Cuz We Said So

Torture and Interrogation

A US Army interrogator writes to Jerry Pournelle about utilitarian arguments against torture (“nonsense on stilts… the only good argument against torture is moral and ethical.” and tells of his experience with the subject during his time in the Army’s Interrogator Basic Course.  To read, click through, then scroll down to the letter that begins:

Dear Jerry,

Though there have been a trio of letters on the efficacy of torture, would you bear with me and possibly post this? I believe I have something of an insight here. …

You May Find This Blog Post Interesting

Or you may not.  Either way, I’m going to use it to complain a bit about a trend in journalism that annoys me, and which seems to be everywhere these days: the use of the weasel word “may” to manufacture news where there isn’t any.

Here’s an example of what I mean in a headline:

Scientist: H1N1 virus may be no worse than regular flu

Really?  Here’s a second headline—which I just made up—that says essentially the same thing:

Scientist: H1N1 virus may be worse than regular flu

And here’s a third:

Scientist: I don’t know whether H1N1 virus will be worse than regular flu or not, because I can’t see into the future.  I have an opinion, but experts guess wrong, just like everyone else.  But maybe the reporter had a deadline, and in this day and age there has to be a constant flow of news even if there’s nothing newsworthy to report, so here, have an article.

That something may happen isn’t news.  Almost anything you can imagine may happen.  It may rain somewhere in California three weeks from tomorrow.  The Cubs may win the World Series next year.  Aliens may attack the Earth this July 4th.  Or maybe none of those things will happen.  If the article quoted scientists willing to say that they believe the H1N1 virus won’t be be as bad as first thought—that might be news.  If it offered data to support the contention—that might be news, too.  But it doesn’t do either of those things.  It doesn’t even quote any particular scientist advancing the opinion cited in the headline.  This article seems to be nothing more than where several column inches went to die.  Given the much-discussed troubles of the journalism biz, is this really the time to be diluting the value of the news by filling it with airy, outsourced unsourced speculation, about this or anything else?

UPDATE:  My use of outsourced instead of unsourced in the original post above was a typo, but now it’s got me thinking.  In this tight economy, maybe we should be outsourcing speculation.  We could even offshore speculation to low-cost, high-volume pundits overseas.  We can ship them the speculation Americans won’t do, while keeping the skilled high-margin speculation here at home.  In a sense, we’re already doing this—I’m thinking of the BBC here, for example.

Gun Control Explained

This short Australian film explores gun control, and argues against it.  If I had to summarize its major point: gun control doesn’t reduce crime, law breakers as a group are unaffected by gun control;, and to the extent it does anything at all, gun control disarms the law abiding citizens the law breakers intend to harm, putting them in greater danger.

It’s a nice presentation, but I fear it’s preaching to the choir, since I suspect few people in favor of gun control will ever watch it, and fewer still will be swayed by the argument.

(Via Right Wing News)

Penn Jillete: “I haven’t had this kind of hope…”

“…bliss, and anticipation for change since . . . New Coke.”  (Via Twitter)

Popular Mechanics on Flight 1549’s Water Landing

“When both engines failed, Captain Sullenberger ‘…found himself in the position of being an experimental test pilot.”  The magazine, which has several articles covering this amazing story, says credit is also due to co-pilot Jeffrey Skiles and the aircraft’s in-flight crew.

UPDATE: by the way, can you guess what the subject is of Patrick Smith’s Ask the Pilot column this week?  You can check it out here.

China's Plays for Position at Sea

There’s an interesting rundown of China’s strategic intentions at the US Naval Institute Blog.  In summary, they are making efforts to learn from history and postion themselves favorably in any potential military competition with the United States.  “[O]ne of the fascinating aspects of China’s emergence over the past three decades has been its efforts to learn from the external world. This has not represented a blatant aping nor an effort to cherry pick ideas from history or Western theoretical writings on strategy and war, but rather a contentious, open debate to examine and draw lessons from West’s experience.”  It’s a smart move.  I hope we’re doing the same thing, and as thoughtfully.

“California has no room for good Samaritans”

Los Angeles Times:

The California Supreme Court has given fresh meaning to "no good deed goes unpunished." It ruled last week that a woman who yanked a co-worker from a crashed car four years ago, and may have made her injuries worse, can be sued because what she did wasn't medical care.

I have no insight into whether the decision was legally correct, and I think the question of what the law should say falls to legislators, not to judges… but the current legal situation seems to me run counter to the public interest.  Perhaps the state legislature will take this up and amend the law, ideally before the entire state goes bankrupt, shuts down, and sinks into the Pacific.  (An additional provision banishing all personal injury attorney within the state to a deserted island in the South Pacific would be a welcome addition, but optional in my view, at least for now.)

Drug Treatments: Which Should We Pay For?

Ann Althouse: “We spend $20 billion a year on drug and alcohol treatment programs -- without demanding much of any evidence that they work.”  She’s referencing this NYT article, which does not paint a pretty picture.

Unfortunately, while I’m sympathetic to the thrust of the article—in general I think any expenditure of public funds—really, any collection of public funds—should be contingent on good evidence that the money will accomplish what policy makers propose it will.  If some treatments work, and some don’t work, or work less well, I think we should be concentrating our money on what works.  This seems like common sense.  Unfortunately, I will be surprised if we see this change any time soon.  Change would require a simultaneous shift in attitude toward greater accountability among three decentralized communities—voters, politicians, and drug counselors—who appear to have little incentive to change.

“The US economy glides like a box of rocks”

“Don’t stand under it.”  Eric Janszen at iTulip.com has a lengthy post up breaking down the fundamentals of the economy, including many charts showing historical data.  I’m not sufficiently well-versed in macroeconomics to judge his conclusion (that we’re in for “a deep recession that goes on for years”) but he successfully conveys the impression that things are looking pretty craptacular.

22 Pounds

LaborPains.org: “Ever wondered what a UAW contract looks like?  Here is all 22 pounds of it (in this case, Ford’s 2,215 page 2007 master contract; Coke can is for scale and because I was thirsty).  I’ll tell you this much, those 2,215 pages don’t include much regarding efficiency and competitiveness.”  Click through for the picture—it’s impressive, in its own, sad way.