February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

-John Maynard Keynes

August 21, 2007

Sunk Costs and Iraq

It always pains me to see an author follow a well constructed argument with a poor conclusion. Bruce Wydick did exactly that in a recent editorial that tackled the question of what our plan should be in Iraq.

He starts out well – as I said, my complaint is only with the conclusion. His opening paragraph should apply equally to the Left or the Right:

Our inability to think clearly about sunk costs is impeding our ability to make clear decisions about our involvement in Iraq. Failing to correctly identify sunk costs (those that are irretrievable), and deal with them properly, biases our decision-making in favor of prolonging the war.

Wydick addresses how those in favor of extending the war (his words) fail to properly discount sunk costs. The problem with this is that I never hear anybody making the argument Wydick dissects – that failure to extend the war would “dishonor the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice”. I’m pretty sure this argument is made of straw. Given that Wydick never provides any other arguments for dissection, the implication is that those in favor of extending the war are the ones not thinking rationally – like a kid pumping ever more quarters into an arcade. By not dissecting any opposing views, he implicitly endorses their reasoning. He never actually says that he supports an immediate withdrawal, but that certainly comes across as the favored conclusion.

That’s a shame, because Wydick is absolutely correct in later saying that

The correct way to think about whether or not to proceed is to weigh the costs and benefits from pressing on from this point forward.

The lives lost will not come back to us, whether we extend the war for several years or withdraw today. The 3600 dead American soldiers (and counting) are sunk costs – emotionally powerful ones, but irretrievable nonetheless. The better part of a trillion dollars Wydick references is also gone. It’s an extremely strained argument to suggest that the money be thought of as an investment that will eventually have positive financial returns – I hope nobody would seriously suggest that. Thus, this money and these sacrificed lives are just as inappropriate arguments for withdrawal as they are for extension. They have nothing to do with the costs and benefits from pressing on from this point forward. I don’t believe Wydick’s article properly conveyed that. The real wisdom in this piece would be found by letting the final sentences stand alone:

The correct way to think about whether or not to proceed is to weigh the costs and benefits from pressing on from this point forward. What value do we place on victory? What are the chances that we will prevail if we do press on? And what will be the costs of pressing on in terms of lives and resources? Our country may be divided on this issue, but we owe it to those who may yet be called to make the ultimate sacrifice to properly count our costs.

The discussion has to start there. Nothing else is rational.

Of course, I don't expect that to get us very far, because the country is not just divided on this issue, but heavily divided. Still, Wydick could have made an excellent point about rational decision making if he had approached the editorial without having his conclusions about this example already in hand.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

August 19, 2007

D'oh! Homer Jumps the Shark

I would say that it’s been about three years now since the venerable Simpson's jumped the shark. Having placed their heavy-handed, didactic agenda forwarding ahead of humor, the show has devolved into a GI Joe cartoon lacking only the ending’s lesson recap (Because knowing is half the battle!). The Simpson's would be only slightly funnier if they simply flashed "Republicans are the Debil" and "Vote Democrat" to a soundtrack of looping Homer "D'oh's." At least then my intelligence wouldn't be insulted at the thought of 27-year old latte-sipping writers freshly graduated from NYU thinking they're pulling a fast one on me by subliminally seducing me with their puerile Marxist worldview.

To the current Twenty-something generation of rotational Simpson's writers, you have the legacy of doing to The Simpson's the same thing that Lorne Michaels eventually did to Saturday Night Live. The episode of The Simpson's where they wrote in a cartoon figure of Peter Griffin and labeled him Plagiarismo is especially ironic, since The Simpson's pathetic attempt at infusing Family Guy's left-driven humor into the previously apolitical Simpson's was a last-gasp, desperate attempt to remain topical and cutting-edge. Or so they thought.

In copying the left-leaning Family Guy, the "next gen" of Simpson's writers have failed at the most important aspect of a situational comedy: Family Guy is funny.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 18, 2007

The Padilla Jury

Setting aside *everything* about the Jose Padilla case that I might have been interested in discussing up to three minutes ago, I have a question about how reasonable this assessment is:

Jurors, whose names were kept secret, deliberated for about 11 hours after three months of trial in Miami and declined to publicly discuss their verdict….

In a color-coordinated display of their patriotism, the jurors wore red, white and blue clothing to court before breaking for a July 4th recess.
Eleven hours of deliberation after a huge amount of evidence presented during a trial that long is pretty unusual, and then there is that “patriotic” clothing bit. They may think they were serving American values, but let’s see what the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has to say.

Now, am I taking that “patriotic” clothing bit as more snarky and even moonbatty than I should? I mean, it’s the July 4th recess for goodness sake. If Padilla had been exonerated, would the government be justified in complaining about that “patriotic” clothing bit? What would Mona’s take on that be? (Please, no personal attacks on Mona – she’s been the target of that on several sites and I have found it neither edifying nor entertaining. I am okay with generalizations of left-libertarians in this situation if they help to answer the question, i.e. if it goes beyond ad hominem attacks, but this absolutely will not turn into a “bash Mona” situation.)

Three questions of a more scholarly and legal nature are posed by commenter anodyne, and I am also very interested in the answers.

1.Could/Would this fact be used to support a legal claim that the jury was not impartial or fair in the Padilla case?

2. IF this fact were to be used to claim a lack of impartiality or fairness, what legal concepts, principles or precedents would be proffered to advance the claim?

3. Is there some other claim that would be grounds for an appeal that the stipulated fact would be used to support and what legal concepts, principles or precedents would be proffered to advance this claim?

Thank you in advance.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

The Value of the Slippery Slope Argument (updated)

Allow me to highlight a few comments from a thread at Hit and Run:

Dan T : [I]t's the slippery slope fallacy.

Chicago Tom: It's not a fallacy if it actually happens Dan… where exactly is the fallacy?

Dan T : It's a fallacy because taking one step in a certain direction does not necessarily mean that you'll take another. That's not to say that you definitely won't take another, but you can't make that assumption.

Billy Beck: Ah. I get it. It's a fallacy because the logic of the first step is completely arbitrary and not interested in the integrity of the next step. In other words: it's all just made up as it goes along, with disclaimers along the way; "What? I'm not doin' nothin'!"
Very illuminating.

Thank you, Billy Beck, for expressing clearly a concept that I have tried to convey to various people at various times in the past. The problem with the slippery slope argument is only that it is sometimes used improperly. The whole point of the argument is that if there are not differences in principle between positions A, B, C, etc., then the differences in degree are completely arbitrary. This is reductio ad absurdum, essentially. It’s simply not a fallacious argument when used properly.

People often think it’s a fallacy either because it is used when it ought not to be – specifically, when there are differences in principle between A, B, and C (for example, “If you think it’s okay to kill a snake, then you would kill dogs or humans – it’s a slippery slope!”) - or because they subjectively and arbitrarily value B more than A or C (for example, “I’m not trying to ban smoking in your home, just in your car… for the children!”).

When the first step is completely arbitrary, and you can’t look that in the face, all you have left is to disavow the rules of logic. And at that point, why the hell not?

Update 8/21 As Scott Stein points out in the comments, he wrote about this back in January. When I was reading the Hit and Run comments, I had the nagging suspicion that I had recent had a discussion with somebody about this exact topic, but I couldn't pin it down. Re-reading Stein's article, I realize that his article is what I was thinking of. Thanks for the note, Scott!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

August 15, 2007

Flavors of Libertarianism

Matthew Rothschild explaining what it means to be progressive:

I believe in government as having a necessary role, both to protect people and also to buffer people from the forces, the cruel forces of the market—in this day and age, the cruel forces of huge corporations.

Rothschild makes some points that libertarians should be able to agree with, but he does it with a very different overall aim – one that would turn many libertarian stomachs. Do left-libertarians and right-libertarians recognize one another as libertarians? Should they?

Could we use a list of one’s favorite Amendments as a libertarian litmus test? Rothschild’s list appears on the first page of this transcript. Compare it with your own. What are the Amendments you wish more Americans (and maybe the government) would revere?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Same as it Ever Was

- A profoundly confusing paragraph on populism is held up to the light and examined by guest blogger Grim at Villainous Company. As noted in the comments section, the paragraph in question reads a bit like the old Warner Brothers cartoon about rabbit season / duck season.

For fun, you might try reading the original article in The Nation to see if you can spot the error in logic on your own. Hint: It comes before this most excellent criticism of the Democratic presidential candidates, which was beside Grim’s point and which he didn’t bother getting into;

[Y]ou cannot run on "populist" politics and count on robber barons to finance your campaigns. It might fool people for a season or two, but when nothing changes, they will punish the culprits.

Amid all of the editorials and articles speculating on whether the American political scene is veering left, this will probably be the most prophetic. And considering how much baggage and scandal is hanging on the major Democratic politicians, I don’t see that party managing power for more than a couple of years before fumbling control of Congress back to the Republicans, who still may not be in a position to hang onto it.

Until a strong and visionary movement takes control of one of these two parties again, voters will continue to be tired of whichever defectives are in running things at the moment, and will wish for the other just for the change. Back and forth. Rabbit season! Duck season!

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Daft about the Draft

- Deputy national security adviser Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute should have been told to avoid using the word “draft” in any manner. It was bad enough when Charles Rangel (a Democrat) was calling for the draft. But for a Bush appointee to even mention it was stupid, stupid, stupid.

Now, not every flag officer I’ve ever met was a genius, but most are pretty smart and you can’t get to that rank without a sense of political nuance. So what the hell was Lute thinking? And will it serve as an opportunity for every presidential candidate to say, "I oppose the draft"?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Drugs versus Medicines

- Radley Balko on the FDA’s “War on Drugs” mentality:

If the government can stop you from putting drugs in your body that make you high, it's a short leap to say that the government can let you die while waiting for drugs that could save your life, albeit still in the name of "protecting" you.

Sums it up nicely - it's a point that needs more air time. I wonder how many people who support the War on Drugs are able to make that connection.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 14, 2007

Oh, Canada!

For those interested in my recent trip, I’ve got a long post full of photos below the fold.

My wife and I dropped our two kids off with my parents on Sunday the 5th after a long drive from Richmond to Buffalo. I am always thankful when family can help with some “getting away together” time – probably the biggest drawback to living in Virginia is that neither of us has close family living within a 5 hour drive, and we rarely have an opportunity to take advantage of the extended family like this. It's been years since the wife and I have had days at a time to spend with just each other.

On Monday, the two of us headed to Darien Lake. That’s right, the first place we went without the kids was New York State’s largest theme park. Someday they will find out about this and hate us for it, but it was just as well, since they are too short to ride the good rides. I’ll make up for it when they get a little taller. I left the camera in the van, so we don’t have any photos of the park, but I probably would have lost the camera on one of the roller coasters anyway.

For the record, we did ride all of the coasters, including three times on the Ride of Steel. (My understanding is that it was called “Superman” during the period of time that the park was owned by Six Flags, but the park no longer has the rights to that name.) The Ride of Steel may be the best roller coaster I’ve ever been on – which is not to say I enjoyed it the first time, mind you. I shouldn’t have ridden it that soon after lunch.

We spent the night in nearby Batavia, NY, which seems like a nice little town. Being in New York State, it’s probably depressed and struggling to recapture its prime, but as I said it seems nice. I’ve driven past it dozens of times, but I don’t think I’ve ever actually been in the town before. I have to take a moment here to plug Main Street Coffee, where we had breakfast on Tuesday. The place had good food and great prices – I really appreciate the simple act of not adding tax to the posted price. It says $3.00, you give the guy $3.00 and no extra change, bang, you’re done. Of course, they pay tax on the transaction, so that cost is passed on to me, so it’s not like I’m getting away with something – I know that. But I like it because I don’t have to monkey around with change. I wish more places would simplify things like that. The young guy behind the counter was the owner, and he had a casual familiarity with the regulars that always sets apart neighborhood places from the strip mall Starbucks. It was nice to watch. This place is open pretty late, they host live music (you can just tell, but we asked to be sure), and they’ve got work by local artists on the wall. I wish it was a few hours closer to anyplace I’m likely to be visiting in the next year. I recommend you check it out if you are ever in the area.

After breakfast we drove to Toronto. There is no way to describe the joy I felt as we crossed the Peace Bridge into Canada. Due to their nationalized health care, I knew that it was impossible to become sick or injured during our visit. The peace of mind this generates is incredible. I think my hair became less gray right there on the QEW.

We arrived in Toronto with no reservations, and actually no specific plans. We just wanted to experience the city again, having enjoyed it so much a decade ago. We decided to spend a couple of nights at the Holiday Inn Midtown, which is in a great part of the city. We found everything we wanted was within walking distance, which is how it ought to be in any good city. The only time we drove was to the zoo. That’s right, we had a few days without our children and we went to an amusement park and the zoo. There is nothing wrong with that. Right?

We got a small taste of Toronto's night life, but not a lot. I'd love to spend more time there. My only regret is that I kept leaving the camera in the hotel room, so there’s no pics to share.

Oh, and while most of the USA was experiencing their hottest week of the year, our days were in the 80s (Fahrenheit, silly) and there was a nice breeze off of Lake Ontario. Neener neener.

We probably should have gone to the CN Tower and the Hockey Hall of Fame, but I guess I've just got reasons to go back again someday.

On Thursday we left Toronto for Niagara Falls. It rained the whole way. We spent a few hours on the Canadian side, and finally took a few photos. You can see the overcast skies, but no matter what the weather The Falls themselves are always magnificent and beautiful. It’s fantastic to get right up close to the edge and just watch the water. In this pic from the brink, you can see the American falls off in the distance. This is a pretty good view of the cliffs of Goat Island (the island that separates the American Falls from the Horseshoe Falls), which is only accessible from the American side.

Through the mist you can see the restaurant where we would eat later that evening – called “Top of the Falls”. By the way, that place has a fantastic view and very friendly staff, but the service was inexplicably slow at every stage.

It’s not that I wouldn’t recommend eating there. It’s that you might not want to have an engagement waiting afterwards.

There are a couple of touristy things we probably should have done, but didn’t. These include the Cave of the Winds and Maid of the Mist tours. Maybe even the Helicopter Tours.

We watched the three Maid boats cycle through, each in turn slowly pushing itself as far into the Horseshoe until eventually at a standstill, fighting the current but not going anywhere for a few minutes of tourist glory, before turning in the current and racing back downstream to the loading docks. I went on the Maid of the Mist once about 25 years ago, and I’ve never been in the Cave of the Winds. Maybe the next time we’re up there we will take the kids. I bet they’d love it.

So anyway, after a while we crossed the Rainbow Bridge back to the States, flecks of gray returning to my hair, and found our hotel. That place is a story all its own – I’ll have to add it later.

Friday morning we packed up, checked out, and met up with my parents and my kids. We walked the American side, including out to Goat Island. Below are several photos that I thought turned out well.

Here you can see part of the Niagara Falls, Ontario skyline. Note how much mist is blow up as the winds whip up from the long gorge and hit the falling water – there is a part of the Canadian side where it is perpetually raining because of this.

You might be surprised how shallow the water is as it goes over. Or you might not be, I suppose. Here you can see that in the middle of the American Falls there is an area where it’s so shallow that you could realistically stand there without any danger of being swept over. Good luck getting out to it.

There is a small part of the American Falls that is separated from the main section. It’s called the Bridal Veil Falls.

The bridge across the Bridal Veil Falls was a favorite part of the trip for my son, probably because it was so very close to the brink. That's the dropoff about 30 feet behind him in the pic below.

The view from the top of the Bridal Veil Falls is one of the best. Those folks below are on the Cave of the Winds tour.

All in all, a great vacation for our family. Now we’re back in Virginia and my wife is back to work. I’ve got two more weeks before I go back, so I’m trying to wrap up some of the summer projects around the house – painting, repairing, and… um… blogging.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 5, 2007

Slowly I Turned...

I will be out of town for about a week, and it's not likely I will be checking in here or even on email. My wife and I are leaving the kids with my parents and bolting for some adult alone time in Ontario - Toronto and the Niagara region. I don't think we'll have trouble staying occupied, but I'm bringing a couple of books along in case of downtime Specifically, I'll be bringing the latest from my favorite contemporary science fiction author (guesses?) and then re-reading Mean Martin Manning, which I heartily recommend to all of you.

We'll probably be spending at least two nights at the Falls. I'm curious to see how much the Canadian side has changed since I was last there.

And much to my wife's dismay, I confess I will have difficulty not making references to the clip here:

So anyway, I'll see you when I get back.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

August 3, 2007

Who Owns the Treasures of the Sea?

An interesting piece in The Economist regarding the rights of deep-sea treasure hunters…

[Odyssey Marine Exploration]’s business is based on the notion that the ocean floor is littered with valuable old stuff that, thanks to new deep-sea technology, can now be recovered…

Step forward the lawyers for Spain... “The owners of sunken ships have rights. Spain has not abandoned its sunken property and it does not permit unauthorised salvage.” If Odyssey is forced to hand over a large part of its Black Swan haul a cloud will fall over all commercial treasure-hunting. Who, after all, wants to invest large amounts of money looking for something only to see a government then claim full ownership?

My initial reaction is to be torn. On the one hand, the claims of Spain seem plainly to be lame. But as usual, I want to know exactly where the line is drawn.

If the crew has to abandon ship, but it doesn’t sink, the owners don't automatically give up legal rights to the ship or the cargo. To just take it because it is in international waters would be piracy. Even if the ship is left bobbing and unmanned for days, weeks, years – at what point would it not be piracy just to take it?

Wulf: So you are going to take the ship and its cargo?

Phaedrus: Yeah.

Wulf: That's not yours?

Phaedrus: Well it becomes ours.

Wulf: How is that not stealing?

And I also don’t see how the morality or legality of the situation suddenly changes when the ship goes under water. Now I’m no expert on international salvage law, and I’ve only ever perused the Law of the Sea Treaty. I’m not sure it would apply. But I’m hoping somebody reading this knows a thing or two about how this all works, and could try to explain it.

I agree with the conclusions laid out in the Economist article:

If private treasure-hunters do not seek out wrecks, nobody else will. Governments rarely take any initiative. One alternative may be to adopt a British model. The British government has just signed a deal with Odyssey to recover treasure, and then to split the proceeds, from HMS Sussex, which went down off Gibraltar in 1693, carrying a million pounds in coins. The deal also provides archaeological guarantees…

Until treasure-hunters and governments start working together, every find is liable to be followed by complex legal wrangling, in which the only certain winners will be the lawyers.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

August 2, 2007

Wulf’s Running Update

I’ve long enjoyed running, and this past spring I started training for what will be my first ever marathon – the 2007 SunTrust Richmond Marathon coming up in November. I’ve run a couple of 10k races in the last few months (see here for the first one), and on August 25th I will run in the inaugural Patrick Henry Half Marathon. I’ve already run the full course once in preparation for that one. It’s beautiful.

Overall I’d say the training is going very well. I have been using two internet resources to help. MapMyRun.com has been great for mapping out my runs. I’ve got a couple of nice 3-6 mile runs mapped out for my neighborhood, plus a great course in Richmond that is 14 miles long and passes a couple of running loops, so it’s easy to tack on a few more miles if you like. It’s also nice for those rare occasions when I go out of town, because I can quickly look up runs that other users have saved. [Reminder to self… look up runs for Toronto before leaving!]

The one complaint I have about MapMyRun is the Training Log, which frankly isn’t as good as the one at Runner’s World… which is why I use the Training Log at the Runner’s World website instead. No big deal. Besides, the forums at Runner’s World have a lot of good info – thanks Jay for tipping me off to that one. Injuries, sneakers, sports nutrition, training advice, they’re talking about it. Between that and the Training Log graphs and calendars, I’m in running geek heaven at the Runner’s World website.

It’s all I can do to tear myself away from the computer and actually run. Especially during hot, humid July and August in Richmond, VA. Wish me luck in the morning.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

August 1, 2007

Stick a Fork in Him… (updated)

He’s done. In saying that he would be willing to send US troops* into Pakistan to attack al-Qaeda - regardless of how the Pakistani government feels about it – Barak Obama has again exposed his inexperience and naiveté. He might be an extremely charismatic guy, and he might even make a great president… some day. But there’s no possible way it will happen this cycle. The pack has, for the time being, left Hillary Clinton alone in the fore.

I’m curious to know how Senator Obama would have reacted if President Bush had said,

Let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again… If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

I’m a little curious to know how that would have gone over with those who are today defending Obama’s comments. By which I mean, I know exactly how that would have gone over with them, and I’m being a snarky prick about it.

It’s not even a matter of whether it would be right for US troops to invade Pakistan in order to carry out an ~~act of vengeance~~ arrest of Osama bin Laden. It’s a matter of whether Americans are going to be willing to vote for somebody who is making that kind of threat. Specifically, Americans who vote in Democratic primaries. I just can’t see that. Now, I never figured Barak Obama to be experienced enough to pull off the nomination, but as of today I’ll officially write him off as having any possibility this election cycle. No chance at all.

* for those who defend Obama by saying that he never mentioned sending in "troops" and never said the word "invade", get real. Would you accept such semantics from the current administration if Bush ordered an airstrike on a sovereign nation - an ally, mind you? And if the Pakistanis hanged Bush in effigy and burnt American flags in the streets, would you back him up? Or would you say he arrogantly blundered his way into more trouble and spawned a new generation of anti-American terrorists? Answer me if you like, I know exactly how that would have gone over with you, and I’m being a snarky prick about it.

Update 8/2 at 10:50:
Hillary Clinton last night on American Urban Radio News Network:

I’ve long believed that we needed tougher, smarter action against terrorists by deploying more troops to Afghanistan, and if we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America… But clearly we have to be prepared — as my husband was when he fired on training camps and as we must be with special operations, with using technology like the Predator [unmanned aerial vehicle] — to be constantly on the hunt for bin Laden and the other al Qaeda leadership,

It’s being reported as Senator Clinton agreeing with Senator Obama, though I note she made a more ~~political~~ polished comment and specifically noted that the action could be done without even a single US aviator crossing into Pakistan. This isn’t the going-for-the-throat Hillary Clinton we thought we knew, because she certainly could have taken this opportunity to again emphasize Obama’s relative inexperience and naivete. I still think his comment will help keep him in a holding pattern well past the Democratic primaries. Edwards remains the most viable Democratic candidate for the extreme anti-war crowd, and I don’t think Obama has a chance to take the moderates from Clinton. He's done.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)