Well, New Jersey is abolishing the death penalty.  If pressed, I would probably come down on the side of keeping the death penalty.  I don’t particularly like the death penalty, but I like having flexibility in the legal system.   In my ideal world I’d like to have the legal option of using the death penalty and then never actually apply it. 

Really though, I don’t have a strong opinion either way on this one.  I’m not convinced deterrence works, but I’m not convinced it doesn’t.  I think having the option of the death penalty helps DAs get plea bargains and thus reduces the costs and demands on the legal system, which is a plus. But I recognize it may also lead to more false confessions and that is a minus.  So, lacking a strong opinion either way, I tend to play devil’s advocate in death penalty debates. Continue reading »

Dec 172007
 

Ron Paul’s supporters raised over $6 million in one day for his campaign!  Yowzah!  That’s nearly as much as many candidates have raised in entire quarters!  Go Ron Paul (that’s not an endorsement)!

 

Awhile back, I criticized Fred Thompson pretty harshly for proposing that we increase the size of our military budget to 4.5% of GDP, up from 3.7% currently, which the Thompson campaign believes will cost about $150 Billion. Thompson never suggested how we will pay for this increase, nor has he provided any explanation of why the United States might need such a massive military (already the second largest in the world by manpower, and by far the largest in terms of military spending).

Well, the latest GOP front-runner, Mike Huckabee, just proposed that we increase the size of our military budget to 6% of GDP. Again, he gives no explanation of why we need this money, or what we might spend it on. Apparently the 6% number comes from the height of the Reagan years; I guess, if it was good enough for Reagan, it must be right for us! Never mind that Reagan was a) overspending according to most military analysts of his day, b) faced a Soviet empire that at least posed a challenge to US hegemony, and c) was presiding over a country with a significantly smaller GDP.

Nor does Huckabee explain where this $400 billion might magically appear from, especially given that he has pledged to raise no new taxes. To be fair, every single Republican candidate, including Huckabee, believes that cutting taxes will generate greater revenue for the United States budget. So maybe he just thinks that if we eliminate all our taxes altogether, we’ll have all the money we could ever hope for!

Are these guys really that stupid? Or do they think the American public is that stupid? Or are we actually that stupid?

 

I’ve been reading a lot of debate transcripts lately (sixteen and counting), and let me tell you that not all debates are created equal.  In particular, there are a number of different ways of asking questions: some good, some not.  So in the hopes of raising the level of debate, I thought it might be useful to point out some of the best and worst examples of debate moderation.

Good Idea: Giving every candidate a chance to respond to each question.
Bad Idea: Changing topics rapidly without giving each candidate a chance to respond.

The best debate in this respect has been the PBS debates (transcripts are here for Democrat, here for GOP).  Each candidate present was asked every question, and they simply rotated who went first.  In that way, the viewer gets a clear idea of where each candidate stands on each topic, and can easily compare and contrast their answers.  It also gives the candidates a chance to build on the answers of each other; for instance, if asked about how to fix education, candidate A may give three answers, and then candidate B can say “I agree with everything A just said, and here are a couple more ways”.

On the other hand, the NBC moderated debates (Democrat here and here; GOP here) have been the worst offenders.  For instance, in the NBC GOP debate on 10/9, there were there were four questions asked about Iraq: two were directed at Fred Thompson, one at McCain, and one at Ron Paul, although Sam Brownback chimed in on it.  I would rather have had one question answered by all the candidates, so that I could compare them.

Continue reading »

 

I’ve lost count of how many of these correlation vs. causation posts I’ve done.  Either the media isn’t reading my posts, or else they keep forgetting what I’ve said…

This time the culprit is a recent set of studies that students who don’t pull all nighters get better grades than those who do.   The study goes on to conclude that students shouldn’t pull all nighters.  Now, I’m sure all-nighters are bad for other reasons.  They make you cranky, they may have health consequences, and they are generally bad news.  But just because there’s a correlation between all-nighters and lower GPAs does not mean that you can pull up your GPA by not pulling all-nighters.

Here’s an obvious alternate causal story.  Folks who are organized get their work done early – so they both don’t have to rush their work (leading to higher quality work, and higher grades) and they don’t pull all-nighters.  Or perhaps people from certain cultures have better study skills, and have cultural prohibitions against all-nighters… i.e. a third variable causes both.

There are other things that lower GPAs – such as not turning in papers on time, and not having studied at all.  If the night before a test or due date a student isn’t ready, an all -nighter might still be better than the alternative – not being ready at all.

When I was in college, I never pulled an all-nighter.  And I am in no way endorsing the practice.  But I take umbrage at the implied causation from a correlational study.  Shame on the media – shame!

© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha