronted by the cook, deliberates, and decides to tell the truth. He takes the punishment, and forgets the incident. However, Halt reveals to Will that the moment of honesty two years previously has had an enormous impact:
“I wondered if I shouldn't have lied,” [Will] admitted. Halt shook his head very slowly. “Oh, no, Will. If you'd lied, you never would have become my apprentice.”
The point may be lost on many of the young readers, but then again, maybe not. It never hurts to emphasize that honesty's rewards may not be readily apparent, or that a lack of honesty may take 1 or 3 or 5 years before it returns to haunt you.
The rest of the book delights, too. There are exciting battles, mythical creatures, and the growing back story of a power-hungry antagonist returning for another attempt to conquer the kingdom. Will and his friends are young, and we expect as the series continues, that they will play ever larger roles in defending, not because they are the innately Chosen Few, but because they will be the ones who have invested more effort into developing their skills, and so are the ones who will ultimately be able to rise to the challenge.
I'd much rather see a series like Flanagan's in the hands of our young readers, with heroes like Will and Horace imitated and idolized by our sons (and daughters) than stories with empty, predestined “heroes” like Harry. Through John Flanagan's storytelling, Will's story sets a much better example of how success over challenges can be obtained, and hopefully, a better message that developing one's skills is not an innate process, but one very much determined by effort and attention.
(Flanagan, John. "Ranger's Apprentice, Book One: The Ruins of Gorlan." Puffin Books, 2005.)
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Randomness
Last night, the weatherman told me that the next two days would be warmer than 'normal', with temperatures in the mid-nineties. By that, he meant that the temps would be above the average for this time of year. But, it does beg the question: If the temperature on any given day is above (or below) the average, is it therefore abnormal? If we were to get a string of above average days (say, 10 or so), would that also be abnormal, or is that something we should expect periodically?
Your favorite team has made it to the World Series (or Stanley Cup). You believe them to be the better team, although probably only slightly. Is 7 or 9 games enough to ensure that the better team wins the series? If one team sweeps the series 4-0, is that significant?
You family is uniformly tall. Your uncles are all above six feet, and even your aunts are close. Your grandparents are tall, as is your parents. However, you've topped out at 5'9”. Are you an aberration?
Each of these is an example of a distribution. In statistics, the standard distribution is an even curve around the mean, or average value. There are other distributions that are lopsided, with long tails to one side or the other. However, distributions are difficult to spot in our day to day lives: We have to keep records, and analyze those records to see the distributions, and they way they influence our lives.
Such analysis is the subject of Leonard Mlodinow's book: “The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.” In it, Mlodinow traces the development and understanding of probability and statistics from the early attempts to pinpoint the locations of the stars to recent studies of sports, finance, and medicine. Recognizing random distributions, and recognizing what they imply (and just as importantly, what they don't imply!) is a valuable skill.
The last example (height) demonstrates regression towards the mean – that given a sampling, even if there are outliers, most of the values will tend towards the mean (or average) value. It is actually important that tall people don't beget ever taller progeny: The human population would polarize to the very tall and the very short! However, the average height for a human male is in the 5'9”-5'10” range, and although the mean may be increasing slightly, there will be a greater concentration of people close to that height, and those very tall (or very short) are the outliers, and having them in your family tree is no guarantee of height.
The bad news on the World Series: If your team were 5% better than the other team (which might actually be unlikely in real life, the two best teams are likely even close in ability!); It would take something like 293 games to ensure that the better team won the majority. Is it possible for the lesser team to sweep the series 4-0? Not only possible, but likely, given to closely matched teams. (Think of flipping a penny: If you flip it enough times, you expect that half will be heads, and half tails, but if you flip it just 4 times, there is a reasonable chance that you will get all heads or all tails: 4 or 9 is just not enough flips to get the statistically expected outcome.)
And the weather? The weather, too, exhibits an even distribution about the daily means, both above and below. Where I live, the weather is regularly up to 10 degrees above or below the mean on any given day: Taken as a whole (365 days per year, 30 years worth of measurements, 10950 measurements total), the first standard deviation is 7 or 8 degrees of either side of the mean, indicating that 2/3's of the days are between -8 and +8 of the average. So, a day 5 or 6 degrees above average? Normal. 5 degrees below? Normal. 9 degrees below? Well...less common, but in something as variable as the weather, I'd say still normal.
In fact, the weather is one of those things that bedevils our senses. We have such short memories (and lives) that it is impossible from an experience standpoint to determine if the weather is warming, cooling, drying, or changing in a meaningful way. Given that the weather swings on a yearly basis over 50 degrees (and often over 30 degrees in a single day), has measured extremes 133 degrees apart, and yet exhibits a smooth yearly fluctuation of averages makes it the quintessential random distribution. As such, could any given year experience a (to our senses) long string of above or below average temps? Absolutely. In fact, as Mlodinow points out, it would be surprising if it didn't.
Your favorite team has made it to the World Series (or Stanley Cup). You believe them to be the better team, although probably only slightly. Is 7 or 9 games enough to ensure that the better team wins the series? If one team sweeps the series 4-0, is that significant?
You family is uniformly tall. Your uncles are all above six feet, and even your aunts are close. Your grandparents are tall, as is your parents. However, you've topped out at 5'9”. Are you an aberration?
Each of these is an example of a distribution. In statistics, the standard distribution is an even curve around the mean, or average value. There are other distributions that are lopsided, with long tails to one side or the other. However, distributions are difficult to spot in our day to day lives: We have to keep records, and analyze those records to see the distributions, and they way they influence our lives.
Such analysis is the subject of Leonard Mlodinow's book: “The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.” In it, Mlodinow traces the development and understanding of probability and statistics from the early attempts to pinpoint the locations of the stars to recent studies of sports, finance, and medicine. Recognizing random distributions, and recognizing what they imply (and just as importantly, what they don't imply!) is a valuable skill.
The last example (height) demonstrates regression towards the mean – that given a sampling, even if there are outliers, most of the values will tend towards the mean (or average) value. It is actually important that tall people don't beget ever taller progeny: The human population would polarize to the very tall and the very short! However, the average height for a human male is in the 5'9”-5'10” range, and although the mean may be increasing slightly, there will be a greater concentration of people close to that height, and those very tall (or very short) are the outliers, and having them in your family tree is no guarantee of height.
The bad news on the World Series: If your team were 5% better than the other team (which might actually be unlikely in real life, the two best teams are likely even close in ability!); It would take something like 293 games to ensure that the better team won the majority. Is it possible for the lesser team to sweep the series 4-0? Not only possible, but likely, given to closely matched teams. (Think of flipping a penny: If you flip it enough times, you expect that half will be heads, and half tails, but if you flip it just 4 times, there is a reasonable chance that you will get all heads or all tails: 4 or 9 is just not enough flips to get the statistically expected outcome.)
And the weather? The weather, too, exhibits an even distribution about the daily means, both above and below. Where I live, the weather is regularly up to 10 degrees above or below the mean on any given day: Taken as a whole (365 days per year, 30 years worth of measurements, 10950 measurements total), the first standard deviation is 7 or 8 degrees of either side of the mean, indicating that 2/3's of the days are between -8 and +8 of the average. So, a day 5 or 6 degrees above average? Normal. 5 degrees below? Normal. 9 degrees below? Well...less common, but in something as variable as the weather, I'd say still normal.
In fact, the weather is one of those things that bedevils our senses. We have such short memories (and lives) that it is impossible from an experience standpoint to determine if the weather is warming, cooling, drying, or changing in a meaningful way. Given that the weather swings on a yearly basis over 50 degrees (and often over 30 degrees in a single day), has measured extremes 133 degrees apart, and yet exhibits a smooth yearly fluctuation of averages makes it the quintessential random distribution. As such, could any given year experience a (to our senses) long string of above or below average temps? Absolutely. In fact, as Mlodinow points out, it would be surprising if it didn't.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Small Price
I stood in the shower, washing away three days' worth of dirt and sweat. Three days' of sunscreen and insect repellent. I wished I could just as easily wash away the fatigue and the bruises from an overloaded pack. As I did so, I contemplated why I would treat my body thusly.
Perhaps it was to experience the world as it was before electricity and the automobiles. To experience the quiet that only happens deep in the wilderness, farther away than the day hikers can go. To hear a rushing waterfall as the loudest sound.
It was to enjoy the smell of trees rather than the smells of industry. To watch the weather unfold, first warming, then cooling. To awake to the sounds of light rain striking the tent, and to rise to see the sun reflected on thousands of water droplets clinging to the grasses and trees of the forest.
It was to go on an early morning hike, and be surprised by, and perhaps surprise, a moose going about her business of eating breakfast. To be still, and watch as she decides we're no threat and lies down. To marvel that so large an animal can become virtually invisible lying just beyond that tree, and wonder at how many others we've missed.
Maybe to hike above timberline, and wonder at the stunted plants that grow in the alpine tundra. To see the jagged peaks surrounding the pass, with their patches of sheltered snow and flowers. To go on a hunt for ptarmigan, camouflaged and hard to spot.
Perhaps it was to observe the tenacity of a young fisherman, as he moved back and forth along the banks of the mountain lake, certain that if only he cast from there, he might get more than the nibble he just had.
It was to lie in our sleeping bags on the ground as darkness descended on a clear night, and watch as the stars appeared, the Milky Way unobstructed by pollution, brightly visible here, a surprising band of light crossing the sky. To watch as the first streaks of the Perseid meteors lit up the sky, amazing in their brightness.
It was to spend three days relaxing, and experiencing the world again through the eyes of a 9-year-old. I've become jaded, and unobservant of various things, but every animal, every plant, flower, mold, every jagged rock and every stream crossing are amazing things. Every bird must be identified, or at least guessed at: “Dad, quick! Give me the bird book again! That was a brown bird with a white tail, it will be in the brown section...” To positively identify some “That was a Hairy Woodpecker”, to leave others for another trip.
To hear the songs of birds unfamiliar, and strain to catch a sight of them in the trees. Then, to hear the sounds known, “There's a robin!” To marvel out how a squirrel runs, or a marmot ambles. To glimpse another moose as she angles up a slope.
A chance to spread the imagination about how each fallen tree got that way. To listen as my son wondered that if only that tree, now caught on another two, had instead fallen with more force might it have caused the next to fall, and the next, spreading in a fan to encompass all the forest like dominoes. To talk with him, no distractions, and strengthen the bonds we have.
A tent that needs cleaning and drying, sleeping bags that need to be hung and aired out.
Clothes that need to be washed.
Fatigue and bruises, dirt and sweat, sunscreen and Deet.
They seem like a small price to pay.
Friday, July 30, 2010
A Good Day For A Ride
The former bicycle racer looked outside and thought, "It's a good day for a ride." The early morning sunlight reflected off the mountains, and the air was clean and still, but warm enough.
He hadn't been faithful the last few years - faithful to riding that was, and when he did get out, every ride felt like a first ride, a get re-acquainted ride. Sometimes his bicycle felt like a strange machine, twitching first left, then right, as he tried to recall how to relax and make it work. His pedaling came in fits and bursts, out of sync with his breathing, the bicycle, and the road.
This year, however, had been a little different. Not lots of riding, but more, and more frequently, and the rider and machine were starting to recall the dance they once knew. Coming down a slight grade onto the flat, he allowed himself the big chainring, and started pushing. The power was flowing in a continuous circle, his breathing was deep, steady. He reveled in the old feelings and sounds as the velocity induced headwind began whistling in his ears. "Yeah," he thought, "I can still do this!"
Lost in his exultation, he was taken by surprise as current bike racer pedaled fluidly, inexorably past him. His back flat, his arms relaxed, and his shaven calves pumping like two extra hearts to propel him at speeds long forgotten by former racer.
Former racer wasn't accustomed to being passed, and for an instant, he started increasing his pace, recognizing the implicit challenge of the other rider. Just as quickly, his body reminded him of his infidelity: The mounting burn in his legs, the increasing tempo of his breathing that threatened to spiral out of control. Chastened, he dropped his tempo back to what it had been, allowing the challenge to go unanswered.
"Oh well," he recalled. "Its still a good day for a ride."
He hadn't been faithful the last few years - faithful to riding that was, and when he did get out, every ride felt like a first ride, a get re-acquainted ride. Sometimes his bicycle felt like a strange machine, twitching first left, then right, as he tried to recall how to relax and make it work. His pedaling came in fits and bursts, out of sync with his breathing, the bicycle, and the road.
This year, however, had been a little different. Not lots of riding, but more, and more frequently, and the rider and machine were starting to recall the dance they once knew. Coming down a slight grade onto the flat, he allowed himself the big chainring, and started pushing. The power was flowing in a continuous circle, his breathing was deep, steady. He reveled in the old feelings and sounds as the velocity induced headwind began whistling in his ears. "Yeah," he thought, "I can still do this!"
Lost in his exultation, he was taken by surprise as current bike racer pedaled fluidly, inexorably past him. His back flat, his arms relaxed, and his shaven calves pumping like two extra hearts to propel him at speeds long forgotten by former racer.
Former racer wasn't accustomed to being passed, and for an instant, he started increasing his pace, recognizing the implicit challenge of the other rider. Just as quickly, his body reminded him of his infidelity: The mounting burn in his legs, the increasing tempo of his breathing that threatened to spiral out of control. Chastened, he dropped his tempo back to what it had been, allowing the challenge to go unanswered.
"Oh well," he recalled. "Its still a good day for a ride."
Sunday, July 25, 2010
A Little Humor
I'm usually serious, but once in a while, it's good to lighten up and laugh at yourself, your friends, and the world (best in that order: Your friends get less angry if you've already been laughing at yourself...)
Unfortunately, I'm not exactly long on comedic talent, however, there are those anonymous individuals who are and are willing to share with us! So, I share with you these funnies to chase away the summer doldrums...Laugh Away! (H/T Matt)
Q: Doctor, I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life. Is this true?
A: Your heart only good for so many beats, and that it...don't waste on exercise. Everything wear out eventually. Speeding up heart not make you live longer; it like saying you extend life of car by driving faster. Want to live longer? Take nap.
Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiency. What does cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So steak is nothing more than efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef also good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And pork chop can give you 100% of recommended daily allowance of vegetable product.
Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that mean they take water out of fruity bit so you get even more of goodness that way. Beer also made of grain. Bottom up!
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have body and you have fat, your ratio one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio two to one, etc.
Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?
A: Can't think of single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No pain...good!
Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you?
A: YOU NOT LISTENING! Food are fried these day in vegetable oil. In fact, they permeated by it. How could getting more vegetable be bad for you?!?
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise muscle, it get bigger. You should only be doing sit-up if you want bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me?
A: Are you crazy?!? HEL-LO-O!! Cocoa bean! Another vegetable! It best feel-good food around!
Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming good for your figure, explain whale to me..
Q: Is getting in shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! 'Round' a shape!
And remember:
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a ride!!"
AND......
For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like.
Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
-- Author Unknown
Unfortunately, I'm not exactly long on comedic talent, however, there are those anonymous individuals who are and are willing to share with us! So, I share with you these funnies to chase away the summer doldrums...Laugh Away! (H/T Matt)
Q: Doctor, I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life. Is this true?
A: Your heart only good for so many beats, and that it...don't waste on exercise. Everything wear out eventually. Speeding up heart not make you live longer; it like saying you extend life of car by driving faster. Want to live longer? Take nap.
Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiency. What does cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So steak is nothing more than efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef also good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And pork chop can give you 100% of recommended daily allowance of vegetable product.
Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that mean they take water out of fruity bit so you get even more of goodness that way. Beer also made of grain. Bottom up!
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have body and you have fat, your ratio one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio two to one, etc.
Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise program?
A: Can't think of single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No pain...good!
Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you?
A: YOU NOT LISTENING! Food are fried these day in vegetable oil. In fact, they permeated by it. How could getting more vegetable be bad for you?!?
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise muscle, it get bigger. You should only be doing sit-up if you want bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me?
A: Are you crazy?!? HEL-LO-O!! Cocoa bean! Another vegetable! It best feel-good food around!
Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming good for your figure, explain whale to me..
Q: Is getting in shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! 'Round' a shape!
And remember:
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a ride!!"
AND......
For those of you who watch what you eat, here's the final word on nutrition and health It's a relief to know the truth after all those conflicting nutritional studies.
1. The Japanese eat very little fat
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
4. The Italians drink a lot of red wine
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fats
and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
CONCLUSION:
Eat and drink what you like.
Speaking English is apparently what kills you.
-- Author Unknown
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Light Bulbs, Part 2
In January, I had to replace the halogen light bulbs on one of my vehicles. I opted for the whiter, higher Kelvin pair after reading the packaging and thinking that they would be noticeably brighter. Not that a 100K increase in whiteness would be all that great, but that packaging indicated that they would be 25-30% brighter. Turns out, they measure brightness against a worn out bulb, not a brand new one, so the increase in brightness is slight.
However, I just learned that the lifetime of the higher K bulbs in considerably shorter: Both bulbs are now burned out, after just 6 months!
Guess I'm going back to OEM - at least they last a few years!
What a racket.
However, I just learned that the lifetime of the higher K bulbs in considerably shorter: Both bulbs are now burned out, after just 6 months!
Guess I'm going back to OEM - at least they last a few years!
What a racket.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Social Networking and Privacy
Social Networking is a new medium, and as such, we are not always certain what to make of it, what potential it holds, for good or ill. My belief is that I should always have the ability to maintain my information in a manner that makes it available to the smallest subset of users, and gives me full control over that subset. Likely, over time, most of us will find that allowing broader access, linking, etc., will provide large benefits, and we will realize that in most (if not all) instances we will not be compromising ourselves in any way. Concurrently, laws to define the use that we can expect of the data that we publish will be written, and we will not find ourselves at a disadvantage to the corporations that want to benefit from the information we publish and the correlations they can draw (correlation to improve their marketing.)
That said, nothing, and I mean nothing, that you publish on the internet is private: If you have placed it on the network, it exists in multiple locations, and if it appears to be worth the effort, it can and will be found. If you don't want your mother , spouse, children, or future spouse to read it, do not publish it.
Which is a danger that we don't consider. Each piece of info that we publish may be innocuous by itself, but taken together, if it places you in the right subset, you can become a target. It is for this very reason that my employer is terrified of Facebook and its cousins - they see only dark alleys filled with intellectual property criminals waiting to pounce; To get the unwary employee to reveal company secrets.
I've seen some pretty powerful graphing tools that can draw correlations across wide swaths of data - so I'm not talking the hypothetical, here. I've also brainstormed with co-workers ways your data could be used to get you to pay more for the products you are purchasing, especially if you use internet coupons. We've also talked about how, taken out of context, what you write or photograph might prove deleterious when applying for a job or volunteer position (since, once again, the media behind the publishing can so easily be altered to make it appear that it hasn't been taken out of context, or make the context uncertain.)
So, I think the lesson here is to think before publishing, and always be a little wary, but on the balance, like everything we do: Get out and do it and enjoy, because paranoia will make you isolated, lonely, and probably bitter.
And, in no way, do those qualities make you a better citizen or member of society.
That said, nothing, and I mean nothing, that you publish on the internet is private: If you have placed it on the network, it exists in multiple locations, and if it appears to be worth the effort, it can and will be found. If you don't want your mother , spouse, children, or future spouse to read it, do not publish it.
Which is a danger that we don't consider. Each piece of info that we publish may be innocuous by itself, but taken together, if it places you in the right subset, you can become a target. It is for this very reason that my employer is terrified of Facebook and its cousins - they see only dark alleys filled with intellectual property criminals waiting to pounce; To get the unwary employee to reveal company secrets.
I've seen some pretty powerful graphing tools that can draw correlations across wide swaths of data - so I'm not talking the hypothetical, here. I've also brainstormed with co-workers ways your data could be used to get you to pay more for the products you are purchasing, especially if you use internet coupons. We've also talked about how, taken out of context, what you write or photograph might prove deleterious when applying for a job or volunteer position (since, once again, the media behind the publishing can so easily be altered to make it appear that it hasn't been taken out of context, or make the context uncertain.)
So, I think the lesson here is to think before publishing, and always be a little wary, but on the balance, like everything we do: Get out and do it and enjoy, because paranoia will make you isolated, lonely, and probably bitter.
And, in no way, do those qualities make you a better citizen or member of society.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Problem With Lycra
No, I'm not thinking of the obvious: That it's expensive and only a select few members of humanity can look good wearing it. The problem revealed to me today, is that it is thinner than the proboscis of a mosquito. Wearing Lycra, there is no part of your body protected from these pests!
Normally, when I'm wearing Lycra I'm also moving at a pretty good clip on my bicycle. However, this morning, I was forced to stop at one our cities beautiful parks, with the baseball diamond and the irrigated foliage and the fountain and the lake; and, the mosquitoes.
The entire time I worked to replace my flatted tube, they swarmed about, dashing in for a quick drink, avoiding my irritated attempts to thwart them. I'm not certain just how many I granted the gift of reproduction to, but it was considerable. So, I reckon that when you're cursing the next generation of mosquitoes - Yeah, me (and my Lycra) are partly to blame!
Normally, when I'm wearing Lycra I'm also moving at a pretty good clip on my bicycle. However, this morning, I was forced to stop at one our cities beautiful parks, with the baseball diamond and the irrigated foliage and the fountain and the lake; and, the mosquitoes.
The entire time I worked to replace my flatted tube, they swarmed about, dashing in for a quick drink, avoiding my irritated attempts to thwart them. I'm not certain just how many I granted the gift of reproduction to, but it was considerable. So, I reckon that when you're cursing the next generation of mosquitoes - Yeah, me (and my Lycra) are partly to blame!
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Towards A Definition of Judicial Activism
Frequently, people level charges of Judicial Activism towards judges. A corollary charge is 'legislating from the bench'.
Attempting to understand what constitutes Judicial Activism is much more difficult. I've probed those who've leveled the charge, and what it really comes down to is that the Judge (or Judges) interpreted the law and made a ruling to which the speaker disagrees. Unfortunately for the speaker, not being a member of the law profession, they can't mount a strong argument for why the body of law and previous rulings (precedent) should compel an alternate interpretation: They don't like the outcome, and rather than attempt to build a case, they label the judge 'Activist'.
While this may seem like a harmless shorthand, it's actually a logical fallacy: Begging the Question – Assuming the question under debate is settled, and leaping to conclusions. The question remains open as to the efficacy of the interpretation, and if an alternate interpretation, giving our laws and precedent, is actually possible or reasonable. Leveled repeatedly, with out basis, it becomes an ad hominem attack on an individual based upon political desires. As such, we would want to be wary and disregard such labeling, unless the speaker can actually point at behavior on the bench (separate from the rulings) that could reasonably be defined as 'Judicial Activism'.
Occasionally, I've read the opinions of the Supreme Court, and, although I may find either the ruling or the dissent more compelling, what I've really grown to appreciate is how, to a large degree, either side of the argument is reasonably sound, based upon the body of law. What differs between them is exactly which precedent, which aspects of Constitutional interpretation the particular judge wishes to emphasize. Often, as near is I can tell, either side of the issue is valid (for our law is not nearly so logically tight as mathematics, and contains within it logical contradictions and fallacies) – we may feel from an outcome standpoint that one interpretation will better enable our continuing realization of a just and fair society, or one interpretation will benefit us, based upon our position within society, but those are value judgments as to what is most important. Judges make those too, and although my values and their values disagree, that doesn't make them wrong or activist. (Certainly I would like their values to agree with my values, I hold my values because I do believe them best, but proving the matter is considerably more tricky, so I must also hold that there is a small possibility that I don't have the absolute best value set, and perhaps I can learn (and improve) from their differing viewpoints.)
However, I've been reading the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs FEC, and in Justice Steven's dissent, I've actually found what could be a strong basis or criteria for determining Judicial Activism. What separates this dissent from others I've read is not just that Steven's disagrees with the logic or the conclusion, he actually disagrees, from a very fundamental standpoint, on the approach that led to the ruling.
The first was scope. Justice Stevens points out that the case before them did not constitute a 'facial' challenge to the unconstitutionality of the law governing election expenditures (specifically, that the law amounted to a ban on corporate free speech, or that such speech is even protected under the First Amendment): Rather, the challenge was whether the 'As applied' ruling against Citizens United violated their right to speech protection, and why. By widening the scope of the case (and calling back the parties for a second set of oral arguments), the Court itself violated its own long standing precedent or only deciding the matter at hand. Justice Stevens words:
The second widening of the scope was to declare the whole statute unconstitutional, rather than just the portion that reached too far. Justice Stevens again quotes previous rulings where the court restrains itself from overreaching:
The bigger problem here, as Justice Stevens points out, is that the case before them was not one of many challenges. The court hadn't decided on previous cases that parts of the statute were unconstitutional, and with every ruling it was becoming more apparent that no application was constitutional, rather, there was absolutely no history of any portion being invalidated or proving to have a deleterious effect on free speech across broad swaths of the population. Nothing had been brought before the court as to the effects of BCRA §203 on any other entity: Corporate or Union or other.
As if it were not distressing enough that the Court committed these two transgressions, the case brought before them actually provided for alternative rulings on narrower grounds
(Notice how this very pronouncement of the Court's principles was articulated by Justice Roberts, who decided to violate his own statement in this case!)
The final overreach of the Court was the broad overturning of precedent. Justice Stevens builds a strong argument as to why the precedents in this case do not require overturning, and shows that the majority doesn't build a counter argument as to why precedent needs to be disregarded. As Stevens points out, too, overturning precedent requires a rather strong argument. He counters the majority claim that, in particular, one of the precedents is 'destabilizing', by observing that what the majority appears to be arguing is that “the theory seems to be that the more we utilize a precedent, the more we call it into question.”
Of course, precedent is not sacrosanct – it can't be, otherwise previous rulings that really were wrong couldn't be overturned. Overturning precedent alone wouldn't be cause to label a judge activist.
However, the ability to disregard precedents in this case was a direct result of the proceeding three transgressions of the Court. Without the changes to the scope, the change from an 'as applied' challenge to a 'facial' challenge, and the willingness to explore rulings not even sought by the plaintiff, the ability to reconsider and overturn nearly 100 years of precedent wouldn't have been an option. But, by these structural changes, the court was then able to go in, and with a “sledgehammer, rather than a scalpel,” sweep away broad swaths of federal and state statutes, all in the name of equating a corporation to a natural person for the purposes of application of the First Amendment.
Most unfortunately, it was those precedents that had distinguished between the two, and attempted to build campaign finance laws that respected the different places people and corporations inhabit vis a vis our political process. Those precedents recognized that while you and I might give money to further a candidate or a cause, and through established transparency, know who joined with us and who gave to opposite causes, they also recognized that corporations, through their very lack of transparency, could not give money and profess to speak for all the individuals within the corporation. (Despite what was the intent, a corporation is run by an oligarchy – it is not a democratic institution as we recognize such, and the influence of its rulers can give them what amounts to multiple voices in our political process, something we clearly would want to curtail if not eliminate.)
A lot more could be said (and Justice Stevens says a lot more in his dissent), but for our purposes, we are finished. We now have a working definition of a Judicial Activist. It is a Judge who disregards judicial precedent: Not the precedent of previous rulings (Stare Decisis), but the precedent of How the Court Operates. It is a Judge who makes a ruling outside of the bounds of the case brought before them, who broadens the case to strike down large swaths of law rather than the law affecting the litigants, who decides more than needs to be decided (who shows a lack of deference to established rulings and established procedures and the wisdom of their antecedents.)
Slight changes to these, too, would not allow us to label a judge 'Activist'. For there are reasons where a judge may overturn precedents, may slightly expand the scope, special circumstances where more may need to be decided: It is the combination of more than one, and the decidedly large departures from the case brought before them that would allow us to label a judgment 'Activist'. Repeated departures would then require us to label a Judge guilty of Judicial Activism, and furthermore, we would know exactly what we meant when we so labeled them.
In deciding Citizens United vs FEC the way they did, I accuse Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas of Judicial Activism – of departing from the methods we expect and depend upon our Judiciary to decide the cases before them, and reaching not simply a conclusion to which I disagree, but a conclusion that is incorrect, precisely because it was incorrectly achieved.
And you now know exactly what I mean when I level that charge.
(Footnote: You can read the entire ruling here. If you do, and think I've overlooked something important, please let me know! It's 176 pages long – by far the longest ruling I've ever attempted. It seemed to me worth the effort, although somewhat depressing in the enshrining of corporate 'personhood' it appears to grant – something I feel is antithetical to both our concept and the needs of a working democracy. However, that should rightly be the subject of another essay.)
Attempting to understand what constitutes Judicial Activism is much more difficult. I've probed those who've leveled the charge, and what it really comes down to is that the Judge (or Judges) interpreted the law and made a ruling to which the speaker disagrees. Unfortunately for the speaker, not being a member of the law profession, they can't mount a strong argument for why the body of law and previous rulings (precedent) should compel an alternate interpretation: They don't like the outcome, and rather than attempt to build a case, they label the judge 'Activist'.
While this may seem like a harmless shorthand, it's actually a logical fallacy: Begging the Question – Assuming the question under debate is settled, and leaping to conclusions. The question remains open as to the efficacy of the interpretation, and if an alternate interpretation, giving our laws and precedent, is actually possible or reasonable. Leveled repeatedly, with out basis, it becomes an ad hominem attack on an individual based upon political desires. As such, we would want to be wary and disregard such labeling, unless the speaker can actually point at behavior on the bench (separate from the rulings) that could reasonably be defined as 'Judicial Activism'.
Occasionally, I've read the opinions of the Supreme Court, and, although I may find either the ruling or the dissent more compelling, what I've really grown to appreciate is how, to a large degree, either side of the argument is reasonably sound, based upon the body of law. What differs between them is exactly which precedent, which aspects of Constitutional interpretation the particular judge wishes to emphasize. Often, as near is I can tell, either side of the issue is valid (for our law is not nearly so logically tight as mathematics, and contains within it logical contradictions and fallacies) – we may feel from an outcome standpoint that one interpretation will better enable our continuing realization of a just and fair society, or one interpretation will benefit us, based upon our position within society, but those are value judgments as to what is most important. Judges make those too, and although my values and their values disagree, that doesn't make them wrong or activist. (Certainly I would like their values to agree with my values, I hold my values because I do believe them best, but proving the matter is considerably more tricky, so I must also hold that there is a small possibility that I don't have the absolute best value set, and perhaps I can learn (and improve) from their differing viewpoints.)
However, I've been reading the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United vs FEC, and in Justice Steven's dissent, I've actually found what could be a strong basis or criteria for determining Judicial Activism. What separates this dissent from others I've read is not just that Steven's disagrees with the logic or the conclusion, he actually disagrees, from a very fundamental standpoint, on the approach that led to the ruling.
The first was scope. Justice Stevens points out that the case before them did not constitute a 'facial' challenge to the unconstitutionality of the law governing election expenditures (specifically, that the law amounted to a ban on corporate free speech, or that such speech is even protected under the First Amendment): Rather, the challenge was whether the 'As applied' ruling against Citizens United violated their right to speech protection, and why. By widening the scope of the case (and calling back the parties for a second set of oral arguments), the Court itself violated its own long standing precedent or only deciding the matter at hand. Justice Stevens words:
“‘It is only in exceptional cases coming here from the federal courts that questions not pressed or passed upon below are reviewed,’” Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976) (per curiam) (quoting Duignan v. United States, 274 U. S. 195, 200 (1927)), and it is “only in the most exceptional cases” that we will consider issues outside the questions presented, Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 481, n. 15 (1976). The appellant in this case did not so much as assert an exceptional circumstance, and one searches the majority opinion in vain for the mention of any. That is unsurprising, for none exists.
Setting the case for re-argument was a constructive step,but it did not cure this fundamental problem. Essentially,five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.
The second widening of the scope was to declare the whole statute unconstitutional, rather than just the portion that reached too far. Justice Stevens again quotes previous rulings where the court restrains itself from overreaching:
The unnecessary resort to a facial inquiry“run[s] contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.” Washington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 450 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The bigger problem here, as Justice Stevens points out, is that the case before them was not one of many challenges. The court hadn't decided on previous cases that parts of the statute were unconstitutional, and with every ruling it was becoming more apparent that no application was constitutional, rather, there was absolutely no history of any portion being invalidated or proving to have a deleterious effect on free speech across broad swaths of the population. Nothing had been brought before the court as to the effects of BCRA §203 on any other entity: Corporate or Union or other.
As if it were not distressing enough that the Court committed these two transgressions, the case brought before them actually provided for alternative rulings on narrower grounds
“without toppling statutes and precedents. Which is to say, the majority has transgressed yet another “cardinal” principle of the judicial process: “[I]f it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,” PDK Labs., Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 362 F. 3d 786, 799 (CADC 2004) (Roberts, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).”
(Notice how this very pronouncement of the Court's principles was articulated by Justice Roberts, who decided to violate his own statement in this case!)
The final overreach of the Court was the broad overturning of precedent. Justice Stevens builds a strong argument as to why the precedents in this case do not require overturning, and shows that the majority doesn't build a counter argument as to why precedent needs to be disregarded. As Stevens points out, too, overturning precedent requires a rather strong argument. He counters the majority claim that, in particular, one of the precedents is 'destabilizing', by observing that what the majority appears to be arguing is that “the theory seems to be that the more we utilize a precedent, the more we call it into question.”
Of course, precedent is not sacrosanct – it can't be, otherwise previous rulings that really were wrong couldn't be overturned. Overturning precedent alone wouldn't be cause to label a judge activist.
However, the ability to disregard precedents in this case was a direct result of the proceeding three transgressions of the Court. Without the changes to the scope, the change from an 'as applied' challenge to a 'facial' challenge, and the willingness to explore rulings not even sought by the plaintiff, the ability to reconsider and overturn nearly 100 years of precedent wouldn't have been an option. But, by these structural changes, the court was then able to go in, and with a “sledgehammer, rather than a scalpel,” sweep away broad swaths of federal and state statutes, all in the name of equating a corporation to a natural person for the purposes of application of the First Amendment.
Most unfortunately, it was those precedents that had distinguished between the two, and attempted to build campaign finance laws that respected the different places people and corporations inhabit vis a vis our political process. Those precedents recognized that while you and I might give money to further a candidate or a cause, and through established transparency, know who joined with us and who gave to opposite causes, they also recognized that corporations, through their very lack of transparency, could not give money and profess to speak for all the individuals within the corporation. (Despite what was the intent, a corporation is run by an oligarchy – it is not a democratic institution as we recognize such, and the influence of its rulers can give them what amounts to multiple voices in our political process, something we clearly would want to curtail if not eliminate.)
A lot more could be said (and Justice Stevens says a lot more in his dissent), but for our purposes, we are finished. We now have a working definition of a Judicial Activist. It is a Judge who disregards judicial precedent: Not the precedent of previous rulings (Stare Decisis), but the precedent of How the Court Operates. It is a Judge who makes a ruling outside of the bounds of the case brought before them, who broadens the case to strike down large swaths of law rather than the law affecting the litigants, who decides more than needs to be decided (who shows a lack of deference to established rulings and established procedures and the wisdom of their antecedents.)
Slight changes to these, too, would not allow us to label a judge 'Activist'. For there are reasons where a judge may overturn precedents, may slightly expand the scope, special circumstances where more may need to be decided: It is the combination of more than one, and the decidedly large departures from the case brought before them that would allow us to label a judgment 'Activist'. Repeated departures would then require us to label a Judge guilty of Judicial Activism, and furthermore, we would know exactly what we meant when we so labeled them.
In deciding Citizens United vs FEC the way they did, I accuse Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas of Judicial Activism – of departing from the methods we expect and depend upon our Judiciary to decide the cases before them, and reaching not simply a conclusion to which I disagree, but a conclusion that is incorrect, precisely because it was incorrectly achieved.
And you now know exactly what I mean when I level that charge.
(Footnote: You can read the entire ruling here. If you do, and think I've overlooked something important, please let me know! It's 176 pages long – by far the longest ruling I've ever attempted. It seemed to me worth the effort, although somewhat depressing in the enshrining of corporate 'personhood' it appears to grant – something I feel is antithetical to both our concept and the needs of a working democracy. However, that should rightly be the subject of another essay.)
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Strange Loops
Shortly after the turn of the 20th century, Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead published Principea Mathematica – the most comprehensive outline of the axiomatic foundations of mathematics. Banished forever was to be mathematical falsehoods and ambiguity.
Just some 20-odd years later along came the Mathematician Kurt G̦del, who showed how the system could contain internal references to itself Рdubbed Strange Loops. This strange property of a grammer to be self-referential has been used by numerous philosophers in attempts to understand that most complex and self-referential system: human consciousness.
Back in 1979 Douglas Hofstadter earned the Pulitzer Prize for his book 'Gödel, Escher, Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid' where he explored these ideas in new and interesting ways. It has become a must read for every computer scientist and mathematician since.
So it was with anticipation that I picked up 'I Am A Strange Loop' – the current release of the mature Hofstadter. (GEB was published by a 31-year old just out of grad school). Dr. Hofstadter has spent his career researching artificial intelligence systems, and collaborated with the philosopher of the mind Daniel Dennet on numerous occasions as both men attempt to understand what makes us tick, and how that can be used to make better software.
Sadly, I was largely disappointed, as I Am A Strange Loop lacks the marvel and inventiveness of the earlier work. However, Hofstadter did broach one new idea that I find a little intriguing. Taken from the idea that a computer program can exist on multiple computers, Hofstadter theorizes that parts of our internal program, the bits and pieces of us, our memories and ideas, can (and do!) exist in more than one brain. As we interact and share ideas and stories, those ideas and stories come to exist in both of our minds, albeit at different fidelity. As I relate an experience to you, that experience becomes part of you, carried in your mind just as in mine, and vice verse. And, Hofstadter seems to be saying: Those cast off pieces extend our consciousness beyond our physical bodies.
Of course, my immediate opposition to Hofstadter's idea is that “Sure, others share parts of the same stories and ideas, but those parts cast off into their brains aren't important to me: They're not part of what is me, what make me conscious, what is that most important strange loop called 'I'! It is only the parts of the program running on my machinery that matter to me – those cast off parts are actually now parts of a system running elsewhere and contributing to a different 'I', which is no longer me.”
But, perhaps that isn't what Hofstadter is attempting to say after all. For he wrote this part of the book after the early and unexpected death of his wife, and appears to be searching for a means to convince himself that she isn't completely gone. That, more than mere memories, there is some of her remaining inside him, in a much more literal sense than is usually meant.
Intuitively, we've known that for a long time. There is another civilization that has the concepts of Sasha and Zumani – Sasha for those departed but for whom there remain people who knew them when they were alive: Literally, the living dead. One does not become zumani until all who have first-hand knowledge of you have also passed on. That we retain more than just memories, but some of another's ideas have become our own, some of their patterns have become our patterns, and that as long as we continue to use those patterns to define us, they aren't completely absent.
And so, in sort of a convoluted manner, Hofstadter has reminded us of what is possibly one of the greatest gifts of consciousness: The ability to remember.
Just some 20-odd years later along came the Mathematician Kurt G̦del, who showed how the system could contain internal references to itself Рdubbed Strange Loops. This strange property of a grammer to be self-referential has been used by numerous philosophers in attempts to understand that most complex and self-referential system: human consciousness.
Back in 1979 Douglas Hofstadter earned the Pulitzer Prize for his book 'Gödel, Escher, Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid' where he explored these ideas in new and interesting ways. It has become a must read for every computer scientist and mathematician since.
So it was with anticipation that I picked up 'I Am A Strange Loop' – the current release of the mature Hofstadter. (GEB was published by a 31-year old just out of grad school). Dr. Hofstadter has spent his career researching artificial intelligence systems, and collaborated with the philosopher of the mind Daniel Dennet on numerous occasions as both men attempt to understand what makes us tick, and how that can be used to make better software.
Sadly, I was largely disappointed, as I Am A Strange Loop lacks the marvel and inventiveness of the earlier work. However, Hofstadter did broach one new idea that I find a little intriguing. Taken from the idea that a computer program can exist on multiple computers, Hofstadter theorizes that parts of our internal program, the bits and pieces of us, our memories and ideas, can (and do!) exist in more than one brain. As we interact and share ideas and stories, those ideas and stories come to exist in both of our minds, albeit at different fidelity. As I relate an experience to you, that experience becomes part of you, carried in your mind just as in mine, and vice verse. And, Hofstadter seems to be saying: Those cast off pieces extend our consciousness beyond our physical bodies.
Of course, my immediate opposition to Hofstadter's idea is that “Sure, others share parts of the same stories and ideas, but those parts cast off into their brains aren't important to me: They're not part of what is me, what make me conscious, what is that most important strange loop called 'I'! It is only the parts of the program running on my machinery that matter to me – those cast off parts are actually now parts of a system running elsewhere and contributing to a different 'I', which is no longer me.”
But, perhaps that isn't what Hofstadter is attempting to say after all. For he wrote this part of the book after the early and unexpected death of his wife, and appears to be searching for a means to convince himself that she isn't completely gone. That, more than mere memories, there is some of her remaining inside him, in a much more literal sense than is usually meant.
Intuitively, we've known that for a long time. There is another civilization that has the concepts of Sasha and Zumani – Sasha for those departed but for whom there remain people who knew them when they were alive: Literally, the living dead. One does not become zumani until all who have first-hand knowledge of you have also passed on. That we retain more than just memories, but some of another's ideas have become our own, some of their patterns have become our patterns, and that as long as we continue to use those patterns to define us, they aren't completely absent.
And so, in sort of a convoluted manner, Hofstadter has reminded us of what is possibly one of the greatest gifts of consciousness: The ability to remember.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Lottery With The Highest Payout
That's America.
We can't claim to have the best Health Care, the highest Happiness, nor the best Life Expectancy. The average worker toils longer hours with less vacation than his European counterpart, and brings home a smaller share of the GDP.
But if you win the economic lottery (i.e., you make it into upper management or the financial industry where you no longer produce) - you win bigger than anywhere else.
In Why is Washington Dithering with Unemployment High? Yves Smith gives a very even assessment - and the first step is to recognize the problem.
We absolutely have to break free of enacting policies that benefit the already financially elite, and attempt to restore a structure that more closely aligns with effort and merit. However, since the wealthy have consolidated their power, and are continually moving to lobby Washington for more, we have an uphill battle.
Especially since they've managed to get us to demonize our own power organizations, such as unions.
We can't claim to have the best Health Care, the highest Happiness, nor the best Life Expectancy. The average worker toils longer hours with less vacation than his European counterpart, and brings home a smaller share of the GDP.
But if you win the economic lottery (i.e., you make it into upper management or the financial industry where you no longer produce) - you win bigger than anywhere else.
In Why is Washington Dithering with Unemployment High? Yves Smith gives a very even assessment - and the first step is to recognize the problem.
We absolutely have to break free of enacting policies that benefit the already financially elite, and attempt to restore a structure that more closely aligns with effort and merit. However, since the wealthy have consolidated their power, and are continually moving to lobby Washington for more, we have an uphill battle.
Especially since they've managed to get us to demonize our own power organizations, such as unions.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Dangers of The Deficit?
I've been reading a lot of economics during the past few years, attempting to gain a deeper understanding of how our economy works. One of the appreciations that I have gained is the role that money plays: That it's not just an exchange medium, but a commodity in its own right. Money has buyers and sellers, producers and consumers. The quantity of money in an economy plays a role in the current and future states of that economy, and changes in the money supply can have profound impacts.
An increase in the money supply will ultimately be consumed by an increase in the demand. That increase can take two forms: An increase in investment and production to create more goods, or an increase in the price of goods (inflation.) Too quick of an increase in the money supply will often be followed by inflation, but an increase timed well to a growing economy's need for more investment to foster an increase in production will generally result in just that.
Conversely, a decrease in the money supply will often spark a recession: The demand for produced goods is lowered, causing companies (producers) to lay off workers, decrease their capacity, sell off assets, etc. Once production drops to match the new (lowered) consumption demand, which correlates with the new lower money supply, the economy can begin growing again.
The main producer of our currency (North Korea's counterfeiting notwithstanding) is of course our government. They print all of our money, and move it into circulation via the Federal Reserve banks. The government keeps an accounting of all of that money, as they move new bills into circulation and retire old bills.
So, if the government is increasing the money supply to support a growing economy, shouldn't that increase show up as a permanent government deficit? This question has been nagging me for some time now. It's supported in the fact that the U.S. Government has run a net deficit since the 1930's, and we have had generally robust economic growth (some of the best in the world). If this is the case, too, as long as inflation is low or non-existent, should we even be concerned about the government's deficit?
True, part of the deficit is our current trade imbalance. There is no real imbalance: Manufactured goods move into America, and American money moves out. But if that money is not then used to purchase American made goods, but instead Government Treasury Bills, the accounting shows this as an increase in the Government deficit.
The really fascinating thing about this is that we always talk about it as a debt on government, a debt upon us, but it's really no such thing. I have to balance my household budget because I cannot print money. Our Federal Government is under no such constraint. So, if we are using a deficit to increase the money supply and hence grow our economy, there is no 'debt' that future generations must repay. The only 'debt' that may be incurred by future generations is if we increase the money supply too quickly, generating inflation and reducing our standard of living: Future generations will then have to grow their standard of living out of the hole into which we dug. But if our growth in money matches our growth in production and living standards, there is no repayment required.
True, China (our current largest 'debt' holder) could decide to sell its hoard of T-Bills. But all that would do would be to change the exchange of the yuan with the dollar, increasing the value of the yuan against the dollar, and making Chinese made goods more expensive in America. This would lower the standard of living for some of us as cheaply made Chinese goods would no longer be available, but it would make American production more competitive, and should trigger a growth in our manufacturing sector, and an increase in the standard of living for those employed in that sector.
And yet, even with all this, big name economists and business leaders – often bankers – continually warn us of the dangers of too great a Federal Deficit. Since these are quite often people who have dealt with economics and money all their lives, you have to wonder if maybe I've got it quite wrong. That maybe I've overlooked something – something important – that makes a large deficit not as benign as I make it out to be.
I worry about that too. So, I keep digging, keep reading, keep looking. And yesterday, I found this article by James K. Galbraith, that succinctly explains what I've been missing.
If you are particularly sharp-eyed, perhaps you caught it early in this essay. I moved easily from money creation to currency creation, conflating the two. The Federal Government is the only entity that can legally print our currency. But if you've lived long enough, you know that most transactions never require actual currency to take place. As such, money supply and currency supply are not exactly the same thing, and the Government is not the only entity that can produce money. The others are the banks, through lending.
Lending creates money just the same as government spending. Lending, especially for investment, provides the grease for increases in our economic output – just the same as government deficit spending can provide increases in consumption demand that also generates increases in economic output. And Professor Galbraith says it:
Wait a minute! You mean to say that the Deficit Hawks aren't telling us something true or necessary about the economy, but are instead captives of a conflict of interest?
Ouch!
You really need to read the entire article, however. Professor Galbraith outlines the case for when we would prefer private lending to government spending, how the playoff between the two affects Government programs like Social Security and Medicaid, and hammers home some basic economics surrounding money creation and it's impacts.
Once again, too, we need to reaffirm that bankers and those employed in the Financial Industry are not altruists – they have no one's interests but their own when they tell 'us' what needs to be done. Basic Economics belies any claims they may make to the contrary.
An increase in the money supply will ultimately be consumed by an increase in the demand. That increase can take two forms: An increase in investment and production to create more goods, or an increase in the price of goods (inflation.) Too quick of an increase in the money supply will often be followed by inflation, but an increase timed well to a growing economy's need for more investment to foster an increase in production will generally result in just that.
Conversely, a decrease in the money supply will often spark a recession: The demand for produced goods is lowered, causing companies (producers) to lay off workers, decrease their capacity, sell off assets, etc. Once production drops to match the new (lowered) consumption demand, which correlates with the new lower money supply, the economy can begin growing again.
The main producer of our currency (North Korea's counterfeiting notwithstanding) is of course our government. They print all of our money, and move it into circulation via the Federal Reserve banks. The government keeps an accounting of all of that money, as they move new bills into circulation and retire old bills.
So, if the government is increasing the money supply to support a growing economy, shouldn't that increase show up as a permanent government deficit? This question has been nagging me for some time now. It's supported in the fact that the U.S. Government has run a net deficit since the 1930's, and we have had generally robust economic growth (some of the best in the world). If this is the case, too, as long as inflation is low or non-existent, should we even be concerned about the government's deficit?
True, part of the deficit is our current trade imbalance. There is no real imbalance: Manufactured goods move into America, and American money moves out. But if that money is not then used to purchase American made goods, but instead Government Treasury Bills, the accounting shows this as an increase in the Government deficit.
The really fascinating thing about this is that we always talk about it as a debt on government, a debt upon us, but it's really no such thing. I have to balance my household budget because I cannot print money. Our Federal Government is under no such constraint. So, if we are using a deficit to increase the money supply and hence grow our economy, there is no 'debt' that future generations must repay. The only 'debt' that may be incurred by future generations is if we increase the money supply too quickly, generating inflation and reducing our standard of living: Future generations will then have to grow their standard of living out of the hole into which we dug. But if our growth in money matches our growth in production and living standards, there is no repayment required.
True, China (our current largest 'debt' holder) could decide to sell its hoard of T-Bills. But all that would do would be to change the exchange of the yuan with the dollar, increasing the value of the yuan against the dollar, and making Chinese made goods more expensive in America. This would lower the standard of living for some of us as cheaply made Chinese goods would no longer be available, but it would make American production more competitive, and should trigger a growth in our manufacturing sector, and an increase in the standard of living for those employed in that sector.
And yet, even with all this, big name economists and business leaders – often bankers – continually warn us of the dangers of too great a Federal Deficit. Since these are quite often people who have dealt with economics and money all their lives, you have to wonder if maybe I've got it quite wrong. That maybe I've overlooked something – something important – that makes a large deficit not as benign as I make it out to be.
I worry about that too. So, I keep digging, keep reading, keep looking. And yesterday, I found this article by James K. Galbraith, that succinctly explains what I've been missing.
If you are particularly sharp-eyed, perhaps you caught it early in this essay. I moved easily from money creation to currency creation, conflating the two. The Federal Government is the only entity that can legally print our currency. But if you've lived long enough, you know that most transactions never require actual currency to take place. As such, money supply and currency supply are not exactly the same thing, and the Government is not the only entity that can produce money. The others are the banks, through lending.
Lending creates money just the same as government spending. Lending, especially for investment, provides the grease for increases in our economic output – just the same as government deficit spending can provide increases in consumption demand that also generates increases in economic output. And Professor Galbraith says it:
“Bankers don't like budget deficits because they compete with bank loans as a source of growth.”
Wait a minute! You mean to say that the Deficit Hawks aren't telling us something true or necessary about the economy, but are instead captives of a conflict of interest?
“And this, in the simplest terms, explains the deficit phobia of Wall Street, the corporate media and the right-wing economists. “
Ouch!
You really need to read the entire article, however. Professor Galbraith outlines the case for when we would prefer private lending to government spending, how the playoff between the two affects Government programs like Social Security and Medicaid, and hammers home some basic economics surrounding money creation and it's impacts.
Once again, too, we need to reaffirm that bankers and those employed in the Financial Industry are not altruists – they have no one's interests but their own when they tell 'us' what needs to be done. Basic Economics belies any claims they may make to the contrary.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Fatal System Error
I saw this review last week, and was quite intrigued. For my book reading friends: Anyone else interested?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Fermi's (non-)Paradox
Much has been given to Fermi's Paradox – the lack of evidence (radio signals, spaceships) of intelligent life from the assuredly millions of habitable planets in our universe. Given that intelligent life (humans) evolved on planet earth in just under 4 billion years, and would have millions and millions of opportunities to evolve on other planets during the universe's 13+ billion years, Enrico Fermi wondered just why we weren't seeing loads of evidence.
Geoffrey Miller has an hypothesis that they just get addicted to computer games. (You can read his piece at seedmagazine.)
However, I suspect the answer is much more mundane. We haven't seen any extraterrestrials because we've vastly overestimated the probability of intelligent life looking and acting like us.
We have a sample population of one: Earth. Because intelligent life did evolve here, we look at the progressions that led to it, and (incorrectly) assume that life evolves along similar paths on every habitable planet. However, that's a case of what statisticians call survivorship bias. Our view is biased because we have only looked at a sample that played out in the way that we expect it to. To really bring our knowledge up to par with reality, we would need to look at a large sampling of habitable planets, and see if and to what extent life evolved. Likely, that would change our ideas considerably about the probability of life, and the paths that lead to intelligent life.
If you look out earth's history, too, you can see ready evidence that life almost got wiped out several times – the most recent 65 million years ago when it appears that a fairly large meteor crashed into the Gulf Sea, and possibly alone or in conjunction with other geologic occurrences (volcanoes) wiped out more than 30% of the known (from fossil records) species. The Permian-Triassic was even worse, with 96% of marine and 70% of vertebrates going extinct. Think of how little more it might have taken to completely wipe all life from planet earth, forcing a restart. Given enough planets, total extinction events have surely occurred. Many unlucky planets may have to restart regularly, every 100 million to 1 billion years. That'd put a crimp on life evolution!
If you look at the diversity of life on our planet, too, you see many, many more species that are just as (and sometimes more) evolved than humans that exhibit no intelligent traits. I know that you are thinking that there is no species more evolved than humans, but that's not true. Viruses are far more evolved, if you look at number of generations and quantity of genetic mutations – the true measure of evolution. Evolution is a game that counts only survivorship – and there is nothing that predicates that intelligence makes a more survivable (or more evolved) species. As another example, take crocodiles: They have been around far longer than humans (84 million years), have developed a cerebral cortex, but are a long way from building rockets or sending radio signals into space.
Our major difficulty when it comes to dealing with questions of this nature is that we find ourselves at the heady top of the life pyramid on this planet, and arrogantly assume that all paths lead to us (for we are here, aren't we?). But that's not properly factoring the role of chance in the outcome. Chance led to those genetic mutations that evolved the primates. And a chance collision with a rather large asteroid wiped out those massive dinosaurs. Chance provided earth with just this temperature and just this quantity of water. And, by chance, each of those other 'habitable' planets that exists in our universe is likely a little different in heat and composition, exhibiting different rates of genetic mutations, different landforms that change migration, dispersion and extinction patterns of any life that does evolve.
Is it a paradox that we haven't encountered any evidence for other intelligent life? We don't have enough evidence, one way or the other, to predict and then label the lack a paradox. The likely answer is that the ways in which life can evolve, and the forms of intelligence that can occur, are far beyond our feeble imaginations.
Geoffrey Miller has an hypothesis that they just get addicted to computer games. (You can read his piece at seedmagazine.)
However, I suspect the answer is much more mundane. We haven't seen any extraterrestrials because we've vastly overestimated the probability of intelligent life looking and acting like us.
We have a sample population of one: Earth. Because intelligent life did evolve here, we look at the progressions that led to it, and (incorrectly) assume that life evolves along similar paths on every habitable planet. However, that's a case of what statisticians call survivorship bias. Our view is biased because we have only looked at a sample that played out in the way that we expect it to. To really bring our knowledge up to par with reality, we would need to look at a large sampling of habitable planets, and see if and to what extent life evolved. Likely, that would change our ideas considerably about the probability of life, and the paths that lead to intelligent life.
If you look out earth's history, too, you can see ready evidence that life almost got wiped out several times – the most recent 65 million years ago when it appears that a fairly large meteor crashed into the Gulf Sea, and possibly alone or in conjunction with other geologic occurrences (volcanoes) wiped out more than 30% of the known (from fossil records) species. The Permian-Triassic was even worse, with 96% of marine and 70% of vertebrates going extinct. Think of how little more it might have taken to completely wipe all life from planet earth, forcing a restart. Given enough planets, total extinction events have surely occurred. Many unlucky planets may have to restart regularly, every 100 million to 1 billion years. That'd put a crimp on life evolution!
If you look at the diversity of life on our planet, too, you see many, many more species that are just as (and sometimes more) evolved than humans that exhibit no intelligent traits. I know that you are thinking that there is no species more evolved than humans, but that's not true. Viruses are far more evolved, if you look at number of generations and quantity of genetic mutations – the true measure of evolution. Evolution is a game that counts only survivorship – and there is nothing that predicates that intelligence makes a more survivable (or more evolved) species. As another example, take crocodiles: They have been around far longer than humans (84 million years), have developed a cerebral cortex, but are a long way from building rockets or sending radio signals into space.
Our major difficulty when it comes to dealing with questions of this nature is that we find ourselves at the heady top of the life pyramid on this planet, and arrogantly assume that all paths lead to us (for we are here, aren't we?). But that's not properly factoring the role of chance in the outcome. Chance led to those genetic mutations that evolved the primates. And a chance collision with a rather large asteroid wiped out those massive dinosaurs. Chance provided earth with just this temperature and just this quantity of water. And, by chance, each of those other 'habitable' planets that exists in our universe is likely a little different in heat and composition, exhibiting different rates of genetic mutations, different landforms that change migration, dispersion and extinction patterns of any life that does evolve.
Is it a paradox that we haven't encountered any evidence for other intelligent life? We don't have enough evidence, one way or the other, to predict and then label the lack a paradox. The likely answer is that the ways in which life can evolve, and the forms of intelligence that can occur, are far beyond our feeble imaginations.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
For The Record
I sent the previous to both Senator Udall and Senator McConnell. You can, too: Go to the US-Senate page, find the senator you'd most like to annoy, and send.
And, thanks. We need to keep reminding these clowns that we really want them to run the country. Not Goldman, Welfare Queen and Sachs. Not Magnetar. Not Ben Bernanke or Tim Giethner or Hank Paulson or Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon or ....
And, thanks. We need to keep reminding these clowns that we really want them to run the country. Not Goldman, Welfare Queen and Sachs. Not Magnetar. Not Ben Bernanke or Tim Giethner or Hank Paulson or Lloyd Blankfein or Jamie Dimon or ....
I Dare You!
Rep McConnell yesterday slammed the emerging financial regulation legislation. His big gripe: It doesn't put an end to taxpayer funded bailouts.
You mean that same taxpayer bailout that you (Mr McConnell) voted for?
OK. I agree. I'd like to see the large financial institutions take a major downsizing, and next time, they need to fail. Along with Hedge funds.
So, Rep McConnell: I challenge you to propose an amendment that:
1) Brings back the major provisions of Glass-Steagall and separates banks from investment houses (and forces the newly consolidated megabanks: BofA, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs to split up into their disparate entities)
2) Regulates the issuance (or maybe just prohibits) CDO's
3) Makes criminal the behavior that took place here (Magnetar)
4) Prohibits the payout of 'Golden Parachutes' during failures / bankruptcies. These execs are paid the big bucks for the big risks - Risks that could at any time destroy their house of cards and leave them unemployed. Make 'em eat it when they fail.
You got the goods, Representative? Or are you just bluster hoping to stifle the legislation so your cronies can continue to live large? (Fourth place in Private Equity Firms contributions, Fifth Place in Hedge Fund Contributions, Fourth place in Securities Brokers contributions.)
(And I'm okay if Rahm Emmanual feels some discomfort, too!)
You mean that same taxpayer bailout that you (Mr McConnell) voted for?
OK. I agree. I'd like to see the large financial institutions take a major downsizing, and next time, they need to fail. Along with Hedge funds.
So, Rep McConnell: I challenge you to propose an amendment that:
1) Brings back the major provisions of Glass-Steagall and separates banks from investment houses (and forces the newly consolidated megabanks: BofA, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs to split up into their disparate entities)
2) Regulates the issuance (or maybe just prohibits) CDO's
3) Makes criminal the behavior that took place here (Magnetar)
4) Prohibits the payout of 'Golden Parachutes' during failures / bankruptcies. These execs are paid the big bucks for the big risks - Risks that could at any time destroy their house of cards and leave them unemployed. Make 'em eat it when they fail.
You got the goods, Representative? Or are you just bluster hoping to stifle the legislation so your cronies can continue to live large? (Fourth place in Private Equity Firms contributions, Fifth Place in Hedge Fund Contributions, Fourth place in Securities Brokers contributions.)
(And I'm okay if Rahm Emmanual feels some discomfort, too!)
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Vacuous Shorthand
Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring.
Yesterday, the Denver Post ran a two page article about Stevens, and the candidates most likely to be nominated to succeed him. For each potential candidate, the Post attempted to summarize some information.
Yet just a quick glance over the little snippets about each showed them to be filled with vacuous shorthand, and little real information. Repeatedly, the Denver Post tells us that they are liberals, or moderates, or left. But, what exactly, in the instance of each of these individuals, does that mean? More to the point: What can we see from their work that would lead us to that conclusion, or is the Post just prejudicing us with an opinion?
Each would likely face the accusation of judicial activism (because that's the shorthand we use for attacking law specialists with whom we disagree). Real judicial activism is arguing against (as a lawyer) or breaking with (as a judge) precedent. Our body of laws is sufficiently ambiguous and occasionally contradictory that sometimes precedent should be stood on its head. So, the question of our likely candidates: In the past, have they argued for breaking with precedent? On what grounds? A contradictory law or ruling? A recent change to law that can be taken that we are no longer interested in previous interpretations? (And what if the precedent is not really a precedent?)
What about their interpretation of the US Constitution? Do they see it as a living, breathing, evolving document, or is it dead (to use Justice Antonin Scalia's words)? How important is context to interpreting the meanings of the authors? Should contemporary laws, actions, and writings be taken into account when attempting to decipher its intent (as Amar does in “America's Constitution: A Biography”)? Or can we glean all we need to know from the document itself? Does the candidate have any history in this area?
What else can we learn from their history, their writings? Do they see individual rights as paramount, or do they view that society comes first? How do they determine if the issue in question is clearly contradictory? Will they protect the individual from the mob (whether the mob be society, business, religion, a corporation, or the government), or do they interpret our laws as protecting society from the individual? Or, much more likely, when do they see our current laws as forcing a choice – and when are they clear about in which situations one is to be chosen over the other?
There is much that would be interesting to learn to make an partial evaluation of the candidates, to give us a real feeling for how they interpret law and view the job of a court justice. Views that, if well articulated, might give us more insight into the knowledge and resources they have for making law determinations, and help us understand that they could do an immeasurably better job than you or me. Much better than filling a page with vacuous shorthand about liberal, moderate, left, conservative, etc. Those terms have lost any real meaning in this context, because they are both too broad (and hence ambiguous), and have too varied interpretations by us.
Given the opportunity to fill us in on the possibilities, the Post gives us – Nothing.
(And they wonder why their readership is dropping. I'd like to propose...)
Yesterday, the Denver Post ran a two page article about Stevens, and the candidates most likely to be nominated to succeed him. For each potential candidate, the Post attempted to summarize some information.
Yet just a quick glance over the little snippets about each showed them to be filled with vacuous shorthand, and little real information. Repeatedly, the Denver Post tells us that they are liberals, or moderates, or left. But, what exactly, in the instance of each of these individuals, does that mean? More to the point: What can we see from their work that would lead us to that conclusion, or is the Post just prejudicing us with an opinion?
Each would likely face the accusation of judicial activism (because that's the shorthand we use for attacking law specialists with whom we disagree). Real judicial activism is arguing against (as a lawyer) or breaking with (as a judge) precedent. Our body of laws is sufficiently ambiguous and occasionally contradictory that sometimes precedent should be stood on its head. So, the question of our likely candidates: In the past, have they argued for breaking with precedent? On what grounds? A contradictory law or ruling? A recent change to law that can be taken that we are no longer interested in previous interpretations? (And what if the precedent is not really a precedent?)
What about their interpretation of the US Constitution? Do they see it as a living, breathing, evolving document, or is it dead (to use Justice Antonin Scalia's words)? How important is context to interpreting the meanings of the authors? Should contemporary laws, actions, and writings be taken into account when attempting to decipher its intent (as Amar does in “America's Constitution: A Biography”)? Or can we glean all we need to know from the document itself? Does the candidate have any history in this area?
What else can we learn from their history, their writings? Do they see individual rights as paramount, or do they view that society comes first? How do they determine if the issue in question is clearly contradictory? Will they protect the individual from the mob (whether the mob be society, business, religion, a corporation, or the government), or do they interpret our laws as protecting society from the individual? Or, much more likely, when do they see our current laws as forcing a choice – and when are they clear about in which situations one is to be chosen over the other?
There is much that would be interesting to learn to make an partial evaluation of the candidates, to give us a real feeling for how they interpret law and view the job of a court justice. Views that, if well articulated, might give us more insight into the knowledge and resources they have for making law determinations, and help us understand that they could do an immeasurably better job than you or me. Much better than filling a page with vacuous shorthand about liberal, moderate, left, conservative, etc. Those terms have lost any real meaning in this context, because they are both too broad (and hence ambiguous), and have too varied interpretations by us.
Given the opportunity to fill us in on the possibilities, the Post gives us – Nothing.
(And they wonder why their readership is dropping. I'd like to propose...)
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Who Coulda Known?
That's been the most often repeated defense of those closest to the financial meltdown of 2008 - Who coulda known?
Ira Glass and 'This American Life' takes a closer look, and finds out about Magnetar - a giant Hedge fund that appears to have built risky CDO's and then bet (sorry, Hedged) against them. It's a fascinating story, and the goods come from the propublica website. So, for those of you who missed the story, here's a link.
Ira Glass and 'This American Life' takes a closer look, and finds out about Magnetar - a giant Hedge fund that appears to have built risky CDO's and then bet (sorry, Hedged) against them. It's a fascinating story, and the goods come from the propublica website. So, for those of you who missed the story, here's a link.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
US Government Cuts Wasteful Program
Oh, if only this article were real! Read the whole thing: The last two paragraphs are priceless (in only the way The Onion can deliver).
Friday, March 26, 2010
Healthcare Hyperventilating
Growing up, my parents and teachers stressed the importance of personal responsibility. Over and over I heard the mantra that my life would be what I would make of it – positive or negative outcomes depended upon my decisions, my preparation, my effort. The outcome was under my control.
Presumably, this holds true for everyone.
But as I've lived, I've seen individual outcomes that don't appear to flow from individual decisions. I've seen enormous effort go unrewarded, meticulous preparation end in naught. A vegetarian athlete succumb to an early heart attack – an unapologetic chain-smoker live into his 80's. I've seen cancer strike a very young friend – and a good family flirt with poverty when their spouse and father died, leaving behind no life insurance because of a heart defect uncovered when he was 17.
The Health Arbiter of the Universe metes out health and illness in only a broadly discernible pattern – but it would be rare for us to be able to say of a stricken individual: “She surely deserves her cancer with the way she's lived her life!” Yes, some things, like smoking, do have a stronger correlation, but even so, you have to remember that for our parents' generation and before, medical doctors actually recommended smoking! So, making a seemingly good decision based upon available evidence turned out bad...
As a result, I'm loathe to pass judgment on an individual about their deservedness, about their future potential. Receiving preventative and restorative medical care, regardless, gives people the ability to engage in society and provide the best they can. I certainly believe that a wealthy nation like ours (for we certainly, and by all standards, are an extremely wealthy nation) should ensure that health care is available and affordable by all members, without distinction. Perhaps all employers provide it, and we share the cost by paying slightly more for goods and services at the checkout. Perhaps the government provides it for the unemployed, and we all share the cost through a small tax. Perhaps....we could come up with many options, and there are many countries around the world that already do it: We could shop around for the best, and produce an amalgamation better than any other.
Sadly, from the information that I've heard and read, that's not what we've gotten. There are provisions in the new Health Care Law that my education and experience flag. I'm particularly distressed over the emphasis on Corporate Welfare, and the strict avoidance of any countervailing publicly administered provision. I am concerned that while expanding Health Care Affordability, we've also expanded the Health Care monopoly, and that monopoly will work to undermine what has been done.
Perhaps your experiences and education flag similar or different portions of this law. That you, too, were hoping that we could provide for all, but that there are portions that need some re-work.
Which historically, is almost a given with any legislation. There are portions that work as intended, portions that work better than intended, and portions that miss their mark, having unintended consequences, some good, and some decidedly bad. The causes of the bad consequences will have to be determined and revised. We have yet to make a 'final' law. I'm certain that we both foresee such an outcome for this specific piece of legislation also.
But there is nothing in this law that advocates or authorizes violence; nothing that reduces or restricts our ability to participate in government through democracy; nothing that eliminates our presumption of innocence before the law (the provisions prohibiting the use of pre-existing conditions and rescission perhaps strengthen this); nothing that decreases our freedom to make decisions about how to live our life: What to do, where to live, what to eat, how to play, etc.
So screams of 'tyranny' are just hyperbole, the fear-mongering of a 'descent into submission and slavery' just hyperventilating, and the name calling just meanness.
The act of providing health care to those members of society who formerly could not have it is not an act of fear, greed, or hate, but an act of compassion. And so far, countries have not fallen because they were too compassionate towards their own people – it is hatred, fear, and greed that do in empires.
Providing Health Care is one of those endeavors where compassion and greed collide and co-exist. It is the greed woven into this law that concerns me most, that makes me fearful that instead of just providing a little more equality in our society, a little more financial security, it will also be a net transfer of wealth to the already wealthy.
But it is the compassion inherent in this legislation that encourages me. It bolsters my desire to see Health Care provided to all, and stokes my enthusiasm that we are at least moving in that direction. Taking care of each other, even at some cost to ourselves, is one of those 'Good Things' that makes living in human society special and rewarding. Yes, when we show compassion towards another, we do open ourselves up to being taken advantage of. However, the majority of people reciprocate – and as I opened this essay by observing that most of those on the medical down and out aren't lazy or foolish, I think that we can expect for many lives, this act will make a difference, reducing fear and insecurity, and improving health. Their gain will be society's gain, our gain, and the hand-wringing will look small and selfish.
So take a deep breath. There's no need to damage your health with undue agitation over the passage of this law, no need to infect your mind with hatred, no need to lower your morals by considering others unworthy.
Who knows? You might live longer and happier as a result!
Presumably, this holds true for everyone.
But as I've lived, I've seen individual outcomes that don't appear to flow from individual decisions. I've seen enormous effort go unrewarded, meticulous preparation end in naught. A vegetarian athlete succumb to an early heart attack – an unapologetic chain-smoker live into his 80's. I've seen cancer strike a very young friend – and a good family flirt with poverty when their spouse and father died, leaving behind no life insurance because of a heart defect uncovered when he was 17.
The Health Arbiter of the Universe metes out health and illness in only a broadly discernible pattern – but it would be rare for us to be able to say of a stricken individual: “She surely deserves her cancer with the way she's lived her life!” Yes, some things, like smoking, do have a stronger correlation, but even so, you have to remember that for our parents' generation and before, medical doctors actually recommended smoking! So, making a seemingly good decision based upon available evidence turned out bad...
As a result, I'm loathe to pass judgment on an individual about their deservedness, about their future potential. Receiving preventative and restorative medical care, regardless, gives people the ability to engage in society and provide the best they can. I certainly believe that a wealthy nation like ours (for we certainly, and by all standards, are an extremely wealthy nation) should ensure that health care is available and affordable by all members, without distinction. Perhaps all employers provide it, and we share the cost by paying slightly more for goods and services at the checkout. Perhaps the government provides it for the unemployed, and we all share the cost through a small tax. Perhaps....we could come up with many options, and there are many countries around the world that already do it: We could shop around for the best, and produce an amalgamation better than any other.
Sadly, from the information that I've heard and read, that's not what we've gotten. There are provisions in the new Health Care Law that my education and experience flag. I'm particularly distressed over the emphasis on Corporate Welfare, and the strict avoidance of any countervailing publicly administered provision. I am concerned that while expanding Health Care Affordability, we've also expanded the Health Care monopoly, and that monopoly will work to undermine what has been done.
Perhaps your experiences and education flag similar or different portions of this law. That you, too, were hoping that we could provide for all, but that there are portions that need some re-work.
Which historically, is almost a given with any legislation. There are portions that work as intended, portions that work better than intended, and portions that miss their mark, having unintended consequences, some good, and some decidedly bad. The causes of the bad consequences will have to be determined and revised. We have yet to make a 'final' law. I'm certain that we both foresee such an outcome for this specific piece of legislation also.
But there is nothing in this law that advocates or authorizes violence; nothing that reduces or restricts our ability to participate in government through democracy; nothing that eliminates our presumption of innocence before the law (the provisions prohibiting the use of pre-existing conditions and rescission perhaps strengthen this); nothing that decreases our freedom to make decisions about how to live our life: What to do, where to live, what to eat, how to play, etc.
So screams of 'tyranny' are just hyperbole, the fear-mongering of a 'descent into submission and slavery' just hyperventilating, and the name calling just meanness.
The act of providing health care to those members of society who formerly could not have it is not an act of fear, greed, or hate, but an act of compassion. And so far, countries have not fallen because they were too compassionate towards their own people – it is hatred, fear, and greed that do in empires.
Providing Health Care is one of those endeavors where compassion and greed collide and co-exist. It is the greed woven into this law that concerns me most, that makes me fearful that instead of just providing a little more equality in our society, a little more financial security, it will also be a net transfer of wealth to the already wealthy.
But it is the compassion inherent in this legislation that encourages me. It bolsters my desire to see Health Care provided to all, and stokes my enthusiasm that we are at least moving in that direction. Taking care of each other, even at some cost to ourselves, is one of those 'Good Things' that makes living in human society special and rewarding. Yes, when we show compassion towards another, we do open ourselves up to being taken advantage of. However, the majority of people reciprocate – and as I opened this essay by observing that most of those on the medical down and out aren't lazy or foolish, I think that we can expect for many lives, this act will make a difference, reducing fear and insecurity, and improving health. Their gain will be society's gain, our gain, and the hand-wringing will look small and selfish.
So take a deep breath. There's no need to damage your health with undue agitation over the passage of this law, no need to infect your mind with hatred, no need to lower your morals by considering others unworthy.
Who knows? You might live longer and happier as a result!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)