Detailed Abstractions

Zimbabwe: Agree with us or we’ll steal your capital investments (here)

Wired reports on Darpa – that agency which built the internet, now wants a new mathematical language to describe everything (here):

The very first step? Create a unified mathematical language for everything the military sees or hears.

The armed forces are overwhelmed by all the data its various sensors are sniffing out. They want a single data stream that combines drone video feeds, cell phone intercepts, and targeting radar. Darpa’s solution, found in the brand-new Mathematics of Sensing, Exploitation, and Execution program is to design an algorithm that teaches the sensors how to interpret the world — how to think, how to learn and what data, accordingly to collect.

The Economist debates: This house believes that restricting the growth of cities will improve quality of life (here).  An interesting topic, with the debate revolving around whether size is a problem and if so, forcing a certain size or giving individuals freedom to choose.  Research, not (yet at least) discussed,  has been attempted in the past to find the perfect size for a city; meaning how large does a city get before standard city services such as garbage collection or policing become less effective with the addition or each new citizen.

Either way, I’m still for free choice.

SCOTUS Blog on an upcoming Supreme Court arguments about corporate “person hood” (here):

At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument on a government appeal arguing that business corporations do not have a right of of “personal privacy” that shields from compelled public disclosure the records they turn over to federal agencies.

From Stratfor, especially needed in light of gun control regulation based upon a single incident, Separating Terror from Terrorism. The piece concludes with this:

Recognizing that terrorist attacks, like car crashes and cancer and natural disasters, are a part of the human condition permits individuals and families to practice situational awareness and take prudent measures to prepare for such contingencies without becoming vicarious victims. This separation will help deny the practitioners of terrorism and terror the ability to magnify their reach and power.

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…)

There’s an interesting research paper on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by the Journal of Judgement and Decision Making (whole thing here):

The paper extends research on fixed-pie perceptions by suggesting that disputants may prefer proposals that are perceived to be equally attractive to both parties (i.e., balanced) rather than one-sided, because balanced agreements are seen as more likely to be successfully implemented. We test our predictions using data on Israeli support for the Geneva Accords, an agreement for a two state solution negotiated by unofficial delegations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 2003. The results demonstrate that Israelis are more likely to support agreements that are seen favorably by other Israelis, but — contrary to fixed-pie predictions — Israeli support for the accords does not diminish simply because a majority of Palestinians favors (rather than opposes) the accords. We show that implementation concerns create a demand among Israelis for balance in the degree to which each side favors (or opposes) the agreement. The effect of balance is noteworthy in that it creates considerable support for proposals even when a majority of Israelis and Palestinians OPPOSE the deal.

Or restated, it seems our sense of justice prefers balanced deals over seemingly one-sided deals, even if the balanced deal is opposed by the majorities of both interest groups.  Seems intuitive.

• I think there is still a health care debate even though the bully pulpit isn’t wanting to increase attention to this, but writer Michael F. Cannon from the Cato Institute diligently continues to shed light on the issue.  As one of the best writers on the subject I recommend everything he has written or papers he has published on the subject.  For now, he has a three part series worth the time for anyone interested in learning more: Questions for Thoughtful Obama Care Supporters (Part I, Part II, Part III)

• It might not matter, the health care bill hated by all might be pushed through with various legal and procedural maneuvering.  here via Cato

• Interesting medical research showing correlation: As girth grows, risk of sudden cardiac death shrinks.  I question their use of BMI to identify normal/underweight as as 6’4” person can weight as little as 160 and still be normal (chart), but hopefully it will help them understand that stats are useful tools, but for things such as medicine…. due to the unique nature of us all, the future is individually built therapies, not government programs to change the BMI of an entire nation.

• John Stossel writing Reform Does Not Mean More Rules in response to Senator Chris Dodd’s proposed overhaul of financial regulation:

The New York Times headline says Dodd’s Bill “Adds Layers of Oversight”.

Just what we need: 1,336 pages of additional “layers.”  Senator Dodd is as ignorant as he is arrogant.

• Lending credence to Mr. Stossel’s position, How the Fed slept through Lehman via Rueters

• Cornell MBA student says bet against Warren Buffett (here via WSJ).  Not saying I agree, but I do agree with WSJ – always nice to see someone attempting to break conventional wisdom.

• Here come’s the CFPA…. known as the Consumer Fraud Protection Act, which is shaping up to confirm my theory on the titling of bills.  Meaning it will not protect anyone, including consumers, from anything, including fraud; which I thought was already against the law….  More @ Reason by Tim Cavanaugh here.

• More psychology study showing evidence that concealment or perceived anonymity can lead to more unethical behavior.  via Time here

• Via Calculated Risk, Home Builders $2.3 Billion “Gift” from Taxpayers, demonstrating our government’s utter indifference to the economic realities associated with propping up businesses which should naturally contract during a correction.

• Cato on the government’s continued refusal of basic facts showing government employees earning more on average than their civilian counterparts (here)

• Obama administration to reverse decision on trying terrorist mastermind in NY & instead opt for a military tribunal – via WSJ here

• For light reading, America’s Craziest Cities @ The Daily Beast where they rank cities based upon stress, drinking, eccentricity, and number of psychiatrists.

• Proving once again that fascism isn’t just a word, Italy (here via Economist) gave three Google executives six-month suspended sentences for “allowing a clip of an autistic boy being bullied to be viewed on Google Video, which the judge said broke Italy’s privacy laws. “

Just to clarify, I’m not pro-autistic-bullying and would think a civil trial isn’t out of the question, but jail?

• Fannie Mae needs more cash, but just 15 billion… from the taxpayer of course (here via RTTN News).   Seems like people might not agree with this (here via WSJ):

The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday….

Probably why the decision was made over the holidays.

• Crazy fundamentalists blame the Golden Girls for homosexuality (here via ChristWire).

• Democrats & President Obama, all firmly against the Patriot Act after signing it, vote to  prevent all measures from lapsing (here via Wired) for the next full year.

• Harvard intellectual tells us why allowing corporations to spend money on politics is bad (here):

…To understand why, it is important to focus on the individuals who make decisions for companies. When corporations decide which politicians to support, what kind of messages to send, and which political outcomes to seek, their general investors are not consulted. Rather, such decisions are likely to reflect the preferences and objectives of the insiders who manage the companies, ostensibly on shareholders’ behalf….

A little interlude for a thought experiment.  Change which politicians to support and which political outcomes to seek to which charities to support and which cultural outcomes to seek.  Or try reality and change it to, which lobbyists to support and which regulatory outcomes to seek.  But of course, he defines the problem for us:

…And politicians that benefit from corporate spending and access to corporate resources will have an interest in serving the insiders’ preferences and objectives….

Which presupposes politicians already don’t have this interest, presumes it will get much worse, and last, but not least; for spending to have any affect at all, voters have to be swayed to vote against their interests.

It seems the default assumption of every perceived risk these days is simply this:  there can never be too many laws when trying to protect people from themselves.

• CalTech researchers say the brain is wired for equality (here):

…Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person’s head, rather than the poor person’s….

Oddly enough, the Freakanomics blog posted this with little comment (here) proving environmental factors such as working for the NY Times can affect even innovative economists.  I’ll admit there might be more, but from what they’ve shown, the results do not necessarily say anything about equality at all.  A perfectly reasonable answer is one of need: a rich person doesn’t need a windfall as much as a poor person.

CalTech’s reasoning:

…It’s long been known that we humans don’t like inequality, especially when it comes to money. Tell two people working the same job that their salaries are different, and there’s going to be trouble…

Conflating the thinking that comes with social status and worth when compared to colleagues and equality of results.  It could be in a lot of cases, the person making less might think they work harder and deserve more, not equal.

• & finally, via the Hill.  Did Nanci Pelosi really say that

…”They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”…