Why Prestigious Colleges May Not Always Be The Best

First year Philosophy students at Loyola University, ca. 1965. Nearly 85% of them graduated four years later with a Bachelors degree in Philosophy. But the economic environment at the time allowed them to parlay their degree into other areas, unlike today when more pragmatic majors are demanded and 'numbers'  are used to drive decisions such as at collegemeasures.org

As student debt mounts into what is rapidly becoming another bubble, now exceeding $1.2 trillion, and more than 7 million debt- laden graduates having already defaulted on college loans, new approaches and remedies have come to the forefront. I noted some of the novel findings in a post nearly two years ago.  Much of the background research was done by College Measures - a joint venture of the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and the Matrix Knowledge Group. The study was funded by the Lumina Foundation. The site's objective is to enhance the cost-benefit ratio for college grads by compiling earnings statistics for different degrees in different states and thereby showing which majors are likely to confer the greatest economic benefit.

One surprising insight was that community college grads reaped economic benefits that rivalled and even exceeded those from more expensive 4-year institutions.   For example, one report found that for all nine Tennessee four-year public campuses, the average wage for graduates with a bachelor’s degree was $37,567. For graduates of the state’s 13 community colleges, the average wage was $38,948, or more than $1,300 higher than at four-year institutions. There is a wide range between the highest and lowest incomes of those earning bachelors, associates and certificates.

Meanwhile, a related Denver Post piece at the time reported :


“Students who earn associate's degrees in applied sciences earn a median salary of almost $7,000 more than those who get a bachelor's degree from four-year institutions, according to a report issued Wednesday by the state Department of Higher Education.”

These variations, especially in terms of community college benefits vis-à-vis those for more expensive 4-year schools, highlight the crux of the problem of college expense in relation to later benefit. The questions becomes: Why go into severe and massive debt at a 4-year full degree granting institution if one can obtain a quality associate degree and earn as much or more?

But an ancillary question is: Why go into severe and massive debt at a prestigious or elite university like Harvard or Stanford when one can actually come out economically ahead - in less debt and with better pay - on graduating from a public university?  The surprising finding - reported in The Wall Street Journal (February 1, p. R1) is that the extent to which one benefits really depends on one's major. A point I also brought up in a post last year.

The Journal looked at about 7,300 college grads ten years after their graduation and divided their major into several categories: business, engineering, social sciences, humanities, education and 'other'. They also cross-referenced three categories for college type: "selective" (covering elite schools), midtier, and "less selective" (covering schools with open enrollment - e.g. like the University of South Florida, my Alma Mater).

As the Journal authors (Eric R. Eide and Michael J. Hilmer) put it:

"What we found startled us. For STEM-related majors, average earnings don't vary much among the college categories. For example, we found no statistically significant differences in average earnings for science majors between selective schools and either midtier or less selective schools."

This is truly amazing and also important. It means, basically, that one will not be significantly better off with earnings in the physics field - for example - graduating from Harvard than the University of South Florida. He or she may actually be worse off graduating from Harvard if one has only minimal financial help (other than loans) to pay back the hefty debt incurred from the purchase of all that name prestige.

As the authors put it (p. R2):

"Our findings are crucial for families to understand because chasing a prestigious STEM degree can leave students burdened with huge amounts of unnecessary debt."

This also conforms to a May, 2011 MONEY magazine investigation which found it is more the name and reputation of the specific department that conferred benefits than the school itself. As the MONEY authors put it:

"Don't assume an Ivy League education is better than one from a public or state university."

 MONEY found that  'bang for the buck' included college graduation rates and post-college success rates - which compared favorably to - or exceeded  - what one obtained from the hallowed Ivies. Alas, this has still not trickled down into the mainstream media where we still find "Best Colleges" lists spread around with the Ivy Leagues on top - then all the rest. So no wonder students and their parents are neurotically driven to believe the Ivies are the  only route to success.

This is something students and their parents will need to seriously consider before stretching their meager resources beyond practical limits and saddling graduates with huge debts just for the sake of a name.

On the other hand, for many high -priced public universities, we shall have to wait for the implementation of Bernie Sanders's' plan (assuming he is elected and I believe he can be) for free public college. European nations do it because they understand having debt-free and capable citizens is a better investment in their futures than endless wars. We can do it too if we have the political will!

Dark Matter And Dark Energy In The Universe

Graph showing the plot of magnitude (M) vs. red shift z for Type 1a supernovae,  showing the universe is accelerating.(From: Perlmutter, Physics Today, April, 2003, p. 53)

Continued questions at All Experts.com suggest many still do not understand the differences between dark matter and dark energy. Both of these are critically important to our conception of the cosmos given they impinge on conclusions that we can draw on the nature of the cosmos - including whether it displays "order" or can be considered to be "created", i.e. by an outside agent.

In the case of order, as I've noted before, it is difficult to make such an argument given  the universe has been shown to contain ordinary,  visible matter at only 7% of the total, with fully 93% exhibiting a “dark component” - of which nearly 70% was dark or vacuum energy, the rest dark matter. (See, e.g. Physics Today, July, 2000, p. 17). Given these components, the extent of any order can't be properly assessed, and the issue of creation has been shown to be superseded by greater understanding of the nature of quantum fluctuations and virtual particles.

Dark matter came on the cosmological scene first, back in 1933, when Fritz Zwicky's measurements of galaxy clusters highlighted a ‘missing mass’. He found that the mass needed to bind a cluster of galaxies together gravitationally was at least ten times the apparent mass visible. This mass, because it was inferred but not directly detectable, became the first ‘dark matter’. Around the same time there were observations of stellar motions in the galactic plane by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort. He found there had to be at least three times the mass visibly presenting in order for stars not to escape the galaxy and fly off into space.

By the late 1970s, astronomers realized there were other forms of dark matter. Among the most discussed candidates were black holes, marking the end stage of evolution for very massive stars. In the black hole, the gravity is so strong that no light escapes and the mass typically is much greater than that of the Sun. These objects can only be detected indirectly, e.g. as a member of a binary (double) star system, to infer its presence from the intense x-rays given off when the companion star’s gaseous layers are sucked into it.

Dark matter itself occurs in either baryonic or non-baryonic forms, depending on whether the matter reacts with radiation or not. If it doesn’t, it’s non-baryonic. Baryons include protons and neutrons, while non-baryons include electrons and neutrinos.

Non-baryonic dark matter further breaks down into cold dark matter and hot dark matter. The terms hot and cold are not so much indicative of current temperatures, as the phase of the early universe at which the particular dark matter ‘decoupled’ from the hot radiation background. An early decoupling implies a higher ambient background radiation temperature of the primeval cosmos. A later decoupling correlates to a cooler temperature. Perhaps the most widely studied candidate of hot dark matter is the neutrino.

By contrast, cold dark matter candidates tend to have larger mass and amongst the most likely suspects are: gravitinos, magnetic monopoles, and primordial black holes. However, there are a couple of exceptions to this, which include: WIMPs and Axions.

Dark energy didn't emerge conceptually until the late 1990s when the first Type Ia supernovae measurements came to the fore. By  early 1998, the type Ia supernova results of two groups: the Supernova Cosmology Project (based at UC Berkeley) and the High- Z Supernova Search - led by Brian Schmidt of Mt. Stromlo Observatory in Australia, began to show tightening error bars.

Why Type 1a supernovae? First, because they’re bright enough to isolate in different galaxies – hence there’s a cosmological dimension. Second, they exhibit a uniform, consistent light spectrum and brightness decay profile (all supernovae diminish or ‘decay’ in brightness after the initial explosive event). This applies to all galaxies in which they appear so they function as cosmic standard “candles”. Third, all Type 1a’s betray the same absorption feature at a wavelength of 6150 Angstroms (615 nm) - so have the same spectral “fingerprint”.

Basically, the majority of plotted Type 1a supernovae data points (see graph) congregated along the upper of the two plot lines  This placed them firmly in the region of the graph we call “accelerating universe”. On the other side of the diagonal is the "decelerating region". An additional feature of the accelerating side is 'vacuum energy'.

To get an insight, we can examine the equation that underpins cosmic expansion and whether it is accelerated or not (cf. Perlmutter, Physics Today, 2003)

R"/R = - {4p / 3} G r (1 + 3 w)

Here R is a cosmic scale factor, R" is the acceleration (e.g. second derivative of R with respect to time t), G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, r  the mass density. We inquire what value w must have for there to be no acceleration or deceleration. Basic algebra shows that when w = -1/3 the whole right side becomes zero. The supernovae plot data constrains w such that it cannot have a value > (-1/2). Most plausibly, w, the ratio of pressure to density is (Perlmutter, ibid.)

w = (p / r) = -1

This is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'. In this case, a negative pressure (check by solving for p)  meshes with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts.

Some might argue that such cosmic repulsion shows a "new law" of physics, but it's merely extending the existing concept of gravitation to show it has a repulsive as well as attractive aspect, and has always been consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity.

What’s to become of the cosmos if the acceleration is ongoing? Clearly, photons emerging from whatever cosmic object (star, nebula etc.) can never catch up to the rapidly expanding space-time. This means that over time, fewer and fewer objects will be visible to any sentient observers. Eventually, all cosmic objects will “vanish” from the scene and all observers – if any remain- will be plunged into dark, featureless skies.

Bernie Schools Hillary On What It Means To Be Progressive

Bernie Sanders makes a forceful point to shatter Hillary's progressive delusions.

"For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future."   -- John F. Kennedy

Last night's MSNBC debate (moderated by Chuck Todd and Rachel Maddow)  between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton probably had more fireworks than earlier ones-  as it should - since intensity must increase the more Hillary tries to blur distinctions by painting herself as a progressive. She isn't. She's a "moderate"  or in common political parlance, a Neoliberal right centrist Dem. For those who haven't been around the last 60 years or so - and that is roughly 80 percent of Americans - the Democratic Party has steadily mutated from its New Deal origins and basis into something most of us (Kennedy liberals) no longer recognize. Sen. Bernie Sanders is trying to bring the Party back to its roots, while Hillary wants to take it further to the Right.

In essence, that is what this whole debate was about, irrespective of the particular topic: health care, Wall Street's influence, immigration, corporate campaign contributions, climate change or national security. There IS a correct Progressive or Liberal position on all of these, and anyone who attempts to blur over the differences is an obscurantist pure and simple. So let's not mince words.

In this blog entry I am not going to pick over every issue or segment of the debate, but provide an overarching framework of what it means to be a progressive and readers can DVR wind back the Dem debates - or any parts thereof- and see which candidate's claims and arguments meet the criteria.  

The true progressive or liberal then, will embrace each of the following and do so consistently, not ditch any when it becomes politically convenient:

   1) Taxes are of BENEFIT to Society and Increased Taxes are GOOD not BAD!

Instead, too many progressives flee from the T-word out of political expedience or chicanery, despite the fact it is higher taxes that can support the domestic programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)  they are supposed to back, as well as allow for mega-projects we need like major infrastructure repair. (The Flint lead -in -the- water incident is just the 'canary in the coal mine' of what lies in wait if we don't act.)

The must-read article ‘The Next Tax Revolt’ (American Prospect, June, 2009, p. 37) held progressives’ feet to the fire by making them partly responsible for playing into the Reepos ‘no new taxes’ bandwagon.  Part of this is the natural desire to try to protect the lower income quintiles from higher taxes, which leads to gamesmanship – in using the tax code for political leverage. Thus, the author notes:

“a platform of no tax increases for the bottom 95 percent can win elections but it reinforces rather than debunks the Right’s fundamental view of the tax question: that public services aren’t worth paying for- and merely suggests getting someone else to pay for them.”

Many of us saw this at the time, which is why we vociferously pleaded for the Bush Tax cuts NOT to be extended, period, for ANYONE- both the high fliers, and the lower, middle class tier. The reason is that we knew from several analyses that only getting the wealthy to forego them would not cut the mustard. We needed everyone to sacrifice, since the necessary revenue can’t be found merely by soaking the rich (which also gives the Reepos ammo that the Left always attacks the wealthy)..

But sadly, progressives sabotaged their own cause by arguing for tax hikes only on the richest. Their moral center had thereby been obliterated on the issue because they played right into the Reeps’ mitts. In the most recent manifestation of this tendency we beheld Pelosi denying any increase in taxes would be part of the D-platform this year (thereby undermining Bernie's agenda) and also Hillary vowing she'd never raise taxes on the middle class. But when it comes to cuts to Social Security, you can be your sweet bippy she and Pelosi will be first in line to enable it!

2)     Environmental Threats Must Be Confronted – Not Dodged!

Thus, to forge a coherent moral center and abiding progressive position there can be no divergence of interest regarding environmental threats.  This leads to a series of elementary actions that can’t be disputed - at least not by genuine progressives (as distinct from the situational or 'cafeteria' variety):

-        The Keystone XL pipeline must be permanently mothballed never to arise again

-        Fracking must be cut back given its deleterious effects on  the water supply (especially given how water intensive it is, and 55% is done in the most drought –ravaged states).

-        Carbon taxes, either via front end (e.g. tax on production) or back end (tax on gasoline at the pump) must be implemented to prevent our hitting the 551 gT limit of carbon deposition, which would lead to going over the critical 2 deg C threshold.

-        Deep sea drilling must also be scaled back and much more rigorous regulations must be put into place to prevent a repeat of the BP oil disaster from ever occurring again.

The danger to the progressive moral center will come-  as it usually does – from unions -   objecting to “loss of  jobs”. But they have to be made to see that these jobs are worthless if people later pay a higher cost in untreatable cancers, or disasters that can affect large swaths of population.

3)     Wars Must Never Be Launched Unless the Nation is Truly At Risk

The obvious standard here is World War II and the threat from the Axis Powers. In other words, if there is no threat comparable to that threatening our immediate security, we do not ramp up the war machinery nor do we launch or instigate invasions, occupations or even cruise missile attacks- because we understand the consequences of those actions can only lead to more violence. Nor does a real progressive vote on war and invasion as Hillary did back in 2002.

This is also why none other than Chalmers Johnson noted it was our aggressive policy decisions, including keeping militarized bases in Saudi Arabia, that provoked the “blow back” of 9/11.  In other words, neither Afghanistan or Iraq ought to have been entered into – the first was misplaced, since it was 19 Saudis that were responsible for 9/11, the second was entirely contrived based on flawed WMD information from an Iraqi defector named “curve ball”.
 

In the judicious application of a coherent liberal-progresive ethics no war would be casually conducted by a random presidential edict, or pseudo-doctrine (i.e. 'Bush doctrine'). Instead, we’d have an actual declaration of war by congress. This would give congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional duty, while imparting moral and ethical authority in rendering a war truly just. In this light, we'd have no more Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans or other adventures of choice, finagled outside the parameters of congressional authority. For too long wars have been waged through the back door  at great financial and moral cost to the U.S.  The Iraq invasion, for example, never would have been allowed had an actual declaration of war been demanded by congress, as opposed to it meekly rolling over for the executive branch.

 

4)     The National Security state as it is presently configured is inimical to constitutional rights
 

This is  based on the Snowden- released files, hence we need to scale back the intrusiveness because no truly progressive person can defend or justify a mammoth dragnet sweep program that essentially renders everyone guilty. This disrespects the cornerstone of our republic – the 4^th amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Thus, no true progressive ought to have been in support of the NSA PRISM, Xkeyscore, Muscular or other programs. If you're a  right wing militarist, pro-security state fetishist, it's understandable you'd hump for security over liberty, but not as a progressive. And bear in mind any of those rights lost today will not be recovered later.

5)     Multinationals Must be Checked – Starting with GMO Foods.

Author and academic George Lakoff was quite correct  a year or so ago when he wrote that GMO foods are “horrible” so why is this even an issue for some progressives? You mean because they’ve bought the codswallop that GMOs will “help feed the world”. They need to do more research, and grasp how a tiny bump in larger crops – but which later lead to a range of cancers- is no gain. Not at all.  You’re exchanging 50 million hungry people for 500 million with terrible cancers in 30-40 years. How does that help the overall picture? Oh wait, yes! Immediate gain trumps the future pain! The mantra of Neoliberal capitalism!

6)    Wall Street Influence in Political Campaigns and 'Dark Money' Must Be Checked

Bernie has been all about this in every town hall meeting and in the D- debates. He invokes it because it is critical. So long as Wall Street money infects the political process it will be corrupted: the endless cycle will continue whereby citizens vote and instigate the latest money power coup for putative "leaders" (benefiting from the campaign largesse) and then those allied powerful interests redirect the government to their own ends as opposed to the citizens'.

Douglas Rushkoff, in his superb book, Life Inc. - How Corporations Conquered the World and How We Can Take It Back, has a special chapter on money (Chapter 6, 'To Whom Credit Is Due') and ought to be required reading for every citizen. As he points out: "Money is not a neutral medium - it favors some types of behavior while discouraging others."    In the case of the influx of money from Wall Street  the dynamic favors behaviors such as: weakening of banking laws (making it more likely citizens will again bail out banks, credit agencies, insurers etc.), greater advantage to select traders at the expense of ordinary investors, and lower corporate and other taxes accompanied by less regulation - making us more supporters of corporate welfare than the general welfare mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution.  

 NO progressive worth his or her salt should therefore be taking money from Wall Street - whether for speaking fees or direct campaign donations via Super Pacs.

One wonders if indeed Americans, even most who claim to be progressive Democrats, really have the moxie and courage to follow that path to the hilt: the one Bernie Sanders advocates. Sometimes I wonder when I hear so many yapping about "pragmatism" or "Sanders can never get it done". If we adopt that mindset we never will, but then we can't bellyache about the deplorable condition of the country we're left with if we can't summon the will for real - as opposed to cosmetic - change!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/65852/if-you-want-to-win-go-progressive

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gary-leupp/65854/is-a-socialist-really-unelectable-the-potential-significance-of-the-sanders-campaign

The Game Of 'GO' And How It Foils Computers

While most of the modern world is caught up in online video games there remain millions of us dedicated to good, old fashioned board games, including chess  and GO. While most people have heard of chess, relatively few know about Weiqi, the Chinese name for GO which dates back over 2,500 years. GO is played on a 19x19 grid though simplified forms of the game (in which players opt to invest less time) have smaller grids, e.g. 9 x 9.

Unlike chess, the object  in GO isn't to capture pieces but to control territory on the board, whether that's an actual game board or a computer display for computer 'GO'.  Also, unlike in chess where various colored chess pieces (as well as shapes) are in use, GO admits of only two colors - black and white- and these are always associated with the same shaped rounded pieces, called "stones".  Also unlike chess, one doesn't place a stone on an empty square or space but rather on an intersection of gird lines - which must be unoccupied, of course.

Players alternate moves, each placing a stone on an unoccupied intersection. Also unlike chess, a player can forego a move if it is not in his best interest. The goal is to control as much space on the board as possible without one's own pieces being surrounded - in which case they can be removed - and added to the opponent's score.

GO is, by the preceding description, a canonical minimalist game, with only one type of piece and a handful of rules. Never mind, in depth and complexity it supersedes chess. For a first move alone, facing an empty board or grid, there are some 361 possible moves. Even well into the same - such as depicted in the graphic - there are many more options than in the typical chess game.

Here are two other interesting aspects of the game: 1) Draws are impossible, unlike in chess, and 2) the first player to move doesn't have a significant advantage as in chess. In addition, opening sequences, like the Ruy Lopez in chess, don't repeat themselves as often. One would think, on the face of it, it would be as easy to design a decent computer game of GO as for chess but this hasn't been the case.

This is not to say some forms of computer game exist that are halfway decent and can at least give humans a decent work out. One of these is EZ-GO which I've played countless times, but too often ended up beating the computer. It simply lacks the nuanced moves - or what one could cite as the advanced move potential- that my Grandmaster Chess game exhibits. Playing at the 'grandmaster' level it is extremely difficult to snatch a win in the latter.

Why is it so difficult to put together a decent computer GO game? Some have conjectured (e.g. Chris Chabris, WSJ, 'Game On', Jan. 2-3, p. C4) that mastering it "requires more humanlike skills of pattern recognition and intuitive judgment".  This may be so, but anyone who's studied the basis of GO also knows there is a lot of graph theory that it involved. This is something that any decent computer ought to be able to emulate, and in fact, master thoroughly.

One current effort to come up with the GO 'goods' is being led by Facebook, and according to Chabris (ibid.):

"Facebook's GO program combines two fairly new computational technologies: deep convolutional neural networks which vaguely use brain-like algorithms to learn and recognize large scale patterns on the game board, and Monte Carlo tree search which is a form of 'thinking ahead' that works out detailed tactical sequences in specific areas."

He adds:

"According to Facebook's developers, this approach beats the best open source GO program more than 95 percent of the time".

Maybe so. But will there ever be a time when we come up with a computing marvel like 'Deep Blue' which beat chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov in 1997? We will have to wait and see if human ingenuity in designing computer GO will eventually be able to defeat a GO master.

Caucus Results Should Not Be Determined by Coin Flips!

As the latest news unfolds out of Iowa it is becoming increasingly clear the Democrats in that state need to leave their whale oil lamps and covered Ticonderoga wagons behind and at least move into the 20th century with their caucuses! I mean, Jeezus Peace, using coin flips to determine outcomes?!

Good grief, the nature of the early Iowa caucus is not even remotely like the general election in November where we must have a winner (two presidents can't 'share' power). Also, given the Iowa Dem caucus is not 'winner take all'  it doesn't matter if precincts end up perfectly tied in some results. You simply allot the delegate votes equally - if odd in number in one precinct (e.g. 3) combine with another precinct or precincts with similar ties and split the results evenly. Better yet, chuck this whole antiquated system and replace it with the simpler caucus modality of the Iowa GOP, which just counts ballots.

As salon.com has reported:

"The results of the first caucus in the U.S. presidential primary election came down not to actual votes, but to a coin toss — or, rather, to multiple coin tosses."

As noted in the previous blog, Sen. Sanders and Hillary Clinton had a virtual tie in the Iowa caucus Monday night. With 99 percent of precincts reported, there was just a 0.2 percent difference; Sanders had 49.6 percent of statewide delegate equivalents, and Clinton had 49.8 percent.  The Iowa Democratic Party said the results were “the closest in Iowa Democratic caucus history.” Because they were tied, in order to determine who would get the delegates, coin tosses were reportedly held in at least seven precincts. There were two coin tosses in Des Moines and four more in Ames, Newton, West Branch and Davenport, the Des Moines Register reported. Clinton won all of these.  

But why determine outcomes by coin tosses? The answer inheres in the nature of the antiquated caucus process held by Iowa Dems.  Rather than counting actual popular votes like the GOP, only percentages are assessed at a given caucus by a precinct captain. As I noted in a previous blog post, caucus goers assemble in distinct groups to support their candidate at different precincts. Each group must reach at least 15 percent or it is "non-viable" . Hence, O'Malley's supporters were quickly left non-viable at all precincts so either had to join an "undecided" group or merge with Sanders or Clinton's. It is clear from seeing the course of events that 0.5% of O'Malley supporters remained but never joined to the extent that the respective percentage support for the two main candidates could be broken. To resolve the percentage equivalences for Sanders and Clinton, at least seven precinct captains resorted to coin tosses. (Another video, which the Des Moines Register did not report on, also emerged, showing a seventh coin toss in Johnson County.)

But this was not Las Vegas, it was a venue for election, a democratic process - not a random one. To have therefore awarded Hillary the overall  'win' by virtue of taking 6 of 7 random coin flips going was an abomination and an affront to democratic principles.

The events Monday night clearly call out not only for a full investigation by Sanders's' team but also the Iowa Dems changing their caucus procedures to make them consistent with those used by the GOP. As I also noted, the GOP caucus goers also assemble, and may listen to a brief spiel for one or other candidate, but at the end simply write the names down on ballots and tabulate them. 'Ties' are averted by the simple expedient of blending caucus vote counts from different precincts if, for example, all the numbers are equal at one precinct. They don't do coin tosses.

Clinton ultimately got 700.59 state delegate equivalents, while Sanders got 696.82 state delegate equivalents, a mere 3.77 point difference, according to the Iowa Democratic Party. In other words, although six is a small fraction of the thousands of overall county delegates, these coin tosses — all of which Clinton reportedly won (despite the low probability)  - effectively pushed her over the edge, giving her the extra statewide delegate equivalents that granted her an additional Iowa delegate.

 It is time now that Iowa Democrats raise a hue and a cry and demand the absurd caucus procedures -  including the "tradition" of delegate equivalents - be put to rest and  instead employ simpler direct paper ballot tabulations like the Republicans. We don't need cumbersome, draconian baloney in  our voting processes and we sure as hell don't need random chance determining winners at the level of state caucuses!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/sam-husseini/65816/iowa-the-media-and-political-establishment-lose

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/65810/some-surprises-and-warnings-in-the-iowa-numbers

Sanders Iowa Result: A Technical Draw That Translates Into A Huge Moral Victory

"With more than 99% of the precinct results in, Clinton led 49.9% to 49.6% over Sanders after seeing an apparently comfortable lead slip. The Associated Press and multiple outlets said the race was simply too close to call, though the Clinton camp claimed a narrow victory." - UK Guardian, 'Clinton Pushed to the Limit'

"It doesn't matter what the final numbers are, if you exceed expectations in American politics then you've won." - Nicole Wallace, 'Morning Joe', this a.m.

"There is no absolute win for any candidate. Every candidate gets some piece of pie. The delegates will be divided in proportion to their percentage of votes received. The media should so report to people and not confuse the common man." - Commenter on NY Times website.

In terms of the Iowa caucus for Democrats last night, Sanders's'  achievement of a statistical tie with the presumed front runner will no doubt be spun different ways by the pundits. But considering where he was merely six months ago, in single digits compared to Hillary, one has to reckon in Nicole Wallace's take quoted above.  One can also reckon in E.J. Dionne's take on MSNBC after 100% of the precincts were in this morning- reporting Clinton with 701 delegate votes and Sanders with 697. E.J. noted:

"Not since Eugene Debs ran on the Socialist ticket in 1912 has this set of ideas really gotten this kind of prominence and I think this speaks to a discontent in the Democratic Party and on the Left and in some ways this goes back to 'Occupy Wall Street'"  - noting Sanders's' admonition that one had to take the activist sentiment into the voting booth.

More astounding, as Chuck Todd pointed out this morning, Bernie Sanders got all his support money from 770,000 supporters nationwide, contributing an average of $27 each. Hillary, meanwhile, according to the WSJ report yesterday (p. A6), "has collected a total of $3 million (along with husband Bill) from Goldman Sachs for speaking fees since 2005." (Recall Goldman came out about the only winners in the 2007-08 financial crisis by making credit default swaps bets that banks would fail.)

Another take (which I lean to)  is that of mathematical journalist Charles Seife, in his book 'Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled By the Numbers, in which the art of "proofiness" is revealed. This is the art of using bogus arguments to advance a claim via spurious appeals to numbers or counting. In particular, one of the surest signs of proofiness is the failure to provide attached uncertainties to the measurements - any measurements!  That includes vote counts.

In respect to statistical ties in elections, Seife is adamant that it makes no sense to declare a winner, especially if the difference in percentage is within the statistical errors. The difference between Sanders's' delegate count and Hillary's was just that: 701 to 697. Reinforced by the fact that in one precinct  (as reported by Steve Kornacki on MSNBC's coverage last night) no accommodation could be reached between the two groups of caucus goers - after hours - so the precinct leader simply resorted to a freaking coin toss.  Hillary won the random coin toss which put 3 added delegate votes in her column. Subtract those from her total and add them to Bernie's and what do you get?

Well, 701 - 3 = 698 for Hillary and 697 + 3 = 700 for Bernie

Voila! All of a sudden Bernie now emerges the winner and the Clinton camp is in a state of apoplexy and dyspepsia. (Let us recall again, the Dem caucus process is not like the Repubs' where you just write a name on a ballot and count them one by one. In the Dems' case actual numbered votes aren't counted because the win in each precinct is decided by person to person "horse trading" leading to percentages of the total, with the delegate votes then allotted, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-caucuses-are-so-difficult-for.html

This renders the Clinton camp's statement this morning totally laughable, i.e.:

"After thorough reporting and analysis. there is no uncertainty and Secretary Clinton clearly won".

Uh no, she just thinks she did, Given there were problems with the delegate counts and allocations thereof  in other precincts beyond the stupid coin flip  for 3 delegate votes (in one). Seife in his book, pp. 162-63, points to disestimation as the number one source of proofiness in close elections, and the primary factor making it meaningless to declare winners in such elections. (He uses the examples of the 2000 Presidential election and the 2008 Senate election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken).

According to Seife (p. 162):

"As long as there are close elections, disestimation will continue to exact a toll year after year obscuring the truth" I.e. that there is no clear winner.

He admonishes political parties, candidates and the media to be aware of all of the following:

- Admit elections are fallible. Even with the most rigorous counting - under ideal conditions and with well designed ballots (or caucus procedures) - there will always be errors of a "few hundredths of a percent"

- Be aware of people entering vote count data incorrectly

- Be aware of ballots misplaced or double counted (more peculiar to the Republican caucuses)

He concludes that the most accurate statement one can make about such close elections amounts to qualifying approximations, i.e. for the case of the Iowa D caucus results:

Hillary Clinton won approximately 701 delegate votes

And:

Bernie Sanders won approximately 697 delegate votes.

Especially, as I pointed out, counting and assessing delegate counts was anything but trivial in something like 90 Iowa precincts - including one that needed a coin toss to allot its votes!

Bernie Sanders should be proud of his showing in Iowa and for further perspective let's note:

- He pulled in almost as large a percentage vote (49.5%) as the two main anti-establishment Repubs  (Cruz and Trump) combined (52%)

- He will take away at least 21 to 22 delegates from the Iowa  Dem caucuses vs. 6 for Ted Cruz, the declared R-winner.

The number one knock from pundits, e.g. Chuck Todd on NBC this morning,  was "If he couldn't get a clear win in Iowa how can he do it in any other states?"

But they miss the point! Unlike the Republican primaries - which are 'winner take all'' - most of the Dem primaries allot delegates based on percentage proportions. Thus, Sanders can still come away with a significant set of delegate votes headed toward the Democratic convention in July. If he has enough, and I believe he will, he can make all kinds of deals to advance his policies into the D-platform,

We will have to see. But again, Bernie's accomplishment in Iowa must not be underestimated.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/the_democratic_primary_miracle_why_sanders_vs_clinton_is_just_the_beginning/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/65797/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-hillary-clinton-s-your-choice

A High I.Q. Book Reviewer Shows She Can Fall Prey To Stupidity and Nonsense

Carolyn Dane is a reviewer of assorted books for the Intertel regional newsletter 'Port of Call', Intertel being the society for those in the upper 1 percent of I.Q.  In general her reviews are sober assessments of the fare on offer, but occasionally even the best and brightest can be led astray - perhaps because their own political ideology perturbs their perceptions and distorts their reasoning. Such was the case of her recent review ('Port of Call', Feb-March, p. 5) of Mark Steyn's book, 'A Disgrace to the Profession' where he conducts his own jeremiad against University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his hockey stick graph. At the outset Dane writes:

"This is a reference book rather than a book to read. It's a definitive refutation of the claim that most scientists believe in the dangers of global warming"

Okay, first, I hate to correct Ms. Dane, but this is no "reference book". A reference work, such as editor John Eddy's for solar physics ('The New Solar Physics, AAAS Symposium, 1978 ), would contain content from actual, past peer reviewed papers published in established,  refereed journals or content from cited monographs by leaders of the discipline. This book has neither, only an inane assembly of colloquial critiques from hacks and scientific has-beens (most not even climate science specialists) mixed with other quotes taken out of context. 

Dane continues:

"One hundred and twenty eminent scientists here, some Nobel laureates with impressive credentials, denounce Michael Mann and his hockey stick chart on which so much fraudulent global warming argument is based."

Let's back up here a bit and first note that, according to The Yale Scientific review of Steyn's book:

 "Steyn does not deny climate change, nor does he deny its anthropogenic causes. His issue, as he puts it, is with the shaft of the hockey stick, not the blade".

See, e.g.

http://www.yalescientific.org/2015/11/book-review-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/

This is important because otherwise one is mixing 'apples and oranges' in terms of the basis for objection to global warming which would certainly not then be called "fraudulent" as Dane mistakenly avers. As the Yale Scientific Review goes on:

"His outrage lies not only in the use of poor data, but in Mann’s deletion of data in ignoring major historical climate shifts such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period."

And while we are at it, let me note that Mann's findings were later vindicated. As noted by Rational Wikipedia:

"After the M&M fiasco, a number of climatologists published their own reconstructions of global temperatures from independent lines of research that vindicated Mann's research by showing similar if not identical trends in temperature. Another attempt to discredit the work of Mann came in 2006 with the release of the Wegman Report, which recycled the M&M models and was largely plagiarized."

"M&M" (according to Rational Wiki) refers to  "Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, neither one an actual climatologist (the former a crank blogger and the latter an economist, to be specific), released a number of papers and articles criticizing the hockey stick, two of which managed to get published in scientific journals, and offering their own "reconstruction" of temperatures (often referred to as the "M&M model"). Their "research" was roundly demolished for using algorithms that massively cherry-picked data to the tune of excluding over 80% of the recorded temperatures in some cases to resuscitate the large variations in historical data and "hide the increase" in 20th century temperatures"

 In addition, Mann's exclusion of both periods (Maunder Minimum and Medieval Warming) was quite justified in that both periods were vastly less significant in terms of the C12: C14 isotope ratios I'd previously explained in a Port of Call from 2006. As the graph below shows (from John Eddy's book, op. cit.) the magnitude of the Middle Ages warming period (relative C14 strength of -18), for example, is less than about one half  the relative effect attributed mainly to anthropogenic sources in the modern era (-40). The Maunder Minimum cooling shows a similar (albeit slightly larger) fractional change. But again not as much as for the anthropogenic warming spike in ratio at the right end of the graph.

Graph of radiocarbon (C14) excess over C12 over ~ 2,000 yr. period.

Most significantly from Yale Scientific review (ibid.):

"To Steyn, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and all those who supported the hockey stick graph also did a disservice to science by politicizing climate change to the extent that it gives validity to deniers. However, Steyn may be giving these doubters yet more ammo, because he has done nothing to de-politicize the issue. Steyn claims that Mann has drawn his battle lines wrong — but then, so has Steyn, by attacking Mann instead of focusing on the false science."

In effect, the attacks on Mann himself rather than the science amount to an ad hominem fallacy. Worse, for Steyn, as the Yale Scientific review points out:

"His colloquial tone could be seen as a satirical take on what Steyn refers to as Mann’s “cartoon climatology,” but it eventually subverts his argument by driving the same points over and over while never fully delving into scientific details"

But without the scientific details, again, this cannot be regarded as a reference work. It is more a colloquial polemic against Mann and the "cartoon" use of his hockey stick graph, according to Steyn.

As for the "eminent scientists" Steyn enlists, who are they really? None are of note in the immediate climate arena, and none are even climate specialists. One (Ivar Giaever)  is a 1973 Nobel Physics winner, but is basically a has- been who has done about as much climate science research as a dentist who thinks he can pick up cardiac surgery from encyclopedias in his spare time and emerge as a transplant specialist. As one Skeptic Science entry on Giaever observed:

"While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well.  As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows.  He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion,"

And that about sums up the whole collection of "luminaries" that Steyn assembles for his book.
 
The only reason, indeed, one would fawn over  Steyn’s polemic would be if one is already a global warming skeptic (anthropogenic  aspect denier) who merely seeks confirmation bias. She is likely  also a movement conservative in mindset like he is. Otherwise there’d be no reason to award this absurd load of recycled denier drivel 4 of 5 stars (like so many of the ignorant loons on amazon.com do) given he is no climate scientist. He’s just another pawn doing the bidding of the fossil fuel companies. In this case using selective obscurantist tactics driven by an obsessive compulsive fascination with Michael Mann and his hockey stick.

Here’s a question for Carolyn:  If indeed Steyn’s work in Volume 1 is of such devastating finality,  quintessential clarity, and  ballast, i.e. that it “should end the argument once and for all’ then why hasn’t any of it been published in any peer reviewed scientific journal or even an ancillary journal like ‘Science and Justice’? Why haven't the illustrious critiques from Steyn’s luminaries  been published in any journals of renown? Hell, Physics Today always includes a section for opinion and these iconoclasts could even deliver it there - but I've never seen anything from Steyn's stellar constellation of squawkers.

Oh wait, perhaps this because of the conspiracy theory (well circulated among movement conservatives and their denier spawn) that the formal climate science establishment are all in cahoots so protect each other and keep the naysayers and critics out by selective rejection, . The only problem with this is that it's not how science - a competitive enterprise - works. If I am a journal referee and also a researcher who seeks to publish my papers in the same journal (or similar ones), it does me no service to give your work a pass if it competes with my own. If anything, the competitive peer reviewer is looking for anything to knock down a competitor's work to at least delay its publication. But the fact that over 15,000 peer reviewed papers in support of anthropogenic global warming have been published in the last 25 years puts this myth to rest.

 Sadly, Dane seems to be oblivious to the vast constellation of solid research supporting the validity of global warming science and particularly the anthropogenic contribution. She appears to comically reduce it to pure 'faith' like Giaever does when she babbles:
 
"But of course true believers will ignore it because anthropogenic science is a faith, not science"
 
Which elicits the question how she would know that since she clearly has done no climate science research herself - only chosen to parrot what Steyn and his skeptic cohort have put out. I suggest strongly she consult the position statement of the foremost organization of REAL climate scientists, the American Geophysical Union before she next responds. She (and others) can find the link to that statement on human-induced warming here:
http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

While it is certainly understandable that  unread conservative-libertarian ideologues would have a problem with the current body of scientific data (since it challenges their preconceptions), it serves no rational purpose to simply carp and seethe about “cartoon hockey sticks”  (In any case, it is the Keeling curve, proposed by Charles Keeling of Mauna Loa Observatory, that best embodies the global warming increase arising from anthropogenic sources) .

 Want to make an inroad and show your side is in the right? Publish the serious  work- assuming you have any -  in the peer-reviewed journals for real climate science and stop bellyaching how you're being "persecuted" by the alleged establishment!

Perhaps the best summation of Steyn's book comes from one of the few amazon,com reviewers in possession of his wits and critical thinking skills:

 "Stein has never published a paper on climatology or climate physics. He thinks the top 200 scientific bodies on Earth are wrong. Yet, he cannot come up with enough evidence to show why in a peer reviewed journal. This book is nothing more than a slop for conspiracy theorists inside their glass shell of confirmation bias. It's the equivalent of spraying vinegar to ward of the poison gases from mythical chemtrails. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, "the laws of physics are real, everything else is politics". I suspect this will be a big seller among those who only have (the second world standard) high school education. It tells them what they fervently want to believe, even though it's unfortunately not true."