Archive
Should Obama Back The AZ Law?
The modern “conservative” movement and the Republican Party seem to oppose anything Obama supports. Any increase in government power is treated as further evidence we’re becoming the new Soviet Union. Any chance Obama coming out in favor of Arizona’s new immigration law, which The Economist calls “Hysterical Nativism”, would get the Right to repeal this illiberal state-power swelling abomination? For anyone unfamiliar the new law compels AZ state authorities to check the immigration status of anyone the police “reasonably suspect” of being in the US illegally. The problem of course is that it basically creates a police state where you’re guilty until proven innocent. Here’s is Andrew Sullivan countering some dissents from his strong criticism and language.
A police state is one where any cop can pull you aside for any reason and demand papers. If you don’t have them, you’re guilty till proven innocent. The overwhelming majority of those “reasonably suspected” of being illegal immigrants will be Mexican. What we have here, regardless of how it came about (and I agree the Feds have a terrible record in policing the Southern border), this is a police state directed at a minority, innocent and guilty. That’s the reality.
Steve Chapman at Reason.com reminds the nativists the results of their past efforts.
Turning the border into a 2,000-mile replica of the Berlin Wall may sound like a simple cure for the problem. But besides being hugely expensive, it would have effects the advocates would not relish.
How so? Massey says the number of people coming illegally has not risen appreciably in the last couple of decades. But the number staying has climbed, because anyone who leaves faces a harder task returning.
I’m for increasing access to legal immigration, but anti-illegal-immigration crusaders should realize fencing illegal aliens in and pushing them further in the shadows of the law makes any problems worse.
85% Will Be Smarter After Reading This… If My Calculations Are Right.
I spotlighted Steven Strogatz’s New York Times column before and those that took my advice to follow him are being rewarded lesson after lesson. In his most recent installment, he introduces one of my favorite mathematical topics: probability. The counterintuitiveness adds to its intrigue and to the necessity of focusing on it in our schools. The other week a few friends and I spent most of our work day trying unsuccessfully to figure out what percentage chance the Bruins had of landing the 1st or 2nd overall pick in the draft. Eventually I just had my mother contact her colleague: an advanced statistics teacher. Thanks for the help! He and Strogatz, as with all good educators, make the opaque clearer. Ok readers, here is the first problem:
The probability that one of these women has breast cancer is 0.8 percent. If a woman has breast cancer, the probability is 90 percent that she will have a positive mammogram. If a woman does nothave breast cancer, the probability is 7 percent that she will still have a positive mammogram. Imagine a woman who has a positive mammogram. What is the probability that she actually has breast cancer?
Let me guess. You’re probably like me and have no idea. Well you’re with at least 95 out of 100 of American doctors. Strogatz now reframes the problem in terms of “natural frequencies” instead of percentages. (Have your answers before continuing)
Eight out of every 1,000 women have breast cancer. Of these 8 women with breast cancer, 7 will have a positive mammogram. Of the remaining 992 women who don’t have breast cancer, some 70 will still have a positive mammogram. Imagine a sample of women who have positive mammograms in screening. How many of these women actually have breast cancer?
Since a total of 7 + 70 = 77 women have positive mammograms, and only 7 of them truly have breast cancer, the probability of having breast cancer given a positive mammogram is 7 out of 77, which is 1 in 11, or about 9 percent.
It is well worth reading his whole post – the importance of this topic seems to be in inverse proportion to the coverage it receives. I hope to correct that. For my law loving readers, he shares some fresh probabilistic thinking on the OJ trial. Also, just enjoy this line from Strogatz – it makes me think of this blog in many ways.
So we sacrificed a little precision for a lot of clarity.
Don’t Piss Off South Park Fans
Hope for Sarah Palin?
Science Daily reports:
Scientists at The University of Nottingham have discovered the gene that enables an extraordinary worm to regenerate its own body parts after amputation — including a whole head and brain.
(h/t RichardDawkins.net)
New Meaning to the Term Fat Head?
Olivia Judson gives us another good reason (are more needed?) to work out and eat right.
Brains usually atrophy with age, but being obese appears to accelerate the process. This is bad news: pronounced brain atrophy is a feature of dementia.
"Even The Fiercest Free Marketeer Should Accept This"
Martin Wolf argues for the need to regulate our financial institutions and prepare for future problems.
Does today’s engorged financial system produce gains that justify these costs? In a recent speech, Adair Turner, chairman of the UK’s Financial Services Authority, argues it does not.* Financial systems are important servants of the economy, but poor masters. A large part of the activity of the financial sector seems to be a machine to transfer income and wealth from outsiders to insiders, while increasing the fragility of the economy as a whole. Given the extent of the government-induced distortions in the system, even the fiercest free marketeer should accept this. It is hard to see any substantial benefit from the massive leveraging up of the economy and, above all, the real estate sector, that we saw recently. This just created illusory gains on the way up and real pain on the way down.
Just as Keynes saw the need for government intervention into the economy to save capitalism rather than replace it, we need to reform our financial system so any failure by a bank doesn’t lead to a disruption of the entire economy. Capitalism depends on creative destruction – we need a system that can deal with 2nd half so we can have the 1st.
Recent Comments