Lerxst at Kautilyan has an interesting hypothesis
"Reading this article in Newsday by Knut Royce on Chalabi's ties to Iran, suddenly made me realize that it might have been Iran, which was behind a previous scheme to use forged documents concerning Iraq's nuclear ambitions, that might have been the ultimate source behind the Niger forgery."
However I am not convinced because the yellowcake dossier was too clumsy a fogery to be an official Iranian product. It was very obvious that the document was a forgery.
As Seymour Hersh wrote in The
New Yorker on 31 March 2003, "One letter, dated
October 10, 2000 was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a [Nigerien] Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, who had been out of office since 1989."
I guessed that probably took the CIA about fifteen minutes to determine that the letter was a forgery using the weekly "Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments" recent issues of which they post on their web page.
in contrast the known Iranian forgeries were detected because " Some technical descriptions used terms that would only be used by an Iranian." Which is so much subtler that only the fact that Iraq had no bomb program makes me confident that the docutments were a forgery.
The clumsiness of the forgery supports the crook in the Nigerien embassy theory, since such a crook might want a document good enough to sell to "Panorama" but not good enough to cause a war. It would also fit the closely related crooked Italian spies hypothesis. Finally it fits with the CIA water cooler gossip reported by Hersh that the dossier was the product of disgruntled retired CIA analysts who wanted to see how far the obvious forgery would go up the Feith stove pipe but then were afraid to come clean when it went all the way to the State of the Union Address.
Iranian intelligence would have done a better job. They may be neomedieval theocrats but they are not total incompetents.
Monday, May 24, 2004
Saturday, May 22, 2004
It's tough but I will accept Mark Kleiman's challenge.
"Does anyone have an argument in favor of continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while oil prices are at all-time highs an the futures markets are predicting lower prices a year from now?"
On April 29 2003 I claimed that it is possible to find a justification for any policy, so I better put my mouth where my mouth is.
I would say that when someone makes a forward looking decision which makes no sense, the justification is probably a peso problem, that is, there is a low possibility of a very bad outcome if the agent doesn't make the silly choice.
In this case, it is pretty easy. The (I hope) low probability outcome is that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait goes as FUBAR as Iraq. Then there would be a major disruption of oil supplies and a major spike in prices.
If this is unlikely, it will have little effect on futures prices. A small chance of making a huge amount of money does not increase the price of an asset much. People who want a small chance of a huge amount of money can buy lottery tickets or bet on horses. Tjhe story goes that oil is sold on the futures market by oil exporters. If they go fubar, they are fubar in any casd so futures contracts they can't meet are nothing much. If they are exporting when K and or S.A. go fubar, the spike in earnings covers the liabilities.
For the US government however, the situation is different. A major disruption of oil production is a disaster which is less horrible the more full the SPR is. Thus even if everyone has rational expectations, it may be optimal for the US government to do something which is the opposite of what the marginal investor in futures markets is doing.
According to this story, it is rational for a huge oil importer to hedge against a huge increase in the price of oil even though it is rational for investors to bet on a decline.
I don't believe the story but I claim I can find an argument for any policy so I had to put up or shut up.
Please please don't ask me what was the logic of betting all our chips on Ahmed Chalabi.
"Does anyone have an argument in favor of continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while oil prices are at all-time highs an the futures markets are predicting lower prices a year from now?"
On April 29 2003 I claimed that it is possible to find a justification for any policy, so I better put my mouth where my mouth is.
I would say that when someone makes a forward looking decision which makes no sense, the justification is probably a peso problem, that is, there is a low possibility of a very bad outcome if the agent doesn't make the silly choice.
In this case, it is pretty easy. The (I hope) low probability outcome is that Saudi Arabia or Kuwait goes as FUBAR as Iraq. Then there would be a major disruption of oil supplies and a major spike in prices.
If this is unlikely, it will have little effect on futures prices. A small chance of making a huge amount of money does not increase the price of an asset much. People who want a small chance of a huge amount of money can buy lottery tickets or bet on horses. Tjhe story goes that oil is sold on the futures market by oil exporters. If they go fubar, they are fubar in any casd so futures contracts they can't meet are nothing much. If they are exporting when K and or S.A. go fubar, the spike in earnings covers the liabilities.
For the US government however, the situation is different. A major disruption of oil production is a disaster which is less horrible the more full the SPR is. Thus even if everyone has rational expectations, it may be optimal for the US government to do something which is the opposite of what the marginal investor in futures markets is doing.
According to this story, it is rational for a huge oil importer to hedge against a huge increase in the price of oil even though it is rational for investors to bet on a decline.
I don't believe the story but I claim I can find an argument for any policy so I had to put up or shut up.
Please please don't ask me what was the logic of betting all our chips on Ahmed Chalabi.
One of the nice things about having a low volume blog is that I get to know the
ISPs of regular visitors (OK that's the only nice thing). For example, someone who uses rr.com often views this blog, at least I assume it is one person.
Dr Mr or Ms rr.com why don't you send me an e-mail at rjw88@hotmail.com ? I am very flattered by your interest and would like to cyber meet you.
Also Wanadoo.fr and Bluewin.ch all is forgiven. If you happen to visit this blog as you used to do regularly, e-mail me.
ISPs of regular visitors (OK that's the only nice thing). For example, someone who uses rr.com often views this blog, at least I assume it is one person.
Dr Mr or Ms rr.com why don't you send me an e-mail at rjw88@hotmail.com ? I am very flattered by your interest and would like to cyber meet you.
Also Wanadoo.fr and Bluewin.ch all is forgiven. If you happen to visit this blog as you used to do regularly, e-mail me.
Cocktail parties and the Nature of Truth
Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias attempt the exegesis of Jim Hoagland (what a waste of brains).
Actually they consider the nature of reality.
Brad writes
"Matthew (and Atrios) are correct: the esoteric meaning of Hoagland's columns is often very different from the exoteric meaning--and it is reasonably clear to me that Hoagland believes in the esoteric meanings that are, as Matthew puts it, hidden under "this veneer of reasonableness."
But where does Matthew get off saying that the unreasonable esoteric meaning is what the column is "actually about"? 99 out of 100 readers don't get the unreasonable esoteric meaning; what they get is the reasonable exoteric meaning. And isn't the important article not the one that the writer writes, but he one that the reader reads?
I think Matthew Yglesias has mistaken the nature of reality."
Matthew concedes
"Perhaps Brad is correct. Still, a writer ought to say what he means."
But I think that Brad understates the manifold complexities of meaning.
Matthew and Brad agree that Hoagland's op eds are often covered in a veneer of reasonableness and that this hides an esoteric meaning which they, unlike 99% of readers can decode. Very roughly, they agree that Hoagland manages to sound sane (most of the time) while carrying water for Ahmed Chalabi. He does this by hiding his Chalabist sympathies under code words most of the time. I agree with both of them.
Does it matter what Hoagland has in mind if he is careful to hide it ? Brad says what matters is the Op Ed as read not as intended.
I think many things matter and one of them is Hoagland's reputation. He is a columnist at the Post and is not clearly a nutcase as Krauthhammer is. This means that his judgement influences people who know better. I think Hoagland can do damage at the dread cocktail parties where the world's fate is decided. There, I am sure, his views are not hidden. There the fact that he writes on the Post Op Ed page and is not widely denounced as a loony matters. There everyone grasps the esoteric meaning of op eds.
Maybe only 1 % of people know that Hoagland manages to pass as a reasonable person while shilling for Chalabi. However, some of them are (sadly) much more powerful than Brad or Matthew and are also cynical enough that it matters more to them that Hoagland passes as a reasonable person than that he is not really reasonable.
Also, aside from cocktail parties, there is the risk that events in the next few years will confirm Hoaglands esoteric predictions. Given his track record, this is unlikely but anything can happen. Then he would be able to decode his op eds and correctly claim that he told us so. He would be able to show that the hidden meanings are the true ones by bringing up things he said to friends more or less in private.
Allowing a pundit to have seperate esoteric and exoteric messages allows him to decide ex poste what he predicted. This is very dangerous.
Fortunately the whole debate is dated.
Events have caused Hoagland to drop his mask. He is a true Chalabite and is chosing Chalabi over Bush.
He refers to raid on INC headquarters and Chalabi's house without hiding behind any veneer at all
"In the chaos rapidly enveloping the occupation of Iraq, the scene can only encourage Baathist killers or others who would be willing to rid the occupation authority of this meddlesome Shiite politician. Torture by proxy is already an issue in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Murder by proxy now seems within the realm of the possible in U.S.-occupied Iraq."
The guy spies for Iran and steals everything which isn't nailed down and a police raid is clse to "murder by proxy" ?
My guess is that, after today, there will never be a risk that anyone will imagine that anyone else will mistake Hoagland for a resonable person.
Still, I think, Matthew Yglesias was right to be worried.
Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias attempt the exegesis of Jim Hoagland (what a waste of brains).
Actually they consider the nature of reality.
Brad writes
"Matthew (and Atrios) are correct: the esoteric meaning of Hoagland's columns is often very different from the exoteric meaning--and it is reasonably clear to me that Hoagland believes in the esoteric meanings that are, as Matthew puts it, hidden under "this veneer of reasonableness."
But where does Matthew get off saying that the unreasonable esoteric meaning is what the column is "actually about"? 99 out of 100 readers don't get the unreasonable esoteric meaning; what they get is the reasonable exoteric meaning. And isn't the important article not the one that the writer writes, but he one that the reader reads?
I think Matthew Yglesias has mistaken the nature of reality."
Matthew concedes
"Perhaps Brad is correct. Still, a writer ought to say what he means."
But I think that Brad understates the manifold complexities of meaning.
Matthew and Brad agree that Hoagland's op eds are often covered in a veneer of reasonableness and that this hides an esoteric meaning which they, unlike 99% of readers can decode. Very roughly, they agree that Hoagland manages to sound sane (most of the time) while carrying water for Ahmed Chalabi. He does this by hiding his Chalabist sympathies under code words most of the time. I agree with both of them.
Does it matter what Hoagland has in mind if he is careful to hide it ? Brad says what matters is the Op Ed as read not as intended.
I think many things matter and one of them is Hoagland's reputation. He is a columnist at the Post and is not clearly a nutcase as Krauthhammer is. This means that his judgement influences people who know better. I think Hoagland can do damage at the dread cocktail parties where the world's fate is decided. There, I am sure, his views are not hidden. There the fact that he writes on the Post Op Ed page and is not widely denounced as a loony matters. There everyone grasps the esoteric meaning of op eds.
Maybe only 1 % of people know that Hoagland manages to pass as a reasonable person while shilling for Chalabi. However, some of them are (sadly) much more powerful than Brad or Matthew and are also cynical enough that it matters more to them that Hoagland passes as a reasonable person than that he is not really reasonable.
Also, aside from cocktail parties, there is the risk that events in the next few years will confirm Hoaglands esoteric predictions. Given his track record, this is unlikely but anything can happen. Then he would be able to decode his op eds and correctly claim that he told us so. He would be able to show that the hidden meanings are the true ones by bringing up things he said to friends more or less in private.
Allowing a pundit to have seperate esoteric and exoteric messages allows him to decide ex poste what he predicted. This is very dangerous.
Fortunately the whole debate is dated.
Events have caused Hoagland to drop his mask. He is a true Chalabite and is chosing Chalabi over Bush.
He refers to raid on INC headquarters and Chalabi's house without hiding behind any veneer at all
"In the chaos rapidly enveloping the occupation of Iraq, the scene can only encourage Baathist killers or others who would be willing to rid the occupation authority of this meddlesome Shiite politician. Torture by proxy is already an issue in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Murder by proxy now seems within the realm of the possible in U.S.-occupied Iraq."
The guy spies for Iran and steals everything which isn't nailed down and a police raid is clse to "murder by proxy" ?
My guess is that, after today, there will never be a risk that anyone will imagine that anyone else will mistake Hoagland for a resonable person.
Still, I think, Matthew Yglesias was right to be worried.
Friday, May 21, 2004
Juan Cole proposes that we "Give that man a medal"
KUT, Iraq - In a Disney-esque approach to guerrilla warfare, U.S. Army commanders here are hiring suspected members of a Shiite Muslim militia to help rebuild a rusted and abandoned amusement park ...
[snip]
"Call it 'Six Flags Over Al Kut,' " quipped Col. Brad May, the regiment's commander.
It should be so easy to disperse a tiny army of the desparately poor with
$ 20 billion. Reminds me of how some guy from State arranged local elections in Southern Iraq and securalarists won. To do as badly as the Bush team one almost has to try.
KUT, Iraq - In a Disney-esque approach to guerrilla warfare, U.S. Army commanders here are hiring suspected members of a Shiite Muslim militia to help rebuild a rusted and abandoned amusement park ...
[snip]
"Call it 'Six Flags Over Al Kut,' " quipped Col. Brad May, the regiment's commander.
It should be so easy to disperse a tiny army of the desparately poor with
$ 20 billion. Reminds me of how some guy from State arranged local elections in Southern Iraq and securalarists won. To do as badly as the Bush team one almost has to try.
Meta metaphor watch.
I wish that in my wildest dreams I could imagine that Matthew Yglesias was inspired by me to go on the metaphor watch suggesting that Mark Kleiman keep the following on a leash
"In the actual world, a fake conservative isn't the same as a liberal, any more than a transvestite male is a female. Nor is a bad conservative the same as a liberal, any more than a bad electrician is a plumber."
I might add that it is un pc to have transvestite and bad in parallel spots in the sentence. I'm sure that many transvestites are eccelent electricians.
Squewering the deconstruction of the construction industry, Yglesias notes that "plumber"is a social construction. I'd add that so is plumbing, although I note that his social life is much more interesting than a plumbing party.
I have been following Josh Marshall's metaphors. Once when I was young and stupid a week ago, I suggested he stopr writing them. Since then I have noted a steady stream of billiant metaphors analogies similes and synechdotes (in spite of the fact that I don't know what a synechdote is).
The latest is "watching the mix of desperation, panicked zeal and projection evidenced in Podhoretz's column. It's like the pornography of watching someone beg for his life or shift the blame onto someone else when they've been caught in the act -- with the added twist of spasms of aggression mixed in."
It's a double layer metaphor, since someone beggin for his life is not literally pornography. Brilliant, but please Mr Marshall don't describe mr Podhoretz so vividly, I just ate.
I wish that in my wildest dreams I could imagine that Matthew Yglesias was inspired by me to go on the metaphor watch suggesting that Mark Kleiman keep the following on a leash
"In the actual world, a fake conservative isn't the same as a liberal, any more than a transvestite male is a female. Nor is a bad conservative the same as a liberal, any more than a bad electrician is a plumber."
I might add that it is un pc to have transvestite and bad in parallel spots in the sentence. I'm sure that many transvestites are eccelent electricians.
Squewering the deconstruction of the construction industry, Yglesias notes that "plumber"is a social construction. I'd add that so is plumbing, although I note that his social life is much more interesting than a plumbing party.
I have been following Josh Marshall's metaphors. Once when I was young and stupid a week ago, I suggested he stopr writing them. Since then I have noted a steady stream of billiant metaphors analogies similes and synechdotes (in spite of the fact that I don't know what a synechdote is).
The latest is "watching the mix of desperation, panicked zeal and projection evidenced in Podhoretz's column. It's like the pornography of watching someone beg for his life or shift the blame onto someone else when they've been caught in the act -- with the added twist of spasms of aggression mixed in."
It's a double layer metaphor, since someone beggin for his life is not literally pornography. Brilliant, but please Mr Marshall don't describe mr Podhoretz so vividly, I just ate.
Thursday, May 20, 2004
Reuters is trying very hard to give a balanced report on alleged abuse of Reuters' employees in Iraq. I understand this is delicate. All the same I would have pointed out that the Army's denial is a confession.
" Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger sent a letter to Sanchez on Jan. 9 demanding an investigation into the treatment of the three Iraqis working for Reuters.
...
A summary of the investigation by the 82nd Airborne Division, dated Jan. 28 and provided to Reuters, said "no specific incidents of abuse were found." It said soldiers responsible for the detainees were interviewed under oath and "none admit or report knowledge of physical abuse or torture."
"The detainees were purposefully and carefully put under stress, to include sleep deprivation, in order to facilitate interrogation; they were not tortured," it said. "
Note the detainees were journalists hence non combatents who should not be detained let alone "put under stress". Sleep deprivation to facilitate interrogation is a violation of the Geneva convention and would be even if the journalists were combatents.
This is true not only because the convention bans excessive sleep deprivation but, more clearly, because is bans subjecting detainees to any consequences for refusing to answer questions. Even though detainees can be e.g. woken up each morning at 5 am they can not be woken up at 5 am until and unless they answer questions. Now it is impossible to prove that the sleep deprivation was banned sleep deprivation to make the detainees answer questions. However, the point was stipulated, and the investigation should have moved to deciding the punishment for the personel found to have violated the Geneva convention.
The US armed forces have decided that they are not bound by the Geneva convention as written, while also claiming that, in Iraq, they are following the Geneva convention as they choose to interpret it. Even so permission from General Sanchez is required for sleep deprivation to facilitate interrogation and has never been granted.
In spite of all this the very same General Sanchez who claims to be following the Geneva convention and to have never given permission for sleep deprivation to facilitate interrogation somehow manages also to claim to be satisfied by an investigation which concludes both that sleep deprivation was used to facilitate interrogation and that no specific incidents of abuse were found.
How exactly does he manage to sleep at night ?
" Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger sent a letter to Sanchez on Jan. 9 demanding an investigation into the treatment of the three Iraqis working for Reuters.
...
A summary of the investigation by the 82nd Airborne Division, dated Jan. 28 and provided to Reuters, said "no specific incidents of abuse were found." It said soldiers responsible for the detainees were interviewed under oath and "none admit or report knowledge of physical abuse or torture."
"The detainees were purposefully and carefully put under stress, to include sleep deprivation, in order to facilitate interrogation; they were not tortured," it said. "
Note the detainees were journalists hence non combatents who should not be detained let alone "put under stress". Sleep deprivation to facilitate interrogation is a violation of the Geneva convention and would be even if the journalists were combatents.
This is true not only because the convention bans excessive sleep deprivation but, more clearly, because is bans subjecting detainees to any consequences for refusing to answer questions. Even though detainees can be e.g. woken up each morning at 5 am they can not be woken up at 5 am until and unless they answer questions. Now it is impossible to prove that the sleep deprivation was banned sleep deprivation to make the detainees answer questions. However, the point was stipulated, and the investigation should have moved to deciding the punishment for the personel found to have violated the Geneva convention.
The US armed forces have decided that they are not bound by the Geneva convention as written, while also claiming that, in Iraq, they are following the Geneva convention as they choose to interpret it. Even so permission from General Sanchez is required for sleep deprivation to facilitate interrogation and has never been granted.
In spite of all this the very same General Sanchez who claims to be following the Geneva convention and to have never given permission for sleep deprivation to facilitate interrogation somehow manages also to claim to be satisfied by an investigation which concludes both that sleep deprivation was used to facilitate interrogation and that no specific incidents of abuse were found.
How exactly does he manage to sleep at night ?
Marshall metaphor watch.
The post below was my effort to anticipate Marshall's post on the same topic. I see he does indeed write much better than I do. Definitely right not to get bogged down in the Safire swamp.
And another brilliant metaphor (2nd in a row unless the one yesterday was an anology)
"Frequently, when I read a column by Bill Safire, I have to think to myself: who was the editor on this piece? And what must he or she have thought when they were editing this stuff? Read the man's column for Wednesday's paper and it has about as much coherence and rationality as one of your more loopy C-Span ranters just before Brian Lamb mercifully hits the button and sends him off into telephonic oblivion."
However, i am puzzled by his post below
"(May 18, 2004 -- 10:44 PM EDT // link // print)
Thank you, thank you and ... well, thank you.
We posted our TPM reader survey overnight last night. And the response has been amazing. As of late this evening, we're just shy of 20,000 responses. To be specific, as of 11:30"
How did Marshall know at 10:44 EDT how many people would respond to his survey by 11:30 ? Did he pick up a bit of clairvoyance from wading through Safire's op ed ?
The post below was my effort to anticipate Marshall's post on the same topic. I see he does indeed write much better than I do. Definitely right not to get bogged down in the Safire swamp.
And another brilliant metaphor (2nd in a row unless the one yesterday was an anology)
"Frequently, when I read a column by Bill Safire, I have to think to myself: who was the editor on this piece? And what must he or she have thought when they were editing this stuff? Read the man's column for Wednesday's paper and it has about as much coherence and rationality as one of your more loopy C-Span ranters just before Brian Lamb mercifully hits the button and sends him off into telephonic oblivion."
However, i am puzzled by his post below
"(May 18, 2004 -- 10:44 PM EDT // link // print)
Thank you, thank you and ... well, thank you.
We posted our TPM reader survey overnight last night. And the response has been amazing. As of late this evening, we're just shy of 20,000 responses. To be specific, as of 11:30"
How did Marshall know at 10:44 EDT how many people would respond to his survey by 11:30 ? Did he pick up a bit of clairvoyance from wading through Safire's op ed ?
Safire or Satire ?
This must be a parody of William Safire.
"U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay."
David Kay was appointed chief of the Iraq survey group by George Bush. He would more accurately be described as "the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector."
"Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make." Names please ? I understand this is an op ed but quotes should be quotes. Also arguing that Iraq did not have WMD might make one an apostle of not invading. I don't see what it has to do with being an apostle of defeat. This is an effort to conflate criticizing Bush with supporting defeat, that is equating dissent and treason. Since Safire is a self proclamed civil liberties type, he couldn't have possibly written such a thing unless he is both a hypocrite and an idiot.
"In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform." After one sentence which does not insult the basic principles of democracy, Safire is back to equating critics of Bush's decision to invade with defeatism. Surely Safire knows that the word "defeatist" is useful only to chicken little civil libertarians who suggest that people like this clumsy parody pseudo Safire are enemies of free debate.
"when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end." No longer anti democratic he has become a clairvoyant. He suggests that it will be possible to show how the cut and runners in 2004 were mistaken, that is, his crystal ball tells him not only that he is right but that it will be agreed that he is right. Note again the conflation of criticizing Bush for hyping evidence and advotating cutting and running. Has he noticed, for example, that the editorials which run on the same page as his op eds do the first and do not do the second ? I won't waste pixels listing all of the commentators who attack Bush for exagerating evidence on WMD but don't advocate cutting and running. I just note that they seem to be in the vast majority to me.
"These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought.""
This is pure wish fulfillment fantasy. No evidence is presented. It is just argued that, since we can't be sure of anything, we can't be sure that Safire is dreaming. Indeed, I am no more sure that Safire has abandoned contact with reality than I am that the sun will rise tomorrow.
"This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide."
This asserts that the wished for future revelation will be at least partly true of chemical weapons. The hope has become a certainty. Safire knows his way around the English language. If he intended to say that such revelations are especially likely for biological weapons he would have used the present indicative or the conditional as in the preceding sentence. He is making a grammatic error in his effort to trick the reader that something that might happen is something which will happen to a greater or lesser extent.
To make this clear isolate verbs other than those in quotation marks
" may ... reveal ... would ... be
... will be ". See begins with may adds a would be then passes to will be moving from hypothetical to certain without intervening evidence.
"In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing " as it is now yet, in spite of strong incentives they are not describing the location of WMD in song. This couldn't be because they know of no locations of WMD could it ?
"Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago."
Note again that criticizing the invasion is equated with defeatism. Note again that no one in particular is quoted. Safire's unquoted unnamed opponent evidently speaks with great fervor. Who are these people ? I am familiar only with the claim that there is no evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda. Contacts between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda in the early 90's are well known but ot the same thing.
" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. ... Osama's disciple Zarqawi."
The alleged medical treatment was the amputation of his leg. The film of Berg's murder demonstrates that Zarqawi has two legs. The claim that Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad is "asserted as revealed truth with great fervor" by Safire. However neither he nor anyone else has presented any evidence. The claim is based on unreleased US intelligence. As Safire reluctantly notes above, this intelligence has proven to be other than completely reliable.
Safire neglects to mention the facts that Ansar al Islam operated in Iraqi Kurdistan and was separated from Ba'athist controlled Iraq and that its base of operation was on the border with Iran making it very likely (strange as it is) that it was supported by Iran. The claim that Ansar al Islam acted on Saddam's behest is made without a shred of evidence or a hint of doubt. Finally Zarqawi has always been independent of Bin Laden not his disciple.
"The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates ... We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards"
I know of no westerner who equates abuse of prisoner's by the US with Saddam's crimes.
"Iraqis know the difference."
I wrote no one then corrected it to no westerner when I remembered that I had read qutoes of Iraqi's making exactly that claim. I actually think that Iraqis know the difference, but some have gotten carried away and denied it. The claim that US crimes are the responsibility of a few of our guards is certainly unproven and appears unlikely. Safire summarily rejects the conclusion of Major General Taguba who knows a bit more about the matter than he does.
"The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism."
Some people think this, and there is some overlap with the people who state the 3 previous no's. However, it is not useful to conflate the groups. Also some think that there are some countries which can achieve democracy on which it can not be imposed. They don't exactly explain how democracy was imnposed on Germany and Japan, but their argument is certainly not racist.
"n coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur."
Certainlty about the future again. Of course Safire might be declaring that he intends to blast this as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. It is safe to say that if almost everyone agrees with something, some revisionist will argue the contrary. so safe as to be pointless.
"Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium."
here again a confident claim about the future which doesn't amount to much. It's a long way from democracy to "political equilibrium". Saddam's regime was a political equilibrium. Safire does not argue that the future one will be better or that it will be reached without massive bloodshed.
All in all an excellent parody. A bit overdone but it does embody all of the possible faults of an essay which come to my limited mind. I'm sure that, but for the 700 word limit, Safire would have managed to parody rhetorical tricks, dishonest arguments, insults in the place of arguments and other possible defects of an essay beyond my limited imagination.
However, 700 words is all I could stand to read anyway.
This must be a parody of William Safire.
"U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay."
David Kay was appointed chief of the Iraq survey group by George Bush. He would more accurately be described as "the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector."
"Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make." Names please ? I understand this is an op ed but quotes should be quotes. Also arguing that Iraq did not have WMD might make one an apostle of not invading. I don't see what it has to do with being an apostle of defeat. This is an effort to conflate criticizing Bush with supporting defeat, that is equating dissent and treason. Since Safire is a self proclamed civil liberties type, he couldn't have possibly written such a thing unless he is both a hypocrite and an idiot.
"In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform." After one sentence which does not insult the basic principles of democracy, Safire is back to equating critics of Bush's decision to invade with defeatism. Surely Safire knows that the word "defeatist" is useful only to chicken little civil libertarians who suggest that people like this clumsy parody pseudo Safire are enemies of free debate.
"when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end." No longer anti democratic he has become a clairvoyant. He suggests that it will be possible to show how the cut and runners in 2004 were mistaken, that is, his crystal ball tells him not only that he is right but that it will be agreed that he is right. Note again the conflation of criticizing Bush for hyping evidence and advotating cutting and running. Has he noticed, for example, that the editorials which run on the same page as his op eds do the first and do not do the second ? I won't waste pixels listing all of the commentators who attack Bush for exagerating evidence on WMD but don't advocate cutting and running. I just note that they seem to be in the vast majority to me.
"These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought.""
This is pure wish fulfillment fantasy. No evidence is presented. It is just argued that, since we can't be sure of anything, we can't be sure that Safire is dreaming. Indeed, I am no more sure that Safire has abandoned contact with reality than I am that the sun will rise tomorrow.
"This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide."
This asserts that the wished for future revelation will be at least partly true of chemical weapons. The hope has become a certainty. Safire knows his way around the English language. If he intended to say that such revelations are especially likely for biological weapons he would have used the present indicative or the conditional as in the preceding sentence. He is making a grammatic error in his effort to trick the reader that something that might happen is something which will happen to a greater or lesser extent.
To make this clear isolate verbs other than those in quotation marks
" may ... reveal ... would ... be
... will be ". See begins with may adds a would be then passes to will be moving from hypothetical to certain without intervening evidence.
"In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing " as it is now yet, in spite of strong incentives they are not describing the location of WMD in song. This couldn't be because they know of no locations of WMD could it ?
"Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago."
Note again that criticizing the invasion is equated with defeatism. Note again that no one in particular is quoted. Safire's unquoted unnamed opponent evidently speaks with great fervor. Who are these people ? I am familiar only with the claim that there is no evidence that Saddam was working with al Qaeda. Contacts between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda in the early 90's are well known but ot the same thing.
" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. ... Osama's disciple Zarqawi."
The alleged medical treatment was the amputation of his leg. The film of Berg's murder demonstrates that Zarqawi has two legs. The claim that Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad is "asserted as revealed truth with great fervor" by Safire. However neither he nor anyone else has presented any evidence. The claim is based on unreleased US intelligence. As Safire reluctantly notes above, this intelligence has proven to be other than completely reliable.
Safire neglects to mention the facts that Ansar al Islam operated in Iraqi Kurdistan and was separated from Ba'athist controlled Iraq and that its base of operation was on the border with Iran making it very likely (strange as it is) that it was supported by Iran. The claim that Ansar al Islam acted on Saddam's behest is made without a shred of evidence or a hint of doubt. Finally Zarqawi has always been independent of Bin Laden not his disciple.
"The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates ... We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards"
I know of no westerner who equates abuse of prisoner's by the US with Saddam's crimes.
"Iraqis know the difference."
I wrote no one then corrected it to no westerner when I remembered that I had read qutoes of Iraqi's making exactly that claim. I actually think that Iraqis know the difference, but some have gotten carried away and denied it. The claim that US crimes are the responsibility of a few of our guards is certainly unproven and appears unlikely. Safire summarily rejects the conclusion of Major General Taguba who knows a bit more about the matter than he does.
"The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism."
Some people think this, and there is some overlap with the people who state the 3 previous no's. However, it is not useful to conflate the groups. Also some think that there are some countries which can achieve democracy on which it can not be imposed. They don't exactly explain how democracy was imnposed on Germany and Japan, but their argument is certainly not racist.
"n coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur."
Certainlty about the future again. Of course Safire might be declaring that he intends to blast this as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. It is safe to say that if almost everyone agrees with something, some revisionist will argue the contrary. so safe as to be pointless.
"Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium."
here again a confident claim about the future which doesn't amount to much. It's a long way from democracy to "political equilibrium". Saddam's regime was a political equilibrium. Safire does not argue that the future one will be better or that it will be reached without massive bloodshed.
All in all an excellent parody. A bit overdone but it does embody all of the possible faults of an essay which come to my limited mind. I'm sure that, but for the 700 word limit, Safire would have managed to parody rhetorical tricks, dishonest arguments, insults in the place of arguments and other possible defects of an essay beyond my limited imagination.
However, 700 words is all I could stand to read anyway.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
My head is spinning. I find I agree with both Mickey Kaus and David Brooks. We three think that the recent disasters in Iraq mean that the timetable for elections should be accelerated.
A counterargument is that given the mood in Iraq any pro US candidate would get creamed. The counter counter argument is that things are likely to get worse long before they get better.
However there are practical problems with rushed elections. One is that it takes time to register voters. This was the dishonest justification given by Bremeer (pronounced Boosh or really Chainy) for holding on to power via fake caucuses. However, it is also a real issue. I would go for ration card based elections.
Another issue is presidential or parliamentary and, if parliamentary, first past the post or proportional. Before Iraq went fubar I would have supported parliamentary elections with proportional representation. This guarantees a weak prime minister (I live in Italy and I know). It seemed a good idea when the risk seemed to be tyranny of the majority. In the current emergency, I think Iraq needs a directly elected president with emergency powers. A coalition government is too likely to end up like the coalition government in Afganistan between the Communists and the Taliban with the prime ministers troops shelling the capital.
The election will be, to say the least, imperfect, so I think it important the the president should be a transitional interim president who is required to return to private life.
Now who should be our candidate ? no kiss of death, it must be a deep dark secret that he or she is our guy or gal, but if you have no idea how anything good can happen no matter who wins, maybe it's best not to have an election.
One really crazy idea is to have the transitional president be a foreigner. Basically I really would like to see the Iraqi's choose between Brahimi and Bremer. I mean at least Brahimi is a Moslem Arab. Bremer gets to win 1% of the vote, keep a stiff upper lip, be a good loser and return to Washington. Brahimi would not be so easy to convince. Still that's a joke. Brahimi is a little too foreign.
I still think the guy who might pull Iraq out of the mess and then retire is al Sistani. I note he has just broken fairly decisively with Al Sadr. Now Kurds and Sunni Arabs would not be thrilled, but I wouldn't be amazed if they accepted Sistani as temporary president
given the risk that the alternative is al Sadr.
So I would go for a ration card based election of a very powerful interim president provided Sistani was willing to run.
Anyone got a better idea ?
A counterargument is that given the mood in Iraq any pro US candidate would get creamed. The counter counter argument is that things are likely to get worse long before they get better.
However there are practical problems with rushed elections. One is that it takes time to register voters. This was the dishonest justification given by Bremeer (pronounced Boosh or really Chainy) for holding on to power via fake caucuses. However, it is also a real issue. I would go for ration card based elections.
Another issue is presidential or parliamentary and, if parliamentary, first past the post or proportional. Before Iraq went fubar I would have supported parliamentary elections with proportional representation. This guarantees a weak prime minister (I live in Italy and I know). It seemed a good idea when the risk seemed to be tyranny of the majority. In the current emergency, I think Iraq needs a directly elected president with emergency powers. A coalition government is too likely to end up like the coalition government in Afganistan between the Communists and the Taliban with the prime ministers troops shelling the capital.
The election will be, to say the least, imperfect, so I think it important the the president should be a transitional interim president who is required to return to private life.
Now who should be our candidate ? no kiss of death, it must be a deep dark secret that he or she is our guy or gal, but if you have no idea how anything good can happen no matter who wins, maybe it's best not to have an election.
One really crazy idea is to have the transitional president be a foreigner. Basically I really would like to see the Iraqi's choose between Brahimi and Bremer. I mean at least Brahimi is a Moslem Arab. Bremer gets to win 1% of the vote, keep a stiff upper lip, be a good loser and return to Washington. Brahimi would not be so easy to convince. Still that's a joke. Brahimi is a little too foreign.
I still think the guy who might pull Iraq out of the mess and then retire is al Sistani. I note he has just broken fairly decisively with Al Sadr. Now Kurds and Sunni Arabs would not be thrilled, but I wouldn't be amazed if they accepted Sistani as temporary president
given the risk that the alternative is al Sadr.
So I would go for a ration card based election of a very powerful interim president provided Sistani was willing to run.
Anyone got a better idea ?
Awesome analogy (or metaphor or simile or whatever) Mr Marshall.
"This new article in Tuesday's Times says that the the head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib apparently put military police at the disposal of interrogators ...
At a minimum, that sounds like giving benzine, some cordite, a gallon of gas, firecrackers, and a hundred rolls of toilet paper to some teenagers, telling them to see if they could put it all together to have some fun in the neighborhood on Friday night and then leaving them to their own devices.
And, remember, that's the generous interpretation. "
Yes that's it exactly. I take back what I said about Marshall and metaphors (or analogies)
"This new article in Tuesday's Times says that the the head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib apparently put military police at the disposal of interrogators ...
At a minimum, that sounds like giving benzine, some cordite, a gallon of gas, firecrackers, and a hundred rolls of toilet paper to some teenagers, telling them to see if they could put it all together to have some fun in the neighborhood on Friday night and then leaving them to their own devices.
And, remember, that's the generous interpretation. "
Yes that's it exactly. I take back what I said about Marshall and metaphors (or analogies)
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Want to play Dan Froomkin's WMD commission game ?
"Dazzle your friends with your intimate knowledge of the commission and the answers to these questions:
• Which commission member's current job -- as a vice president for Northrop Grumman -- was left out of the White House press release?"
Etc. The game is to try to answer the questions then click on the link to score oneself. I play it at fantapolitica
"Dazzle your friends with your intimate knowledge of the commission and the answers to these questions:
• Which commission member's current job -- as a vice president for Northrop Grumman -- was left out of the White House press release?"
Etc. The game is to try to answer the questions then click on the link to score oneself. I play it at fantapolitica
I have a very very high opinion of Joshua Marshall. However, he seems to have some trouble with metaphors. Yesterday, he was defending the perfectly standard and reasonable practice of checking if different people's versions of events confirm each other by comparing it to the dubious practice of dropping outlier polls.
Today he makes a very convincing argument that the best strategy for Kerry for the moment is to lie low and let Bush destroy himself. Marshall's point is that if Kerry attacks Bush he will strengthen the partisan loyalty of Republican voters who are deciding that Bush is incompetent (Marshall puts it better). Later the race will heat up so all issues will be partisan but now by being gentlemanly Kerry can keep the focus on Bush not on the campaign.
This is an excellent essay (as usual) but it contains a terrible metaphor (second in 2 days)-- "Let's think of this battle as a prize fight, with both men in the ring. If the other guy is about to collapse because of some self-inflicted injury, what do you do?"
What ? In a prize fight, when your opponent is near collapse you press in and finish him (unless the referee or compasion stops you). People lose their ability to hit before they lose the ability to stand up for 10 seconds. I mean I've never even been in a fist fight and I hate watching boxing matches but I know that. Also who ever heard of a self inflicted injury in the ring ? Well I did but that was a guy celebrating after he won. Kerry should leave Bush alone on stage because Bush is flopping. The analogy with boxing in which what matters is what you do not whether the audience likes you for doing it is unconvincing but, worse, if it were convincing it would convince me that Marshall's sound argument is unsound.
Here my guess is that the metaphor is garbled because it was censored. My wild guess is that Marshall thought of writing "what do you do if an enemy points a pistol to his head and starts to pull the trigger ? You duck for cover, because he might shoot you" This makes sense assuming you are a coward or you hate hte guy so much you want him dead. However, Marshll would not want to suggest that Kerry is a coward or that he wants Bush dead. The relevant metaphor that came to my mind is vulnerable to malicious literalism.
My suggestion is stay away from metaphors for a day. Marshall's reasoning and writing are generally excellent enough that he can do without them.
By the way, major catch here http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002961
Brilliant as usual.
Today he makes a very convincing argument that the best strategy for Kerry for the moment is to lie low and let Bush destroy himself. Marshall's point is that if Kerry attacks Bush he will strengthen the partisan loyalty of Republican voters who are deciding that Bush is incompetent (Marshall puts it better). Later the race will heat up so all issues will be partisan but now by being gentlemanly Kerry can keep the focus on Bush not on the campaign.
This is an excellent essay (as usual) but it contains a terrible metaphor (second in 2 days)-- "Let's think of this battle as a prize fight, with both men in the ring. If the other guy is about to collapse because of some self-inflicted injury, what do you do?"
What ? In a prize fight, when your opponent is near collapse you press in and finish him (unless the referee or compasion stops you). People lose their ability to hit before they lose the ability to stand up for 10 seconds. I mean I've never even been in a fist fight and I hate watching boxing matches but I know that. Also who ever heard of a self inflicted injury in the ring ? Well I did but that was a guy celebrating after he won. Kerry should leave Bush alone on stage because Bush is flopping. The analogy with boxing in which what matters is what you do not whether the audience likes you for doing it is unconvincing but, worse, if it were convincing it would convince me that Marshall's sound argument is unsound.
Here my guess is that the metaphor is garbled because it was censored. My wild guess is that Marshall thought of writing "what do you do if an enemy points a pistol to his head and starts to pull the trigger ? You duck for cover, because he might shoot you" This makes sense assuming you are a coward or you hate hte guy so much you want him dead. However, Marshll would not want to suggest that Kerry is a coward or that he wants Bush dead. The relevant metaphor that came to my mind is vulnerable to malicious literalism.
My suggestion is stay away from metaphors for a day. Marshall's reasoning and writing are generally excellent enough that he can do without them.
By the way, major catch here http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_05_16.php#002961
Brilliant as usual.
It appears (not for the first time) that they have found WMD in Iraq.
"American commanders said today that they had discovered an Iraqi artillery shell last week containing sarin, one of the deadly nerve agents that Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed before the war began last year.
The shell, which had been fashioned into a bomb, was discovered as an American convoy made its way through Baghdad on Saturday, the American military officials said. Two American weapons experts suffered minor exposure to the nerve agent when they tried to defuse the shell, but they were not seriously harmed, the officials said.
[snip]
American military commanders said that the people who had planted the shell apparently believed that it was an ordinary shell filled with high-explosives, and that they had set it to explode like the dozens of others that have bedeviled American soldiers here."
[snip]
An artillery round of the type found on Saturday holds the ingredients for making sarin in two separate chambers. When fired by an artillery piece, the chambers rupture as the shell spins in flight, their contents mingling to produce sarin.
General Kimmitt said it was extremely unlikely that such mixing could occur by simply blowing up the shell, as occurred on Saturday. "
If I understand correctly, not all Iraqi nerve gas shells were binary, so the next time, if there is a next time, could be much worse. Since it appears that the insurgents didn't know that the unmarked shell was a chemical munition, it seems to me very possible that it is still around because the Iraqi armed forces lost track of it. That is, the new evidence is consistent with the current hypothesis that they attempted to destroy all of their undiscovered WMD in 1992.
If so, one can hope that there are few misplaced chemical shells.
Of course it is also possible that there are many chemical shells which were deliberately kept disguised as explosive shells.
The most alarming possibility is that the insurgents were attemtpting to release Sarin and that they will figure out how to mix the contents of the two chambers without artillery. I have no idea of how difficult that would be.
In my first post on Iraq, I wrote that the strongest case against invading was based on the likelihood that WMD would end up in the hands of terrorists if and only if the US invaded Iraq for a while. I still consider the risk that there are many such nerve gas shells disguised as explosives to be a very strong argument against the invasion. Much more recently I wrote that the absense of WMD in Iraq was one reason that I was less sure than I had been that the invasion was a mistake. My unsureness has been shaken by the news.
"American commanders said today that they had discovered an Iraqi artillery shell last week containing sarin, one of the deadly nerve agents that Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed before the war began last year.
The shell, which had been fashioned into a bomb, was discovered as an American convoy made its way through Baghdad on Saturday, the American military officials said. Two American weapons experts suffered minor exposure to the nerve agent when they tried to defuse the shell, but they were not seriously harmed, the officials said.
[snip]
American military commanders said that the people who had planted the shell apparently believed that it was an ordinary shell filled with high-explosives, and that they had set it to explode like the dozens of others that have bedeviled American soldiers here."
[snip]
An artillery round of the type found on Saturday holds the ingredients for making sarin in two separate chambers. When fired by an artillery piece, the chambers rupture as the shell spins in flight, their contents mingling to produce sarin.
General Kimmitt said it was extremely unlikely that such mixing could occur by simply blowing up the shell, as occurred on Saturday. "
If I understand correctly, not all Iraqi nerve gas shells were binary, so the next time, if there is a next time, could be much worse. Since it appears that the insurgents didn't know that the unmarked shell was a chemical munition, it seems to me very possible that it is still around because the Iraqi armed forces lost track of it. That is, the new evidence is consistent with the current hypothesis that they attempted to destroy all of their undiscovered WMD in 1992.
If so, one can hope that there are few misplaced chemical shells.
Of course it is also possible that there are many chemical shells which were deliberately kept disguised as explosive shells.
The most alarming possibility is that the insurgents were attemtpting to release Sarin and that they will figure out how to mix the contents of the two chambers without artillery. I have no idea of how difficult that would be.
In my first post on Iraq, I wrote that the strongest case against invading was based on the likelihood that WMD would end up in the hands of terrorists if and only if the US invaded Iraq for a while. I still consider the risk that there are many such nerve gas shells disguised as explosives to be a very strong argument against the invasion. Much more recently I wrote that the absense of WMD in Iraq was one reason that I was less sure than I had been that the invasion was a mistake. My unsureness has been shaken by the news.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
Joshua Marshall writes “People who analyze polling data will often take a group of polls, toss out the outliers on either side, and then focus on the cluster of data in the middle which seems overlapping and confirming.” And I assume that he knows what he is talking about, that is, that people who analyze polling data often follow that procedure. I haven’t the foggiest idea why anyone who knows anything about statistics would do such a thing.
I think a strong case can be made for averaging all available polls.
I think a case might be made for ignoring the results from a polling agency which has systematically poor or biased performance. Poor in this case means predictions of election outcomes with a large mean standard error and biased means predictions of election outcomes with a significant mean error. Notice for electoral polls new information on poor performance or biased predictions comes only on election day. For pure opinion polls where the aim is to find if people approve of something or think that something is important such information never comes.
In particular strong evidence that one polling agency is, on average, more favourable to Republicans than the average poll is only strong evidence that it is biased if one has strong reasons to believe that the average poll is unbiased. This evidence is, in practice, obtained only on election days. My sense is that it is quite weak. For example, in 2000 Gallup polls of “likely voters” were significantly more favourable to Bush than the average poll. The average poll over predicted Bush’s share of the popular vote by an amount not explained by sampling error alone. From this I conclude nothing. We have one data point on the 2000 presidential election, which is not enough to discredit Gallup.
A still more pointed example is Rasmussen’s tracking poll which, unless I am mistaken, predicted that Bush would win by 6%. I check the Rasmussen tracking poll about twice a day and my only irritation is that half of the time I find that it has not been updated. I am currently in a good mood because Rasmussen has Kerry ahead today unlike yesterday. I know this is crazy, but putting little weight on the bad performance on November 7 2000 is not crazy.
The procedure described by Marshall makes very little sense. Evidently the practice is to discard a poll not a polling agency. In earlier posts Marshall seems to me to have done exactly that. I wonder why people do it. I will present 3 unsuccessful attempts to make sense of it.
First imagine that the analysts think that by far the principal reason that polls differ is sampling error even though this is not reasonable. If they thought this, then the best way of pooling polls would a an average weighted by the sample sizes of the polls. That is, the weight on each poll would have nothing to do with whether it is an outlier. If each sample is a true random sample and there is no other difference between polls this is a mathematical result as dubious as 2+2=4.
It is possible that there are other differences between polls than random sampling error. Indeed this is clearly true. I only know what I read at pollingreport but I can see that there are significant firm specific differences. This is the case considered above. If there is evidence that a firm is unreliable it’s polls should be given low weight (or ignored entirely) whether or not a specific poll is an outlier.
The only way to rationalize the practice described by Marshall is to assume that there is some process other than random sampling error which causes some specific polls to be far from the truth but does not affect other polls by the same firm. Another way of putting this is if the errors in polls have a fat tailed distribution, a trimmed mean is a better estimate of the state of opinion than an untrimmed mean. I haven’t the faintest idea of what could cause such a distribution of errors. I suppose that it is possible that this is because I don’t know as much about how pollsters really pick their samples as the analysts, but I certainly am not ready to rule out the possibility that the analysts are confused.
[Update] I have read the post whose intro set me off. The analysis in the post is, as usual for Marshall, excellent not just far better than the approach to analyzing polls mentioned in the intro.
Marshall writes “But to go back to my analogy about analyzing polls, even if we set aside the issue of whether there was this specific black operation -- noted by Hersh -- the basic story seems more and more clear, and increasingly confirmed from multiple sources. That is, that irregular methods originally approved for use against al Qaida terrorists who had just recently landed a devastating blow against the US, were later expanded (by which mix of urgency, desperation, reason, bad values or hubris remains to be determined) to the prosecution of the insurgency in Iraq.”
Now this makes sense. The fact that similar complex verbal claims are made by multiple sources is evidence that the shared aspects of the claims are true. If the claims did not confirm each other, we should have little confidence in the “average” claim even if we could average sentences as we average numbers. Since all the sources are anonymous, Marshall is not relying on their track record; they could not have one (of course he is, in part, relying on Hersh’s track record as well he should).
So what’s the difference ? I think the issue is that similar numbers do not confirm each other to the same extent that similar stories do.
It is easy for different polling results for Kerry minus Bush rounded to the nearest percent to be identical even if each is certainly an imprecise measure and even if each is biased or grossly unreliable. Since the possible numbers are few it is easy for two such numbers to be identical by coincidence. Of course it is much easier for them to be very close by coincidence. The important thing is that this is true even if both are far from the true population average.
On the other hand, it is more difficult for different stories to correspond unless the shared features are true. The number of different lies is so immense that they can’t match by accident. Of course, more difficult does not mean very difficult. The different sources might have conspired to mislead the press. Different reporters might, unknowingly, be quoting the same small set of anonymous sources. Finally lies can co-ordinate around rumours, with each liar claiming to have direct information that the rumour is true (I think Gary Sick was honestly mislead by such rumour confirming liars when he researched “October Surprise”).
One minor question is why does Marshall chose to present his clearly sound approach by analogy with a dubious method for analysing polling data ? Checking if a story is confirmed by multiple sources is not a new or controversial approach to journalism. I’m afraid that he momentarily lapsed into number envy, that is, found the intellectual status of statistical analysis attractive, even though, in this case, his analysis is much more sound than that of the numerical analysts.
A caveat. I criticise discarding outliers specifically in the case of pooling polls. The reason is that it seems to me hard to imagine why there would be bad polls, that is, why the distribution of polling errors would have poll specific (not firm specific) fat tails. In general, I am rather attracted to the approach of down-weighting or discarding outliers as is clear from my CV.
A final question is whether the attraction of discarding outliers is based in part on the analogy with the traditional practice of dismissing sources (or witnesses) whose claims are not confirmed by anyone else. I have no reason for my confidence, but, in my heart, I am not able to doubt that such a false analogy leads analysts to discard outliers even when they shouldn’t and would lead most people to discard outliers even when they are told (and understand and believe) that the numbers are drawn from an iid normal distribution.
I think a strong case can be made for averaging all available polls.
I think a case might be made for ignoring the results from a polling agency which has systematically poor or biased performance. Poor in this case means predictions of election outcomes with a large mean standard error and biased means predictions of election outcomes with a significant mean error. Notice for electoral polls new information on poor performance or biased predictions comes only on election day. For pure opinion polls where the aim is to find if people approve of something or think that something is important such information never comes.
In particular strong evidence that one polling agency is, on average, more favourable to Republicans than the average poll is only strong evidence that it is biased if one has strong reasons to believe that the average poll is unbiased. This evidence is, in practice, obtained only on election days. My sense is that it is quite weak. For example, in 2000 Gallup polls of “likely voters” were significantly more favourable to Bush than the average poll. The average poll over predicted Bush’s share of the popular vote by an amount not explained by sampling error alone. From this I conclude nothing. We have one data point on the 2000 presidential election, which is not enough to discredit Gallup.
A still more pointed example is Rasmussen’s tracking poll which, unless I am mistaken, predicted that Bush would win by 6%. I check the Rasmussen tracking poll about twice a day and my only irritation is that half of the time I find that it has not been updated. I am currently in a good mood because Rasmussen has Kerry ahead today unlike yesterday. I know this is crazy, but putting little weight on the bad performance on November 7 2000 is not crazy.
The procedure described by Marshall makes very little sense. Evidently the practice is to discard a poll not a polling agency. In earlier posts Marshall seems to me to have done exactly that. I wonder why people do it. I will present 3 unsuccessful attempts to make sense of it.
First imagine that the analysts think that by far the principal reason that polls differ is sampling error even though this is not reasonable. If they thought this, then the best way of pooling polls would a an average weighted by the sample sizes of the polls. That is, the weight on each poll would have nothing to do with whether it is an outlier. If each sample is a true random sample and there is no other difference between polls this is a mathematical result as dubious as 2+2=4.
It is possible that there are other differences between polls than random sampling error. Indeed this is clearly true. I only know what I read at pollingreport but I can see that there are significant firm specific differences. This is the case considered above. If there is evidence that a firm is unreliable it’s polls should be given low weight (or ignored entirely) whether or not a specific poll is an outlier.
The only way to rationalize the practice described by Marshall is to assume that there is some process other than random sampling error which causes some specific polls to be far from the truth but does not affect other polls by the same firm. Another way of putting this is if the errors in polls have a fat tailed distribution, a trimmed mean is a better estimate of the state of opinion than an untrimmed mean. I haven’t the faintest idea of what could cause such a distribution of errors. I suppose that it is possible that this is because I don’t know as much about how pollsters really pick their samples as the analysts, but I certainly am not ready to rule out the possibility that the analysts are confused.
[Update] I have read the post whose intro set me off. The analysis in the post is, as usual for Marshall, excellent not just far better than the approach to analyzing polls mentioned in the intro.
Marshall writes “But to go back to my analogy about analyzing polls, even if we set aside the issue of whether there was this specific black operation -- noted by Hersh -- the basic story seems more and more clear, and increasingly confirmed from multiple sources. That is, that irregular methods originally approved for use against al Qaida terrorists who had just recently landed a devastating blow against the US, were later expanded (by which mix of urgency, desperation, reason, bad values or hubris remains to be determined) to the prosecution of the insurgency in Iraq.”
Now this makes sense. The fact that similar complex verbal claims are made by multiple sources is evidence that the shared aspects of the claims are true. If the claims did not confirm each other, we should have little confidence in the “average” claim even if we could average sentences as we average numbers. Since all the sources are anonymous, Marshall is not relying on their track record; they could not have one (of course he is, in part, relying on Hersh’s track record as well he should).
So what’s the difference ? I think the issue is that similar numbers do not confirm each other to the same extent that similar stories do.
It is easy for different polling results for Kerry minus Bush rounded to the nearest percent to be identical even if each is certainly an imprecise measure and even if each is biased or grossly unreliable. Since the possible numbers are few it is easy for two such numbers to be identical by coincidence. Of course it is much easier for them to be very close by coincidence. The important thing is that this is true even if both are far from the true population average.
On the other hand, it is more difficult for different stories to correspond unless the shared features are true. The number of different lies is so immense that they can’t match by accident. Of course, more difficult does not mean very difficult. The different sources might have conspired to mislead the press. Different reporters might, unknowingly, be quoting the same small set of anonymous sources. Finally lies can co-ordinate around rumours, with each liar claiming to have direct information that the rumour is true (I think Gary Sick was honestly mislead by such rumour confirming liars when he researched “October Surprise”).
One minor question is why does Marshall chose to present his clearly sound approach by analogy with a dubious method for analysing polling data ? Checking if a story is confirmed by multiple sources is not a new or controversial approach to journalism. I’m afraid that he momentarily lapsed into number envy, that is, found the intellectual status of statistical analysis attractive, even though, in this case, his analysis is much more sound than that of the numerical analysts.
A caveat. I criticise discarding outliers specifically in the case of pooling polls. The reason is that it seems to me hard to imagine why there would be bad polls, that is, why the distribution of polling errors would have poll specific (not firm specific) fat tails. In general, I am rather attracted to the approach of down-weighting or discarding outliers as is clear from my CV.
A final question is whether the attraction of discarding outliers is based in part on the analogy with the traditional practice of dismissing sources (or witnesses) whose claims are not confirmed by anyone else. I have no reason for my confidence, but, in my heart, I am not able to doubt that such a false analogy leads analysts to discard outliers even when they shouldn’t and would lead most people to discard outliers even when they are told (and understand and believe) that the numbers are drawn from an iid normal distribution.
So what else is new ?
As noted by Mark Kleiman and Fred Kaplan, NBC news accuses George Bush of choosing not to attack Ansar al Islam in 2002.
NBC was scooped by ABC which reported the story in 2003.
According to ABC news The Ansar base was secured March 30 “Intelligence officials were convinced they would find the toxin known as ricin, which is deadlier than cyanide, or the apparatus to make chemicals at the facility. They were so concerned about the facility that plans were drawn up to attack it long before the war, although they were not carried out. “
which was scooped by
Romesh Ratnesar of CNN on August 26 2002
“Other Pentagon aides leaked word that the Administration had recently considered but decided against sending commandos into Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq to knock out a clandestine chemical-weapons lab allegedly run by Ansar al-Islam
To blow my own horn, I asked "Why did we let so many of the Ansar Al Islam terrorists get away ?" on November 6 2003 concluding
"Notice Ratnesar’s view that, to the Bush administration hawks, actually doing something about Ansar al Islam, is a minor aspect of the main effort to use the existence of Ansar Al Islam to convince Bush to invade Iraq. Notice also that someone decided not to attack Ansar Al Islam in 2002.
It seems to me that US forces in Iraq are in trouble because the Bush administration did not let minor objectives like catching terrorists by surprise get in the way of its “war on terrorism”.
As noted by Mark Kleiman and Fred Kaplan, NBC news accuses George Bush of choosing not to attack Ansar al Islam in 2002.
NBC was scooped by ABC which reported the story in 2003.
According to ABC news The Ansar base was secured March 30 “Intelligence officials were convinced they would find the toxin known as ricin, which is deadlier than cyanide, or the apparatus to make chemicals at the facility. They were so concerned about the facility that plans were drawn up to attack it long before the war, although they were not carried out. “
which was scooped by
Romesh Ratnesar of CNN on August 26 2002
“Other Pentagon aides leaked word that the Administration had recently considered but decided against sending commandos into Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq to knock out a clandestine chemical-weapons lab allegedly run by Ansar al-Islam
To blow my own horn, I asked "Why did we let so many of the Ansar Al Islam terrorists get away ?" on November 6 2003 concluding
"Notice Ratnesar’s view that, to the Bush administration hawks, actually doing something about Ansar al Islam, is a minor aspect of the main effort to use the existence of Ansar Al Islam to convince Bush to invade Iraq. Notice also that someone decided not to attack Ansar Al Islam in 2002.
It seems to me that US forces in Iraq are in trouble because the Bush administration did not let minor objectives like catching terrorists by surprise get in the way of its “war on terrorism”.
Friday, May 14, 2004
John Derbyshire misquotes Orwell while defending "techniques of humiliation to break their wills and show them who's boss" claiming that in his essay on Kipling Orwell wrote "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
I have managed not to comment on John Derbyshire, but misquoting Orwell is too much. He has been told of the error which he corrects by linking to a list of well known misquotations. He describes this as "full details." There is no evidence that he has checked the essay which he mentions "Can't stop to check everything. Not my chob."
He still claims "Orwell -- in the Kipling essay I started with -- passes very similar opinions, and would undoubtedly have agreed with the remark. " And while the original misquote does not appear in the current version of the apologia for "techniques of humiliation" it does contain the following claim
"One of the many things Orwell taught us (see, e.g., his essay on Kipling) is that the dirty work of civilization -- the work of policemen, prison guards, soldiers, interrogators of terrorist suspects -- is *dirty*."
What Orwell wrote in the essay "Rudyard Kipling" includes "It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase 'making mock of the uniforms which guard you while you sleep'" and "he sees that the soldier is neglected, meanly underpaid and hypocritically despised by the people whose income he safeguards."
In the first passage Orwell agrees with Kipling's criticism of pacifism. Here Orwell is arguing that soldiers are not, as such, despicable. He is not arguing that soldiers who abuse prisoners are not dispicable. The second quotation is about plain old snobbery, in particular, it is an partial extenuation of Kipling's misdeed of making fun of Cockney accents.
In the essay Orwell does not defend anything which he would consider dirty. Armies yes, fighting yes, killing in war yes, abusing prisoners no. Orwell was a police officer in Burma and he knew what the dirty work was. He rejected it. It should not need saying that Orwell lived and died a socialist anti imperialist.
If Derbyshire had bothered to read the essay which he misquoted he might have noticed "Those who now call themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices of Fascists." I think Orwell was overharsh, although the claim might have been true when he wrote it.
I'd note in closing that John Derbyshire is certainly not a Liberal.
I have managed not to comment on John Derbyshire, but misquoting Orwell is too much. He has been told of the error which he corrects by linking to a list of well known misquotations. He describes this as "full details." There is no evidence that he has checked the essay which he mentions "Can't stop to check everything. Not my chob."
He still claims "Orwell -- in the Kipling essay I started with -- passes very similar opinions, and would undoubtedly have agreed with the remark. " And while the original misquote does not appear in the current version of the apologia for "techniques of humiliation" it does contain the following claim
"One of the many things Orwell taught us (see, e.g., his essay on Kipling) is that the dirty work of civilization -- the work of policemen, prison guards, soldiers, interrogators of terrorist suspects -- is *dirty*."
What Orwell wrote in the essay "Rudyard Kipling" includes "It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase 'making mock of the uniforms which guard you while you sleep'" and "he sees that the soldier is neglected, meanly underpaid and hypocritically despised by the people whose income he safeguards."
In the first passage Orwell agrees with Kipling's criticism of pacifism. Here Orwell is arguing that soldiers are not, as such, despicable. He is not arguing that soldiers who abuse prisoners are not dispicable. The second quotation is about plain old snobbery, in particular, it is an partial extenuation of Kipling's misdeed of making fun of Cockney accents.
In the essay Orwell does not defend anything which he would consider dirty. Armies yes, fighting yes, killing in war yes, abusing prisoners no. Orwell was a police officer in Burma and he knew what the dirty work was. He rejected it. It should not need saying that Orwell lived and died a socialist anti imperialist.
If Derbyshire had bothered to read the essay which he misquoted he might have noticed "Those who now call themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices of Fascists." I think Orwell was overharsh, although the claim might have been true when he wrote it.
I'd note in closing that John Derbyshire is certainly not a Liberal.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Below I indulge in the pleasure of working through Matthew Yglesias' reasoning.
Far far away in another part of Washington and another moral and intellectual universe, Senator Inhofe was showing the depths of human mental depravity. "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the
treatment ... These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."
Joshua Marshall notes Inhofe's indefensible equation of "accused" and "guilty". I'd add that insurgents should not be treated as war criminals let alone tortured. I think that Iraqi insurgents are making a terrible mistake, but the legal case is simple. There country was invaded and occupied, they are fighting the occupiers, this makes them belligerants not criminals. Some insurgents may have become criminals by killing or torturing prisoners. An insurgent fighting the occupiers of his country is the moral equivalent of a murderer or a terrorist.
Also, of course, it is morally unacceptable to torture someone just because they are a terrorist murderer.
Even criticizing Inhofe makes me feel complicit in his depravity.
Far far away in another part of Washington and another moral and intellectual universe, Senator Inhofe was showing the depths of human mental depravity. "I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the
treatment ... These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."
Joshua Marshall notes Inhofe's indefensible equation of "accused" and "guilty". I'd add that insurgents should not be treated as war criminals let alone tortured. I think that Iraqi insurgents are making a terrible mistake, but the legal case is simple. There country was invaded and occupied, they are fighting the occupiers, this makes them belligerants not criminals. Some insurgents may have become criminals by killing or torturing prisoners. An insurgent fighting the occupiers of his country is the moral equivalent of a murderer or a terrorist.
Also, of course, it is morally unacceptable to torture someone just because they are a terrorist murderer.
Even criticizing Inhofe makes me feel complicit in his depravity.
Trying to Reason about torture is dangerous as a ticking bomb
Matthew Yglesias is reasonable and brilliant as always. He concludes "Even without resorting to any implausibly absolutist arguments, then I don't think we're likely to find any situations where tortuting people is a good idea." Taht is, while it is possible to imagine a hypothetical in which torture is justified it is unlikely that such a situation will ever occur.
I think that for pure practical purposes, there is little difference between "will probably never happen before the humankind dies off" and "happens very rarely". Let's say that the cost of an absolute taboo against torture is that people are sometimes but very rarely killed by a time bomb which could be diffused. That is a small cost compared to the cost of the increased torture which occurs if people with a darker side (that is people) are liberated from the taboo.
If we are deciding whether we should do what we can to support the taboo on torture, very rare cases in which torture is good doen't tip the practical moral balance any more than a purely hopothetical case. I also think that, if we are trying to support the taboo, conceding that torture would be moral in a purely hypothetical case does about as much damage as conceding that it is moral in very rare cases. I'd say the best thing to do if someone tries to defend torture is to shout that it is always morally unacceptable. I admit, here, that I don't really believe that, because I assume that none of the few readers of this blog will ever be seriously tempted to torture anyone.
I have some other quibbles with Yglesias' argument.
Yglesias' argues that with torture "You can get information (as seen in, say, The Battle of Algiers) like what the name of the guy you reported to was, but not stuff that's incredibly time-sensitive ("where's the bomb!")." Who said that all terrorists have short fuses ? I mean couldn't the bomb be set to explode in a year or two ?
I think Yglesias uses a false dichotomy to argue that "Thus, the goal of torture is not to shift the incentives facing the victim (cooperate and we won't hurt you) but rather to destroy the personality of the victim, thus creating a shattered wreck of a human being who, unlike his predecessor, lacks strong ideological commitment to the cause." This may be the way torture generally achieves its goals (aside from the goal of gratifying sadists).
Yglesias argues
"If your proposed victim is disposed to respond self-interestedly to inventives, it's easy enough to get him to cooperate without resorting to extreme measures. As with flipping a perp in a criminal case you offer him a nicer cell, more cigarettes, a shorter sentence, whatever, to be provided if his information pans out. Torture is for precisely those cases where the victim is sufficiently committed to the cause that he won't respond to incentives in an instrumentally rational manner." I think there is an equivocation her. Two different statements are equated -- to "respond self-interestedly to inventives," is not the same as to " respond to incentives in an instrumentally rational manner." Instrumental rationality does not imply complete selfishness. The victim may be partly committed to the cause and thus not does respond self interestedly but not completely and absoltutely committed and thus responds in an instrumentally ratioanal manner. Yglesias' argument relies on asserting that there is nothing between absolute selfishness and absolute commitment, that is, on asserting that a mild incentive has the same effect as a major incentive.
There are many things which I would do to avoid torture which I would not do to get a nicer cell or more cigarettes, even assuming that the mere threat of possible future torture does not reduce me to a "shattered wreck of a human being".
Matthew Yglesias is reasonable and brilliant as always. He concludes "Even without resorting to any implausibly absolutist arguments, then I don't think we're likely to find any situations where tortuting people is a good idea." Taht is, while it is possible to imagine a hypothetical in which torture is justified it is unlikely that such a situation will ever occur.
I think that for pure practical purposes, there is little difference between "will probably never happen before the humankind dies off" and "happens very rarely". Let's say that the cost of an absolute taboo against torture is that people are sometimes but very rarely killed by a time bomb which could be diffused. That is a small cost compared to the cost of the increased torture which occurs if people with a darker side (that is people) are liberated from the taboo.
If we are deciding whether we should do what we can to support the taboo on torture, very rare cases in which torture is good doen't tip the practical moral balance any more than a purely hopothetical case. I also think that, if we are trying to support the taboo, conceding that torture would be moral in a purely hypothetical case does about as much damage as conceding that it is moral in very rare cases. I'd say the best thing to do if someone tries to defend torture is to shout that it is always morally unacceptable. I admit, here, that I don't really believe that, because I assume that none of the few readers of this blog will ever be seriously tempted to torture anyone.
I have some other quibbles with Yglesias' argument.
Yglesias' argues that with torture "You can get information (as seen in, say, The Battle of Algiers) like what the name of the guy you reported to was, but not stuff that's incredibly time-sensitive ("where's the bomb!")." Who said that all terrorists have short fuses ? I mean couldn't the bomb be set to explode in a year or two ?
I think Yglesias uses a false dichotomy to argue that "Thus, the goal of torture is not to shift the incentives facing the victim (cooperate and we won't hurt you) but rather to destroy the personality of the victim, thus creating a shattered wreck of a human being who, unlike his predecessor, lacks strong ideological commitment to the cause." This may be the way torture generally achieves its goals (aside from the goal of gratifying sadists).
Yglesias argues
"If your proposed victim is disposed to respond self-interestedly to inventives, it's easy enough to get him to cooperate without resorting to extreme measures. As with flipping a perp in a criminal case you offer him a nicer cell, more cigarettes, a shorter sentence, whatever, to be provided if his information pans out. Torture is for precisely those cases where the victim is sufficiently committed to the cause that he won't respond to incentives in an instrumentally rational manner." I think there is an equivocation her. Two different statements are equated -- to "respond self-interestedly to inventives," is not the same as to " respond to incentives in an instrumentally rational manner." Instrumental rationality does not imply complete selfishness. The victim may be partly committed to the cause and thus not does respond self interestedly but not completely and absoltutely committed and thus responds in an instrumentally ratioanal manner. Yglesias' argument relies on asserting that there is nothing between absolute selfishness and absolute commitment, that is, on asserting that a mild incentive has the same effect as a major incentive.
There are many things which I would do to avoid torture which I would not do to get a nicer cell or more cigarettes, even assuming that the mere threat of possible future torture does not reduce me to a "shattered wreck of a human being".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)