Vol. 2 No. 74 Oct. 26, 2007
The Bogus Economist
General Math
Math is not my favorite topic, especially since I learned that in base two, I am 101101 years old. Considering the barrage of debate over our presence in Iraq, however, I feel it's time to smother my natural disinclination toward math and do the proper economic thing, i.e. subject the Iraq debate to the intense scrutiny of mathematical models and analysis. Or, as one of my former friends said to me, “Since you need analysis, why not the war?”
The catalyst for this momentous decision on my part came about as retired General Ricardo Sanchez fired some good-sized mortar shells at the media (which I feel needs lots more of them), his lack of definite orders while he was in charge of Abu Graib prison and the ham-handed incompetence of the Administration in understanding very well what they wanted to do, but not having a snowball's idea in Hell of how to do it. He describes Iraq as “A nightmare with no end in sight.” Not bad from a former commander of coalition forces in the whole country.
It is clear, however, General Sanchez feels it would be a calamity to withdraw troops from Iraq since this would result in “chaos,” a concept this column has dealt with before. The concept of “winning” the war has also been written about. The picture General Sanchez paints is grim and he's not the only painter in town. Fundamentally, the argument boils down to a relatively simple problem: Is what we're doing in Iraq reducing the number of terrorists and thus increasing our safety? Can we “win?” Enter the math.
The papers recently have recounted a large number of raids by the U.S. Army on suspected Al Qaida members in various towns and villages in Iraq. Here's one from MSN: “U.S. troops backed by attack aircraft killed 19 suspected insurgents and 15 civilians, including nine children, in an operation Thursday targeting al-Qaida in Iraq leaders northwest of Baghdad, the military said. An initial airstrike struck a 'time-sensitive target,' killing four insurgents in the Lake Tharthar area after intelligence reports indicated senior members of al-Qaida in Iraq were meeting there, according to a statement...Subsequent airstrikes were called in. Ground forces secured the area and determined '15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed,' a statement said. Two suspects, one woman and three children also were wounded and one suspected insurgent was detained, it added.”
O.K., let's turn on the math machine. First, let's assume all nineteen of the “suspected insurgents” were actually Al Qaida members, although the official statement mentioned only four. Assume our intelligence was correct, however, and there were really nineteen. That's (-19) in mathspeak. Another two suspects were wounded, so let's assume they're also out of action. That makes (-21). Another was detained (-22).
Now let's go over to the other side. We killed fifteen civilians, including nine kids. It didn't say in the report whether some of the adults were the parents of any of the children. There were also three children and another woman injured, The total non-insurgents, then, is (+19). So, on the surface, we seems to have disabled a total of three more bad guys than good guys (-3).
Here's where the math starts to tell a story. The average Iraqi family is numerous, thanks to a system of kinship where sometimes several generations live under the same roof. In some villages, kinship extends to virtually every inhabitant. Using an arbitrary number, it's pretty safe to say fifteen dead civilians represents up to a few hundred other “relatives” who escaped killing.
It's also safe to say the kin of the dead civilians were not pleased to find their sisters, mothers, brothers, fathers, uncles or significant others mistakenly dispatched during an air strike. Nor would they be mollified when told it was a shame, but worth it because nineteen suspected terrorists were also killed.
It's wise to bear in mind here the Arab culture is big on revenge. It's a matter of family honor to even scores, especially when an offense involves lots of members of the family. Since it's almost impossible to find out which individuals actually dropped the bombs during the air strike, it's much easier to swear revenge at the country whose insignia decorated the aircrafts' wings.
Totaling up, this means the air strikes in question produced a net gain of roughly two hundred or so people who would love to see the Great Satan (that's us, folks) get his come-uppance. Call it (-200). Adding the noneteen who might have been members of Al Qaida, the two wounded and the one detained, we're left with roughly 222 suspected terrorists or terrorist wannabees, nineteen of them dead. It's all so clear. We get nineteen – maybe – and they get two hundred three.
Continuing with the math, let's multiply this figure by the number of our air strikes and the recently reported trigger-happiness of the hired cowboys in our private security armies and you might conclude General Sanchez is guilty of understatement when he calls Iraq a “nightmare.” Let's be charitable and say it doesn't exactly add up to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis. It didn't win General Sanchez'.
It sure doesn't win mine.
-30
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Vol.2 No. 73 Oct. 12, 2007
The Bogus Economist
Measure 50
Shortly after mailing my last column to this paper's ever-patient editor, I received three (count them) pieces of mail informing me our Oregon Constitution was in mortal danger and I could save it. Wow! Who could be against saving the Oregon constitution? I quickly picked up the first piece entitled “Taxpayers oppose Measure 50 because laws are supposed to solve problems – not create them.” I also oppose laws that create problems. At the bottom of the page it added, “Please join us.” I was ready – who's “us?”
On page two, I was told “Our State Constitution deserves more respect.” Again, I agreed. The second piece was headlined, “Measure 50 would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Oregon's State CONSTITUTION” (their caps). Here, I found out that a retired professor of law thought Measure 50 would “limit the rights of voters while making a particular tax policy a constitutional mandate.” On the facing page was a distinguished-looking unidentified man next to a caption again reminding us Measure 50 “deliberately evades” constitutional taxpayer protections. Under that, a blurry cartoon warns Measure 50 could “open a Pandora's Box of future tax increases.” Finally, I was told our constitution should not be amended to promote the political agendas of “...special interest groups.”
By this time, I was champing at the bit. Who is “us?” Which special interest groups would Measure 50 promote? Does Pandora have a political agenda? What kind of campaign uses blurry cartoons? This was the biggest soap opera of the year. I plunged on.
My first clue came when I read some small print on the back of the second piece. “Major funding provided by Philip Morris USA.” Aha! It must be tobacco! I looked through the pamphlet for the word “tobacco.” I didn't find it. I went back to the first piece. There it was! On the top of the second page, it said Measure 50 would amend our constitution, a document that “should not be amended casually...,” to increase taxes on tobacco! Right on! No casual amending!
Now I knew who “us” is. Now how about “special interests?” For this, I turned to the third piece, ostensibly written by a a non-smoking first-grade teacher named Ben Matthews. He bitterly opposed Measure 50 because only 30% of the money would actually go for the Healthy Kids Program, which is the title of the Measure. Almost seventy percent would go to “whatever health care expense it (the state) wants.” Mr Matthews called Measure 50 “a blank check that will probably be written to state health care contractors like HMOs, health insurance companies or hospitals for bigger reimbursement payments.” Probably. Possibly. Well, maybe. Or maybe not.
Speaking of blank checks, I found – small print at the bottom of the page – a notice that Oregonians Against the Blank Check (OATBC) provided the resources to help Mr. Matthews share his thoughts. OATBC, I discovered, is almost wholly supported by Reynolds America, parent company of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. So much for special interests.
R.J. Reynolds, by the way, was among the companies whose CEOs solemnly sat in front of a congressional committee and swore under oath nicotine was non-addictive and there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. They stuck to this story under questioning despite their noses having grown long enough to knock over objects on adjacent desks. After getting off with nary a perjury charge, they promised to do what they could to persuade young people not to buy their products. Their noses by then were sprouting small flowering plants.
I've written about snus, little porous packets of tobacco to be placed between cheek and gum, allowing users to experience the kicks (and cancer) of the stuff without having to spit. They're now on sale in Portland. Answering complaints that a product like this will be welcomed with cheers by kids who realize they can not only use tobacco in school, but use it two seats from the teacher's desk, the butt companies reacted with shock. Kids? Goodness, no! However, Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris, Inc, is also quoted as saying about snus ,“This is a growth opportunity for us.” This is also known as “getting replacement users”.
I realize amending the Oregon constitution to cement in a tobacco tax is something to be careful about, but whether talking about smokeless cancer or the people who sell it, both seem to warrant Measure 50. Airing pious commercials warning kids not to smoke while coming out with flavored snus including cola, mint, and spice, isn't convincing. Nor is Mr. Matthews. Nor is Mr. Phelps. Frankly, I wouldn't believe the tobacco companies under oath - their noses tell me so. The pamphlets said to make up my own mind. I did.
In the eyes of the Bogus Economist, Measure 50 is only one of a set of essential ways to pay for the things we need, like children's health care – or any other kind of health care. Ronald Reagan, who acted as spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes for years (“Not a cough in a carload”), joined his wife in telling kids considering a toke or two during the '80's to “Just Say 'No'.” On Measure 50, I intend to “Just Say 'Yes'.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
The Bogus Economist
Measure 50
Shortly after mailing my last column to this paper's ever-patient editor, I received three (count them) pieces of mail informing me our Oregon Constitution was in mortal danger and I could save it. Wow! Who could be against saving the Oregon constitution? I quickly picked up the first piece entitled “Taxpayers oppose Measure 50 because laws are supposed to solve problems – not create them.” I also oppose laws that create problems. At the bottom of the page it added, “Please join us.” I was ready – who's “us?”
On page two, I was told “Our State Constitution deserves more respect.” Again, I agreed. The second piece was headlined, “Measure 50 would set a DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for Oregon's State CONSTITUTION” (their caps). Here, I found out that a retired professor of law thought Measure 50 would “limit the rights of voters while making a particular tax policy a constitutional mandate.” On the facing page was a distinguished-looking unidentified man next to a caption again reminding us Measure 50 “deliberately evades” constitutional taxpayer protections. Under that, a blurry cartoon warns Measure 50 could “open a Pandora's Box of future tax increases.” Finally, I was told our constitution should not be amended to promote the political agendas of “...special interest groups.”
By this time, I was champing at the bit. Who is “us?” Which special interest groups would Measure 50 promote? Does Pandora have a political agenda? What kind of campaign uses blurry cartoons? This was the biggest soap opera of the year. I plunged on.
My first clue came when I read some small print on the back of the second piece. “Major funding provided by Philip Morris USA.” Aha! It must be tobacco! I looked through the pamphlet for the word “tobacco.” I didn't find it. I went back to the first piece. There it was! On the top of the second page, it said Measure 50 would amend our constitution, a document that “should not be amended casually...,” to increase taxes on tobacco! Right on! No casual amending!
Now I knew who “us” is. Now how about “special interests?” For this, I turned to the third piece, ostensibly written by a a non-smoking first-grade teacher named Ben Matthews. He bitterly opposed Measure 50 because only 30% of the money would actually go for the Healthy Kids Program, which is the title of the Measure. Almost seventy percent would go to “whatever health care expense it (the state) wants.” Mr Matthews called Measure 50 “a blank check that will probably be written to state health care contractors like HMOs, health insurance companies or hospitals for bigger reimbursement payments.” Probably. Possibly. Well, maybe. Or maybe not.
Speaking of blank checks, I found – small print at the bottom of the page – a notice that Oregonians Against the Blank Check (OATBC) provided the resources to help Mr. Matthews share his thoughts. OATBC, I discovered, is almost wholly supported by Reynolds America, parent company of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company. So much for special interests.
R.J. Reynolds, by the way, was among the companies whose CEOs solemnly sat in front of a congressional committee and swore under oath nicotine was non-addictive and there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. They stuck to this story under questioning despite their noses having grown long enough to knock over objects on adjacent desks. After getting off with nary a perjury charge, they promised to do what they could to persuade young people not to buy their products. Their noses by then were sprouting small flowering plants.
I've written about snus, little porous packets of tobacco to be placed between cheek and gum, allowing users to experience the kicks (and cancer) of the stuff without having to spit. They're now on sale in Portland. Answering complaints that a product like this will be welcomed with cheers by kids who realize they can not only use tobacco in school, but use it two seats from the teacher's desk, the butt companies reacted with shock. Kids? Goodness, no! However, Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris, Inc, is also quoted as saying about snus ,“This is a growth opportunity for us.” This is also known as “getting replacement users”.
I realize amending the Oregon constitution to cement in a tobacco tax is something to be careful about, but whether talking about smokeless cancer or the people who sell it, both seem to warrant Measure 50. Airing pious commercials warning kids not to smoke while coming out with flavored snus including cola, mint, and spice, isn't convincing. Nor is Mr. Matthews. Nor is Mr. Phelps. Frankly, I wouldn't believe the tobacco companies under oath - their noses tell me so. The pamphlets said to make up my own mind. I did.
In the eyes of the Bogus Economist, Measure 50 is only one of a set of essential ways to pay for the things we need, like children's health care – or any other kind of health care. Ronald Reagan, who acted as spokesman for Chesterfield cigarettes for years (“Not a cough in a carload”), joined his wife in telling kids considering a toke or two during the '80's to “Just Say 'No'.” On Measure 50, I intend to “Just Say 'Yes'.”
-30-
The Bogus Economist © 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
