No one should be surprised that the federal government can't do database interfaces very well. Their computers are obsolete, of course, as are the development platforms they use. They require their programmers to use obscure programming languages that they are not allowed to fix. But the worst barrier between you and the database of your choice is the rigid hierarchy that infects the halls of power.
We know how to develop good technology. Silicon Valley has numerous companies that do it quite well. Google and Facebook come to mind. But the federal government pays absolutely no attention to the rules of program development, among which are the following:
1. Hire the best engineers you can find. Forget about Ivy League credentials and teacher recommendations. My company once hired a high school student who had been helping them with user testing. They waited until he got out of high school, though.
2. Give your developers their head. These developers are like spirited racehorses. If you tell them they must wear a suit and tie and be in the office at 9 am, they will bolt for the nearest exit, where they will find project managers eager to hire them.
3. Make sure your engineers are creative and flaky. Encourage them to stay at the office by giving them whatever they need. Google gives them espresso and food. There are also game rooms (see below).
4. Let them goof off. My favorite software company developed video games. Anyone in the company could play video games at any time. That was part of the culture. In other companies, the department snitch spies on you and tells the manager you are goofing off. The Roman philosopher Seneca explained it this way: Reading and writing are opposites. You must do both, like breathing in and breathing out. Programming and playing are opposites. You can't have one without the other. One company I worked at had a big red nerf bat. The project manager came to your cube and hit you with it if you were late with your code. The same company had super-soakers (squirt guns). Members of the development team would sneak up on someone and spray him with water.
5. Pay them time-activated bonuses. These usually take the form of stock options that don't vest until a person works for the company for several years. This keeps them working for the company and gives them an incentive to keep producing.
These are just a few of the effective practices used in the computer industry to produce high-quality software. Here, by way of contrast, are some of the practices of the federal government:
1. Always hire graduates of top Universities. Federalistas believe that they should hire people with good grades who are skilled at pleasing their professors. These people should fit in well in a federal system that prizes pleasing your boss above all other virtues.
2. Always give preferential treatment to veterans. Unfortunately, this hiring practice works against finding good programmers. Veterans learn how to follow orders. Good programmers learn to disregard orders whenever necessary. Their attitude is different. They know that managers can't code, so they don't pay attention when managers tell them how to do something. Good managers, on the other hand, don't give explicit orders to programmers, because they know programmers like to figure things out on their own.
3. Hire stable workers who will stay on the job for many years. This works well when you are looking for people who need to fit in to a hierarchy to be happy. Such people make terrible programmers. Good programmers find problems in other people's code and tell them about it. Good programmers abandon a structured design when it isn't working. Good programmers find new and innovative ways to solve problems.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Since the Republicans refuse to act on immigration, Obama will
Obama's proposal, as released, contains several different options, which he is evidently inviting the Republicans to accept. The Republicans, of course, will reject all of them, so immigrants to this country will have the first real breathing room since 1986, when President Reagan granted amnesty to 2.7 million undocumented workers then living--and working--in the US.
Today there are 11 million undocumented workers. Many of them have American children and relatives who would like to join them, like aged parents, but cannot. Major corporations that hire these people would like to keep the system the way it is, because it saves them money.
I know one undocumented worker who works cleaning up operating theaters in a hospital, a dirty, difficult job. She makes $10 an hour from the company the hospital hires to do the job, The hospital also hires people directly to do the same job and pays them $14 an hour, but the hospital requires those direct hires to be validated citizens. So the entire US economy is based on a discriminatory system as unjust as any Jim Crow Laws, where some people can be paid less than others because of the chance of their birth.
There is no chance that corporate-ruled America will expel immigrant laborers from this country. The corporate system uses immigrant labor to pad its bottom line. Our corporate masters make too much money off the current unjust and immoral system for them ever to question it.
The worker of whom I speak has been the sole support for 2 children and works 2 jobs. She is just the sort of person the Republicans are always extolling as exemplary citizens: hard-working, law-abiding, receiving no government benefits. But instead of rewarding her efforts, the Republicans propose to expel her and her child who was born in this country, thus punishing a child for the transgressions of her mother.
There is no excuse for such immorality. The Republican party must be rejected utterly by every thinking, feeling American. Though the Republicans use every conniving trick to stay in power, no one party can stay in power forever. We will remember your excesses whenever evil deeds are mentioned.
Today there are 11 million undocumented workers. Many of them have American children and relatives who would like to join them, like aged parents, but cannot. Major corporations that hire these people would like to keep the system the way it is, because it saves them money.
I know one undocumented worker who works cleaning up operating theaters in a hospital, a dirty, difficult job. She makes $10 an hour from the company the hospital hires to do the job, The hospital also hires people directly to do the same job and pays them $14 an hour, but the hospital requires those direct hires to be validated citizens. So the entire US economy is based on a discriminatory system as unjust as any Jim Crow Laws, where some people can be paid less than others because of the chance of their birth.
There is no chance that corporate-ruled America will expel immigrant laborers from this country. The corporate system uses immigrant labor to pad its bottom line. Our corporate masters make too much money off the current unjust and immoral system for them ever to question it.
The worker of whom I speak has been the sole support for 2 children and works 2 jobs. She is just the sort of person the Republicans are always extolling as exemplary citizens: hard-working, law-abiding, receiving no government benefits. But instead of rewarding her efforts, the Republicans propose to expel her and her child who was born in this country, thus punishing a child for the transgressions of her mother.
There is no excuse for such immorality. The Republican party must be rejected utterly by every thinking, feeling American. Though the Republicans use every conniving trick to stay in power, no one party can stay in power forever. We will remember your excesses whenever evil deeds are mentioned.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Sierra Club sues US to stop new tar sands pipeline
A number of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, have sued the State Department over its failure to protect the US from Canadian tar sands oil. At issue is a pipeline, called the Alberta Clipper, currently bringing oil across the border at a rate of 450,000 barrels a day. Enbridge Energy wants to increase the volume of oil to 800,000 barrels per day.
The State Department has ruled that the new pipeline does not need its approval, despite nearly doubling the amount of tar sands oil entering the US. The Sierra Club suit disagrees with their assessment.
The State Department is clearly at odds with President Obama's public statements on this. Obama promised he would not permit more tar sands into the country if the project would increase greenhouse gas production. The State Department study claimed it would not. But practical considerations prove that it would.
The State Department study claimed that the tar sands oil could be transported by rail if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built. But attempts to use railroads have proven costly. Instead of earning $40 per barrel of oil shipped by rail as it predicted, Southern Pacific Resources is earning less than one dollar per barrel. The failure of its oil-by-rail strategy has driven Southern Pacific to the edge of bankruptcy.
Since the State Department's study relied on the viability of the oil-by-rail strategy to reach its conclusion that Keystone XL would have no effect on greenhouse gas production, the entire study must now be rejected as false. Instead of proving that the Keystone XL pipeline would not harm the environment, the State Department has proved that it will. And President Obama has promised he would not approve the Keystone XL under these conditions.
Democratic Senators have completely caved in to Oil Industry demands. They are proposing to approve the Keystone XL despite the State Department's fiasco. The Senators say they are acting to save Senator Mary Landrieu's seat for the Democrats. What they are really doing is the bidding of the oil industry.
The oil industry is getting desperate. The tar sands in Alberta are the third largest proven oil deposit in the world. But tar sands are expensive to refine and destructive to the environment. The oil industry needs Keystone XL to extract this poisonous wealth. Right now they are losing their battle.
The State Department has ruled that the new pipeline does not need its approval, despite nearly doubling the amount of tar sands oil entering the US. The Sierra Club suit disagrees with their assessment.
The State Department is clearly at odds with President Obama's public statements on this. Obama promised he would not permit more tar sands into the country if the project would increase greenhouse gas production. The State Department study claimed it would not. But practical considerations prove that it would.
The State Department study claimed that the tar sands oil could be transported by rail if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built. But attempts to use railroads have proven costly. Instead of earning $40 per barrel of oil shipped by rail as it predicted, Southern Pacific Resources is earning less than one dollar per barrel. The failure of its oil-by-rail strategy has driven Southern Pacific to the edge of bankruptcy.
Since the State Department's study relied on the viability of the oil-by-rail strategy to reach its conclusion that Keystone XL would have no effect on greenhouse gas production, the entire study must now be rejected as false. Instead of proving that the Keystone XL pipeline would not harm the environment, the State Department has proved that it will. And President Obama has promised he would not approve the Keystone XL under these conditions.
Democratic Senators have completely caved in to Oil Industry demands. They are proposing to approve the Keystone XL despite the State Department's fiasco. The Senators say they are acting to save Senator Mary Landrieu's seat for the Democrats. What they are really doing is the bidding of the oil industry.
The oil industry is getting desperate. The tar sands in Alberta are the third largest proven oil deposit in the world. But tar sands are expensive to refine and destructive to the environment. The oil industry needs Keystone XL to extract this poisonous wealth. Right now they are losing their battle.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
States where it's hard for African Americans and Latinos to vote
During the Jim Crow era, these states had similar laws that were used to prevent African-Americans from voting. Favorites were a poll tax which was small enough for whites to pay but to much for A-As to afford; and a literacy test, which varied from a simple test for whites (such as reciting the alphabet) to a much more difficult test for A-As (such as reciting the Declaration of Independence)
Votes of African-Americans and Latinos will continue to be suppressed in these states so long as Republicans control Congress, which is likely to be a long time. Thank the US Supreme Court for this latest injustice due to their repeal of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder.
Since when do 5 unelected judges get to decide who becomes president (as in 2001) or who wins the Senate? Thus canceling out the votes of millions of American citizens.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Michael Brown homicide: Ferguson Prosecutor Prepares to Cut Wilson Loose
Grand Jury testimony is supposed to be secret, but the Ferguson DA's Grand Jury has so many leaks it might set some kind of record. Grand Juries are supposed to be secret because they are completely opposed to the adversarial system that is supposed to make our justice system fair.
In a normal court, a prosecutor for the state is allowed to attack a defendant, but the defendant is supposed to be represented by an equally able attorney. The defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. There is a judge whose duty is to see that the lawyers for each side argue fairly. It's called the adversarial trial system and it has its roots in English law back before the Magna Carta.
But the Grand Jury has none of those protections for the defendant. In fact, Grand Juries are considered so unfair to the defendant that the US is the only country in the world that still uses them. Grand Juries are not run by the courts, but by the prosecutor, so there is not even a judge to help the jury persons understand the law.
The defendant does not need to be present and may not have defense council in any event. The prosecutor holds all the cards. The grand jury itself is composed of ordinary citizens, so the prosecutor acts in place of the judge, as well as the prosecuting attorney, by informing jurors about points of law.
Out of a recognition that Grand Juries are inherently unjust and prejudicial to the prosecutor's opponents, precautions have been taken with regard to their use. In the first place, they are supposed to be absolutely secret.
Precautions are taken to prevent leaks. Releasing testimony from a grand jury constitutes contempt of court. Violators are liable to fines and imprisonment, as well as the charge of obstruction of justice. Nevertheless, and despite the seriousness of leaking information, leaks have been coming from the Ferguson grand jury steadily. Protesters and county officials both see a pattern in these leaks.
Protesters believe the prosecution is leaking information to affect public opinion in favor of Officer Wilson. Someone tweeted early in October announcing that the case against Wilson was weak It said:
"I know someone sitting on the grand jury. There isn't enough at this point to warrant an arrest. #Ferguson."
Prosecutors claimed that the owner of the twitter account had no connection with the prosecutor's office. Protesters pointed out that the same twitter account had been used to spread rumors about the Trayvon Martin trial a year earlier, tweets that were critical of the African-American community and supportive of Zimmerman. Regardless of the source of the tweet, its effect was to prejudice the public in favor of Wilson.
Instead of investigating whether the leak was real or not, the Ferguson prosecutor's office ignored it. They found the person who owned the twitter account and examined his computer. They concluded that the tweet was not sent from that computer. And that was the end of it.
Another intentional leak which may have come from the prosecutor's office was the autopsy report, also supposed to be confidential. None of the grand jurors had access to that document. The St. Louis Dispatch report quoted a forensic pathologist, Judith Melinek, as saying that the report supported officer Wilson's version of the incident. But Melinek says she was quoted out of context, and in fact she had told the reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch that the autopsy could support several interpretations, not just Wilson's version.
The official autopsy revealed that the victim had been taking marijuana. The reports of the autopsy said there was enough marijuana in Brown's system to cause hallucinations. This statement is extremely prejudicial, since it presents as factual something that can't be known. Additionally, even the idea that marijuana causes hallucinations is disputed, so stating it in a newspaper article misinforms the public about the truth.
I found it incredible that African-American witnesses would be so well-organized that they would all have the same version of an incident. If they were that well-organized, all the accounts would be identical, the way all Fox News accounts are identical, no matter which of the talking heads is speaking. But that is not the case.
A St. Louis Dispatch article published soon after the shooting took place reported several witnesses telling their account of the events. There was no agreement among the witnesses on exactly what had happened. There was also no single version of events that every witness agreed on. This contradicts the information in the leak that stated that six or seven of the witnesses supported Wilson's version of the incident, but were afraid of reprisals if they spoke out publicly.
In addition, the reporter interviewed two workers who did not know Michael Brown. One of the workers said that Brown had his hands up and was trying to surrender when Wilson shot him several times, killing him. This account, given by an eye-witness with no reason to fear reprisals shortly after the event, does not support Wilson's version of the incident.
All of the leaks have favored Wilson, but in such a way that a prosecutor, organizing his case, would present them to a jury. Circumstantial evidence points to the prosecutor's office as the ones who leaked the information. If true, they are engaged in the worst kind of injustice, convicting Michael Brown in the public press.
Ruben Carter, a boxer who was convicted of murder and served 19 years in prison before being exonerated, described the actions of the U.S. justice system like this:
In a normal court, a prosecutor for the state is allowed to attack a defendant, but the defendant is supposed to be represented by an equally able attorney. The defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. There is a judge whose duty is to see that the lawyers for each side argue fairly. It's called the adversarial trial system and it has its roots in English law back before the Magna Carta.
But the Grand Jury has none of those protections for the defendant. In fact, Grand Juries are considered so unfair to the defendant that the US is the only country in the world that still uses them. Grand Juries are not run by the courts, but by the prosecutor, so there is not even a judge to help the jury persons understand the law.
The defendant does not need to be present and may not have defense council in any event. The prosecutor holds all the cards. The grand jury itself is composed of ordinary citizens, so the prosecutor acts in place of the judge, as well as the prosecuting attorney, by informing jurors about points of law.
Out of a recognition that Grand Juries are inherently unjust and prejudicial to the prosecutor's opponents, precautions have been taken with regard to their use. In the first place, they are supposed to be absolutely secret.
Precautions are taken to prevent leaks. Releasing testimony from a grand jury constitutes contempt of court. Violators are liable to fines and imprisonment, as well as the charge of obstruction of justice. Nevertheless, and despite the seriousness of leaking information, leaks have been coming from the Ferguson grand jury steadily. Protesters and county officials both see a pattern in these leaks.
Protesters believe the prosecution is leaking information to affect public opinion in favor of Officer Wilson. Someone tweeted early in October announcing that the case against Wilson was weak It said:
"I know someone sitting on the grand jury. There isn't enough at this point to warrant an arrest. #Ferguson."
Prosecutors claimed that the owner of the twitter account had no connection with the prosecutor's office. Protesters pointed out that the same twitter account had been used to spread rumors about the Trayvon Martin trial a year earlier, tweets that were critical of the African-American community and supportive of Zimmerman. Regardless of the source of the tweet, its effect was to prejudice the public in favor of Wilson.
Instead of investigating whether the leak was real or not, the Ferguson prosecutor's office ignored it. They found the person who owned the twitter account and examined his computer. They concluded that the tweet was not sent from that computer. And that was the end of it.
Another intentional leak which may have come from the prosecutor's office was the autopsy report, also supposed to be confidential. None of the grand jurors had access to that document. The St. Louis Dispatch report quoted a forensic pathologist, Judith Melinek, as saying that the report supported officer Wilson's version of the incident. But Melinek says she was quoted out of context, and in fact she had told the reporter for the St. Louis Dispatch that the autopsy could support several interpretations, not just Wilson's version.
The official autopsy revealed that the victim had been taking marijuana. The reports of the autopsy said there was enough marijuana in Brown's system to cause hallucinations. This statement is extremely prejudicial, since it presents as factual something that can't be known. Additionally, even the idea that marijuana causes hallucinations is disputed, so stating it in a newspaper article misinforms the public about the truth.
All of the leaks favored the officer, Wilson, who was investigated in the first place only because demonstrators from the community demanded it. But we're looking at what was released. The leak said that 6 witnesses backed up Wilson's story. This only helps the prosecutor. If it were leaked by a jury member, it would be diffuse, not concentrated on one point. As it is, it releases information helpful to Wilson's defense in the way a lawyer would make an argument.
I found it incredible that African-American witnesses would be so well-organized that they would all have the same version of an incident. If they were that well-organized, all the accounts would be identical, the way all Fox News accounts are identical, no matter which of the talking heads is speaking. But that is not the case.
A St. Louis Dispatch article published soon after the shooting took place reported several witnesses telling their account of the events. There was no agreement among the witnesses on exactly what had happened. There was also no single version of events that every witness agreed on. This contradicts the information in the leak that stated that six or seven of the witnesses supported Wilson's version of the incident, but were afraid of reprisals if they spoke out publicly.
In addition, the reporter interviewed two workers who did not know Michael Brown. One of the workers said that Brown had his hands up and was trying to surrender when Wilson shot him several times, killing him. This account, given by an eye-witness with no reason to fear reprisals shortly after the event, does not support Wilson's version of the incident.
All of the leaks have favored Wilson, but in such a way that a prosecutor, organizing his case, would present them to a jury. Circumstantial evidence points to the prosecutor's office as the ones who leaked the information. If true, they are engaged in the worst kind of injustice, convicting Michael Brown in the public press.
Ruben Carter, a boxer who was convicted of murder and served 19 years in prison before being exonerated, described the actions of the U.S. justice system like this:
“The criminal justice system is not about justice. It is about success. Successful police officers are promoted. Successful prosecuting attorneys become judges. A successful judge goes to a higher court. … A successful judge...in our system of jurisprudence, is a careful judge, and not necessarily a wise one.”I would be very surprised if the Grand Jury fails to exonerate Wilson in its decision. I would be surprised because the prosecution has already released to the public all the prejudicial testimony it can get its hands on and nothing that favors Michael Brown. The prosecutor in the Michael Brown case gives every evidence of being a successful prosecutor, but not a just one.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Why we didn't vote for anyone
Bernie Sanders at least has a coherent philosophy. But when he claims that the voters were fooled by Republican slander, he isn't giving voters enough credit for their intelligence. Sure, the country has lost faith in its government, but if they really want health care, they know they haven't a prayer with the republicans. I think people failed to vote because they couldn't see any difference between the Democrat and the Republican in their local elections. Obama has talked a good show, but major constituencies have doubts about his sincerity.
Obama has courted the Latino vote, but he is known in the Latino community as the guy who deported more Latinos than any other president. Deportation of a friend or loved one is a personal affront and a deep injustice. So Latinos look at him as someone who failed to keep his promises.
African-Americans look at our prisons and see their young men in chains. In the streets, they see their young men shot down with impunity by violent, heavily-armed cops or any other white man with a gun. They have no great vote for Democrats while cops were still assaulting African-Americans in Ferguson.
The progressives look at Obama as the guy who gave us half a national health plan and didn't fight hard enough for a one-payer system, which is the only way the system will work. Obama also ran on an anti-war platform, but actually escalated the war in Afghanistan. He killed Osama bin Laden, but anti-war voters did not buy into the Bush doctrine that we should fight terrorism around the world. Progressives understand war itself is terrorism, and we do not like to see our president pounding the drums for war. Progressives didn't like to see tax cuts as the major stimulus program. Bush gave us that. Finally, progressives saw Wall Street and the neocons from the Bush administration walking away unpunished from the disasters they caused.
So Republicans should not take comfort that the election was a referendum against Obama. Many of the people who dislike Obama do so, not because he is too liberal, but because he is not liberal enough.
The man in the middle will take fire from both sides.
Obama has courted the Latino vote, but he is known in the Latino community as the guy who deported more Latinos than any other president. Deportation of a friend or loved one is a personal affront and a deep injustice. So Latinos look at him as someone who failed to keep his promises.
African-Americans look at our prisons and see their young men in chains. In the streets, they see their young men shot down with impunity by violent, heavily-armed cops or any other white man with a gun. They have no great vote for Democrats while cops were still assaulting African-Americans in Ferguson.
The progressives look at Obama as the guy who gave us half a national health plan and didn't fight hard enough for a one-payer system, which is the only way the system will work. Obama also ran on an anti-war platform, but actually escalated the war in Afghanistan. He killed Osama bin Laden, but anti-war voters did not buy into the Bush doctrine that we should fight terrorism around the world. Progressives understand war itself is terrorism, and we do not like to see our president pounding the drums for war. Progressives didn't like to see tax cuts as the major stimulus program. Bush gave us that. Finally, progressives saw Wall Street and the neocons from the Bush administration walking away unpunished from the disasters they caused.
So Republicans should not take comfort that the election was a referendum against Obama. Many of the people who dislike Obama do so, not because he is too liberal, but because he is not liberal enough.
The man in the middle will take fire from both sides.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
No, Obama is not the worst president ever: The Big Lie and Republican politics
The big lie of the Republican party is that Obama is the worst president ever. Anyone with any critical faculties left recognizes this would be difficult to prove, even if true. Yet Republicans keep repeating the lie over and over again, never giving any facts to back it up. Or, if they do give facts, they turn out to be minor failures to fulfill campaign promises, such as when he said that if you like your health insurance you can keep it. I'm sorry, but no politician has ever kept all his or her campaign promises.
Obama has kept most of his promises, and most of the ones he hasn't kept have been blocked by the Republicans. But Republicans never admit their complicity. They practice the propaganda tactic known as the "Big Lie", which maintains that people will believe a big lie if they hear it over and over again.
There are other, similar tactics used by Republicans to get people to follow them mindlessly.
Wikipedia discusses these practices in its article on "Big lie".
Obama has kept most of his promises, and most of the ones he hasn't kept have been blocked by the Republicans. But Republicans never admit their complicity. They practice the propaganda tactic known as the "Big Lie", which maintains that people will believe a big lie if they hear it over and over again.
There are other, similar tactics used by Republicans to get people to follow them mindlessly.
Wikipedia discusses these practices in its article on "Big lie".
The primary rules are:
Keep on cooking up new scandals, or repeating the old ones. Don't let the public forget "Benghazi", even if they don't know what it is. Keep forming new committees and hold hearings to rehash the old accusations.
- never allow the public to cool off
Never admit that Congress could have passed an immigration bill if the Republicans had joined with the Democrats. The Senate passed a bill, but the Republicans refused to bring it to a vote. It would have passed had they done so. Yet the Republicans claim it was the Democrats, specifically President Obama, who failed to pass an immigration bill. They also claim that it is Senator Harry Reid who is blocking legislation in the Senate, even though it is the Republican House of Representatives that has been blocking every Obama initiative for 4 years.
- never admit a fault or wrong;
Be sure you mention that Obama is the worst president ever as much as possible. Use name-calling whenever you can. Call the Democrats "socialists", or "race-baiters". Call Obama "weak" and say that he needs to "grow a pair". Recall that Obama's stimulus package didn't work, though most of the spending items in it had been included in Republican bills, including G.W. Bush's stimulus package of 2008. Recall that Obama refused to compromise on the Affordable Care Act, although its basic idea was a Republican idea proposed by the Heritage Foundation and passed in Massachusetts by a Republican governor, Mitt Romney.
- never concede that there may be some good in your enemy;
There were several issues, like immigration and paycheck fairness, where compromise might have produced agreement. But Republicans would rather have government fail, even though the failure causes hardship for everyone except the very wealthy.
- never leave room for alternatives;
For example, when Romney was asked about the firing of workers by Bane Capital, he said it happened after he left the company so he had no responsibility for it. When it was discovered that he employed undocumented workers as gardeners, he denied knowing about the problem. He said he fired them as soon as he found out they were undocumented, but in fact he fired them when the press found out about them.
- never accept blame;
Republicans pretend that Obama can be blamed for everything, even things that took place during the Bush administration.
- concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong;
I'm not so sure this is true. It would appear the Republicans will believe any lie as long as it favors Republicans. Another definition of the Big Lie may be closer to the truth: During WWII it was claimed that
- people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one;
The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.That sounds more like the way the Republicans practice the Big Lie than the original definition.
Yep. That's what Fox News and Republican talking points are for.
- and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
Republican lies are a Ponzi scheme for American voters
Chaz K writes, "The midterm elections were a repudiation of Obama and his policies."
I would agree with him except that the Republican party spent over $100 million running attack ads that misrepresented the issues and the candidates' positions. What he are saying is, if Fox News and the Koch Brothers were successful in buying the election, then the election is a repudiation of the president and his policies. This position is nonsensical. If Bernie Madoff convinced a thousand people to invest in a Ponzi scheme, it doesn't prove Madoff's Ponzi scheme is a good investment. More to the point, it doesn't "repudiate" the laws of mathematics that prove Ponzi schemes don't work.
But the Republicans began opposing Obama and his policies before they even knew what they were. They opposed his policy of marriage equality, falsely saying it would legalize polygamy and somehow devalue traditional marriage.They opposed limited intervention in the Middle East, saying that Obama was a closet Muslim who favors ISIS. They opposed the Affordable Care Act, saying it would destroy the US medical system (it hasn't), bankrupt the economy (it hasn't), and create death panels (it hasn't). They opposed the EPA policy of decreasing coal production and burning in the atmosphere, by saying that Climate Change is a myth created by the scientists because...scientists don't know anything about what they spend their whole lives studying.
If the Republicans lied about the policies of the administration to win the election, their repudiation is only a repudiation of the fantasy that Republicans created with their lies. In other words, it was a repudiation of nothing. In addition, the Republicans have suggested no alternatives to policies they oppose--because they know those policies are reasonable and there are no defensible right-wing alternatives.
But the Republicans began opposing Obama and his policies before they even knew what they were. They opposed his policy of marriage equality, falsely saying it would legalize polygamy and somehow devalue traditional marriage.They opposed limited intervention in the Middle East, saying that Obama was a closet Muslim who favors ISIS. They opposed the Affordable Care Act, saying it would destroy the US medical system (it hasn't), bankrupt the economy (it hasn't), and create death panels (it hasn't). They opposed the EPA policy of decreasing coal production and burning in the atmosphere, by saying that Climate Change is a myth created by the scientists because...scientists don't know anything about what they spend their whole lives studying.
If the Republicans lied about the policies of the administration to win the election, their repudiation is only a repudiation of the fantasy that Republicans created with their lies. In other words, it was a repudiation of nothing. In addition, the Republicans have suggested no alternatives to policies they oppose--because they know those policies are reasonable and there are no defensible right-wing alternatives.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Showa: World War II from the Japanese viewpoint
Americans know all about the war against Japan in 1941-1945. They have seen Pearl Harbor attacked in movies or read about it in popular literature numerous times. They know the stories from Tales of the South Pacific and the musical show is embedded in our culture. They know how John Wayne won the battle of Iwo Jima and how Charlton Heston crashed his plane after winning the battle of Midway. We also know how the sneaky and sadistic Japanese soldiers treated POWs, from the movie, Bridge of the River Kwai. We also learned, from the same movie, how Japanese officers killed themselves to save their honor.
But aside from various similar cliches and scenarios, we know about as much as Ronald Reagan learned about fighting in WWII when he made a film in which he portrayed an American soldier at the front. Showa, a manga series by Shigeru Mizuki that is both history and autobiography, tells the Japanese side of the story. Mizuki is a master story-teller and artist, but it is his heart that shines in this series. Showa: 1939-1944 is by turns violent and tender, as the author describes how he fails as a newspaper delivery boy before failing as a bugler in the Japanese navy.
Mizuki, like many young men during wartime eschews the quiet life of a bugler behind the front lines. He longs to see action; eventually, he gets his wish. Some of his army experiences are pleasant, like the first time he landed on the island of Palau, of which he writes, in a panel depicting a tropical island sunset,
I never imagined a place so beautiful could be such hell.Mizuki had to take a great deal of physical abuse, however, as a raw recruit in the Japanese navy, which modeled its training methods after the Prussian army. Which is to say, the new recruits were beaten regularly by the veterans. Apparently, the Prussians did this to build resistance to hardship and inure men to pain. Mizuki clearly hated the whole ordeal, as witnessed by the number of beatings, slaps, and punches he records that he received.
Mizuki also records incidents that befell the Japanese soldiers for which there is no parallel on the American side: Japanese soldiers starved until they were too weak to fight; suicide squads, armed only with swords, were ordered to charge the enemy positions until they were all dead; commanders were ordered into battle with insufficient ammunition for their men; commanders committed suicide to preserve their honor when they were unable to carry out an order, even an impossible on.
Showa was the Japanese name for the years that coincided with the reign of Emperor Hirohito. The first volume, Showa: 1926-1939, contains many incidents of domestic life, as well as historical events that led to Japan's destruction in WWII. The second volume, covering the years 1939-1944, covers the first part of WWII. The third volume is scheduled to be released in November, 2014.
Mizuki narrates in great detail, both with words and with extraordinary pictures, how he learned to despise the glory of war and the stupidity of the men who brought Japan to ruin. A word of warning: You will not be able to put this book down.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
New York Times Attacks Marijuana Legalization--Again
What is it with these establishment newspapers? It was only a fortnight ago that I responded to the Daily Telegraph's diatribe against marijuana legalization. The Telegraph published some stale data from Wayne Hall and presented it as a new, 20-year study of the effects of marijuana. The "new" study came to the sam conclusions as Hall came to 20 years ago.
New studies on marijuana have not been influenced by old prejudices. The Big Lie is that, since marijuana is illegal, it must be harmful. Since marijuana was made illegal to control African-American recreational users. The first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, was a racist who used racial slurs to get marijuana criminalize in 1937. Anslinger argued that drugs should be outlawed based on the "undesirable" people who use them:
Moore entitles her article, This is your brain on drugs, apparently unaware that the "Just say no" campaign from which this slogan is taken was simply relying on ingrained prejudices rather than actual scientific evidence. The advertisement that used this slogan was an attempt to scare people by showing an egg frying in a frying pan and implying that somehow, evidently magically, marijuana turns your brain into a fried egg.
What about this new study, so ominously accompanied by pictures of a human brain on which yellow and red circles, strangely reminiscent of the old advertisement, are superimposed. The pictures themselves show nothing, but the circles are certainly scary. The study was published in the Journal of Neuroscience on April 16.
Criticism of the Study predates the Times article by six months
On the next day, April 17, Lior Pachter, a professor at UC Berkeley with a PhD in mathematics, published a post on his blog calling this study, "quite possibly the worst study I have read all year."
Pachter went on to make multiple criticisms of the study:
Nidia J. Melendez, Research Assistant at Columbia University, makes the obvious point that there are no measures of cognitive behaviors or any other behaviors in the report. The authors make no attempt to connect their observations of changes in the brain to any real-world effects. Also, she says, there are indications that the marijuana users have used other drugs, but the study makes no attempt to distinguish the effects of marijuana and other, unknown drugs. In other words, this supposed scientific study draw no conclusions about marijuana use because it did not exclude other drugs from the study.
What is the New York Times Thinking of?
The article, This is your mind on drugs, has nothing of value in it. All of its conclusions are based on a single study. Its author, Abigail Sullivan Moore, has no credentials for writing a review of a scientific article. She has primarily worked as a public relations writer for an insurance company. It is not necessary for a reporter to have extensive experience in the field she writes about, but she should at least pay close attention to the subjects she writes about.
In particular, Moore writes this article for the Times six months after the study was published. Since that time, experts in statistical analysis and physiology have severely criticized the conclusions of the article. But Moore apparently did not bother to consult other sources before writing. Although she is not a scientist, she should have some understanding of common practices in the scientific field, including the practice of other scientists reviewing publications.
She should also know that a single study cannot be widely accepted until other studies have been conducted that corroborate its findings. Nevertheless, Moore proceeds as if this study proves something that it does not.
The fault her is not Moore's, however. No doubt she is doing the best she can with limited training and only a layman's understanding of her subject matter. The fault belongs to the editorial staff of the New York Times. As the newspaper of record, the Times should take pains to keep from printing the results of unverified experiments. This article will undoubtedly spawn others like it, each one pointing to the Times as a reliable source of information.
It should be reliable, but it is not.
New studies on marijuana have not been influenced by old prejudices. The Big Lie is that, since marijuana is illegal, it must be harmful. Since marijuana was made illegal to control African-American recreational users. The first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger, was a racist who used racial slurs to get marijuana criminalize in 1937. Anslinger argued that drugs should be outlawed based on the "undesirable" people who use them:
"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."Despite the overwhelming evidence that Marijuana is not a gateway drug and does not cause insanity, here comes Abigail Sullivan Moore, writing in the New York Times, that a new study has shown that marijuana use causes changes in the brain.
Moore entitles her article, This is your brain on drugs, apparently unaware that the "Just say no" campaign from which this slogan is taken was simply relying on ingrained prejudices rather than actual scientific evidence. The advertisement that used this slogan was an attempt to scare people by showing an egg frying in a frying pan and implying that somehow, evidently magically, marijuana turns your brain into a fried egg.
What about this new study, so ominously accompanied by pictures of a human brain on which yellow and red circles, strangely reminiscent of the old advertisement, are superimposed. The pictures themselves show nothing, but the circles are certainly scary. The study was published in the Journal of Neuroscience on April 16.
Criticism of the Study predates the Times article by six months
On the next day, April 17, Lior Pachter, a professor at UC Berkeley with a PhD in mathematics, published a post on his blog calling this study, "quite possibly the worst study I have read all year."
Pachter went on to make multiple criticisms of the study:
- While the author of the study, Hans Breiter, claimed to be a mathematician, in reality he had only taken a couple of courses in mathematics.
- Breiter lied when he claimed that some of the study subjects used marijuana only once or twice a week. In fact, the majority were heavy users of between 10 and 30 joints per week.
- The number of users studied was 20 (a very small sampling, considering the millions of marijuana users in the US alone) and there were no long-term studies done to verify Breiter's conclusions.
- There was no evidence to back up Breiter's claim that casual users were having problems.
- The experiment consisted of a single MRI scan for each subject, which Pachter considered inadequate, given the variability of MRI scans.
- The study did not calculate separate p-values for each of 4 tests, but simply used one value for all. A p-value is used to determine whether the hypothesis of the experiment--in this case, that marijuana smoking induces changes in the brain--is correct. In other words, the study invented a p-value that did not exist. Since the p-value determines whether the hypothesis is true, or even likely, this carelessness with statistical methods should invalidate the entire study. Pachter calls the methods of the study, "unbelievable".
Nidia J. Melendez, Research Assistant at Columbia University, makes the obvious point that there are no measures of cognitive behaviors or any other behaviors in the report. The authors make no attempt to connect their observations of changes in the brain to any real-world effects. Also, she says, there are indications that the marijuana users have used other drugs, but the study makes no attempt to distinguish the effects of marijuana and other, unknown drugs. In other words, this supposed scientific study draw no conclusions about marijuana use because it did not exclude other drugs from the study.
What is the New York Times Thinking of?
The article, This is your mind on drugs, has nothing of value in it. All of its conclusions are based on a single study. Its author, Abigail Sullivan Moore, has no credentials for writing a review of a scientific article. She has primarily worked as a public relations writer for an insurance company. It is not necessary for a reporter to have extensive experience in the field she writes about, but she should at least pay close attention to the subjects she writes about.
In particular, Moore writes this article for the Times six months after the study was published. Since that time, experts in statistical analysis and physiology have severely criticized the conclusions of the article. But Moore apparently did not bother to consult other sources before writing. Although she is not a scientist, she should have some understanding of common practices in the scientific field, including the practice of other scientists reviewing publications.
She should also know that a single study cannot be widely accepted until other studies have been conducted that corroborate its findings. Nevertheless, Moore proceeds as if this study proves something that it does not.
The fault her is not Moore's, however. No doubt she is doing the best she can with limited training and only a layman's understanding of her subject matter. The fault belongs to the editorial staff of the New York Times. As the newspaper of record, the Times should take pains to keep from printing the results of unverified experiments. This article will undoubtedly spawn others like it, each one pointing to the Times as a reliable source of information.
It should be reliable, but it is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)