Cover the Uninsured Week
ArchPundit
Continues at the Bloviator, click on the map to learn about the uninsured in your state.
2003
Lotta Laughs
John Lott’s book has been published with his new and supposedly improved survey. For those not following the John Lott train wreck concerning a survey he claims to have completed in 1998 check out Tim Lambert’s page in the hyperlink. Lott said he was replicating the survey and had this to say about it:
"let me note the most important bottom line: the survey that was done last fall produced very similar results. The earlier results were replicated."
Now that Lott’s survey has gone to press, Tim Lambert has revealed that the number of DGUs in the new sample is 7. Lott claims that in his previous study, he had 25 DGUs, but cannot provide any documentation for that survey.
Tim Lambert points out the
95% confidence interval is from 3 percent to 50 percent using Wilson’s method. This range would include the results from eight surveys done previously, all of which are better surveys.
Tim calculates using the Wilson method which I believe is the most appropriate method to understand these numbers. Tim or I or anyone with a decent statistical background can provide the technical aspects of the calculation. To put it in more familiar terms, the Margin of Error for the 7 cases of DGUs in the most recent survey is +/- 37.8 % with 95% confidence. Given there is one time the weapon is fired out of 7 DGUs, that means the range of possible results within the 95% confidence interval is 0 (You can’t have negative numbers here) and 52%. This is assuming that the survey’s methodology is adequate, and this is not likely the case.
Even if one were to use the results Lott claims from the first survey (and one shouldn’t since there is no data to analyze) the total number of DGUs would be 32 giving a margin of error of +/- 17.7%. With 1 weapon being fired in the 2002 sample and probably 2 being fired in the 1998 lost sample, that is 9.375% rate of firing the gun used in the DGU meaning up to 27% of cases having a weapon fired would be within the MOE. Using the Wilson method on both samples one observes the 95% confidence interval producing results between 3% and 24% of cases producing a weapon being fired. To insist that 98% of the time the weapon doesn’t have to be fired doesn’t actually fit his own results. Now Lott might try and claim that he uses weighting of the sample that would change this, but if he weights the sample his MOE inflates. All of this assumes unbiased sampling and effective survey methodology which is not likely given Lott’s survey techniques. IOW, all of these calculations are generous.
So Lott claims to have replicated the original survey. Tim Lambert disagrees. I agree with Lott on the point that he has replicated the original survey. Lott is correct, he has replicated a worthless survey with another worthless survey. Congratulations, Dr. Lott, you ought to be proud! The question Lott won’t answer is why he bothered with either survey. Anyone with a minimal grasp of statistics understands how useless the survey(s) he conducted are to answer the questions he wishes to answer. Others have insisted this survey would be much better, but it is another example of wasted time and effort.
I imagine Lott will release his numbers as well and that should provide for all sorts of fun!
Note To David Talbot
I’m already a subscriber and Joe Conason alone makes that a wonderful investment, however, this kind of navel gazing drivel is only useful as an substitute for watching a car wreck. Boo-hoo, people were wearing flags on the cruise ship I was vacationing on…
Read Joe Conason about Inhofe
And remember what wackjobs in key environmental positions can justify when they think Jesus is coming back real soon now, ya hear. This is really right out of the James Watt use it or lose it in the rapture school.
Slash Comes to Da Bears
Oh thanks you Jerry Angelo! This certainly doesn’t fix everything wrong with the Bears, but it ensures this season won’t be a boring…
Loonie Moment at the Leader
Joyce Morrison says:
If you have seen the movie "Brave New World" where people live in sustainable communities and are afraid to go out into the "wilderness" because it is too dangerous, you can get the picture.
Well, actually no I haven’t seen the movie, but it is considered one hell of a book.
I can’t find anything else to excerpt because she is so bonkers one must read the whole thing to grasp the seriousness of her delusions. Just remember, the Nature Conservancy is a dangerous bunch of radicals in cahoots with the UN.
Perle Blows a Gasket
Perle goes further off the edge with the announcement he is going to sue Sy Hersch for the New Yorker article that questions the appearance of impropriety by Perle in having private business interests and a public job.
Perle is claiming he’ll do it in England where such a case would be easier, but given the original article is quite measured and specific in suggesting the appearance of impropriety and remains agnostic as to whether actual impropriety occurs, Perle isn’t going to win.
But then again, given I’m not willing to attack the terrorist Hersch, I must be an appeaser.
Is Perle trying to act like Snidely Whiplash, or what?
When the Crazy Guy with the Knife is Trying to Get Attention
Just give the attention to him and make sure he doesn’t come back with a gun. Turning the issue into some bizarre morality play is of no use. What is of use is defusing a crisis before making it worse.
Let’s Talk Torture
In a small sign of hope that John Burge will be brought to justice for torture, Gordon B. Nash Jr. served as chief of the special prosecution division in 1977 and 1978 was appointed to the investigation.
Whether the US should torture people is an assanine question. What do you get from torture? Lot’s of made up garbage, as has been documented in Illinois.
It isn’t a question of using torture, it is a question of getting rid of it here. Torture is inhumane and ineffective. The only reason to push for it is out of a sense of sadism. Armchair Strangeloves who think we should use it fail to grasp what torture actually does which is create every incentive to end torture whether it is by telling the truth or a lie.
Several weeks ago, Steven Chapman identified the particularly problematic slippery slope issues with allowing torture under some circumstances.
Now, if one is trying to stop a nuke in two hours is torture ok? I’m sure we can forgive the individual who makes that choice, but otherwise, torture is off limits.