As most know, on January 8th, in a grocery store parking lot, a gunman, opened fire on a small political gathering.   He wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 17 others, and killed 6, including a 9 year old child.

Our media?  Apparently falling all over themselves to be the very first to diagnose the entire event down to political ideology, caused by heightened rhetoric, hopefully with easily attacked names attached, all without anything remotely resembling even a slight understanding of the shooter.

It is impressive in not only how fast this meme started, but also the complete coverage of it.  Almost anywhere you read this news or watching it discussed on tv, the attempt to blame is either extremely obvious or being discussed as being extremely obvious.

Liberals blame Sarah Palin, which the right absolutely abhors….  And besides, according to them, the shooter was a leftist anyway (irony?).

But wait!  If you don’t like that, it’s ok, because really the level of vitriol is the real problem.  Ask the Collegian, this conversation has to take place….  after of course the author talks about Glen Beck and Fox News’ level of rhetoric (irony?).

Irregardless, this conversation is important – just listen to the investigating sheriff, and you suddenly learn it’s Rush Limbaugh’s fault.

(side bar: Notice that word “investigating” always precedes the Sheriff… as if the mere act that the crazy guy with a gun pulled the trigger in his jurisdiction, gives him the right, knowledge, or understanding of political rhetoric and its ramifications)

Ahh, the Sheriff, proving, just like Katrina where rumors ran rampant due in large part to public officials, the propensity for public officials to cast off the shackles of thoughtful and deliberate actions and act irrationally.  Just listen to the Sheriff’s words “I have a feeling” and “millions agree” – as if this would be considered “proof” of anything.  Not to mention the fact that a public official should be duty-bound and intelligent enough to know not to make things worse through public speculation.

 But I digress, because in case you didn’t know, there’s a reason for his behavior too.  The Sheriff is a leftist.  & like other leftists, whether the level of rhetoric is high or low is meaningless, because it’s time for gun control.

Neither of which will work of course, because the real problem is that violence is rooted in American culture – so basically it’s everyone’s fault….

Though Jon Stewart assures us it’s not the level of rhetoric which is to blame, & he does have friends; according to a recent poll, 60% agree with this thought as well.

But let’s do note at least one decent posting on the subject, discussing this tragedy in light of other mass murderers (small mass, think group), including the divergence between what we thought we knew instantly and what we found out (here).

Aside from the few however, it appears stating openly “we don’t know enough and will not speculate” isn’t near as interesting nor attention grabbing as the fear inducing meme that speech, tv, political rhetoric, guns, or anything else which is all around you, is in fact out to get you.

It just goes on and on and on and on….  & just like the debates about which party is more closely linked with the actions of Hitler; is it Bushitler the warmonger?  Or the Democrats and the “can’t smoke in private restaurants” crowd? 

Or arguments about who Jesus would vote for; is it the downtrodden protectors the Democrats or the “teach a man to fish” Republicans?

Or what Jesus would drive; a Prius for the environment or an F150 for a carpenter? 

All impossible to answer, all nothing more than mere guilt/credit by association, yet the fight is feverish as many try to answer this very question about one lone gunman.

& All of it presented to you, with the air of intelligent thought and analysis, by the self-proclaimed 4th Estate.

Over @ Freedom In Our Time blog, you can read a perfect example of finding facts in order to confirm an already preheld belief (whole thing here).  In this case, that preheld belief is none other than one shared by a large number of libertarians, that cops are bad.

In the article, he starts with some interesting stories about individual cops committing illegal acts against those they’ve sworn to protect.  Like most freedom loving people, I too abhor these stories and hope that the punishment fits the crime.

I will even go a step further and state clearly; I think the institution which is law enforcement has some serious issues with which should concern all Americans.  Not the least of which is the seeming ability for bad cops to keep or get new jobs, even after they’ve shown a propensity to abuse their discretionary power (not for now, but one can make the argument that with so many laws on the books, a law enforcement officer’s discretion increases – forest tree thing again).

Having said that my concerns about an institution, can’t be seen as an indictment on individual police officers.

Not so much with this author… starting with a story about bad cops, he finally, after many, many words later, reaches the real point:

What this means, of course, is that our system of “public safety” is built on a population of armed functionaries invested with the power of discretionary killing, many of whom are so emotionally unstable that they pose a potentially lethal threat even to themselves.

The proof offered?  Poorly understood stats:

Contrary to what we’re told to believe, law enforcement is not a particularly dangerous occupation, at least when measured in terms of acts of violence directed at police officers. However, police are frequently a lethal danger to themselves: According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, each year “twice as many cops … commit suicide as are killed in the line of duty.” Significantly, another Kenosha police officer killed himself just weeks prior to Strausbaugh’s suicide….

& an advocacy organization’s statements:

Former Maryland police officer Robert Douglas, executive director of the National P.O.L.I.C.E. Suicide Foundation, describes suicide as “the number one killer of law enforcement today.

Oh… and many, many, many words on some very bad cops who deserve very serious punishments.  Did I forget to mention that?

But easily enough, we can put that all aside and say by what we know in public, thanks to a somewhat informative press, and our interactions with the law enforcement community, that it’s highly likely that many of our law enforcement officers are not emotionally unstable.  If they were, we’d have fears larger than the price of the speeding ticket every single time we encountered an officer in uniform…. but we don’t.

So where’s the disconnect?

Well, firmly in the author’s mind, as this truly is a case where the author seeks to find specific anecdotes, combine those, evil as they may be, with insignificant statistics, and round us all up to the inevitable conclusion: police are in fact the boogeyman!

Police Officers in Reality

Other's Version of Reality

Armed with an understanding of reality is enough to refute this, but let’s take a closer look at the actual stats with respect to suicide and the statement “twice as many die of suicide as are killed in the line of duty”.

Let’s start with the word twice, and ask the analytical questions.  Twice of what?  Cause twice of zero, is well… zero.  So what is the killed in duty rate?  Police officer suicide rate?  & do these rates actually differ (more…)

As depicted in the movie Blood Diamond, many diamond deposits around the world only function through government/militia oppression, slavery, violence, children soldiers, and really some of the worst actions on behalf of humans anywhere.

Enter the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme; which is an international process which is designed to certify the origins of raw diamonds as conflict free diamonds.   & they’ve been doing so well with this process, that UN member states have voted, less than a month ago, to extend their power in order to give them a better ability to halt non-certified diamonds.

Which all in all seems like a good thing.  It’s certainly a noble effort to try to prevent oppressors from making money off of violence and slavery.

Today’s announcement by the Kimberly Process however, should give reasonable people reason to question whether they are truly acting towards their stated goal (article here):

…The Kimberley Process has granted Zimbabwe permission to continue conducting supervised sales of diamonds….

With of course two sides to the story (article con’t):

…The issue of Zimbabwe selling the Marange diamonds has divided the KP along political lines with Western countries led by the United States, Germany and Australia as well as civil society groups that are members of the organisation calling for banning of the gems…

But African and other countries, including Russia, have opposed the calls to ban the diamonds, appearing to buy Harare’s claims that calls for banning of the Marange stones are driven more by the West’s dislike of President Robert Mugabe than by concern for human rights….

Theoretically two sides… assuming you ignore Zimbabwe’s constant chaos and conflict at the hands of their leader for more than 30 years Robert Mugabe.   He has taken a country and almost completely destroyed it all while singing songs of revolution and owed dues from those responsible for Apartheid.

(more…)

After some political arguing about who stands to gain what, why ratify a treaty in a lame duck session, the START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), was ratified in the Senate last week.  & now with praise from Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev and movement in the Russian Parliament, it’s likely only a matter of time before the treaty between Russia & the United States is in full effect.

With all the rhetoric being pushed around however, true analysis tends to get lost in the noise…. which is where Stratfor enters; not only asking pertinent questions and attempting to answer them, but in giving the treaty the full historical context it deserves.

First, what is the START Treaty (whole thing here)?

….The original START was signed July 31, 1991, and reductions were completed in 2001. The treaty put a cap on the number of nuclear warheads that could be deployed. In addition to limiting the number of land- and submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers, it capped the number of warheads that were available to launch at 6,000…. START I lapsed in 2009, and the new treaty is essentially designed to reinstate it….

What Sratfor notes however, is the difference in geopolitical relationships from START I to New START, mainly that the original treaty began in a very different climate in the 1980′s (article con’t):

…The political relationship that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s is not the same as the relationship that exists today. Starting in the 1950s, the United States and Soviet Union were in a state of near-war….

In what was basically a balancing act by the two major global powers at the time, conventional and nuclear weapons, were built and deployed as the United States & Russia tried to gain an advantage (article con’t):

…The differences between them were geopolitically profound. The United States was afraid that the Soviets would seize Western Europe in an attack in order to change the global balance of power. Given that the balance of power ran against the Soviet Union, it was seen as possible that they would try to rectify it by war.

Since the United States had guaranteed Europe’s security with troops and the promise that it would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union to block the conquest of Europe, it followed that the Soviet Union would initiate war by attempting to neutralize the American nuclear capability. This would require a surprise attack on the United States with Soviet missiles. It also followed that the United States, in order to protect Europe, might launch a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet military capability in order to protect the United States and the balance of power….

This process of seeking global influence, resulted in many things, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Star-Wars (BMD), a build up in both strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals, and basically a stable, but highly tense situation of mutually assured destruction.

Then in 1991, the need for this policy was diminished for both sides with the implosion of the Soviet Union.   Even at that time one could argue the need for such a treaty was minimal, but when the process started during higher tensions in the 1980s, and given the level of fear around the world, going forward with the pact seemed reasonable.

Which brings us forward to today (article con’t): (more…)

Janet Napolitano - Logically Impaired Secretary of Homeland Security

On CCN’s State of the Union show, US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano fielded questions about security in the nation’s airports and in particular the more controversial measures put into place in 2010. 

In what must be an attempt to alleviate concerns from passengers and Americans to potential security threats, she let the country know (here via RealClearPolitics):

The new technology and the pat-downs are “objectively safer for our traveling public,” said Napolitano, adding she’s always looking to improve the security systems in place….

Forgetting for a second that there is evidence to the contrary (article con’t):

…Napolitano also dismissed a recent news report about major airports failing secrets tests designed to get contraband such as guns and knives past security screeners. The report said some airports had a 70 percent failure rate…

& ignoring the fact that her only argument against this evidence is that they’re doing things differently, the last excuse for those attempting to shrug off real failures, (article con’t):

…”Many of them are very old and out of date and there were all kinds of methodology issues with them. Let’s set those aside,” she said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “We pick up more contraband with the new procedures and the new machinery.”…

We can look at the pure logic of the phrase “objectively safer” and ask whether there’s any reason to be able to use it and the answer is clearly no.  (more…)

Yesterday, DA posted an article on the Economist’s debate over language (here) with the following [emphasis added]:

Irregardless, she goes forward to talk about more interesting research, including ethnic bias, gender specific nouns, and even points to a study which attempts to show Hebrew-Arabic bilinguals speakers seem to show more favorable attitudes towards Jews when tested in Hebrew than Arabic.  (I find that claim dubious, but without more access to the research, I’ll leave that point for now.)

My initial concerns with this research were how it was conducted and what assumptions were made.  After some searching, I’m unable to retrieve the actual study, but did find some underlying issues worth nothing.

The study Ms. Boroditsky cites above, used a test known as Implicit Association Test (IAT) (here via Association for Psychological Science – APS):

The study used a computer test known as the Implicit Association Test, which is often used to study bias….

The question at hand then, is whether IAT can actually show true bias.  The way it works (APS continued):

…Words flash on the computer screen, and subjects have to categorize them by pressing two keys on the keyboard as quickly as possible. It’s a nearly automatic task, with no time to think about the answers. The trick is, the subjects are classifying two different kinds of words: words describing positive and negative traits and, in this case, names – Arab names like Ahmed and Samir and Jewish names like Avi and Ronen. For example, they might be told to press “M” when they saw an Arab name or a word with a good meaning, or “X” when they saw a Jewish name and a word with a bad meaning. In this example, if people automatically associate “good” words with Arabs and “bad” with Jews, they’ll be able to do the classifications faster than if their automatic association between the words is the other way around. In different sections of the test, different sets of words are paired….

 The idea being that a quick test might help to show hidden biases, even for those who are actively attempting to prevent such displays.

Intuitively however, this test seems unlikely to prove bias for a few reasons. 

The first of which is our knowledge that human’s subconscious isn’t conscious.  By its very definition, we don’t know what it is and we still have little idea of how, or even whether, these hidden thoughts interact with our conscious mind or thinking.

The second is our knowledge of overall human development.   Take a child raised and consistently indoctrinated with racist ideals.  While not simple, some of these children do grow up and by themselves learn the truth:  hating others based upon their race, religion, or other superficial factors, is not just stupid, but also marks one of the lowest or immoral thoughts.

But take this person… Any guesses on how this person might do on this test, even if they now live a life of a non-biased person?  Speculation  for sure; but I think ultimately logical.

Which dovetails to the third basic critique, brought to us by basic ideas in critical thinking. 

Nominally, one of the things a critical thinker must do in order to minimize bad decisions, is to understand their own biases.

& in this case, I don’t mean to limit this to racial biases brought about through family or societal pressures, but consider the word bias as more encompassing to include any consistent mode of thinking which negatively affects decisions.

From that point of view, the biases one should look for in critical thinking outside personal life, (more…)

This week @ the Economist’s debate series, they are discussing another interesting topic.  Starring Lera Boroditsky, Assistant Professor of Psychology @ Stanford University arguing pro and Mark Liberman, Distinguished Professor in Linguistics @ University of Pennsylvania, arguing against  (whole thing here):

This house believes that the language we speak shapes how we think.

Still in the first round of of the debate, the pros have a large majority with a full 75% of people agreeing.  This seems self evident and may lead some to question why debate this particular topic with so much agreement.

The answer:  the nuances of the argument itself.   Indeed, while Mr. Lieberman’s job is to argue against the proposition, he starts his opening arguments by agreeing with the basic premise:

Properly interpreted, the proposition is true: the language we speak shapes how we think….

& of course goes directly into his disagreement:

…But the way we think also shapes the language we speak, and the way we live shapes both language and thought. When we encounter or create new ideas, we can usually describe them with new combinations of old words. And if not, we easily adapt or borrow or create the new words or phrases we need. As Edward Sapir once put it, “We may say that a language is so constructed that no matter what any speaker of it may desire to communicate … the language is prepared to do his work.”….

He goes on to define this key difference in interpretation.  While he nominally agrees with the idea, society has been inundated with ideas which simply aren’t true.  With discussions, articles, and not very well done research telling us all about the number of words Eskimos have for snow, whether the Apache had a word for “lie”, and even popular culture through the likes of Ayn Rand.

The crux of the issue however, is that most of these stories are either exaggerations of the truth or just completely false.  Like the Hopi Eskimos, having apparently somewhere between 5 & hundreds of words for snow depending upon the source, might have specific words to identify different types of snow that other cultures don’t have.

But whether they have specific words for such things as hard iced snow, or falling snow, or wet snow, it’s not as if other languages can’t use two word phrases with adjectives and nouns to get to the same point.

Taken this way, it seems as though having more words for snow than other societies doesn’t say those other societies are somehow less equipped to speak about snow, but instead gives us some insight into what is important to the Hopi.

& then there’s the other side as well, presented by Ms. Boroditsky, which starts:

Exciting empirical advances over the past decade have at last provided us with scientific answers about how languages shape thinking. Importantly, while some of the influences of language on thought are remarkable, there is nothing strange about them, they are just a normal function of how human brains work. Let’s start with the basics of perception, mathematics and navigation, and end with the sex of toasters, social judgments and prejudice….

She moves from there to highlight interesting research in terms of various societies, such as those with more words for colors of those who do not have words for left & right.  In the later example, they use more cardinal-type language to define position (such as north-east).   This seems to have given them a better sense of direction than cultures where left & right are used.

Going forward, she also talks about math and number language:

For example, some languages do not have exact number words (there may be words for “few” or “many” but none for “seven” or “sixteen”). Speakers of such languages generally are not able to keep track of exact quantities—they cannot count. Without being able to count, you are unlikely to be doing algebra, solving differential equations…

Which is true in a large sense, but isn’t true in the technical one.  We actually know quite a bit with respects to the evolution in math language and its use and necessity in understanding math functions above simple counting. 

So humans had a need to start counting things.  This need brought us new language to describe various amounts.  Over time, with the advent of more and more commerce, this math language became written, and for the west, this was in Roman Numerals.

Of course anyone with experience with Roman Numerals can attest pretty easily to how difficult it would be to multiply or divide, but even that is just the starting point.

The true power of math and math thinking didn’t really happen until we stumbled upon two mythical number concepts, zero and infinity.

Take that beginning and look forward a few thousand years, and we routinely run math calculations on numbers which have no real language associated with them and numbers which can’t even be understood by humans (IE it’s hard to understand what a billion, billion stars really means, when you have no concept of what a billion of anything looks like, regardless of having a “word” for it ).

Irregardless, she goes forward to talk about more interesting research, including ethnic bias, gender specific nouns, and even points to a study which attempts to show Hebrew-Arabic bilinguals speakers seem to show more favorable attitudes towards Jews when tested in Hebrew than Arabic.  (I find that claim dubious, but without more access to the research, I’ll leave that point for now.)

& while the 75% vote tally on the pro side is unlikely to change drastically, with rebuttals, expert comments, & closing statements still to come; it should be very informative in the end.

Representative Weiner (D-NY) on estate taxes (here):

WEINER: You aren’t paying anything in that case because you’ll be dead.

Which while heartless, actually seems logical at quick glance.

In critical thinking however, one must always think about context.  To use a very basic example, take numbers.  If I say, 1.8 trillion dolloars spent on federal government in one year.  Seems meaningful, but it’s really meaningless without additional information.

For instance -

1.8 trillion dollars spent on federal government in 2010.  We got off cheap.

1.8 trillion dollars spent on federal government in 1950.  Well… we probably would’ve collapsed by now.

& lastly, for Mr. Weiner and the government in general, they as using the tax code to incentivize certain behaviors.  Tax breaks for small businesses, helps spark business creation.  Tax breaks for home ownership, helps home sales. 

So if you work your whole life, make a decent amount of money yearly, but live furgally, and retire after 30 years with 10 million dollars, this tax is an incentive.

Just not sure what kind of society you want to build when the incentive is blow all your money before you die instead of leaving it to your family