Mercatus Scholar Refuses to Share Data!
Mercatus Center Scholar and National Review writer Veronique de Rugy was confronted today with a scathing critique of her regression analysis [.pdf] that putatively showed Obama stimulus money went disproportionately to Democratic districts. The problem is that de Rugy didn’t include a dummy variable for whether the district in question were a state capital.
The problem was so severe that Paul Krugman called it “A Devastating Takedown” and quoted this choice excerpt:
That de Rugy has testified before Congress on the basis of her evidence, and never paused to consider why the top five congressional districts on her list overlap with Sacramento, Albany, Austin, Tallahassee and Harrisburg, is mind-boggling. The presence of a state capital is the overwhelmingly dominant factor it predicting the dispensation of stimulus funds. This could have been discerned in literally five minutes if she had bothered to look at the apparent outliers in her dataset and considered whether they had anything in common — a practice that should be among the first things that any researcher does when evaluating any dataset.
Yikes! Of course what Krugman didn’t mention was this part of Nate Silver’s takedown, which was the very next paragraph:
By the way — if you throw out the districts that are home to state capitals, those which elected Democratic members to Congress still rank higher, receiving 31 percent more stimulus funds, on average, than those which elected Republicans. So, perhaps there is hope for her analysis yet. At that point, it would become important to consider other variables such as the economic conditions within each district. I’m not going to do her work for her, but I would suggest to de Rugy that she consider the following recommendations to correct other flaws with her research design…
In response, de Rugy refused to release her data to skeptics of her claimed connection between Democratic affiliation and stimulus funding, asking somewhat rhetorically, “Why would I share my data set when you just want to find flaws in it?”
Ha ha note the date, kids. [April Fools Fail–I’m writing this late on April 1, but for some reason WordPress apparently thinks I am in a submarine in the middle of the Atlantic, and is showing the time as early am on April 2.] Actually of course, de Rugy had a very calm response, promised to check some of the things Silver had brought up, and offered to email the Stata files to anyone interested. In fact her reply was so gracious that Silver didn’t know what to do in his follow-up–though he didn’t hint that maybe he overreacted in his first barrage. The de-escalation was so impressive that Silver’s commenters suggested he had a crush on de Rugy.
HuffPo “Po”ns Rand Paul–Or Does It?
Robert Wenzel informs us of this blistering HuffPo put-down of Rand Paul’s “wacko” views. In a forthcoming NYT magazine interview, here’s the exchange with the son of Ron Paul (who is running for Senator in Kentucky):
[NYT:] But in light of your distrust of the federal government, where are you on an issue like seat belts? Federal legislation requiring people to wear seat belts could obviously save lives.
[Rand Paul:] I think the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I don’t want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.
Of course the “liberal” advocates of the individual against oppressive encroachment by the Leviathan state–at least when it’s run by George W. Bush–thought this was hilarious. HuffPo’s writer said:
Actually, the NYT’s Deborah Solomon is mistaken — federal law since 1968 has required all vehicles except for buses to be equipped with seat belts. But legislation requiring vehicle occupants to wear seat belts is left to the states. It’s not clear if Paul supports state laws regarding seat belt usage although he seems pretty emphatic about not being told what to do by any governmental authority.
Maybe Paul should run for the Senate in New Hampshire — it’s the only state that does not require adults to wear them (after all, the state’s legendary motto is “Live Free Or Die”). [Bold added.–RPM]
There are two things wrong with that snappy line:
First, it distorts the famous motto. The HuffPo guy is making it sound as if you can either have benevolent government intervention, OR you can be a tough-guy like Rand Paul and end up dead. But no, if that’s what the motto were saying, it would be, “Live Free AND Die.” (Sort of like, “Better Dead Than Red.”) You see, there is actually a school of thought in the American political tradition that thinks freedom works, that you don’t have to choose between a little temporary safety over your personal liberties. Maybe that tradition is wrong, but it’s rather absurd to quote it against Rand Paul.
Second, does it matter that in terms of fatalities per vehicle mile traveled, New Hampshire is ranked 49th? In other words, judging by that particular metric, New Hampshire is the safest state for motorists except for Massachusetts.
Yet Another Danger of Overpopulation
I am pretty sure this isn’t an April Fools joke (HT2 Dan Kish):
How the Government Views You
I saw this Glenn Greenwald post a few days ago due to an LRC link, but I haven’t had time to discuss it. Greenwald discusses “WikiLeaks,” but that’s not what I want to focus on.
Instead, just ponder the significance of an alleged CIA report [.pdf] discussing the problem of keeping the German and French governments in support of US military operations in Afghanistan, in the face of opposition from French and German citizens.
On the one hand, the CIA report is optimistic because the analysts know there are plenty of ways a government can get away with military operations that most of the people don’t support; a section is literally entitled, “Public Apathy Enables Leaders to Ignore Voters.”
But alas, that might not be good enough; as the report’s subtitle warns: “Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough.”
Because simple apathy might not be enough, the CIA report goes on to list ways that the US government can influence public opinion in Germany and France.
Assuming the report is legit, it’s pretty disturbing and should confirm what cynics have long said about the US government. Forget the details of the Afghan occupation and just look at what the analysts are doing: They have an objective, and they realize that a certain group of voters are in the way. So they are coming up with methods of circumventing the desires of the citizens of Germany and France, in order to get those governments to do what the US government wants.
Now then: Do you think this mindset holds true for all groups of voters on the planet except the United States? Do you think when the people running the US government realize that their desires run counter to the wishes of most American voters, that they say, “Well shucks, they’re the bosses, we’re humble public servants, guess we need to drop that plan…”?
Or, do you think it’s more likely that they use the same techniques–of counting on widespread apathy, and when necessary using propaganda to “manufacture consent”–in order to workaround this obstacle to their plans?
“This is about helping sick people!”
Or is it? Note that the clips below aren’t from unemployed pot-smoking hippies leaving comments at a progressive blog. These are some of the most powerful people in the government.
“Christian Warriors” Give the Government Exactly What It Wants
I am not going to comment on the details of this story, since we have seen how many times in the past the initial reports bear only a remote resemblance to the actual truth. But if in fact 9 “Christian Warriors” were plotting to kill policemen (at a funeral?!), I can only reiterate that this is neither a Christian scheme nor is it smart strategically. The average American is more afraid of militia guys with IEDs and pocket Constitutions, than of bloated deficits and waiting lists for kidney transplants. This story is beautiful for the government.
Here’s Lew Rockwell’s take:
Today, the vast and wealthy DC Militia did what it loves doing most, swooping in to arrest Americans talked into dangerous talking. Apparently the 101st Airborne was not involved in the mopping-up operation, though I am not sure. Who can doubt that the nine people arrested were talked into their exploits (of speech, not action) by agents provocateurs? The media are all googly over it—Christian militia members planning to use WMD (oh sure) to overthrow the government. Too bad the nine did not pay attention to what Jesus said about the use of the sword, but did pay attention to agents counseling violence. But again, all the Michigan Nine did was talk: these guys had a website, and played in the woods. Rachel Maddow of MS-GE delightedly explained tonight that those arrested did not actually have to do anything to be found guilty. So these working-class Americans are to be put in super-max government cages for the rest of their lives, except when they are being raped or treated in the single-payer prison medical system, for “seditious conspiracy,” a concept beloved of totalitarian regimes.
Having Conquered Health Care, Feds Turn Turret to Energy Sector
Just when you thought we’d escaped New Deal II–“this time, it’s personal”–here’s an announcement today from the EPA:
WASHINGTON – Under a final decision issued today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no stationary sources will be required to get Clean Air Act permits that cover greenhouse gases (GHGs) before January 2011. EPA has pledged to take sensible steps to address the billions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution that threaten Americans’ health and welfare, and is providing time for large industrial facilities and state governments to put in place cost-effective, innovative technologies to control and reduce carbon pollution. Today’s announcement is the first step in EPA’s phased in approach to addressing GHG emissions laid out by Administrator Lisa P. Jackson earlier this month.
“This is a common sense plan for phasing in the protections of the Clean Air Act. It gives large facilities the time they need to innovate, governments the time to prepare to cut greenhouse gases and it ensures that we don’t push this problem off to our children and grandchildren,” said EPA Administrator Jackson. “With a clear process in place, it’s now time for American innovators and entrepreneurs to go to work and lead us into the clean energy economy of the future.”
Today’s action determines that Clean Air Act construction and operating permit requirements for the largest emitting facilities will begin when the first national rule controlling GHGs takes effect. If finalized as proposed, the rule limiting GHG emissions for cars and light trucks would trigger these requirements in January 2011 – the earliest model year 2012 vehicles meeting the standards can be sold in the United States. The agency expects to issue final vehicle GHG standards shortly.
EPA has committed to focusing its GHG permitting requirements on the largest sources. The agency will make a decision later this spring on the amount of GHGs facilities can emit before having to include limits for these emissions in their permits.
Somebody explain what the heck happened. After the inauguration, Obama & Friends were going like gangbusters (or -sters). But then I thought we stopped them in the summer with the townhalls. They backed off health care, and they didn’t bring cap & trade to a vote in the Senate.
Then we had ClimateGate, the nothing burger in Copenhagen, and the Scott Brown win that allegedly killed ObamaCare.
So I repeat: Somebody explain what the heck happened. Was this really a nail-biter that we lost at the buzzer, or was the economy toast all along?
The Faux Fretting for Frum’s Firing
Oh boy, here it comes… Here’s Jeet Heer (via Brad DeLong):
AEI has embarrassed itself. Although allegedly a “think tank” with “scholars” AEI in fact a haven for highly partisan political actors, many of who have been disgraced by their time in government. Current “scholars” at the think tank include Lynne Cheney (who has written some cheesy novels), Newt Gingrich (another writer of schlock fiction), John R. Bolton, Charles Murray, Richard Perle (also a terrible novelist), Michael Rubin, Paul Wolfowitz and John (“torture memos” ) Yoo.
OK, so Heer dismisses AEI fellows for their absurd books, and for being “highly partisan political actors.” He also doesn’t seem to like people who gave absurd rationalizations for the crimes of the Bush years.
So naturally he detests David Frum, someone who wrote a book entitled An End to Evil: How to End the War on Terror, with noted careful scholar Richard Perle. And let’s not forget David Frum denouncing conservatives who deviated from the Bush position as “appeasing” enemies and “hating their country” (actual quote, HT2 Bob Roddis).
So Heer must detest Frum with a passion, right? And his take on the AEI firing must be smug bemusement at an organization of hatchet men having to purge one of their one, right?
Of course not. Here’s how Heer plays it:
A Conservative Worth Reading. At his best Frum is the type of figure that John Stuart Mill was always on the look out for, a conservative who is intellectually challenging enough to make liberalism stronger. Following Millsian principals, I myself always want to read smart conservatives, who in recent years have been few and far between. Aside from Frum, only a handful of names come to mind: Christopher Caldwell, Andrew Coyne, Scott McConnell, Gertrude Himmelfarb, John Lukacs, Andrew Bacevich, and Joseph Epstein. Frum was an ornament to the AEI and his firing disgraces them. [bold added–RPM]
The Limits of Pity. Having said all that, my heart is not so large that I can weep any tears for Frum. To paraphrase Paul Krugman, when there are 20 million Americans unemployed it doesn’t make much sense to worry about David Frum, who was born to great wealth and will die in luxury. To sharpen the point: those 20 million unemployed (and the millions of under-employed) are suffering in an unconscionable way because the United States has a particularly stingy social safety net. The American welfare state has been kept Scrooge-ly small in part because of the policies advocated by Frum and the AEI.
A Frum Dichotomy. Frum is worth reading on domestic policy but not on foreign policy. His worst book is the foreign policy manifesto he co-wrote with Richard Perle, An End to Evil. He actually brings a completely different intellectual outlook to the two realms. On domestic issues Frum always applies a cost-benefit analysis: policy X will bring these benefits but what are the costs, both in the manifest price and in terms of lost opportunity. When writing about foreign policy, Frum never asks what the costs of policies are (in terms of blood, treasure, and America’s reputation) but rather views everything as a morality play, where the children of light (America, Israel, “the West”) do battle against the children of darkness (tyranny, radical Islam, “the East”). In light of recent comments by General Petraeus, Frum might want to ask himself what are the costs of Israel continuing to build settlements, and whether it is appropriate for American and Canadian soldiers, and soldiers from the other Nato countries, to bear these costs.
So yes, Heer at least mentions the minor issue of Frum’s foreign policy scholarship, but that’s fine. At least Frum was reasonable on domestic issues!
This irritates me because I think it’s phony. I’m sorry but I don’t think Heer (or DeLong for that matter) actually think David Frum is a big thinker.
You know how politicians from both sides pretend to be outraged over stuff, and then go on self-righteous crusades against their opponents because it “sounds good” in the public debate? That’s what I think is going on here.
DeLong and Heer hate AEI and what it represents. (I’m not a fan myself, though for different reasons.) AEI probably wanted to can Frum a while ago, once he started attacking Rush Limbaugh (and I think Sarah Palin?) by name, and without respect. But they didn’t want to be obvious about muzzling somebody for criticizing right-wing stars, so they didn’t.
But then with Frum’s latest “Waterloo” absurdity, AEI had no choice.
Smelling blood in the water, DeLong and Heer pounce. Rather than say, “AEI just canned a monstrous warmonger who stooped at nothing to trash even his allies when they opposed Bush’s excesses,” they instead pose as defenders of intellectual openness. The very idea of Brad DeLong being outraged at an organization ceasing to pay someone because they disagree so strongly with the guy’s position.
Last point, this is not partisan on my part. Regular readers will recall that I rolled my eyes at the absurdity of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levine being shocked, shocked that Harry Reid would call a black man “negro.”
So in conclusion, I think DeLong and Heer respect David Frum as a “smart conservative” as much as I think Limbaugh and Levine are horrified by racist jokes behind closed doors.
Recent Comments