Saturday, October 28, 2006

Left/Libertarian/Centrist?

Well, there I am at a three-way corner of left/libertarian/centrist on the orientation quiz linked by Greg Mankiw, who is more libertarian and less leftish than I. But I can't really fit myself into any of those. I'm a geek, that's all.

or maybe not?

Update Arnold Kling rephrases the questions:

  • (People should be allowed to advocate for terrorism, racial hatred, or any other unpopular cause) yes, of course.
  • Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft (The wealthy and the powerful should be able to initiate wars, and pay others to fight them)Well, the wealthy should be able to contribute to advocacy organizations, and vote like everybody else.
  • There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults (If two teachers want to have sex in front of a classroom of elementary students that is fine, since the teachers are consenting adults).prosecution should not be for sex as such, but for impact on the kids.
  • Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs (Abolish the requirement to obtain a prescription to get medication)absolutely
  • There should be no National ID card (Illegal immigrants and terrorists should have their anonymity protected)Well, here I disagreed; there should be an national ID card, just a much weaker government which tracks it.
  • End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business (Government will do nothing to try to help save small farms, achieve energy independence, provide affordable housing, or achieve other social goals)I don't think Pigovian taxes qualify as corporate welfare, but yes to most of that.
  • End government barriers to international free trade (End government barriers to free trade, including all barriers that restrict people coming into this country to work)people aren't goods. (But we should dramatically liberalize immigration laws, and almost anybody anywhere should be able to sign up for Barnett's SysAdmin corps with the promise of American citizenship after twenty years.)
  • Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security (Either stop paying benefits to people near or beyond retirement age, or pay those benefits and use borrowing or new taxes to finance the large expenditures necessary)Well, I don't fully agree; I partly agree.
  • Replace government welfare with private charity (Eliminate government welfare, and hope that private charity picks up the slack)I'd change the structure of welfare, but I don't think this replacement is a good idea.
  • Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more (Eliminate public education, Medicaid, and Medicare)I'd change all of those almost beyond recognition, but it wouldn't save all that much money.
So I guess I have reason for not thinking of myself as a libertarian. Or leftist. Or centrist. (Or rightist, for that matter. :-)

Friday, October 20, 2006

Pigovian Taxes

Greg Mankiw says

here's a wacky idea you won't often hear from our elected leaders: We should raise the tax on gasoline. Not quickly, but substantially. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade. Campaign consultants aren't fond of this kind of proposal, but policy wonks keep pushing for it.
Well, sure -- but I wish he mentioned what I think of as the primary reason, namely that such a tax will push new technology. In the long run, that's how we get to a world in which Wahhabism does not have the economic clout it now has, in which China can afford non-polluting technology, and so on. Actually my preference would be for an oil tax applied to all oil generated with traditional technologies--and yes, I'd accept oil from oil shale and from tar sand as being acceptable (with a warning that twenty years from now they might get taxed too, if priorities shift from the Long War to global warming.)

I was ambivalent about these taxes until 9/11. Since then, I've definitely favored them.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

GNR Terrorism

I said in Lancet Redux that I think that if Bush's "Big Bang" fails, "we will not be thinking of 655,000 as a large number of dead."

As TPM Barnett noted in the Knoxville Gazette lately, we are roughly ten years from genetically engineered threats from non-governmental organizations -- and roughly ten years from being able to detect and maybe deal with them.
I want to be a bit more concrete there, adding to my comments to Barnett's Thousand Flowers post.

In general, I believe that Barnett is right to say that technology favors the good guys, but I am not confident that it has to work that way in any given case. (I've been describing myself as a "moderate techno-optimist" for quite a few years now.) Let me suppose that the technology to create deadly viruses and the technology to counter deadly viruses are developed more or less in tandem. Let me suppose that ten years from now, the bad guy can start by crossing a lot of viruses' RNA, randomly mutating segments, coming out with a million or so which are then tested on cultured human cells to come out with a few thousand strains that look like they might be good (i.e., bad), in the expectation that a few hundred of these will actually be deadly.

(Or maybe all the design can be done by simulations, and then he prints out RNA sequences which will in fact be deadly.)

I am not supposing that the good guys have been idle; indeed, I'm supposing that their progress has been greater than the baddies'. At the time in question, the good guys have developed fabulous technology, technology much more advanced than the bad guy's, technology by which any particular strain (HIV, a specific influenza, smallpox) can be halted in a week or three. Given blood/tissue samples from an infected human, they can quickly isolate any active viruses, they can solve the genetic codes thereof and print out vaccines.

At the moment, I think that's an extremely optimistic view of a stage of technology that we will reach, maybe in ten years or maybe in twenty. Who has the advantage at that stage? Well, my feeling now is that the bad guy is way ahead, able to kill very large numbers -- unless you can bring in other technology to stop the bad guy ahead of time. Surveillance technology. This is technically feasible (although legally problematic for some countries) in the Core, but it just doesn't help that much when talking about North Korea or Syria. Later stages, in which nano or robotic technology add to the genetically engineered virus threat (and genetically engineered fleas for a delivery mechanism, and so on) make the situation even worse, if the bad guy has a protected zone in which to develop stuff. The Barnett prescription solves my problem: we have to convert Gap to Core. And then we have to change the US Constitution to distinguish between liberty and privacy, so that we can improve security by reducing some kinds of privacy but not liberty.

How? One possibility: an agency which knows all about you but can't do normally do anything about it, can't even share data with other agencies -- but all of its data about you which is more than a year (2 years?) old is accessible to you. The only crime it can report is (conspiracy to commit) mass murder. Well, something like that. And there is a special court in which you can protest "But I'm just an ordinary thief/drug lord/murderer" and they can send an agent of this agency to jail for abusing his surveillance technology without ever exposing you to conventional courts. Accountability uber alles.

And how to convert Gap to Core? As Barnett says,

everytime somebody who's thought it through lays out a vision for how we fix the mess we're in, they basically recite the [SysAdmin] concept...
Yup. I've believed that since long before I heard of Barnett.

(but then again, maybe not.)

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Note on Nose-Holding

Classical Values asks if you're "Tired of holding your nose?", concluding

I realize that wearing a noseclip to the polls is not the perfect solution, but if the GOP isn't making an effort, I think Republican voters should. It's a visible and (at only $3.95) an inexpensive way to register a vote of disgust.
Actually I think voters on all sides can do this, and nose clips are only $2.29 at Amazon. I have a mental picture of voters streaming into the polls, some voting Dem, some Rep, some for the minor parties, but all with nose-clips. I like it. (ht instapundit, of course.)

Monday, October 16, 2006

Somebody else's mistake

I look just now at Google News and noticed near the top right:

Oil prices rise ahead of OPEC meeting, possible production cut International Herald Tribune - all 479 news articles »
but then I clicked on it, and got the International Herald Tribune saying
Oil prices fall ahead of OPEC meeting despite possible production cut
I presume this just means that the IHT fixed their headline after Google had put it in the database, but I find it amusing.

Archi Words Table

(This actually belongs at http://cs-ling.blogspot.com/ but I can't change the template there.)

N

Phonemic

Phonetic

MSC

SUR

Russian

English

1.

imʦ’

ʔimʦ’

imc’

imc’

мед

honey

2.

ʧ’in

ʧ’in

č’in

č’in

блоха

flea

3.

tɬ’ili

tɬ’ili

ʟ’ili

ʟ’ili

седло

saddle

4.

urkːi

ʔurkːi

urk̄i

urkːi

лопух

burdock

5.

hiˤmp’i

hˤiˤmˤp’ˤiˤ

hiӀmp’i

hiˤmp’i

плакса

weeper

6.

iːk’en

ʔiːk’en

īk’en

iːk’en

все

all

7.

t’iːnːa

t’iːnna

t’īn̄a

t’iːnːa

мало

little, few

8.

liːc’i

liːc’i

līc’i

liːc’i

осколок камня

splinter

9.

eʃːi

ʔeʃːi

eš̄i

ešːi

сюда

hither

10.

genukʰ

genukʰ

genuk

genuk

яйцо

egg

11.

k’ent’er

k’ent’er

k’ent’er

k’ent’er

капает

is dripping

12.

eˤʧ

ʔˤeˤʧˤ

eӀč

eˤč

метка

mark

13.

ʧ’eˤn

ʧ’ˤeˤn

č’eӀn

č’eˤn

стена

wall

14.

beːχutːutʰ

beːχutːutʰ

bēχut̄ut

beːχutːut

высокий

high

15.

oweːnnutʰ

ʔoweːnnutʰ

owēnnut

oweːnnut

все сделанное

all being done

16.

heːˤt’u

hˤeːˤt’u

hēӀt’u

heːˤt’u

не придет

will not come

17.

aqʰ

ʔaqʰ

aq

aq

стопа

foot

18.

batʰ

batʰ

bat

bat

рог

corn

19.

hawa

hawa

hawa

hawa

воздух

air

20.

χitːa

χitːa

χit̄a

χitːa

потом

later

21.

baˤʃ

bˤaˤʃˤ

baӀš

baˤš

мера зерна

measure for grain

22.

aˤnʃ

ʔˤãˤnʃˤ

aӀnš

aˤnš

яблоко

apple

23.

laːχətːutʰ

laːχətːutʰ

lāχət̄ut

laːχətːut

длинный

long

24.

jaːhas

jaːhas

jāhas

jaːhas

веять

winnow

25.

akʰdaːt’u

ʔakʰdaːt’u

akdāt’u

akdaːt’u

не уйдет

will not leave

26.

baːˤbus

bˤaːˤbˤuˤs

bāӀbus

baːˤbus

разговаривать

talk

27.

oj

ʔoj

oj

oj

ухо

ear

28.

kʰot’

kʰot’

kot’

kot’

большая корзина

big basket

29.

akːon

ʔakːon

ak̄on

akːon

свет

light

30.

oˤʧ

ʔˤoˤʧˤ

oӀč

oˤč

хвост

tail

31.

gəroˤ

gəˤroˤ

gəroӀ

gəroˤ

шарик

little ball

32.

boːnis

boːnis

bōnis

boːnis

немного

a little

33.

oːk’ur

ʔoːk’ur

ōk’ur

oːk’ur

медленно

slowly

34.

eq’oːt’u

ʔeq’oːt’u

eq’ōt’u

eq’oːt’u

не укусит

will not bite

35.

doˤːzutʰ

doˤːzutʰ

doӀ̄zut

doˤːzut

большой

big, large

36.

ʔ

поле

field

37.

uri

ʔuri

uri

uri

жеребено к

colt

38.

kʰul

kʰul

kul

kul

кисть руки

hand

39.

duɬːur

duɬːur

duɬ̄ur

duɬːur

уздечка

bridle

40.

gatʰu

gatʰu

gatu

gatu

кошка

cat

41.

uˤrbət’i

ʔˤuˤrbəˤt’i

uӀrbət’i

uˤrbət’i

лягушка

frog

42.

muːʃi

muːʃi

mūši

muːši

хорошо

well

43.

χːuːt’u

χːuːt’u

χ̄ūt’u

χːuːt’u

не встанет

will not rise

44.

uruːˤnu

ʔˤuˤrˤuːˤnu

urūӀnu

uruːˤnu

и уголь

and coal

45.

əjom

ʔəjom

əjom

əjom

уши

ears

46.

bəʃor

bəʃor

bəšor

bəšor

мужчина

man

47.

oc’əla

ʔoc’əla

oc’əla

oc’əla

огниво

fire stone

48.

əˤntʰor

ʔˤəˤntʰor

əӀntor

əˤntor

головы женщин

female heads

49.

həˤlotːutʰ

hˤəˤlotːutʰ

həӀlot̄ut

həˤlotːut

жидкий

liquid

50.

tʰung

tʰũŋg

tung

tung

веретено

spindle

51.

doʃmin wartʰi

doʃmĩ wartʰi

došmin warti

došmin warti

войлок сестры

sister’s felt

52.

eˤmwar

ʔˤẽˤwar

eӀmwar

eˤmwar

(она) плачет

( she ) is crying

53.

iʦ

ʔiʦ

ic

ic

козья шерсть

wool of goat

54.

bi

bi

bi

bi

кровь

blood

55.

hinʦ

hĩnʦ

hinc

hinc

теперь

now

56.

ħiħi-bos

ħiħi-bos

ħiħi-bos

ħiħi-bos

ржать

to neigh

57.

iχˤ

ʔˤiˤχˤ

iχӀ

iχˤ

шутка

joke

58.

iːzutʰ

ʔiːzutʰ

īzut

iːzut

вкусный

tasty

59.

iˤjaˤ

ʔˤiˤjaˤ

iӀjaӀ

iˤjaˤ

развалины

ruins

60.

iˤʔuˤ-bos

ʔˤiˤʔuˤ

iӀʔuӀ-bos

iˤʔuˤ-bos

кукарекать

to crow

61.

ebq’

ʔebq’

ebq’

ebq’

четыре

four

62.

eqon

ʔeqon

eqon

eqon

вечером

in the evening

63.

eq’ːas

ʔeq’ːas

eq’̄as

eq’ːas

кусать

to bite

64.

eχˤ

ʔˤeˤχˤ

eχӀ

eχˤ

щека

cheeck

65.

ʧ

ʧ

č

č

никто

nobody

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Lancet redux

Summary: I think the new Lancet study is basically irreproachable, except that I fundamentally disagree with their interpretation.

Well, as it did before I started blogging, the Lancet has published a study concluding that the US invasion of Iraq has been a bloody mess:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
I'd love to see something wrong in the statistical procedures, but I don't. (I haven't gone over it as carefully as the first time, but people I came to trust in that discussion, like dsquared, have...and I figure I've seen enough.) With the earlier analysis there was at least some fuzziness from the limited number of death certificates, but that seems to me to be gone. It remains possible that the authors are lying or that the data-collectors were lying or that the data-providers were lying, and there could be all kinds of incentives for this, but that doesn't strike me as very interesting. zeyad of Healing Iraq suggests that their number may be as much as twice too high (not only the "55" but the "6" may be noise), but really that's not very interesting either. As Tyler Cowen quotes Steve Sailer:
"The violent death toll in the third year of the war is more than triple what it was in the first year." That to me is the more telling estimate.
Yes indeed.

Maybe I should feel validated. I said before the war, in a statement of support for that war, that it was option (c):

(c) "Regime Change"....it's not a nice option, it will end us up in a big long-term mess, Bush is not a good President to be running it,
but there was a "but":
but it looks to me a lot less bloody than options (a) or (c)...
Unfortunately, I still haven't changed my mind about that. I guess you can call me a techneocon. Whether I'm thinking about Social Security or about global warming or alternative energy, I tend to think that the future will be dominated by increasingly rapid technological change. Mostly I think of that as good: I'm a Singularitarian. Yay! But I see our survival into that good future as a race: as TPM Barnett noted in the Knoxville Gazette lately, we are roughly ten years from genetically engineered threats from non-governmental organizations -- and roughly ten years from being able to detect and maybe deal with them. Sometimes I sit and think about that...I'm not at all sure of Barnett's ten years, of course, we may have twenty (or five, but I think the curve stretches out to the right), but it's not just genetically engineered threats that matter. If the RepRap project works (and it will, or some successor will) then we will have cheap desktop manufacture by Instapundit's Army of Davids, just as he says. I bet we'll be able to manufacture self-reproducing machines that are really hard to stop. (I'm not thinking about tanks, just now; I'm thinking about artificial ticks that can manufacture botulism -- the ticks would not be self-reproducing, but they would be manufactured by self-reproducing machines which release little tick-laden hydrogen balloons every now and then. What fun...) Ditto for nukes, though the raw materials there provide some constraint.

We may not be able to stop the dictatorships that breed terrorism (including direct support, as in Saddam's case.) If we can't do it, we will not be thinking of 655,000 as a large number of dead. (Okay, I'm the guy who didn't expect civilization to last till the year 2000. But then, again, I think we survived by luck and the grace of Stanislav Petrov.)

So I support the war, sort of. Well, I support the initial "Big Bang", as Barnett describes it:

Big Bang: refers to the implied (and sometimes openly voiced) strategy of the Bush Administration to trigger widespread political, social, economic and ultimately security change in the Middle East through the initial spark caused by the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the hoped-for emergence of a truly market-based, democratic Arab state. ... a direct, in-your-face attempt by the Bush Administration to shake things up in the stagnant Middle East... The Big Bang was and still is a bold strategy by Bush, one that I support.
Me too.

So, why did I think of Bush as a bad president to run it? Partly I was wrong: I never thought he was particularly stupid (he probably wouldn't have done too well in my computer science classes back when I was teaching, but I think that's a minor flaw in a President), but I thought he was much more of a crony capitalist than I now think. Mostly I think I was right: he's an optimist -- and he doesn't believe in open government. "Trust me, it'll work out fine." He means it. He shares both these traits with his predecessor, in different ways: I suppose that Martin Seligman is right about optimism, and I'm worried that maybe nobody who doesn't share both those traits can be elected.

This thought does not add to my optimism.

UPDATE: The Iraq Body Count people beg to differ: they offer a list of implications which they believe follow from the Lancet results, and argue that

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data.
Well, I believe they're effectively accusing the data-collectors or data-providers of lying, and I hope they're right. But they share final conclusions with the Lancet people, and of course I don't.

UPDATE: A trusted-by-me Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science blog says basically supportive things of "Estimating Iraq deaths using survey sampling"; I will be astonished if there's anything really wrong with the statistical reasoning as reported in the journal. Even after reading the IBC rebuttal, I'll be surprised if the death-rate hasn't risen substantially as compared with pre-invasion levels. (Pleased, of course, but surprised.)