While the FBI will not charge Hillary Clinton for putting classified material on her private email server, Congressional Republicans are responding. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has apparently asked that Mrs Clinton not receive any classified information during the campaign. And Senators (presumably all Republican) have introduced a bill to prohibit any Federal officer or employee who has been reless with classified material from keeping a security clearance. Obviously targeted at Hillary Clinton, it would be interesting if they passed the law and it denied her a security clearance as President.
However, Congress should take care, members of Congress have actively disclosed classified material in the past, more serious than just being reless. Many in the intelligence community would welcome revoking Congressional security clearances.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
The cost of presidential elections
I've been reading Big Money by Kenneth P. Vogel. The book talks about the rise of Super PACs and big money in politics.
I'll start by saying big money has always been around in politics, and it doesn't always help. I was in Minnesota in 1982 when Mark Dayton ran for US Senate, spending $7 million of his own money (a record for any senate campaign at the time) and losing.
What struck me is thinking about the cost per vote of an election. A total of $7 billion was spent by he candidates, parties, and other grups in the 2012 presidential election. So what is the cost per vote?
About 127 million votes were cast. This means a over $50.00 was spent per vote cast, quite a sum. However, since most votes are pre-determined before the election (a large number of voters automatically vote for their party of choice and aren't going to cross party lines) so the real cost per vote must consider the number of votes which might be swayed. This also includes the number of people are convinced to go vote who wouldn't otherwise vote, along with the number who are convinced not to vote who might otherwise vote (this being money spent by the other side to "inhibit" a vote).
My guess is that, barring a candidate with extreme charisma (e.g. Ronald Reagan getting working class democratic votes) at most 10% of voters are subject to persuasion. So this implies that roughly 10-12 million voters are the target of all the political advertising, recorded phone calls, etc.
Given this smaller number, for a major party candidate, the actual cost per vote of a presidential election is more on the order of $500.
I'll start by saying big money has always been around in politics, and it doesn't always help. I was in Minnesota in 1982 when Mark Dayton ran for US Senate, spending $7 million of his own money (a record for any senate campaign at the time) and losing.
What struck me is thinking about the cost per vote of an election. A total of $7 billion was spent by he candidates, parties, and other grups in the 2012 presidential election. So what is the cost per vote?
About 127 million votes were cast. This means a over $50.00 was spent per vote cast, quite a sum. However, since most votes are pre-determined before the election (a large number of voters automatically vote for their party of choice and aren't going to cross party lines) so the real cost per vote must consider the number of votes which might be swayed. This also includes the number of people are convinced to go vote who wouldn't otherwise vote, along with the number who are convinced not to vote who might otherwise vote (this being money spent by the other side to "inhibit" a vote).
My guess is that, barring a candidate with extreme charisma (e.g. Ronald Reagan getting working class democratic votes) at most 10% of voters are subject to persuasion. So this implies that roughly 10-12 million voters are the target of all the political advertising, recorded phone calls, etc.
Given this smaller number, for a major party candidate, the actual cost per vote of a presidential election is more on the order of $500.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
The Theranos promise of finger prick blood tests -- fact or fiction?
The New York Times reports: Elizabeth Holmes, Founder of Theranos, Falls From Highest Perch Off Forbes List.
I've been seeing articles on Ms Holmes for the last year or so. She claims to have technology which allows blood tests using a finger prick of blood rather than multiple vials. She dropped out of college to start a company to develop her new technology. The company is one of the "unicorns" often talked about -- private startup companies valued at over a billion dollars.
For the last 6 months the company has come under criticism and has had a lot of bad press. There are claims that the company's tests are inaccurate and that they are using conventional blood testing machinery for many of the tests. On the business side the company board of directors apparently doesn't include medical experts.
So is Theranos a scam? A new technology which didn't pan out? The company hasn't provided peer reviewed data on its technology, and the reports so far indicate that at the very least they are having trouble getting the product to market, not unexpected for a new technology.
Yet there is another aspect to this story. There are several very large players (existing labs, existing producers of blood testing equipment) who stand to lose a lot if Theranos' technology pans out. All of medicine is also highly regulated. Regulatory agencies are not known for their flexibility or acceptance of anything new. So the question arises -- how big is the real problem at Theranos and how much of the problem is the inability of regulatory agencies to deal with change?
Time will tell. My feeling right now is that Elizabeth Holmes really did have a new technology but that it's hit some snags (or doesn't work well enough). Investors have put $700 million into the company and they'll probably have a hard time raising more money, especially with the bad press. Hopefully we won't lose a promising new technology to bureaucratic incompetence or lack of funding to deal with unexpected problems.
I've been seeing articles on Ms Holmes for the last year or so. She claims to have technology which allows blood tests using a finger prick of blood rather than multiple vials. She dropped out of college to start a company to develop her new technology. The company is one of the "unicorns" often talked about -- private startup companies valued at over a billion dollars.
For the last 6 months the company has come under criticism and has had a lot of bad press. There are claims that the company's tests are inaccurate and that they are using conventional blood testing machinery for many of the tests. On the business side the company board of directors apparently doesn't include medical experts.
So is Theranos a scam? A new technology which didn't pan out? The company hasn't provided peer reviewed data on its technology, and the reports so far indicate that at the very least they are having trouble getting the product to market, not unexpected for a new technology.
Yet there is another aspect to this story. There are several very large players (existing labs, existing producers of blood testing equipment) who stand to lose a lot if Theranos' technology pans out. All of medicine is also highly regulated. Regulatory agencies are not known for their flexibility or acceptance of anything new. So the question arises -- how big is the real problem at Theranos and how much of the problem is the inability of regulatory agencies to deal with change?
Time will tell. My feeling right now is that Elizabeth Holmes really did have a new technology but that it's hit some snags (or doesn't work well enough). Investors have put $700 million into the company and they'll probably have a hard time raising more money, especially with the bad press. Hopefully we won't lose a promising new technology to bureaucratic incompetence or lack of funding to deal with unexpected problems.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Major Rat Study - maybe
Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Major Rat Study - IEEE Spectrum
A new, major study is showing a slight link between cell phone radiation and cancer. Yet the results of the study appear to show even more so the problem with studies. As with many cancer studies, rats were used, and exposed to much higher doses of radiation than provided by a cell phone, wireless, or other RF sources. As one commentor of this article said, a 50 lb rock hitting your head is very bad for your health, 50 lbs worth of marshmallows hitting your head over a period of time aren't a problem.
Complicating the study is the fact that the rats exposed to radiation, while showing a slight increase in cancers, apparently lived longer overall than the control rats. Should we worry about cell phone radiation? I'm not convinced.
However, maybe the tinfoil hat brigade has been right all along.
A new, major study is showing a slight link between cell phone radiation and cancer. Yet the results of the study appear to show even more so the problem with studies. As with many cancer studies, rats were used, and exposed to much higher doses of radiation than provided by a cell phone, wireless, or other RF sources. As one commentor of this article said, a 50 lb rock hitting your head is very bad for your health, 50 lbs worth of marshmallows hitting your head over a period of time aren't a problem.
Complicating the study is the fact that the rats exposed to radiation, while showing a slight increase in cancers, apparently lived longer overall than the control rats. Should we worry about cell phone radiation? I'm not convinced.
However, maybe the tinfoil hat brigade has been right all along.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
A Sanders, Trump debate?
So if this presidential season isn't strange enough, it appears Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders might stage a debate, even though Mr. Sanders has little chance of getting the nomination at this point.
While many would say Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I wonder if a debate might end up being fairly friendly.
Start with the fact that both candidates will want to take shots at Hillary Clinton, providing one common platform.
Add the fact that both oppose free trade and both argue that the rich aren't paying enough in taxes and you have the potential for a fairly friendly discussion.
While many would say Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I wonder if a debate might end up being fairly friendly.
Start with the fact that both candidates will want to take shots at Hillary Clinton, providing one common platform.
Add the fact that both oppose free trade and both argue that the rich aren't paying enough in taxes and you have the potential for a fairly friendly discussion.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
The Mission Impossible Effect
A couple years ago I remember reading about something called the "CSI effect" or "CSI syndome". Prosecutors in criminal cases have trouble with juries which have watched TV shows like CSI and believe that the show accurately reflects police forensic practice. Juries have questioned the lack of DNA or other detailed forensic evidence which police departments often do not gather. This is partly because real police departments have limited budgets (probably smaller than the TV show's budget) and partly because TV shows routinely stretch the truth -- sorry, the police can't run compuerized facial recognition on a witness drawing and get a unique hit on a suspect.
I just started reading the book Among the Truthers by Jonathan Kay. The book is a description of consipiracy theorists in the United States including 9/11 Truthers, Obama Birthers, and others. A couple of the 9/11 Truthers he talks about in the first chapter talk about the US government planning and executing, or at least orchestrating, the 9/11 attacks.
It occurs to me that the assumption that the US government (or some group of officials) can pull off such a complex operation without anything leaking needs a name. I suggest "The Mission Impossible Effect", referring to the 1960s TV series (not the recent movies). In each show they create a complex plan involving half a dozen people and precise timing, getting it to come off successfully each time. It seems too many people assume that the US government can really pull off such complex operations with perfect secrecy.
In reality, it takes little research to show instead that government agencies are populated by real human beings, political and bureaucratic infighting, bumbling, and incompetence. The CIA had a hand in a few foreign coups, but couldn't kill Castro. The US government apparently orchestrated 9/11 to take control of Mideast oil but left the followup takeover (the apparent purpose of the Iraq war) to inexperienced political appointees.
I can't say for certain that the US government didn't orchestrate 9/11, but given its track record I find it hard to believe that something which would have taken a lot of people to pull off (from planting explosives in the Twin Towers to the missile it's claimed hit the Pentagon rather than an airplane) could have been executed without anything going wrong. But read enough political thrillers or watch enough Mission Impossbile and it's easy to believe that organizations can plan and execute complex operations without a hitch.
I just started reading the book Among the Truthers by Jonathan Kay. The book is a description of consipiracy theorists in the United States including 9/11 Truthers, Obama Birthers, and others. A couple of the 9/11 Truthers he talks about in the first chapter talk about the US government planning and executing, or at least orchestrating, the 9/11 attacks.
It occurs to me that the assumption that the US government (or some group of officials) can pull off such a complex operation without anything leaking needs a name. I suggest "The Mission Impossible Effect", referring to the 1960s TV series (not the recent movies). In each show they create a complex plan involving half a dozen people and precise timing, getting it to come off successfully each time. It seems too many people assume that the US government can really pull off such complex operations with perfect secrecy.
In reality, it takes little research to show instead that government agencies are populated by real human beings, political and bureaucratic infighting, bumbling, and incompetence. The CIA had a hand in a few foreign coups, but couldn't kill Castro. The US government apparently orchestrated 9/11 to take control of Mideast oil but left the followup takeover (the apparent purpose of the Iraq war) to inexperienced political appointees.
I can't say for certain that the US government didn't orchestrate 9/11, but given its track record I find it hard to believe that something which would have taken a lot of people to pull off (from planting explosives in the Twin Towers to the missile it's claimed hit the Pentagon rather than an airplane) could have been executed without anything going wrong. But read enough political thrillers or watch enough Mission Impossbile and it's easy to believe that organizations can plan and execute complex operations without a hitch.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Attacking Trump
One thing abundantly clear during this presidential campaign is the media doesn't like Donald Trump. The Economist magazine has had at least one anti-Trump article each week for the last 2-3 months, including May 7th's cover predicting doom for America:
But with Mr. Trump's nomination pretty much a formality, it's time to find a scandal. The New York Times recently added its contribution with a piece about Mr. Trump's poor treatment of women. Unfortunately, shortly after publication the primary "poorly treated woman" came out and said she was misquoted and she has no complaints about Donald Trump.
So Donald Trump's ability to avoid or ignore scandal continues. He continues to say and do things which would have caused any other candidate to backpedal, apologize profusely, then quit the race. The media attempts to paint Trump supporters as male, poor, and uneducated, but has to backpedal on that when it turns out Mr. Trump's New York support doesn't match that stereotype (see http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-republican-exit-polls.html).
So we wait to see what happens in the general election. It looks like Trump and Clinton unless something goes really wrong with one of the campaigns. No spoiler third party candidate is announced and it only becomes harder for third party candidates to get on the ballot as time goes on. I doubt there will be any major scandal to change the lineup -- the Republicans have been trying for years to find a scandal which will take down Hillary Clinton, and if the New York Times article is the worst they can come up with about Donald Trump, the election will come down to which one can get the most votes.
But with Mr. Trump's nomination pretty much a formality, it's time to find a scandal. The New York Times recently added its contribution with a piece about Mr. Trump's poor treatment of women. Unfortunately, shortly after publication the primary "poorly treated woman" came out and said she was misquoted and she has no complaints about Donald Trump.
So Donald Trump's ability to avoid or ignore scandal continues. He continues to say and do things which would have caused any other candidate to backpedal, apologize profusely, then quit the race. The media attempts to paint Trump supporters as male, poor, and uneducated, but has to backpedal on that when it turns out Mr. Trump's New York support doesn't match that stereotype (see http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-republican-exit-polls.html).
So we wait to see what happens in the general election. It looks like Trump and Clinton unless something goes really wrong with one of the campaigns. No spoiler third party candidate is announced and it only becomes harder for third party candidates to get on the ballot as time goes on. I doubt there will be any major scandal to change the lineup -- the Republicans have been trying for years to find a scandal which will take down Hillary Clinton, and if the New York Times article is the worst they can come up with about Donald Trump, the election will come down to which one can get the most votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)