Dog Gone Capital Punishment

I was watching the news the other night as they relayed the story of a Rottweiler who killed a little girl over a cookie that had fallen to the ground. As I'm sure all would expect, the dog was put down.

And that got me to thinking about Capital Punishment. In the States where Capital Punishment is legal, a person who is retarded cannot be put to death for the crimes they commit. I think the argument goes something like, the person doesn't fully understand what they did and / or wouldn't understand the punishment they receive.

Can you detect the logical inconstancy here? Transferring the logic of sparing the life of a mentally retarded human to the dog, why was the dog put to death? Did the dog understand what he was doing? Does the dog understand why he's on a cold table with a needle in his paw? Something tells me the dog knows EVEN LESS than a possibly retarded human so should his life not be spared? Or should it be that we are not so quick to grant reprieve to the mentally retarded?

The reforestation of Iraq

In reading a recent blog by Steve Chapman entitled The Iraq war's other costs, I came to a certain realization of the approach we've taken in the "rebuilding" of Iraq and possibly, in the near future, Afghanistan.

When a forest is depleted of its trees and it is decided it should be reforested, what is the approach? If it is approached as our government has approached Iraq it would be to merely try to dig up mature trees and transplant them in the old forest. Viola!, reforested. Right?

Well what about the forest where the trees came from. Sure, you may not have taken all of the trees from one forest to plant the other but it is foolish to think that the contributing forest would not feel the difference. At best you have zero gain in trees. However, combined with the likelihood of significant die-off in the transplantation process, what you really end up with is negative gain.

And so it goes in Iraq. The US has spent unreal amounts of money trying to "rebuild" Iraq with democracy and capitalism. We've tried to supplant what we tore down with a mature, democratic government thinking that if we spend enough money, we can get it done. Our own economy has felt the burden.

But governments and economic systems are like trees. To try to transplant a mature tree is a difficult and not always successful endeavor. To try to transplant an entire forest of mature trees is an exercise in futility. So it goes with democracy and capitalism.

Instead, the much cheaper, more permanent approach is to plant seedlings and allow them to grow. Reforestation efforts are much more likely to succeed and exponentially more economical when approached in this way.

I believe this approach would also serve much better in Iraq. The ground is prepared, let's plant the seedlings. Create an environment where seedlings of democracy and capitalism can be allowed to mature on their own. It will, without a doubt, be different than what we have here in the US but at least it will be home grown. It will, without a doubt, take a long time but at least it will be deeply rooted.

Should we rebuild Iraq? Without a doubt. We took on that responsibility when we removed their government for them. But let's put the check book away and look at economical ways to plant seedlings instead of trying to transplant trees.

My new favorite writer

In doing some research on the recent Presidential hopefuls, I came across the blog of Chicago Tribune writer Steve Chapman. He has quickly become my favorite writer. He is fair, well-spoken, and convincing in his arguments, even the ones I disagree with.

One of his recent blogs, Economic Myths: Too Good to be True, is no exception. Despite the gloom and doom espoused by our politicians who are begging for your vote, the middle class appears to be doing wonderful over the last 30 years.

It is always fun (and I mean that in the saddest way possible) to find another piece of evidence that shows how deceptive our government leaders are. In general, people lie to cover up their true intentions. So, then, why are our politicians lying to us so regularly? What are they covering up? What we need are fewer laws that dictate the behavior of the populace and more laws that force the revelation (or deterrence) of the dishonest behavior of those who govern the populace.

We just elected a man who lamented the decline of the middle class. His opponent only disagreed in how the middle class should be restored. The options are few and, for what's it's worth, wouldn't win anyway.

So thanks, Mr. Chapman. This blog was great, your other blogs are great. I appreciate the light you shine on the show our politicians put on every day. Now what can we do about changing our national symbol from the bald eagle to a dog and pony?

Are opinion polls giving you the shaft?

I've often been interested in the results of opinion polls that I see. Many times I see that the numbers presented by the polls do not correspond with the general impression I get from my conversations with people. This led me to question the samples being used. Is it that I am so isolated in my general philosophies that I am unable to readily recognize the existence of those whose opinions may differ? Or are the stewards of responsible dissemination of information ([/sarcasm]), better known as "mainstream media," failing to provide you and me with accurate statistical data.

To be fair, my discussion here is a review of only the one poll I looked into. The numbers seemed to correspond with every other poll out there so I figured it as safe of a one sample investigation as I could find. So far, I'm batting 1.000% on a disturbing presentation of "America's opinion."

My interest in the possibility of skewed opinion polls actually reached its pinnacle during the 2004 campaign for the U.S. Presidency. I watched the campaigns fully realizing that John Kerry would not only win the election, but win convincingly. How did I know? Well, all the polls told me so. However, the results of the election were quite the opposite. Instead of George W. Bush losing the election, he actually pulled out a convincing victory. I remember watching John Stewart on the Daily Show where he asked his guest (don't remember the guest, sorry) if mainstream media was really so out of touch with the people of the nation.

I see the same trend today. There is no doubt in my mind that Barak Obama will win the election easily if I look at the polls. Here are some of the results of a recent Yahoo! / AP poll.

• Better grasp on the economy - Obama - +15%
• Trusted to improve the economy - Obama - +10%
• Trusted to handle the financial crisis - Obama - +7%
• Understanding of how the financial crisis affects people - Obama - +15%

The average lead for Obama over McCain on these four points is 12%. Clear victory for Obama, right? Well, not so fast. Look at the sample used for the Yahoo! / AP opinion poll.

The AP-Yahoo! News poll included 841 likely voters was conducted from Oct. 3-13 ... Included were interviews with 373 people who initially said they were Democrats, 252 Republicans and 214 independents...

My first point of confusion here falls in the total number of "likely voters." According to my rusty, trusty calculating machine, 373 + 252 + 214 = 839. I know it is only two more people but I would still like to know who the two people are who bring the total to 841.

The next interesting point is the percentage of people affiliated with the two major political parties in the election. 44% of those polled are Democrat and 30% are Republican, a difference of 14%.

Now compare that 14% weighted toward Democrats to the outcome of the poll. As mentioned before, there was an average of 12% advantage to the Democratic candidate, Barak Obama. I'm extremely leery of coincidences and I don't think we have one here.

Using a weighted poll gives weighted results. I don't like the concept of an opinion poll being weighted in one philosophical direction or another. Journalists, by creed, are supposed to be "accurate and fair". They are supposed to be "independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power,... never careless." They are to be "a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public."

Presenting the public a weighted poll is irresponsible. The media knows best the effects of peer pressure on the populace, it uses it all the time in advertising. What weighted polls do is entice others to the beliefs presented in the poll. "Everyone else thinks this way, you should too." Why would Yahoo! and the AP present skewed data? Is this not against their supposed core beliefs?

I can say only one thing in reply. Shame on the journalists who would present weighted opinion polls as the opinion of the American people, you dishonor your profession.

Can't argue with statistics!

For my friends over at Biblio Squirrel. hehehe.

Can't argue with statistics!

When Words Just Aren't Enough

In an effort to discourage smoking, Britain's government has declared that packets of cigarettes will now show graphic images of the effects of smoking. Below is one example:




Now I understand that smoking is bad for you. As a matter of fact, I bet you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't know smoking is bad for you. So then what is the point of adding such images?

Look, there are only two possibilities with people who smoke. They know it's bad for them but continue anyway or they don't know it's bad for them and therefore need to be weeded out of the gene pool anyway. If you choose to negatively effect your quality of life by smoking, then that is your choice and your personal responsibility. To continue to try convince people not to smoke through the use of scary words and gory images is about as useful as... well, as useful as trying to convince people not to smoke through the use of scary words and gory images.

The western world is one that built itself on a pursuit of personal freedom. Unfortunately, it seems to now be surrendering that long fought for freedom not to the forces of the tyranny of governments or the intolerance of religion but rather to the coercion of "righteous persuasion."

Commercials Bad, Football Good

Why are they're so many dad'gum commercials in football? A few plays... commercial. Back to the game... Kick-off... commercial. Back to the game... Pretty commercial graphic on the field... Player bios brought to you by commercial... commercial. These commercials are brought to you by the following commercials... AAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!

Oh well, props to Bud Light for at least making funny commercials. Anybody see the one with the guys at the opera?