nerdgirl

This morning rotating on the US Army homepage, (unique url): "Staff Sgt [ ] holds a real .9 mm pistol in his right hand and a toy .9 mm pistol in his left at an Iraqi police station in Seddah, to demonstrate how similar the fake and real weapons look. Coalition forces are asking shop owners to stop selling the toys to children so they are not mistaken for insurgents." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, your example actually is a question of the *funding process* not the *peer review process.* ... but if one does accept your assertion -- which I don't -- for the sake of argument, what do you propose as an alternative? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Well, perhaps a counter-example of one alternative would be more effective: see the link in [SpeedRacer's] post on "The State of the Muslim World." "The GDP of the world's 57 Muslim-majority countries combined is less than that of France. Those 57 countries contain about 500 universities, compared to more than 5,000 in the United States and 8,000 in India. There are only 230 scientists per million Muslims. Fewer new book titles are published each year in Arabic, the language of 300 million people, than in Greek, spoken by only 15 million. More books are translated into Spanish each year than have been translated into Arabic in the last century. "He argues that a lack of economic, intellectual, cultural, and technological [all intrinsically tied to academic & higher education beyond 7th or 8th Century "immutable texts" - nerdgirl] productivity in the Muslim world has left a vacuum that has been filled by paranoia and inflammatory rhetoric, fueling “a culture of political anger, rather than political solutions.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I thought Don [prirana] presented some sophisticated and nuanced contextual aspects to the arguments, which is not to imply that I either agree or disagree with them - but they did make me think. Do you have some counter-examples or arguments because I am interested in hearing them. What do you see that he & I are missing that has yet to be brought into the discussion? Last fall, I was working with some folks down at the Port of Savannah where another part of Real ID is being implemented for access to the port (the 3rd largest in the US by volume, if I recall correctly). There are real issues of economic impact there for many reasons, including concerns that the screening process will eliminate large numbers of drivers and port workers who have past felony convictions. Thanks. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I concur with the Sunday Times on-line piece that the source of funding should have been acknowledged. It’s not, however, “Soros’ Science” anymore than the $413M (FY08 PBR) in research funded by the DoD for nanotechnology research or the $10.7B (FY08 PBR) in research through DDR&E is “Gates’ Science” or previously “Rumsfeld’s Science.” For the last 4 years, “Supporting the Global War on Terrorism” has been the #1 DDR&E priority. Should all of that research be dismissed as ‘political’ or biased on the basis of association with a single administration’s policies? No, that’s why there’s the outside, open, peer-review process. The results (data, methods, & analysis) went through outside, open, peer-review prior to publication in Lancet and subsequently in the epidemiological community, as anything that is particularly novel will (& normatively “should,” im-ever-ho). And continue to be challenged. I have no idea what the requirements or review process for funding proposals is by Soros’ Open Society Institute. The short Times piece also notes that the “study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).” In the end, it is George Soros’ money; in a capitalistic marketplace, should he not be able to do with it as he pleases? It’s also worth considering is George Soros, like Bill & Melinda Gates, personally benefiting financially from these endeavors? Otoh, an unanswered question for me is why did MIT go to the Open Society Institute? Were they “muzzled” and unable to receive funding through the USG? Was there an intentional decision to fund from non-federal sources? Or were there fundamental flaws in the research design? There’s a provocative analogy here for all those who argue against anthropogenic climate change and make assertions that research counter to anthropogenic climate change (or as the Times piece notes, challenges the “consensus”) is being “muzzled.” One risks being asked whether ‘consensus’ is acceptable for research that supports one's political view/beliefs but not acceptable in the other? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Reading the linked article on the House report, the concluding lines reminded me of a ‘fun’ (read: dripping sarcasm) incident I had late last year. Was flying home from someplace that wasn’t DC or NYC, was tired (perhaps not thinking as wisely as possible), and while waiting to board my flight I was reading the latest issue of a journal (peer-reviewed

... ugh ... Further exacerbation of the civilian-military divide is not good for the nation. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Jaye - Help me understand better your analysis and how to better communicate the information. On what basis are you challenging the “accuracy” of the CDC’s data? (It’s not a statistical analysis, it’s just raw data.) The website clearly discloses the States that have chosen not to submit and methods. Do you have a better source or even competing source? I’m always interested in a 2nd or 3rd, etc. data set to strengthen the analysis. The explanation for the 4 States that don’t report on divorces is federalism. The US Dept of Health & Human Services (under which CDC falls) can *request* information from States, that does not mean the States have to send it. One possible policy response would be to federally mandate submission by all States. Would you recommend that? There are diseases, e.g., smallpox, plague, tularemia, measles, for which reporting to the CDC is a federal requirement. Personally, I’m inclined to not federally mandate reporting on divorces. Is it really your assertion that including data from additional 4 States is going to skew the values from 48% to 80% … or to “76%”? Mathematically, what would the divorce rate have to be in those States for that to occur? Frankly, it would be a fascinating anomaly. No, I didn’t chuckle. I’m not being flip or facetious … seriously, what preferable source would you suggest? Are you arguing to dismiss figures because you’re under the impression that vital statistics fall outside of the purview of the CenterS for Disease Control and Prevention? Do you have in mind some agenda or other reason why the CDC should not be a credible source? [I’m genuinely asking here.] If the data was coming from a hypothetical “Institute for a Higher Divorce Rate” or the “National Alliance Against Divorce” I could understand and support the skepticism. If the data & the hypothesis don’t agree, does one revise the hypothesis or the data? Were you aware that two of the CDC’s Centers are the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) & National Center for Public Health Informatics (NCPHI)? (Also within the CDC is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.) Within NCHS, is the National Vital Statistics System: “The National Vital Statistics System is the oldest and most successful example of inter-governmental data sharing in Public Health and the shared relationships, standards, and procedures form the mechanism by which NCHS collects and disseminates the Nation's official vital statistics. These data are provided through contracts between NCHS and vital registration systems operated in the various jurisdictions legally responsible for the registration of vital events--births, deaths [including suicides – nerdgirl], marriages, divorces, and fetal deaths. Vital Statistics data are also available on line. In the United States, legal authority for the registration of these events [i.e., why States aren’t required to report - nerdgirl] resides individually with the 50 States, 2 cities (Washington, DC, and New York City), and 5 territories (Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). These jurisdictions are responsible for maintaining registries of vital events and for issuing copies of birth, marriage, divorce, and death certificates.” Help me understand why/how you view an unspecified, unattributable representative (perhaps) from the Social Security Administration as credible on statistics on divorce rates (perhaps among parents of special needs families) but not the publicly available data reported by the Department of Health and Human Services? The Census Bureau (under DoCommerce) does collect survey-based (as opposed to State record-based) data on marriages and divorces too; they also direct to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System for raw data. I’m not trying to make you look bad or anything like that … [there’s one O-6 submariner left over from those hand-packed by Rickover to whom I rant about how the nuclear model does *not* apply to bio & nano who satisfies any very small quota in me for that ] but understand how to better convey information. Concur heartily! My parents were married for almost 35 years, until my dad died in 2001. I saw how they put each other, their marriage, and their child in front of themselves. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the interesting discussion. From my limited experience (compared to some of the more ‘seasoned’ scholars posting), I’ve seen peer-review in science that works. Often works very well. Maybe my ego is just sound enough … but I really appreciate reviews that are constructively critical because they help make the manuscript *better.* I recognize that’s not always the case but speculate the alternative is rare rather than common. We do often guess at who a reviewer is (frequently based on which references the reviewer asserts need to be added ). Even as intellectually painful as it was, I’d like to think that the changes that were inspired by the reject from Science improved the manuscript, which was subsequently accepted by Nature.

That figure struck me. I was under the impression that ~50% of US marriages failed (which is less than good but still less bad than 80%). Inspired a lil’ data hunt. From the CDC data: Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.) = 48% divorce rate for overall US in 2006, which is the lowest rate since 1970. Factors attributed include older first marriages and more cohabitation (w/out marriage). By state, highest divorce rate (not real surprise): Nevada (6.4/1000). Followed by Arkansas (6.1), Wyoming (5.2), Idaho/West Virginia (5.0), & Alabama/Kentucky/Oklahoma/Tennessee (4.9). An interesting observation that suggests education may be a key factor to lowering divorce rates: “People who have completed college tend to have significantly higher marriage and lower divorce rates compared to those with less education. Among those married in the early 1990s, only 16.5 percent of college educated women were divorced within ten years, compared to 46 percent for high school dropouts. Indeed, most of the recent divorce rate decline has been among the college educated; for those with less than a high school education, the divorce rate actually has been rising.” {Quoted from Rutgers “State of our Unions Study, unsure whether it was peer-reviewed or not.

Excellent points -- all of them! Climate change has gotten much more attention than the great silylium ion debate in the pages (letters and technical articles) of Science, between George Olah (Nobel Prize 1995) & Chris Reed (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/263/5149/985.pdf) or the the more recent sonoluminesce and neutron generation dispute among Rusi Teleyarkan, Ken Suslick, and Saul Putterman, (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5581/496b, http://www.rpi.edu/~laheyr/Sonofusion%20Paper-pdf_Lahey_NURETH-11.pdf, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5767/1532.pdf) or Dick Ebright's criticisms of biodefense funding by NIH-NIAID (over fundamental inquiries into pathogenesis and infectious disease), (Sidney Altman, et al., “An Open Letter to Elias Zerhouni,” Science, 4 March 2005, vol 307, p. 1409, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;307/5714/1409c). These guys don't just write letters; they go out and 'strongly suggest' their grad students & postdocs do experiments to dispute the other's hypothesis. And then publish the data, models, etc. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Just curious. (Of course this is a non-scientific poll.

While I may be completely wrong, I wonder if you’re really concerned about "Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies" themselves? Science and the publication of scientific results can used/appropriated/co-opted by folks who aren't so much concerned about the science but are interested in the how the data &/or information might affect/impact their interests or their beliefs (to some extent on all "sides"). And that is part of what science should do - be used to as part of the informed decision-making process, i.e., science-based policy. Now that's something of a truism – a lot of skydivers care very little about aerodynamics, only that "it works" and the plane flies ...

Agree that emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases -- including more obscure ones like chikungunya [CHIK] -- are an under-recognized issue (beyond those linked to 'bioterrorism'). What would you recommend & why? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting observation. Anecdotally (& that's all it is), I've made similar ones. The 'happiest' people that I have observed & interacted with were in rural Nepal -- off the main trekking routes -- living above 12k. Most basic susbsistence lives - largely driven by the geography & climate. There was very little disparity within communities -- everyone was poor. I speculate that there was a religious component as well ... but it's just that: speculation. AS striking as it was, I didn't think it was "better," and I certainly would not choose that life. But it was a provocative cognitive observation. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In October, you started a thread on the subject "Terrorism is not a threat". If one assumes {always a dangerous proposition in & out of Speakers Corner

What alternative process would you recommend & why? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's a completely unrelated correlation. While in my personal life I very much like the symbolism of sharing one name, I've got an established publication & professional record under another name. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Alternative headline in Subject line. Detroit’s population fell below 1M in 2000; have to go back to the 1920’s to get below 1M. What’s the geographical distribution of CCW holders? Once one leaves the Detroit metro and I-94 corridor (across far southern Michigan), populations density drops severely. Rural Michigan has a strong sportsman-associated gun culture. Correlation or causation? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting analogy. Another analogy has been to the classical Anarchist movement of the late 19th-early 20th centuries, e.g., The Economist “For Jihadist, Read Anarchist.” Do you see that as a part or parallel to the Marxist analogy? Like global Salafism/Jihadist terrorist network, radical Anarchism was a transnational endeavor, had global aspirations, and presented an unprecedented degree of violence for its era. Today, most people would obviously see the Anarchists as a failed attempt to take over the global system and model it according to their ideology, i.e., destabilizing and putting an end to the nation-state (Westphalian). The Anarchist movement emerged in an era where the dominant philosophy was against them, but the information & communications technology of today was not available. Once can argue that forced the Anarchists to operate more locally. Clearly Al Qa’eda does not have the same limitations, as illustrated by the original post in this thread. Historically, there are other comparisons too, e.g., the Hashashin (11-13th CE) & centuries worth of pirates, who as early as the first century BCE were threatening the commerce of the entire Roman Empire. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There’s a Russian saying that I encountered a couple years while traveling in & around Moscow & St. Petersburg: If you see someone smiling on the street, they're either deranged, stupid, or an American. Heard various permutations on that basic theme. For business or negotiations one has to learn to present a different demeanor … & learn to say ‘no’ to offers of vodka at 11 am “Nyet. Pivo spaseebo.” (No. Beer thank you.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, I believe that's from Stephen Grey's book. I generally consider Human Rights Watch (HRW) -- the link above -- to be a credible source. As the HRW report notes: "Qassim’s case is the first known rendition by the U.S. government to a third country with a record of torture." ... Qassim had already been convicted in Egypt: "Because Qassim had already been tried and convicted in absentia by a military tribunal in 1992, he was not retried after his return to Egypt." W/r/t the Tirana cell, HRW notes: "Two of the rendered suspects, `Uthman and al-Naggar, had previously been sentenced to death in absentia by Egyptian military tribunals in March 1994 and October 1997 respectively." As I wrote above, I can’t authoritatively affirm, dispute, or refute Richard Clark, Stephen Grey, or Michael Scheuer’s assertions that some form of less than legal to extraordinary rendition was used during President Clinton’s tenure. I would also judge those reports to have mid to high probability of accuracy, that still does not make it legal or right. There are at least three options (1) the specifics are in the classified NSD-77 (from President GHW Bush's admin not Pres Reagan's admin), (2) the CIA Directorate of Operations did it of their own initiative, or (3) something else. The HRW report suggests that there has been a 'slippery slope' approach to rendition -- from irregular to less than legal to extraordinary. Doesn't matter what administration or nation-state, it's wrong. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One might argue they are fine points; like many things in the real world, the proverbial devil is in the details and in the definitions/usage of the legal terms. Section 2 of PDD-3 refers to both legal rendition (in which a bilateral extradition statute exists) and irregular rendition (return to US for prosecution): "return of suspects by force without the cooperation of the host government." Whether legal or irregular (which may be less-than-legal), the declassified portion of Section 2 of PDD-39 refers to returning suspects to the US for legal prosecution - that's the heading of Section 2 "*Return* of *Indicted* Terrorists to the U.S. for *Prosection*." Extraordinary rendition refers to the points that I tried to emphasize for differentiation: [1] extra-judicial transfer of suspected terrorist(s) to a [2] third-party state by the [3] CIA (as opposed to State & DOJ) [4] lacking judicial oversight (i.e., no indictment). The PBS Frontline site quotes from Stephen Grey's book, Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program: "Until 9/11, reports Grey, the FBI published an annual summary of what they called 'irregular renditions.' Snatch operations may occasionally have broken local laws, Grey says, but ultimately the suspect was brought to court to face a judge and jury." "In his book Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey, who has been investigating the CIA's secret rendition program for four years, reports that President Clinton orders that, in addition to bringing some terrorists to face trial in the U.S., others should be sent to foreign countries where they are wanted for a crime [not because norms against torture are less strict - nerdgirl]. To comply with the provisions of the Convention Against Torture, the CIA is ordered to get assurances from destination countries that suspects will not be tortured. 'At the minimum,' Grey says, 'countries with the very worst human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits at first.' Another key difference, he adds, 'Renditions before the Bush administration were carried out primarily to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals.'" VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Mike, Can you point out to me where in the redacted version of PDD-39 there is reference to torture or extraordinary rendition, i.e., extra-judicial transfer of suspect terrorist to a third part state (likely to employ torture) facilitated outside of the State Department or Department of Justice? Section 2 of PDD-39 addresses legal return (i.e., legal rendition) of terrorist suspects to the U.S. “for prosecution.” For those nations w/which the US does not extradition agreements (“extraterritorial statutes”), PDD-39 directs State and DOJ to “work to resolve the problem, where possible and appropriate, through negotiation and conclusion of new extradition treaties.” PDD-39 continues: “If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government, consistent with the procedures outlined in NSD-77, which shall remain in effect. (S).” As far as I am aware, even the title of NSD-77, which was produced during President George HW Bush’s administration, remains classified. If you have a FOIA’d link to a redacted version, I’d love to see it! (President Reagan also had a NSD-77 on unrelated subject.) What is in the declassified PDD does not describe extraordinary rendition because it does not direct [1] extra-judicial transfer of a suspected terrorist to a [2] third-party state by the [3] CIA (as opposed to State & DOJ) without [4] judicial oversight. I do see that the Wikipedia entry suggests that PDD-39 granted the CIA “rendition” powers. I don’t read the primary declassified document as granting the CIA that power. Yes, the memo went to the Director of Central Intelligence; it also went to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Health and Human Services too. My reading of the Wikipedia entry is either (1) whoever wrote & edited it, did so in error [which I judge more likely], or (2) someone has inadvertently disclosed classified information, i.e., either what was in the redacted portions of the declassified document or what one might speculate is the content of NSD-77. Now, do I dispute Richard Clark, Stephen Grey, or Michael Scheuer’s assertions that extraordinary rendition was used during President Clinton’s tenure? No. I can’t authoritatively affirm or refute. If those assertions are accurate, which I judge probable to highly probable, that didn’t make it legal or right, either. Nonetheless, I learned a bit - thanks! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Only semi-facetiously: I'd like to see serious consideration of moving Congress to western Nebraska or South Dakota and the Supreme Court to southeast Oregon. Executive Branch remain in DC. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying