Morning Fog

One, Two, Three ... What Are We Fighting For?

Ex-Marine Thomas Gibbons-Neff's memoir in the weekend Washington Post editions, entitled "I could justify fighting in Afghanistan - until Boston" voices the concern of one of our fighting men that the Boston bombing means that the war he was waging has "spilled over" into our lives at home.  In other words, that Gibbons-Neff feels his soldiering might be partly responsible for the Boston bombing.

No, I don't buy that argument.  The terrorism of September 11, 2001 continues; Boston is the evidence thereof; but the war in Afghanistan, overextended and goal-altered though it may be, can't be seen as its cause.  No need for guilt on that score.

This piece raises another more interesting question, though.  The question of how we justify our almost continuous state of warfare in remote corners of the world.  For two major world wars in Europe, the justification was that we were fighting to preserve America's freedom (and coincidentally that of our allies).  It may have been credible then.  After all, we shared a culture, and an economic fate, with Europe, Hitler directly threatened the U.S., and it was easy to see ourselves being attacked.  (In fact the Japanese did briefly occupy the Aleutian Islands of Alaska.)

When we moved on to Korea, Vietnam, and many other places, if you think about it, the credibility disappeared.   There was no real connection between Korea's fate and the future of American democracy.   But the justification remained the same.  For political leaders, what worked in the past would probably work again.  Effectively, we were fighting for power and influence in the world; but that would have been a far less productive motivator than "keeping America safe [and/or free]."  These were wars of choice.

If you doubt my premise, I'd just point out the popularity among troops in Vietnam of Country Joe McDonald's lyric:  "One, two, three, what are we fighting for?"  They had it figured out.   Or, consider why, when we faced a real threat to our safety exemplified by the attacks of September 11, we reacted by creating a "Department of Homeland Security."   What was the "Department of Defense" doing?  Fighting overseas wars!  (We should really go back to calling them the "Department of War."  It's more honest.)

Paradoxically, it's possible that this old justification is slowly becoming true again.  Unlike in those in-between wars like Vietnam, where we absolutely no reason to think that winning the war in Vietnam would somehow spare us from being attacked by hordes of Vietnamese bent on occupying New York City, now we may once again be able to discern that our overseas wars actually may spare us from attack.  Boston, of course, proves (tests) the rule.  But what's been done in Afghanistan, and across the border in Pakistan with the killing of Bin Laden, has undoubtedly disrupted terrorist networks, reduced their numbers, and spared us from far more numerous attacks. 

Yes, in Afghanistan, by gum, we may actually again be fighting to "keep America safe." 

 

The Oxymoronic Essence Of Business Statistics

An interesting study by the Economic Policy Institute suggests that the much-ballyhooed shortage in the U.S. of workers with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math (=STEM) just doesn't exist.  Where a shortage should imply rising salaries, the study found pay for workers in these areas has remained flat.  Further, many U.S. graduates in STEM are unable to find jobs in their field.  If that's the case, who are the ballyhooers who claim otherwise?  None other than tech firms that want (they say) to employ more such people, and that have loudly lobbied Congress for freer immigration access for non-citizens with STEM degrees. 

Elsewhere in today's news, we can read that Carefirst Blue Cross/Blue Shield, a major health insurer in Maryland, is seeking to raise its rates up to 25%, claiming that the cost of providing insurance is bound to rise that much because of the requirements of the Affordable Care Act (mainly, the provision requiring companies to offer insurance to all regardless of preexisting conditions).  Yet that claim certainly contradicts the time-worn actuarial proposition, developed and supported by insurance companies themselves, that a larger pool of insureds spreads risk and lowers costs.  Doesn't it?  In my opinion, it surely does, but it doesn't hurt the insurance company in the least (and surprise, surprise, may significantly benefit them) if it uses rigged "studies" it has performed itself to make the case its price should be higher.

It's not a new phenomenon, but perhaps we should let "business statistics" take its place alongside "military intelligence" in the pantheon of oxymorons.

The Boston Bombings - The Parents' View

Looking back on the Boston Marathon bombings less than a week ago, there are many candidates for praise:  The people of Boston themselves reacted with aplomb; local and national police and counterterrorism officials should get an A+ for their efforts, having tracked down the "alleged" culprits, with what appears to be a fair degree of certainty, in a matter of days, even though a talking-head terrorism expert had said that with no clear leads at the 24-hour point, it would be very unlikely the bombers would be found.  The younger accused should get at least a B+ if, as reports now tell us, he helped do in his older brother by running over him, saving us the cost of another expensive trial.

On the other hand, the parents and relatives of the two bombers get a D for their dumb comments to the effect that their darling sons/whatevers were little angels who could never have done such a thing.  Their performance in fact might be awarded an F, except that to some extent we have to expect such defensive remarks from parents -- it's what parents do, after all.

Anyway, if only one F is to be awarded, it should go to the mass media, for even bothering to find out, and broadcast, the perpetrators' family's views.   They're constantly doing this in cases of crimes, but the purpose escapes me -- no one should care a fig about what a criminal's parents think, and it's not news.  To disseminate such tripe is an affront to the victims. 

Further on the media:  I think it's a serious mistake to regularly publicize the details of how a criminal was tracked down, and what mistakes he made.  I would assume it's quite possible this act was only a trial, and if there IS in fact a larger organization behind it, we can be sure they're keen to learn how they can improve their performance next time.   I don't suppose we can rely on the media not to publish information they pick up, so I guess it's up to our investigators to be a little less free with details.

Washington "Moves On" From Boston - That's A Good Thing

At least two commentators chose today, just two days after the Boston Marathon explosions, to spotlight that official Washington has "moved on" from being transfixed by that disaster. 

In "Washington Moves On," Dana Milbank seems to bemoan this observation by pointing out it was pretty much business as usual in the U.S. Senate Tuesday, after a few empathetic comments here and there.  (Fortunately there were only a few idiots like Iowa Senate candidate Steve King who suggested consideration of immigration legislation be put on hold because of "speculation" that the Boston bomber might be a foreigner on a student visa.)

In "The Day After the Boston Bombings," Kathleen Parker likewise seemed to regret that our government leaders didn't spend more time wailing and gnashing their teeth.  She offered the opinion that "the challenge [of Boston] ... is to avoid becoming accustomed to the horror."

Both Parker and Milbank may be fine political analysts, but on this sociopsychological matter, in my view they're off base.  It's fine for all of us to empathize with the victims -- the dead, the people of Boston, and the runners of the marathon). We here in the Washington DC area have "been there," with the rather more serious attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.  But it's not fine to waste time on handwringing. 

Things should return to "normal," because as many experts in terrorism have pointed out, if we modify our lives because of such an event, the terrorists have won.  Police and Homeland Security types will investigate, maybe track down the perpetrator(s), or maybe not.  More generally, terrorism or no, if we wallow in self-indulgence rather than tending to business, we just make ourselves ineffective.  People of a couple of generations ago seemed to know this better, apparently, than we do today.  A bad report from the front in Europe didn't cause our parents or grandparents to go home and stare and the wall where they expected the TV set to be in a few years; no, they just kept going and built more planes and tanks.

Stuff happens, tragic stuff even, but we acknowledge it and move on.  It's healthy and necessary. 

Cars Kill More People Than Guns - Absolutely

I was facing writer's block today when the following information turned up in an e-mail I saw:

The number of auto accident deaths in the US for the most recent year available (2003) was 42,844.  Gun deaths in 2004 were a total of 29,751:  That's 16,750 suicides, 11,624 homicides, 649 unintentional, 311 legal intervention and 235 undetermined.  Take away the self inflicted and you have 12,821 but either way cars are winning!

Well, at first I thought this was pretty useless information.  I've heard such arguments before, but absolute numbers don't tell much of a story, and the author didn't calculate a figure for "deaths per thousand cars/guns," although it's true that unofficial statistics available on Wikipedia show more guns (200 million?) than cars (62 million) in the U.S.  I'm not clear how any numbers for firearms in circulation can be considered reliable, since many guns aren't registered.

On second thought, though, I realized the attempt to compare car deaths to firearms deaths, and these associated numbers, DO tell us something important about the current debate over "gun control."

Statistically we can't compare/contrast apples (accidental deaths) to oranges (intentional deaths) but if we consider just apples, the numbers above suggest that car deaths are 100% accidental (or we could make it 99.4%, like Ivory Soap, to allow for the occasional TV-type mob-planned hit-and-run).  On the other hand, firearms deaths are only 3% accidental and 97% intentional (28,650 out of 29571). 

So guns are lethal.  We knew that.  But the numbers remind us that firearms have no other purpose than a lethal one.  We're not talking about shooting squirrels or deer here, but that's lethal too, of course.  A car's main purpose, on the other hand, is transportation; deaths are generally accidents, which we accept as the cost of pretty much any technology.

Even so, doesn't that make it even harder to explain why with a car you have to take training, pass a test, get a license, and register, while when it comes to guns, there are no such requirements?  

Actually we might suppose that deaths from car accidents might be a lot higher if we didn’t require people to take driver ed; but no amount of education is likely to reduce the 97% of deaths by firearm that are intentional.  In fact, the numbers of people shot (murder or suicide) would most likely increase if more people were comfortable with guns, and trained in their use.

It's pretty much the same with registration --  if somebody runs me down and kills me with his car, there’s a good chance, through witnesses and security cams, that the police can run the license plate and find and punish him (and maybe my wife could sue for a nice piece of change, too).  Why can’t we do that with weapons by registering them, along with their ballistic signature?  Why wouldn’t we want to do so?

Cameras In The Supreme Court

Some people continue to argue that oral arguments and deliberations of the Supreme Court ought to be televised.

In a word, no.  It's a terrible idea.  Despite the fervent arguments of telecasters that "the people have a right to know," the plain fact is that the presence of television cameras (or equally of recorders) has a chilling effect on any public forum.  Over the years, televised town meetings have become free-for-alls at which, rather than a frank exchange of ideas, advocates of each side strive mainly to have the most people in the room posing and/or shouting for the cameras. 

CSPAN itself bears some responsibility for Congressional gridlock, since no one wants to utter anything meaningful on the floor of Congress knowing that even to mention an unpopular idea means it will be picked up as a soundbite and used to discredit him. 

People have a right to know.  They also have what I'm beginning to realize is a more important right, a right to effectively functioning government.   Camera coverage of every discussion hampers the latter.