Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed Senate, this is Chewbacca…

Donald Trump’s lawyers do not make sense. Could this be a strategy?

Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a [former President of the United States], and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that [smoky back room in the Capitol] deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed [Senate], it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Wikipedia, and obviously South Park

What’s the investment return on political contributions?

According to some sources I’ve looked at, a rule of thumb is 1000 to 1. So it is entirely rational for amoral rich and powerful entities (be they human, corporate, or non-profit entities) to invest their money and effort in buying politicians rather than competing or innovating. This blog post has some numbers:

Consider: The return on industry lobbying — let’s round up and call it $10 million across several Senate terms — is $124 billion in protected profit per year. Looking at the drug price mark-up in the Taibbi article — from $4 to $1000 — gives a profit increase of 250 times the original (and still profitable) $4 price in India. Let’s lower that increase, since I’m sure Taibbi picked an extreme example. Let’s say that, on average, the protected U.S. profit is “just” a 100-times increase over what’s profitable overseas…

So what’s the ROI to the drug companies on its $10 million in bribes (sorry, entirely legal campaign contributions)? If it’s $100 billion … again, per year … the ROI on campaign contributions is at least $10,000 in profit for each $1 spent to protect it, or more than 10,000 to 1.

If I’m off by a factor of 10, the ROI is … 1,000 to 1.

From a blog called Down with Tyranny

So doing away with this should boost the competitiveness and innovation of our economy quite a bit, allow small and medium business to compete on an equal playing field with big business, and allow less wealthy and powerful parties to have a voice in policy choices (“democracy” is one word I’ve heard used in this context). But who would have to make this change? The politicians being bribed, of course. There was one politician who might have tried to do something, but we didn’t vote for him. The administration we did vote for has not mentioned corruption as a priority lately, although to be fair they do have other urgent priorities.

January 2021 in Review

Most frightening and/or depressing story: A China-Taiwan military conflict is a potential start-of-World-War-III scenario. This could happen today, or this year, or never. Let’s hope for the latter. This is a near-term existential risk, but I have to break my own “rule of one” and give honorable mention to two longer-term scary things: crashing sperm counts and the climate change/fascism/genocide nexus.

Most hopeful story: Computer modeling, done well, can inform decisions better than data analysis alone. An obvious statement? Well, maybe to some but it is disputed every day by others, especially staff at some government regulatory agencies I interact with.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: There have been fabulous advances in note taking techniques! Well, not really, but there are some time honored techniques out there that could be new and beneficial for many people to learn, and I think this is an underappreciated productivity and innovation skill that could benefit people in a lot of areas, not just students.

Colorado extreme drought contingency plan triggered

The drying out of the American west is a slow motion disaster. In this case, governments have seen it coming for quite a while and have actually planned for it. And at this point they have no choice but to take the extreme measure of…planning to schedule a monthly conference call. But seriously, this is a big deal. This has happened before and the result was the end of civilization, as the Anasazi can attest. Luckily civilization is a bit more spread out and connected these days, and technology has advanced somewhat. But there are a lot more of us, we use a lot more resources and produce a lot more waste.

As exceptional drought conditions expanded to more than 65% of the watershed’s total land area in 2020, operational forecasts for the Colorado River have worsened dramatically. Between Oct. and Nov. 2020, Bureau of Reclamation models projected a possible one million acre-foot drop in Lake Powell’s water storage due to lagging snowpack totals and record-setting soil moisture deficits.

“That was the first glimmer we could be looking at this way earlier than we expected,” said Amy Haas, executive director of the Upper Colorado River Commission.

KUNC, which is a radio station somewhere in northern Colorado

Our planetary ecological support system is dying. Why aren’t we doing anything?

That’s my summary (in my own words, not theirs) of this paper from Frontiers in Conservation Science.

Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts. Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action. Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends. The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.

This is not a paper about solutions. One thing they suggest is “for the scientific community to be more vocal”. I’m not sure. We need well-trained, well-funded scientists to do good science while talking amongst themselves, and then I think we need good science and risk communicators (some of whom might be scientists, but especially journalists and teachers and other types of people who write and speak in public, I think), along with engineers and technologists and economists and many other specialists (and generalists!) to help get through to our political and bureaucratic decision makers on the best courses of action. Facts and evidence don’t just speak for themselves, unfortunately. I certainly agree with the authors of this paper that we are failing to get through.

I’m always looking for that elevator pitch about why Uncle Lou (a fictional hard-headed relative, I don’t actually have an Uncle Lou) should care about biodiversity. Here is their attempt:

With such a rapid, catastrophic loss of biodiversity, the ecosystem services it provides have also declined. These include inter alia reduced carbon sequestration (Heath et al., 2005Lal, 2008), reduced pollination (Potts et al., 2016), soil degradation (Lal, 2015), poorer water and air quality (Smith et al., 2013), more frequent and intense flooding (Bradshaw et al., 2007Hinkel et al., 2014) and fires (Boer et al., 2020Bowman et al., 2020), and compromised human health (Díaz et al., 2006Bradshaw et al., 2019). As telling indicators of how much biomass humanity has transferred from natural ecosystems to our own use, of the estimated 0.17 Gt of living biomass of terrestrial vertebrates on Earth today, most is represented by livestock (59%) and human beings (36%)—only ~5% of this total biomass is made up by wild mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Bar-On et al., 2018). As of 2020, the overall material output of human endeavor exceeds the sum of all living biomass on Earth (Elhacham et al., 2020).

Frontiers in Conservation Science

I don’t think this paragraph will convince Uncle Lou. I think the message for the public is one where floods and fires threaten the value of their homes, and the future of the food supply we have taken for granted over the last century or so comes into doubt. The loss of natural ecosystems and animals is an epic tragedy to some, me included, but not to Uncle Lou down at the racetrack betting on the ponies (I’m not sure exactly who this character is I’ve just created, maybe we can interview him sometime and find out).

Is a modern U.S. civil war possible, and if so what could it look like?

This article in The Week argues that civil wars can take a variety of forms, so we shouldn’t be overconfident that one is impossible just because we don’t have an obvious geographic basis for one.

  • The original U.S. civil war is a somewhat obvious example of a geography-based conflict. Although, I see it as less of a territorial dispute and more of an economic and class conflict, rationalized and manipulated by racial and religious ideology.
  • Yugoslavia in the 1990s was an ugly conflict between ethnic and religious groups who were interspersed geographically. Rwanda isn’t mentioned but I understand it to be similar, although I don’t fully understand either of these conflicts.
  • The English Civil War “that raged from 1642-1651, pitting the crown against parliament, cities and towns dominated by a rising commercial middle class against the aristocratic countryside, and the staid religious convictions of the ruling class against the theologically driven radicalism of more demotic religious sects.” Okay, I’m almost completely ignorant of this one, because I was only taught U.S. history in school and haven’t gone back to study this one on my own. Perhaps the Crown whipped up a crowd of supporters and said something like, “Hey, why don’t you guys go over there and storm Parliament and have a portrait painted (no cameras yet) of yourselves naked except for a pair of Viking horns”?
  • I did read A Tale of Two Cities in high school, but I always thought that book was false advertising because it was 99% about the French side. I’m not an expert on the French Revolution (not mentioned in the article) by any means, but I understand it to be mostly a class conflict – a revolt of the poor and working class against an exploitative aristocracy. The conditions that could spark something like this would seem to be ripening in the U.S. as wealth and income inequality get objectively worse, but watching Bernie Sanders (who to be clear, advocates peaceful income redistribution to avoid the heads rolling) lose last year convinced me the propaganda here has been so successful for so long among the working and middle classes that this is unlikely. Put another way, our working and middle classes misunderstand the cause of our suffering and have been convinced to support the people causing it, or at least enough of us do that we are hopelessly divided for now. Bernie tried and failed twice (and before that, Ralph Nader tried and not only failed but set the cause back by 20 years), but maybe a more charismatic or more skilled Bernie/Nader will come along in the future, and conditions will have worsened in the meantime.
  • The Troubles in Northern Ireland. I understand this as a group with an ethnic and religious identity wanting regional autonomy, and a central government fighting that, leading to a long, low-intensity insurgency and counter-insurgency conflict. This is happening all over the world (the south of Thailand is just one example I am familiar with), but I don’t see obvious parallels in the United States. The repression of the war on drugs and mass incarceration have some echoes of this perhaps, with the Black Lives Matter movement emerging as a somewhat organized, nonviolent form of resistance. Perhaps it could turn violent if something like the Black Panther movement of the 1960s were to re-emerge.
  • Not mentioned in this article is the increase in right-wing militia groups. Their rhetoric is violent, anti-government, sometimes racist although I don’t believe all these groups identify as racist or white supremacist. It’s not exactly clear to me what they want other than disorder.
  • The Spanish Civil War “that shattered the Iberian Peninsula into a multitude of factions — from anarchists, Stalinists, and anti-clerical absolutists on the left to fascists and Catholic authoritarians on the right — between 1936 and 1939.” Again, my formal education was a complete failure and I am ignorant of this one. Maybe Biden has been fooling us and he will now reveal his true colors as the new Franco/Mussolini/Catholic authoritarian/Emperor Palpatine/Voldemort clone. After all, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Now, continuing this line of thought, who could Joe Biden appoint as Grand Inquisitor? My first thought is Mike Pence. However, an Inquisition will need to be good at things like contact tracing, isolation of victims, and disposal of bodies, and Pence failed his audition as head of the coronavirus virus task force. So I’ll go with Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania, who just might have the right combination of political skills, religious fervor and psychopathy to get the job done.

Dietary Guidelines for Americans

The USDA has a new version of Dietary Guidelines for Americans out. Sorry, TLDR, but the Harvard School of Public Health has a handy summary (along with some criticism). Basically, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains will never go out of style. Sugar will never be in style again.

I think people of my generation and older are still confused about fat. The guidelines say plant-based oils are pretty much A-OK as long as you stay within your calorie limits, but still recommend “lean meats and poultry”, “low fat dairy”, and limiting saturated fat. First, I am confused whether saturated fat is bad for everyone, even those of us with low cholesterol, or whether the USDA assumes we are too stupid to understand nuances and a blanket statement like this will save lives overall (if so, they’re probably right.) Harvard also criticizes USDA for not discouraging processed meat like bacon and ham (but bacon is so good…well, better to think of it as an occasional treat like a candy bar).

Men should limit alcoholic drinks to “no more than two” and women to one (sorry, ladies). By the way, a(n imperial, 16 ounce) pint of 7% alcohol craft beer is not a drink, it is actually almost two. Whereas 1.5 ounces of 40% alcohol liquor is one drink and actually easier to control. I love those craft beers though. Oh, and don’t touch soda – it’s death in a glass.

But you can have 2-3 cups of (black) coffee a day, with no known negative effects.

You can have more salt than I thought (2300 mg/day) if you don’t have any particular risk factors.

Harvard also points out that the science behind the nutritional benefits of all that meat and dairy is not all that strong, while the science behind the environmental risks is strong, and clear, and not mentioned in these guidelines.

Well, this is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Not the department of get your ass off the couch, go for a jog, and then eat some vegetables. We have an Environmental Protection Agency, but first of all it is not cabinet level, and second of all they don’t regulate agriculture. Nobody regulates the environmental impacts of agriculture! And the meat, sugar, corn (etc.) and food processing industries are massive, have enormously deep pockets, and use them to buy politicians who will keep it this way indefinitely.

fun with coronavirus math

Let’s do some coronavirus math! This is a word problem, kids. I’m writing on January 14, 2021, and this post will be horribly outdated, but possibly of historical interest, when you read it.

The total number of cases confirmed to date as of today, in the U.S.: “23.1 million+” (New York Times)

The CDC’s ratio of actual cases to confirmed cases: 7.2 (CDC)

Number of cumulative cases in the U.S. so far: 23.1 million * 7.2 = 166 million (166,320,000)

Population of the United States: 328.2 million (Google)

% of our population that has had the coronavirus = 166 / 328.2 = 51%

% of our population that has been vaccinated: 3.1% (Financial Times)

But all other things being equal (which I am sure they are not), 51% of the people vaccinated will have already had the coronavirus, so the vaccine so far adds 1.6% to 51% of our population. Call it 53% to be generous.

We have heard a variety of estimates on what constitutes herd immunity, but the number 70% seems to be sticking at least in the media (I don’t have a source handy, and need to go do some other things now.) So we might not be that far off. The (painfully) slow but steady vaccine rollout tortoise will eventually get to the finish line, people are continuing to get infected at high rates every day in the meantime, and nobody wants to see another wave from the new variant, but if and when it hits us it might push us over the mark (at a horrific human cost, of course).

One last thought is that at the moment, I suspect we are immunizing people who are more likely to have already had an infection than the population as a whole. We are being told this is the most ethical approach, or the quickest way to lower risk for the population as a whole, or some combination of the two. The ethical statement may be true, although this seems subjective. I thought ethics was not up to ethicists, but rather ethicists were supposed to ascertain what our society as a whole considers ethical, and maybe compare that to other human societies past and present. I haven’t seen public polls of what people think is ethical, although they may exist. I can see a case that the way the vaccine is being rolled out is ethical, but I can also see a case for a random lottery being equally ethical.

Better planning and communication would not just be ethical, they are the common sense need and our government is continuing to fail, fail, fail and people are dying, which is the opposite of ethical governance. To my ears, it is arrogant to hear them lecturing us about ethics.

drawing a line from Hitler to climate change

This 2015 Timothy Snyder article is called Hitler’s world may not be so far away. He is a well-respected historian whose previous books include Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin and Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning.

He calls the Holocaust “misunderstood” in the article, but he is not disputing facts or events that occurred. He makes a few points. First, we modern people tend to assume that we are morally superior to Germans of that period, and that we would not allow something like that to happen even under similar circumstances. He says there is no reason to believe this is true. Second, he points out that the worst deprivations occurred not within the borders of Germany or other western European states, but in lawless, stateless areas of eastern Europe. Nazi Germany intentionally created those lawless, stateless areas, but this holds lessons for failed states today, such as Syria. Third, he says that fear about the food supply in the 1930s was a significant driver of Hitler’s policy to expand east, creating space and farm land for Germans while exterminating or enslaving the inferior people who lived there. The so-called green revolution, which drastically accelerated agricultural yields, happened mostly after World War II. (We can argue later whether using massive fossil fuel inputs to produce fertilizer, pesticides, groundwater pumping at rates that will only be replenished over geologic time, and dumping the resulting waste in the ocean was a long-term solution, but it has fed a few billion people successfully for a few decades in a row now.)

So lessons for today are that as the climate crisis almost certainly worsens, we will see failed states, hunger and fear of hunger, mass migration, and these are all risk factors for genocide. I’ll pick a paragraph, but this long article really is worth a read.

Perhaps the experience of unprecedented storms, relentless droughts and the associated wars and south-to-north migrations will jar expectations about the security of resources and make Hitlerian politics more resonant. As Hitler demonstrated, humans are able to portray a looming crisis in such a way as to justify drastic measures in the present. Under enough stress, or with enough skill, politicians can effect the conflations Hitler pioneered: between nature and politics, between ecosystem and household, between need and desire. A global problem that seems otherwise insoluble can be blamed upon a specific group of human beings.

junkiest junk charts of 2020

Junk Charts is a great blog that takes an example of a data visualization, critiques it systematically, and then either improves it or shows a different way of displaying the same data. The site doesn’t go for overly elaborate graphics, just clear and effective ones. This post has a roundup of the most viewed posts and the author’s favorite posts of 2020.

One thing you probably shouldn’t do is describe interesting graphics in words. Nonetheless, here is some data, which I am not putting in a visual form because it would take exponentially longer than just listing it out:

  • There are 12 graphics covered by the post.
    • 2 scatter plots
    • 3 bar charts
      • 2 horizontal, not stacked – one of these gets changed to a bump chart
      • 1 horizontal, stacked – actually this is more of a “tree plot” where two data points are stacked and then a third is placed underneath
    • 2 pie charts
      • 1 3D pie chart – gets converted to a bump chart
      • 1 is allowed to continue to exist as a pie chart, with minor tweaks
    • 1 “dot matrix” (I’m not even sure if this is the best name, but basically you have empty squares or circles showing the total number of a thing, then some of them get filled in to illustrate how many of that thing fit a certain category)
    • 3 time series plots
      • 2 conventional – although one has two vertical axes, and the author illustrates how the limits can manipulated to suggest to the eye that two trends are related, or not
      • 1 showing shaded regions over time – basically a stacked bar changing over time
    • 538’s election snake

There is something intuitive about pie charts – that is why we explain fractions and percentages to children in terms of pizza or pie, and they grasp it instantly. Pie charts are obviously the wrong way to compare the absolute magnitudes of things.

I do like tree plots. I made one in 2020 and I was proud of myself – it showed the number of acres served by stormwater management controls implemented by three different administrative programs. And then I made a second one where I broke the numbers down further within each of the categories. This was very effective in conveying how much is actually achieved by each of the programs compared to the effort and expense that goes into them.

Resolution for 2021 is to play with “dot matrix” plots at some point (and maybe learn what the best name for these is.) I think these are effective in putting numbers in context of bigger numbers, regardless of units. For example, my city has around 80,000 cumulative confirmed coronavirus cases, maybe 5,000 confirmed active infections (about the number of confirmed cases in the last 10 days), maybe between 80,000 and 800,000 actual cumulative infections, and a population of about 1.6 million. I don’t know how many have been vaccinated at this point, but probably a few thousand. So maybe I would make 16 or 160 boxes each representing a chunk of people, and start coloring them in. Then we could see at a glance how much of the population might have some immunity to the virus right now, and how much does not. You could slice and dice the data many ways. Of course, some people died or moved away, and others were born or moved in. Incidentally, about 2,600 people died of Covid, 400 were murdered, and 120 died in and around motor vehicles. I haven’t seen numbers on suicides or drug overdoses but they are always horrifying. Around 1% of any given population dies in any given year from a combination of preventable and not preventable causes, which is sad but news flash: we are mortal beings.

This site doesn’t do maps, which is fine. I am a big fan of maps. But I have a very simple test – is the data geographic in nature? Then make a map. But often, some other types of graphs and tables will further illuminate the data, and those often work well alongside your map rather than being shoehorned into your map where they don’t really belong. And I also find it clunky trying to do any type of mathematical analysis in mapping software when the analysis is not spatial in nature.