Puzzling in that I’m not sure what the argument would be, when the blogosphere is the definition of an open forum.  So I read further to find out that Freddie began the argument:

There are many myths within the political blogosphere, but none is so deeply troubling or so highly treasured by mainstream political bloggers than this: that the political blogosphere contains within it the whole range of respectable political opinion, and that once an issue has been thoroughly debated therein, it has had a full and fair hearing.

Um… okay.  I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone assert this “myth” before, don’t know anyone who believes it, and certainly don’t know anyone advocating it strongly.

I have heard several arguments along the lines of, the increase in the blogosphere has increased the number of views overall, but nothing like “media reports, blogosphere decide”.  In fact, many of those arguing that the blogosphere has increased the number of voices don’t agree that this has been a good thing, nor that it’s in any way equal in presentation of all ideas.   Just that it can help and has increased the total number of ideas available.

But I digress… the more puzzling part is this:

The truth is that almost anything resembling an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation within the political blogosphere, both intentionally and not, while those writing within it congratulate themselves for having answered all left-wing criticism.

Puzzling because the one thing the blogosphere is above all else: a free market.  Yes, it’s not completely free as costs do exist, but costs for bloggers have been decreasing dramatically over time and are close to being zero from a casual level.

Now to maintain a consistent blog of course takes time and additional money, but thanks to aggregating sites, search engines, social networking channels, and a number of other technologies, getting a blog post in front of 1000 people isn’t all that hard (getting 100 to read on the other hand….) and the costs for doing so can be minimized to only include the cost of the internet connection itself.  All these other products can be used for free.

Of course larger operations can afford advertising, preferential search engine listings, possibly advertising revenue to the point of having a staff, as well as other advantages, but in the marketplace of ideas – the NY Times’ or Freddie’s or my opinion on say, health care reform (assuming they are all different), all stand on equal ground.

True, the NY Times’ opinion on health care reform will likely be given an air of credibility, that potentially isn’t given to the standard blogger, but the basic message rises and falls on the ideas presented.  This truly is a marketplace of ideas, where the wisdom of crowds can show itself.

& I’ve made a point before of this meme about the increased number of views and whether the average person is really taking advantage (here):

In a world with the internet with all it’s free content, differing view points, ability to look at multiple sources instantly (thanks to search engines), and really, the ability for people to truly become informed, it appears that most of us, like Bill [Maher], only seek out people who agree with us and help us prove our own presumptions….

But none of this seems to be Freddie’s point.  His view as stated is:

That the blogosphere is a flagrantly anti-leftist space should be clear to anyone who has paid a remote amount of attention.

Which amounts to little more than a having temper tantrum, while repetitively screaming, “You’re not paying attention to me!  You’re not paying attention to me!”

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?

Put me in the latter category. I’ve had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach ever since the final stages of the 2008 campaign….

 Now it’s obviously impossible to know whether Mr. Krugman was honestly surprised about the horrendous events of this past weekend or not, but it seems hard to believe that anyone who heard about the incident thought, “yep – saw that coming.”

But in the grand scheme, it really doesn’t matter whether he was truly surprised as that’s not his main point.  Before he gets there though, he has to set up the framework (article cont’d):

…And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again….

That’s some prescient vision he has there.  Without any proof, without any examples, without anything at all, he can “see” what was inevitable.  Not sure why he didn’t stop it or call for the possibility as loudly as possible.  It seems like the only moral actions when you “know” violent acts committed against innocent parties is inevitable. 

Additionally, this uncanny ability of his makes one wonder if the people from Miss Cleo’s office has contacted him yet to see if he’s looking for a career change?   Or maybe the CIA would like to test his capabilities?

But I digress, extra-sensory perceptions aside, Mr. Krugman continues framing the argument using a government report (article cont’d):

The Department of Homeland Security reached the same conclusion: In April 2009 an internal report warned that right-wing extremism was on the rise, with a growing potential for violence….

Which would be interesting to note, if only it were true.  There was and is a DHS report detailing the potential for increased radicalization and recruitment due to a very unique climate, but the report itself begins with this easily comprehendible statement:

The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that doemstic righwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues.

The report continues as it details what it sees as specific climate variables for which rightwing extremist groups might exploit, but noted, in the 2nd paragraph the threats which concern Mr. Krugman so much, are “largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts“.

But Mr. Krugman sees, so a potential for increased recruitment and radicalization based upon societal factors and an increase in the potential for real harm are now the same.  I doubt that’s true for most objectively viewing the same data, but I don’t think most people think like Mr. Krugman.

Nonetheless, our vaunted author continues.  With an increase in threats (real) and vandalism (possibly real, no studies, no proof offered), Mr. Krugman’s vision sees the obvious results (article cont’d):

One of these days, someone was bound to take it to the next level. And now someone has….

Who was that guy again? 

It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled.  But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate….

So even though Mr. Krugman believes the shooter is likely insane, the national climate is somehow involved.  Not only involved, but (article cont’d):

…something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

His proof?  Increased levels of violence?  Increased crime rates?  Nope.  Crime rates only exist up to 2008 and show a consistent decline.  But he has something…. sort of (article cont’d):

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent….

Notice the nice little conflation trick here, as Mr. Krugman uses an increase in threats to ALL members of congress as a sign on increased rightwing extremism. 

In the very article he mentions, Politco notes some of the threats with names of Congress members and as you’d expect, Republicans and well as Democrats were targets, but notes those are the very few examples they were able to access directly as most threats from 2010 are still being investigated. 

Therefore at this time, the 300% increase is an FBI number, but one without context.   They don’t note any pattern in who was threatened, patterns from whom the threats originated, total number of threats (300% increase of 8 isn’t a reason for alarm), nor any past patterns to determine whether this is an anomaly or a continuous trend regardless of office holders.

But when you’re Mr. Krugman, logic isn’t needed; so he continues (article cont’d):

And there’s not much question what has changed.

There’s not much question what has changed?  Really?  I know people tend to pine for the good old days as they mature and I know many people readily agree that society is coarser today than it was in yesteryear (whose time frame noticeably differs by the age of the one evaluating), but I have yet to see anything resembling objective proof.

Not only have I not seen any objective proof demonstrating things were indeed better in some period in the past, but I don’t know that an effective way of answering such a question is possible. 

The problem is that real analysis would require a selection of variables, defining the weight of each variable, then finally a review of all those variables and their changes over time.   It’s not hard to see how even selecting which variables to be used is fraught with subjectivity, but also defining the weight of each variable as well.

For example, let’s say you are evaluating whether 2010 is better or worse than 1950.  The problem is that even if we could all (read: vast majority) agree that politeness isn’t what it used to be in the golden laced, greener grassed place known as yesteryear, how do you weigh that against say, increased rights for women on the domestic front?

Should domestic rights for women be given the same weight in an evaluation of 1800 as 2010 since the culture was so vastly different.  It’s possible the lack of rights in 1800 versus the rights women enjoy today may not have been “missed” in the 1800s by the majority of women.  Does it even matter if they weren’t missed?

But I digress…. the point is still the same.  Assertions, but no provable ones are all we get so far.  As expected, Mr. Krugman continues with his only available recourse, conjecture. 

& when making things up, who better to use as evidence than the “investigating” Sheriff.   You recall; the guy who “feels” vitriol is bad and believes “millions agree” with him about the evils of talk radio, even though he admits they don’t vocally agree with him and he offers no real proof… that guy?

Yes.  Him…. so with reasons to the contrary, Mr. Krugman uses the Sheriff as a reliable expert (article cont’d):

As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.”

 Again  – an assertion which is not provable.  The issues?  Much the same with the prior question: define vitriol, explain how bad it is, and let me know how vitriol on tv in the 1950 when only 3 channels existed, none of which broadcasted a full 24 hours a day, relates in degree to vitriol on tv when there are well over 100 channels, as well as many other things to distract us such as Netflix, dvds, internet, etc, etc, etc…

This of course doesn’t stop Mr. Krugman, because when you seek only to confirm previously held beliefs, rational thought is a nuisance.  But we still don’t have his real point, so let’s continue. 

With only conjecture swirling around improvable assertions, Mr. Krugman and our logic impaired Sheriff still firmly believe that this situation is very, very bad.  And they know not only that, but also the main perpetrators. 

They know who is perpetrating evil on us right now through vitriol and hate filled rallies.  Through their exhaustive research and understanding of humans and logic, the purveyors of evil just happen to be the Sheriff’s & Mr. Krguman’s political opponents (article cont’d):

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: It’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right.

His proof?  Nothing, though not surprising at this point, as once again his assertions are not provable in any objective sense.

But he continues, ad nauseum, with all kinds of statements about how the left has caustic figures, but the right is the only party using the language of armed resistance.  He names names of those on the radio and TV, yet never actually attributes any direct quote to anyone named using any of this evil language (except one Republican politician, but fails to mention politicians on his side saying similar things).

& note here too that trying to objectively evaluate which side of the isle uses more pernicious language has the same set of problems as deciding whether yesteryear was better or worse than today.  It’s a completely subjective question, with completely subjective variables, each of which will be weighted in a completely subjective manner.  Not to mention the problems inherent when defining sides:  like whether a Democrat from Texas is a true liberal or a Republican from Vermont is a true conservative.

Not to mention any context within which to place such pernicious language.  Like, is it ok to use language of violence and revolution when trying to free the slaves?  Trying to fight for women’s suffrage?  How about when trying to fight against censorship?

But for Mr. Krugman, all these complexities and nuances are no challenge at all.  With his SuperMan like mental abilities, all logical concerns can be leaped in a single bound.  You see, he knows this is the truth because he can sense it.  & really, if you take Mr. Krugman at his word, his conjectures which he morphs into his assertions, this whole thing works out really well for him. 

Maybe he didn’t notice this at first, but amazingly enough, his narrative all fits perfectly for his side.  Must be comfortable position to know that the most malignant evil vitriol is over there, with those other people, all while your side might be overly caustic, sometimes, but certainly not evil.

As Dana Carvey playing the Church Lady used to sneeringly say, “How convenient….”

"How con-VEEN-ient!"

Gutcheck:  If you ever find yourself in a position where  you strongly believe that the people and groups with whom you disagree are doing everything wrong and your side is doing everything rights, you are probably too invested to objectively evaluate that situation and in all likelihood, wrong.

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 greatly from other professions?

Well, as one may or may not expect, actual suicide rates by profession are hard to come by, so let’s start with standard suicide rates versus homicide/assault rates in the general population (I’ll use 2006 stats as they coincide with other stats later).  Easily enough to get from the CDC right on the internet (here).

In it, you’ll find that in 2006, per 100,000 people, on average 11.1 people committed suicide, while 6.2 died of homicide/assault.   This means on average, the normal individual, whether computer programmer, teacher, or doctor, is about twice as likely (1.8 times) to die of suicide as they are to die of homicide.

Now of course “killed in the line of duty” likely includes things other than homicide/assault, such as high speed car collisions, this isn’t exactly equatable, but gives us a starting point.

We can go further and utilize the total number of police officers (683,396 full time officers – in 2006 here), the incidents of likely death per cause (CDC stats).  We can then argue that even if police officers have twice the likelihood of the normal population to commit suicide, IE 22.2 out of 100,000, then a total of ~152 police officers committed suicide in 2006.  Or approximately .0002 % of all officers, which is used as proof about “many” of them being “emotionally unstable”.

By the same token, if police officers are say more than twice as likely to die in an accident as the general population then a full 562 officers lost their life to accidents in 2006.  If they are only as likely as the normal population, then still 281 died in accidents – almost… shocking, I know, but almost TWICE as many as died by suicide.  Those reckless bastards!

But why stop there, when Google is your friend.  While death statistics by profession are indeed difficult to come by, studies have been made which show (here):

Law enforcement suicide rates were computed and compared to suicide rates in the general population. The best estimate of suicide in the law enforcement profession is 18.1 per 100,000. This figure is 52% greater than that of the general population but 26% lower than that of the appropriate comparison group (white males between the ages of 25 and 55). …

Or how about research from the American Journal of Psychology? (here)

Police officers end their lives more often than those in other professions, right? Or is it dentists? Or psychologists?…

But experts on suicide say that statistics on its relation to occupation are not clear. There is no national data set on occupation and suicide. Local studies indicate elevated rates in different occupations, but the data usually “turn out to be frail,” says prominent suicide researcher David Clark, PhD.

And in fact, points out Ronald Maris, PhD, director of the Center for the Study of Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior at the University of South Carolina, “Occupation is not a major predictor of suicide and it does not explain much about why the person commits suicide.”….

All of which shows us a brilliant display of the human tendency towards confirmation bias; which is simply stated our ability to weight any data which confirms preheld beliefs in very high esteem, while seeing all information which refutes our preconceptions as miscellaneous and easily dismissed (even when the evidence against our beliefs is much stronger than evidence supporting them).

PS:  If you automatically thought, “that’s not me” – then without question it’s you.

Hat Tip to RCTLFY for the link

The movie’s specific goal (here):

Amidst the strong and polarized opinions within the global warming debate, Cool It follows Lomborg on his mission to bring the smartest solutions to climate change, environmental pollution, and other major problems in the world.

& Considering the only other major films such as “Inconvenient Truth” are nothing more than fear inducing propaganda, Mr. Lomborg’s rational style and willingness to deal with the reality should make for a good film.

DA Posts on Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus here & here