Disgruntled Economist

The Burden of Complexity

2008-04-29T16:18:00.004-03:00

Comparable to physics quest for a unified theory, linguistics quest for a universal translator, to be considered a science by the other hard sciences is the political scientists dream. To this end political science is in constant internecine conflict between various factions over who is conducting the best science. The conflict between Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism has transformed from an academic debate to the war for the last remaining variable. To even suggest that there might be merit to more then one theory is akin to sacrilege and should a lowly undergraduate student suggest it, they are most certainly going to be deducted marks for their moderation.

Political Scientists justify this since after all, to conduct science one looks at events in a reduced form, one constricts variables in order to determine how one variable affects the end result. Scientific experiments are designed largely with the hope of only testing a single or a couple of variables at a time. Political Science cannot run many experiments, and it is not afforded the luxury of knowing how things would have turned out with a change in circumstances. As a result its theorists resort instead not to simply to constrain variables in their studies, but to constrain variables at all times. While a scientist will constrain variables in his experiment he is not necessarily hostile to the prospect of other variables existing, he is simply testing one at the time.

To the poli sci professor the possibility of other variables is an anathema, there are no lurking variables to the realist, there are only decision makers who are wrong. Realists quote the Melian Dialogue as a warning to all those who would question their assertions and value facts other then relationships of power, where the "Strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

Yet Realism did not predict the Melian response, nor has the apparent proven capable to turn every nation in to a bastion of amoral international maneuvering. Realism does not predict the Patrick Henrys of the world who proclaim that they prefer to risk everything for freedom than to live in servitude. These are derided as outliers, irrelevant to the broad scheme of international politics as they form the exception but not the rule.

Realism borrows its concepts in part from economics, considering states to be rational actors and backing up its arguments with the perceived credibility of another disciplines methods and supports. Yet the dogmatism evident in realism is absent in the concept of rational choice in economics. Economics doesn't make many proclamations from rational choice.

The concept is largely just an axiom which states that people will be consistent in their choices, that they have a reason for their actions, regardless of what those actions might be. If a person gives money to charity, it must be because the person enjoys doing so, if a person does not give money to charity, it must be because the person either does not enjoy doing so, or is happier spending the money on something else.

Yet political science professors with neither the training, nor the inclination to receive it, proclaim to their students that rational choice is proven wrong by the fact that people vote, or engage in community service voluntarily, and ignore any attempts by economists to correct them.

This post is not simply to criticize Realism, since it is not the only segment to engage in this behavior. Huntington's theory of the Clash of Civilizations changes the end result but not the methodology. Huntington views everything through the lens of a clash of civilizations as the sole or most significant arbiter in foreign affairs currently. That conflicts occur between civilizations now, not between nations seeking national power. But this is still the issue of a single variable dominating all others.

Even alternate theories, such as the "Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" provide a single variable, that western nations have stopped waging war not because their in the same civilizational group, but because they are economically interdependent and war is simply not worth it.

We can go further, democratic peace theory claims that its neither economic interdependence nor civilizations, but a question of democracy. To constructivists it is all about the people in charge and their institutional norms which affects how things turn out.

No matter which field, which group, or doctrine subscribed to each believes that their own theory is so much more apt at describing the world that it the other theories are so minor that they need not be considered. And to the discipline this is science.

One has to wonder how would political scientists conduct actual science? If their bickering in their own discipline is anything to go by, one would imagine that there would be different theories, one theory would subscribe to the idea that gravity was the primary force in the world, another would consider friction to be the most important force, still others would extol the virtues of aerodynamics. The supporters of aerodynamics would likely be criticized by the believers in gravity, since why would one devote so much attention to the Bernoulli Effect when it only affects a small proportion of properly shaped objects? The ideal gas law would be impossible since it utilizes 4 variables, and fails to simplify things down to the most important variable, whether pressure is more influenced by volume, moles, or temperature would likely be debated ad nauseum.

It is comfortable to think that the world is affected only by a single variable. If it is then things are easy, the job is done, all that is left to do is to convince the rest of the world of your preeminent correctness. One doesn't need to do very much leg work after all if everything comes down to a single variable. Many things would be much simpler, I wouldn't have needed to have studied multi-way ANOVAs, Leontief could have gone without wasting his time on input-output multipliers, physicists could have stopped with newton, because it was good enough.

Political Scientists, if they truly wish to fulfill the second part of the title need to be able to set aside the dogma, and put together some semblance of integration of the various theories once they have proven themselves. It does not make a persons research irrelevant if they admit that there are exceptions to their theory. No university will revoke a persons degree because they dared to allow some nuance into their views. So we should stop acting as if its a sin to contemplate that the other side may have some points.

The Case For Impeachment Part I

2008-01-03T19:44:00.000-04:00

There are many who claim that Bush's actions while incompetent or foolish do not yet rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. But if what Bush has authorized, and what his subordinates have done with that authorization does not rise to the standard of a High Crime then the president must have virtual impunity since the combined crimes of which he can be accused includes the possibility of the death penalty.

In fact if a single person died in the custody of the US Government as a result of torture, or a violation of the geneva convention, the penalty is the death penalty. Not that the penalty is up to and including the death penalty that is the penalty will be, with no judicial discretion.

This is the highest punishment possible capable of being delivered by a criminal court and if that does not meet the standard of a high crime then nothing ever could. Whats more the statement is high crimes and misdemeanours. This would imply that when you’re drawing the line it includes at least some misdemeanours, thus so felonies must be considered high crimes. But there are people who bicker with each element of the case for impeachment.

Torture

Many Republicans tiptoe around the subject because they know that at the heart of the issue Americans know that only the bad guys torture their detainees. It is something the Nazis did, its something the Japanese army in WWII did, the Soviets did it, but we are not evil, we treat even the worst sorts of enemies as human beings. The precedent that we treat our prisoners humanely goes all the way back to George Washington, who demanded humane treatment of enemy soldiers.

George Bush has turned the United States away from the path we have long prided themselves on. He has had people tortured, and he has admitted to it. The FBI has kept records of acts they did not consider legal or lawful. Whats more had congress grown a spine, the CIA wouldn't have had the courage to destroy some of the evidence. This isn't a difficult case to prove, Bush has admitted to violating the law on national television.

Now the apologists claim that there is no legal definition of torture, in fact the media has had entire debates. Well I'm going to take the novel approach of looking into the US Code, title 18 Part I is crimes, simply enough, and Chapter 113C is "Torture" and under that, there is Section 2340 Definitions, and would you look at that a definition.

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Water boarding is essentially A and C rolled into one, as it is drowning a person. It is torture and a mock execution rolled into one. The Bush administration has admitted to water boarding, we have hung people for water boarding in the past. How difficult is this.

No, there is no immunity because it was done in Guantanamo Bay, because surprisingly Guantanamo Bay, a US military base, is a possession of the United States.

Impeachment is not a matter of convenience, although it has been used as such. If a person commits a high crime you must impeach him, for the simple reason that in order to keep powerful officials honest they must fear consequences for breaking the law. What Pelosi has done, by putting impeachment off the table is to say to every future president is torture, people, abduct people from foreign nations and torture them, we don’t care. We’re to scared that someone might say bad things about us on national television. Fear over conflict, a lively contest and fiery debate over a matter of national identity, is never a good reason to betray the nations ideals.

Facecrime in the USA

2008-01-02T14:12:00.000-04:00

The Federal government has now started included specialists who detect “Micro-expressions” (Boing Boing) to airport security. The basic concept (Daily Science) is that a suspicious person will be unable to control minute, fraction of a second looks which tell you whether someone is hiding something. And then you can subject that person to some manner of special search. This cannot be allowed by a democracy. It is no less then an invitation for the TSA to run roughshod over the rights of the average citizen.

There are a host of issues, the first is that by standing case law, an expression is not considered probable cause to conduct a strip search, body cavity search, and x-rays. Consider the case of Brent v Ashley (FindLaw), the courts decided rather unsurprisingly (FindArticles), that an expression of disapproval is not probable cause for a non-routine search. In fact according to the court “We agree with Brent that her simple disapproving head movement is insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion”.

Yet micro-expressions are touted essentially as a way to circumvent just such a ruling. The advocates argue that this is peer reviewed science, and thus somehow superior to any other forms of investigative work. But in fact their case is far more tenuous.

I’m not overly convinced by the argument that since its based on “science” that it cannot be wrong, or completely invalid, the lie detector is based on science, but it is still an incredibly flawed, abysmal failure. Further the claim that this will be an alternative to security guards using their own prejudices. But what we have is essentially an unreviewable unarticulable case for reasonable suspicion which is not based on anything they cannot be proven in court. If micro-expressions are allowed they simply give security an excuse to do whatever the hell they want, don’t like someone? Claim they made a micro-expression; no one can challenge it because they’re only a fraction of a second long, and everyone else may have simply missed it.

Where does that leave us? Well we’re flying at the mercy of the TSA agents, because they can do everything which they have been fined for doing in the past, only chalk it up to noticing “micro-expressions”. And how are you going to argue against that in court? Fact is, you can’t, it’s a bullet proof accusation no matter who its directed against. This fact is precisely why it can never be trusted.

Hukbalahap Insurrection and Afghanistan PRTs

2008-01-01T17:19:00.000-04:00

This is an unusual comparison, and I know those who are perhaps far more knowledgeable then I who prefer to compare Afghanistan or Iraq to Malaysia (where the west won) or to Vietnam (where the west lost) or Algiers (where the west lost, again) , but I believe the comparison to the Philippine Experience (Amazon) may be valid still.

I recognize the stark differences between the two occasions. The Philippines was a purely internal affair, despite some military aid from the American Government, it was ended by a charismatic and effective national figure (Wikipedia) who faced a population which was not as divided by tribal influences, one which was more developed and one which faced a communist threat, not a fundamentalist one. But lets also look at the similarities. The land faces numerous competing claims, both nations have been torn apart by conflict, warfare served as a career for the insurgents in both cases, often when there was no alternative, and the Counter-Guerrillas in both cases have found the political hierarchy self serving if not incapable or incompetent.

Lets look at Canada, due to security concerns CIDA and Foreign Ministry workers are loathe to venture out of the wire, which leaves military to do the job. Its not what they trained for and conventional thinking on counter-insurgency discourages precisely such a course of action. Until John Nagl and his associates re-wrote the book on the matter, the Army Field Manual (GlobalSecurity.org) strongly cautioned commanders from becoming too heavily involved in politics. It was a job for different branches of the government to do. The primary job of the commander was to provide security for the other branches of government to do their job and to do so in a manner which didn't aggravate the populace.

But if there are no other branches operating, what is a commander to do? Simply providing security is futile, since one cannot end an insurgency by simply trying to kill the insurgents, one has to solve the problems that the insurgents were willing to kill and die for. This is the situation commanders in both Afghanistan and the Philippines faced.

In the Philippines Magsaysay found the other branches of government unable or unwilling to provide support to the operation, so he did so himself. Corruption swept the countryside, and the people could not afford a defence so Magsaysay provided it himself, having his JAG core under his command allowed him to dedicate his own lawyers to any case which had good evidence of corruption. His lawyers were unable to deal with every case but they were able to put forward an attempt. The people saw a meaningful attempts to help their situation, and this created hope for the people that their government wasn't so alien and estranged to their own goals that the insurrection was the only choice for change.

Medical care was another thing which was all but out of reach for the common person, yet Magsaysay was willing to use his own physicians to help deliver the baby of the wife of a major insurgent leader. And when asked by the woman who apologized that her husband was currently fighting the Philippine army could abandon the fight, Magsaysay offered that he could in fact do just that, and that if he did, he would be offered land and amnesty, and a real chance to live his life in peace.

Actions like these allowed Magsaysay to lead one of the most successful counter-guerrilla operations in the history of modern warfare. And they serve as a powerful lessons of what to do, just as General Westmoreland (Wikipedia) and the general conduct of Vietnam provides an example of the thinking (Wikipedia) to avoid at all costs.

The fact is that militaries have the ability to provide most of the answers to the publics needs in an insurgency. They can provide food, water, medical care, they can build roads, they provide security, they can provide legal defense, and all of these skills are not something foreign to the military they were skills that the military has had to develop as a necessity for fighting wars. They might not be the best at them, a military surgeon may know more about pulling fragments of lead out of a leg then delivering a baby, and compared to a western obstetrician is probably an inferior choice. But a general knowledge of western procedures and medical practice still makes the military doctor vastly superior to the alternative which actually exists in Afghanistan.

But aren't there NGOs who do the same? Well yes, but NGOs do good often for the sole purpose of doing good, and while noble and pure, they are not there to fight the war, nor do many of them want to be. Now it may not be the noblest, to save someone's life or to create jobs with the only motive of being able to leave as soon as possible, but in my opinion it is what is needed. And I think it is a good sign that countries like Canada are following the Philippine model instead of the conventional one.

Mean, Outliers, and Public Perception

2008-01-01T15:25:00.000-04:00

Almost universally every group, whether it ranges from various Religions, to the Police, to Soldiers, to political movements such as feminism, or indeed liberalism and conservatism in general, feels that it has been misrepresented in popular opinion. In fact it seems almost inevitable that no matter how much good an organization may do* that they are judged by unfair stereotypes which are often based upon a small minority of the group. Often a small minority that the rest finds offensive.

Yet this is not a new occurrence, and while we can shake our fists in anger that the rest of the world is stereotyping and ignorant, and although we will probably be right, it does not help the situation. In fact it seems almost to be the human condition. Out of some cognitive shortcut the human mind seems predisposed to look at the most extreme conditions. To make matters worse, this is not only the realm of racists or bigots, in fact there is probably a group which everyone exhibits some manner of unease with because of the extreme examples within that group. Even the most open minded and tolerant of sorts.

Consider the case of feminism, and polls regarding the general opinion men and women have of it (CBS News Poll). Now the general outcome of the poll, is that a sizable majority of people believe in feminism, when it is defined as the belief that men and women are equal and should be treated so. Yet far fewer people are willing to define themselves as feminists, if it is not defined. In fact the general consensus (both student editorials) of feminists who analyze the poll is that people have a mistaken opinion of what feminist means. The problem is that it did not gain this stereotype as some articles suggest because "Everyone's scared of inferior groups trying to gain power".

The fact is the stereotypes did not develop or become so widespread because people are afraid of gender equality. I'll acknowledge the possibility that it is true for some, but not for such a wide portion of both women and men. The stereotypes have developed even in the relatively enlightened generations of today because they have seen the radical feminists who fit the stereotype. That stereotype is then affirmed by the fact that other feminists do not seem willing to directly challenge it, and are thus construed to support it. Is it fair, no, but is it the fault of the other person, again no.

But while most people would like to seek to avoid conflict, particularly with people who are their friends or allies, it is often better to have that conflict for the audiences sake. Arguments and conflicts in general are not held to convince the opposing party, it can happen, but it is rare. Instead they are there to convince the audience, the people watching at home. They are not mind readers, they cannot divine the nuances and intricacies of your someones personal opinion on things if they stay silent.

For example, a police officer may truly hate crooked cops, but if he remains silent, he will be seen as crooked as well. If one of the few bad apples commits a heinous act, each second that goes by where nothing is done by anyone else, is considered an indictment against everyone else. The "blue line" for police forces is almost worse for them then the abuse in the first place. Because then it doesn't seem isolated, it seems omnipresent. In some cases its even worse, if something wrong is done, no matter how quickly it is stopped, no matter the repercussions for those involved it will still look bad. Its not fair to the other, well meaning individuals, but thats they way it works.

This is what happened to feminism. A majority of people, including myself support the feminist ideals, however, a vocal minority has taken the reigns and speaks out, and no one has the courage or time and inclination to stand up to them, and since no one does, everyone considers this the prevailing opinion within the movement and they move away from it. So while this is long winded for a first post. Remember, the people inside your own movement can have a worse effect upon it then your opponents.

If you have a reputation for planting evidence, don't be surprised when seemingly very good cases fail to win the jury over. If the most vocal, most visible, and easily recognizable members of your group come off as crazy, and the majority seem to sing her praises, don't be surprised to be tarred with the same brush. The trick is to realize what both Guerrillas and Counter-Guerrillas have realized for years, your enemy is the best recruiting tool you have, and you are the best tool they have.

*And I am making no assertions towards any of the groups in particular.
** I realize I may have done what Kant is accused of doing, simply creating a long-winded thought which simply concludes that the common man is probably right in his beliefs