Back in “the good old days”—you know, the days when my whole future was in front of me, my body was trim and healthy, my mind was pure, and Bear Bryant was still alive and coaching the University of Alabama to the Sugar Bowl almost every year—any way, back then there was CBS news and "our" most beloved news anchor, Sir Walter Cronkite.
I didn’t know much back then, but I knew that if Walter Cronkite said it, IT MUST BE TRUE. Walter narrated the news for me and my family, beginning in the days of black and white news footage. Things like John Glenn’s first earth orbits, JFK’s assassination, the Apollo moon landings, and the attempted assassination of George Wallace--we could count on Walter to tell us what we needed to know in south Alabama.
The concepts of right and wrong were, like night and day, a given in network TV news back then...we thought. The idea of the highly respected national media taking sides on a given issue, let alone partisan sides, was a totally alien concept.
How things have changed today, relative to the public’s (and especially my own) perception of the media, in general, and the height of the pedestal that 87 year old Walter Cronkite sets on today, specifically.
In an interview with Larry King on CNN last evening. Larry played the latest Osama Bin Laden tape. Then he asked Mr. Cronkite for comments. Walter had this to say:
“So now the question is basically right now, how will this affect the election? And I have a feeling that it could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing. (bold emphasis mine-VRRIII) The advantage to the Republican side is to get rid of, as a principal subject of the campaigns right now, get rid of the whole problem of the al Qaqaa explosive dump. Right now, that, the last couple of days, has, I think, upset the Republican campaign.”
To his credit, Larry King completely ignored the reference to Karl Rove planting the Bin laden tape. Yet one has to wonder why, since this revelation was a major part of the first few dozen words out of Cronkite’s mouth. Then, not suprisingly, King gives “old man Concrete” a pass--not only on the insinuation of potential foul play, but also on the follow-up blithering where he indicates that his rationale for this statement was the mean old Republicans who were trying to get rid of the Al Qaqaa missing explosive story; a story, by the way, that just so happens to be highly suspect and to have been trumped up by the New York Times and Masseur Cronkite’s beloved CBS News show "60 Minutes" against Mr. Rove’s candidate, President Bush.
I’m sorry, but I'm distraught. There is nothing left to believe in any more. No Santa Clause, no Easter Bunny, no Great Pumpkin, and now we find that Walter Cronkite has signed on with the naked, unabashed, run around in your stocking feet, roll your eyes back in your head,wear-a- funny-hat-with-Dan Rather's Bush-bashing-campaign as a card carrying, publicly outspoken, bleeding heart liberal.
Even worse, maybe Walter started it all decades ago and I just didn’t know about it until now.
Oh waiter, check please....
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Liars Figure and Figures Lie
I took a bunch of math in school – three years of algebra, a year of trigonometry, a year of geometry, and a year of calculus. Then came college--five quarters of calculus, a quarter of differential equations, and then practically every other class was calculus based. Would anyone care to watch me solve a second order differential equation with nothing but a #2 pencil and a very large eraser today? You might be waiting a while as those brain cells have been reprogrammed over the past 20 or so years.
In the middle of studying vectors, differentials and integrals came a math class called “Statistics.” Some people spend an entire four years of college learning statistics. A class lasting one quarter was enough to tell me that I didn’t want to be a statistician. There was a positive side to taking statistics, however. Statistics is what keeps me from being a gambler. I don’t play poker, I don’t like to roll the dice, and I don’t, except on rare occasions, buy lottery tickets. I guess that you could say that that one statistics class has saved me a lot of money over the years.
The American public could benefit from a small dose of statistical education. If they understood statistics, I believe that most newspapers and TV stations would go out of business or at least be forced to make substantial changes in their reporting. They could make some attempt to put things they write about into perspective with supporting data that gives their readers more information than “someone died” or “someone screwed up.”
For instance, if you followed the news back in the late 1990’s, you could be convinced that air bags were the biggest threat to the lives of children and small adults since the Bubonic Plague. Every single time someone was killed by an air bag, the local press and the national news blared the story in their headlines and the public demanded reform. In this CNN article they state that:
“From 1996-2000, 191 people died from air bag-related injuries, including 116 children, according to government statistics. The children were either not wearing a seat belt or were improperly restrained in the front seat.”
So what was actually doing the killing, the air bag--or bouncing off of the first hard surface encountered by the kid’s body during impact? And did the article bother to mention that there were 41,945 total people killed (710 under the age of 5) in the year 2000 alone? I don’t want even one mothers’ precious child or grandfathers’ grandchild to meet an untimely fate in an automobile, but let’s get a grip on the sensationalism.
Or how about shark attacks? Every spring, commencing with the first documented shark bite, the smiling talking TV heads and the bold news headlines convince the citizens of middle America that those of us living here on the coast are literally walking on a sea of shark fins every time we hazard to wade into our local waters. In reality, you have a greater chance of being one of the 90 people struck and killed by lightening than being bitten by a shark. Notice I said bit, not killed.
And how many people do you know whom refuse to fly on a commercial airliner? I have had endless conversations about how so-and-so refuses to ever get on “one of ‘em thangs.” Gimme a break, pluu-ease! Between 1982 and March 2001, only an average of only 120 persons per year were killed in commercial aviation accidents. You have an infinitely better chance of dieing on the way to the airport in your car than you do once you get on the great silver bird.
So, I’ll cut to the chase now.
All of the above rantings bring me to my real point in writing this post. This New York Times article makes an ominous political issue for President Bush out of the apparent “loss” of 380 tons (760,000 pounds) of HMX and RDX explosives in Iraq. The article actually mentions some numbers that could add to the reader’s perspective but, as usual, they bury the information well past the first three paragraphs the average reader scans through.
You see, a total of 243,000 tons (486,000,000 pounds) of munitions have already been destroyed by coalition forces and an additional 163,000 tons (326,000,000 pounds) have been secured and are scheduled for destruction.
Cracking out my extensive mathematical education, this means that 0.0935% of the total munitions discovered in Iraq have been misplaced. Less than one tenth of one percent. I did this calculation with math I learned in the first 6 years of my education. I didn’t need calculus, but I did need to calculate a statistical percentage--sixth graders call it a ratio.
Forgetting, for a moment, that there is a high probability that the explosives were removed from the Al Qaqaa complex months before US forces arrived, why is it that a whole building full of college graduates at The New York Times, not to mention a whole country full of people who are at least in theory the products of 12 years of free government education-- are not able to see the insignificance of this non-event?
I've got to go outside and scream now...
UPDATE October 26, 2004
Just as I suspected, the odor I smelled earlier was that of Dan Rather's stinky stocking feet as he tiptoed around behind the scenes of this story. It has been reported that the NY Times beat CBS's 60 minutes to the draw with the repackaging of a story first reported in April 2003.
CBS wanted to wait until Sunday night. Good thing for the free world that it came out early so the Bush campaign, Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh, and the Blogosphere can do some fact finding and get the truth out. The initial contradiction came from an surprising source, NBC News, that actually had a reporter imbeded with the Army unit that went into the Al Qaqaa compound on April 10, 2003.
The reporter, Lia Ling Jew, has started a bit of soft backpeddling in an interview on MSNBC. She stated "that the 24-hour visit by elements of the 101st Airborne Division was "more of a pit stop." U.S. troops did not conduct a detailed search of the compound nor did they try to prevent looting, she said." So I guess she is now implying that our troups were sitting around scratching their privates while the local thugs ran willy-nilly through the compound?
CNN reports that the October 10th Iraqi letter to the IAEA "identified the vanished explosives as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or "high melting point explosive," 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or 'pentaerythritol tetranitrate.' " One question I have personally is what the context of the Iraqi provisional governments' letter to the IAEA was, and why was the letter written 18 months after the fact? Was it simply a formality or were they reporting something that they thought was new?
Regarding Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general (why does every leader outside the US have to have the word "general" in their title?) of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, he is "very concerned." Mr. El Baradei, who was born in Egypt, is in fact a lawyer, not a nuclear scientist. Like Hans Blix, he has a long history of foot dragging on behalf of the Iraqi's and Iranians and holding opinions contrary to those of US anministrators.
Watch this story spin and spin and the Kerry Campaign keep on yelling. They already have a new campaign ad out and Kerry mysteriously mentioned "missing explosives" in the second debate.
Was he in on this story before hand? Could be...
In the middle of studying vectors, differentials and integrals came a math class called “Statistics.” Some people spend an entire four years of college learning statistics. A class lasting one quarter was enough to tell me that I didn’t want to be a statistician. There was a positive side to taking statistics, however. Statistics is what keeps me from being a gambler. I don’t play poker, I don’t like to roll the dice, and I don’t, except on rare occasions, buy lottery tickets. I guess that you could say that that one statistics class has saved me a lot of money over the years.
The American public could benefit from a small dose of statistical education. If they understood statistics, I believe that most newspapers and TV stations would go out of business or at least be forced to make substantial changes in their reporting. They could make some attempt to put things they write about into perspective with supporting data that gives their readers more information than “someone died” or “someone screwed up.”
For instance, if you followed the news back in the late 1990’s, you could be convinced that air bags were the biggest threat to the lives of children and small adults since the Bubonic Plague. Every single time someone was killed by an air bag, the local press and the national news blared the story in their headlines and the public demanded reform. In this CNN article they state that:
“From 1996-2000, 191 people died from air bag-related injuries, including 116 children, according to government statistics. The children were either not wearing a seat belt or were improperly restrained in the front seat.”
So what was actually doing the killing, the air bag--or bouncing off of the first hard surface encountered by the kid’s body during impact? And did the article bother to mention that there were 41,945 total people killed (710 under the age of 5) in the year 2000 alone? I don’t want even one mothers’ precious child or grandfathers’ grandchild to meet an untimely fate in an automobile, but let’s get a grip on the sensationalism.
Or how about shark attacks? Every spring, commencing with the first documented shark bite, the smiling talking TV heads and the bold news headlines convince the citizens of middle America that those of us living here on the coast are literally walking on a sea of shark fins every time we hazard to wade into our local waters. In reality, you have a greater chance of being one of the 90 people struck and killed by lightening than being bitten by a shark. Notice I said bit, not killed.
And how many people do you know whom refuse to fly on a commercial airliner? I have had endless conversations about how so-and-so refuses to ever get on “one of ‘em thangs.” Gimme a break, pluu-ease! Between 1982 and March 2001, only an average of only 120 persons per year were killed in commercial aviation accidents. You have an infinitely better chance of dieing on the way to the airport in your car than you do once you get on the great silver bird.
So, I’ll cut to the chase now.
All of the above rantings bring me to my real point in writing this post. This New York Times article makes an ominous political issue for President Bush out of the apparent “loss” of 380 tons (760,000 pounds) of HMX and RDX explosives in Iraq. The article actually mentions some numbers that could add to the reader’s perspective but, as usual, they bury the information well past the first three paragraphs the average reader scans through.
You see, a total of 243,000 tons (486,000,000 pounds) of munitions have already been destroyed by coalition forces and an additional 163,000 tons (326,000,000 pounds) have been secured and are scheduled for destruction.
Cracking out my extensive mathematical education, this means that 0.0935% of the total munitions discovered in Iraq have been misplaced. Less than one tenth of one percent. I did this calculation with math I learned in the first 6 years of my education. I didn’t need calculus, but I did need to calculate a statistical percentage--sixth graders call it a ratio.
Forgetting, for a moment, that there is a high probability that the explosives were removed from the Al Qaqaa complex months before US forces arrived, why is it that a whole building full of college graduates at The New York Times, not to mention a whole country full of people who are at least in theory the products of 12 years of free government education-- are not able to see the insignificance of this non-event?
I've got to go outside and scream now...
UPDATE October 26, 2004
Just as I suspected, the odor I smelled earlier was that of Dan Rather's stinky stocking feet as he tiptoed around behind the scenes of this story. It has been reported that the NY Times beat CBS's 60 minutes to the draw with the repackaging of a story first reported in April 2003.
CBS wanted to wait until Sunday night. Good thing for the free world that it came out early so the Bush campaign, Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh, and the Blogosphere can do some fact finding and get the truth out. The initial contradiction came from an surprising source, NBC News, that actually had a reporter imbeded with the Army unit that went into the Al Qaqaa compound on April 10, 2003.
The reporter, Lia Ling Jew, has started a bit of soft backpeddling in an interview on MSNBC. She stated "that the 24-hour visit by elements of the 101st Airborne Division was "more of a pit stop." U.S. troops did not conduct a detailed search of the compound nor did they try to prevent looting, she said." So I guess she is now implying that our troups were sitting around scratching their privates while the local thugs ran willy-nilly through the compound?
CNN reports that the October 10th Iraqi letter to the IAEA "identified the vanished explosives as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or "high melting point explosive," 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or 'pentaerythritol tetranitrate.' " One question I have personally is what the context of the Iraqi provisional governments' letter to the IAEA was, and why was the letter written 18 months after the fact? Was it simply a formality or were they reporting something that they thought was new?
Regarding Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general (why does every leader outside the US have to have the word "general" in their title?) of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, he is "very concerned." Mr. El Baradei, who was born in Egypt, is in fact a lawyer, not a nuclear scientist. Like Hans Blix, he has a long history of foot dragging on behalf of the Iraqi's and Iranians and holding opinions contrary to those of US anministrators.
Watch this story spin and spin and the Kerry Campaign keep on yelling. They already have a new campaign ad out and Kerry mysteriously mentioned "missing explosives" in the second debate.
Was he in on this story before hand? Could be...
Monday, October 25, 2004
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
Suppose that I go into the fish bait business. Not too smart of an idea, some of you might say, but suppose I don’t listen to unsolicited advice and as of tomorrow afternoon I am the proud owner of “Ronnie Redneck’s Bait and Tackle Emporium.” I’m so excited…
The business consists of a small building on a parcel of land adjacent to a county road within a quarter mile of the local marina and public boat ramp. What a great location--I'm gonna be rich. In addition to the building and land, I also purchased the complete store inventory from the prior owner; including a large cage full of chirping crickets, boxes and boxes of night crawlers (worms—for those of you not from the southern US), and an aerated tank full of Shad Minnows. There is also the obligatory assortment of beer coolers, assorted snack displays, artificial lures, bamboo poles, and other fishing paraphernalia.
After spending half a day at the bank and in the lawyer’s offices filling out forms for the real estate closing and eating a celebratory lunch, I finally get back to my new business and begin the task of contacting my suppliers in anticipation of opening for business.
The first thing I am hit with is bad news. The recent bout of cold weather has resulted in a shortage of both crickets and night crawlers. To make matters worse, the local supplier of shad minnows has legal troubles and has had his commercial fishing license revoked for a few weeks. After making several frantic phone calls to the previous owner and some additional suppliers, I finally locate crickets, worms, and minnows. The cost, including extra shipping, is nearly double what I had paid previously. I reluctantly place an order for next week. What do I do now?
The first thing I do is raise my prices. My present inventory consists of over one thousand crickets that sold previously for $1 a dozen. The new price will have to be $1.75. The hundreds of pounds of night crawlers that used to sell for $2 a tub will now cost $3.50, and the hundreds of dozens of minnows will go up from $1.50 a dozen to $3.25. I change my signs accordingly.
When I arrive to open up for business at 5:30 AM the next morning, three pickup trucks full of my first customers are already waiting in my parking lot. I introduce myself, explaining that I purchased the shop from “Ronnie Redneck,” and excitedly unlock and open the front door to the stampede of fishermen.
What ensues is nothing short of a riot. “Price gouging” cry my prospective customers. “We won’t stand for it,” they protest. “Ronnie didn’t charge us these prices” the say as they stomp out of the front door into the parking lot. What a rude awakening to the retail bait business.
As the trucks bearing the angry fishermen spin their tires out of my gravel lot, I pause to reconsider my pricing policies. Let’s see, I only have about three thousand dollars in the purchase of the live bait that was included with the “Bait Emporium.” But, when I sell what I have, I am looking at paying nearly six thousand dollars to restock my store. And I’m already short on cash after putting $25,000 into the down payment. What do I do now?
Am I guilty of price gouging because I want to sell my existing inventory at prices based on the replacement cost rather than the cost I originally paid for the crickets, worms, and minnows?
OF COURSE NOT. What kind of moron would sell their inventory knowing that at the end of the day they wouldn’t have enough funds to replace it in order to stay in business? It is, after all, a business, not a CHARITY, isn’t it?
Now I will get to my point (with my apologies for making you read my bait shop story.) What is the difference between fish bait, hurricane supplies, gasoline, or flue vaccine?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G, that’s what.
This whole concept of the government stepping into the free market and arresting lawfully licensed, reputable businesspersons for adjusting the pricing of any given commodity (regardless of whether it floats, f**ks, farts, or flys) based on market conditions, is insane.
Just because people “NEED” flue vaccine during our current government produced vaccine shortage or “NEED” plywood after the roof of their house decided to obey the laws of physics and disassemble itself into a pile of kindling in their neighbor’s yard doesn’t mean that anyone has to sell you anything at any price.
I needed 42 gallons of gasoline to fill up the tank on my Chevy Suburban this afternoon, but I settled for $25 worth (about 13 gallons) and I didn't blame the station owner.
I hear that people in Hell want ice water, too. Quick, call the government!
The business consists of a small building on a parcel of land adjacent to a county road within a quarter mile of the local marina and public boat ramp. What a great location--I'm gonna be rich. In addition to the building and land, I also purchased the complete store inventory from the prior owner; including a large cage full of chirping crickets, boxes and boxes of night crawlers (worms—for those of you not from the southern US), and an aerated tank full of Shad Minnows. There is also the obligatory assortment of beer coolers, assorted snack displays, artificial lures, bamboo poles, and other fishing paraphernalia.
After spending half a day at the bank and in the lawyer’s offices filling out forms for the real estate closing and eating a celebratory lunch, I finally get back to my new business and begin the task of contacting my suppliers in anticipation of opening for business.
The first thing I am hit with is bad news. The recent bout of cold weather has resulted in a shortage of both crickets and night crawlers. To make matters worse, the local supplier of shad minnows has legal troubles and has had his commercial fishing license revoked for a few weeks. After making several frantic phone calls to the previous owner and some additional suppliers, I finally locate crickets, worms, and minnows. The cost, including extra shipping, is nearly double what I had paid previously. I reluctantly place an order for next week. What do I do now?
The first thing I do is raise my prices. My present inventory consists of over one thousand crickets that sold previously for $1 a dozen. The new price will have to be $1.75. The hundreds of pounds of night crawlers that used to sell for $2 a tub will now cost $3.50, and the hundreds of dozens of minnows will go up from $1.50 a dozen to $3.25. I change my signs accordingly.
When I arrive to open up for business at 5:30 AM the next morning, three pickup trucks full of my first customers are already waiting in my parking lot. I introduce myself, explaining that I purchased the shop from “Ronnie Redneck,” and excitedly unlock and open the front door to the stampede of fishermen.
What ensues is nothing short of a riot. “Price gouging” cry my prospective customers. “We won’t stand for it,” they protest. “Ronnie didn’t charge us these prices” the say as they stomp out of the front door into the parking lot. What a rude awakening to the retail bait business.
As the trucks bearing the angry fishermen spin their tires out of my gravel lot, I pause to reconsider my pricing policies. Let’s see, I only have about three thousand dollars in the purchase of the live bait that was included with the “Bait Emporium.” But, when I sell what I have, I am looking at paying nearly six thousand dollars to restock my store. And I’m already short on cash after putting $25,000 into the down payment. What do I do now?
Am I guilty of price gouging because I want to sell my existing inventory at prices based on the replacement cost rather than the cost I originally paid for the crickets, worms, and minnows?
OF COURSE NOT. What kind of moron would sell their inventory knowing that at the end of the day they wouldn’t have enough funds to replace it in order to stay in business? It is, after all, a business, not a CHARITY, isn’t it?
Now I will get to my point (with my apologies for making you read my bait shop story.) What is the difference between fish bait, hurricane supplies, gasoline, or flue vaccine?
N-O-T-H-I-N-G, that’s what.
This whole concept of the government stepping into the free market and arresting lawfully licensed, reputable businesspersons for adjusting the pricing of any given commodity (regardless of whether it floats, f**ks, farts, or flys) based on market conditions, is insane.
Just because people “NEED” flue vaccine during our current government produced vaccine shortage or “NEED” plywood after the roof of their house decided to obey the laws of physics and disassemble itself into a pile of kindling in their neighbor’s yard doesn’t mean that anyone has to sell you anything at any price.
I needed 42 gallons of gasoline to fill up the tank on my Chevy Suburban this afternoon, but I settled for $25 worth (about 13 gallons) and I didn't blame the station owner.
I hear that people in Hell want ice water, too. Quick, call the government!
"The Fundamental Test of Leadership..."
This morning’s edition of The Washington Times has a story by Joel Mowbray nailing John Kerry in another exaggeration regarding his foreign policy abilities.
In December 2003 and again in the second debate Kerry stated that, before voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq, he had met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
The problem for Senator Kerry is that the investigations can only find three members of the security council—Cameroon, Singapore, and….drum roll please…FRANCE—that say they talked to Kerry. There is also an unconfirmed rumor that he also met with the British Ambassador.
The other newspapers and the TV news shows haven’t picked up on this story yet, but just watch the press give Pinocchio…er…um, Mr. sKerry another pass on this one just like they did the famous Christmas in Cambodia story (you want that memory lightly “seared” or well done—Mr. Kerry?) and numerous other self aggrandizing exaggerations he has uttered in this campaign.
Kerry has been hanging his hat on “truthfulness” and continuously making assertions that President Bush hasn’t been “truthful with the American People.” He has also called truthfulness “the fundamental test of leadership.” I believe that this story is yet additional proof of how willing he is to bend (or break) the truth to suit his needs.
Senator Bob Dole had the class to resign his seat in the Senate so he could focus on running for President. John Kerry has been absent from the senate for most of twenty years—missing almost the entire session of this past year during his own campaign.
Let’s hope that the voters in Massachusetts have enough sense to add the word “former” in front of the word “Senator” next year…once we get through kicking his ass off of the national stage on November 2nd.
In December 2003 and again in the second debate Kerry stated that, before voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq, he had met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
The problem for Senator Kerry is that the investigations can only find three members of the security council—Cameroon, Singapore, and….drum roll please…FRANCE—that say they talked to Kerry. There is also an unconfirmed rumor that he also met with the British Ambassador.
The other newspapers and the TV news shows haven’t picked up on this story yet, but just watch the press give Pinocchio…er…um, Mr. sKerry another pass on this one just like they did the famous Christmas in Cambodia story (you want that memory lightly “seared” or well done—Mr. Kerry?) and numerous other self aggrandizing exaggerations he has uttered in this campaign.
Kerry has been hanging his hat on “truthfulness” and continuously making assertions that President Bush hasn’t been “truthful with the American People.” He has also called truthfulness “the fundamental test of leadership.” I believe that this story is yet additional proof of how willing he is to bend (or break) the truth to suit his needs.
Senator Bob Dole had the class to resign his seat in the Senate so he could focus on running for President. John Kerry has been absent from the senate for most of twenty years—missing almost the entire session of this past year during his own campaign.
Let’s hope that the voters in Massachusetts have enough sense to add the word “former” in front of the word “Senator” next year…once we get through kicking his ass off of the national stage on November 2nd.
