Dave Schuler
January 4, 2005
Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:
- Just when you thought that the set of all possible Carnivals was complete…Carnival of the Doodles
is now up at Ambivablog. It’s still accepting entries so if you’ve always been looking
for a venue for your doodles now’s your golden opportunity. It seems a bit estrogen-intensive
at this point so male doodlers—submit your work.
- Different River has a great post on birth control, pregnancy, and experts.
- Read Callimachus of Done With Mirrors post on Serendipity.
- Juan Cole of Informed Comment on the downsides of partitioning Iraq.
- Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping has more first-hand accounts of the Sumatran tsunami and its aftermath.
- Pennywit on activists versus commentators.
- The Daily Demarche speculates on what would have happened if we had never invaded Iraq.
- Without additional comment I suggest you examine this post which demonstrates how the United States caused the Sumatran tsunami. You be the judge. (Hat tip: Tigerhawk)
That’s the lot
Dave Schuler
January 4, 2005
This week’s Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts from Iraqi bloggers from the last week, is up on Dean’s World. This week there’s excitement and anticipation about the upcoming election, Ali explains his departure from Iraq the Model, a death in the family, and a lot more.
Dave Schuler
January 3, 2005
Steve Verdon has responded to my challenge to proponents of Social Security reform actually to build a case for reform with a post that I consider to be reasonable, reasoned, and temperate. I haven’t completely digested his arguments yet but his post is definitely worthy of consideration. He includes a good question for me:
Over at the Glittering Eye, the bar is set to preclude arguments such as the one above [ed. adverse secondary effects of the current system], but why? If a policy has a potentially serious flaw in it…shouldn’t we fix it? We saw pandering similar to that described above with the Prescription Drug Program for Medicare. Do we really want to keep policies in place that continuiously tempt politicians to pander with tax dollars?
I was trying to apply a commonsense standard. When you bring in a repairman to repair your refrigerator you don’t expect him to throw the refrigerator out because it uses too much energy and we should be eating fresh-picked vegetables immediately and meat not at all (even if these things are true). Bringing actuarial soundness to the Social Security system is (in my opinion) a worthy objective and something we should be able to achieve consensus on. Even if the additional critiques of the system are true and similarly worthy they’re a form of changing the subject.
I’m absolutely not opposed to a broader critique of the system but not in the context of a discussion of bringing actuarial soundness to the system. Not only does it change subject but it weakens the potential consensus by making some—like Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall—suspect that the consideration of reform is just a stalking horse for abolition of the program entirely.
Dave Schuler
January 3, 2005
Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:
- The Bullmoose advises Democrats: being an opposition party is not enough.
They should actually, like, have alternatives. Or they can just connect with the voters.
- Infidel of Duophony on Bruce Cumings on Korea.
- Arnold Kling writes on Tech Central Station about Capitalism without capital
- Phil Carter of Intel Dump reflects on whether we have the army we need.
- Lawrence Solumn has a great tutorial on intention in legal theory on Legal Theory Blog.
- Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution comments on
Randall Parker of FuturePundit’s ideas about health care reform.
- Medpundit
pens a requiem for the drug store.
- Angela Winters of Politopics notes the challenges facing the 109th Congress.
That’s the lot.
Dave Schuler
January 3, 2005
ABC Chicago is reporting that a laser was trained on a plane bound for Chicago from Nashville yesterday:
January 3, 2005 — Investigators are looking into another incident of a laser pointed at a commercial airplane. The latest involved a United flight headed for Chicago.
The flight landed safely at O’Hare airport, but shortly after it took off from Nashville international airport, the pilots reported seeing a green laser.
The plane was a United Airlines regional jet with about 30 people on board.
Passengers say they didn’t notice anything different.
This is the latest in a string of incidents across the country. Laser beams can temporarily blind or disorient pilots, possibly even causing the plane to crash.
Clayton Cramer, SgtStryker, and others have observed that these incidents may have been target acquisition exercises.
Dave Schuler
January 2, 2005
As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.
Dave Schuler
January 2, 2005
The burden of proof in an argument refers to what each side has to prove in order to prevail. In the United States in a criminal case the prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. In a civil case the party bringing suit must prove his or her case with a preponderance of the evidence.
In an argument the burden of proof falls mostly on whichever party is proposing a change from the status quo. If, instead of making a case for change, the advocate for change attempts to shift the burden of proof to the party defending the status quo, it is considered a logical fallacy. The proponent must make a case. Contrariwise it is sufficient for the opponent or counter-advocate to refute a case. And if the proponent fails to fulfill his or her burden of proof, the opponent must be considered to have the stronger case.
Today I’ve seen a number of posts on Social Security reform—Brad DeLong, Steve Verdon, and Josh Marshall all have recent posts on the subject. I posted a round-up of posts on Social Security reform here. Over the last week or so I’ve participated in debates of the comments sections of a half dozen or so blogs on the subject. And in most cases I’ve noticed the same thing: advocates are not meeting their burden of proof.
In general, for an advocate for change in the current Social Security system to meet his or her burden of proof the case must be made that
- There is a problem with the current system.
- The problem is a pressing problem i.e. the problem must be dealt with now.
- The proposed solution must actually address the problem that has been identified.
I haven’t seen many affirmative cases that do any of these things. Arguing that we should never have begun the Social Security system does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that any proposed plan would be better i.e. cheaper, fairer, better secondary effect, etc. does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that opponents of change have ulterior motives does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that opponents of change don’t know what they’re talking about or have made mistakes does not meet the burden of proof.
Let’s have an honest discussion of this issue. If you’re an advocate for change—whether for partial privatization, complete privatization, or some other plan, make your case. Attacking the Social Security system isn’t enough.
Dave Schuler
January 2, 2005
Here are a few things work taking a glance at this morning:
I’ll be updating this throughout the day.
Dave Schuler
January 1, 2005
Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:
That’s the lot.
