The Binary Circumstance

Trey Givens on statistics.

I remember so clearly from the early 80’s in San Francisco when AIDS was beginning to appear. All the “experts” said that everybody who was HIV+ would probably die within a year. I insisted that there would be people who were genetically resistant to HIV would never get sick from it. This was based on evolutionary history which the “experts” conveniently disregarded.

As it turned out, the original statistics were based on skewed samples. The only people in the sample were people who were getting sick. There many many more people who were HIV+ who were not getting sick and not being counted in the sample.

My other prediction also came true. We now know that there are people with a genetic mutation that prevents HIV from getting into the t-cells. They can get infected but it doesn’t damage their immune system.

So if these people were included in the early studies, they were told there was a probability that they would be sick in a certain amount of time because that’s what happened to the “population.” The problem is that for such people the probability of their getting sick was ZERO from the very beginning.

They were made to worry over nothing. There were some people in the early days that committed suicide when they found out they were HIV+ because they were given such a fatalistic picture by the experts.

Statistics, when misunderstood, can be fatal.

From The Seattle Times:

A solid majority of Iraqis support an immediate pullout of U.S. troops even in the face of greater danger, and only one in three now believe that the U.S.-led occupation is doing more good than harm, according to a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll.

The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look to date at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April, before current hostilities in Fallujah and Najaf. Nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group were included. The margin of error was plus or minus two percentage points.

[…]

Bearing the brunt of ill feeling: U.S. troops. They are viewed as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for Iraq’s people, religion and traditions.

The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If Kurds, who make up about 13 percent of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in some cases. Attacks against U.S.-trained Iraqi police officers are strongly condemned.

Unfortunately, the online edition of this article doesn’t contain the graphs.

A USA Today article, which is almost identical, links to a chart of the poll results.

Particularly troubling for U.S. troops is that 71% of the Iraqis surveyed see Coalition forces as “occupiers” and only 19% see them as liberators. 29% say that U.S. forces have conducted themselves “very badly,” and another 29% say they have conducted themselves “fairly badly.” That means that 58% have a negative impression of how U.S. forces conduct themselves.

I encourage you to read the entire article and look at the charts yourself. The numbers are broken down by ethnic groups, which show that the Kurds have a far more favorable impression of U.S. actions than other groups. They also demonstrate the importance that Arab satellite networks are playing in influencing the perceptions of the Iraqi people.

One of the problems that I have always had with this war was the idea that American’s should risk their lives fighting to “liberate” those who are not willing to fight for their own freedom. To question #17, “Would Saddam Hussein have been removed from power by Iraqis if US/British forces had not taken direct military action?” only 4% answered “yes,” while 89% answered “no.”

To the same question, the Kurds responded as follows: 1% answered “yes,” while 98% answered “no.”

That might explain why more Kurds (97%) see U.S. forces are “liberators” compared to the overall response of 19%.

The Agitator, Radley Balko, says that he’s had problems with mice but that hasn’t stopped him from eating.

Frankly, I’m willing to tolerate the occasional rat or mouse citing if it means I have more restaurants to choose from. Hell, I’ve caught two mice in my own apartment in the last three months, and I still eat food I prepare in my kitchen.

He should think about getting a cat. And come to think about it maybe restaurants should get cats, too. At least as a way to keep mice and rats away.

This is in the context of an excellent post about health departments and regulations and how the whole system would probably work better if health inspections were privatized.

If we didn’t have city and state bulding, fire, food safety, and various other inspection agencies, it’s a near-certainty that private inspection services would spring up to fill the void. Diners could then look for the seal of approval from their preferred private inspection agency in the same way we now use Zagat.

In fact, I’d submit that such a system would make restaurants cleaner and safer than the current system. If I’m running a private inspection agency, and the restaurant I give a gold star to serves up a batch of bad meat two weeks later, my reputation as a trustworthy seal of approval takes a hit. I’m going to make certain then, that any spot displaying my seal damn-well earns it. Since government inspectors tend to be the only game in town, there’s little of the same competitive incentive to be sure the restaurants they approve really pass muster.

I can see the ad now: AAA CATch Your Mouse Agency: Keeping Your Home or Restaurant Free of Rodents.

MEOW!

Brazil has just won a preliminary ruling against the subsidies that the U.S. pays to agricultural special interests. From the New York Times [reg. required].

Brazil won a preliminary ruling at the World Trade Organization on Monday night that could force the United States to lower the subsidies it pays farmers to grow cotton and, eventually, most subsidized crops.

The decision supports Brazil’s contention that the subsidies paid to American cotton farmers violate international trade rules. A final ruling against the United States could lead to stiff penalties if it fails to change its practices. In another recent case involving steel, President Bush chose to remove subsidies and therefore did not have to face the penalties.

The ruling also puts the Bush administration in a tight bind in an election year, when Republicans are counting on support from the Farm Belt. The largest American farmers have grown dependent on the $19 billion they receive in annual subsidies.

It’s not just the U.S. that uses anti-competitive subsidies to the detriminent of free markets.

The $300 billion in annual farm subsidies and supports paid by the world’s wealthiest nations have been the bane of Third World farmers. The United Nations, the World Bank and charities like Oxfam have said their elimination or reduction would provide the single biggest possible benefit for the economies of poor countries with many subsistence farmers.

For all his rhetoric about the importance of freedom and free markets, Bush has increased subsidies to agribusiness.

Bush championed and signed the politically expedient but economically foolish U.S. farm bill before the 2002 mid-term elections. This legislation, favored by farm state Republicans and Democrats, increased federal subsidies by more than 80 percent. These subsidies are not aid to family farmers. They are mainly corporate welfare for agribusiness. Three quarters of the funds — at least $82 billion over 10 years — will go to only 10 percent of American producers, primarily the largest commercial farmers. Bush is using a technicality to hammer European perfidy and obscure his own. Bush called for the elimination of export subsidies, a popular and damaging European device much in need of revision, but failed to mention American production subsidies and price supports, which encourage U.S. farmers to overproduce and dump excess supply on the world market. [emphasis mine]

President Bush has greatly increased the size of government and run up a huge deficit during his first term in office. Billions of dollars are being sucked out of the pockets of American taxpayers and into corporate coffers; the war in Iraq and the subsidies to agribusiness are just two of the most glaring examples.

Actions speak louder than words. For all his rhetoric about the horrors of big government and the glories of free, competitive markets, the fact is that the Bush administration’s actions are pro big government and anti-competitive. Therefore, they are also anti-freedom.

Even more pathetic, the Democrats have little or nothing to offer as an alternative.

UPDATE 4/28/2004: The New York Times [reg. req.] had an editorial about this today. While I disagree with their basic premise that farm subsidies should be removed to benefit developing countries, I do agree that they are a violation of free trade, which is a violation of every individual’s right to choose his own values. Subsidies are distortions in the market to benefit those who receive the subsidies, financed with stolen money (taxes).

America’s lavish handouts to its farmers harvest poverty throughout the developing world. And they are illegal as well. That’s the conclusion of a World Trade Organization panel that heard Brazil’s challenge to the cotton subsidies that belie this nation’s commitment to free and fair trade.