Amazon.com: Outland: Sean Connery, Peter Boyle, Frances Sternhagen, James Sikking: Amazon Instant Video: What a disappointment. The movie is consciously patterned after High Noon. There is a clock in the background showing the time of the space shuttle's arrival that is supposed to build tension. But what a terrible missed opportunity. What a dispiriting lack of imagination! Most of the original movie was devoted to the Marshall's unsuccessful efforts to get the towns' people to help him. This involves mainly speeches that are full of complicated, sophisticated and specious arguments that are rich and full of overtones for contemporary politics without being in distractingly obvious or partisan. This is almost completely ignored in the Sean Connery version. He merely walks into a dinning hall and says dejectedly "I could use some help." No one answers and he says, "I thought so." As he is walking out someone says, "That's your job, what about your men?" He says, "My men? My men are shit."
That is all. That is all the entire middle of the movie, the heart of the dramatic action is distilled down to. Almost cretinized down to. None of the complicated rationalizations the towns people give. None of the great moral questions vigorously defended on both sides. Nothing. Just a corporate conspiracy. The entire movie is motivated by the fact that it looks really cool when people are exposed to the vacum of space. They clearly spent a lot more time worrying about this special effect. That was my main motivation for seeing it when I was 14. A culture aimed at 14 year olds.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Britain's approach to self defense
File under the decline of civilization:
It Was the Kitchen Knife in the Parlor with Professor Plum… or was it Professor Plum in the Parlor with the Kitchen Knife? | The Gun Tutor: "“The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout ‘Call the Police’ rather than ‘Help.’ Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault.” (3)"
The citizen as bunny. Don't defend yourself; don't come to someone else's defense. Meekly wait for the adults, for the state, to come to your rescue. Are these the same people that fought the Nazi Empire alone for more than a year and a half?
It Was the Kitchen Knife in the Parlor with Professor Plum… or was it Professor Plum in the Parlor with the Kitchen Knife? | The Gun Tutor: "“The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout ‘Call the Police’ rather than ‘Help.’ Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault.” (3)"
The citizen as bunny. Don't defend yourself; don't come to someone else's defense. Meekly wait for the adults, for the state, to come to your rescue. Are these the same people that fought the Nazi Empire alone for more than a year and a half?
Friday, December 28, 2012
Statistical bias from specification error
ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller:
Coulter takes on a study of mass shootings carried out by Mother Jones Magazine that claims to demonstrate that armed citizens never stop mass shootings. The reason, as Coulter makes clear, is that the study's definition of a mass shooting is one that excludes any mass shooting that was successfully stopped by an armed citizen (or armed anyone, for that matter). The Mother Jones study defines mass shootings as cases where four or more people were killed. As it turns out, there are several cases where the assailant clearing intended to kill large numbers of people but was successfully stopped by armed citizens, often merely by pointing the gun at the perpetrator.
Coulter takes on a study of mass shootings carried out by Mother Jones Magazine that claims to demonstrate that armed citizens never stop mass shootings. The reason, as Coulter makes clear, is that the study's definition of a mass shooting is one that excludes any mass shooting that was successfully stopped by an armed citizen (or armed anyone, for that matter). The Mother Jones study defines mass shootings as cases where four or more people were killed. As it turns out, there are several cases where the assailant clearing intended to kill large numbers of people but was successfully stopped by armed citizens, often merely by pointing the gun at the perpetrator.
Statistical bias from specification error
ANN COULTER: We know how to stop school shootings | The Daily Caller:
Coulter takes on a study of mass shootings carried out by Mother Jones Magazine that claims to demonstrate that armed citizens never stop mass shootings. The reason, as Coulter makes clear, is that the study's definition of a mass shooting is one that excludes any mass shooting that was successfully stopped by an armed citizen (or armed anyone, for that matter). The Mother Jones study defines mass shootings as cases where four or more people were killed. As it turns out, there are several cases where the assailant clearing intended to kill large numbers of people but was successfully stopped by armed citizens, often merely by pointing the gun at the perpetrator.
Coulter takes on a study of mass shootings carried out by Mother Jones Magazine that claims to demonstrate that armed citizens never stop mass shootings. The reason, as Coulter makes clear, is that the study's definition of a mass shooting is one that excludes any mass shooting that was successfully stopped by an armed citizen (or armed anyone, for that matter). The Mother Jones study defines mass shootings as cases where four or more people were killed. As it turns out, there are several cases where the assailant clearing intended to kill large numbers of people but was successfully stopped by armed citizens, often merely by pointing the gun at the perpetrator.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Jack Klugman’s secret-Why not make us all Orphans?
Jack Klugman’s secret, lifesaving legacy in the Washington Post details how Klugman used his celebrity as Dr. Quincy to pressure Congress into passing the Orphan Drugs Act which, by lowering the regulatory burden and lowering the cost of clinical trials led to many drugs coming to market including AZT. The story is cast with the Democrats as good guys and a lone Republican Senator, Orrin Hatch, as the bad guy. But the question the article never asks is why, if it is such a good idea to lower regulatory burdens in the case of small market drugs, isn't it a good idea for all drugs? The FDA is focused solely on the dangers of new drugs and never tallies the cost in drugs that are not developed in the first place because of the regulatory burdens they the agency, empowered by its mainly Democratic allies and supporters in Congress, create. How much progress is snuffed out by the FDA's insistence on proof of effectiveness instead of simply safety and the blocking of the use of patient data from real world use by the privacy rules imposed on the use of patient data? If it was such a good idea to get the FDA out of the way in the case of rare diseases why not try it for more common and more deadly diseases? There would be a real lifesaving legacy.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world?
Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world-at least according to the producers at ABC's 20/20.
In fact the experiment they set up is biased toward the result they want the experiment to produce and even at that still doesn't really prove their point.
The producers argue that having concealed carry permit holders will do nothing to stop mass shootings. But part one of their expose does not support their case.
The analysis below is written on the assumption that the read has viewed the segment linked to in the post.
To test the proposition that ordinary citizens will not be able to respond effectively to a mass shooting the producers put 5 ordinary people through a short training course with fire arms. The producers point out that even this is more training than most concealed carry permit holders get (though formal training is not the only thing that might make a difference in how one responds to a mass shooting). They are then put into a classroom where they are told there will be more training but where, in fact, a mass shooting will be staged.
A first question to ask of such experiments is how well they reproduce the actual conditions, the actual causes and effects we are trying to understand. Here the cause is at two causes, mass shootings and the presence of a civilian with minimal training and a concealed weapon, and one effect, the results of mass shootings. In particular, we want to know if the outcomes of mass shootings are better when there is an armed civilian present. Are more innocent people likely to get hurt? Is the shooter more likely to be stopped and apprehended?
Against this we should compare the likely outcomes of doing what the authorities recommend--not confronting the shooter, doing what he says (I am not aware of any female perpetrated mass shootings, though their may be some), and hiding or playing dead.
The first independent variable, the mass shooting, is hard to replicate. Is it really possible to replicate the terror of a mass shooting? No matter how realistic the acting is the person in the experiment must know at some level that they are not really going to be killed. So, even if the person reacts well in the experiment we still cannot be sure that they would have done as well in a real mass shooting. On the other hand, if they fail in the simulation they would presumably, all other things being equal, do even worse in the real event.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that factors might be introduced that would bias the experiment in the other direction, make it less like the real event in ways that make it less likely for the armed citizen to improve the outcome. Here there seem to be several things about the set up that make it seem, well, like a set up.
For one thing, the subjects in the experiment are all put in clothes that seem both unusual and likely to make effective response less likely. They are supposedly in a classroom where they are being taught something about emergency response that involves putting on gloves and a full helmet/face-mask apparatus of some sort. Also, all of the subjects are apparently made to wear a tee-shirt that is both unusually long and tight fitting so that it must be pulled up in order to make the gun available. The gloved hand and the obstructive tee-shirt make drawing the gun rather more difficult. The helmet is also a problem. In addition to being quite unusual--I can't imagine a situation in which college students would be wearing helmets and face-masks in a college classroom--it reinforces what the program later explains is one of the primary reasons untrained citizens are unlikely to be effective in responding to mass-shootings: the tendency of the brain to impose on our perception a kind of tunnel vision in the midsts of crisises. The tunnel vision blinds us to things outside of the threat itself that would otherwise be caught by our peripheral vision. Such as, presumably, innocent bystanders. I have not been able to find part two of the series where the last two subjects are put through the experiment but I am willing to wager that one or both of them ends up hitting an innocent bystander.
But there is another thing that might cut off our peripheral vision--a head covering helmet that has a plastic mask in front for us to see out of. Whether this plays an actual role in the outcome I do not not but if it has any effect at all it could nothing other than to decrease peripheral vision, reinforcing one of the very effects that is said to call for trained professionals only to carry firearms and to make untrained or minimally trained civilians ineffectual or dangerous in a crisis. Given that the only possible effect of the helmets could have would be to bias the experiment in the direction of the results the experimenters are seeking, the introduction of this unusual and unnecessary factor into the experiment can only raise doubts about the competence if not the integrity of the designers of the experiment.
In fact the experiment they set up is biased toward the result they want the experiment to produce and even at that still doesn't really prove their point.
The producers argue that having concealed carry permit holders will do nothing to stop mass shootings. But part one of their expose does not support their case.
The analysis below is written on the assumption that the read has viewed the segment linked to in the post.
To test the proposition that ordinary citizens will not be able to respond effectively to a mass shooting the producers put 5 ordinary people through a short training course with fire arms. The producers point out that even this is more training than most concealed carry permit holders get (though formal training is not the only thing that might make a difference in how one responds to a mass shooting). They are then put into a classroom where they are told there will be more training but where, in fact, a mass shooting will be staged.
A first question to ask of such experiments is how well they reproduce the actual conditions, the actual causes and effects we are trying to understand. Here the cause is at two causes, mass shootings and the presence of a civilian with minimal training and a concealed weapon, and one effect, the results of mass shootings. In particular, we want to know if the outcomes of mass shootings are better when there is an armed civilian present. Are more innocent people likely to get hurt? Is the shooter more likely to be stopped and apprehended?
Against this we should compare the likely outcomes of doing what the authorities recommend--not confronting the shooter, doing what he says (I am not aware of any female perpetrated mass shootings, though their may be some), and hiding or playing dead.
The first independent variable, the mass shooting, is hard to replicate. Is it really possible to replicate the terror of a mass shooting? No matter how realistic the acting is the person in the experiment must know at some level that they are not really going to be killed. So, even if the person reacts well in the experiment we still cannot be sure that they would have done as well in a real mass shooting. On the other hand, if they fail in the simulation they would presumably, all other things being equal, do even worse in the real event.
On the other hand, there is the possibility that factors might be introduced that would bias the experiment in the other direction, make it less like the real event in ways that make it less likely for the armed citizen to improve the outcome. Here there seem to be several things about the set up that make it seem, well, like a set up.
For one thing, the subjects in the experiment are all put in clothes that seem both unusual and likely to make effective response less likely. They are supposedly in a classroom where they are being taught something about emergency response that involves putting on gloves and a full helmet/face-mask apparatus of some sort. Also, all of the subjects are apparently made to wear a tee-shirt that is both unusually long and tight fitting so that it must be pulled up in order to make the gun available. The gloved hand and the obstructive tee-shirt make drawing the gun rather more difficult. The helmet is also a problem. In addition to being quite unusual--I can't imagine a situation in which college students would be wearing helmets and face-masks in a college classroom--it reinforces what the program later explains is one of the primary reasons untrained citizens are unlikely to be effective in responding to mass-shootings: the tendency of the brain to impose on our perception a kind of tunnel vision in the midsts of crisises. The tunnel vision blinds us to things outside of the threat itself that would otherwise be caught by our peripheral vision. Such as, presumably, innocent bystanders. I have not been able to find part two of the series where the last two subjects are put through the experiment but I am willing to wager that one or both of them ends up hitting an innocent bystander.
But there is another thing that might cut off our peripheral vision--a head covering helmet that has a plastic mask in front for us to see out of. Whether this plays an actual role in the outcome I do not not but if it has any effect at all it could nothing other than to decrease peripheral vision, reinforcing one of the very effects that is said to call for trained professionals only to carry firearms and to make untrained or minimally trained civilians ineffectual or dangerous in a crisis. Given that the only possible effect of the helmets could have would be to bias the experiment in the direction of the results the experimenters are seeking, the introduction of this unusual and unnecessary factor into the experiment can only raise doubts about the competence if not the integrity of the designers of the experiment.
Monday, December 17, 2012
Debate on Marriage
Here is a debate on the government's role in promoting marriage from the Economist. It seems as if the pro-marriage side is losing ground.
A Teachable Moment on the Nature of the UN
Crovitz reports in the WSJ on the victory of internet censorship in the UN. National governments have now won UN sanction, by a strong majority vote, to control the internet and censor it within their own countries. Of course, they had that authority already, but now it will be made easier with the technical support and moral sanction of the UN. A coalition of Authoritarian states led by Russia and China with unanimous backing of the Arabs and other dictatorships easily defeated the free nations of the world.
This calls to mind an argument that I have had many times over the years with my liberal friends who see the UN as a force for human freedom and progress that represents the conscience of mankind. It does not. It represents the governments of mankind and a solid majority of those governments see freedom as a threat, not a goal. The UN is a danger to freedom, not a support. Perhaps this intrusion by the dictator-dominated international bureaucracy into something that young people really understand and value, the free internet, will open the eyes of some.
This calls to mind an argument that I have had many times over the years with my liberal friends who see the UN as a force for human freedom and progress that represents the conscience of mankind. It does not. It represents the governments of mankind and a solid majority of those governments see freedom as a threat, not a goal. The UN is a danger to freedom, not a support. Perhaps this intrusion by the dictator-dominated international bureaucracy into something that young people really understand and value, the free internet, will open the eyes of some.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
What Can We Do to Stop Massacres? - Jeffrey Goldberg - The Atlantic
What Can We Do to Stop Massacres? - Jeffrey Goldberg - The Atlantic: "To talk about eradicating guns, especially given what the Supreme Court has said about the individual right to gun-ownership, is futile."
It is a rather minor point in all of this, but I find it dispiriting when ever someone speaks of a constitutional right this way, that we have it because the Supreme Court says we have it. We have it because the Constitution says we have it. We are so willing to give up our rights to the sufferance of elites and their interpretations. We do not have the right because of their interpretation of the text, but because of the text.
It is a rather minor point in all of this, but I find it dispiriting when ever someone speaks of a constitutional right this way, that we have it because the Supreme Court says we have it. We have it because the Constitution says we have it. We are so willing to give up our rights to the sufferance of elites and their interpretations. We do not have the right because of their interpretation of the text, but because of the text.
Strange days
In the days of the Founding Fathers it was thought natural that citizens should be armed but the state defenseless. Now we seem to hold the opposite opinion. Citizens are to be defenseless while the smallest city's police force should be able to produce paramilitaries at a moment's notice.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Pizza Shack - Jackson, MS
Pizza Shack - Jackson, MS: This is the Yelp page for the Old Canton Road location. So far my favorite restaurant has a good reputation.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
and a belated congratulations to general filth...
It wasn't just the mud and snow that defeated Napoleon in Russia. It was also lice. The state of the Russian countryside was so backward and filthy that the soldiers and pack animals fell victim to the diseases and disorders of poor hygiene.
The effect of high taxes
Here is why we should worry about taxing the rich:
But the article also goes on to note that we are taxing ordinary consumption and labor at near European levels and may soon have European levels of work effort as a consequence. We are also depressing productivity by protecting inefficient producers.
Entrepreneurship is much lower in Europe, suggesting that high tax rates and poorly designed regulation discourage new business creation. The Economist reports that between 1976 and 2007 only one continental European startup, Norway's Renewable Energy Corporation, achieved a level of success comparable to that of Microsoft, Apple and other U.S. giants making the Financial Times Index of the world's 500 largest companies.
But the article also goes on to note that we are taxing ordinary consumption and labor at near European levels and may soon have European levels of work effort as a consequence. We are also depressing productivity by protecting inefficient producers.
Sunday, December 09, 2012
Sex differences innate?
I never doubted it, but here is more evidence in an informatively titled article by Christina Hoff Summers, "You Can Give a Boy a Doll, but You Can't Make Him Play With It."
One of my favorite bits:
One of my favorite bits:
The female preference for nurturing play and the male propensity for rough-and-tumble hold cross-culturally and even cross-species (with a few exceptions—female spotted hyenas seem to be at least as aggressive as males).I think that is interesting. The exceptions seem to be animals that we instinctively do not like, that we are inclined to see as reflecting some morally blameworthy quality. Of course, my impression of hyenas may be as distorted by inaccurate stereotypes as some maintain our culture's view of sexual differences are, and it may even not make sense to speak of animals as having moral behavior at all, but we associate hyenas with selfishness, opportunism, disloyalty and even cowardice. Is it, perhaps, no accident? If hyenas really are amoral creatures, really do have those character traits which popular myth ascribes to them, then I speculate that this amorality is related to their lack of sexual differences. Social animals that have no differences in abilities or inclinations have little to bind them together. They have little reason to for them to form long term bonds. They have few 'gains of trade' in Becker's sense. In a species where the sexes are no different from one another, the sexes are not bound to one another. In a species where the members are not bound to one another, there is little occasion for the qualities of self-sacrifice and loyalty that are the starting point for the qualities we call "moral".
Tuesday, December 04, 2012
Churchill's Neatness
Something I did not know.
The short article remarks on his sartorial neatness, which might be mainly a function of having a butler, but it also talks about how he keeps his desk neat, which I think might reflect something deeper. The great productivity of Churchill's life seems to have been due to great powers of concentration and the ability to focus on only one task at a time. The ability to do that seems to have a great deal to do with reducing clutter so that other things and matters are not continually intruding on whatever task is one's main focus at the moment. If so, compulsively straightening the papers on one's desk might be part of a larger pattern of behavior that helps one to concentrate and tune out superfluous matters.
The short article remarks on his sartorial neatness, which might be mainly a function of having a butler, but it also talks about how he keeps his desk neat, which I think might reflect something deeper. The great productivity of Churchill's life seems to have been due to great powers of concentration and the ability to focus on only one task at a time. The ability to do that seems to have a great deal to do with reducing clutter so that other things and matters are not continually intruding on whatever task is one's main focus at the moment. If so, compulsively straightening the papers on one's desk might be part of a larger pattern of behavior that helps one to concentrate and tune out superfluous matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)