Tag Archives: politics

Biden’s touching problem.

1 Reply

Ex VP, Joe Biden has a long history of touching people in uncomfortable ways. He does it with men and women, and has a particular problem with children. As bad as it is to grab a sheriff on the leg, or Hillary Clinton when she clearly does not want to be grabbed, it’s quite a lot worse to fondle the hair and face of a child you are not related to (above). An expert reviewing the video of his many grabs, pats, and hair sniffs, came to conclude that Biden behaves like a predator.

Biden grabs a sheriff in a ways that most find inappropriate. He says’s its just his way to make a connection. Others say it’s ‘his power move.’

Adding to Biden’s touching problems, Tara Reade, one of Biden’s staffers has come forward to say that Biden not only made her feel uncomfortable, but pinned her to a wall at the capital building, penetrated her with his hand, and asked for sex. When a panel of experts went over her testimony and Biden’s denial, they came away believing Tara, and not believing Biden. Here is a video with them discussing the various tells that cause them to doubt Biden. Here is another video with the same individuals discussing Reade’s accusation.

Biden applies his power move on Secretary of State Clinton.

What’s to be done? There are still may in the Democratic party who would like to see Biden drop out in favor of someone less tainted, like Bernie. Others, like Illan Omar have concluded that despite Biden being a predator, she supports him as providing the best chance to defeat Donald Trump.

Robert Buxbaum, June 4, 2020

Brazilian scientists speak out for hydroxychloroquine

3 Replies

Brazil has decided to go its own route in response to the Corona virus pandemic. They’re using minimal social distancing with a heavy reliance on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap drug that they claim is effective (as has our president). Brazil has been widely criticized for this, despite so far having lower death rate per million than the US, Canada, or most of Europe. In an open letter, copied in part below, 25 Brazilian scientists speak out against the politicalization of science, and in favor of their approach to COVID-19. The full letter (here). The whole letter is very worth reading, IMHO, but especially worthwhile is their section on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), copied below.

….. Numerous countries such as the USA, Spain, France, Italy, India, Israel, Russia, Costa Rica and Senegal use the drug (HCQ) to fight covid-19, whereas other countries refrain from using HCQ as one of the strategies to contain the pandemic, betting on other controversial tactics.

Who then speaks here in the name of “science”? Which group has a monopoly on reason and its exclusive authorization to be the spokesperson of “science”? Where is such authorization found?One can choose an opinion, and base his strategy on it, this is fine, but no one should commit the sacrilege of protecting his decision risking to tarnish with it the “sacred mantle of science”.

Outraged, every day I hear mayors and governors saying at the top of their lungs that they “have followed science”. Presidents of councils and some of their advisers, and of academies and deans in their offices write letters on behalf of their entire community, as if they reflect everyone’s consensual position. Nothing could be more false.Have they followed science? Not at all! They have followed the science wing which they like, and the scientists who they chose to place around them. They ignore the other wing of science, since there are also hundreds of scientists and articles that oppose their positions and measures.

Worse, scientists are not angels. Scientists are people, and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences. Or wouldn’t they? There are many scientists, therefore, who do good without looking at whom, I know and admire many of them. But there are also pseudoscientists who use science to defend their opinion, their own pocket, or their passion. Scientists have worked and still work hard and detached to contribute to the good of humanity, many of whom are now in their laboratories, risking their lives to develop new methods of detecting coronavirus, drugs and vaccines, when they could stay “safe at home”. But, to illustrate my point, I know scientists who have published articles, some even in major journals such as “Science” or “Nature”, with data they have manufactured “during the night”; others who have removed points from their curves, or used other similar strategies. Many scientists were at Hitler’s side, weren’t they? Did they act in the name of “science”? Others have developed atom bombs. Others still develop chemical and biological weapons and illicit drugs, by design.

The Manaus’ study with chloroquine (CQ) performed here in Brazil and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [1], is emblematic to this discussion of “science”. Scientists there used, the manuscript reveals, lethal doses in debilitated patients, many in severe conditions and with comorbidities. The profiles of the groups do not seem to have been “randomized”, since a clear “preference” in the HIGH DOSE group for risk factors is noted. Chloroquine, which is more toxic than HCQ, was used, and it seems that they even made “childish mistakes” in simple stoichiometric calculations, doubling the dosage with the error. I’m incapable of judging intentions, but justice will do it. The former Brazilian Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta quoted this study, supported it, and based on it, categorically stated: “I do not approve HCQ because I am based on ‘science, science, science’!”.

Another study published by Chinese researchers in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and which is still persistently used against HCQ was also at least revolting [2]. In it, the authors declared: “we administer 1,200 mg for 3 days, followed by 800 mg for 12 to 21 days, in patients with moderate to severe symptoms”. In other words, they gave a huge dosage of the drug that could reach the absurdity of 20 grams in the end, and it given was too late to patients (HCQ should be administered in the first symptoms or even earlier). And even worse, overdosing on HCQ or any other drug for severe cases is poisonous. What do you think, was it good science? The recommended dosage in Brazil, since May 20th, 2020, by the new Ministry of Health, for mild symptoms is 2 times 400 mg in the first day (every 12 hours) and 400 mg for 5 days for a total of 2.8 grams.

In other published studies, also in these internationally renowned journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and BMJ [3-5], once again, “problems” are clearly noted, since or the patients were randomized in irregular ways, placing older, more susceptible or most severe and hypoxemic patients in the higher (lethal) dose groups, or more men (almost 3 times more deadly by covid than women), or more black people (in the USA, black people have displayed higher mortality) and more smokers, and where most of the deaths occurred in the first days of the studies (signs that were deaths of critically ill patients, who at this stage would be more “intoxicated” than “treated” with HCQ), or they administered HCQ isolated, when it is known that it is necessary to associate HCQ at least with azithromycin. One of these studies [5] administered HCQ only on the sixteenth day of symptoms (for really early treatment, HCQ administration should be started up to fifth day), in other words, at the end of the disease, when the drug can do little good or nothing to the patient.

These studies indicate that some scientists either forgot how “science” is done or that there is a huge effort to disprove, whatever it takes, that HCQ works. How can someone or even Councils and Academies of Medicine cite such studies as the “science” of their decisions? How can that be?

On the contrary, the study published – and today with more than 3 thousand patients tested – and carried out by Dr. Didier Raoult in France [6], using the correct dosage and at the right time, with a very low mortality rate (0.4%), and the Prevent Senior’s clinical experience in Brazil – also quite encouraging – are disqualified with very “futile” arguments such as: “Didier Raoult is a controversial and unworthy researcher”, “At Prevent Senior Clinic they were not sure of the diagnosis” (but none of the hospitalized patients with clear COVID symptoms died), “Placebo effect” (what a supernatural power of inducing our mind that reduces mortality from 40% to zero, I want this placebo!), “Study performed by a health plan company” (I do not doubt that this people indeed want to save lives, because the patients were their customers who pay their bills), and similar ephemeral arguments.…

The Brazilian scents who signed the letter. Read the whole letter here.

I admire the spunk of these fellows going agains the doctors, WHO. Beyond being a critique of bad research on a particular drug, it is a defense of science. Science is a discussion, a striving for truth. It is not supposed to demand blind allegiance to a few politically appointed experts. They’ve convinced me that the tests sponsored by the world health organization seem designed to show failure, and reminded me that there is rarely a one-size-fits-all for problems and all times.

I also find striking the highly critical response of my local newspapers and TV reporters. While they both like to highlight efforts by South America as they try entering the first world, with help from Bill gates and leftist politicians, they have been uniformly condemned Brazil for its non-left approach and now for use of HCQ. They want Sous Americans to think, but only if their conclusions are no different from those of their favorite, liberal thinkers.

Robert Buxbaum, May 28, 2020. Check out my notes on how to do science right. And by the way, you might want to use iodine hand wash to minimize your chance of getting or spreading COVID and other diseases.

Affirmative action for Elizabeth Warren, 1/1000 Indian

1 Reply

The following is Elizabeth Warren’s law registration for the state of Texas, 1986 claiming she is an American Indian. There was very little evidence for it and an genetic test showed she was somewhere between 1/256 and 1/1000 Indian. My son was determined to have 1/1000 Indian blood in a similar test, and we have no Indian ancestors at all, as best as I can tell. Still, as an Indian Ms. Warren is entitled to affirmative action; she’s to get preferential hiring financial, and educational treatment over someone more qualified, but without Indian blood. Affirmative action was institute as a way to redress the suffering of Indians and other minorities, but it is not clear that is serves this purpose when someone with so little, or no blood can take the advantage. There is no requirement of proof that you are at all Indian by blood, and even if you are 1/1000 Indian, what about the other 999/1000? Why don’t they count to give yo lower standing than someone who is 1/10 Indian, say. How indian should you have to be to get benefits.

Related to the question of how much Indian blood you should have to have to get benefits is the question of making other folks suffer to provide this benefit. Many of the people who suffer because of affirmative action are dependents of immigrant minorities, Jews, Italians, and Chinese, and these folks have not had it that well. The Italians were discriminated against in hiring, as mandated by the city council, see announcement below, and Chinese immigrants had very limited migration and work rights, as specified under The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act was not repealed until 1943 as part of our war against Japan.

In the late 1800s anti Italian discrimination was common. In part this was the Tammany Hall Irish doing their best to keep out an upstart immigrant group. Should Italians have affirmative action preferences?

At maximum Ms. Warren is less than 1% indians and thus over 99% Texan. This is to suggest that the majority of her bloodline is descent is from those who displaced the Indians, but her preferential hiring was likely in preference to other minorities who suffered too, and who likely have a purer bloodline to that suffering and exclusion than Ms Warren has. Is this what we want from affirmative action? The form we’ve got benefits, for the most part, only the most crooked, connected members of society. People like Ms Warren. I think this has to change.

Robert Buxbaum, January 23, 2020

Why does water cost what it does?

2 Replies

Water costs vary greatly about Oakland county, and around the US, and I have struggled in vain to find out why. In part the problem is that each city gets to add as much maintenance and management costs as the city government thinks appropriate. High management and infrastructure fees can increase to the cost of water, but I also not that different cities about Oakland County Michigan get their water at different rates from the multi-county organization that oversees water in South East Michigan: GLWA, The Great Lakes Water Authority.

$112 water bill for zero usage. The base charge is so large that prices are essentially independent of useage.

I’ve attended meetings, both local and multi county and have tried to find out why one town gets its water at a far lower rate than another, near by. Towns get lower rates if they have a water tower, but it is not at all clear what the formula is. It also helps to separate the storm sewage from the sanitary sewage — something that I have proposed for all of Oakland county, but if there is fixed formula of how that affects rates, I’ve not seen it. And I wonder how well communities monitor the amount of storm sewage they generate.

The water itself is free. For the most part, in this county, we pump it from the Detroit river. Some of the rest of the water is pumped from wells. None of this costs anything. There is a pump cost, but it is manicure. Pumping 1 gallon of water up 75 feet, costs about 0.002¢ in pumping cost. The rest of the cost is infrastructure: the cost of the pumps, the pipes, the treatment, the billing and sewage. Among the sewage fees is a pollution penalty, and Oakland county pays plenty of pollution penalties. When it rains, we generate more sewage than the system will handle, and we dump the rest into the rivers and lakes. This results in closed beaches and poisoned fish, and fines too. The county pays the EPA when we do this, and the county passes the cost to the cities. I don’t know what the formula for fee distribution is, and don’t even know what it should be. What I do know is that we do this vastly too often.

Another oddity is that we bill on a per gallon basis. For my home, the bill is about 2¢/ gallon — 100 times the pumping cost. Though the city can claim that we are paying for infrastructure, both clean water infrastructure and sewage infrastructure, it seems odd to bill on a per-gallon used basis, and 1000 times the true per-gallon price. Since most of the price of water is the infrastructure and management cost, it seems like a regressive tax to charge people on the basis of per-gallon used. I also find it odd that cities do a propaganda campaign to tell folks to use less water. Why? I’d much prefer to charge a far lower base charge, and then bill significantly per-gallon. As with much that is socialist, the current system is inefficient, but pleasant for the management.

August 21, 20019, Robert Buxbaum

The electoral college favors small, big, and swing states, punishes Alabama and Massachusetts.

Leave a reply

As of this month, the District of Columbia has joined 15 states in a pact to would end the electoral college choice of president. These 15 include New York, California, and a growing list of solid-blue (Democratic party) states. They claim the electoral must go as it robed them of the presidency perhaps five times: 2016, 2000, 1888, 1876, and perhaps 1824. They would like to replace the electoral college by plurality of popular vote, as in Mexico and much of South America.

All the big blue states and some small blue states have joined a compact to end the electoral college. As of 2019, they are 70% of the way to achieving this.

As it happens, I had to speak on this topic in High School in New York. I for the merits of the old system beyond the obvious: that it’s historical and works. One merit I found, somewhat historical, is that It was part of a great compromise that allowed the US to form. Smaller states would not have joined the union without it, fearing that the federal government would ignore or plunder them without it. Remove the vote advantage that the electoral college provides them, and the small states might have the right to leave. Federal abuse of the rural provinces is seen, in my opinion in Canada, where the large liberal provinces of Ontario and Quebec plunder and ignore the prairie provinces of oil and mineral wealth.

Several of the founding federalists (Jay, Hamilton, Washington, Madison) noted that this sort of federal republic election might bind “the people” to the president more tightly than a plurality election. The voter, it was noted, might never meet the president nor visit Washington, nor even know all the issues, but he could was represented by an elector who he trusted, he would have more faith in the result. Locals would certainly know who the elector favored, but they would accept a change if he could justify it because of some new information or circumstance, if a candidate died, for example, or if the country was otherwise deadlocked, as in 1800 or 1824.

Historically speaking, most electors vote their states and with their previously stated (or sworn) declaration, but sometimes they switch. In, 2016 ten electors switched from their state’s choice. Sven were Democrats who voted against Hillary Clinton, and three were Republicans. Electors who do this are called either “faithless electors” or “Hamilton electors,” depending on whether they voted for you or against you. Hamilton had argued for electors who would “vote their conscience” in Federalist Paper No. 68.  One might say these electors threw away their shot, as Hamilton did not. Still, they showed that elector voting is not just symbolic.

Federalist theory aside, it seems to me that the current system empowers both large and small states inordinately, and swing states, while disempowering Alabama and Massachussetts. Change the system and might change the outcome in unexpected ways.

That the current system favors Rhode Island is obvious. RI has barely enough population for 1 congressman, and gets three electors. Alabama, with 7 congressmen, gets 9 electors. Rhode Islanders thus get 2.4 times the vote power of Alabamans.

It’s less obvious that Alabama and Massachussetts are disfavored compared to New Yorkers and Californians. But Alabama is solid red, while New York and California are only sort of blue. They are majority Democrat, with enough Republicans to have had Republican governors occasionally in recent history. Because the electoral college awards all of New York’s votes to the winner, a small number Democrat advantage controls many electors.

In 2016, of those who voted for major party candidates in New York, 53% voted for the Democrat, and 47% Republican. This slight difference, 6%, swung all of NY’s 27 electors to Ms Clinton. If a popular vote are to replace the electoral college, New York would only have the net effect of the 6% difference; that’s about 1 million net votes. By contrast, Alabama is about 1/3 the population of New York, but 75% Republican. Currently its impact is only 1/3 of New York’s despite having a net of 2.5 million more R voters. Without the college, Alabama would have 2.5 times the impact of NY. This impact might be balanced by Massachusetts, but at the very least candidates would campaign in these states– states that are currently ignored. Given how red and blue these states are, it is quite possible that the Republican will be more conservative than current, and the Democrat more liberal, and third party candidates would have a field day as is common in Mexico and South America.

Proposed division of California into three states, all Democrat-leaning. Supposedly this will increase the voting power of the state by providing 4 more electors and 4 more senators.

California has petitioned for a different change to the electoral system — one that should empower the Democrats and Californians, or so the theory goes. On the ballot in 2016 was bill that would divide California into three sub-states. Between them, California would have six senators and four more electors. The proposer of the bill claims that he engineered the division, shown at right, so skillful that all three parts would stay Democrat controlled. Some people are worried, though. California is not totally blue. Once you split the state, there is more than three times the chance that one sub-state will go red. If so, the state’s effect would be reduced by 2/3 in a close election. At the last moment of 2016 the resolution was removed from the ballot.

Turning now to voter turnout, it seems to me that a change in the electoral college would change this as well. Currently, about half of all voters stay home, perhaps because their state’s effect on the presidential choice is fore-ordained. Also, a lot of fringe candidates don’t try as they don’t see themselves winning 50+% of the electoral college. If you change how we elect the president we are sure find a new assortment of voters and a much wider assortment of candidates at the final gate, as in Mexico. Democrats seem to believe that more Democrats will show up, and that they’ll vote mainstream D, but I suspect otherwise. I can not even claim the alternatives will be more fair.

In terms of fairness, Marie de Condorcet showed that the plurality system will not be fair if there are more than two candidates. It will be more interesting though. If changes to the electoral college system comes up in your state, be sure to tell your congressperson what you think.

Robert Buxbaum, July 22, 2019.

The free press isn’t

4 Replies

Newspapers remain the primary source for verified news. Facts presumed to be sifted to avoid bias, while opinions and context is presumed to be that of the reporter whose name appears as the byline. We may look to other media sources for confirmation and fact-checking: news magazines, Snopes, and Facebook. Since 2016 these sources have been unanimous in their agreement about the dangers of biassed news. Republicans, including the president have claimed that the left-media spreads “fake news”, against him, while Democrats claim that Trump and the Russians have been spreading pro-Trump, fake news, While Trump and the Republicans claim that the left-media spreads fake news. In an environment like this, it’s worthwhile to point out that the left-wing and right-wing press is owned by a very few rich people, and none of it is free of their influence. An example of this is the following compilation of many stations praising their news independence: CBS, ABC, NBC, and FOX, praising their independence in exactly the same words.

It costs quite a lot to buy a newspaper or television station, and a lot more to keep it running. Often these are money-losing ventures, and as a result, the major newspapers tend to be owned by a few mega-rich individuals who have social or political axes to grind. As the video above shows, one main axe they have is convincing you of their own independence and reliability. The Sinclair news service, owned by the Smith news family came up with the text, and all the independent journalists read it in as convincing a voice as they could muster. This is not to say. that all the news is this bad or that the mega rich don’t provide a service by providing us the news, but it’s worth noting that they extract a fee by controlling what is said, and making sure that the news you see fits their agendas – agendas that are often obvious and open to the general view.

Perhaps the most prominent voice on the right is Rupert Murdoch who owns The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal. He used to own Fox too, and is still the majority controller and guiding voice, but Fox is now owned by Disney who also owns ABC. Murdoch uses his many media outlets to make money and promote conservative and Republican causes. You might expect him to support Trump, but he has a person feud with him that boils up in the Post’s cover pages. Disney’s ABC tends to present news on the left, but as in the compilation above, left and right journalists have no problem parroting the same words. Here is another, older compilation, more journalistl saying the same thing in the same words, e.g. playing up the Conan O’Brian show.

Another media master is Ted Turner. He tends to own media outlets on the left including CNN. Turner manages to make CNN, and his other properties profitable, in part by courting controversy. His wife for a time was Jane Fonda, otherwise known as Hanoi Jane.

Another left-leaning media empire (whatever that means) is MSNBC. It is owned by Time-Warner, also owner of The Huffington Post. Both are anti-israel, and both promote zero-tariff, Pacific-rim trade, but as seen above, MSNBC anchors will read whatever trash they are told to read, and often it’s the same stuff you’d find on Fox.

Rounding out the list of those with a complete US media empires, I include the Emir of Qatar, perhaps the richest man in the world. He operates Al Jazeera, “the most respected news site for Middle east reporting” as an influence-buying vehicle. Al Jazeera is strongly anti-fracking, anti nuclear, and anti oil (Qatar is Asia’s latest supplier of natural gas). It is strongly anti-Israel, and anti Saudi. Qatar propagandist, Jamal Khashoggi worked for AlJazeera, and was likely killed for it. They’re also reliably pro-Shia, with positive stories about Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran, but negative stories about Sunni Egypt and Turkey. They present news, but not unbiassed.

But you don’t have to buy a complete media empire to present your politics as unbiassed news. Jeff Bezos, founder Amazon, bought The Washington Post for $250 million (chump change to hm). For most of the past two years, the paper mostly promoted anti-tariff views, and liberal causes, like high tax rates on the rich. Amazon thrives on cheep Chinese imports, and high tax rates don’t hurt because Amazon manages to not pay any taxes on $11 billion/year profits (by clever accounting they actually get a rebate). Recently Joe Biden made the mistake of calling out Amazon for not paying on $11 billion in profits, and The Washington Post has returned the favor by bashing Biden. As for why Bezos bought the money-losing Post, he said: “It is the newspaper in the Capital City of the most important country in the world… [As such] … “it has an incredibly important role to play in this democracy.”

Moving on to The New Your Times, its editorial slant is controlled by another contestant for world’s richest man: telecom mogul, Carlos “Slim” Helú. Carlos’s views are very similar to Bezos’s, with more of an emphasis on free trade with Mexico. Steve Jobs’s widow runs “The Atlantic” for the same reasons. It’s free on line, well written and money losing. Like with the above, it seems to be a vanity project to promote her views. It’s a hobby, but sh can afford it.

Like her, Chris Hughes, Facebook’s Co-founder and Zuckerberg room-mate, bought and runs the money losing “The New Republic“. He was Facebook’s director of marketing and communications before joining the Obama campaign as it internet marketing head. The New Republic’s had a stellar reputation, back in the day. Zuckerberg himself runs a media empire, but it’s different from the above: it’s social media where people pay for placement, and where those whose views he doesn’t like get censored: put in Facebook jail. He’s gotten into trouble over it, but as a media giant, there seem to have been no consequences.

H.L. Menken on the fake news of the early – mid 20th century.

And it’s not only rich individuals who turn trusted news sources into propaganda outlets. The US CIA did this for years, and likely still do. Then there are the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis, the British (BBC) and our very own NPRt. These sources present news that benefits them in the most positive light and scream about dangers to democracy and the world if their position is touched or their veracity is questioned. As these sources are all government funded, there is a they are unanimous supporters big governments as a cure to all ills. Closer to home, I’d like to mention that Detroit has two major papers, but only one owner. The left leaning Detroit Free Press, and the right-leaning Detroit News are owned by the same people, share a considerable staff, and generally agree on important issues. There are a dozen smaller papers in Metro Detroit; all but one is owned by one media group.

I’d like to end with a positive note. Not every reporter is in this sad grab-bag. In Detroit, Setve Neveling, “the motor-city muckraker” manages to present is independent, active news. Then there is Los Angeles’s Biotech billionaire, Patrick Soon-Shiong. He bought the LA Times in June 2018, claiming he will use it to fight fake news, “the cancer of our time.” I wish him luck. So far, I’d say, he’s made the LA Times is the best Newspaper in the US with The NY Post a close second ( love the snarky headlines).

Robert Buxbaum, July 15, 2019.

Speed traps penalize the poor

Leave a reply

On a street corner about 1/4 mile from my house, at the intersection of the two busiest of the local streets, in the center-median of the street, is parked a police car. He’s there, about 18 hours a day, looking to give out tickets. The cross-street that this officer watches is where drivers get off the highway. In theory, they should instantly go from 65 mph on the highway to 35 mph now. Very few people do. The officer does not ticket every car, by the way, but seems to target those of poor people from outside the city limits. The only time ai was ticketed, I was driving a broken-down car while mine was in the shop. As best I can tell, he choose cars for revenue, not for safety. It’s a speed trap. It’s appalling. And our city isn’t alone in having one.

Speed traps are an annoyance to rich, local folk who sometimes get ticketed, but they’re a disaster for the poor. Poor people are targeted, and these people don’t have any savings. They don’t have the means to pay a suddenly imposed bill of $150 or more. Meanwhile, the speed-trap officer is incentivized to increase revenue and look for other violations: expired registrations or insurance, seat-belt violations, open alcohol, unpaid tickets. Double and triple fines are handed out, and sometimes the car is impounded. A poor driver is often left without any legal way to get to work, to earn money to pay the fines. Police officers behave this way because they are evaluated based on the revenue they generate, based on the number of tickets they write. It’s a horrible situation, especially for the poor

Speed traps to little and cost much.

An article on the effect of speed traps. It appears they do little good and cause much pain, especially to the poor. Here is a link to the whole article.

The article above looks at the impact of speed traps on poor people. The damage is extreme. The folks targeted are often black, barely holding it together financially. They are generally not in a position to pay $150 for “impeding traffic,” and even less in a position to deal with having their car impounded. How are they supposed to pay the bill? And yet they are told they are lucky to have been given this ticket — impeding traffic, a ticket with no “points.” But they are not lucky. They are victims. Tickets with no points is are money generators, and many poor people realize it. If they were to get a speeding ticket, they would have the opportunity to void the penalty by going to traffic school. With a ticket for impeding traffic, there is no school option. Revenue stays local, mostly in that police precinct. Poor people know it, and they don’t like it. I don’t either. After a while, poor people cease to trust the police, or to even speak to them.

In what world should you pay $150 for impeding traffic, by the way? In what world should the police be taken from their main job protecting the people and turned into a revenue arm for the city? I’d like to see this crazy cycle ended. The first steps, I think, are to end speed traps, and to limit the incentive for giving minor tickets, like impeding traffic. As it is we have too many people in jail and too many harsh penalties. 

Robert Buxbaum, April 10, 2019. I ran for water commissioner in 2016, and may run again in 2020.

Statistics for psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists

Leave a reply

In terms of mathematical structure, psychologists, sociologists, and poly-sci folks all do the same experiment, over and over, and all use the same simple statistical calculation, the ANOVA, to determine its significance. I thought I’d explain that experiment and the calculation below, walking you through an actual paper (one I find interesting) in psychology / poly-sci. The results are true at the 95% level (that’s the same as saying p >0.05) — a significant achievement in poly-sci, but that doesn’t mean the experiment means what the researchers think. I’ll then suggest another statistic measure, r-squared, that deserves to be used along with ANOVA.

The standard psychological or poly-sci research experiments involves taking a group of people (often students) and giving them a questionnaire or test to measure their feelings about something — the war in Iraq, their fear of flying, their degree of racism, etc. This is scored on some scale to get an average. Another, near-identical group of subjects is now brought in and given a prompt: shown a movie, or a picture, or asked to visualize something, and then given the same questionnaire or test as the first group. The prompt is shown to have changed to average score, up or down, an ANOVA (analysis of variation) is used to show if this change is one the researcher can have confidence in. If the confidence exceeds 95% the researcher goes on to discuss the significance, and submits the study for publication. I’ll now walk you through the analysis the old fashioned way: the way it would have been done in the days of hand calculators and slide-rules so you understand it. Even when done this way, it only takes 20 minutes or so: far less time than the experiment.

I’ll call the “off the street score” for the ith subject, Xi°. It would be nice if papers would publish these, but usually they do not. Instead, researchers publish the survey and the average score, something I’ll call X°-bar, or X°. they also publish a standard deviation, calculated from the above, something I’ll call, SD°. In older papers, it’s called sigma, σ. Sigma and SD are the same thing. Now, moving to the group that’s been given the prompt, I’ll call the score for the ith subject, Xi*. Similar to the above, the average for this prompted group is X*, or X°-bar, and the standard deviation SD*.

I have assumed that there is only one prompt, identified by an asterix, *, one particular movie, picture, or challenge. For some studies there will be different concentrations of the prompt (show half the movie, for example), and some researchers throw in completely different prompts. The more prompts, the more likely you get false positives with an ANOVA, and the more likely you are to need to go to r-squared. Warning: very few researchers do this, intentionally (and crookedly) or by complete obliviousness to the math. Either way, if you have a study with ten prompt variations, and you are testing to 95% confidence your result is meaningless. Random variation will give you this result 50% of the time. A crooked researcher used ANOVA and 20 prompt variations “to prove to 95% confidence” that genetic modified food caused cancer; I’ll assume (trust) you won’t fall into that mistake, and that you won’t use the ANOVA knowledge I provide to get notoriety and easy publication of total, un-reproducible nonsense. If you have more than one or two prompts, you’ve got to add r-squared (and it’s probably a good idea with one or two). I’d discuss r-squared at the end.

I’ll now show how you calculate X°-bar the old-fashioned way, as would be done with a hand calculator. I do this, not because I think social-scientists can’t calculate an average, nor because I don’t trust the ANOVA function on your laptop or calculator, but because this is a good way to familiarize yourself with the notation:

X°-bar = X° = 1/n° ∑ Xi°.

Here, n° is the total number of subjects who take the test but who have not seen the prompt. Typically, for professional studies, there are 30 to 50 of these. ∑ means sum, and Xi° is the score of the ith subject, as I’d mentioned. Thus, ∑ Xi° indicates the sum of all the scores in this group, and 1/n° is the average, X°-bar. Convince yourself that this is, indeed the formula. The same formula is used for X*-bar. For a hand calculation, you’d write numbers 1 to n° on the left column of some paper, and each Xi° value next to its number, leaving room for more work to follow. This used to be done in a note-book, nowadays a spreadsheet will make that easier. Write the value of X°-bar on a separate line on the bottom.

T-table

T-table

In virtually all cases you’ll find that X°-bar is different from X*-bar, but there will be a lot of variation among the scores in both groups. The ANOVA (analysis of variation) is a simple way to determine whether the difference is significant enough to mean anything. Statistics books make this calculation seem far too complicated — they go into too much math-theory, or consider too many types of ANOVA tests, most of which make no sense in psychology or poly-sci but were developed for ball-bearings and cement. The only ANOVA approach used involves the T-table shown and the 95% confidence (column this is the same as two-tailed p<0.05 column). Though 99% is nice, it isn’t necessary. Other significances are on the chart, but they’re not really useful for publication. If you do this on a calculator, the table is buried in there someplace. The confidence level is written across the bottom line of the cart. 95% here is seen to be the same as a two-tailed P value of 0.05 = 5% seen on the third from the top line of the chart. For about 60 subjects (two groups of 30, say) and 95% certainty, T= 2.000. This is a very useful number to carry about in your head. It allows you to eyeball your results.

In order to use this T value, you will have to calculate the standard deviation, SD for both groups and the standard variation between them, SV. Typically, the SDs will be similar, but large, and the SV will be much smaller. First lets calculate SD° by hand. To do this, you first calculate its square, SD°2; once you have that, you’ll take the square-root. Take each of the X°i scores, each of the scores of the first group, and calculate the difference between each score and the average, X°-bar. Square each number and divide by (n°-1). These numbers go into their own column, each in line with its own Xi. The sum of this column will be SD°2. Put in mathematical terms, for the original group (the ones that didn’t see the movie),

SD°2 = 1/(n°-1) ∑ (Xi°- X°)2

SD° = √SD°2.

Similarly for the group that saw the movie, SD*2 = 1/(n*-1) ∑ (Xi*- X*)2

SD* = √SD*2.

As before, n° and n* are the number of subjects in each of the two groups. Usually you’ll aim for these to be the same, but often they’ll be different. Some students will end up only seeing half the move, some will see it twice, even if you don’t plan it that way; these students’ scares can not be used with the above, but be sure to write them down; save them. They might have tremendous value later on.

Write down the standard deviations, SD for each group calculated above, and check that the SDs are similar, differing by less than a factor of 2. If so, you can take a weighted average and call it SD-bar, and move on with your work. There are formulas for this average, and in some cases you’ll need an F-table to help choose the formula, but for my purposes, I’ll assume that the SDs are similar enough that any weighted average will do. If they are not, it’s likely a sign that something very significant is going on, and you may want to re-think your study.

Once you calculate SD-bar, the weighted average of the SD’s above, you can move on to calculate the standard variation, the SV between the two groups. This is the average difference that you’d expect to see if there were no real differences. That is, if there were no movie, no prompt, no nothing, just random chance of who showed up for the test. SV is calculated as:

SV = SD-bar √(1/n° + 1/n*).

Now, go to your T-table and look up the T value for two tailed tests at 95% certainty and N = n° + n*. You probably learned that you should be using degrees of freedom where, in this case, df = N-2, but for normal group sizes used, the T value will be nearly the same. As an example, I’ll assume that N is 80, two groups of 40 subjects the degrees of freedom is N-2, or 78. I you look at the T-table for 95% confidence, you’ll notice that the T value for 80 df is 1.99. You can use this. The value for  62 subjects would be 2.000, and the true value for 80 is 1.991; the least of your problems is the difference between 1.991 and 1.990; it’s unlikely your test is ideal, or your data is normally distributed. Such things cause far more problems for your results. If you want to see how to deal with these, go here.

Assuming random variation, and 80 subjects tested, we can say that, so long as X°-bar differs from X*-bar by at least 1.99 times the SV calculated above, you’ve demonstrated a difference with enough confidence that you can go for a publication. In math terms, you can publish if and only if: |X°-X*| ≥ 1.99 SV where the vertical lines represent absolute value. This is all the statistics you need. Do the above, and you’re good to publish. The reviewers will look at your average score values, and your value for SV. If the difference between the two averages is more than 2 times the SV, most people will accept that you’ve found something.

If you want any of this to sink in, you should now do a worked problem with actual numbers, in this case two groups, 11 and 10 students. It’s not difficult, but you should try at least with these real numbers. When you are done, go here. I will grind through to the answer. I’ll also introduce r-squared.

The worked problem: Assume you have two groups of people tested for racism, or political views, or some allergic reaction. One group was given nothing more than the test, the other group is given some prompt: an advertisement, a drug, a lecture… We want to know if we had a significant effect at 95% confidence. Here are the test scores for both groups assuming a scale from 0 to 3.

Control group: 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3.  These are the Xi° s; there are 11 of them

Prompted group: 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3.  These are the Xi* s; there are 10 of them.

On a semi-humorous side: Here is the relationship between marriage and a PhD.

Robert Buxbaum, March 18, 2019. I also have an explanation of loaded dice and flipped coins; statistics for high school students.

Feminism in law and middle east diplomacy

Leave a reply

If you went to college in the last 40 years and learned there was a concept called “the rape culture” that was supposed to drive law and diplomacy. In terms of law the assumption was that all men – or most — were rapists or would be rapists. Along with this, women are weaker, and almost always the victim in male-female interactions. As such the woman has to be believed in all cases of “he-said, she-said.” To do otherwise was “rape-shaming” a form of blaming the victim. Male on female rape is supposed to have infected international affairs as well. War and peace are assumed to be rape situations where no country is assumed to want foreign influence or industry unless they say so, and any demand that you take your embassy or hotel out has to be met with immediate withdrawal. The female country is the weaker in these deals, and where that could not be determined, the raper country was determined by geography. Israel was always the raper country because of its shape and position within the Arab world. Israel was asked to withdraw — cease to exist as a non-Islamic nation — and admit that it was raping the Arab world just by existing.

Before World War I, there was no such thing as a world court. If one country attacked another, the attacked country could appeal to allies, or perhaps to public opinion, but there was no certainty of rescue. Without a world court, and without a world set of laws, claiming victim status did little. Weaker principalities could be divided up, and sometimes sold off or traded. Manhattan went from being a Dutch settlement to being an English settlement when the English traded an island in the Pacific for it. Napoleon acquired Louisiana from the Spanish by trading northern Italy, then promptly sold Louisiana to America. And all this was normal. The international version of human trafficking, I suppose.

After WWI, a world court was created along with a new diplomatic theory: the world should protect the weak and the wronged. In this context, feminist analysis of which country is wronged would have been important except that there was no army to do the enforcing. Woodrow Wilson championed a League of Nations, one of his 19 points. The weak and abused would be protected from the strong; democracy would be protected from the dictator. This is a softer, kinder view of the world, a cooperative world, a feminist world, and in academia it is considered the only good version — a one world order with academics at the top. Still, without an army or much of a budget, it was all academic, as it were. This changed when the United Nations was created with a budget and an army. If the army was to protect the victim, we had to determine who was the aggressor. In 95% of all cases considered before the UN, the aggressor was asserted to be Israel. This in not despite its small size, but because of it. By feminist analysis, the surrounding country is always the victim.

In feminist analysis, there is the need for a third type of person, almost a third gender. This is the male feminist. This is the warlike defender of the weak. Such people are assumed to make up the UN army and its management. When an outsider country appears within the boundaries of another nation, that’s national rape and has to be prevented by this third-gender army. Hitler’s takeover of Europe was rape, not because he was totalitarian (he was elected democratically) but because his was an unwelcome intrusion. The counter-invasion of Germany was/is only justified by assuming that the allies (the good guys) represented, not rape, but some third gender interaction. It all made a certain type of sense in college seminars, if not in life, and men were not quite expected to understand; we were just expected to become this third gender.

Being a Male Feminist is uncomfortable both in personal and international affairs. It is very uncomfortable to have to defend every victim, making every sacrifice no matter how personally objectionable the victim is, or how arbitrary the distinction of victim, or how much the victim hates her savior. In personal affairs, this is a theme in Bob Dylan song “It’s ain’t me, babe.”  Dylan agrees with a lady that she has a right to want all sorts of things, but says, “it ain’t me babe,” about him being the guy to provide them all.

In international affairs the discomfort is even worse. We found, with depressing frequency, that we were expected to donate the lives of countless soldiers in support of regimes that were objectionable, and that hated us. Jimmy Carter supported the PLO and Idi Amin, and the Ayatollah because they were weak regimes with incursions: by the oil companies or the CIA. The people we were helping hated us before Jimmy Carter, and they hated us more after. The Ayatollah in Iran captured or killed our diplomatic staff, and beheaded anyone with western sympathies.

I have come to think that a redefinition of rape is what is needed. I note that not all rape is male-on female, and not all wars are won by incursion. The Mongols won by surrounding. Similarly, the game of GO is won by surrounding. I would like to stop assuming that the surrounding nation is always the victim and that the woman is always telling the truth. In personal injury law, I’d like more freedom to try to decide which is right or wrong or maybe both have a case, and we may want to just sit back and wait to offer mediation. Here’s another Bob Dylan song on the difficulty of figuring out who is right or wrong: “God on our sides.”

Robert E. Buxbaum, September 21, 2018

A Pastor to Trump’s Soul

2 Replies

Trump’s religious connection is so different from the norm that most people think it must be fake, but the truth of his connection to Christianity, as best I can determine it, is even more bizarre than the assumption that there is none. From the time that he was six years old, Donald Trump attended a famous church in New York City, The Marble Collegiate Presbyterian Church. He attended along with his grandfather, his parents, his brother, and his sisters. He was married in this church as was his sister. Both his parents funerals were in the sanctuary, and unlike most children in a family church, he seems to have been generally moved by the sermons — moved to change his life.

Trump and NVP

Various scenes of Trump and his family with Dr. Norma Vincent Peale.

The pastor of the church and the author of these sermons was not a standard Christian, though. It was Norman Vincent Peele, author of “The Power of Positive Thinking.” According to President Trump, he loved the sermons almost from the beginning. They went on for an hour or so and as Trump remembers it, the Reverend Peele could have spoken for twice as long at least. Dr. Peale did not talk fo sin, but rather of success and other of the most positive things. Peale claimed that you could do anything you wanted with the help of God and proving you believed in your self and didn’t let anything anyone said interfere. He backed up this take on the bible by a cherry-picked selection from all the positive lines in the Bible — Lines that are really there, but that most pastors avoid because they can make a person arrogant (or seem arrogant). A source for all of president Trumps bizarre self-image ideas can be found in Peele’s “The power of positive thinking,”I  find.presidents-billy-right-960x640BG-Kennedy-960x640

Dwight Eishenhouer

Some other US presidents with Reverend Billy Graham.

Most other American pastors have emphasized self reflection and humility. They would pray for the power to avoid bragging or other forms of puffing one’s self up —  the very opposite approach of Dr. Peale’s. The most popular of the alternates approaches, one embraced by virtually every president from 1952 to today was Billy Graham’s fire humility.

Eisenhower golfed with Graham regularly, as did Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and G. H.W. Bush. Graham was a feature at prayer breakfasts with Johnson and Reagan, and Carter. In time of trouble it was Billy Graham who counseled Carter, Clinton, and Nixon, and it was Graham who got George W. Bush to give up drinking. After a time, one could imagine that Billy Graham’s quiet humility and fiery faith was the real American belief. Or at least that this was the form of American soul that one associated with success.bill graham reagan BG-JOHNSON

After decades of seeing Billy Graham at the White House, one began to believe that his was the image of the believing American. To believe meant to see oneself as a sinner who often made mistakes but was genuinely sorry for these failures. A believing American was genuinely penitent, but not too loudly. Was reborn, but didn’t make too much fuss of it. Thus it’s more than a little shock to find believer in God’s plan who claims to believes that God wants him to have success, money, and power, and who claims, as Trump does, that those who criticize him are “fake news”.

I’ve mentioned before that a strong belief in ones self has a positive side for leaders, but it strikes me that perhaps it’s also good for religion. These lines really do appear in the Bible, Humility is there too, of course, but we could all use a reminder that “God gives to all who believe in Him.”

Robert Buxbaum, September 3, 2018