December 17, 2001
From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:Compared to What?
The best way to identify misleading use of statistics or presentation of facts is to ask a simple question: "Compared to What?"
For instance, what if I told you I had a cure for the common cold? Proof? Well I found ten people with colds and gave them my cure. They were all better within a week! Miraculous! Except, as you well know, this was bound to happen. I'd love to tell the public I was responsible for curing all these good people, but my cure may have been irrelevant.* "Compared with" a control group, there would likely be little difference. Similarly, I would love to claim conclusively that tax cuts cause GDP growth, but the best I can tell you is that economic growth has followed tax cuts three times. There were many other things going on in the economy, so I can't prove to you that growth was the direct result of tax cuts or, for that matter, the exact contribution of tax cuts to economic growth. That part is left to econometric modelers, and if anyone can spin a grain of truth into a blanket of falsehoods, it is people who interpret complex models as precision tools (but that's another post).
Scientific testing is done with control groups and "double blind" procedures. Because outcomes are meaningless without a benchmark in which multiple contributing variables are held constant in order to test the reaction to one independent variable. In the absence of this testing, one has to be guarded with one's conclusions.
Which brings us to all the hideous charges leveled against the United States by those who think we can do no right. The most extreme examples are brought to you by the addled brains of that irritating species Pondscumi Guardependenti and related parasitic swamp life currently congealed at the website known as "Common Dreams." (Have I been reading Moira Breen? guilty!)
I marked four representative items of delusional thinking from Common Dreams in the MTZ Bullpen today. Tearing my hair out trying to select the most stupid from this impossibly high-achieving group, much like judging a flatulence contest for subtle differences in bouquet, is what prompted this rant. These simple organisms witness (and occasionally inflate) the evidence of many people dying of hunger and abuse around the world or dying as casualties of conflicts in which the U.S. has
a) been directly involved;
b) been indirectly involved; or
c) selfishly refused to become involved,
and jump to the conclusion that our involvement, or lack thereof, is the 100% contributing factor to this misery.
As an example, look at the charge that 1.5 million people have died in Iraq "due to our sanctions" (which comes from the not-so credible Iraqi government), and the more credible U.N. estimates of increased child mortality rates, which show a return to 1970 levels of child mortality. This is certainly the most popular evidence requiring American isolationism on Common Dreams. Curious, really, how much they have in common with Pat Buchanan. Maybe that's why they keep posting Eric Margolis columns. Nonetheless, this is one of the few arguments that more credible pundits have advanced recently, so let's think about it.
Accepting these numbers as fact, the fact that they exist does not attribute them directly to sanctions. There is a lot more going on in Iraq from 1988 to the present:
1) the country is run by a ruthless dictator who has nationalized, no personalized, everything that makes money so as to enrich himself to the tune of $7 billion dollars.
2) That same dictator is busy throwing every weapon he can find at residents of his own country
3) At the inflection point in child mortaility rates, the leader of this country invaded a neighboring country for no particular reason, placing hundreds of thousands of soldiers, his own citizens and, of course, the citizens of the invaded country, at considerable risk, and squandering the country's resources on the adventure to boot.
So, exhibiting our usual genocidal tendencies, we refuse to do business with him...until we can verify he is no longer stockpiling weapons to back up any more grand scheming. To prove we are killers, we offer ever-expanded oil-for-food programs (up to $17 billion dollars) despite the fact that he makes sure almost none of it ends up in the hands of these dying children. To expand on these themes, read this article.
I ask "compared to what?" What if there were no sanctions? There would be a lot more palaces in Iraq. Thousands more Kurds and other residents of the region would be dead from chemical and biological weapons experiments. And the Iraqi government would hide all the starving children from UNICEF surveyors (who depend on Saddam's voluntary hospitality) in order to show better mortality rates, as they did prior to 1990. If Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapon, he could walk into Iran or Saudi Arabia with near impunity and slaughter whomever he wished. But we are the murderers for not buying his oil.**
And what should we do instead? It's clear these folks don't think we should invade. Should we pretend this is a legitimate regime? It's pretty clear that would be a mistake. It's one thing to speculate about a leader's intentions, but this guy actually did invade another country and has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. What constitutes a basis for our involvement? And absent invasion or sanctions what would you do? If you favor the U.N., what do you suggest the U.N. do, if it isn't hopelessly paralyzed by the politics of the general assembly? It's so easy to bemoan the consequences of others' actions when you take or recommend none yourself. Until you realize that if we completely gave up on Iraq millions of people would die horrible deaths at the hands of Saddam Hussein or be condemned to a life under his dicatorship. I suppose the U.S. would be responsible for that as well. Because we drive SUVs. Because there are rich people here. Because we like to shop....
In truth, the "no more sanctions" movement is really the "more freedom and palaces for the Hitler of the Middle East" movement. But that's a claim we can debate. Remember, these are the folks who believe that "Global slavery is the secret behind our economic success.". For sheer self-contradicting idiocy, try this Madeleine Bunting quotation on for size:
So this year, as we pull the crackers, we can happily reflect on the fact that those dear Afghans are now flying their kites and listening to their screeching music (though it's a mystery as to why they would want to) once again, thanks to us. To top it all, feeling really good usually requires some measure of feeling superior; so round off that seasonal glow with some gloating at the idiots who opposed this war.Oh that screeching Afghan music, and those condescending...everybodies. Now try this inarticulate nod to deconstructionism from U.T.'s own Robert Jensen. These words are intended to show a lack of cynicism:
For example, I am against the illegitimate structure of authority called the corporation. I want to see different forms of economic organization emerge. I am hopeful about the possibilities but not optimistic that in my lifetime I will see the demise of capitalism, corporations, and wage slavery. Still, I will do certain things to work toward that.The same can be said of the problem of U.S. aggression against innocent people in the rest of the world, particularly these days in Afghanistan, where the aggression is most intense. Given the bloody record of the United States in the past 50 years and the seemingly limitless capacity of U.S. officials to kill without conscience, I must confess I am not optimistic that such aggression will stop anytime soon, in large part because those corporate structures that drive the killing are still around. But I will do certain things to work against it.
Or take the large state research university. I am concerned about how the needs of students are systematically ignored and the needs of corporate funders are privileged, how critical thinking is squashed not by accident but by design. I am concerned about the illegitimate structures of authority that I work in and that compel me to act in ways against the interests of students. I am not optimistic that the structure of big research universities is going to change anytime soon. But I will do certain things to work against the structures.
Apparently "doing certain things" includes rewriting history and blaming corporations for...everything bad in the world. What it doesn't include is posing any alternatives at all, let alone superior alternatives.
Wouldn't it be nice to be as free with logic as the people who infest the pages of in yer dreams? It's all very well for me to suggest they think a bit more scientifically, but the most productive thing these folks could do with a calculator would be to hit themselves over the head with it. Of course that would somehow be the U.S. Government-corporate conspiracy's fault as well. "After all (thunk) here it is (thunk) happening (thunk) right before your (thunk) eyes so (thunk) it must be (thunk) the CIA/FBI/ExxonMobil/BUSH (thunk) OW!"...
*Or, as Michael Flanders would say, "But it's not irrelevant, it's a hippopotamus."
**Of course, we are also murderers for buying oil from other thugocracies