Layman's Logic

Hell, so I quoted it all. It's great. And one to play later...


"I have these friends who really ought to get married. Sure, they have a good thing going right now and you shouldn't mess with a good thing, but you can just see it from the two of them they ought to tie the knot and all that crap;

Okay, so she is waiting for the proposal. But no proposals yet.

My suggestion to her was to get a ring from a pawnshop for really cheap. Then, get him completely wasted off his axis. Soak his brain to the point that even his handheld GPS lights up with "WORLD OF HURT" on the display.

Then, in the morning as he tries desperately to remember a hangover cure and fumbles with the child-safe aspirin bottle, show off the ring to him the next morning as loud as you can:

"Oh, I can't wait to show everybody this at work today! All the planning that's got to be done, I'd better call my mom and my sisters again..."

Okay, so I know the guy pretty well, and he'll try to protest and say something, but here's the deal: don't let him! Don't let him say a damned thing by engaging in some maxed-out carnal practice that makes it impossible for the mail brain to engage in serious conversation. Peg the needles at 10, hold nothing back. Run up and down that flagpole for all it's worth! Get his reptilian brain in charge of the whole meatworks between his ears like a crocodile leaping out of the river and snagging a monkey by the leg! Tuck, f--k, or suck that thing so hard, he lauches your future grandchildren for crying out loud!

No mercy! Leave the boy a gasping, spent pile of sweat.

Then, after it's all done, just turn over (or get up off your knees, whatever) and say "Just think of how much better I'd have done that if you'd really proposed to me."

UPDATE:
Now that I look this over, I find it to be horribly offensive and sexist. In fact, I'm surprised that the NOW aren't throwing nasty notes and bricks at me by now. But then I remember: they throw like girls."

This may explain a few nights out. Someone started on this plan, changed their mind, and left me bleeding by the curb...

protein wisdom has the most direct take on what's arguably the most racist bilge pumped out by the anti-Semite Middle East press recently. They just post up the immediate quote of what's said. Their picture doesn't work on that link, so look at it here:



Here's the complete transcript of something that broadcast on what is, basically, state-controlled television.

Libertarian Samizdata seem to misunderstand Kant (on my suimplistic reading): "According to altruism ANY desire, ANY benefit, ANY positive evaluation in this life or even the next, if Kant is to be believed, is immoral"

But IK said (e.g.) "Treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end in itself and not only as a means". Ergo, that's not what Kant thought. It's OK to have one's own interests in mind. Just don't treat people as "tools".

With reference to my earlier posts about the relative death rates of Israelis and Palestinians (which Natalie Solent wants people to check out), there are a lot of ways the numbers can be cast. But I don't think that anyone's going to come out with anything very different (possibly one or two per 100,000, but nothing major on the same assumptions).


The major possible disagreements are
1) grossing up to 12 month totals (doesn't affect relative rates)]
2) assuming no non-Jewish casualties of suicide bombings
3) treating the Israeli Arab population (or, rather, cited Muslim/Palestinian numbers (rather vague)) as being part of the "affected" population for deaths of Palestinians
4) not trying to extend the data series past the 7th of May
5) not checking that the data series covered exactly the same periods.


I think that's it, but each of those will impact on the numbers or ratios.

[Updated: I'm adding possibilities as I think of them]

There are two things I'd like to say: "get in" and "centurion"


Yes, I'm enoying football, cricket and drinking games. Why do you ask?

Who needs to know more about World Series Poker than this:

"Amarillo Slim once beat Bobby Riggs in Ping-Pong using a skillet. He whipped Evel Knievel in golf using a hammer. He beat Minnesota Fats in pool using a broom.

So when the 73-year-old Slim tells you he can win the World Series of Poker championship event one last time, you might want to start making out the $1.5 million first-place check. "If I tell you a goose can pull a plow," he says, "hitch him up." Care to bet against him?

This is the gambler who won $1,000 stepping over a live alligator's back; won a golf match with a bow and arrow instead of clubs and a ball; won a $30,000 bet by producing a fella who could eat 30 quail in 30 days. (The "fella" happened to be identical twins.) "

I gotta get me an empty golf-course and a bow and arrow...

Anecdotes about Kim Il Sung:

" It was in November of Juche 63 (1974). One day during his on-site guidance to various fields of the national economy in Jagang Province, he attended a meeting of officials in the province.
The meeting was closed at 3 o'clock p.m. the officials were about to take him to a lodging house.
He said he heard that there would be a commendation ceremony after the meeting and that he would participate in the ceremony for commending those workers who worked hard. Then he went to the place of ceremony.
The officials, embarrassed to delay his lunch, called only the name of the winners of commendation to conclude the ceremony earlier than the schedule.
But the president said that their shop and position should be mentioned.
The ceremony was over at 5 o'clock p.m. and the other schedule of on-site guidance gave him no time to take a lunch.
But with a bright smile on his face he said he was satisfied though he took no food. "

That's probably the best of the bunch. I bet it makes his starving people feel just peachy.

I don't know if John Derbyshire's claims are right about whether the US would intervene to stop any genuine attempt at "popular" revolution in the Middle East. It certainly props up regimes it views as less undesirable than alternatives. And his other speculation may be way off base. But I do love this label for a certain archetype: "President-for-Life Klepto Thuggo"

:: how jedi are you? ::

Borrowing from The Edge of England's Sword (the cutting edge of support...), I'd just like to get this up now...




[sure, it's naughty just to borrow. But if the "World Flag Database" isn't meant to be used in this way, what site is?]

Now that's funny:


"Disgraceful spectacle

The disgraceful spectacle of sports has become an abomination unto civilization! Sports has become nothing more than an opportunity for the rabble to get drunk and unleash their infantile passions and hysteria. The players are no better, they have the emotional self-control of children, which is to say they have no control at all. When a child throws a tantrum it is merely annoying — when a grown man throws a tantrum, it is a painfully embarrassing thing to watch.

The drunken mob and the emotionally unstable players are well met, which would be fine if these two schools of primitive thought and conduct would confine their pointless noise and mayhem to the stadium, and allow those with a higher purpose in life to go about their constructive affairs. Instead, the fans are allowed to wander the streets like mischievous goblins sowing death and destruction in their path, while the players are allowed the freedom to bite the ears off of people and cut their wives’ throats.

Before England became a somewhat civilized country, the citizens found great amusement in going to the insane asylum at Bedlam and laughing at the antics of their favorite lunatic. Similarly, in America, the people have found the tragic life of Mike Tyson a source of great fun for the whole family, and watching the mentally tortured lunatic fight will be the most profitable media event since Sept. 11. Many people think that their race, religion, culture and country are somehow represented by the simple, childish game of soccer. How can a children’s game possibly represent the higher concepts of civilization? That’s like saying a monkey represents the great philosophers.



Steve Cocoran, Abqaiq published 13 June 2002 "

I'm shocked. A bunch of terrorist are "all Saudis". The only vague surprise is that Arabnews.com admits it. It will be interesting to see what the shariah punishment will be...

More demographic maths... The Population Resource Center gives the population of the Palestinian Territories as 3.3m, and that of Israeli Arabs as 1m. Let's add those together, for a total Palestinian population of 4.3m. Clearly, the 1321 deaths will be a higher proportion of the population: 46 per 100,000 (1321/43 *12/8).

However, if we take their under 15 population as being about 45% in 2000 (this is a rough reading of the graph at the linked page: it looks to be about 18% 0-4, 15% 5-9 and 13% 10-14), then we can derive a mortality rate for Palestinian children. A rate that's 12 per 100,000 (155/43*0.45 *12/8) .


And now, we can get to the right relative rates. Children under 15: 31 Jews per 100,000 per year vs 12 Palestinians. Women*: 9.8 Jews per 100,000 per year vs 4.6 Palestinians. And therefore a Jewish child is two and a half times as likely to die as his Arab neighbour, and it's mother twice as likely.

The raw calculus of death is a very blunt tool. But it's a wonderful counter to perceptions based on impressionistic reportage rather than looking at the figures that each side puts forward.








* Workings, on assumption that under 15s aren't included in the data I've been fed, and that women make up half of the relevant populations.

Israel - 126/(64.6 * 0.813 * (1-0.269) * 0.5) * 12/8 = 9.8 per 100,000
Palestinians - 37/(43 * (1-0.45) * 0.5) *12/8 = 4.69 per 100,000





UpdateAddendum: if you're going to look at these figures in more depth, then please note: I don't vouch for the total population figures I've linked to. Nor have I followed the links to check the original citings on the death numbers. I'm willing to trust the original author. If you don't, please let me know if anything "odd" turns up. But I'm happy that these numbers work out within reasonable rounding margins.

This isn't meant to be carping. However, the numbers that The American Kaiser has pulled out about the relative rates of deaths of Israelis and Palestinians just doesn't add up.


His point, based on figures released by a Palestinian organisation and by the Israeli government, is that, though more Palestinians have died that Israelis, contrary to popular perception, rather more Israeli women and children have been killed in the current Intafada.

"According to Jerusalem Media & Communications Center, a Palestinian research organization (which isn't too keen on Israel), 37 Palestinian women were killed between September 30, 2000 and May 7, 2002. This is 2.8% of all Palestinians killed in that period. During the identical period, according to figures issued by Israel's Foreign Ministry, 126 Israeli women were murdered by Palestinians. In other words, 25% of the total Israelis murdered were innocent women. Another Palestinian research group, the Palestinian Monitor, recorded that 11.7% of those killed were children under the age of 15. 57.7% of all Israelis killed were under age 15. In other words, nine Israeli women were murdered for every Palestinian woman, and five Israeli children for every Palestinian child."


However, I think that the claims that the relative rates are overstated. And I think that if these are overstated, it has an unfortunate impact on the credibility of the the "real" numbers, which make just the same point. On with the demonstration.

Nine Israeli women haven't been killed for every one Palestinian woman. 126/37 = 3.4 times as many dead Israeli women.

Similarly for children. If 126 = 25% of all Israeli deaths, then the total number is 504. 57.7% of 504 is 291 Israeli children (a shockingly high figure).

We can also calculate the total number of Palestinian deaths. 37 * 100/2.8 = 1321 total. 11.7% of 1321 is 155 dead Palestinian children. Therefore 291/155 is 1.9 times as many dead Israeli children.

I'm not sure what the right phrase is to convey the message Justin was looking for : it won't be in terms of "rates" unless the Palestinian population is roughly three times that of Israel. Israel's 2000 population was circa 5,955,000, and I doubt that Palestine's was 15m (I've seen 3m cited, which would make the two rates pretty similar).

So. Contrary to popular perception, the relative numbers of Israeli and Palestinian women and children killed are very different to what might be expected. Indeed, the high rate of children killed seems staggering, even given the number of incidents involving family gatherings, pizza parlours, ice cream stores, etc. The rates per 100,000 of population are probably staggering as well. On the basis of the Israeli population figure I noted, the death rate (on a 12 month basis) is 12.6 per 100,000 (504/59.95 * 12/8 : the actual rate is 8.4). That's around double the death rate on British roads. And that's based on the whole population, not just Jews (whose effective mortality rate must be much higher).

In fact, let's look into this in some more depth. According to a site with a nifty demographics table, the Israeli population is 6.46m (2001 figures), and 81.3% Jewish. Assume (big assumption, but probably reasonably valid) that all deaths have fallen on that population. Then the accurate rate is 14.4 per 100,000 (504/(64.6*0.813) * 12/8).


Move to an age based comparison, and the figures get worse. I can only get an age-breakdown for 1996, and only for aged 14 and under (perhaps that's the same as "under 15": I can never get "less than" and "less than or equal to" straight). The trend line was a slow decline in the percentage of the Jewish population fitting this description. But let's assume the 1996 percentage, 26.95 applies. Then the death rate from this barbarism is 31 per 100,000 (291/(64.6*0.813*0.269) *12/8). I've rounded up a touch, to avoid too much spurious accuracy. But that's absolutely staggering.

Perhaps the Palestinian death rate among children is also staggering. But this would seem to give the lie to the much-peddled presumption that Palestinian children are the main casualties of this conflict.



UpdateAddendum: if you're going to look at these figures in more depth, then please note: I don't vouch for the total population figures I've linked to. Nor have I followed the links to check the original citings on the death numbers. I'm willing to trust the original author. If you don't, please let me know if anything "odd" turns up. But I'm happy that these numbers work out within reasonable rounding margins.

SimilarMinds.com Compatibility Test

Your match with Iain Murray you are 72% similar you are 70% complementary

How Compatible are You with me?

As a letter in the Times today said: sic transit gloria Monday...

I *really* shouldn't be posting this: I've got a tax exam in less than twenty four hours. On the other hand, I love logical distinctions...

Sasha Volokh argues that the armchair economist, Steven Landsberg, (author of a great book of that name), is wrong about what governments should do.

The court decision that prompted the dispute was a ruling that the government doesn't have to pay compensation when they deprive people of property rights. The justification was, if the government had to compensate individuals, they'd never legislate as the price would bee too high. Landsberg argues that if the price of compensation's too high, then government shouldn't be acting: someone has to bear the costs, and if it's not the government, it's the individual.

Volokh argues that this rests on a hidden assumption: that the government will make rational choices. But if some individuals have disproportionate influence over the government (let's call them "the rich") and also pay most of the bills (see how useful that label was?), then they might prevent decisions which would be of overall benefit to society. Thus a world with compensation for government action might end up with too little regulation, just as a world without may end up with too much.

But this is missing an important distinction. If the cost of government compensation is too high, then the cost of the proposed activity is too high. But if the cost is higher than the government (/the taxpayers) wish to pay, it may still make sense for society as a whole.

Volokh gives an example, which may prove illustrative: "This connects with the debate over whether government employees should get immunity from suit for injuries they cause while discharging their official duties -- would we still pay for police protection of poor, crime-ridden areas if we had to pay, through taxes, for all the injuries caused by the police?"

If the costs of providing compensation would outweigh the benefits to society as a whole, then perhaps the activity's a mistake. Real world, I doubt there's much constituency for cutting back on policing of poor neighbourhoods. But the disputes about the tactics of some New York police (e.g.) suggests that there's a level of "hard-nosed" law enforcement where compensation payments may outweigh the marginal benefits of certain policing techniques. And that's the case whether or not the government really does have to pay compensation.

Conversely, if there's a genuine social good, which, because of the spread of benefits (mostly accruing in Hell's Kitchen or wherever) vs costs (being paid by the Park Avenue crowd) means that compensation would lead to less than the socially ideal level of provision then, in effect, the government should "tax" those harmed by the police by not compensating them. At least, if those benefits genuinely are worthwhile, and the political barriers are insurmountable, that would seem the way out.

So, if you take into account the two issues (what's it worth the government doing on a cost-benefit basis, vs what can you get funding for), then it seems the government should do everything that is of genuine benefit, and compensate in all cases where it's politically sustainable. Those instances that fall through the cracks of the "compensation culture" would encourage over-regulation. But if the price has to fall on someone for the benefit of "everyone", why shouldn't they get shown the money?

I'm sure I'm not the only one to have worked with this guy before. Though not at my current work-place, strangely enough.

Little comment necessary: the 2001 Darwin Awards are out.

"The Darwin Awards
2001 Winners

THINK BEFORE YOU LEAP
"He who hesitates... lives!"
July 2001, Idaho | His brakes failed while driving down a steep mountain
road, so Marco bailed out on his eight passengers and leapt from his Dodge
van. Too bad Marco didn't alert the others to the problem before he took
flight so precipitously. Another passenger pulled the hand brake, bringing
the vehicle to a stop a short distance away. Marco struck his head on the
pavement and died at the scene. No one else was injured.

South Idaho Press

INTERSECTING DARWINS
"Two wrongs do make a right!"
April 2001, Tennessee | One day before the US tax filing deadline, a
Memphis Darwin Award winner trying to beat a train drove around the
crossing gates -- only to be struck by an oncoming vehicle whose driver
had the same mad plan. The driver of the first vehicle was killed, making
this monumental stupidity the first instance we have witnessed of a Darwin
Award winner crashing into an Honorable Mention. The accident happened to
one side of the tracks, so the train passed by unimpeded.

Memphis Commercial Appeal

CRYSTAL DAZE
"Darwin and Newton share a laugh."
Mexico is home to two hot caverns containing the largest natural crystals
known to man. "Walking into either of these caves is like stepping into a
(sweltering) gigantic geode," described one awed observer. Some of the
translucent selenite crystals are over 20 feet long. The newly-discovered
caverns, 1200 feet below Chihuahua, carry a curse for those who seek to
plunder their riches. A man recently tried to steal one of the magnificent
crystals from the roof, and might have succeeded... if he hadn't stood
directly beneath it while chopping it free. He was crushed by the
stalactite as it heeded the call of gravity.

Reference: Discovery (Channel) News

--------------------------------------------+---+-+---+-+-+-+-+
YOUR ENGLISH ASSIGNMENT: To either write (1) A Personal Account
of Nearly Tragic Stupidity, or (2) Describe your opinion and reasons
why WEBSENSE should not block the Darwin Awards, OR (3) write a book
review. Everyone who writes an English Paper gets a free DarwinFish
and Coffee Mug! Submit: http://www.DarwinAwards.com/misc/email.html
--------------------------------------------+---+-+---+-+-+-+-+

The Honorable Mentions (a tiny division of the Darwin Awards)
2001 Winners

SOBRIETY TEST -- Unconfirmed HM
May 2001 | In a poorly judged attempt to convince his wife he was sober
enough to drive, a 29-year-old husband pulled up to a State Police
barracks in his pickup truck, parked illegally, and demanded a sobriety
check. He failed the Breathalyzer test and was taken into custody.
"Basically," an amused Sergeant Paul Slevinski explained, "his wife won
the argument."

Southampton Press

TIED TO HIS WORK -- Confirmed HM
January 2001, Florida | A 24-year-old construction worker tied himself to
a piece of scaffolding for safety while working on the 4th floor of the
county jail annex. Forgetting he was attached to the metal, he tossed it
to the ground, and was carried along for the ride. He landed on the
scaffolding, which pierced both legs. He was treated for his injuries at
Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, and hopefully counseled on the
use of his most important safety tool: his brain.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune


Copyright 2002 by Wendy Northcutt
* Please do not remove the copyright notice!
* Please do share this newsletter with your friends! *"

So I did. Go see the site.

10:00 AM posted by The Philosophical Cowboy