Oh Happy Day
Finally finally Talking Points Memo links to Waldman*. Too bad it's Scott Waldman.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
There is no Valid Evidence that Early Sex causes delinquency.
The claim that it does is based on correlation. Obviously there is omitted variables bias (I just mean correlation does not imply causation). Paige Harden et al study twins one of which had sex earlier than the other. They actually find a negative correlation between early sex and later delinquency such as shop lifting and drug selling.
Rick Weiss of the Washington Post, does not mention whether this within twin pair correlation is statistically significant. Also even within twin pairs correlation is not causation. Teenage boys are generally eager to have sex (putting it mildly). Thus the girls decide who gets it. Maybe they don't go for proto-delinquents. Causal explanations would include that delinquency is the result of boredom frustration and too much time on one's hands and sex uhm relieves these problems and that girls who are less delinquent on average than boys have more influence on their boyfriends than vice versa.
It is interesting that the clearly invalid causal argument based on correlation in the population is causation argument was accepted in this case. I think this is clearly true because it eased cognitive dissonance in people who disapprove of early (or all pre-marital) sex and because it corresponds to prejudices based on correlation. Weiss notes that, legislating that pi = 22/7, the US government
has decided the question by fiat "U.S. educators wanting a piece of the nation's $200 million "abstinence only" budget must adhere to a curriculum that links sex to delinquency and explicitly precludes discussion of contraception."
Another example, as I noted recently, is teenage pregnancy and infant mortality. Weiss notes that Arlene Geronimus is still on the case.
The claim that it does is based on correlation. Obviously there is omitted variables bias (I just mean correlation does not imply causation). Paige Harden et al study twins one of which had sex earlier than the other. They actually find a negative correlation between early sex and later delinquency such as shop lifting and drug selling.
Rick Weiss of the Washington Post, does not mention whether this within twin pair correlation is statistically significant. Also even within twin pairs correlation is not causation. Teenage boys are generally eager to have sex (putting it mildly). Thus the girls decide who gets it. Maybe they don't go for proto-delinquents. Causal explanations would include that delinquency is the result of boredom frustration and too much time on one's hands and sex uhm relieves these problems and that girls who are less delinquent on average than boys have more influence on their boyfriends than vice versa.
It is interesting that the clearly invalid causal argument based on correlation in the population is causation argument was accepted in this case. I think this is clearly true because it eased cognitive dissonance in people who disapprove of early (or all pre-marital) sex and because it corresponds to prejudices based on correlation. Weiss notes that, legislating that pi = 22/7, the US government
has decided the question by fiat "U.S. educators wanting a piece of the nation's $200 million "abstinence only" budget must adhere to a curriculum that links sex to delinquency and explicitly precludes discussion of contraception."
Another example, as I noted recently, is teenage pregnancy and infant mortality. Weiss notes that Arlene Geronimus is still on the case.
Do I Dare Debate Paul Krugman on International Macro ?
Why not. Does help that I am defending Robert Rubin.
Rubin said
Krugman assumes, correctly I guess, that Rubin was not wishing for a huge major recession in the US and uses the standard international macro model to argue that, otherwise, the only way to improve the trade balance is to weaken the dollar.
The problem is that the standard model is a short term model in which the US net financial position is treated as a constant. I think I can reinterpret Rubin so that his claims make sense provided that the timing of "would have" and "would have" is just right.
OK Lower trade deficit means slack demand in the US, the fed thus sets lower interest rates and the dollar is less valuable compared to other currencies (the exchange rate is high) the US balance of trade is less negative and US net debt is lower so US net capital income is higher .
This means that now, with less debt, the current account can be in balance with a more valuable dollar.
So tighter fiscal policy first implies a "better" trade deficit (with a dollar worth less) and then a "better dollar" (with a more negative trade deficit).
I think this is all possible and technically (barely) consistent with Rubin's words.
However, I honestly think Krugman is right about what Rubin meant.
Why not. Does help that I am defending Robert Rubin.
Rubin said
“You could have had surpluses that affected the savings rate and would have helped the trade balance. I think you would have had more confidence in the policy framework and you would have had a better dollar,” he says regretfully. He pauses to reflect. “But we are where we are.”
Krugman assumes, correctly I guess, that Rubin was not wishing for a huge major recession in the US and uses the standard international macro model to argue that, otherwise, the only way to improve the trade balance is to weaken the dollar.
The problem is that the standard model is a short term model in which the US net financial position is treated as a constant. I think I can reinterpret Rubin so that his claims make sense provided that the timing of "would have" and "would have" is just right.
OK Lower trade deficit means slack demand in the US, the fed thus sets lower interest rates and the dollar is less valuable compared to other currencies (the exchange rate is high) the US balance of trade is less negative and US net debt is lower so US net capital income is higher .
This means that now, with less debt, the current account can be in balance with a more valuable dollar.
So tighter fiscal policy first implies a "better" trade deficit (with a dollar worth less) and then a "better dollar" (with a more negative trade deficit).
I think this is all possible and technically (barely) consistent with Rubin's words.
However, I honestly think Krugman is right about what Rubin meant.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
This is an interesting article on an important topic, but it has one gross flaw.
Michael Rosenwald discusses the economics of firms providing workers incentives to lose weight.
[snip]
Sounds great. This is important news.
However Rosenwald has some trouble deciding if he is interested in health or the new morality in which the wages of sin are fat. He writes
so taking pills is masking the problem ? Rosenwald says this, because taking pills is easy and therefore not virtuous. It is also true that obesity causes problems which can not be treated with pills, but he's decided that taking a pill a day is not a healthy behavior because ... ? Well for no reason. His use of "mask" for a approach which resolves a very serious but invisible problem and leaves him as visibly fat as ever is bizarre.
He goes on
This is getting weird. The pills don't cause the cronic diseases. They prevent them. The major cost to the USA is not paying for statins and high blood pressure medications, but paying for, among other things, the consequences of high blood pressure and cholesterol. Furthermore the social cost of the pills is very low. Most of the cost is a transfer to pharmaceutical companies which can be cut by congress anytime it wants to (that is when hell freezes over).
I think that an incentive program which paid people to lower their blood cholesterol and blood pressure and control their blood glucose would be even more profitable than one that paid them to lower their weight. It would be paying them to take a pill a day. People don't need much money to do that (writes the guy who hasn't taken his statin for 2 weeks). The best program would pay for for improvements in weight, blood pressure and blood cholesterol.
The idea that pills for blood pressure, blood glucose and blood cholesterol are part of the problem not part of the solution is based on puritanism not biology or economics.
Michael Rosenwald discusses the economics of firms providing workers incentives to lose weight.
Tangerine, based in Boston, designs weight-loss programs that employ economic incentives. The company is modeled on recent economic research showing that paying people to lose weight causes their pounds to fall off faster. Eric Finkelstein, an economist with RTI International who has spoken with Tangerine executives, recently conducted a study in which people were paid either $7 or $14 per percentage point of body weight they lost.
After three months, people with no incentives lost about two pounds. The $7 group lost about three pounds. The $14 group: five pounds. Members of the more expensive group were also five times more likely than members of the no-money group to lose 5 percent of their body weight. One person netted $140. Were they more excited about losing weight or about the money? "I think they were most excited by the $140," Finkelstein said.
[snip]
An average of 140 employees at Wesley Willows participate in the program, which started eight months ago. They get $3 per percentage point of weight lost. Together, they have lost 806 pounds. Holmgaard said the company has spent $11,500 on the Tangerine program, including rewards. The company's health-care costs have tumbled more than $146,000. "Certainly paying them gets their attention," Holmgaard said.
Sounds great. This is important news.
However Rosenwald has some trouble deciding if he is interested in health or the new morality in which the wages of sin are fat. He writes
My insurance company requires no co-payments for generic drugs, so I can theoretically mask the problem for free. And it just became cheaper for millions of Americans to get low-cost generics through Wal-Mart, which is charging $4 for a 30-day supply of drugs that treat common ailments such as high blood pressure.
"If you reduce the cost of maintaining unhealthy behaviors or lifestyles, what incentive do you have to change?" said Ross DeVol, a Milken Institute economist who studies health care issues.
so taking pills is masking the problem ? Rosenwald says this, because taking pills is easy and therefore not virtuous. It is also true that obesity causes problems which can not be treated with pills, but he's decided that taking a pill a day is not a healthy behavior because ... ? Well for no reason. His use of "mask" for a approach which resolves a very serious but invisible problem and leaves him as visibly fat as ever is bizarre.
He goes on
I chose the drugs and am thusly always on the prowl for beef. So, apparently, are millions of other Americans. Seventy-five percent of the nation's $1.4 trillion in annual medical costs can be blamed on chronic diseases, many of which are lifestyle induced, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The effect of blood pressure and cholesterol medicine is startling: A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that earlier this decade, obese people had a 21 percent lower prevalence of high cholesterol and an 18 percent lower prevalence of high blood pressure than obese people did in the early 1960s. We seem to be healthier fat people, but we're not cheap for the health-care system -- or our employers.
This is getting weird. The pills don't cause the cronic diseases. They prevent them. The major cost to the USA is not paying for statins and high blood pressure medications, but paying for, among other things, the consequences of high blood pressure and cholesterol. Furthermore the social cost of the pills is very low. Most of the cost is a transfer to pharmaceutical companies which can be cut by congress anytime it wants to (that is when hell freezes over).
I think that an incentive program which paid people to lower their blood cholesterol and blood pressure and control their blood glucose would be even more profitable than one that paid them to lower their weight. It would be paying them to take a pill a day. People don't need much money to do that (writes the guy who hasn't taken his statin for 2 weeks). The best program would pay for for improvements in weight, blood pressure and blood cholesterol.
The idea that pills for blood pressure, blood glucose and blood cholesterol are part of the problem not part of the solution is based on puritanism not biology or economics.
I Take The Tristero Challenge
Tristero quotes Krugman and invites commenters to criticize
I agree with Krugman, but a challenge is a challenge. Given the relative work ethics of Paul Krugman and me this is especially ironic but here goes
do people in North America want to work less ? I say North America, because the best data are from Canada, where half of people want to work different hours for the same hourly pay and two thirds of those want to work more. see Kahn, Shulamit; Lang, Kevin; Review of Economics and Statistics, November 1991, v. 73, iss. 4, pp. 605-11 . In the US for most low income men who want to change how much they work, work fewer hours than they would like according to this http://tinyurl.com/yotntf
I think the best way to know if people want to work less is to ask them, and, on avrage, they say the opposite.
Tristero quotes Krugman and invites commenters to criticize
The lower number of hours per worker in France seems to fall in the second category. In the United States vacations are very short, and many workers get no vacation at all. France has essentially made a decision, enforced by legal requirements on vacation time as well as union settlements, to trade less income for more time off. And there's some evidence that this decision actually makes most people better off. As one recent study of the difference in working hours between Europe and the United States points out, polls suggest that people would like to work shorter hours, and international comparisons of reported "life satisfaction" seem to say that working less improves the quality of life even if it reduces income. Yet it's very difficult, for any individual, operating on his or her own, to trade less income for more leisure. French rules and regulations that solve this problem by requiring that employers provide vacation may actually be a good thing, even though they reduce GDP.
I agree with Krugman, but a challenge is a challenge. Given the relative work ethics of Paul Krugman and me this is especially ironic but here goes
do people in North America want to work less ? I say North America, because the best data are from Canada, where half of people want to work different hours for the same hourly pay and two thirds of those want to work more. see Kahn, Shulamit; Lang, Kevin; Review of Economics and Statistics, November 1991, v. 73, iss. 4, pp. 605-11 . In the US for most low income men who want to change how much they work, work fewer hours than they would like according to this http://tinyurl.com/yotntf
I think the best way to know if people want to work less is to ask them, and, on avrage, they say the opposite.
House Passes Bill to Ease Alternative Minimum Tax
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 10, 2007; Page A01
Wow that was quick. The House Democrats managed to do something that caused Jonathan fbd Weisman to write a lede that I like. Roughly a miracle. I also really enjoyed "the hours of open class warfare on the House floor" and was very amused that the sentence begins with "But" as if open class warfare is bad for Democrats.
J fbd Weisman did manage to irritate me predicting that Democrats will "fail" because they won't get the "required 60 votes in the Senate."
Also I really don't like to read "Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.)" and I really really don't like to read "Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a key member of the finance and banking committees,"
Still actually not a bad article. All he said she said, but the Democrats case is so strong that that is fine.
My main concern is that I have predicted that the new open ness of the class war will destroy the Republican party, and my predictions are always wrong.
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 10, 2007; Page A01
The House yesterday narrowly approved a $73.8 billion measure to protect millions of families from the alternative minimum tax and offer new tax breaks to middle-income homeowners and low-income parents, offset by tax increases that would land primarily on wealthy Wall Street financiers.
Wow that was quick. The House Democrats managed to do something that caused Jonathan fbd Weisman to write a lede that I like. Roughly a miracle. I also really enjoyed "the hours of open class warfare on the House floor" and was very amused that the sentence begins with "But" as if open class warfare is bad for Democrats.
J fbd Weisman did manage to irritate me predicting that Democrats will "fail" because they won't get the "required 60 votes in the Senate."
Also I really don't like to read "Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.)" and I really really don't like to read "Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a key member of the finance and banking committees,"
Still actually not a bad article. All he said she said, but the Democrats case is so strong that that is fine.
My main concern is that I have predicted that the new open ness of the class war will destroy the Republican party, and my predictions are always wrong.
Fact Check Check Green Envy
Wow Michael Dobbs gives Bill Richardson the full 4 Pinocchios !
Very solid fact check I'd say. Richardson said "I like to compete with other governors about which is the clean energy state. We are the only state that follows the Kyoto treaty." Dobbs notes that New Mexico did not meet the Kyoto standards for the USA and that other states have established targets for reducing emmissions. He quotes Sandra Ely of the New Mexico Environment Department ""I'm not sure we are ahead of California," ... "But for the size of our state, we are doing exceptionally well.""
Richardson's claim is clearly false and earns the 4. Dobbs notes that Richardson has an excellent environmental record but lied about it. This fact checking was about the facts and claims not who is a good guy.
I award 4 stars
I fear I may have fallen for self praise "We would like to cut the governor some slack for his leadership on global warming, but we have to stick to our rating scale," bu the bottom line is Dobbs stuck to his scale even though he praises Richardson on the issue except for the lying.
Wow Michael Dobbs gives Bill Richardson the full 4 Pinocchios !
Very solid fact check I'd say. Richardson said "I like to compete with other governors about which is the clean energy state. We are the only state that follows the Kyoto treaty." Dobbs notes that New Mexico did not meet the Kyoto standards for the USA and that other states have established targets for reducing emmissions. He quotes Sandra Ely of the New Mexico Environment Department ""I'm not sure we are ahead of California," ... "But for the size of our state, we are doing exceptionally well.""
Richardson's claim is clearly false and earns the 4. Dobbs notes that Richardson has an excellent environmental record but lied about it. This fact checking was about the facts and claims not who is a good guy.
I award 4 stars
I fear I may have fallen for self praise "We would like to cut the governor some slack for his leadership on global warming, but we have to stick to our rating scale," bu the bottom line is Dobbs stuck to his scale even though he praises Richardson on the issue except for the lying.
Esterday
all my troubles seemed so far away
now it seems that they are here to stay
oh I believe in Esterday
“You people are really nuts,” she [Anita Esterday] told a reporter during a phone interview. “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.”
via just about everyone I read.
Damn I could really have some influence on the internet, if I could just get a job at Maid-Rite.
all my troubles seemed so far away
now it seems that they are here to stay
oh I believe in Esterday
“You people are really nuts,” she [Anita Esterday] told a reporter during a phone interview. “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.”
via just about everyone I read.
Damn I could really have some influence on the internet, if I could just get a job at Maid-Rite.
Daniel at crooked timber finds a new low of evoltionary psych.
I don't want to be rude but the authors' desperate effort to reconcile the unexpected result with their theory reminds me of economists (I am an economist). A theory which can explain either sign equally well, is a theory which is not ready for prime time. As you tacitly note, the first best of two possibilities would be for men to find women sexier when they are fertile. This would give said men an evolutionary advantage.
"The best you can say" is a bit too good to be said really. If the authors' had swept the result under a rug, they wouldn't have gotten a publication. Similarly, if they had said their result contradicts the natural prediction based on evolutionary psych they would have pissed off an editor and 2 referees.
Finally, I have a less feeble (although still feeble) reconciliation of the observation and the theory (which I just read in a semi old economist article on lap dancers). The article found that fertile lap dancers get larger tips than non fertile lap dancers including those on the pill.
Women have no trouble getting pregnant, they have trouble keeping the fathers of their children loyal to them. Therefore it is in their interest to be sexy all the time (promotes monogamy you should see what Chimpanzees do) while males who can tell which women are fertile gain. The result you mention says that women won the walk round. The result in the economist said that men won the lap dance round. The problem is that any set of results is equally consistent with the theory of natural selection, therefore the whole excercise is a waste of time.
I would have no problem if both arguments appeared in both papers and both concluded that either sign if consistent with the theory. I haven't read the research articles so either or both sets of authors might have done this.
Now evolutionary biology has a problem as most people, in the USA at least, don't believe in it. The intellectual dishonesty of claiming to explain opposite results can't help. The overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with the ex post explanations of interesting phenomenon and much to do with extremely uninteresting things like Whales' hip bones. The unconvincing arguments based on evolutionary biology distract from the evidence and must contribute at least a little to the serious problem of people not accepting the overwhelming evidence on the core question.
From the Department of “Are you absolutely sure about that?”, evolutionary psychology once more is on the march:Love songs may rhapsodise “something in the way she moves”, but a sexy walk is not a sign that a woman is ready to become pregnant. In fact, a new study suggests that the way a woman walks changes during her monthly cycle, and that the most seductive wiggle occurs when she is least fertile.[…]Hmmm. I think the best you can say about this is at least they did the right thing and went ahead and published these desperately unconvincing results rather than sweeping them under a rug.
For the latest study, Dr Provost and her team dressed female volunteers in suits adorned with light markers, as used in Hollywood special effects departments, along the joints and limbs.
This allowed them to film each woman as she walked and then analyse her gait. They also collected saliva samples to find out whether each woman was in the more or less fertile phase of her menstrual cycle.
The women who were ovulating walked with smaller hip movements and with their knees closer together, New Scientist magazine reported. When 40 men were shown the images of the women walking they rated those in the less fertile part of their cycle as having the sexiest walks. […]
That makes evolutionary sense, because it would benefit a woman to advertise her fertility only to those men she believes would make a suitable mate. In contrast, men can pick up on the attractiveness of a woman’s walk from long distance, and it can therefore act as an unwitting signal to less appealing males whom she might not want to choose.
I don't want to be rude but the authors' desperate effort to reconcile the unexpected result with their theory reminds me of economists (I am an economist). A theory which can explain either sign equally well, is a theory which is not ready for prime time. As you tacitly note, the first best of two possibilities would be for men to find women sexier when they are fertile. This would give said men an evolutionary advantage.
"The best you can say" is a bit too good to be said really. If the authors' had swept the result under a rug, they wouldn't have gotten a publication. Similarly, if they had said their result contradicts the natural prediction based on evolutionary psych they would have pissed off an editor and 2 referees.
Finally, I have a less feeble (although still feeble) reconciliation of the observation and the theory (which I just read in a semi old economist article on lap dancers). The article found that fertile lap dancers get larger tips than non fertile lap dancers including those on the pill.
Women have no trouble getting pregnant, they have trouble keeping the fathers of their children loyal to them. Therefore it is in their interest to be sexy all the time (promotes monogamy you should see what Chimpanzees do) while males who can tell which women are fertile gain. The result you mention says that women won the walk round. The result in the economist said that men won the lap dance round. The problem is that any set of results is equally consistent with the theory of natural selection, therefore the whole excercise is a waste of time.
I would have no problem if both arguments appeared in both papers and both concluded that either sign if consistent with the theory. I haven't read the research articles so either or both sets of authors might have done this.
Now evolutionary biology has a problem as most people, in the USA at least, don't believe in it. The intellectual dishonesty of claiming to explain opposite results can't help. The overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection has nothing to do with the ex post explanations of interesting phenomenon and much to do with extremely uninteresting things like Whales' hip bones. The unconvincing arguments based on evolutionary biology distract from the evidence and must contribute at least a little to the serious problem of people not accepting the overwhelming evidence on the core question.
Friday, November 09, 2007
I am in very serious trouble.
See I just started reading Kung Fu Monkey. It was a lark and now I'm addicted and someone who writes there is one of the Hollywood writers on strike and has nothing to do all day but write hilarious posts about 0.3% residuals on DVDs and the only way I can stop reading about this (which I really really don't give a damn about) was to click on a link defining EEBC and that lead to one of the best blog posts ever.
So I'm basically doomed to a life of highly amused idleness.
See I just started reading Kung Fu Monkey. It was a lark and now I'm addicted and someone who writes there is one of the Hollywood writers on strike and has nothing to do all day but write hilarious posts about 0.3% residuals on DVDs and the only way I can stop reading about this (which I really really don't give a damn about) was to click on a link defining EEBC and that lead to one of the best blog posts ever.
So I'm basically doomed to a life of highly amused idleness.
I find this link in my firefox bookmarks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_applications_of_real_materials.
Clicking it I am horrified to find that the Wikipedia has no entry on "Fictional applications of real materials."
How can this be !?! Who will write the entry ? and why the hell did I bookmark that link ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_applications_of_real_materials.
Clicking it I am horrified to find that the Wikipedia has no entry on "Fictional applications of real materials."
How can this be !?! Who will write the entry ? and why the hell did I bookmark that link ?
I feel I should comment on financial market chaos but maybe I shouldn't feel obliged since Paul Krugman is reduced to saying “Eeeeekkkk!” and writing about Wile E. Coyote.
update: I just realized something and feel like Wile E. Coyote. I was trying to decide if the Peoples Bank of China really means it when it threatens to diversify its foreign reserves. If it does we are in a whole lot of trouble as the PRC's generosity have been the secret to the non catastrophe of Bushinomics. The problem is not so much the decline in the value of the dollar but the increase in interest rates if they dump tons and tons of T-bills on the market.
(by the way, why haven't I ever heard anyone say "I wouldn't do that for all the T-bills in China ?")
I thought well maybe they will, for one thing they probably don't want an insane hawk like Giuliani in the White House
Boing ! Robert J as Wile E. Staring at screen with eyes bugging out over his big nose.
I think it is safe to hazard a prediction. We are going to be hearing a lot about how the Chinese are trying to get Hillary Clinton elected. Why all the talk about Norman Hsu ? Or about ethnic Chinese waiters donating the maximum to Clinton or wasn't there something about that in 1996 (and investigated and investigated until Linda Tripp got wired up).
I do think that some unprincipled political party has decided that they are going to need someone to blame for high long term interest rates, a housing fiasco, and a recession, so they are going to blame the Clinton Chicom Conspiracy.
I haven't read this on the web yet, but it seems obvious.
Now there are problems, including the fact that the Chicoms have us by the short hairs because of the Republicans reckless fiscal policy, and the fact that about yesterday Republicans were demanding that they Chinese allow the Renmibi to appreciate compared to the dollar, but a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the party that managed to lose an election to Bush.
update: I just realized something and feel like Wile E. Coyote. I was trying to decide if the Peoples Bank of China really means it when it threatens to diversify its foreign reserves. If it does we are in a whole lot of trouble as the PRC's generosity have been the secret to the non catastrophe of Bushinomics. The problem is not so much the decline in the value of the dollar but the increase in interest rates if they dump tons and tons of T-bills on the market.
(by the way, why haven't I ever heard anyone say "I wouldn't do that for all the T-bills in China ?")
I thought well maybe they will, for one thing they probably don't want an insane hawk like Giuliani in the White House
Boing ! Robert J as Wile E. Staring at screen with eyes bugging out over his big nose.
I think it is safe to hazard a prediction. We are going to be hearing a lot about how the Chinese are trying to get Hillary Clinton elected. Why all the talk about Norman Hsu ? Or about ethnic Chinese waiters donating the maximum to Clinton or wasn't there something about that in 1996 (and investigated and investigated until Linda Tripp got wired up).
I do think that some unprincipled political party has decided that they are going to need someone to blame for high long term interest rates, a housing fiasco, and a recession, so they are going to blame the Clinton Chicom Conspiracy.
I haven't read this on the web yet, but it seems obvious.
Now there are problems, including the fact that the Chicoms have us by the short hairs because of the Republicans reckless fiscal policy, and the fact that about yesterday Republicans were demanding that they Chinese allow the Renmibi to appreciate compared to the dollar, but a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the party that managed to lose an election to Bush.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Fact Checking the Fact Checker on Iraqi Civilian Deaths
First I should note that it is generally agreed (I think almost universally) that the Iraqi civilian violent death rate declines sharply in September and October 2007. I will however, comment on fact checking of Testimony by General Petreaus and a statement by Hillary Clinton on September 11 2007. One might argue that, as a practical matter, that debate is now academic as we have two more months of information which make things clear. However, that misses two of the important points of fact checking. It is useful to tell who is honest so lies which are no longer of practical importance are worth discovering. It is useful to punish dishonesty so denouncing old lies is useful.
I consider it a clear rule of fact checking claims made on September 11 2007, that people are not labled dishonest for failing to predict the future.
I was very displeased with Michael Dobbs' first fact check of claims about Iraqi civilian deaths (although I messed up the link).
In this article, Dobbs hinted that Petraeus's claims were questionable, but said he would report on their accuracy later. In contrast, he denounced the MovOn.org Betray-Us advertisement.
His second effort was a very thorough job marred by an unwillingness to draw a firm conclusion. Dobbs said he couldn't tell if Petreaus cooked the books, because MNF-I would not allow him to audit them. I would say the standard is that until they are willing and able to explain the discrepencies between their numbers and independent numbers, they should be considered to have admitted that they cooked the books. If accountability can be blocked by secrecy, we might as well give up on the concept of facts.
His third effort finally reaches a conclusion giving Petraeus and Clinton One Pinocchio each. Thus the result of all the effort is criticism of Petraeus and of two separate critics of Petraeus. I think each was added for balance. The cases against both MoveOn and Clinton are feeble and no other senator or advocacy group was criticized.
I learned something important from the last article. My criticism of the MNF-I numbers is that they are not possible given the huge death toll of the August 14th bombing aimed at Yazidis. I still think this is true of one of the figures presented by Petraeus on September 11, in which the killings were inexcusably classified a non sectarian. However, "according to [the chief military statistician in Baghdad, Colonel David R.] LaRivee, the August figures included several "high casualty" incidents, such as devastating suicide attacks on Yazidi villages in northern Iraq. By U.S. estimates, 326 people were killed in the Aug. 15 bombings of the Yazidi villages. (Preliminary estimates from the Red Crescent spoke of more than five hundred dead.) Had it not been for these mass suicide attacks, the decline in civilian casualties would have been even more pronounced. Most western news organizations based in Baghdad reported a fall in civilian deaths between August and September."
This helps to explain the gap between MNF-I and independent estimates of deaths in August. Iraq Body Count and the Associated Press were probably using the initial higher estimate of deaths on August 14th. The justification for MNF-I's lower estimate of deaths caused by the Qahtaniya bombings is important.
In general, while respected the work Dobbs did, I remain extremely unsatisfied by his analysis. The rules appear to be that Petreaus is to be criticized only if his subordinates confirm that he was dishonest. This is an absurd approach to fact checking. In contrast, Clinton is criticized for alleged vagueness and an aid's refusal to answer an irrelevant question and MoveOn.org is pilloried for accurately quoting news reports.
I am going to try to organize the rest of this post. First I will discuss data sets often relying on Dobbs's discussion. Then I will discuss the fact checking of Petraeus, Clinton, The Council on Foreign Relations and MoveOn.
First the data. All of Petreaus's claims are related in some way to estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths made by his subordinates and MNF-I. The overall series shows a sharp decline in deaths from December 2006 (chosen as a peak and being two months before the beginning of the surge) and August 2006. The Associated Press and Iraq Body Count have very different estimates showing a smaller decline from December 2006 till August 2007 and no clear trend from Spring 07 until August 07.
Oddly MNF-I figures show more civilian deaths than casualties in December '06 and January '07 implying a negative number of non fatal injuries. Both strange features of the MNF-I data can be explained by MNF-I's decision to include "host nation reports" of deaths. They therefore count deaths and casualties differently, but did not explain this in the titles and legends of figures. Almost all of the decline in Iraqi civilian deaths is explained by a 70% decline of Iraqi reported deaths. As I noted earlier in this blog, this huge decline occurred after the Iraqis ceased to provide raw data to the UN. Essentially, General Petreaus's claim is as solid as our confidence that ethnic cleansers accurately report how much ethnic cleansing they have been doing.
Excluding host nation reports gives a series very similar to the IBC and AP series. Deaths in August 2007 were slighly more than deaths in February 2007 and there was no clear trend during the surge.
Dobbs made an important contribution by insisting that MNF-I provide the separate series (necessary to explain how they counted a negative number of non fatal injuries and why their numbers are totally different from the AP and IBC numbers). I'd say that claiming to believe such implausible numbers is clearly dishonest. Dobbs does not note as others have that estimates of deaths in a given time period (say December 2006) change later.
Dobbs does not note the Associated Press time series. I assume this is because he doesn't read Talking Points Memo, which, unlike the AP constructed a series. The series shows an increase from the beginning of the surge through August 2007, although basically it shows no trend during the surge.
Dobbs notes that Iraq Body Count shows much less of a decline than MNF-I. I think he should conclude that MNF-I includes extremely dubious Iraqi numbers in it's count and therefore gives a totally different picture than independent sources which attempt to be comprehensive (last qualifier to exclude the Washington Post count of bodies delivered to morgues). Thus their numbers are highly suspect and Petreaus's summary dismissal of all other numbers and refusal to discuss the cause of the difference was dishonest.
Basically there is no way that Petreaus would have convinced anyone (but wingnuts of course) that we should trust the Iraqi government more than the Associated Press and yet is exactly what he did. I'd say it's worth 2 or 3 pinocchios right there.
Dobbs, however, only considers criticisms of Petreaus from his own subordinates. This is absurd but not completely uninteresting since they are not willing to stand by his claims. Just cutting and pasting.
Petraeus stated the claim as a definite precise fact. Not "according to coalition and host nation reports collected to date" nor with any other qualifier. If he knew very well that the numbers he presented were not accurate to two figures, he is guilty of perjury. The only claim that LaRivee is willing to make some time between October 1 and October 19 is that that has been a decline. This could refer to the decline from August to September, that is, after Petreaus's testimony or from December 2006 till February 2007 when the surge started.
Also
Get that, there is definitely a lag in host nation reporting, therefore, the host nation reported figures for August 2007 were not complete when the power point presentation presented on September 11 2007 was prepared. Therefore, compared to earlier months, the figure for August 2007 was biased down according to Colonel LaRivee. This means that Petreaus's claim was definitely false. He did not qualify the claim with "according to the data we currently have" as would have been required to take credit for the apparent good news due to the bias without technically committing perjury.
That puts his up to 4 Pinocchios. His own subbordinate says that his sworn claim was not true.
For balance and on the general Clinton rules and possibly as a result of Mau Mauing, Dobbs also scrutinizes Senator Clinton's claim that
Now I don't see why Clinton alone among people who don't crunch the numbers should be scrutinized, but I also don't see what is wrong with her claim. The statement is not totally explicit as it doesn't specify the time interval over which civilian deaths have allegedly risen. Dobbs interprets it as being true only if it is true for all time intervals, and, in particular establishes as the standard reference point December 2006, which is the month with the highest reported civilian deaths according to MNF-I. This is requiring Clinton to cherry pick against herself. The natural interval is the surge, and, as I have noted a few times above, all sources except for the Iraqi government and the clearly incomplete morgue count support her claim.
Since she was challenging the MNF-I figure it is absurd to suggest that her assertion is false if it is inconsistent with the MNF-I figure. I think a large part of Dobbs problem is that he doesn't know about the ap time series. AP, IBC and MNF-I without "host country reports" are very clear and Clinton is very clearly right unless you think that "declined" must mean "declined since December 2006" or hell if those numbers are refuted how about during the Mongol sack of Baghdad. The death rate sure has declined since then (guessed at about 100,000 a day).
Here is the verdict on Clinton
OK let's see. What basis is there for Dobbs's decision that "decline" must mean "decline since December 2006" ? There is none and there can be none. Clinton's choice of time period is much more reasonable that Petreaus's who obviously chose the very best time period for his argument with no possible justification (wins one Pinnocchio for that).
Worse yet, Dobbs asked his question in October and thus presumes that to be honest Clinton must be pre-cognitive. He did *not* ask Reines if deaths had declined by August 2007 which is the only question relevant to fact checking a claim made on September 11. For all I know, Reines refused to answer for exactly that reason and would otherwise have argued "yes but not during the surge, which is the longest time interval which is relevant to teh debate, according to sources other than Petreaus and his subordinates "
I think Clinton clearly meant to refer to recent changes and never accepted comparisons to December 2006. I think her claim, which clearly referred to sources other than MNF-I is absolutely true. I think she deserves a star and Dobbs 2 Pinocchios for trying to distort what she said and for dragging her in to balance the criticism of Petraeus.
Dobbs criticises the Council of Foreign relations for keeping a claim based on out of date data on its web site after the revision was pointed out to them. I'd say failure to note that the source of the data now makes a different claim invalidating one's assertion is worth a solid 4 Pinocchios. Dobbs gives them one for no reason.
Thus his harshest judgement by far is directed at MoveOn.org. And why?
He complains that they include a polemical claim in an ad largely devoted to fact checking
"Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war."
"Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed."
"General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."
They are an advocacy organization not fact checkers. I think also that, given the stated aim of the surge strategy, political reconciliation, it clearly has failed. One can only argue otherwise by redefining success.
Also Dobbs denounces as follows
"That's because, according to the New York Times,"
"The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front."
Dobbs confirms that the claim made by MovOn.org is absolutely totally true. He blames them for a false claim made by his employer which they accurately quoted.
Clearly he has no sense of Irony. The Washington Post condemns MoveOn.org Washington Post. Have people who work at the post no sense of shame ?
"According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American "
soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there."
The fact check notes that a claim based on News reports is inconsistent with MNF-I reports, which is sort of MovOn's point.
But this is my favorite
"We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
"
Yep your read that right, Dobbs claims that he can fact check a prediction (note the future tense). MoveOn was referring to Petreaus's future testimony. and you know what ? They were right. While earlier MNF-I officers had shown maps of Baghdad color coded to show the ethnic cleansing, Petreaus showed mapps where the change in the number of attacks was illustrated but the color codes all reffered to December 2006 thus hiding information on ethnic cleansing that he definitely had.
MoveON.org gets a crystal ball for accurately reporting the future.
Dobbs has no respect for facts, denouncing an organization for claims which he confirms are absolutely true or which are advocacy not verifiable fact while he mildly chides people who make up claims based on nothing, whose subordinates say they know that their sworn testimony was false.
A shame because he works hard. I think it is clear that there is a connection between the good reporting on the MNF-I numbers and the horrible analysis. If Dobbs had not bent over backwards to be unfair to Petreaus's critics and more than fair to Petreaus he would never have gotten the figures on host country reported vs coalition reported deaths.
I think that's the choice these days, people committed to call them as I see them fact checking can't get at the facts.
First I should note that it is generally agreed (I think almost universally) that the Iraqi civilian violent death rate declines sharply in September and October 2007. I will however, comment on fact checking of Testimony by General Petreaus and a statement by Hillary Clinton on September 11 2007. One might argue that, as a practical matter, that debate is now academic as we have two more months of information which make things clear. However, that misses two of the important points of fact checking. It is useful to tell who is honest so lies which are no longer of practical importance are worth discovering. It is useful to punish dishonesty so denouncing old lies is useful.
I consider it a clear rule of fact checking claims made on September 11 2007, that people are not labled dishonest for failing to predict the future.
I was very displeased with Michael Dobbs' first fact check of claims about Iraqi civilian deaths (although I messed up the link).
In this article, Dobbs hinted that Petraeus's claims were questionable, but said he would report on their accuracy later. In contrast, he denounced the MovOn.org Betray-Us advertisement.
His second effort was a very thorough job marred by an unwillingness to draw a firm conclusion. Dobbs said he couldn't tell if Petreaus cooked the books, because MNF-I would not allow him to audit them. I would say the standard is that until they are willing and able to explain the discrepencies between their numbers and independent numbers, they should be considered to have admitted that they cooked the books. If accountability can be blocked by secrecy, we might as well give up on the concept of facts.
His third effort finally reaches a conclusion giving Petraeus and Clinton One Pinocchio each. Thus the result of all the effort is criticism of Petraeus and of two separate critics of Petraeus. I think each was added for balance. The cases against both MoveOn and Clinton are feeble and no other senator or advocacy group was criticized.
I learned something important from the last article. My criticism of the MNF-I numbers is that they are not possible given the huge death toll of the August 14th bombing aimed at Yazidis. I still think this is true of one of the figures presented by Petraeus on September 11, in which the killings were inexcusably classified a non sectarian. However, "according to [the chief military statistician in Baghdad, Colonel David R.] LaRivee, the August figures included several "high casualty" incidents, such as devastating suicide attacks on Yazidi villages in northern Iraq. By U.S. estimates, 326 people were killed in the Aug. 15 bombings of the Yazidi villages. (Preliminary estimates from the Red Crescent spoke of more than five hundred dead.) Had it not been for these mass suicide attacks, the decline in civilian casualties would have been even more pronounced. Most western news organizations based in Baghdad reported a fall in civilian deaths between August and September."
This helps to explain the gap between MNF-I and independent estimates of deaths in August. Iraq Body Count and the Associated Press were probably using the initial higher estimate of deaths on August 14th. The justification for MNF-I's lower estimate of deaths caused by the Qahtaniya bombings is important.
In general, while respected the work Dobbs did, I remain extremely unsatisfied by his analysis. The rules appear to be that Petreaus is to be criticized only if his subordinates confirm that he was dishonest. This is an absurd approach to fact checking. In contrast, Clinton is criticized for alleged vagueness and an aid's refusal to answer an irrelevant question and MoveOn.org is pilloried for accurately quoting news reports.
I am going to try to organize the rest of this post. First I will discuss data sets often relying on Dobbs's discussion. Then I will discuss the fact checking of Petraeus, Clinton, The Council on Foreign Relations and MoveOn.
First the data. All of Petreaus's claims are related in some way to estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths made by his subordinates and MNF-I. The overall series shows a sharp decline in deaths from December 2006 (chosen as a peak and being two months before the beginning of the surge) and August 2006. The Associated Press and Iraq Body Count have very different estimates showing a smaller decline from December 2006 till August 2007 and no clear trend from Spring 07 until August 07.
Oddly MNF-I figures show more civilian deaths than casualties in December '06 and January '07 implying a negative number of non fatal injuries. Both strange features of the MNF-I data can be explained by MNF-I's decision to include "host nation reports" of deaths. They therefore count deaths and casualties differently, but did not explain this in the titles and legends of figures. Almost all of the decline in Iraqi civilian deaths is explained by a 70% decline of Iraqi reported deaths. As I noted earlier in this blog, this huge decline occurred after the Iraqis ceased to provide raw data to the UN. Essentially, General Petreaus's claim is as solid as our confidence that ethnic cleansers accurately report how much ethnic cleansing they have been doing.
Excluding host nation reports gives a series very similar to the IBC and AP series. Deaths in August 2007 were slighly more than deaths in February 2007 and there was no clear trend during the surge.
Dobbs made an important contribution by insisting that MNF-I provide the separate series (necessary to explain how they counted a negative number of non fatal injuries and why their numbers are totally different from the AP and IBC numbers). I'd say that claiming to believe such implausible numbers is clearly dishonest. Dobbs does not note as others have that estimates of deaths in a given time period (say December 2006) change later.
Dobbs does not note the Associated Press time series. I assume this is because he doesn't read Talking Points Memo, which, unlike the AP constructed a series. The series shows an increase from the beginning of the surge through August 2007, although basically it shows no trend during the surge.
Dobbs notes that Iraq Body Count shows much less of a decline than MNF-I. I think he should conclude that MNF-I includes extremely dubious Iraqi numbers in it's count and therefore gives a totally different picture than independent sources which attempt to be comprehensive (last qualifier to exclude the Washington Post count of bodies delivered to morgues). Thus their numbers are highly suspect and Petreaus's summary dismissal of all other numbers and refusal to discuss the cause of the difference was dishonest.
Basically there is no way that Petreaus would have convinced anyone (but wingnuts of course) that we should trust the Iraqi government more than the Associated Press and yet is exactly what he did. I'd say it's worth 2 or 3 pinocchios right there.
Dobbs, however, only considers criticisms of Petreaus from his own subordinates. This is absurd but not completely uninteresting since they are not willing to stand by his claims. Just cutting and pasting.
"Civilian deaths of all categories, less natural causes, have also declined considerably, by over 45 percent Iraq-wide, since the height of the sectarian violence in December."
--General David Petraeus, congressional testimony, September 11, 2007.
Asked about Petraeus's "over 45 percent claim," LaRivee said that he would not "want anybody to read too much into the precision of that statement. [Petraeus] knows very well that the host nation reports have some problems with them. But the trends are moving in the right direction."
Petraeus stated the claim as a definite precise fact. Not "according to coalition and host nation reports collected to date" nor with any other qualifier. If he knew very well that the numbers he presented were not accurate to two figures, he is guilty of perjury. The only claim that LaRivee is willing to make some time between October 1 and October 19 is that that has been a decline. This could refer to the decline from August to September, that is, after Petreaus's testimony or from December 2006 till February 2007 when the surge started.
Also
According to Colonel LaRivee, the Iraqi authorities are improving their data collection processes all the time, but the system is still far from perfect. There is "definitely a lag in host nation reporting." Some events that were reported as having taken place in December 2006 could well have taken place in November. There are sometimes duplicate reports of the same incident, leading to inflated figures.
Get that, there is definitely a lag in host nation reporting, therefore, the host nation reported figures for August 2007 were not complete when the power point presentation presented on September 11 2007 was prepared. Therefore, compared to earlier months, the figure for August 2007 was biased down according to Colonel LaRivee. This means that Petreaus's claim was definitely false. He did not qualify the claim with "according to the data we currently have" as would have been required to take credit for the apparent good news due to the bias without technically committing perjury.
That puts his up to 4 Pinocchios. His own subbordinate says that his sworn claim was not true.
For balance and on the general Clinton rules and possibly as a result of Mau Mauing, Dobbs also scrutinizes Senator Clinton's claim that
"The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief. ... If you look at all the evidence that's been presented, overall civilian deaths have risen."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton, responding to Petraeus during his Senate testimony.
Now I don't see why Clinton alone among people who don't crunch the numbers should be scrutinized, but I also don't see what is wrong with her claim. The statement is not totally explicit as it doesn't specify the time interval over which civilian deaths have allegedly risen. Dobbs interprets it as being true only if it is true for all time intervals, and, in particular establishes as the standard reference point December 2006, which is the month with the highest reported civilian deaths according to MNF-I. This is requiring Clinton to cherry pick against herself. The natural interval is the surge, and, as I have noted a few times above, all sources except for the Iraqi government and the clearly incomplete morgue count support her claim.
Since she was challenging the MNF-I figure it is absurd to suggest that her assertion is false if it is inconsistent with the MNF-I figure. I think a large part of Dobbs problem is that he doesn't know about the ap time series. AP, IBC and MNF-I without "host country reports" are very clear and Clinton is very clearly right unless you think that "declined" must mean "declined since December 2006" or hell if those numbers are refuted how about during the Mongol sack of Baghdad. The death rate sure has declined since then (guessed at about 100,000 a day).
Here is the verdict on Clinton
Hillary Clinton Claimed that Iraqi civilian deaths "have risen" without specifying her terms. She read talking points almost verbatim from a Democratic think tank, the Center for American Progress, which argues that the violence has not gone down. Her spokesman, Philippe Reines, told us earlier that Clinton was referring only to the months of July and August 2007 when she claimed that the death toll had "risen." He declined to respond to a question about whether the senator now believes that Iraqi civilian deaths have risen or fallen since last December.
OK let's see. What basis is there for Dobbs's decision that "decline" must mean "decline since December 2006" ? There is none and there can be none. Clinton's choice of time period is much more reasonable that Petreaus's who obviously chose the very best time period for his argument with no possible justification (wins one Pinnocchio for that).
Worse yet, Dobbs asked his question in October and thus presumes that to be honest Clinton must be pre-cognitive. He did *not* ask Reines if deaths had declined by August 2007 which is the only question relevant to fact checking a claim made on September 11. For all I know, Reines refused to answer for exactly that reason and would otherwise have argued "yes but not during the surge, which is the longest time interval which is relevant to teh debate, according to sources other than Petreaus and his subordinates "
I think Clinton clearly meant to refer to recent changes and never accepted comparisons to December 2006. I think her claim, which clearly referred to sources other than MNF-I is absolutely true. I think she deserves a star and Dobbs 2 Pinocchios for trying to distort what she said and for dragging her in to balance the criticism of Petraeus.
Dobbs criticises the Council of Foreign relations for keeping a claim based on out of date data on its web site after the revision was pointed out to them. I'd say failure to note that the source of the data now makes a different claim invalidating one's assertion is worth a solid 4 Pinocchios. Dobbs gives them one for no reason.
Thus his harshest judgement by far is directed at MoveOn.org. And why?
He complains that they include a polemical claim in an ad largely devoted to fact checking
"Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war."
"Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed."
"General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts."
They are an advocacy organization not fact checkers. I think also that, given the stated aim of the surge strategy, political reconciliation, it clearly has failed. One can only argue otherwise by redefining success.
Also Dobbs denounces as follows
"That's because, according to the New York Times,"
criticism with no reference to The New York Times
"The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front."
True, the Post has reported this, [STOP right there Dobbs]
Dobbs confirms that the claim made by MovOn.org is absolutely totally true. He blames them for a false claim made by his employer which they accurately quoted.
Clearly he has no sense of Irony. The Washington Post condemns MoveOn.org Washington Post. Have people who work at the post no sense of shame ?
"According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American "
soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there."
True on U.S. military deaths.[snip]
an August 25 Associated Press report that war-related deaths in Iraq have nearly doubled over the last year, from an average daily toll of 2006 of 33 to 62 so far this year."
The fact check notes that a claim based on News reports is inconsistent with MNF-I reports, which is sort of MovOn's point.
But this is my favorite
"We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
"
Reporters based in Baghdad have reported that one reason for the declining violence is the ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods. See this useful New York Times graphic, for example. Petraeus did not dispute a New York Times report that 35,000 Iraqis have left their homes in Baghdad as part of ethnic cleansing.
Yep your read that right, Dobbs claims that he can fact check a prediction (note the future tense). MoveOn was referring to Petreaus's future testimony. and you know what ? They were right. While earlier MNF-I officers had shown maps of Baghdad color coded to show the ethnic cleansing, Petreaus showed mapps where the change in the number of attacks was illustrated but the color codes all reffered to December 2006 thus hiding information on ethnic cleansing that he definitely had.
MoveON.org gets a crystal ball for accurately reporting the future.
Dobbs has no respect for facts, denouncing an organization for claims which he confirms are absolutely true or which are advocacy not verifiable fact while he mildly chides people who make up claims based on nothing, whose subordinates say they know that their sworn testimony was false.
A shame because he works hard. I think it is clear that there is a connection between the good reporting on the MNF-I numbers and the horrible analysis. If Dobbs had not bent over backwards to be unfair to Petreaus's critics and more than fair to Petreaus he would never have gotten the figures on host country reported vs coalition reported deaths.
I think that's the choice these days, people committed to call them as I see them fact checking can't get at the facts.
Mau Mauing the Fact Checker
The Washington Post Fact Check Michael Dobbs provides a useful index by candidate. Assuming this was an guide to allegedly false claims by candidates, I clicked on Clinton. Oddly most of the cases are checking others' accusations against Clinton.
Oddly, in the first three cases I checked, Clinton gets the same number of Pinocchios as her accusers. This appears to be Dobbs way of not making a call. It also means that he is regularly accusing Clinton of lying, because she as over all front runner is being attacked a lot (and also because she is named Clinton).
I was struck by the title of one of the articles "Fact Checking the Fact Checker" which is what I like to think I'm doing. The second paragraph begins "Some commenters could not see what all the fuss is about and said the Fact Checker was shilling for Hillary Clinton,"
In contrast, I was outraged at the prominent inclusion of Clinton in the headline and illustration of the latest (November 8th) fact check on statements by Richardson and Kucinic. The article itself included Clinton in an embarrassing discussion of UFOs by quoting some flake speculating with no evidence. I quote Dobbs writing something which has no place in a fact checking column "rightly or wrongly."
I think it is clear that Dobbs has been mau maued.
I quote from the first comment on a post on Joe Biden claiming he negotiated START with Leonid Brezhnev "Gee, give the guy a break. After 36 years in the Senate, numerous treaties and bills and resolutions, a guy can get a little confused. Heck even Russians don't remember Kosygin. Two Pinnos is way too harsh.
Talk about inflating your resume!!??!! Two words: Hillary Clinton. ..."
and another
"It really confuses me that this great man has not the attention he deserves. He is the most knowledgeable among both the Democratic and Republican candidates. During the last debate I lost count of how many times I heard the words "Joe's right".
My view of the race:
One candidate refuses to release HER records that prove her experience (or lack there of)."
I think the Hillary haters have gotten to Dobbs.
His latest absurd completely unfounded slur makes sense only if he is worried about being called a shill for Clinton. He should stop worrying. No matter how unfair he is to her, he will be called a shill for Clinton.
Now I will examine 2 of the fact checks (a discussion of the one which actually interests me on Iraqi civilian casualties will be posted above).
2. Fact Checking the Fact Checker is the most interesting article for this blog post. In the end Dobbs awards Clinton one Pinocchio. The odd thing is that he doesn't quote one false claim of fact that she made. Instead he responds to criticisms of Dobbs and concludes that Clinton is sortof a semi liar.
What a dweeb.
This fact check refers to an earlier article which quotes one claim made by Clinton
"# As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)" Note that Dobbs makes the claim his own (so why didn't he award himself at least one Pinocchio ?!?). Also note that the claim is undeniably true.
On the substance of the issue, he concludes that "The truest comment about campaign finance probably came from Obama when he acknowledged that he was swimming in "the same muddy water" as the other candidates." How this differs from Clinton's claim is not explained.
Dobbs gives Obama an Pinocchio too go figure.
The first comment on this post notes that he accuses only Democrats, because uhm well it's not clear why.
Dobbs was criticized by commenters and he responded OK OK I agree I cast unreasonable aspersions on Edwards and Obama's honesty Hillary Clinton is dishonest.
I certainly don't understand why he calls Clinton a semi liar for saying something which he repeated in his own voice, but does not make the same accusation against Michael Dobbs. He clearly has a double standard. Something is dishonest if said by Clinton but not if written by Dobbs.
2. Hillary gets 2 Pinocchios for this one. Dobbs quotes her as saying
Dobbs does not claim that any of these claims is false. He notes that the processes include review by the former President or a representative (note the singular) who is, in this case, Bruce Lindsey who is not a National Archives employee (nor did Clinton suggest that he is).
According to Dobbs said processes were slowed by President Bush : "Because of cumbersome declassification procedures introduced by President Bush, there are now huge delays in processing Freedom of Information requests at all presidential libraries, including the Clinton and Bush I libraries."
The substantive argument is
So the problem is that Bill Clinton is applying the new procedures just like all other former Presidents. Note also that Bill Clinton is not, technically, Hillary Clinton. Dobbs does not contest the claim that only one single person is authorized to go through the records.
So when the question is whether the most open President ever is abusing secrecy, Senator Clinton, who argues otherwise without making any false claim, is accused of dishonesty.
The Washington Post Fact Check Michael Dobbs provides a useful index by candidate. Assuming this was an guide to allegedly false claims by candidates, I clicked on Clinton. Oddly most of the cases are checking others' accusations against Clinton.
Oddly, in the first three cases I checked, Clinton gets the same number of Pinocchios as her accusers. This appears to be Dobbs way of not making a call. It also means that he is regularly accusing Clinton of lying, because she as over all front runner is being attacked a lot (and also because she is named Clinton).
I was struck by the title of one of the articles "Fact Checking the Fact Checker" which is what I like to think I'm doing. The second paragraph begins "Some commenters could not see what all the fuss is about and said the Fact Checker was shilling for Hillary Clinton,"
In contrast, I was outraged at the prominent inclusion of Clinton in the headline and illustration of the latest (November 8th) fact check on statements by Richardson and Kucinic. The article itself included Clinton in an embarrassing discussion of UFOs by quoting some flake speculating with no evidence. I quote Dobbs writing something which has no place in a fact checking column "rightly or wrongly."
I think it is clear that Dobbs has been mau maued.
I quote from the first comment on a post on Joe Biden claiming he negotiated START with Leonid Brezhnev "Gee, give the guy a break. After 36 years in the Senate, numerous treaties and bills and resolutions, a guy can get a little confused. Heck even Russians don't remember Kosygin. Two Pinnos is way too harsh.
Talk about inflating your resume!!??!! Two words: Hillary Clinton. ..."
and another
"It really confuses me that this great man has not the attention he deserves. He is the most knowledgeable among both the Democratic and Republican candidates. During the last debate I lost count of how many times I heard the words "Joe's right".
My view of the race:
One candidate refuses to release HER records that prove her experience (or lack there of)."
I think the Hillary haters have gotten to Dobbs.
His latest absurd completely unfounded slur makes sense only if he is worried about being called a shill for Clinton. He should stop worrying. No matter how unfair he is to her, he will be called a shill for Clinton.
Now I will examine 2 of the fact checks (a discussion of the one which actually interests me on Iraqi civilian casualties will be posted above).
2. Fact Checking the Fact Checker is the most interesting article for this blog post. In the end Dobbs awards Clinton one Pinocchio. The odd thing is that he doesn't quote one false claim of fact that she made. Instead he responds to criticisms of Dobbs and concludes that Clinton is sortof a semi liar.
What a dweeb.
This fact check refers to an earlier article which quotes one claim made by Clinton
"# As Clinton has pointed out, her rivals have no problem taking money from the people who pay the lobbyists, and give them their "marching orders." (ABC News debate, August 19, 2007.)" Note that Dobbs makes the claim his own (so why didn't he award himself at least one Pinocchio ?!?). Also note that the claim is undeniably true.
On the substance of the issue, he concludes that "The truest comment about campaign finance probably came from Obama when he acknowledged that he was swimming in "the same muddy water" as the other candidates." How this differs from Clinton's claim is not explained.
Dobbs gives Obama an Pinocchio too go figure.
The first comment on this post notes that he accuses only Democrats, because uhm well it's not clear why.
Dobbs was criticized by commenters and he responded OK OK I agree
I certainly don't understand why he calls Clinton a semi liar for saying something which he repeated in his own voice, but does not make the same accusation against Michael Dobbs. He clearly has a double standard. Something is dishonest if said by Clinton but not if written by Dobbs.
2. Hillary gets 2 Pinocchios for this one. Dobbs quotes her as saying
Well actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there...I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as its circumstances and processes demand."
Dobbs does not claim that any of these claims is false. He notes that the processes include review by the former President or a representative (note the singular) who is, in this case, Bruce Lindsey who is not a National Archives employee (nor did Clinton suggest that he is).
According to Dobbs said processes were slowed by President Bush : "Because of cumbersome declassification procedures introduced by President Bush, there are now huge delays in processing Freedom of Information requests at all presidential libraries, including the Clinton and Bush I libraries."
The substantive argument is
A Clinton campaign spokesman, Jay Carson, said the former president had "consistently been an advocate for releasing his presidential records as quickly as possible" and had opposed the Bush administration order that placed new restrictions on their release.
There is, however, nothing in Executive Order 13233 that obliges a former president, or his representative, to go through the records one by one. If former President Clinton is so opposed to the Bush administration order, he could simply instruct Lindsey to approve the documents wholesale.
So the problem is that Bill Clinton is applying the new procedures just like all other former Presidents. Note also that Bill Clinton is not, technically, Hillary Clinton. Dobbs does not contest the claim that only one single person is authorized to go through the records.
Blanton [ director of the National Security Archive, a non-profit group that monitors declassification procedures] praised former President Clinton for releasing "more historically valuable documents and more secret documents than all previous presidents put together." He said across-the-board declassification orders during the Clinton administration and new restrictions on declassification under Bush had overwhelmed the system.
So when the question is whether the most open President ever is abusing secrecy, Senator Clinton, who argues otherwise without making any false claim, is accused of dishonesty.
Fact Check Vs Viral E-Mail
On November 4 Michael Dobbs fact checked a viral e-mail questioning Sen Obama's patriotism. He notes that the claims in the e-mail are false and gives it 4 Pinocchios. I think this is a worthwhile effort to create look down fact check radar.
I award Dobbs 2 stars.
On November 4 Michael Dobbs fact checked a viral e-mail questioning Sen Obama's patriotism. He notes that the claims in the e-mail are false and gives it 4 Pinocchios. I think this is a worthwhile effort to create look down fact check radar.
I award Dobbs 2 stars.
Not Bright
Or Great Minds Negotiate Alike
On November 5 Michael Dobbs examines Joe Biden's claim
"And with regard to my experience, hey, Bill, in 1979 I was -- I led a delegation of 19 senators negotiating the START agreement with Brezhnev."
He notes that the claim is correct, except for the bits about 19, negotiating, START and Brezhnev.
Showing the Joe Biden is an idiot is like stealing candy from a baby, but solid fact checking.
I award Dobbs 1 star.
Or Great Minds Negotiate Alike
On November 5 Michael Dobbs examines Joe Biden's claim
"And with regard to my experience, hey, Bill, in 1979 I was -- I led a delegation of 19 senators negotiating the START agreement with Brezhnev."
He notes that the claim is correct, except for the bits about 19, negotiating, START and Brezhnev.
Showing the Joe Biden is an idiot is like stealing candy from a baby, but solid fact checking.
I award Dobbs 1 star.
Fact Check Check
On November 6th Michael Dobbs wrote an entertaining article on UFOs and Kucinic (easy) Richardson (interesting) and Clinton (added because according to the Clinton rules it is always OK to dump on Clintons).
He wrote
"Rightly or wrongly, UFO researchers see Hillary Clinton as a possible ally in the fight to declassify government records on alien activity."
This is not fact checking, this is not reporting, this is associating Clinton with a nut case with no justification whatsoever. The headline (not written by Dobbs) is "Aliens Support Clinton, Richardson." The article is illustrated with a photo of Richardson and Clinton but not Kucinic.
I had to read the article to make sure that it contains no evidence at all that undermines Clinton's credibility.
The November 6th "Fact Check" strongly implies something false.
I give the Fact Check 3 Pinocchios.
On November 6th Michael Dobbs wrote an entertaining article on UFOs and Kucinic (easy) Richardson (interesting) and Clinton (added because according to the Clinton rules it is always OK to dump on Clintons).
He wrote
"Rightly or wrongly, UFO researchers see Hillary Clinton as a possible ally in the fight to declassify government records on alien activity."
This is not fact checking, this is not reporting, this is associating Clinton with a nut case with no justification whatsoever. The headline (not written by Dobbs) is "Aliens Support Clinton, Richardson." The article is illustrated with a photo of Richardson and Clinton but not Kucinic.
I had to read the article to make sure that it contains no evidence at all that undermines Clinton's credibility.
The November 6th "Fact Check" strongly implies something false.
I give the Fact Check 3 Pinocchios.
Fact Check Check
Michael Dobbs awards "Four Pinocchios for Recidivist Rudy" and his prostate.
This is solid fact checking, with a clearer explanation of why Giuliani is wrong than I have found anywhere else on the web.
I award Michael Dobbs 4 stars.
Michael Dobbs awards "Four Pinocchios for Recidivist Rudy" and his prostate.
This is solid fact checking, with a clearer explanation of why Giuliani is wrong than I have found anywhere else on the web.
I award Michael Dobbs 4 stars.
Fact Check Check
I think I'm going to make this a daily feature. The Washington Post Fact Checker interests me. Today Michael Dobbs responds to an angry Paulican noting an outrageous proposal from Ron Paul. Good quick catch but much too generous explanation of what is false about Paul's claims.
Ron Paul proposes the elimination of the income tax and argues
I guess this is not quite a lie, but he is implying that the Personal Income tax is the only tax taken out of paychecks. In fact, most of the money he would allow the federal government comes from payroll taxes which are taken out of paychecks (although in a pointless dodge half is taken out before the gross pay figure which appears on the pay stub is calculated).
Also he doesn't correct for inflation when he falsely claims that eliminating the individual income tax would reduce revenues to the levels of 2000.
I give the Fact Check 2 stars for this one.
I think I'm going to make this a daily feature. The Washington Post Fact Checker interests me. Today Michael Dobbs responds to an angry Paulican noting an outrageous proposal from Ron Paul. Good quick catch but much too generous explanation of what is false about Paul's claims.
Ron Paul proposes the elimination of the income tax and argues
The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck...Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
I guess this is not quite a lie, but he is implying that the Personal Income tax is the only tax taken out of paychecks. In fact, most of the money he would allow the federal government comes from payroll taxes which are taken out of paychecks (although in a pointless dodge half is taken out before the gross pay figure which appears on the pay stub is calculated).
Also he doesn't correct for inflation when he falsely claims that eliminating the individual income tax would reduce revenues to the levels of 2000.
I give the Fact Check 2 stars for this one.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
If the original Minutemen had been this stupid,
we'd all be speaking english today - Tbogg
I wish I had said that, but heyyyy, maybe that's their secret plan.
we'd all be speaking english today - Tbogg
I wish I had said that, but heyyyy, maybe that's their secret plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)