The Three R's.

Whatever happened to the Senate Intelligence Committee ?

I was just wondering when the Senate Intelligence Committee phase II report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq will come out. That would be the one blocked by former Chairman Roberts on how the Bush administration presented intelligence to congress and the public. Does Chairman Rockefeller agree that it would be a "waste of time" ?

Also what about the House Intelligence Committee ? Chairman Reyes is a bit weak on the details but he should be able to schedule hearings no ?

All by way of introduction to this by Sidney Blumenthal.

Read it.

h/t Christy Hardin Smith

OK OK TPM Will run AP stories whether I like it or not.

Besides, I like this one.

"Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Giuliani all stressed support for the war, at times even competing to show their commitment."

hug that anchor guys.

"Occasionally interrupted by applause, Paul doggedly stuck to his point. "We have lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan, in Iraq and plus the civilians killed," he said"

"Brownback also drew boos from the audience when he called for passage of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

I like it.

The Battle of Washington has Begun

Karen DeYoung, Ann Scott Tyson and uncounted anonymous sources drop a blockbuster on Petraeus. Actually it is a bit beyond a blockbuster but not a tactical nuke (a blockbuster is just 10,000 tons of TNT).

DeYoung almost frankly concludes that Petraeus has been cooking the books. Some highlights

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Yes you read that right. U.S. military officers are contesting other U.S. military officers in the DIA. The DIA and the CIA agree on something. This must be the first time this has ever happened. The DOD has in the past generally presented a united face in Washington.

In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group ... concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

I'd missed that. Ouch.

The Associated Press last week counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly total this year, with 27,564 civilians killed overall since the AP began collecting data in April 2005.

not new news but deadly.

After the jump

The military stopped releasing statistics on civilian deaths in late 2005, saying the news media were taking them out of context. [snip]

In a follow-up message yesterday, the spokesman said that the non-release policy had been changed this week but that the numbers were still being put "in the right context."

Oh my, "taken out of context" is a flag for "I have been caught lying". It's not in quotes, but "in the right context" is. Oh my. Looks like a little strategic redeployment by MNF-I here. They can't suppress the numbers so they will release them September 11 "in context".

And finally, the lie

When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent "since last year," the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, MNF-I said that "last year" referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

By March, however -- before U.S. troop strength was increased under Bush's strategy -- the number had dropped to 600, only slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May "but trending back down in June-July."

Petraeus's spokesman, Col. Steven A. Boylan, said he was certain that Petraeus had made a comparison with December in the interview with the Australian paper, which did not publish a direct Petraeus quote. No qualifier appeared in the White House fact sheet.

Deadly. Not to mention that 1000/1600 = 62.5% < 75% but I mean who would dream that Petraeus would be able to divide correctly.

My guess is that Bush will win this battle of Washington, but the congress people who roll over for him will not be able to claim that they were sincerely deceived.

Talking Points Memo posts a nonsense containing story from the Associated Press AGAIN

This one is even worse than the one I quoted below. It includes

Republican support could hinge on Petraeus' testimony next week. If he can convince lawmakers that the security gains won in recent months are substantial and point toward a bigger trend, GOP members might be willing to hold out until next spring. They also might be persuaded if Bush promises some small troop drawdowns by the end of the year, as was suggested to the White House by Sen. John Warner of Virginia, an influential Republican on security matters.

so MATTHEW LEE and ANNE GEARAN of AP news and posted on Talking Points Memo claim in their own voices, that security gains have been won in recent months and that the only question is if they are substantial and will last. They do not say exactly what those alleged security gains are supposed to be, nor can they, as the AP's own analysis shows no such gains.

I am not used to denouncing posts on Talking Points Memo and I don't like it. Why doesn't Josh Marshall just link to the AP so TPM is not tainted with the AP's vastly inferior journalistic standards ?

Moon of Alabama (via the TPMpire)

Writes of Michael E. O'Hanlon

In today's introducing text O'Hanlon notes:

Nonetheless, the military momentum appears real, despite the tragic multiple truck bombings in Ninevah Province on Aug. 14 that made that month the deadliest since winter. Overall, civilian fatality rates are down perhaps one third since late 2006, though they remain quite high.

In detail:

made that month the deadliest since winter

The numbers for 'Iraqi Civilian Fatalities' listed in this and former editions of the "State of Iraq" are:

* 2,500 for August 2007
* 3,000 for May 2007
* 2,500 for February 2007
* 4,000 for November 2006
* 3,000 for August 2006

If indeed August was the deadliest month since winter, as O'Hanlon writes, why are his own numbers for May 2007 higher than the ones for August 2007?

Overall, civilian fatality rates are down perhaps one third since late 2006

This of course directly contradicts the words above. "Deadliest month" and "one third less" do not fit together. Which is it?

and concludes

To summarize:

The text O'Hanlon delivers is in itself contradictionary. It does not reconcile with the numbers he presents. The numbers do not fit the coloring scheme of the graphic tables. That some of these numbers differ in size from those of other sources is explainable, but contradicting up-/down-trends are baffling. The criteria O'Hanlon uses seem arbitrary. One suspects that criteria that are trending negatively are dropped while criteria showing 'success' get added.

O'Hanlon is often described as a 'scholar' and he is a visiting lecturer at Princeton University.

Judging from the quality or of his research as documented above, I can not recommend to take any of his courses.

Ouch

Am I Two Hundred Years Old ?

Half my age Ezra Klein writes

Am I A Hundred Years Old?

Songs from the upcoming Britney Spears album have, predictably, leaked onto the interweb (1, 2), and folks are agog at how bad they are. So I hooked up my gramophone and took a listen. And while I agree that they're very bad, they sound very bad in a way that's indistinguishable from any song Fergie has ever recorded. Also, they're too loud, and my prostate hurts.

I don't even know who "Fergie" is !
(Last I heard she was Duchess of York -- really)

update: Some YouTube assistance. She sure is good looking. The music is generic pop. Hasn't changed since I was Ezra's age.

I am checking the lede paragraph of stories on Iraq on the web pages of the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, CNN, and La Repubblica (largest circulation Italian paper)

Update: And Talking Points Memo which ran the ap story without comment. The ap lede

In Surprise Visit to Iraq, Bush Envisions Possible Troop Cutbacks but Gives No Timetable

DEB RIECHMANN and ROBERT BURNS
AP News

Sep 03, 2007 17:58 EDT

President Bush raised the possibility Monday of U.S. troop cuts in Iraq if security continues to improve, traveling here secretly to assess the war before a showdown with Congress.

Riechmann and Burns imply that security has improved in Iraq. The possible troop draw down is ascribed to Bush, the alleged recent improvement in security is not. the lie is presented as a fact. The whole article is dismal. There is no mention of the facts that alleged security improvement are based on data showing a normal seasonal decline in killing when the temperature reaches hotter than hell, nor any discussion of how raw numbers differ from the DOD's highly processed calculations nor well any reporting from Iraq.

And this is the story posted on TPM ! I am shocked. I can get the ap wire all sorts of places. Talking Points Memo should not waste its hard won credibility posting raw ap stories and, implicitly, endorsing the ap's inferior journalism.

Update 2: Also graphed by Tom at Blairwatch. I think the curve connecting the dots is not raw enough. Also the Blog should have been called "The Blair Watch Project".

Washington Post front web page

Bush: More Gains in Iraq Could Lead to Drawdown

Ahead of congressional testimony from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on war's status, Bush argues surge tactic deserves more time.

OK I guess. The Bush: seems to be the Post's way of making an indirect quote neither claiming those words left Bush's mouth in that order nor stating them in the Washington Post's voice.

I click the link and read the Lede

In Iraq, Bush Cites Gains
President Suggests Continuation Could Allow Drawdown

By Michael A. Fletcher and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; Page A01

AL-ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq, Sept. 3 -- President Bush, making an unannounced visit to this isolated and well-fortified air base in Anbar province, said Monday that continued gains in security in Iraq could allow for a reduction in U.S. troops and called on the Iraqi government to follow up with progress toward rebuilding and political reconciliation.

The headline is biased for Bush. I think "Cites" should be "Claims". As written the headline states that there are gains, which is true but based on cherry picking.

The lede provides no balance to Bush except by noting that it seems to have been decided that is not safe for him to go to a normal government office.

New York Times front web page

Bush, in Iraq, Says Troop Reduction Is Possible
By DAVID S. CLOUD and STEVEN LEE MYERS

President Bush pre-empted pressure for a withdrawal by hailing what he called successes and contending that only a stable Iraq would allow a U.S. pullback.

OK the "what he called" is good and needed. Click the link

AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq, Sept. 3 — President Bush made a surprise eight-hour visit to Iraq on Monday, emphasizing security gains, sectarian reconciliation and the possibility of a troop withdrawal, thus embracing and pre-empting this month’s crucial Congressional hearings on his Iraq strategy.

yech. No "alleged" or "what he called". In the lede of the actual story, Cloud and Myers paraphrase Bush's false claims in their own voices without flagging the alleged fact that he is lying like a dog.

Also in The Times

Envoy’s Letters Counter Bush on Plan for Iraq
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance of a plan to dismantle the Iraqi Army.

Click the link

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — A previously undisclosed exchange of letters shows that President Bush was told in advance by his top Iraq envoy in May 2003 of a plan to “dissolve Saddam’s military and intelligence structures,” a plan that the envoy, L. Paul Bremer, said referred to dismantling the Iraqi Army.

That's clear. This is an actual news story (not that the content should surprise anyone) not a report on an event staged for the media. Bremer is trying to protect his reputation. Unfortunately for him, his letter shows not only that Bush was informed (of course) but also that Bremer devoted much more effort to flattery than to communication (no surprise there either) "The reference from Mr. Bremer’s note to Mr. Bush is limited to one sentence at the end of a lengthy paragraph in a three-page letter. The letter devoted much more space to recounting what Mr. Bremer described as “an almost universal expression of thanks” from the Iraqi people “to the U.S. and to you in particular for freeing Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny.”" So Bremer courtier of a vain and stupid King. Nor surprise their either but yech. I can't stand to read the actual letters.



LA Times front web page

U.S. military buildup fails to reconcile Baghdad
By Tina Susman
Despite the plan, communities rupture along sectarian lines, violence shifts and the capital is mired in infighting.

click and first paragraph


By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
8:20 PM PDT, September 3, 2007

BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military buildup that was supposed to calm Baghdad and other trouble spots has failed to usher in national reconciliation, as the capital's neighborhoods rupture even further along sectarian lines, violence shifts elsewhere and Iraq's government remains mired in political infighting.

Devastating. Corresponds to the article (which I have read and comment on below).

CNN front web page. No Iraq story. I think that's about right.

CBS news

La Repubblica front page

Bush, visita a sorpresa in Iraq
"Possiamo ridurre le nostre truppe"
Il presidente nella base aerea di al-Asad (foto) ad ovest di Bagdad. Con lui anche il segretario alla Difesa Gates e la Rice. E per la prima volta apre ad un ritiro parziale: "Con nuovi successi, meno soldati per la sicurezza"

Bush Surprise visit to Iraq
"We can reduce our troops"
The President in the al-Asad air base (photo) west of Baghdad. Secretary of defence Gates and Rice are with him. For the first time he is willing to consider a partial Withdrawal: "With new success, fewer soldiers for security"

OK look my fellow statunitensi, it could be worse, much worse. Back when I was learning Italian (I have given up on learning correct Italian) I read the abstracts in La Repubblica. Then I began trying to read the articles. The editor who wrote the abstract managed to introduce two false claims. First Bush did not definitely call for a reduction in troops, but said it might be possible. Second he has always talked about partial withdrawal (as they stand up we stand down). Wow makes the US press look good.

Note that quotation marks are used for indirect quotes in Italy. That is quotes aren't really quotes. maybe Italians can tell which quotes are supposed to be accurate and which aren't. It drives me nuts.

I click the link and find the actual reporter makes only one gross error

More from an editor (probably the same one)

Il graduale disimpegno grazie ai "successi" nella sicurezza. Ma in agosto la guerra civile ha ucciso 1773 civili
La visita è stata un vero e proprio "consiglio di guerra". Incontro con i capi sunniti. Gli inglesi lasciano Bassora

The gradual withdrawal due to the "successes" in security. But in August the civil war killed 1773 civilians. The visit was a genuine "war counsel". Bush met Sunni leaders. The English quit Basra.

Like the scare quotes and the statistic 1773 is key, but if the question is whether there has been progress one does need more than one data point no ?


Finally the report's lede

BAGDAD - "Se i successi proseguono potremo ridurre le truppe in Iraq". Nel giorno in cui i militari di Sua Maestà lasciano, dopo quattro anni, il quartier generale di Bassora agli iracheni, Goerge W. Bush fa una visita a sorpresa in Iraq. E per la prima volta apre alla possibilità di un graduale ritiro dall'infuocato scenario iracheno.

"If the success continues, we can reduce troop numbers in Iraq." In the day in which her majesties soldiers leave Basra after 4 years, Goerge W. Bush makes a surprise visit in Iraq, and, for the first time, shows he is open to the possibility of a gradual withdrawal from the conflict in Iraq.

By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
8:20 PM PDT, September 3, 2007

BAGHDAD -- The U.S. military buildup that was supposed to calm Baghdad and other trouble spots has failed to usher in national reconciliation, as the capital's neighborhoods rupture even further along sectarian lines, violence shifts elsewhere and Iraq's government remains mired in political infighting.

Devastating. Corresponds to the article which demolishes Petraeus's case in advance.
Bonus un-Friedman points for quoting a taxi driver who actually has information to share

"If there is any weakening of the American forces here, it will be very, very bad," said Shimari, a taxi driver. "In the last three days, I've driven four families at 6 in the morning to travel companies so they could leave for Syria. Those who can afford it leave."

One quibble. The key point that the military sectarian violence killing is defined (actually re-defined) to include only execution style killings and exclude car bombs is buried

paragraph 5 begins "Military officials say sectarian killings in Baghdad are down more than 51% and attacks on civilians and security forces across Iraq have decreased."

Military officials are lying or being misquoted. They mean "sectarian execution style killings in Baghdad" as the figure excludes deaths in bombings. The statement as quoted is simply false. To play with definitions is dishonest but not quite a lie, to make a claim based on a definition chosen to make the numbers look good without using the correct definition is to lie.

Waaaay down in paragraphs 34 35 and 36 Susman finally explains

According to U.S. military figures, an average of 1,000 Iraqis have died each month since March in sectarian violence. That compares with about 1,200 a month at the start of the security plan, the military said in an e-mailed response to queries. This does not include deaths from car bombings, which the military said have numbered more than 2,600 so far this year.

Figures from Iraqi government ministries point to far higher casualty numbers and show that so far this year, an average of 1,724 civilians a month have died in sectarian attacks, bombings and other war-related violence.

In February, the civilian death toll was 1,646.

Also Susman should have mentioned the seasonality of violence in Iraq. The DOD is claiming progress by comparing violence in August (temp 120 f in the shade) to February. Believe me, even for Jihadi's when it's hotter than hell, heaven can wait.

When Is a Surge Not a Surge

David Cloud reports


"On a surprise visit to Iraq today for meetings with his commanders and top Iraqi officials, President Bush raised the possibility that some American troops could be withdrawn from Iraq if security there continues to improve."


Of course he has to cut troop levels as the army is breaking. Also the idea of a "surge" was a temporary increase. Now he is offering to not break his word if congress gives he what he wants. I doubt the trick will work

However, David Cloud does not reassure me. He wrote "continues to improve" in his own voice. He should have quoted Bush (painful but necessary when he is lying and you don't want to be too blunt about it) or write "if he decides that the improvements which he claims have occured, continue."

There is no need for reporters to repeat dubious claims in their own voice. Raw data suggest Bush is full of it as always.

update: The lede was burried but Cloud is pretty harsh in the rest of the article as in paragraphs 4 and 5.

Mr. Bush, who took no questions, did not say how large a troop withdrawal was possible. Nor did he say whether he envisioned forces being withdrawn sooner than next spring, when the first of the additional 30,000 troops Mr. Bush sent to Iraq earlier this year are due to come home anyway.

Administration officials were quick to point out that no troop drawdown may be possible before then if security deteriorates, as it has before.

This is a pattern in US journalism -- first the article starts with the claim by the public figure who arranged an event to get that claim out. Then there are a few paragraphs (only 2 means Cloud is being bold) then the facts which show the claim to be dishonest.

Thus people who actually read the article know the journalist knows what is going on and is willing to call them as he or she sees them. People who just read the first paragraph are misled. people who care about opinions of the relatively uninformed and can deny access or complain are pleased.

yesterday I dumped on Cloud after reading only the first paragraph of his story. I do not apologise. I think a discussion of lede grafs only is useful. My new feature is Iraq ledes daily (see above).

The Goldenberg Variations

Ilon Goldenberg has a magnificent figure showing how the DOD has re-cooked the books.



Everyone is linking to this, but I like my title and note that Goldberg should correct November-07 to November-06.

update: spellling korrected

Ezra Klein and the non libertarian Megan are waaaay too kind to libertarians here via here.

The non-libertarian Megan stated this well a few weeks ago, when she mused that "the people I was arguing with knew their libertarian philosophy well and some econ well, but not, you know, how farming works. So they would prescribe the libertarian economist remedy of markets confident that understanding econ is sufficient to have an accurate opinion. I'd say, 'but the required assumptions simply don't hold', and get back 'but they must, because econ says'...I don't think that libertarians are impervious to evidence, but it has to be evidence in a form sanctified by academic economics. Evidence from the system itself (environment, law) was highly discounted."

Hmmm about "econ says" let's see. It is much much too charitable to conclude that what "econ says" is not just "evidence in a form sanctified by academic economics". Much of what "econ says" is theory which follows from assumptions which were explored because they had interesting implications. That is, much of economic theory is a branch of mathematics in which assumptions are made and implications derived without any consideration of evidence whatsoever.

Later, much later, economists added more assumptions to get to testable hypotheses. I am not aware of any such hypothesis which has not been rejected by the data. Then the models are tweaked to fit or "explain" the rejection of the first model. This interaction with the data would occur if economic theory were completely worthless (notice the implication does not go the other way).

Furthermore theorists look for theoretical counter examples -- and always can find them. "Economic theory" as such has no implications. I have claimed repeatedly and publicl, that for any policy you think of, I can invent an economic model such that it is optimal. No one has stumped me so far.

"Econ says" really means assumptions that are obviously false, always known to be false, introduced only to clarify thought and since proven to be false imply.

Another point. In the language of the economics profession redistribution is not inefficient. The only agreed condition under which a reform can be called inefficient is if it makes everyone worse off. The implication of the implausible assumptions is that redistribution with incentive effects is Pareto inferior than an identical redistribution without incentive effects, which is, of course, impossible.

Burying the lede II

Blockbuster article in the Post*

Paragraph 20 -- Quoting the lie

White House officials say Rove had two basic rules: the first was to avoid meddling with grant and contract decisions made by career government employees;

Paragraphs 31-32 ! show it's a lie. This was not just sco-ordinating pin, this was directing grants which is totally illegal.

Between April 2006 and Election Day, Shays was able to announce at least 25 new federal grants or projects totaling more than $46 million [snip]

In contrast, Shays announced just $39 million in grants and got just one visit by a federal official in the prior 15 months, the analysis shows.

paragraph 33-35(thirty three thrity four and thirty five !!!) the smoking guns

Shays wrote Bush on Sept. 8, 2006, to seek the early release -- before the election -- of heating assistance money for low-income residents in his state. Just four days later, the White House released $6 million. Asked to comment on the administration's help, Shays's campaign manager Michael Sohn said, "Chris was grateful to be returned to office based on his record of hard work and accomplishment."

Similar efforts to promote grants in key states took place across the government. When the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, released 22 grants totaling $35.7 million for community health and disease-prevention programs in late September 2004, The Post analysis found, half the awards went to targeted election states or congressional districts, the rest to noncompetitive areas that included Democratic strongholds such as Boston and New Orleans.

The agency's news release about those grants, however, detailed at the top just four recipients -- in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and an Oklahoma congressional district -- that Rove's team identified in earlier 2004 briefings as key to the GOP's reelection strategy.

Excellent investigative reporting, but why the hell did I have to read 30 paragraphs of chit chat and lies before getting to the proof of illegal actions ?


Nice close though

In an e-mail obtained by congressional investigators, Kloiber wrote, "Sometimes these folks need to be reminded who they work for and how their geographic travel can benefit the President.

I think Kloiber shouldn't be reminded he works for the people of the USA, because we should fire him.

* The Post was scooped by only 1 day by McClatchy (you're getting their WAPO maybe some day you'll reach the McClatchy level ... naaaah but you gotta dream).

Talk about burying the Lede

Paragraph 24 ! of a story on Wikiscanner in the New York Times by KATIE HAFNER

And The New York Times Company is among those whose employees have made, among hundreds of innocuous changes, a handful of questionable edits. A change to the page on President Bush, for instance, repeated the word “jerk” 12 times. And in the entry for Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, the word “pianist” was changed to “penis.”

, I plan to call her Christie Hefner from now.

On the quest for Matthew Yglesias's Inner Economist and a good Lobster Roll.

Yglesias writes

The family was talking yesterday about why the lobster rolls are better at the Fishnet in Blue Hill than at the Bagaduce Lunch in Brooksville. People were bringing up micro-causal factors -- lobster to bread ratio, quantity of mayo, etc. I, however, equipped with having recently read Tyler Cowen's Discover Your Inner Economist had a macro-level explanation at hand. The Bagaduce Lunch as a very scenic location directly adjacent to an interesting reversing waterfall. Fishnet, by contrast, needs to make due with an uninteresting location in the non-picturesque part of Blue Hill.

Under the circumstances, nobody would go to Fishnet unless the food was reasonably compelling. Thus, given that the Fishnet has been in business for years, one should assume that its food is superior to that offered at superficially comparable, but better located, fried seafood outlets. At any rate, this insight mostly seemed to bore my family, but I think this sort of thing is interesting.

I comment

Dear Mr Yglesias

I think you are going to have to keep searching to find your inner economist. Simple economic theory does not suggest that a nice location implies lower quality food even on average. Less simple theory can give any implication you want (I have a challenge open for someone to come up with a policy so bad that I can't write a model such that it is optimal).

The aspects of simple economic theory which give your inner restaurant theorist trouble communicating with your inner economist (who is in there somewhere) are infinite greed and separable utility.

Your story about restaurants is not based on profit maximization. You assume that the way the market works is someone opens a restaurant and guesses on a good menu, recipes and prices and some survive and others don't. This is evolutionary economics and is (still) fairly heterodox. Otherwise you have to ask why the Bagaduce doesn't cook actually good food to serve in its nice location, raise prices and make a ton of money rather than just survive.

Also you have to ask how they can afford that location. If your explanation depends on miss-pricing valuable land overlooking reverse waterfalls it is very far from your inner economists heart. If you assume that the Bagaduce's owners could sell the valuable site for more than it is worth to them by finding someone who actually understands mayonaise, you must explain why they settle for less, that is, satisfice (a word loathed by mainstream economists even more than by normal people).

Another possible explanation of the lobster roll problem is that people are not willing to pay a high price for lobster rolls in a shack even though the combined pleasure of decent food and a reverse waterfall gives more pleasure than alternative uses of the money. That is, the sense that a price is unreasonably high causes displeasure beyond the loss of money.

Let's here what a mainstream economist (Robert Hall) has to say about that

But I will say that I did once try to convince Bob Hall at a restaurant in Palo Alto not to order wine: the fact that the wine would cost four times retail would, I said, depress me and lower my utility. Even though I wasn't paying for it, I would still feel as though I was being cheated, and as I drank the wine that would depress me more than the wine would please me.

He had two responses: (i) "You really are crazy." (ii) "Think, instead, that it's coming straight out of the Hoover Institution endowment, and order two bottles."

REPO Man meats Spinal Tap.

An important aspect of the subprime derivatives meltdown is AAA ratings of senior tranches of securities repackaging securities repackaging liars loans balloon mortgages and such like. The problem (aside from dishonesty on the part of Moody's and Standard and Poor's which are, when I think of it very odd names for firms which are supposed to keep you from getting poor by being immune from market sentiment) is that credit ratings are based on historical performance and thus suggest that being a turkey is a low risk occupation (until thanksgiving). This makes it possible for people to lose their shirts guessing that markets are inefficient, when prices are based on possible events which haven't happened yet (as noted by Milton Friedman of course).

This reminds me of something I once heard about lumbar punctures (spinal taps) while my brother was graduating from medical school. The class speaker contrasted the bedside manner of two medical students who were about to perform a spinal tap on a patient.

student 1 says "Hi how are you. Are you nervous ? Don't feel bad, I'm nervous too. I've never done one of these before"

student 2 says "I have NEVER had any complications with a lumbar puncture"

Student 2 clearly was in the wrong field as he could have made a ton of money running a hedge fund.

update: The typo (one of the typos?) in my title is not a type. It is a salute to the director of "Spinal Tap" Rob "meathead" Reiner.

long comment on this Very excellent post by Jonathan Schwarz

I know it is frustrating that people who make false claims on matters of documented fact are treated as experts while you, who describe the actual facts, are therefore marginalized. Still I am sure the truth will come out in the end (don't know how many will die in the mean time but fewer than would die if you gave up).

I would add one point. You note that 1441 clearly did not authorize an invasion based on a decision by the US (or any member country) that Saddam Hussein was violating it. I think you should also stress that Saddam Hussein absolutely obeyed every imperative in resolution 1441. The widespread guess that Iraq was in material breach was based on the false guess that Iraq had hidden chemical and/or biological weapons and/or chemical, biological, and/or nuclear weapons programs. When we discoverd that Iraq had no such weapons or programs we discovered there was no way to argue that the invasion was allowed under international law.

The "I honestly thought that they were doing something forbidden" standard is clearly unacceptable. Anyone can claim to believe anything. If George Bush's violation of international law can only be proven by reading his mind, any violation of international law can never be demonstrated and the whole business is pointless.

Cohen must know this. The fact you note are all well known by anyone who read the papers at the time (except maybe the infiltration of the inspectors and use to try to kill or overthrow Saddam Hussein). No one can seriously argue that the invasion wasn't a violation of international law. Cohen is clearly dishonest.

I call on my fellow Peanut Oil drenched dirty Ghoulies to drown NotStephenColbert in Ghoulash.

In spite of my Austrian name, I am, in fact ethnically Magyar (I mean plurality Magyar not absolute majority Magyar). I was delighted to find that my very own ethnic group was mentioned on TV (even in the context of Peanut Oil in which I have never ever bathed).

Not totally a thrill that my ethnic identity (partial and mixed) is so bland that it is safe to make fun of us [on the air] (I mean in the cables or whatever). However I do recall a trace of Magyar pride in my grandmother (born Sipos Erzebet) who suggested that perhaps her husband was descended from a Magyar forced by Maria Teresa to take a Germanic name. And this was a woman voted for Adlai Stevenson every chance she got (actually I'm not sure she didn't write his name in in 1972 considering the fact that he was dead a minor problem given the advantages of being neither Richard Nixon or a DFH (OK I know she didn't but it would have been funny if she did)).

update: don't Kphech I just corrected the spelling

Leila Fadel of McClatchy is singled out for praise by Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias.

I have a problem. I think she pushed back against U.S. officials' spin by downplaying the decline in the number of bodies found in Baghdad. I wrote a long comment at Brad's blog which I cut and paste here.



Hmmmm I quote pargraph 27 ! (If I counted correctly (IICC)) of Fadel's article

"One bright spot has been the reduction in the number of bodies found on the streets, considered a sign of sectarian violence. That number was 44 percent lower in July, compared to December. In July, the average body count per day was 18.6, compared with 33.2 in December, two months before the surge."

The decline is on the order of total deaths from car bombings in Baghdad. The U.S. officieal based their bogus claim of a 50% decline in one of two ways -- either they counted only bodies found and not bombing deaths or they cherry picked two convenient brief intervals one pre surge with high bombing deaths and one post surge with low deaths.

Fadel did something similar. She stresses deaths from explosions and briefly mentions the decline in night time executions in paragraph 27 (IICC). The decline in bodies found is on the order of total deaths from explosions, so by McClatchey calculations civilian deaths decline by about one third not one half.

I think that she should have presented the McClatchy numbers immediately after quoting and challenging the U.S. officials' claim, Now the December rate of night time killings was a huge increase over say last year so one could interpret the decline as reversion to the mean (or completion of ethnic cleansing as Fadel quite reasonably hypothesises).

Still such a large difference in the rate of [execution style*] killing should have been mentioned before paragraph 27 (IICC).

* in my comment at Brad's Blog I sloppily left out the qualifier in []

One Third of the way their

Terry Moran of ABC has gotten a brain

"MORAN : Divisiveness! Anger! Ruthlessness! That's what you call 'Rovian politics.'

Now if his winbgnut blogger brother

and congressman Jerry get brains

I can retire this photograph.

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/rjw88/get_a_brain_morans.jpg[/IMG]

Blood from a Stone II

TPMmuckraker informs

As previewed by ABC News, the report warns of over two dozen population "clusters" in the northeastern U.S. "on a path" to terrorism.

In a report to be made public today, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly concludes the 9/ll attacks were an "anomaly" and the most serious terror threat to the country comes from clusters of "unremarkable" individuals who are on a path that could lead to homegrown terror.

The report by the NYPD intelligence division, "Radicalization in the West and the Homegrown Threat," plots "the trajectory of radicalization" and tracks the path of a non-radicalized individual to an individual with the willingness to commit an act of terror, multiple sources say.

"The threat is real; this is not some bogey man we are creating here. There are individuals who are proselytizing, inciting angry young men to go down this path," said [Rand Corporation terrorism expert Brian] Jenkins, who reviewed and contributed to the NYPD report.

It's not entirely clear what a "cluster" means here. ABC reports that the NYPD identifies specific "mosques, bookstores, cafes, prisons and flop houses" as incubators of jihadism, but the 90-page report seems to attempt to craft a psychological and sociological understanding of the conditions that may set American Muslims on a radical path.

my bold.

Tehre is a basic statistical problem here. The NYPD is attempting to analyze the phenomenon of USA grown Islamic terror with essentially no data on USA grown Islamic terror. This is like the NSA "data mining" effort to determine patterns of electronic communication typical of Islamic terrorists in the USA with essentially no data on Islamic terrorists in the USA (hence the II in my title).

This is really very simple -- no statistical technique can enable you to understand a phenomenon without data on the phenomenon. A huge pile of other data which you guess might be related is as useful as your guess. Data analysis can't add anything to the original guess. The fact that computers crunch numbers according to sophisticated algorithms can't make data on terrorist appear without data on terrorism.

A few USA grown Islamic radicals have fantasized about acts of terror. It is not easy to draw reliable inference from such a small sample. Also they were all comically inept. The USA may be incubating competent Islamic terrorists but there is no information whatsoever on their characteristics or experiences.

I think that people are irrationally impressed by analysis and especially analysis of massive amount of data by a computer. If the data do not include the variable of interest -- US based or US bred Islamic terrorists, the analysis can not add to the uniformed guesses behind the algorithms.

update:

Spencer Ackerman read the report so I don't have to. He finds that "Contrary to its billing, the report doesn't identify actual Muslim population clusters in the U.S. that incline toward terrorism." and that "NYPD intelligence analysts Arvin Bhatt and Mitch Silber try to construct a model, based on prominent European Muslim and U.S. Muslim terrorists and would-be terrorists, that isolates patterns indicating radicalization." That is to say that Bhatt and Silber looked for patterns in the tiny amount of relevant data. Unsurprisingly they found nothing useful and concede

There is no useful profile to assist law enforcement or intelligence to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization. Rather, the individuals who take this course will begin as "unremarkable" from various walks of life.

Which shows that they are admirably honest. Given the size of their data set there is no way Bhatt and Silber could have obtained results worth a Baht.

update: Wow this got a link.