Re: Wal-Mart and more
At 07:32 PM Sunday 2/17/2008, William T Goodall wrote: 1/5 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth Maru The other 80% are convinced that the world revolves around them . . . Egocentric Universe Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
No education in Florida
http://www.ocala.com/article/20080216/NEWS/802160345/1368/googlesitemapnews Survey finds faith trumps science for Florida parents BY RON MATUS AND DONNA WINCHESTER St. Petersburg Times Florida parents don't have much faith in evolution. Only 22 percent want public schools to teach an evolution-only curriculum, while 50 percent want only faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design, according to a new St. Petersburg Times survey. I have a very firm religious background, said Betty Lininger of Lecanto, who is raising her 15-year-old niece and thinks public schools should teach intelligent design but not evolution. I can't just shove it out the door. The survey findings stand in stark contrast to the state's proposed new science standards, which describe evolution as the pillar of modern biology and do not include alternative theories. If the state Board of Education approves them Tuesday, the new standards will guide what Florida students are taught and tested on. The Times survey - which included questions about evolution and a host of other education issues was administered to 702 registered voters Feb. 6-10, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. It revealed a huge gulf between scientists and the public. While the vast majority of scientists consider evolution to be backed by strong evidence, nearly two-thirds of those polled were skeptical. Twenty-nine percent said evolution is one of several valid theories. Another 16 percent said evolution is not backed up by enough evidence. And 19 percent said evolution is not valid because it is at odds with the Bible. It just shows we have a lot of work to do, said Christopher D'Elia, a marine biologist who is an interim vice chancellor at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg. Fundamentalist Christians, often portrayed as the heart of the antievolution opposition, weren't the only ones who expressed doubt. While only 9 percent of respondents who described themselves as evangelicals or fundamentalists wanted an evolution-only curriculum, the numbers still weren't very high for Protestants overall (16 percent) or Catholics (21 percent). Sue Sams of Spring Hill, a retired English teacher who describes herself as Protestant, said schools should teach creationism only. I don't disagree with the theory of evolution, said Sams, 65. I'm just not sure it's 100 percent right. Responses such as Sams' fly in the face of endorsements from thousands of scientists and scores of scientific societies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. There is no justification for singling out evolution for special skepticism or critical analysis, wrote Richard T. O'Grady, executive director of the American Institute of Biological Sciences in a Feb. 8 letter to the Board of Education. Its strength as a scientific theory matches that of the theory of gravitation, atomic theory and the germ theory. The response from Dennis Baxley, executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida: He's in error. At one time, the scientific community thought that for good health, you should attach leeches to your body, said Baxley, a former state representative from Ocala. We're just asking them to leave the door open a little bit for other evidence to be considered. Scientists say opponents are grossly distorting the evidence in an effort to fuel skepticism. But they say a wide range of other factors are at play: Confusion over the term theory (which in a scientific context means much more than a hunch); a lack of basic science literacy among much of the public; and a common perception that science and faith are automatically at odds. There are many scientists who are religious, D'Elia said. They know it's a different domain. It's unclear how much public opinion may sway the Board of Education. The board, which is appointed, often has backed unpopular policies - including use of high-stakes testing to grade schools - and often has described its approach as data-driven and evidence-based. We don't determine our science by polls, said John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, a group that supports Biblical values. But in this case, the poll results are relevant because policymakers need to be responsive at some level to parents. The Times survey is just the latest in a long line of polls that found a public divided on evolution. Among other findings: * 43 percent said human beings evolved over millions of years, while 45 percent said humans were created directly by God. * 54 percent of men said humans evolved over millions of years compared with 35 percent of women. * 52 percent of college graduates said humans evolved compared with 33 percent of those with four years of high school or less. * 31 percent of white respondents said only
malaria in Africa
Charlie Bell stated: ...and diversionary. It's a debating technique known in some circles as the Gish Gallop, and it's very frustrating for people who pride themselves on being concise. The purpose of my argument was never to be diversionary, but to explore some of the details of another's argument. I can accept, though, that it can be very frustrating to folks who don't write and do numbers fast in their spare time. So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. 2) This technique has been demonstrated in South Africa and shown on this list to be very effective. 3) I therefore conclude that the The EU is more worried about the political power of Green parties than children in Zambia dying. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Yes, I gave it. Surely you can see why that is a very poor source. If you want more research, I can do it within the next week. But after being chastised by Charlie for going on and on and onI did an experimentI quoted a source I have known to be a good one and posted. You really thought that posting hearsay from your daughter was a good way of validating an argument that you have made misleading comments about many times in the past? And I'm not sure what your experiment was exactly. To see whether people are still offended by unsubstantiated accusations? I know you're not Charlie, and may reasonably want more information before making a decisionbut I hope you see my dilemma here. Not really. If you didn't have a verifyable source for your allegation, why didn't you wait until you did? What has it got to do with your verbose posting style which Charlie criticised you for? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Dan M wrote: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. 2) This technique has been demonstrated in South Africa and shown on this list to be very effective. 3) I therefore conclude that the The EU is more worried about the political power of Green parties than children in Zambia dying. It's interesting to notice that the EU in Brazil is generally seen as a benign force, while the USA is seen as an evil force. However, this is gradually changing, as the EU usually puts arbitrary embargoes on brazilian exports. Some time ago, I read an essay that tried to predict an EU-islamic (evil) alliance with the purpose of destroying the USA, and urging Brazil to take USA's (good) side. The rude fact is that almost every country (including mine) worries only about itself, and fsck the rest of the world. Children are collateral damage in global politics. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: malaria in Africa
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 8:53 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: malaria in Africa On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Yes, I gave it. My daughter Neli has worked for the IMF in Zambia, has a number of connections with NGOs and the government. If you want me to do research on it, I've found documentation for other countries...but the Zambia thing hasn't hit the net yet. My guess is that it wasn't a loud pronouncementbut Zambia is a rather small country and Neli has worked for years in African development and support both in the States (with African lobbying groups) and well as with the IMF. If you want more research, I can do it within the next week. But after being chastised by Charlie for going on and on and onI did an experimentI quoted a source I have known to be a good one and posted. I know you're not Charlie, and may reasonably want more information before making a decisionbut I hope you see my dilemma here. But, if you wantgive me a week or two to check out why she is certain and what other info is out there and I'll post again. Actually, I was just trying to fit in after getting some criticism (accepting that my techniques may have a downside). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M: wrote: 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote: The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. Yes or no answers will suffice. Elaboration would be appreciated. This is a question that is enormously complex to answer. First, the trival bit: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal I think there are very few who would admit to not thinking this an admirable goal. Second, the hard bit. ... done more to aid or more to harm ... . This is the tricky part. Without a complete assessment of Walmart's entire impact on poor people (and in fact the whole ecosystem of humanity), it's nearly impossible to answer accurately. I'm in no position to have much of an opinion on this one. But then again, nor is anyone else, much. Your response to the response to the response to this message confused me also. You were ranting on about the EU pandering to Green Party pressure, accusing them of sacrificing children to malaria for some political agenda. If you'd bothered to learn a little about DDT, you'd have seen that it is VERY nasty stuff. Most of the (extensive) Wikipedia article on DDT is about how nasty it is. Then I remembered Charlie's reference to the 'Gish Gallop' (to which you were responding), and this made me wonder if your abrupt change of topic might just be a hint suggesting that the whole Wal-mart argument was simply a cunning troll, rolled up in several layers of misdirection!? Regards Curtis The herring is not red Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: malaria in Africa
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Lewis Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 9:48 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: malaria in Africa On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. Do you have a source? Yes, I gave it. Surely you can see why that is a very poor source. If you want more research, I can do it within the next week. But after being chastised by Charlie for going on and on and onI did an experimentI quoted a source I have known to be a good one and posted. You really thought that posting hearsay from your daughter was a good way of validating an argument that you have made misleading comments about many times in the past? Which misleading comments were those? IIRC, I was told by Charlie that DDT was stopped because it lost its effectiveness. The data from South Africa clearly showed that isn't trueI know data patternsand the pattern for that is an initial drop in the disease followed by a rise as DDT resistant mosquitoes become a larger part of the population. The data screams that DDT worksbut I am tearing my hair out trying to explain data patterns. Your are right, this evidence is not admissible in a court of law. And, I'm sure similar data on Uganda: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901 255.html is meaningless to you, well because they didn't actually say the folks of Uganda couldn't use DDTits just a coincidence that they couldn't sell to Europe if they could because of a non-existent health risk. I'm guessing that, no matter what data I provide, how long I work at providing it, there is no possible way you will not regard my arguments on DDT as bogus. Facts exist though, 1) Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, die each year from Malaria 2) House spraying with DDT has a recent, multi-year record of reducing these deaths _significantly_ in South Africa 3) It is so much cheaper than other techniques. 4) There are multiple websites that attest to the EU's veiled threats against the use of DDT in Africa http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=92 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127 http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1180.html While the EU fully acknowledges the urgent need to control malaria in Uganda, we are concerned about the impact the use of DDT might have on the country's exports of food products to the EU, the European Commission's Uganda delegation said last year. I presume you argue that this is not a threat at all, because it is not explicitly stated as a threat. I a court of law, I bet you'd win. But, I do not think courts of law are really a good measure of facts or truth. Do you argue that diplomats do not couch threats in terms like these? I guess what bothers me is the overwhelming burden of proof I see when I argue against what is PC and the virtual lack of proof needed for arguing what is PC. If I try to provide the proof, I'm verbose and engaged in bad faith discussing. If not, I'm just reporting hear-say. Let me ask a question I'm guessing you and Charlie find meaningless. If millions are dying from malaria, and there is a cheap treatment that has been proven, in the last few years, as well as in the past to cut that death rate enormouslyas the international funding to prevent that disease doesn't pour most of the money into the most effective technique, doesn't that indicate that there is something that is considered more important than saving those people's lives? My guess is that you will require the type of evidence that would convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
I'm certainly interested in a good discussion, but I find it very difficult to debate with you because you are a very prolific writer with no apparent limit on the time you have to research a topic. Believe it or not, I'm driving to Austin to be with my wife nearly every weekend and work 60+ hours a week. I just find doing research while multi-tasking easy and quick. I would not be surprised to find that this is what you do for a living. I'm a research physicist/consultant that has to be able to take in millions of numbers and very quickly see the patterns. So, you caught my MO fairly quickly. Furthermore you are very good at manipulating statistics to bolster your arguments, but as Charlie pointed out a couple of times late last year, you have a tendency to mold the facts and figures to fit your opinion (reference a recent mass transit discussion). Its fair to say that, in the middle of a discussion, I will take one point and try to advocate for it. I do that professionally all the time, and rely on my partners to marshal the data for other points. It's a very useful technique in science/engineeringbut I can see its frustrating for those who don't play that way. Furthermore, look at the size of your last two posts. There's more volume there than all the posts from everyone else on the list for several days prior. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm often overwhelmed by the shear size of your posts. I'm not nearly as prolific and I seldom have more than an hour a day to peruse and respond to all of my personal email. Going back over the last 3 months, I've spent far less than that per day. I admit it, I write fast. Understand, if it's not obvious, that in most respects I'm complimenting you and letting you know that you're just too good at these discussions for me to compete. This isn't to say that I think you're always right or even that you've always made your point well. I just can't keep up all the time, so often times I just give up. I'm sure this is frustrating to you. Its certainly frustrating to me. I think that's a fair critique of my posting. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:43 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more Dan M wrote: ... Would you consider this an reasonable, non right wing source? Or, how about Paul Krugmanhe has made a statement that frames the question in a way that I think could lead to a very fruitful discussion. I'm not saying that he and I agree on everything, but a good thread could be started from what he wrote. He is well know as a leftist economist turned columnist. Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. The quote of his is at: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/paul_krugman_wa.htm l I don't think it's unreasonableand gives a sketch of the questions I think should be asked concerning Wal-Mart ... But, simply stating that Wal-Mart is evil and greedy, when its profit margin is 3.4% and an operating margin of 5.8% of sales and Microsoft is not, when its profit margin is 22.9% and an operating margin of 40.7% is not, as self evident doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let's see: evil does not have much explanatory power or actual meaning, and as for greedy, corporations usually have to be greedy, or their shareholders object. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. Sure it does, and I'm fully willing to state that the difference doesn't mean Bill is Greedy and the Walton kids are not. Microsoft and Wal-Mart are in different positions, and the massive difference in profit margins reflect their business type as much as anything. Retail is usually low margin. High Tech software can have high margins. How exactly does a pronouncement thwart a discussion? Well, to me, I want to understand the ideas supporting the arguments of others. Even though I engage in a thread with a full out argument, I always reflect on the points that countered mine afterwards and recalibrate my position. You may have noticed, as Robert did earlier, my positions are not the same as they were 10 years ago. I have been persuaded by good arguments that have countered mine in threads I've been involved with here. 2) Are you interested in a discussion of how and whether statistics play a part in developing greater understanding vs. reading stories, having them touch your heart, and then coming to an understanding of truth? Hmmm... Sounds like a pretty fuzzy topic for discussion. It almost sounds like the problem would be that not everybody shares the same definition of truth. I think soor how to relate mass numbers to the lives of all the folks who make up the mass numbers. I think we/I can do better at thatand consider how to do it something worth exploring. Sure, but it may not be a long discussion. Some people lose, and other gain, when Wal-Mart comes to town... But, the question I want to ask is does the average lower income person gain. Articles and analysis like the one by Kerry's advisor address the subject. If there are other factors worth considering, I'd be interested in seeing them. But, at the moment, his argument looks pretty persuasiveespecially since I think I can do a simple economic model that illustrates the underlying principal. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Burisch Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:33 AM To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' Subject: RE: Wal-Mart and more Dan M: wrote: 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote: The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. Yes or no answers will suffice. Elaboration would be appreciated. This is a question that is enormously complex to answer. First, the trival bit: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal I think there are very few who would admit to not thinking this an admirable goal. Second, the hard bit. ... done more to aid or more to harm ... . This is the tricky part. Without a complete assessment of Walmart's entire impact on poor people (and in fact the whole ecosystem of humanity), it's nearly impossible to answer accurately. I'm in no position to have much of an opinion on this one. But then again, nor is anyone else, much. Actually, there are good data on thisI've read on this subject for years. One good source is Kerry's former economic advisor http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf One can also do very straightforward mathematical modeling that indicates this general trend. I You were ranting on about the EU pandering to Green Party pressure, accusing them of sacrificing children to malaria for some political agenda. If you'd bothered to learn a little about DDT, Actually, I read fairly extensively on the subject for years before making this post. you'd have seen that it is VERY nasty stuff. Can you quantify VERY nasty stuff? One of my differences with many folks is that I do not think we can go to a zero risk world. For example, I'd take a med that cut my chances of a heart attack in half even if increased my chances of cancer by 1%. But, I'm a research physicist who deals with probability in a manner that I think differs from others. Most of the (extensive) Wikipedia article on DDT is about how nasty it is. Then I remembered Charlie's reference to the 'Gish Gallop' (to which you were responding), and this made me wonder if your abrupt change of topic might just be a hint suggesting that the whole Wal-mart argument was simply a cunning troll, rolled up in several layers of misdirection!? Nope, the change in topic is because the malaria thing has been bothering me for a while. My daughter _twice_ came close to dying from it. DDT has a horrid reputation. You also have to understand the difference in standards with regards to chemicals. DDT was regularly used in the US for decades. Here's one sentence that is key to me from Wikipedia: The EPA, in 1987 , classified DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen based on Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE. Regarding the human carcinogenicity data, they stated The existing epidemiological data are inadequate. Autopsy studies relating tissue levels of DDT to cancer incidence have yielded conflicting results. [42] I've read conclusions like that from a number of different studies on a number of different things. In the US we have a very low threshold for risk. If a large exposure might be a cancer risk, then we need to ban the substance (like various sweeteners that have been band). So, the massive spraying of DDT in the US, India, etc. might have caused some deaths. But, as we know from here: http://www.malariasite.com/MALARIA/history_parasite.htm Malaria killed millions upon millions worldwide before DDT. So, we probably have a small risk from DDT to humans that is small enough to be hard to measure on one hand, and a known killer of millions per year right now on the other. Indications are that the deaths due to DDT were from very large doses/exposures...while simply returning to Africa for two weeks resulted in Neli getting malaria. Given this, if it was someone you loved, would you want their country to use DDT in house spraying against malaria? Finally, I had hoped that analysis such as the one at: Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 2/18/08, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really thought that posting hearsay from your daughter was a good way of validating an argument that you have made misleading comments about many times in the past? Which misleading comments were those? IIRC, I was told by Charlie that DDT was stopped because it lost its effectiveness. The data from South Africa clearly showed that isn't trueI know data patternsand the pattern for that is an initial drop in the disease followed by a rise as DDT resistant mosquitoes become a larger part of the population. The data screams that DDT worksbut I am tearing my hair out trying to explain data patterns. The claim started off as being that DDT was banned worldwide due to pressure from environmentalists and that this lead to millions of deaths in Africa. This claim has now collapsed to something that sounds like EU aid to fight malaria may sometimes be contingent on conditions that are too onerous for poor countries. If that. From one of the articles you link to below: Nothing will happen, at least on the official side, if they decide to use DDT in strict compliance with the Stockholm Convention on chemicals, the EU's trade representative to Uganda said recently. Your are right, this evidence is not admissible in a court of law. And, I'm sure similar data on Uganda: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901 255.html is meaningless to you, well because they didn't actually say the folks of Uganda couldn't use DDTits just a coincidence that they couldn't sell to Europe if they could because of a non-existent health risk. Here is another article from the Post, although this time it is from an expert in the field rather than an op-ed writer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400130.html It concludes: Overselling a chemical's capacity to solve a problem can do irretrievable harm not only by raising false hopes but by delaying the use of more effective long-term methods. So let's drop the hyperbole and overblown rhetoric -- it's not what Africa needs. What's needed is a recognition of the problem's complexity and a willingness to use every available weapon to fight disease in an informed and rational way. I'm guessing that, no matter what data I provide, how long I work at providing it, there is no possible way you will not regard my arguments on DDT as bogus. Facts exist though, 1) Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, die each year from Malaria 2) House spraying with DDT has a recent, multi-year record of reducing these deaths _significantly_ in South Africa 3) It is so much cheaper than other techniques. 4) There are multiple websites that attest to the EU's veiled threats against the use of DDT in Africa http://www.policynetwork.net/main/press_release.php?pr_id=92 http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19127 http://www.cbgnetwork.org/1180.html These websites always seem to boil down to Africa Fighting Malaria, the American Enterprise Institute or some other organisation that is paid to lie. Unlike the majority of people making these claims you do actually care about people in Africa at risk of malaria. However you have allied yourself with a smear campaign with no other goal but to discredit environmentalists. The EU is not some sort of magical utopia, like all states (or quasi-states) it sometimes acts in its own best interests. However the fact remains that DDT is not banned, it continues to be used to fight malaria and Western countries continue to fund the fight against malaria in Africa. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
Dan, I live in Africa. I lived in Zimbabwe for more than half my life. There's no denying that Malaria is a big problem. But DDT is definitely NOT the answer. Other preventative measures are cheaper, and far less damaging. Wikipedia again: The relative effectiveness of IRS (with DDT or alternative insecticides) versus other malaria control techniques (e.g. bednets or prompt access to anti-malarial drugs) varies greatly and is highly dependent on local conditions.[15] A study by the World Health Organization released in January of 2008 found that mass distribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets and artemisinin based drugs cut malaria deaths in half in Rwanda and Ethiopia, countries with very high malaria burdens. IRS with DDT was determined to not have played an important role in the reduction of mortality.[105] Vietnam is an example of a country that has seen a continued decline in malaria cases after switching in 1991 from a poorly funded DDT-based campaign to a program based on prompt treatment, bednets, and the use of pyrethroid group insecticides. Deaths from malaria dropped by 97%.[106] In Mexico, the use of a range of effective and affordable chemical and non-chemical strategies against malaria has been so successful that the Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production voluntarily, due to lack of demand.[107] Furthermore, while the increased numbers of malaria victims since DDT usage fell out of favor would, at first glance, suggest a 1:1 correlation, many other factors are known to have contributed to the rise in cases. A review of fourteen studies on the subject in sub-Saharan Africa, covering insecticide-treated nets, residual spraying, chemoprophylaxis for children, chemoprophylaxis or intermittent treatment for pregnant women, a hypothetical vaccine, and changing the first line drug for treatment, found decision making limited by the gross lack of information on the costs and effects of many interventions, the very small number of cost-effectiveness analyses available, the lack of evidence on the costs and effects of packages of measures, and the problems in generalizing or comparing studies that relate to specific settings and use different methodologies and outcome measures. The two cost-effectiveness estimates of DDT residual spraying examined were not found to provide an accurate estimate of the cost-effectiveness of DDT spraying; furthermore, the resulting estimates may not be good predictors of cost-effectiveness in current programmes.[108] However, a study in Thailand found the cost per malaria case prevented of DDT spraying ($1.87 US) to be 21% greater than the cost per case prevented of lambdacyhalothrin-treated nets ($1.54 US),[109] at very least casting some doubt on the unexamined assumption that DDT was the most cost-effective measure to use in all cases. The director of Mexico's malaria control program finds similar results, declaring that it is 25% cheaper for Mexico to spray a house with synthetic pyrethroids than with DDT.[107] However, another study in South Africa found generally lower costs for DDT spraying than for impregnated nets.[110] Right, so we've established that DDT is not always effective, that it's often more expensive than other methods of preventing malaria, but most importantly that alternative treatments exist that don't cause cancer or riverfuls of dead fish. Martin's quote sums up my position: Overselling a chemical's capacity to solve a problem can do irretrievable harm not only by raising false hopes but by delaying the use of more effective long-term methods. So let's drop the hyperbole and overblown rhetoric -- it's not what Africa needs. What's needed is a recognition of the problem's complexity and a willingness to use every available weapon to fight disease in an informed and rational way. Second, the hard bit. ... done more to aid or more to harm ... . This is the tricky part. Without a complete assessment of Walmart's entire impact on poor people (and in fact the whole ecosystem of humanity), it's nearly impossible to answer accurately. I'm in no position to have much of an opinion on this one. But then again, nor is anyone else, much. Actually, there are good data on thisI've read on this subject for years. One good source is Kerry's former economic advisor http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf One can also do very straightforward mathematical modeling that indicates this general trend. Fair enough. I don't have the data. I've only been in a Walmart once. I have noticed that they're trying to go carbon-neutral, however. Actually, I read fairly extensively on the subject for years before making this post. I hadn't realized that it seems to have been an ongoing debate for some years. The answer seems painfully obvious to me, so why there should have been any debate on the subject at all, escapes me. you'd have seen that it is
Re: malaria in Africa
On 19/02/2008, at 1:47 AM, Dan M wrote: Charlie Bell stated: ...and diversionary. It's a debating technique known in some circles as the Gish Gallop, and it's very frustrating for people who pride themselves on being concise. The purpose of my argument was never to be diversionary, but to explore some of the details of another's argument. I can accept, though, that it can be very frustrating to folks who don't write and do numbers fast in their spare time. Heh. It's very frustrating to people who don't have spare time, and it's very frustrating to people who are trying to sort out one point to be totally smothered. You're not exploring details, you're just drowning people in volume, and switching or adding topics. It's very poor in debate, and it's just plain rude in a conversation. But after 10 years, I'm pretty sure you're not going to change. Oh look - change of topic: So, let me give you a very concise argument: 1) Neli told me at Christmas that she got word from home (Zambia) that the EU is threatening a withholding of funding if Zambia does not stop the spraying of house walls with DDT to prevent malaria. 2) This technique has been demonstrated in South Africa and shown on this list to be very effective. 3) I therefore conclude that the The EU is more worried about the political power of Green parties than children in Zambia dying. To which I may or may not have time to reply later. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: malaria in Africa
Charlie said: Oh look - change of topic: Muahahahahhahahaahaaa!!! Regards Curtis Can't pull the wool over this one's eyes Maru :P ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
On 18 Feb 2008 at 21:10, Curtis Burisch wrote: Dan, I live in Africa. I lived in Zimbabwe for more than half my life. There's no denying that Malaria is a big problem. But DDT is definitely NOT the answer. It's effective and safe when used properly. But the key there is used properly. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Charlie Bell wrote: Heh. It's very frustrating to people who don't have spare time, and it's very frustrating to people who are trying to sort out one point to be totally smothered. You're not exploring details, you're just drowning people in volume, and switching or adding topics. It's very poor in debate, and it's just plain rude in a conversation. But after 10 years, I'm pretty sure you're not going to change. I replied: Look, Charlie, Dan is fantastically good at researching and analyzing data. There's something frankly perverse in the idea that such an ability (one that puts him in the tiny handful of the very best I've ever met at such things) is something that he should _not_ use on the list. He's not smothering you with data, he's doing data analysis. There are basically two ways to construct a logical argument. You can be inductive (reasoning from concrete details into general findings) or deductive (reasoning from general theories into concrete hypotheses). Dan is very good at both, but when he's reasoning from evidence he's engaging in superb inductive reasoning. Quite often it's good enough that it's basically a model of how to construct an argument, one I would use enthusiastically if I were teaching a class on the subject. If he's not allowed to use data to support an argument, exactly how is he supposed to try to persuade someone? I find inductive reasoning in politics to usually be vastly superior to deductive reasoning, because it is empirical and because our theories of politics are insufficiently well-grounded to value them over countervening information. Empiricism requires data. If you're not as good at it as he is (no shame - I'm not either) I would think reading and debating with him would be a great opportunity to _get better at it_. If he challenges your opinions using data it might be worthwhile once in a while to consider whether your opinions should change, instead of believing that he has bad motives. What you call changing topics is usually, for example, use of an enormously valuable technique - drawing out the logical implications of stated beliefs into a different domain and seeing if they still make sense. If they don't, they probably don't make sense in the first domain _either_. How do you try to persuade people to change their minds? And in particular, how do you do it without using data? For example, in this discussion I have _not once_ seen anyone actually engage with the argument or the data. There are dismissals any point of view differing from the priors as bought and paid for (I've always wanted to ask people who believe that - if you think everyone's opinion is for sale, doesn't that really say something about yours?). I've seen cites to irrelevant arguments (DDT is nasty - well, no shit. It's an insecticide. Is it as nasty as malaria? Is it as nasty as the chemicals that might be used instead of it?). And I've seen no concern whatsoever with the people involved - like his daughter. Dan is a real scientist, and I'm at least a social scientist, so we're both trained to ask a simple question in any argument - what is the obtainable information that would cause you change your belief? If you can't come up with an answer, haven't you just said that you're not persuadable at all? And if you _can_, why do you reject as ill-intentioned (and what would his motives be, exactly, for having ill-intent?) efforts by a very bright and talented person to bring such information to bear? Gautam Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 17, 2008 8:50 PM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, those folks I showed/read this to saw the implied question fairly straightforwardly. I didn't want to be at all rude, so I made it implicit. Explicitly, if I start a conversation over the first two issues, will you be willing to make a good faith effort to explore the problem? The implication that I haven't been making a good faith effort strikes me a detour onto the road of rudeness. One way that I thought I made this clear would be clear is that I didn't accuse the writers of lying, distortion, bad faith, etc. My argument was based on this not being the entire story. There are other sources of information that are reliable and tell different aspects of the story. Yes. Feel free to cite them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman By citing these two folks, I'm setting up a question. Would analysis from these economists be considered sufficiently to the left to not be the writings of right wing hacks? If Krugman is too much of a conservative, which economists do y'all think are objective? How about if we don't clutter this up with ideology? Treating it as an ideological, rather than ethical, issue is arguing from a conclusion, as I see it. That's because trusting the marketplace to ensure ethical behavior is an ideological position, a faith in markets that has little or no basis in science, since one can easily demonstrate that unethical business practices can be far more efficient than ethical ones. But why are Wal-Mart prices so much lower than competitors? Doesn't the large gap indicate that they could pay employees better and simply choose not to? To put it simply, no. I've read a range of opinions on this and the strong consensus, from left to right, is that reduced labor costs is not the foundation of Wal-Mart's improved efficiency and lower costs. Er, you're agreeing with me. If reduced labor costs are not the foundation of their improve efficiency, then what is their rationale for paying so much less than their competitors? Finally, after 10 years on the list I have no idea when you came up with the idea that I'm an arrogant bastard that listens to Rush for my news and thinks that I can outdo anyone in my spare time. Wht? Two messages in a row with ridiculous straw men. What is going on here? 1) Are you interested in a discussion on the vision of myself and at least one other person who was an active poster that discussions are often thwarted by pronouncements that come as if they come from Olympus, rather than arguments that folks want others to discuss so the author can test their own ideas? Gee, you make it sound so inviting. I have been having a discussion and if i sounds like I'm making Olympian pronouncements, rather than stating my opinions, perhaps that's what you're hearing, rather than what I'm saying. 2) Are you interested in a discussion of how and whether statistics play a part in developing greater understanding vs. reading stories, having them touch your heart, and then coming to an understanding of truth? My entire job revolves around massive statistical analysis. I could take offense at this, too. 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote: The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. I'm already discussing this. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 17, 2008 8:50 PM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote: The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. Reading down through the thread, I realized that no, I am not interested in discussing that question because it is free of any ethical considerations. It is a modest proposal sort of argument. Ethics is not simply a matter of calculating whether the good outweighs the bad. There are some things that we simply don't do because they are wrong, even though logic might strongly suggest that their benefit outweighs the cost. We don't eat our children to survive (an allusion to modest propsals, in case that wasn't clear). The issue that concerns me is how Wal-Mart treats its employees and vendors, not whether is generates enough economic benefit to the world to justify that treatment. To me, that is an amoral calculation. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On Feb 18, 2008 1:41 PM, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Empiricism requires data. If you're not as good at it as he is (no shame - I'm not either) I would think reading and debating with him would be a great opportunity to _get better at it_. If he challenges your opinions using data it might be worthwhile once in a while to consider whether your opinions should change, instead of believing that he has bad motives. What you call changing topics is usually, for example, use of an enormously valuable technique - drawing out the logical implications of stated beliefs into a different domain and seeing if they still make sense. If they don't, they probably don't make sense in the first domain _either_. How do you try to persuade people to change their minds? And in particular, how do you do it without using data? In my work, which like Dan's, involves analysis of billions of bits of data, I constantly am in mind of the famous Mark Twain line, If I had more time, I'd have written you a shorter letter. I suspect that the three of us have produced reports for very busy people who would not be happy if we drowned them in data smog. I used to do a fair bit of consulting for top management technology and media companies. Any report I wrote for the guys at the very top had to be no longer than a half page. My newsletter was $500 a year for 12 pages once a month; more and I would have had unhappy subscribers. When I've spoken at conferences, my experience is that the more senior the attendees, the less time anybody gets to talk. I've also never forgotten something from Bill Dunn, founder of Dow Jones News Retrieval, the first successful on-line investment data source. He said (at our UCLA Roundtable in Multimedia) that DJNR succeeded as others failed because he realized that when people have access to lots of data, points of view becomes more valuable. His competitors made more data available and lost. Indeed, I am put off by lengthy arguments unless there's some extremely compelling reason for them. When I offer then, they are usually the result of not taking the time to choose the strongest arguments and summarize. At worst, they are control techniques to dominate the discussion. I've been guilty of the spectrum of reasons. Brevity really is a virtue, wouldn't you agree? In fact, I suspect that one of Wal-Mart's great efficiencies is the brevity of its data. The company is celebrated for its data warehousing; I'm certain (because that's a big part of what I do) that their success in that realm implies that somebody in the company is very good at boiling all of the operations data into something like a half-page. I am glad to see you posting. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Hi Gautam, how are you? I hope you'll stay with us for a while. I'd especially be interested in your perspective on the Presidential contest which continues to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. What do you think of McCain? I know your buddy George Will has expressed reservations. You're back in the Boston area, eh? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M wrote: Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. The quote of his is at: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/paul_krugman_wa.htm Dan-- Looks familiar. I bet I read it when it first came out. The gist is that Wal-Mart does not create retail jobs. It's more efficient than the smaller stores it replaces, so the result is fewer retail jobs overall. Now is that a bad thing, per se? Efficiency is usually good, it means the work gets done faster. I'd hope no one is proposing that we create jobs by having people work inefficiently? To me, the problem is that there simply aren't enough decent jobs to go around. So we're left with a pool of underemployed people, who compete for the low quality jobs that remain. While this keeps labor costs down, I'd argue that it's a bad way to set up a society. Let's see: evil does not have much explanatory power or actual meaning, and as for greedy, corporations usually have to be greedy, or their shareholders object. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. Sure it does, and I'm fully willing to state that the difference doesn't So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? I remember an argument with Gautam along these lines a while back. His line was something like Terrorists are evil because they do horrible things. Terrorists do horrible things because they are evil. To me, that says no more than Terrorists do horrible things. Back on topic, I'd guess that Wal-Mart is not actually evil. All you get is that it is amoral and greedy. But, the question I want to ask is does the average lower income person gain. Articles and analysis like the one by Kerry's advisor address the subject. If there are other factors worth considering, I'd be interested in seeing them. But, at the moment, his argument looks pretty persuasiveespecially since I think I can do a simple economic model that illustrates the underlying principal. A more careful formulation would be: Is the average quality of life of lower income people better after a Wal-Mart store comes? Now quality of life is slippery to define, so we may have to fall back on utility. This would give: Will the total utility of the lower income people in a region be greater after a Wal-Mart store opens in that region? That's still imperfect, but I give up. For example, consider a change that puts half the population out of work while giving the other half a bit more than twice what they had originally. The average income could go up, but I'd argue that total utility would go down. It's worse to lose one's job than it is good to earn a bit more than twice as much. Another wrinkle is that the unemployment could be both unavoidable and temporary. So Wal-Mart could produce net harm in the short term, while producing net good over a longer period. (When and if the people who lost retail jobs find other work.) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 18, 2008 4:58 PM, David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? I remember an argument with Gautam along these lines a while back. His line was something like Terrorists are evil because they do horrible things. Terrorists do horrible things because they are evil. To me, that says no more than Terrorists do horrible things. I'm curious why you guys are talking about evil. I don't think anybody in this discussion has called Wal-Mart evil. I guess I'm posting this because that language is likely to be attributed to me, since I've been critical of the company. sarcasmI was calling Wal-Mart evil around the same time I said that Dan gets his information from Rush, that prices are set in back room deals and compared myself to Mother Theresa./sarcasm I called Wal-Mart's aggressiveness toward vendors and employees greedy. I didn't call the company evil. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:48:48 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: malaria in Africa Hi Gautam, how are you? I hope you'll stay with us for a while. I'd especially be interested in your perspective on the Presidential contest which continues to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. What do you think of McCain? $50 says he's a McCain supporter. :-) Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Original Message: - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:58:13 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more Dan M wrote: Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. The quote of his is at: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/paul_krugman_wa.htm Dan-- Looks familiar. I bet I read it when it first came out. The gist is that Wal-Mart does not create retail jobs. It's more efficient than the smaller stores it replaces, so the result is fewer retail jobs overall. Now is that a bad thing, per se? Efficiency is usually good, it means the work gets done faster. I'd hope no one is proposing that we create jobs by having people work inefficiently? To me, the problem is that there simply aren't enough decent jobs to go around. So we're left with a pool of underemployed people, who compete for the low quality jobs that remain. While this keeps labor costs down, I'd argue that it's a bad way to set up a society. I understand the problem you are stating and have sympathy for the arguement. Historically, the possibility of the rise of the serfs into a middle class was based on efficiencyit probably goes back to the three crop rotation system and the horse collar. Efficiency always throws someone out of a job. But, true efficiency (as measured in productivity per worker...not per dollar spent ona worker, creates wealth. In a sense, it is wealth created out of nothing. If you have two men making chairs at one per day each, and someone comes along with a technique that lets one man make a chair a dayone man gets let go, and the price of chairs goes down (after the fourth or fifth person figures the technique out the price will be cut in halfless material costs, etc.) Historically, new jobs have always been created for the guys that lose their job. There is dislocation, but in the end just about everyone benefits. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. Sure it does, and I'm fully willing to state that the difference doesn't So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? No, I was unclear. Different business sectors naturally having different profit margines explains why Microsoft makes so much more profit than Wal-Mart. I agreed that the difference in profit margin does not indicate Microsoft is evil. Back on topic, I'd guess that Wal-Mart is not actually evil. All you get is that it is amoral and greedy. Companies by their very nature are amoral and greedy. When I negotiate for a contract, I focus on the money I can make my customer, not on my need to put 4 people through college/grad school. A more careful formulation would be: Is the average quality of life of lower income people better after a Wal-Mart store comes? Now quality of life is slippery to define, so we may have to fall back on utility. This would give: Will the total utility of the lower income people in a region be greater after a Wal-Mart store opens in that region? That's still imperfect, but I give up. For example, consider a change that puts half the population out of work while giving the other half a bit more than twice what they had originally. The average income could go up, but I'd argue that total utility would go down. It's worse to lose one's job than it is good to earn a bit more than twice as much. But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things that employ the second half. That is _the_ process that created an American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their families. Another wrinkle is that the unemployment could be both unavoidable and temporary. So Wal-Mart could produce net harm in the short term, while producing net good over a longer period. (When and if the people who lost retail jobs find other work.) I think the problematic wrinkle is that the new jobs are not in the US, in many cases, but in the Third World. Folks who were in abject poverty are now starting on the path the US started on 100 or so years ago. India's and China's per capita GDP are growing, between them, by better than 5% per year, after inflation. It's not evenly distributed, there is still abject poverty, but literally tens of millions of people are taking the first steps out of horrid poverty. This is why things don't look so good for the US, I think. Job growth is at a historical low, because much of it is elsewhere. But, it is still true that when we increase productivity, we increase total wealth. My arguement is that we should consider this an inherently good thing (as long as we properly figure the costs). We should not fight productivity, but we should find a way to ensure that those who are the inevitable losers from change (there will always be losers associated with every improvement) will be supported by the community that benefits as a whole from the change. Dan M.
Re: malaria in Africa
Dan wrote: $50 says he's a McCain supporter. :-) Now that wouldn't be a fair bet, would it? Are you sure he doesn't want to rewrite the constitution so its in God's standards? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
Doug wrote: Hi Gautam, how are you? I hope you'll stay with us for a while. I'd especially be interested in your perspective on the Presidential contest which continues to be one of the most interesting in my lifetime. What do you think of McCain? I know your buddy George Will has expressed reservations. You're back in the Boston area, eh? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Hi Doug. I am indeed - I've been here for 3.5 years now. I have huge disagreements with McCain. I think McCain-Feingold has been a disaster (as some of you may recall, I can at least claim that I thought that _before_ it was passed). There are several other issues. That being said...Dan is right, I'm a big McCain supporter. He's actually the first Presidential candidate that I've ever given money to (and I gave it to him before NH when everyone still thought he had no chance). I don't know if he'll be a great President. I don't even know, really, if he'd be a good one. But there's no doubt in my mind he's a great man (as David Brooks wrote in his column). He's the only politician in America I can think of who really would rather be right than President. John Dickerson wrote an article in Slate comparing Obama and McCain (and I like Obama a lot too) pointing out that Obama says he's going to tell you hard truths in his speech - and then never does. McCain sometimes doesn't do anything else. He began town hall meetings in NH in a Republican primary by saying Global warming is a big problem and we have to do something about it. He attacked the ethanol subsisy in Iowa. He (correctly) said that the old manufacturing jobs in Michigan weren't coming back. There simply isn't another politician who does things like that. I don't know what it would be like to have a President that committed to saying the truth and doing what's right for the country, but I'd really like to find out. When he won (I think) the NH primary, I put a link to this clip from the West Wing on my Facebook page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAXz6j4Yj9M. It seemed appropriate, somehow. Beyond personal qualities: McCain is the one person I'm sure will make torture illegal, which is, to me, a matter of national honor and thus absolutely non-negotiable. I think he will handle Iraq responsibly (Hillary's pledge to start removing troops in 60 days is, to me, the perfect example of everything that's wrong with her as a candidate, and a good start at what would be wrong with her as President). The war has been mishandled horrendously, but extricating ourselves from it is something that must be done carefully, to put it mildly. On economic issues - he surely doesn't know them as well as I would wish. But, look, there are lots of policy issues where we don't really know what the right thing to do is. I don't _know_ what the right thing to do in Iraq is. I have some ideas, but I'm really not sure, and I don't trust anyone who is. But one issue where we do actually _know_ what the right thing to do is, is trade. Free trade is the right policy. And McCain is right on that (as, sadly, both Democrats, repudiating one of the greatest achievements of the Clinton Administration, are wrong). If I can't trust someone to get the right answer in an area _where we actually know what the right answer is_, I don't see how I can trust them to get it right on the issues where it's a lot harder. Anyways, all of that being said - I think Obama is fantastic. I don't think he's quite ready, but he is something special. The best political talent of his generation, surely, and the best speaker I've ever seen, bar none. Amazing. I don't see how you can look at him, know that, right now, a man who _in his own lifetime_ would not have been able to use buses and waterfountains in half this country, and know that he's the person most likely to be the next President and not be enormously proud of this country. I think the searching for the Messiah aspects of his candidacy are quite troubling, but he is the incarnation of the American Dream, and I would be proud to have either as my President. Gautam Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Nick Arnett wrote: On Feb 18, 2008 4:58 PM, David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? ... I'm curious why you guys are talking about evil. I don't think anybody in this discussion has called Wal-Mart evil. I guess I'm posting this because that language is likely to be attributed to me, since I've been critical of the company. ... I called Wal-Mart's aggressiveness toward vendors and employees greedy. I didn't call the company evil. Nick Nick-- As far back as I saved posts, I find Dan replying as if you had said Wal-Mart was evil. But I bet we all agree it's not evil, no more than a shark is. : ) ---David Beyond good and evilMaru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On Feb 18, 2008 6:20 PM, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But one issue where we do actually _know_ what the right thing to do is, is trade. Free trade is the right policy. And McCain is right on that (as, sadly, both Democrats, repudiating one of the greatest achievements of the Clinton Administration, are wrong). If I can't trust someone to get the right answer in an area _where we actually know what the right answer is_, I don't see how I can trust them to get it right on the issues where it's a lot harder. Could you explain further? Our views on Obama and McCain are fairly similar, but switched around. I wouldn't be too unhappy to see either one as President, but I'd prefer Obama. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Historically, new jobs have always been created for the guys that lose their job. There is dislocation, but in the end just about everyone benefits. I'm not sure I buy that. I see a grave shortage of jobs in the US. This goes way beyond the official unemployment rate. For instance, my youngest child will soon be 14 (the youngest age one can legally work in New York State). She'd like a job then, something like 10 hours a week. Will she get one? Probably not. Around here, almost all the teenagers with jobs got them because they were related to their employers. But since she won't be an adult actively looking for a full time job, she won't be included in the statistics. ... For example, consider a change that puts half the population out of work while giving the other half a bit more than twice what they had originally. The average income could go up, but I'd argue that total utility would go down. It's worse to lose one's job than it is good to earn a bit more than twice as much. But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things that employ the second half. That is _the_ process that created an American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their families. Only some of it, now. Unless, as you point out, we consider the global economy. The services they spend extra money on would often be local. But few of the goods would be locally produced. ... But, it is still true that when we increase productivity, we increase total wealth. My arguement is that we should consider this an inherently good thing (as long as we properly figure the costs). We should not fight productivity, but we should find a way to ensure that those who are the inevitable losers from change (there will always be losers associated with every improvement) will be supported by the community that benefits as a whole from the change. Dan M. Wait a minute, we agree completely. Should we go back to Wal-Mart in more detail, or what? : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: malaria in Africa
On 19/02/2008, at 8:41 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I replied: Look, Charlie, Dan is fantastically good at researching and analyzing data. Yes, he can be. There's something frankly perverse in the idea that such an ability (one that puts him in the tiny handful of the very best I've ever met at such things) is something that he should _not_ use on the list. No, all I'm saying is that using it all the time, even in what start as relatively light chats, is very difficult for other people. Either people don't have the time to respond, or whatever they were focussed on gets lost in the glare. Yes, it's a very powerful tool, but its power would be more appreciated if it weren't used in every thread. And having seen the way Dan uses it all the time, I'm afraid I simply can't accept that he doesn't know that he's simply drowning most people. The relevant expression is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Discussion techniques should be modulated to the tone of the discussion, and replying with the same huge volume to each response makes it impossible to have a discussion - it either turns into painful point- by-point rebuttal or large chunks simply go unreplied to. It's also, as you're well aware, to use precisely the same data to arrive at very different conclusions depending on framing. So sometimes it doesn't matter how well an argument is supported. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
