Free Markets, Free People

Daily Archives: May 31, 2009

Idiotarian Returns

I believe that we have a replacement for MK-Ultra showing up in the comments section.  It might even be MK-Ultra, since the commenter Dude09 seems similarly dense enough to have a noticeable gravitational field.  Apparently, he was all upset that no one mentioned the wack-job who killed the abortion doctor in Kansas today, and we didn’t put it up on the board as a topic of conversation for the Podcast today.

Since it apparently seems that we have to occasionally re-explain the facts of life to morons, I will do so again.

1. We set up the Podcast topics on Friday.  For the most part, if we didn’t discuss it on Friday, it doesn’t go on the air on Sunday.  It’s not a daily news show.  It’s a discussion about things that have caught our eye over the past week.

2.  We will not always create a post on your pet news story.  Why?  Maybe we didn’t know enough about it.  Maybe we haven’t heard the story yet. Maybe we’re busy.  Or, maybe we just don’t care.  For instance, let’s take a look at my day.  When I got up today, I got dressed and went for breakfast, and then to the grocery store.  Upon my return, I trimmed hedges and bougainvillea, sprayed Roundup on some weeds, and picked up dog crap in the back yard.  Then, I went directly into my office to record the Podcast.  Immediately after that, I worked for 1.5 hours on a client web site.  I scarfed down a quick dinner, during which I first saw an actual news report on the shooting.  I then worked until 9PM on another client web site.  So, here’s a clue, maybe I didn’t blog on your pet story because I have a life, and responsibilities that preclude me from doing so.  I mean, really, do you think we sit around all day cruising the internet and news sites to latch on to your pet story as soon as it appears.  Cripes, most of the time, Bruce writes the stories you see on the blog on the night before they appear.

3. Sometimes, your pet story just isn’t compelling.  Someone went unhinged and shot an abortionist.  So what?  I mean, it’s a terrible tragedy, but what does it tell us about…well…anything?  What conclusions are we supposed to draw?  It’s not like abortionists are getting bumped off on a regular basis.  The last one of these that occured was 11 years ago, back in 1998.  What lessons am I supposed to draw from the fact that some lunatic thinks God told him to kill an abortionist that are in any way substantively different than those I would derive when a crackpot kills his pharmacist because the Venusians sent him a command to do so via the transmitter secreted in his skull?

4.  I really hate peer pressure.  Even if I was inclined to write about a story at some point, having you kite in here and call me an ass because I haven’t done it yet is a sure-fire way to get me to ignore the story completely.  I’ll ignore it just to spite you.

5.  I don’t care what you want to hear about.  I didn’t open up a request line when I started blogging.  I did to write about things that interest me, and beleive me, the abortion issue is way down near the bottom of the list of things that interest me.  If you send me a story, and it interests me, and if I have time, I might write about it.  Or not.

I hope that clears things up.

Dealergate and Statistics

Yet another statistical analysis of the Chrysler dealership closings has been conducted, although this one appears to be both much more thorough (albeit preliminary) and concentrated on the correct data (my emphasis):

To start with, we pulled raw donor data from The Center for Responsive Politics / OpenSecrets.org for the 2008 election cycle and extracted ~865 megabytes of 2008 individual contribution (“IC”) cycle table entries.

[...]

… this particular output is the widest available dataset on contributions. We matched this data against two Chrysler dealer lists:

First, Docket #797 “Document #3″ “Schedule of Designated Domestic Dealer Agreements and Cure Costs Related Thereto” (a list of dealers expected to survive).

Second, the famous “Exhibit A” document of dealers to be closed.

[...]

We ran binary logistic regressions across the variables. The results are interesting but the most dramatic was saved dealers v. donations by candidate and/or party.

The results of the analysis suggest that donors to Hillary Clinton in the recent presidential race received some preferential treatment. That does not mean that anyone has proven anything, nor that the statistical analysis makes any sort of unassailable case. It merely raises a concern that, given the probabilities, Clinton donors appear to have survived the dealership closings surprisingly well.

This puzzled us. Why would there be an significant noticeable (we have rightly been called out for using significant here) and highly positive correlation between dealer survival and Clinton donors? Granted, that P-Value (0.125) isn’t enough to reject the null hypothesis at 95% confidence intervals (our null hypothesis being that the effect is due to random chance), but a 12.5% chance of a Type I error in rejecting a null hypothesis (false rejection of a true hypothesis) is at least eyebrow raising. Most statistians would not call this a “find” as 95% confidence intervals are the gold standard for this sort of work. Nevertheless, it seems clear that something is going on here. Specifically, the somewhat low probability that the Clinton data showing higher survivability of Clinton donors could result just from pure chance. But why not better significance with any of the other variables? Why this stand out?

Then we got to thinking. Steven Rattner, the Car Czar, is married to Maureen White, one-time national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. What does Maureen do now? From her website:

Maureen White is currently Chairman of the Board of Overseers of The International Rescue Committee (IRC), a member of the North American Advisory Board for the London School of Economics, and a National Finance Chair of the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign. (emphasis ours)

That website looks dated, but you get the idea.

Again, we want to point out that our findings are preliminary and subject to change. But whatever the result, the Administration has made themselves very vulnerable by taking charge of the dealership closing decisions.

I’m still not sure if there’s anything to the allegations, but there seems to be more than enough anomalies to warrant some questions being asked of the Obama administration. It should be noted that the theory regarding potential shenanigans has morphed from Obama creating a Republican hit list with the closings, to Obama benefiting Democrat donors by allowing their dealerships to survive (and thrive), to Obama’s “Car Czar” rewarding donors to his wife’s favorite political candidate (Hillary Clinton). When the theory moves that much, often it’s a sign that one is fishing for a villain. And despite the evidence amassed in this case showing that an unusual number of Democrat donors are set to prosper from the closing decisions, that may be the case here.

However this all turns out, one thing is certain: by involving itself so deeply in the fate of Chrysler (and GM), the Obama administration invited scrutiny concerning its decision-making processes. Furthermore, in being so opaque about how the government is picking winners and losers (not to mention that it is making these decisions at all), the Obama administration has left itself open to attacks of favoritism. That has nothing to do with Obama or partisanship in particular, but with the fact that unaccountable power rightfully raises fears and suspicions of favoritism. If Chrysler had been left to fend for itself in bankruptcy, none of these questions would have been raised.

The government arrogated to itself tremendous amounts of power over what would normally be private business decisions. In the process, the Obama administration blatantly used its power and influence to reward a favored constituent group (the UAW). Now that statistical evidence suggests more favoritism may have been in play, it’s a little late to cry “conspiracy theory.” Instead, the Obama administration should start opening the books and answering questions.

Podcast for 31 May 09

In this podcast, Bruce, Michael, Billy, and Dale discuss the economy and the Sotomayor nomination.

The direct link to the podcast can be found here.

Observations

The intro and outro music is Vena Cava by 50 Foot Wave, and is available for free download here.

As a reminder, if you are an iTunes user, don’t forget to subscribe to the QandO podcast, Observations, through iTunes. For those of you who don’t have iTunes, you can subscribe at Podcast Alley. And, of course, for you newsreader subscriber types, our podcast RSS Feed is here. For podcasts from 2005 to 2007, they can be accessed through the RSS Archive Feed.

“Revolutions happen when a system suffers a major loss of political legitimacy.”

Amir Taheri broaches a subject that I’m sure will sound over-the-top to many. He asks, “Is England on the verge of revolution?”

Given the way the British government increasingly treats their citizens as serfs, I’ve wondered if serious resistance to such treatment would build to significant levels. I’ve only had one brief visit to Britain, so I’m in no position to venture an informed opinion. But Taheri finds some evidence that a tipping point may have been reached:

“I do sense a revolutionary mood,” David Starkey, one of Britain’s foremost historians, told the BBC. “I won’t be surprised if we did end up having a revolution.”

The current scandals of British MPs are one of the main drivers of the mood. They seem to be blatantly abusing their offices to feather their own nests (shades of John Murtha, et. al.), and simultaneously becoming increasingly irrelevant and hapless to do anything constructive because of the shift of power to the EU. Taheri thinks this has a pretty dramatic effect on the British:

Every nation has a number of founding myths. Britain’s principal myth is that it is the birthplace of modern democracy and a land where the law is supreme. The shocking realization that “the mother of parliaments” may have been acting as the rudest of street sluts is not easy to stomach. Some of the same politicians who go around the world lecturing others, especially in the “developing world”, against corruption, have been exposed as practioners of petty larceny.

I’m no expert on the British character, but I would not expect such behavior by itself to drive a revolution. However, it has a synergistic effect with a shrinking economy and significantly higher unemployment, which Britain is suffering. No one likes it when they suffer while their political elites are prospering by playing fast and loose with the rules.

Taheri points to the unpopularity of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as additional factors. Given that we have plenty of war opponents here, and that Britain was one level removed from the responsibility for those wars, I suppose they probably have more.

But to me, the main point was captured in the quote I used for the title. Revolutions can only happen when a sufficient numer of the people no longer believe their government is legitimate. It’s very unlikely for one single incident to cause such a shift in thinking. It more of a water-torture, drip, drip, drip process. Items such as the apparent politically-motivated dropping of charges against a serious example of voter intimidation are examples of incidents that don’t look that major on their own, but every one of them risks convincing another small set of citizens that their government isn’t playing by their own rules, and no longer cares about the welfare of the nation as a whole.

I choose that particular incident because erosion of confidence in the rules surrounding the ballot box are particularly damaging to the legitimacy of the government. I’ve talked to people who are convinced that our elections are a sham and participating in them is not only a waste of time, but actually bad because it gives a facade of legitimacy to what they perceive as an illegitimate process.

I’m not advocating revolution, but it’s worthwhile to point out that the ultimate check on an abusive, out-of-touch government is revolution. I don’t see it as a bad thing for our political elites to understand that their authority and ability to abuse us is not infinite. Since Britain is a few steps further along the path that Obama seems determined to take us, I hope our elites pay some mind to what might lie at the end of that path.

(Found via Instapundit)