Assange in custody

The New Neo Posted on by

Julian Assange is in police custody in England pending a hearing on his Swedish rape charges. The judge has denied bail.

There are a few surprises here. One is that the British have had the will to follow through on this. Another (at least to me) is that Assange came willingly to the police station; I would have thought he’d have continued to hide. This tells me that either he thought he’d be granted bail and/or he thinks he won’t be extradited to Sweden by the Brits and/or he thinks the Swedes won’t convict him even if he stands trial. And what of the “insurance” file? Does it get activated now?

When I wrote “Swedish rape charges” in that first sentence, I didn’t just mean rape charges in Sweden. “Swedish rape” appears to be a different animal than rape as we know it in most places in the world. It includes murkier issues of consent given and then withdrawn as the act is in progress due to such things as non-condom use. It’s also the case that the conviction rate for rape in Sweden is only 10%, and so if Assange believes he’ll be found not guilty, this may have a very good basis in fact.

However, from the BBC coverage we learn that the rape charges against Assange may not be so mild as we’d been previously led to believe. One of the women charges that not only did he have unprotected sex with her, but it occurred while she was asleep (or at least, I’ll assume it began when she was asleep; if she continued to sleep all through the entire act, that doesn’t say much for Assange as a lover or a rapist). That scenario sounds to me like what even Whoopi Goldberg might call “rape-rape.”

And in a sidelight, who was among those willing to bail Assange out? Why, John Pilger, that’s who. Fellow-Australian and fellow US-hater extraordinaire Pilger has been making “documentaries” and crying “The USA is an imperialist pig!” ever since he cut his teeth as a journalist in Vietnam war era days.

Wikileaks vs. Climategate

The New Neo Posted on by

This comment from “bubonicplacebo” appeared on one of the recent Wikileaks threads here:

Of course, when the story was all about hacked e-mails concerning climatology, the usual conservative knuckleheads were focused on discussing the merits of the find, rather than the demerits of the crime.

An interesting statement. But while it’s true that each information dump features the exposure of correspondence that was originally meant to be secret, that’s where the similarity ends.

Whatever one’s position is on the truth of anthropomorphic global warming itself, I think we can safely say that truth-telling is of the essence in science. Yes, scientists talk amongst themselves in emails and phone calls and other communications, and those communications are ordinarily private, and should be kept that way. But if such exchanges detail a scientific deception, especially a major one that affects a great many people, then the public really does have an overwhelming right to know.

Climategate was not a generalized dumping of secret information. Nor was any generalized future dumping threatened by the Climategate leaker. The motivation seems pretty clear: to divulge the fact that in one particular instance (proof of AGW) the books seem to have been cooked in a manner antithetical to the very essence of science, and with possible dire consequences.

Whether this exposure was a crime or not is unclear, because we don’t know whether the emails were stolen or whether (as is more likely) the leaker was an insider whistleblower. At any rate, there is no protected intelligence here, no national security issue, although there are certainly privacy issues.

Wikileaks is substantially different. It is a generalized dump of classified information, with much more promised. The targets are countries such as the US, but much more than that: it is Western society as we know it and its ability to negotiate in the world and to defend itself. Later on there will be whole industries targeted, as well: for example, banks. No specific crime or even special wrongdoing is alleged, nor was one revealed—except for secrecy itself, which of course is not a crime.

What’s more, the subject matter so far—diplomacy and intelligence—are about as unlike science as they can be. If truth is of the essence of science, secrecy and deceptions are of the essence of diplomacy and intelligence. We may not like it, and we may not trust the government to do right by us in these arenas. But without secrecy, these activities cannot be successfully carried out.

So Climategate is rather the opposite of Wikileaks in a very basic way. Without truth, science cannot be successfully carried out. Science is supposed to be open and transparent and truthful. Diplomacy and intelligence are not, and although that fact is both troubling and paternalistic, most people are aware that it’s a reality that cannot be changed.

As for motives, here’s the best evidence so far (as if we needed more) of Assange as megalomanical blackmailer interested in power and chaos:

Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets…Assange has warned he can divulge the classified documents in the insurance file and similar backups if he is detained or the WikiLeaks website is permanently removed from the internet. He has suggested the contents are unredacted, posing a possible security risk for coalition partners around the world.

Assange warned: “We have over a long period of time distributed encrypted backups of material we have yet to release. All we have to do is release the password to that material, and it is instantly available.”

The “doomsday files” are part of a contingency plan drawn up by Assange and his supporters as they face a legal threat. He is wanted in Sweden over sexual assault allegations, and the US administration is reviewing the possibility of legal action after the release of 250,000 diplomatic cables.

He’s threatening the world with blackmail if it dares to thwart him.

Still think Assange…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is some sort of hero, motivated by an interest in transparency? Think again.

And then think some more.

[NOTE: I’m having trouble figuring out a category under which to file posts on Wikileaks and Assange. I don’t have a category (yet) for “megalomaniac world blackmailers of the anarchist variety.” So I’ve decided to use “terrorism and terrorists” or sometimes “press,” neither of which exactly fit but will do for now.]

Let’s make a deal: taxes and unemployment insurance

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ve gotten so unused to Congressional deals during the past couple of years (except among the Democrats themselves, to get votes from Blue Dogs) that the prospect of this one seems odd and novel.

But the Dems are poised to allow a temporary—perhaps two years—extension of the Bush (how that word must stick in their craws!) tax cuts in exchange for a Republican concession on extending unemployment benefits.

I’ve read opinions stating that a temporary extension of the tax cuts won’t do, because it won’t stabilize expectations enough. I think two years is a decent amount of time, and much better than nothing. As McConnell is quoted in the article as saying, President Obama would not sign a bill for a permanent extension anyway.

Two years of tax cuts might give us some data which can then be analyzed to see what effect they may have had on the economy and the deficit. Whatever that effect might be (or might be claimed to be), you can be sure it will be used during the campaign of 2012, which already is starting to sound not so far away:

Democrats say they would not mind the issue coming up during Mr. Obama’s re-election bid, because they see it as politically helpful to them in painting Republicans as defenders of the rich. The debate, of course, could cut the other way, with Republicans again portraying Democrats as seeking to raise taxes.

DWE: driving while eating

The New Neo Posted on by

The comments in this thread led to the revelation that, in Britain, eating or drinking while driving has already been made an offense. And that’s not just drinking as in alcoholic beverages, either: drinking a bottle of water will do.

And not just while driving: this woman was flagged for sipping mineral water while stopped at a red light [hat tip: commenter “Fred”].

The incident lets us know where we might be headed, and it’s not in a good direction. It’s one thing to ban reckless driving and then to fine someone for it, and for acts they may be performing that probably contributed to it. But to ban certain acts themselves because they have a statistically increased frequency of contributing to accidents is a very slippery slope, and the libertarian in me protests.

First there’s banning texting and cell phone use. Seems okay, doesn’t it? But what’s to stop the ban from extending to radio listening, or merely talking to one’s companion? I don’t know about you, but I’m very uneasy about it all.

The topic sparks a memory of mine from many years ago, when I had my own proxy driving-while-eating experience. My then-boyfriend (later to be husband) and I were tooling about the country in his little MG, young and in love and eating potato chips.

Yes, eating potato chips (oh to be young and in love and able to eat potato chips with no thought of the consequences!). The large bag of chips was set between the low bucket seats of the MG for easy access (oh to be young and in love and eating potato chips while sitting in low bucket seats with no thought of the aching back!).

We were in Arizona, if memory serves me. Suddenly, while reaching and munching, reaching and munching, my boyfriend spied the blue flashing lights of an approaching highway patrol car bent on pulling us over. Obediently pull over we did, and after the officer came to the driver’s side window and asked for the usual license and other papers, he explained to us that the car had been weaving back and forth in its lane.

He asked for an explanation, and my boyfriend pointed to the bag, “I was eating potato chips.”

The officer, poker-faced as they nearly always are, responded, “Don’t drive and eat potato chips.”

While my boyfriend was busy nodding obsequiously and wisely (“Yes, sir! Yes, sir!”) the whole thing began to strike me as funny. Very funny. I knew it is always a good idea to be very calm and very unemotional with police, but try as I might I couldn’t keep a giggle or two from bubbling up and bursting forth from my lips.

The officer stared at me. My boyfriend glared at me. Fortunately, that was the end of it; we didn’t get a fine for eating or for giggling.

And I’ve never since been tempted to laugh on the rare occasions when I’ve been pulled over for a violation. It’s just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

In the last few days I’ve gotten perhaps fifty or more of this babbling bot:

Compassionate for the huge retrieve, but I’m really uxorious the new Zune, and expectation this, as fortunate as the reviews opposite grouping jazz statute, will work you settle if it’s the opportune selection for you.

Fruits and veggies, obesity, and cancer

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a piece of news about cancer and eating fruits and vegetables. The hype in the many MSM articles that covered this research story was the same: eating a goodly number of fruits and vegetables won’t prevent cancer. Stop the presses!

Well, who ever thought it would? I was only under the impression it might slightly reduce the chance of developing cancer, which has complex and poorly-understood causes. And it turns out that’s exactly what the study said:

…[E]ven large consumptions of fruit and veg will only reduce the risk by a maximum of 10 per cent.

It’s not great, granted. But ten percent is still ten percent.

The article goes on to say that obesity and drinking represent far greater cancer risks. Obesity is the favorite whipping boy of the health industry, so this should come as no surprise. But I was curious to find out what percent of cancer cases have been found to be due to obesity.

Trouble is, none of the MSM articles on the research offered that particular statistic. And when I went to check out the original article, it turns out it would cost me $32 to read it (thanks but no thanks).

So I went on a Google search for the answer, or at least an answer. I found this:

In 2002, about 41,000 new cases of cancer in the United States were estimated to be due to obesity. This means that about 3.2 percent of all new cancers are linked to obesity.

It doesn’t sound as though such a huge percentage of new cancers is attributable to obesity after all. If you go through the article, it attempts to discuss for what specific types of cancer, and under what conditions, obesity affects cancer rates. Read it and you’ll see that the situation is astoundingly complex: different for men and women, different for type of cancer involved, different depending on estrogen status (pre- or post-menopausal, and whether replacement hormone therapy has been instituted), different for races and ages.

What’s more, the assumption that the act of losing weight (if people were able to do so; it’s notoriously difficult for the obese) would change things for the better is untested:

The most conclusive way to test if avoiding weight gain will decrease the risk of cancer is through a controlled clinical trial. At present, there have been no controlled clinical trials on the effect on cancer related to avoiding weight gain…

There is insufficient evidence that intentional weight loss will affect cancer risk for any cancer. A very limited number of observational studies have examined the effect of weight loss, and a few found some decreased risk for breast cancer among women who have lost weight. However, most of these studies have not been able to evaluate whether the weight loss was intentional or related to other health problems…

And then there are studies such as this, which focuses on overall mortality rather than specifically on cancer. It found that somewhat overweight people may have a lower death rate than normal weight people, underweight people a higher death rate, and the highest of all was in the extremely obese (over 35 BMI; to give you a rough idea what that means, a person of my height, 5’4″, would have to weigh in at over 205 pounds to have a BMI that high):

In our analysis, we did not find overweight (BMI 25 to 30) to be associated with increased mortality in any of the 3 surveys. Our results are similar to those of a previous analysis of NHANES I and II data that found little effect of overweight on life expectancy. Our finding is consistent with other results reported in the literature, although methodologic differences often preclude exact comparisons. In many studies, a plot of the relative risk of mortality against BMI follows a U-shaped curve, with the minimum mortality close to a BMI of 25; mortality increases both as BMI increases above 25 and as BMI decreases below 25, which may explain why risks in the overweight category are not much different from those in the normal weight category. Some studies have found that overweight was associated with a slightly increased risk of total mortality compared with the normal weight category. Other studies have suggested that overweight (BMI 25 to 30) is associated with no excess mortality, particularly in older age groups. Further investigation of the effects of overweight on mortality, particularly in the elderly, and of the possible role of confounding would be of interest.

Of interest, indeed.

And it would be particularly fascinating to know whether losing weight and keeping it off has any positive effect at all, other than looking better and feeling better. For example, I look and feel better when I’m less weighty, and when I eat fewer sweets. If that’s the way it is for you, it makes sense to try to keep your weight down. But this demonizing of the overweight is both tiresome and non-scientific.

The return of the scutie

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night while I was talking on the phone, I idly looked up towards a lighting fixture and noticed with horror that It Was Back.

The scutie, that is, my revolting house guest from last year (follow the link for a photo; I refuse to publish it again). My phone companion helpfully suggested it might have been the very same one I escorted out in a cup last year and released into the wild. But if so, it’s had a terrible year, worse even than Obama: although still quite large, this one was significantly smaller than the previous enormous Scutigera coleoptrata (common house centipede) that had chosen to enter my humble abode.

This one, however, received the same treatment as before: catch and release. Why did I not kill the scutie, you might ask? Same reason as last year. There are limits to the size of the creatures I will voluntarily crush, and the scutie exceeds that limit by a significant amount. It’s hard to say exactly where I draw the line, but if something will squish and ooze in significant fashion rather than a simple neat and unitary splat, the impulse to crush seems to depart from me.

You may notice, however, that last night I bravely dealt with the scutie by myself. Oh, I’m not averse to asking the resident male to take over, if there happens to be a resident male around. But when none’s in sight, I step up to the plate and take my bugs outside like the trouper I am.

And then I write about it.

About extending those Bush tax cuts

The New Neo Posted on by

Lots of blah, blah, blah in Washington about whether or not to extend those Bush tax cuts, and to whom, and for how long.

The problem with arguing about such things, of course, is that no one really knows what the effect of each course would be. At least, I haven’t seen anything that convinces me that anyone knows. I’m already on record as saying that economics is not my strong suit, but I’m beginning to wonder whether it’s anyone’s.

Here’s why: in economics, what seems obvious ain’t necessarily so. The economy is one of those extraordinarily complex systems that make predictions exceedingly hard to get right. Oh, somebody always seems to have been correct—ex post facto. The problem is knowing ahead of time whose prediction is the one to (literally) bank on.

Here’s the dilemma we face right now: we’ve got a number of huge economic problems, high among them being unemployment, an economy that needs stimulation in terms of confidence and spending and investing, and the need to restrain a huge and growing deficit. What might help the first two (spending, lower taxes rather than higher) might harm the third.

Furthermore, we’ve got uncertainty about the actual effect of tax hikes and/or tax cuts. It is intuitive to think that raising taxes raises revenues. But it’s not always correct—and even when it is, it’s not always correct to the extent expected and depended upon.

In other words, sometimes raising taxes doesn’t do what it’s meant to do, and can even have large and unintended consequences (such as people not working so hard in order to keep their incomes in a lower bracket, fleeing the state or the country, finding effective ways to shift money around so they avoid taxes, and so on).

If you look at discussions of the topic around the blogosphere, you’ll find that the arguments tend to split not only on political lines between conservatives and liberals, but between those who think it’s most important to stimulate the economy by keeping money in the pockets of the people (rich and poor and in-between), those who think it’s most important to reduce the deficit by raising taxes, those who think it most important to reduce the deficit by cutting government spending, and those who want to combine some of these approaches.

The real question is: who’s more correct? Which approach will help most? I’m for a combination of extending the Bush tax cuts and cutting spending. But hey, I’ve already said I’m no expert. The trouble is that neither are the experts.