Magic Statistics

“I accept no responsibility for statistics, which are a form of magic beyond my comprehension.” — Robertson Davies

November 16th, 2006 at 10:54 pm

US could be energy self-sufficient by 2025

The United States has over three trillion barrels of oil buried in shale rock in three western states.  (That’s about eight times the total quantity of oil utilised since the beginning of time.)  Oil is extremely difficult to extract from shale, but the technology is coming.  Globe and Mail business columnist Neil Reynolds says the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which developed the first nuclear bomb, is on the case.  Is this a new Manhattan Project?

[I]t's a good bet that, within a decade or two, the rock that burns will flow through pipelines in quantities large enough to make the United States self-sufficient in energy for a very long time.
. . .
The United States has always regarded shale oil as a strategic military reserve.
. . .
Last year, President George W. Bush re-established shale oil as a national strategic resource and instructed the Department of Energy and the Department of Defence to find ways to develop it. The government subsequently called for expressions of interest from energy companies. One of these, Chevron, already owns 100,000 acres of shale land in Colorado. In September, the government announced that it had selected Chevron to work with Los Alamos to develop and operate an experimental shale oil recovery project.

Scientists at Los Alamos are aiming to develop an environmentally friendly method of extraction, involving the use of new solvent systems.  Even at oil prices well below the current level, commercial production of shale oil appears feasible and profitable.

By an amazing coincidence, another column in the Globe’s business section discusses one factor that could confound American hopes of energy self-sufficiency.  As Deborah Yedlin puts it, “Democrats and energy don’t mix”.

For access to Mr Reynolds’s full column, click here.
For access to Ms Yedlin’s full column, click here.

Print This Post Print This Post
November 16th, 2006 at 10:25 pm

United Church of Canada opposes bill limiting conditional sentencing

Canada’s Conservative government has introduced Bill C-9 to prohibit conditional sentencing for offences that carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or more.  A conditional sentence is a sentence of less than two years which the convicted individual serves in his or her community.  Conditional sentences typically entail house arrest and/or curfew, but the offender doesn’t have to go to jail.

Bill C-9 is motivated by concerns that conditional sentences have been given for offences so serious or violent that proper condemnation of the offence demands jail time.  Serious personal injury offences, including all sexual assaults and offences related to organised crime, would be rendered ineligible for conditional sentences if Bill C-9 is passed.

The United Church of Canada’s statement on Bill C-9 is what you’d expect from the most liberal denomination in all of Christendom.

The United Church of Canada is calling on the Canadian government to withdraw legislation to amend Canada's Criminal Code because, says the church, "Bill C-9 plays only to people's fears."

"The proposed legislation to curtail conditional sentencing will hurt real people and real communities," says the United Church's Moderator, the Right Rev. David Giuliano. "We are committed to justice that serves the community and concerned about the reactionary and simplistic premise of Bill C-9, a bill that effectively handcuffs judges."

In a letter sent to all members of the House of Commons and the Senate, Giuliano writes, "We believe that Bill C-9 - which denies access to conditional sentencing for the 160 offences that carry a maximum of 10 years - is poorly designed. It plays to the sound and fury audience, but signifies next to nothing. It does not contribute to safer communities, allow for rehabilitation of the offender, or redress the victim."

I read stuff like that and ask: What planet are they living on?  It’s trivially obvious that incarcerating violent offenders far from their victims contributes to safer communities.  As for redress of the victim, those who have been sexually or otherwise assaulted generally find it immensely therapeutic to see perpetrators locked up for a good long spell.  Indeed, they often feel victimized twice over if the system allows the attacker to return to town without imprisonment.  It is not uncommon for victims to move out of town if their attacker has been given a conditional sentence.

Ya gotta love this howler from Heather Macdonald, UCC’s program coordinator for restorative justice:

Separated communities are not safer communities.

What tripe.  Of course, separating convicted felons from victims enhances community safety.  News flash for the UCC: Sending violent criminals to prison is a good thing.  Bill C-9 is intended to force our judges to do so more often.  The sooner it’s passed, the better.

h/t: Big News Network.com - Breaking Religious News

Previous related post: The United Church of Canada has another brainstorm

Print This Post Print This Post
November 16th, 2006 at 9:41 pm

Zune not compatible with new Windows OS

Microsoft’s spankin’ new digital music player Zune rolled out for sale to the public (in the US only) earlier this week.  Two weeks from now, Microsoft’s new Windows operating system Vista will become available to business customers, with sales to consumers to follow shortly thereafter.

Microsoft missed an important step in planning these new product launches, however, for Vista will not support the Zune.  AppleInsider has the story:

Apparently, Microsoft has been so focused on getting Zune out the door in time for the mad holiday rush that it hasn't gotten around to supporting the player under its next-generation operating system.
. . .
"This operating system is currently not supported by Zune," reads an error message when trying to install Zune software on the latest versions of Microsoft's own Windows Vista operating system.

In an official Zune support document, Microsoft, which will begin selling Vista to business customers in two weeks, confirms that the system "is not supported at this time."

In not-unrelated news, Zune’s first day in San Francisco stores was a dud.

Microsoft's attack on the Apple iPod began with a whimper as Zune players made a lackluster debut in US stores.

Two boxed Zune players sat ignored on the top shelf of a Plexiglas showcase packed with iPod accessories in a Virgin Megastore near Union Square in San Francisco's popular shopping district.

"I didn't even know they were there until a customer pointed them out," said sales clerk Jake Brooks.  "I'm sure we have more in a closet in the back somewhere."

By mid-afternoon the store had sold one Zune player and one other person had inquired about them.

The scene was bleaker at a CompUSA store a block away, where the manager said an oversight by Microsoft sales people had resulted in the store not getting Zunes for display.

No apparent harm was done though, said the manager, because no shoppers came asking about Zunes.

To top it all off, technology blog Change Is Good has ten reasons why Zune will flop.

h/t for AppleInsider and Yahoo! News: Macworld UK
h/t for Change Is Good: Geekwatch by Matthew Ingram

Previous related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post
November 16th, 2006 at 9:07 pm

Lawyers pile on Justice Minister

Last week Canadian Justice Minister Vic Toews announced plans to add police representation to committees that vet candidates for judicial appointments.  Judges didn’t like that one bit.  Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin promptly issued a politically astute press release accusing the minister of politicising judicial appointments and endangering the be-all and end-all of Canada’s justice system: “judicial independence”.

Now the lawyers are weighing in with their howls of execration considered opinion.

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada, a group representing the core of the country's legal establishment, has expressed astonishment at the way in which Justice Minister Vic Toews is moving to change the way judges are appointed.

In a letter sent to Mr. Toews on Monday, William Goodridge, the president of the federation, warned that changes the Justice Minister is pushing through could backfire and persuade the public that his government has "politicized" the judicial appointment process.

"In our view, the envious reputation which Canada enjoys around the world with regard to its excellent and independent judiciary is potentially at stake with the changes you have announced," Mr. Goodridge said in his letter.

Hmmm.  Foreigners may think Canada's judicial crew “excellent”, but lately its reputation at home is taking a beating.

Sex-crime sentence sparks anger, silence
While the public reacts with fury, federal and provincial politicians keep mum

Lynnette Traverse lured adolescent girls to her Winnipeg home to be raped both brutally and repeatedly by her common-law husband. She held the shoulders of one of the helpless young victims as the child was being sexually violated.

Yet today, after spending just two years in pretrial custody, 25-year-old Ms. Traverse is a free woman waiting for Terry Ladouceur, the man who was the acknowledged instigator of the crimes, to finish his 10-year sentence.

But that’s OK: Our judges are impartial and independent and foreigners think they’re excellent.  For some reason, though, I don’t think the families of those girls find that very comforting.

Now back to the grumbling lawyers from La-La Land.

Detractors claim that by giving the federal appointees a majority on the reconfigured committees, Mr. Toews's plan could allow the government to block any judicial candidate it does not favour, a dramatic change to the legal landscape that opens the door to the government packing courts with political cronies or candidates who share its ideology.

Horrors!  We cannot have the people’s elected representatives making the final determination as to who will be appointed to the bench.  Why . . . that would be  . . . democratic!

And, of course, the lawyers serve up the same tired boilerplate as the judges did last week.

"If the objective of reform is to remove the impression that the process is politicized, then this proposal could have the opposite effect and could undermine the public's confidence in the judiciary, a state of affairs which is squarely contrary to the public interest as we see it," Mr. Goodridge said.

Reality check, Mr Goodridge: The public’s confidence in our judiciary has already been well and truly undermined—by the judiciary.  One hopes that, if police are added to judicial appointment committees, Canada might get some judges who want to ensure that dangerous felons are kept off the streets and justly punished for their offences.

Previous related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post
November 16th, 2006 at 8:28 pm

Shocking news: Politicians misuse research to shore up dubious policies

A report by British MPs that slipped out last week contains an extraordinary and scandalous disclosure:  Politicians are not always honest and forthright about the research they commission and apply to their policy decisions. I have never been so astonished in my entire life, I’m sure.

At best, ministers and shadow spokesmen cannot distinguish between anecdote and science. At worst, they can be dodgy operators who use research selectively to "prop up" policies, or even fraudsters who think nothing of scientific malpractice.

The allegations come in a report on scientific advice and policy making published by the Commons Science and Technology Committee and should be required reading for Malcolm Wicks, the incoming Science Minister.
. . .
"[M]inisters should not disguise conviction-based policies as evidence-based," he [committee chairman Phil Willis] said. "Where policies are strongly based on evidence, the scientific advice and evidence underpinning them should be published." The implication is that the basis of these policies should be subject to scientific scrutiny.

Scientific scrutiny of policy bases?  That could undermine our system of democratic government.

This next finding is directly applicable to the climate change controversy:

[M]any politicians still seem unable to comprehend that science is a never-ending dialogue between theory and experiment, not the recruitment of convenient facts.

That statement should be framed and hung in the office of every cabinet minister in every government on the planet.

Print This Post Print This Post
November 16th, 2006 at 7:35 pm

China upholds death sentences for three pastors

Death sentences imposed on three Protestant pastors in China have been affirmed on appeal.  The circumstances of the case are very controversial.

The three pastors, Xu Shuangfu, Li Maoxing, and Wang Jun, associated with the Protestant movement “Three Grades of Servants”, have been found guilty of murdering leaders of a proto-Christian group called Eastern Lightning.

According to the government’s accusations, Xu – leader of a Protestant group with more than 500,000 members nationwide – killed, together with another 16 convicted members of his group, 20 leaders of the Eastern Lightning group. He was also accused of embezzling over 32 million yuan (around 3.2 million euros).

The Eastern Lightening group, although it claims to be Christian, is widely acknowledged by Protestants to be a "cult of criminals".   The group’s founder, founded a woman named Zheng, claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and many of her "followers" are involved in suspect affairs.

The defence lawyers – Li Heping of the Gaobo Longhua Firm, Beijing, and Zhang Lihui of the Beijing Branch of the Xingyun Law Office –said their clients were not guilty based upon the government's evidence. Their confessions were obtained by torture, a practice the Chinese government itself has admitted is "widespread" in its prisons.

The appeals court acted swiftly to hear the case, apparently to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing the verdict.  As of 1 January, the Supreme Court will have sole authority in the country to impose capital punishment, but those whose appeal was just decided could be executed within a month.

Over 10 million Protestants belong to the only officially sanctioned Protestant body in the country.  Another 50 million Chinese Protestants are believed to meet for worship in clandestine house churches.  Last year, almost 2000 leaders and members of unofficial churches were arrested.

h/t: Religion News Blog

Previous related posts:

UPDATE (29 Nov.): China has reportedly carried out the executions.

Print This Post Print This Post
November 16th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

No country is perfect on Kyoyo compliance

Buried in the middle of a story full of bluster from foreign representatives warning Canada not to abandon the Kyoto Protocol is this rather more humble perspective from a Swiss diplomat.

Claude Wild, deputy head of mission at the Embassy of Switzerland, which is not a member of the European Union, said no country can say it's perfect when it comes to climate change, and was not about to point fingers at the way Canada has responded to the global threat.

"We have not been perfect either," he said. "Up to now, Canada has not stepped down from Kyoto. We have heard here the difficulties to meeting the goals. But not everyone has the courage to say so."

But climate change is a global problem, he said, "and it is so important to work at it as a team.

"Canada has generated a lot of good will internationally," he added. "Should a country like Canada…simply step down from its international obligations, it would be surprising."

Describing Canada as "one of the best multilateral players" and one that gives international treaties, obligations and organizations credibility, he said if Canada did abandon the Kyoto Protocol, it would send signals to other countries that are already on the verge of following suit.

"But at this point, we are not perfect either," Mr. Wild added. "It will not be us that point the finger."

What a refreshing admission.  If Mr Wild's comments gain wide media attention, watch for Kyoto enthusiasts to pressure Switzerland to tar and feather disown the deputy head of mission at its Canadian embassy.

h/t: e-mail from two good friends.

Previous related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post
November 16th, 2006 at 5:05 pm

Milton Friedman, RIP

Milton FriedmanMilton Friedman, winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science and arguably the most important, influential, and widely renowned economist of our time, has died of heart failure at age 94.  Dr Friedman was Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus in Economics at the University of Chicago, where he had been on faculty since 1946.

His professional reputation is based on path-breaking work in virtually all areas of economic study: price theory, labour economics, theory of consumer behaviour, macroeconomics, monetary theory, econometrics, methodology of economics, as well as empirical science in general.  In his teaching and writing, he consistently applied his theories to real-world issues and problems, and he regularly ventured into social and political commentary as a Newsweek magazine columnist and elsewhere.  Some of his books, particularly Capitalism and Freedom (1962) and Free To Choose (1980)—the latter co-written with his wife Rose—were directed to the widest possible popular audience.

Friedman's radical views in favour of free markets and individual liberty decisively shaped the economic strategies of, among many others, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.  His monetary theories informed the 1980 decision of Paul Volcker, then Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank, to clamp down on US money supply growth, bringing to an end the stagflation of the 1970s.

Yet, any attempt to pigeon-hole Friedman as a doctrinaire right-winger was doomed to failure, for he repeatedly argued against public policies favoured by Republicans, for example, the military draft and anti-drug laws.  He explicitly rejected the "Republican" and "conservative" labels, preferring to call himself a 19th-century liberal—basically equivalent to "libertarian" in today's political parlance.

Dr Friedman and Edmund Phelps of Columbia University, this year's winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, developed the now-generally accepted concept of the "natural rate of unemployment" (more accurately but less elegantly called the "non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment", or NAIRU).  Given current labour-market conditions, macroeconomic measures to decrease unemployment below the "natural rate" will generate higher inflation.  Moreover, decreases in unemployment, if indeed any result, will be short-lived and unemployment will soon return to the "natural rate".

As a leader in the school of macroeconomic thought now known as "monetarism", Friedman maintained that changes in the money supply always precede changes in the inflation rate.  This is summed up in one of his most frequently repeated aphorisms, "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon".  He further contended that changes in the money supply can cause only temporary variations in economic production, but not permanent changes, as was held by Keynesianism.  If money supply changes are unexpected, transitory economic effects can be large and persistent, but the economy will ultimately tend to return to the level of activity prior to monetary shocks.  This points to the importance of the availability and accuracy of information about economic phenomena.  Friedman's thought thus also encouraged economic investigation of decision-making under conditions of uncertainty.

Milton Friedman's perspective was very influential to me personally.  In the late 1970s, I embarked on graduate studies in the Dept of Economics, University of Washington, at that time staffed by many professors who had graduated from the University of Chicago—Friedman's school.  We graduate students used to say, only half-jokingly, that Milton Friedman was the department's patron saint.

Among the books assigned in my courses were Friedman's Price Theory and A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960.  The latter, co-authored with Anna Schwartz, is considered by some to be Friedman's masterwork.  For many students of economics, including me, it was a revelation of the power of theory-driven investigation when combined with credible empirical analysis.

Friedman and Schwartz argued that economic events and trends in US history since 1867 could be explained solely by reference to changes in the money supply and monetary system.  They estimated the quantity of money in circulation in the United States and tracked that series alongside economic activity.  Finding that the US money supply began to fall precipitously before the Great Depression struck the financial markets, they argued that US Federal Reserve Bank's lack of attention to the total money stock and consequent failure to respond appropriately to bank failures and bank panics were responsible for the onset of the Depression.

That understanding of the Great Depression, of course, flatly contradicts the Keynesian view that it was caused by lack of private spending, which could have been counteracted by lower taxes and/or increased government expenditures.

This work persuaded central bankers in the US and around the world of the importance of maintaining, and paying close attention to, accurate and up-to-date money supply statistics.  It has been said that, because of the Monetary History, another economic catastrophe like the Great Depression is impossible.  Central bankers would not allow the money supply to fall as much as it did in the late 1920s.

Another great thing about Monetary History is its lack of arcane economic theory and mathematical analysis.  It is accessible to non-specialists and, considering the subject matter, a quite enjoyable read.  (It does run to almost 900 pages, however.)

A new biography of Milton Friedman is scheduled to be shown on American PBS television just over two months from now.

“Milton was an intellectual entrepreneur, with an insatiable curiosity and a passion for clear thinking,” said Bob Chitester, who produced the Friedman's popular PBS television series “Free to Choose,” and whose new biography of Friedman “The Power of Choice,” will air nationally on PBS stations on January 29, 2007.

“He set forth ideas without regard to their popularity or acceptability. He has been equally tough on himself and others in his search for tools of analysis that consistently and accurately predict outcomes in both micro and macro economics. And he has never compromised the resulting analysis to please those in power. Such courage is essential to the survival of a free society,” Chitester said.

Milton Friedman is survived by his wife and frequent collaborator Rose Director Friedman and two grown children, daughter Janet and son David.

Dr Friedman was one of the towering public intellectuals of the last half of the 20th century.  Although I never saw him in person, I watched him on TV several times.  A genial and engaging figure, he always had a gleam in his eye as he discussed controversial ideas: He clearly loved intellectual debate.  He was one person of whom it may said that his ideas changed the world—much to the better, in my view.  Whatever one may think of his theories and opinions, his life is proof that ideas matter.

Previous related posts:

Print This Post Print This Post