The reasons for how we got there are irrelevant to anyone other than future historians. It's done; so live with it, live in the present and plan for the future.
There are four primary reasons why we are in Iraq, and why we need to remain there for years to come.
First, our forces provide a magnet for the killing fields we have set up - Jihadist aggression is aimed from all over the world at the US forces there; they are the lure. Now that we have been there for four and a half years, our troops know the lay of the land so that they have the battlefield advantage over jihadists, and therefore can more efficiently kill them.
Second, we provide a bulwark against Iranian and Jihadist hegemony in the region. Given Ahmadinejad's visions of both a new Persian Empire and the coming of the 12th Imam, if we withdraw from Iraq, Iran in concert with Syria and Shiite elements in Iraq, will extend a Jihadist hegemony from the border of Israel to Afghanistan. At that time, Mahmoud will make good his promise to wipe Israel off the map. That would not be difficult: once Iraq is compromised, it is a straight road for a million Iranian soldiers to travel on to the Israeli border. Seizing control of Mecca is his next step, and at that time, we will be in no position to protect Saudi Arabia. Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and the Moslem nations of the former USSR will capitulate and sign non-aggression pacts with Mahmoud out of self-preservation. All of this will follow if we abandon our keystone position in Iraq.
Third, Iraq provides us with a military base of operations. Maintaining a free and clear airspace over Iraq deters aggression by Syria and Iran against Israel and their pro-Western neighbors. We may be able to maintain a similar posture using WACS based in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Diego Garcia, planes on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and missiles on submarines, but a ground base in Iraq is much closer to the theater of operations, and more reliable.
Fourth, we present an alternative to people all over the Middle East, an alternative to Jihadism. Granted, some people who were formerly neutral are inspired by our presence to turn to Jihadism, but a similar number is inspired by our steadfastness there. Moslems do not respect cowards, those who flee the battlefield, and our withdrawal would be seen as surrender. All those who respect our troops there now will turn on a dime against us in the other countries where we maintain a small presence, and terrorist attacks will increase, not only against us, but against our Moslem allies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, et al).
In short, mass chaos, the rise of a pan-Moslem Jihadist empire, and the destruction of Israel will ensue if we "get the troops out."
If there is anyone who does not see this happening upon our premature withdrawal, I would be pleased to hear his or her argument.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Arguing About the War
Word of advice - never, ever engage in an argument with a liberal about the battle in Iraq; they have recognized that one cannot argue ends, only means to a common end, and have redefined it to appear that conservatives and liberals are only arguing about when and how to leave Iraq.
Conservatives don't want to leave Iraq any time soon; perhaps 20-30 years from now may suffice to deteriorate the ability of the Jihadists to a safe level. Iraq is a strategical keystone in the war, not the war itself. To both secure a killing field of Jihadists and maintain a base of operations in the Moslem world, we need to stay in Iraq for a very long time.
So when a liberal starts on about how long till we're out of Iraq, simply reply that it might take 30 years to kill all the Jihadists, and let it go at that.
Conservatives don't want to leave Iraq any time soon; perhaps 20-30 years from now may suffice to deteriorate the ability of the Jihadists to a safe level. Iraq is a strategical keystone in the war, not the war itself. To both secure a killing field of Jihadists and maintain a base of operations in the Moslem world, we need to stay in Iraq for a very long time.
So when a liberal starts on about how long till we're out of Iraq, simply reply that it might take 30 years to kill all the Jihadists, and let it go at that.
Simplicity of the US Constitution
Tomgee, a poster on Townhall.com says it best in reference to the Constitution:
One of the founding fathers' great achievements was that they wrote a brief instruction manual for self-government in plain English. You need to be literate but you don't need to go to law school to understand it. The founding fathers wanted to build a country where ordinary people could succeed; where you didn't have to be a powdered-wig cousin of a noble or hire a $400/hr expert every five minutes to interpret the rule book for you.
One of the founding fathers' great achievements was that they wrote a brief instruction manual for self-government in plain English. You need to be literate but you don't need to go to law school to understand it. The founding fathers wanted to build a country where ordinary people could succeed; where you didn't have to be a powdered-wig cousin of a noble or hire a $400/hr expert every five minutes to interpret the rule book for you.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Coincidental Adjoining Headlines?
Al-Qaida in Iraq takes heavy losses...
Frustrated Democrats mull strategy.
In an attempt to recoup heavy losses to US troops, UBL had a private teleconference meeting with Democratic leaders in Congress yesterday, asking for additional funds from discrete sources. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred him to Michael Moore and Yung Yuen "Norman" Hsu, prominent Democratic fundraisers.
In another display of being out of touch, Reid had to be reminded by Senator "Fridgidaire" Clinton that "Normie" was in jail.
Frustrated Democrats mull strategy.
In an attempt to recoup heavy losses to US troops, UBL had a private teleconference meeting with Democratic leaders in Congress yesterday, asking for additional funds from discrete sources. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred him to Michael Moore and Yung Yuen "Norman" Hsu, prominent Democratic fundraisers.
In another display of being out of touch, Reid had to be reminded by Senator "Fridgidaire" Clinton that "Normie" was in jail.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
SCOTUS and Roe v Wade
I have yet to hear anyone, in the government or elsewhere, propound an alternative solution to Roe v. Wade. While I am personally opposed to the killing of the unborn, my libertarian sensibilities require me to observe that the US Constitution is silent on the matter - a ruling no one in the SCOTUS ventured when it was originally debated.
The Constitution is a document that prescribes and proscribes what the Federal Government may or may not do, not a body of statutory law concerning individual conduct with a few exceptions. The creation and enforcement of criminal statutes are the province of individual States, while individual conduct that falls under the purview of the Federal Government in the course of its prescribed responsibilities remain the exceptions: treason, insurrection, counterfeiting, smuggling, illegal immigration. Those five criminal activities are offenses that concern the country as a whole, so naturally are Federal offenses. All others, in accordance with the forgotten 10th Amendment, are the province of the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The red herring put forth in Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy, is an improper interpretation; the right to privacy is meant to restrain the government from interfering in the non-criminal, private acts and possessions of individuals. If the Federal Goverment or a State government, by legislative action, determines that an action by an individual is a criminal act, the right to privacy concerning that action is void - it is no longer in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, as it has a deleterious effect upon other individuals. If an individual State determines that xyz is a criminal act, the SCOTUS may not disable that legislative action under the rubric of individual privacy, unless that criminalization is in conflict with the rights of individuals enumerated in the US Constitution.
For instance, if a State criminalizes the practice of a certain religion, the SCOTUS may step forth and strike down that law, as it interferes with the 1st Amendment. Or, if a State creates a law that individuals must open to inspection their private bank accounts to State investigators without a warrant, then the SCOTUS may strike that down as it is in conflict with the 4th Amendment, and the general right to privacy. However, if a State determines that an action taken by an individual upon another individual causes harm, and such criminalization does not interfere with an individual's rights, the SCOTUS should be silent upon that law.
Therefore, a proper reading of the US Constitution allows individual States to prohibit or allow abortion without comment by the SCOTUS - simply, it's none of their business.
The Constitution is a document that prescribes and proscribes what the Federal Government may or may not do, not a body of statutory law concerning individual conduct with a few exceptions. The creation and enforcement of criminal statutes are the province of individual States, while individual conduct that falls under the purview of the Federal Government in the course of its prescribed responsibilities remain the exceptions: treason, insurrection, counterfeiting, smuggling, illegal immigration. Those five criminal activities are offenses that concern the country as a whole, so naturally are Federal offenses. All others, in accordance with the forgotten 10th Amendment, are the province of the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The red herring put forth in Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy, is an improper interpretation; the right to privacy is meant to restrain the government from interfering in the non-criminal, private acts and possessions of individuals. If the Federal Goverment or a State government, by legislative action, determines that an action by an individual is a criminal act, the right to privacy concerning that action is void - it is no longer in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, as it has a deleterious effect upon other individuals. If an individual State determines that xyz is a criminal act, the SCOTUS may not disable that legislative action under the rubric of individual privacy, unless that criminalization is in conflict with the rights of individuals enumerated in the US Constitution.
For instance, if a State criminalizes the practice of a certain religion, the SCOTUS may step forth and strike down that law, as it interferes with the 1st Amendment. Or, if a State creates a law that individuals must open to inspection their private bank accounts to State investigators without a warrant, then the SCOTUS may strike that down as it is in conflict with the 4th Amendment, and the general right to privacy. However, if a State determines that an action taken by an individual upon another individual causes harm, and such criminalization does not interfere with an individual's rights, the SCOTUS should be silent upon that law.
Therefore, a proper reading of the US Constitution allows individual States to prohibit or allow abortion without comment by the SCOTUS - simply, it's none of their business.
Intercepting Enemy Communications
All this folderall about President Bush spying on Americans is no more than Liberals carping at every little thing they can in a blighted attempt to mar his tenure.
Intercepting communications with an enemy has never been, in the history of our country, a matter for Congress or the courts to oversee. It matters little that one party to the communication may be a resident of the United States; for all intents and purposes, that person who has communicated with an enemy is not an American, has declared by his very action that he is outside of the law, and therefore not allowed the protection of civil liberties granted to US citizens under the Constitution.
As Commander-in-Chief, and this has been repeated numerous times in all credible media, the President has the responsibility to intercept communications with an enemy. If those who communicate with the enemy are legally US citizens, they should be charged, tried, and executed without further ado. If they are not US citizens, they should be questioned, then executed ASAP as enemy spies.
All the hysteria with which liberals are protesting this makes me wonder if some of them have a personal reason to oppose it: maybe some of them are communicating with the enemy? If you listen to Michael Moore and UBL, as in UBL's latest rant, you would sometimes think they are reading from the same script - do they share a speechwriter, or are they in communication? If so, I would trust that it's only a matter of time before a US Attorney charges his fatass with espionage and treason. Nothing like bacon burning, and how ironic, his buddies have a religious restriction against consorting with pigs.
Intercepting communications with an enemy has never been, in the history of our country, a matter for Congress or the courts to oversee. It matters little that one party to the communication may be a resident of the United States; for all intents and purposes, that person who has communicated with an enemy is not an American, has declared by his very action that he is outside of the law, and therefore not allowed the protection of civil liberties granted to US citizens under the Constitution.
As Commander-in-Chief, and this has been repeated numerous times in all credible media, the President has the responsibility to intercept communications with an enemy. If those who communicate with the enemy are legally US citizens, they should be charged, tried, and executed without further ado. If they are not US citizens, they should be questioned, then executed ASAP as enemy spies.
All the hysteria with which liberals are protesting this makes me wonder if some of them have a personal reason to oppose it: maybe some of them are communicating with the enemy? If you listen to Michael Moore and UBL, as in UBL's latest rant, you would sometimes think they are reading from the same script - do they share a speechwriter, or are they in communication? If so, I would trust that it's only a matter of time before a US Attorney charges his fatass with espionage and treason. Nothing like bacon burning, and how ironic, his buddies have a religious restriction against consorting with pigs.
Where are you in the Political Spectrum?
For many people, where they are on the political spectrum is both simple and complex. They will say "I'm a Republican (or Democrat), 'cause my Daddy was," and that's the end of the story. However, if you probe their political views, they come to a realization that they don't agree completely with their party affiliation, and qualify their answer with those differences - "Well I'm a Democrat, but I think small business owners should be able to set aside part of their money for retirement and not pay into Social Security, and I think people should have guns in their houses without the government intruding on that right," - for example.
If one points out that those views are at odds with that of the Democratic Party, they may hedge and say that they are more of a centrist, a nebulous population with no real meaning other than the vast amount of people who are not radical to the left or right.
For many people, there are no alternatives to this linear thinking - Left to Right on a scale of some sorts. While they know that things in the political arena are more complicated than that, they have no real way of placing themselves - until now.
There is a fourfold map now in circulation that more accurately defines the differences between the major parties, and is capable of assigning a respondent a place in the political spectrum. Take a simple, 10 question quiz and see where you are in the spectrum at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
You may be surprised about yourself, but more likely feel empowered to know where you stand in the political universe.
If one points out that those views are at odds with that of the Democratic Party, they may hedge and say that they are more of a centrist, a nebulous population with no real meaning other than the vast amount of people who are not radical to the left or right.
For many people, there are no alternatives to this linear thinking - Left to Right on a scale of some sorts. While they know that things in the political arena are more complicated than that, they have no real way of placing themselves - until now.
There is a fourfold map now in circulation that more accurately defines the differences between the major parties, and is capable of assigning a respondent a place in the political spectrum. Take a simple, 10 question quiz and see where you are in the spectrum at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
You may be surprised about yourself, but more likely feel empowered to know where you stand in the political universe.
Proof of Liberal Split Mind
For years, observers have often wondered in amazement at the ability of liberals to say one thing then do another: witness the Breck Girl amassing a great fortune in the courtroom, then going out and giving speeches about the Two Americas - one miserably poor, with whom he commiserates, and the other disgustingly rich.
Well, wonder no more, it has been confirmed that a liberal can actually utter two conflicting ideas in the same sentence without pause.
In an article about the lack of black models in the industry, a clothes designer, Carmen Marc Valvo, gushed "America is a melting pot. I like diversification."
Well, Mr. Valvo, either it is a melting pot, in which ethnicity and skin color is subsumed to being an American without difference, or it is diverse, with each ethnicity and race trumpeting their differences. Which is it?
Weeelll, probably neither. Mr. Valvo is just displaying the natural ability of a liberal - to hold two contradictory thoughts in his head without it exploding. No need for duck tape here!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/us_nm/fashion_race_dc_1
Well, wonder no more, it has been confirmed that a liberal can actually utter two conflicting ideas in the same sentence without pause.
In an article about the lack of black models in the industry, a clothes designer, Carmen Marc Valvo, gushed "America is a melting pot. I like diversification."
Well, Mr. Valvo, either it is a melting pot, in which ethnicity and skin color is subsumed to being an American without difference, or it is diverse, with each ethnicity and race trumpeting their differences. Which is it?
Weeelll, probably neither. Mr. Valvo is just displaying the natural ability of a liberal - to hold two contradictory thoughts in his head without it exploding. No need for duck tape here!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/us_nm/fashion_race_dc_1
Iran and Syria
The complaint of Syria to the UN that Israel invaded their airspace has been confirmed and explained.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411388088&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Israeli's bombed a shipment of weapons destined to Hezbollah from Iran. Good for them, I applaud their boldness. Would that the US do the same in Iran. Question is, how did the shipment get from Iran to eastern Syria? Through Iraq, naturally, look at the map.
Further evidence that we neither have sufficient troops in Iraq, nor should leave there any time soon. As long as Iran and Syria are cooperating in Jihadism against Western Civilization, it is our duty to intercept and foil operations by the Jihadists in the Middle East.
Iraq is the keystone in the war, and as long as we maintain that position, hold the strategic point, the odds are on our favor.
Israel's action is another point to dispel the quaking feet of the Surrender Movement in this country. The SMs have always protested that if the US took out nuclear reactors or other military targets in Iran, it would start WWIV. If all the Syrians (puppet government of Iran) do is protest to the UN, the weakest collection of idiots and wannabes in the history of mankind, what would be the response if we take out the nuclear breeder reactors in Iran?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411388088&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Israeli's bombed a shipment of weapons destined to Hezbollah from Iran. Good for them, I applaud their boldness. Would that the US do the same in Iran. Question is, how did the shipment get from Iran to eastern Syria? Through Iraq, naturally, look at the map.
Further evidence that we neither have sufficient troops in Iraq, nor should leave there any time soon. As long as Iran and Syria are cooperating in Jihadism against Western Civilization, it is our duty to intercept and foil operations by the Jihadists in the Middle East.
Iraq is the keystone in the war, and as long as we maintain that position, hold the strategic point, the odds are on our favor.
Israel's action is another point to dispel the quaking feet of the Surrender Movement in this country. The SMs have always protested that if the US took out nuclear reactors or other military targets in Iran, it would start WWIV. If all the Syrians (puppet government of Iran) do is protest to the UN, the weakest collection of idiots and wannabes in the history of mankind, what would be the response if we take out the nuclear breeder reactors in Iran?
Never Forget
Today is the 6th anniversary of when Islamic Jihadists attacked America.
Their declaration of Holy War against Western Civilization shall be answered with the complete destruction of Jihadism, to be wiped from the face of the Earth.
May seven times seven Moslems die for every American massacred on that day and every day hence.
We will neither forget nor forgive.
Their declaration of Holy War against Western Civilization shall be answered with the complete destruction of Jihadism, to be wiped from the face of the Earth.
May seven times seven Moslems die for every American massacred on that day and every day hence.
We will neither forget nor forgive.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Bra Straps and Burkas II
Just a week after the flap about some towns and counties wanting to make it a crime for women to dress in certain ways, we have this news story about a passenger on Southwest Airlines being told to "cover it up".
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296053,00.html
Well, as I advised in the other column, Southwest Airlines should require all women to wear head-to-toe burkas so they don't offend anyone.
And they wouldn't be singled out by passenger screeners, they could claim religious discrimination if they're interfered with while dressed like that.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296053,00.html
Well, as I advised in the other column, Southwest Airlines should require all women to wear head-to-toe burkas so they don't offend anyone.
And they wouldn't be singled out by passenger screeners, they could claim religious discrimination if they're interfered with while dressed like that.
Two Birds With One Stone
There is the problem of what to do with the millions of illegal aliens that the administration refuse to deport, and the problem of how to get the government's nose out of people's private business affairs.
Happily, the Fair Tax takes care of both problems with one fell swoop.
Imagine a world where the IRS is no longer looking over your shoulder checking to see what you earn, how you earn it, how you spend it, who you deal with in your business.
Fantasy you say?
No, the Fair Tax (HR 25, S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. Further, it provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
That last provision is the key to pressure illegal aliens to voluntarily deport, at least some of them. To obtain the prebate, one needs to have a valid social security number, and a valid, corresponding address. Therefore, illegal aliens will be paying taxes on all they consume, but will not get a prebate. And it's not an insubstantial amount; an individual illegal will spend $2,348 more per year for just basic necessities than someone with a valid SSN. An illegal couple with two children would spend $6,297 more per year on basic necessities.
Though that economic burden may not affect some illegals, I think it would compel many to rethink their decision to stay here.
For further information, see: www.fairtax.org
To calculate how much you would benefit when the Fair Tax is initiated, go to:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxCalculator.xls
Happily, the Fair Tax takes care of both problems with one fell swoop.
Imagine a world where the IRS is no longer looking over your shoulder checking to see what you earn, how you earn it, how you spend it, who you deal with in your business.
Fantasy you say?
No, the Fair Tax (HR 25, S 1025) abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. Further, it provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
That last provision is the key to pressure illegal aliens to voluntarily deport, at least some of them. To obtain the prebate, one needs to have a valid social security number, and a valid, corresponding address. Therefore, illegal aliens will be paying taxes on all they consume, but will not get a prebate. And it's not an insubstantial amount; an individual illegal will spend $2,348 more per year for just basic necessities than someone with a valid SSN. An illegal couple with two children would spend $6,297 more per year on basic necessities.
Though that economic burden may not affect some illegals, I think it would compel many to rethink their decision to stay here.
For further information, see: www.fairtax.org
To calculate how much you would benefit when the Fair Tax is initiated, go to:
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxCalculator.xls
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Statistical Fallacies For Political Purposes
Most people have trouble interpreting statistics, and that's understandable. Statistical analysis is largely taught in college to a few students whose major requires it. But Dr. Ileana Arias, director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control should know better; I would assume that the top people at the CDC, dealing with statistics daily know how to interpret them, and are aware of what is significant and what is not. Guess again.
Today they came out with a story saying that: The suicide rate among preteen and teenage girls rose to its highest level in 15 years, and hanging surpassed guns as the preferred method, federal health officials reported Thursday.
The biggest jump — about 76 percent — was in the suicide rate for girls ages 10-14 from 2003 to 2004. There were 94 suicides in that age group in 2004, compared to 56 in 2003. That's a rate of fewer than one per 100,000 population.
For full story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295953,00.html
I know something about statistics, I took advanced courses in it as a graduate student, and applied it in my dissertation. When I read this, I knew immediately that something else is going on when they reported it, as the "jump" from 54 to 96 suicides in that population is insignificant. It is not even noteworthy, given that there are approximately 10,000,000 girls ages 10-14 in the US. To check my gut feeling, I ran the numbers testing for significance, using the t-test.
For those of you who know what it all means, the t value in this case is 116,343. Given a confidence level of .0005, this value does not even register as a minor blip.
To put it another way, the number of suicides is so small compared with the population that an increase or decrease of a similar number has no real meaning; it is well within the margin of error.
Furthermore teen girl suicide (while it is very real for the families who suffer it, and I commiserate with them) is quite rare if you put it into perspective. The average person personally knows about 500 people, so only one person in 200 even vaguely knows a girl who has committed suicide.
There is a further mistake in the article, though I suspect the journalist who wrote it is to blame, and that is the statement "..a rate of fewer than one per 100,000 population."
No, it is fewer than one per 100,000 girls ages 10-14. In the general population, it is one per 3 million population.
There are two explanations why this "jump" is being reported by the CDC. One, Dr. Arias is ignorant of statistical probability, and is shocked by the figure, or the CDC has an agenda behind reporting it.
Let's examine the article to see what we find in that direction.
"The CDC is advising health officials to consider focusing suicide-prevention programs on girls ages 10-19 and boys between 15-19 to reverse the trends."
One thing right off the bat: using the word "trend" in a statistical study is unprofessional. Either an increase or decrease is statistically significant, in which case you would say so, or it is not. The word "trend" is used by sloppy social scientists to denote a change in a number, but one they can't support with statistical analysis - in other words, it is a biased opinion. They want it to mean something that it is not.
Now I imagine this advice means for health officials to stick their noses in children's lives to prevent that one in 3 million suicide. Given that an individual health worker may have access to perhaps a couple hundred children, it would be quite unlikely, even if he or she were capable of spotting a potential suicide, that he or she would actually come across a particular one. Meanwhile, they would be fretting, opening case files, and intruding where they should not a dozen times a day, every time they saw a child who was sad because her best friend went out with a boy she likes.
Today they came out with a story saying that: The suicide rate among preteen and teenage girls rose to its highest level in 15 years, and hanging surpassed guns as the preferred method, federal health officials reported Thursday.
The biggest jump — about 76 percent — was in the suicide rate for girls ages 10-14 from 2003 to 2004. There were 94 suicides in that age group in 2004, compared to 56 in 2003. That's a rate of fewer than one per 100,000 population.
For full story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295953,00.html
I know something about statistics, I took advanced courses in it as a graduate student, and applied it in my dissertation. When I read this, I knew immediately that something else is going on when they reported it, as the "jump" from 54 to 96 suicides in that population is insignificant. It is not even noteworthy, given that there are approximately 10,000,000 girls ages 10-14 in the US. To check my gut feeling, I ran the numbers testing for significance, using the t-test.
For those of you who know what it all means, the t value in this case is 116,343. Given a confidence level of .0005, this value does not even register as a minor blip.
To put it another way, the number of suicides is so small compared with the population that an increase or decrease of a similar number has no real meaning; it is well within the margin of error.
Furthermore teen girl suicide (while it is very real for the families who suffer it, and I commiserate with them) is quite rare if you put it into perspective. The average person personally knows about 500 people, so only one person in 200 even vaguely knows a girl who has committed suicide.
There is a further mistake in the article, though I suspect the journalist who wrote it is to blame, and that is the statement "..a rate of fewer than one per 100,000 population."
No, it is fewer than one per 100,000 girls ages 10-14. In the general population, it is one per 3 million population.
There are two explanations why this "jump" is being reported by the CDC. One, Dr. Arias is ignorant of statistical probability, and is shocked by the figure, or the CDC has an agenda behind reporting it.
Let's examine the article to see what we find in that direction.
"The CDC is advising health officials to consider focusing suicide-prevention programs on girls ages 10-19 and boys between 15-19 to reverse the trends."
One thing right off the bat: using the word "trend" in a statistical study is unprofessional. Either an increase or decrease is statistically significant, in which case you would say so, or it is not. The word "trend" is used by sloppy social scientists to denote a change in a number, but one they can't support with statistical analysis - in other words, it is a biased opinion. They want it to mean something that it is not.
Now I imagine this advice means for health officials to stick their noses in children's lives to prevent that one in 3 million suicide. Given that an individual health worker may have access to perhaps a couple hundred children, it would be quite unlikely, even if he or she were capable of spotting a potential suicide, that he or she would actually come across a particular one. Meanwhile, they would be fretting, opening case files, and intruding where they should not a dozen times a day, every time they saw a child who was sad because her best friend went out with a boy she likes.
Stupidity Reaps Its Own Reward
Sen. Craig, R-Idaho who plead guilty to disorderly conduct last month, and is facing calls by his colleagues in the Senate to resign has now changed his mind about his guilty plea, and has hired a lawyer to contest the plea. He didn't clam up when he was arrested and interrogated, in fact he sang like the proverbial boid, and argued with the cop; neither did he ask for a lawyer, nor even appear at the plea agreement with a lawyer.
He should be made to resign from the US Senate; not because he made hand and foot signals to someone in a public bathroom, not because he was convicted of a misdemeanor, but because he was stupid for not getting his lawyer on the phone the minute he was arrested, and shutting his mouth.
The Senate is no place for someone who is that stupid. Even Ted Kennedy had the presence of mind to call his lawyer when he left Mary Jo to die in the pond, before the police were even aware of the incident.
He should be made to resign from the US Senate; not because he made hand and foot signals to someone in a public bathroom, not because he was convicted of a misdemeanor, but because he was stupid for not getting his lawyer on the phone the minute he was arrested, and shutting his mouth.
The Senate is no place for someone who is that stupid. Even Ted Kennedy had the presence of mind to call his lawyer when he left Mary Jo to die in the pond, before the police were even aware of the incident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)