Political Probabilities

[Greg Ross]

Jack,

Assuming your second question was not entirely rhetorical...

Normally, if both boys were guessing, one would expect them both to score 25%. So if George scored 50%, I would wonder if he really was guessing. But setting aside disbelief,...

If George scored 0%, John would be expected to get 33%, since George would have eliminated one of the three wrong answers on each question. (But now I'm wondering how John would know which answers George gave. Methinks he peeked!)

Now, for each percent George gets right, that's 1% of the 33% that John could not get right. John's score, then can be calculated as 33% of 100% minus George's score. So if you want the score (S) where both will score the same, solve:

  S = 0.33*(1-S)
3*S = 1-S        ' Multiplying both sides by 3
4*S = 1          ' Adding S to both sides
  S = 0.25       ' Dividing both sides by 4

So, coincidentally, (and as might be expected by using intuition alone), if both boys "guess", they get the same score of 25%.

I assume your third question WAS intended to be rhetorical, but I'm going to respond with a couple of points anyway:

1. For each question on the real-world Iraq test, there are going to be more than 2 or 4 possible answers.
2. Among those possible answers, there will often be no correct answer. (Or even a good answer.)
3. HOPEFULLY, if John Kerry is elected, he won't simply RANDOMLY choose answers, but rather will use a measure of wisdom to select one of the better answers for each question, so his outcome in Iraq should be better than is hinted at by your scenario.

BTW: I actually tend to agree with your apparent opinion on the two current candidates, I just had to point out some logical flaws in your "argument".

[Jack Jones]

Greg,

For each question on the real-world Iraq test, there are going to be more than 2 or 4 possible answers. Among those possible answers, there will often be no correct answer. (Or even a good answer.)

You are so right! Didn’t I say the test was extremely hard?

HOPEFULLY, if John Kerry is elected, he won't simply RANDOMLY choose answers, but rather will use a measure of wisdom to select one of the better answers for each question, so his outcome in Iraq should be better than is hinted at by your scenario.

Of course! But my over-simplification of the problem was intended to show that his statement that he would do almost everything differently brings his wisdom into question. Your calculations show that, even if the bad guy’s disregard for the rule of law has turned it into a crapshoot, then it is a mathematical certainty that Kerry’s approach would fare no better. But it is not a crapshoot; and, the Bush & Co. wisdom/approval has by all estimates been at least 50%. What follows is that doing almost everything differently is preposterous and almost certain to fare worse.

[Adam Y.]

HOPEFULLY, if John Kerry is elected, he RANDOMLY choose answers, but rather will use a measure of wisdom to select one of the better answers for each question, so his outcome in Iraq should be better than is hinted at by your scenario.

Of course everyone knows that he is going to cheat and look at George Bushes test.

[Joshua May]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Of course everyone knows that he is going to cheat and look at George Bushes test.

And everyone knows that George will copy off of Karl and Richard's tests.

But seriously, where did you take that 16.67% from? And such things as this cannot be made so simple. And who says John will guess, John most definitely knows the mistakes that George has made and will thus perform better than George. So lets say that George got 25% on this test. John will then get at least 25% because he knows the mistakes that George made.

[Jake177]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Now suppose that John also took the test and answered not just one, or a few, but every question differently than did George.

Disclaimer:
*****I AM NOT TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE, I AM SIMPLY STATING MY OWN OPINION. I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE TO ANYONE WHO FINDS IT OFFENSIVE.*****


Would that include going into Iraq in the first place? If it did, then I personally would give Kerry 100% on the test and an A for the rest of the term.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Jake177

Disclaimer:
*****I AM NOT TRYING TO TURN THIS INTO A POLITICAL DEBATE, I AM SIMPLY STATING MY OWN OPINION. I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE TO ANYONE WHO FINDS IT OFFENSIVE.*****

Ya know.. It's kinda sad that you even had to put a disclaimer on your post like that..

What a shame..

People need to chill...

[Jack Jones]

But seriously, where did you take that 16.67% from?

George got 50%, which means that John had a 1/3 chance at each of the rest.
1/3 * ½ = 1/6 = 16.67%
Of course you realize the test was rigged for sake of argument – to make a point.

And such things as this cannot be made so simple.

Exactly my point, Josh. It is not a simple as raising one finger and claiming to make everything well by doing almost everything differently!
(Note: The index finger move should not be confused with the clasping of hands, nor the snappy salute, nor the folding of arms across chest, which are meant to convey piety, bravado, and compassion. Oh, the crossing of arms is Teresa’s move – never mind that one.)

Would that include going into Iraq in the first place?

That’s a heck of a good question, Jake! One that each of us must decide for ourselves. Take a few minutes to read why Bush and I think it was not only necessary and inevitable, but good.

Would that include going into Iraq in the first place?

Such a good question that I had to quote it twice You tell me what Kerry might have done, because he certainly hasn’t.

People need to chill...

Excellent advice, Elgin! And chill I will, but not before I caution again that the problem is way to complex to be explained away with a slogan or waved away with ones index finger.

[Bill Gold]

Can someone please explain what this hypothetical test is? What were the supposed questions/tasks?

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Such a good question that I had to quote it twice You tell me what Kerry might have done, because he certainly hasn’t.

In my (not so) humble opinion, the question of what Kerry might have done differently with regard to invading Iraq is pointless. We’re there for better or worse (I believe worse), and we need to pick the candidate we think can best resolve the situation and get us the hell out of there while leaving a sovereign and secure nation in our wake. International (read: French, German, Russian, and other thus far alienated nations) troops and money are needed to accomplish this. The only way we’ll get those troops and cash is by apologizing to those countries for our unlawful, haphazardly run, intelligence deficient, unilateral war and our overall arrogant and completely self-serving foreign policy. President Bush has proved himself to remain steadfastly wrong and unapologetic, despite mounting costs (over $225 billion), American casualties (1,040+ in Iraq alone), and civilian casualties (over 15,000 in Iraq alone), when it comes to our foreign policy. There’s no chance for us to succeed unless we deviate from our current Iraq/foreign policy positions, but Bush doesn’t want another reason to be called a flip-flopper, right?

Horray for ~4:15am posts!

[Jake177]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

That’s a heck of a good question, Jake! One that each of us must decide for ourselves. Take a few minutes to read why Bush and I think it was not only necessary and inevitable, but good.

My only problem with this article is that it makes an assumption that I don't agree with, and that is this: just because we have survived for 213 years on one system of government (note: I'm counting from the ratification of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence) that must be the best system, and it is our job to spread it around the world so that everyone can be free. The last time that I checked, forcing people to accept democracy isn't giving them freedom, letting them decide what kind of government they want based on their own history and beliefs is.

[Adam Y.]

My only problem with this article is that it makes an assumption that I don't agree with, and that is this: just because we have survived for 213 years on one system of government (note: I'm counting from the ratification of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence) that must be the best system, and it is our job to spread it around the world so that everyone can be free. The last time that I checked, forcing people to accept democracy isn't giving them freedom, letting them decide what kind of government they want based on their own history and beliefs is.

We did that with Iraq about ten years ago. We told them to go rebel and pick their own leader. It didn't work at all. Also, historically I know the emperor of Japan still exisisted after World War II because of what you are saying.

In my (not so) humble opinion, the question of what Kerry might have done differently with regard to invading Iraq is pointless. We’re there for better or worse (I believe worse), and we need to pick the candidate we think can best resolve the situation and get us the hell out of there while leaving a sovereign and secure nation in our wake. International (read: French, German, Russian, and other thus far alienated nations) troops and money are needed to accomplish this.

I don't think France and Germany are ever going to help us no matter what president is in place. Im not sure about Russia though. They might change their minds.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

I don't think France and Germany are ever going to help us no matter what president is in place. Im not sure about Russia though. They might change their minds.

Now who has the pessimistic outlook for the future?

France and Germany were upset that we didn’t let weapons inspectors do their job, and that we unilaterally decided to invade a sovereign nation and overthrow its government. If they see that the American public now rejects that kind of action by removing that leader and his advisors, then, if we put forth an honest effort to include them (France/Germany/etc.) on decision making and peacekeeping control, they would have no reason not to aid us. An apology and a humble foreign policy (with regard to our allies) are needed, and George Bush has proven himself incapable of both. Why would anyone want to help us if we, as American citizens speaking in our once every 2 years voice, continue to support a President and a Congress that has continually insulted and belittled powerful foreign nations who have the ability to assist us. The only chance we have to recruit foreign ground troops and monetary support is to change our own leadership so that it is less toxic to our international relations.

[Jack Jones]

...mounting costs (over $225 billion), American casualties (1,040+ in Iraq alone)...

Horray for ~4:15am posts!

So much for chill…

Don’t ya just love statistics. We can spin them any way we want. Let’s compare the State of California with Iraq. The two are about the same area. Iraq has 5/7 the population of California.

Although many of the American deaths in Iraq were accidental, or an act of war, let’s label all 1,040+ murders. The murder rate in California is 6.8/100,000, which means that, in the same time period, there were 3,610. Adjusting for population we see that an American was about 2.5 times more likely to be murdered in California than in Iraq.

If it’s not the human cost, then it must be the $225 billion that should dissuade us? Well, according to extrapolated census statistics, federal funds and grants expended in California during the same period have exceeded $300 trillion – that’s over a thousand times the amount spent on the liberation of Iraq!

Maybe we should get the hell out of California and leave a sovereign and secure nation in our wake.

Ok (removing tongue from cheek) this is not about numbers, nor our buddies the French; and it’s for damned sure not about Vietnam. This is about the fact that we were attacked and will be again. How many times and how vicious they are will depend on how long we allow tyrants the freedom to oppress the third world. More precisely, on how long we allow it to remain a third world.

The reason Bush is unapologetic is that the coalition of the unwilling do not deserve one. It is they who aid and comfort the enemies of freedom; it is they who want profit from absentee colonialism; it is from them that the third world should demand an apology. If, instead of bringing down every last rogue state and offering the chance for prosperity, we revert to chasing boogiemen into hiding, with the occasional capture and subsequent release when the unwilling buckle again to the boogiemen’s clones, then the third world will continue to export its pain.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

Adjusting for population we see that an American was about 2.5 times more likely to be murdered in California than in Iraq.

Your statistics are inaccurate due to the fact that you forgot to add (12927+) Iraqi casualties. Recalculated, 4-5 times as likely to die in Iraq

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

$300 trillion – that’s over a thousand times the amount spent on the liberation of Iraq!
Maybe we should get the hell out of California and leave a sovereign and secure nation in our wake.

The citizens of California disagreed with the money handlings in the government. They petitioned for a recall election, got it, and elected somebody else. Following your logic, maybe we should follow their lead and ditch our national leader. I hear California is doing much better now.

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

This is about the fact that we were attacked and will be again.

You sound so sure. I thought Democrats were the pessimistic ones?

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

More precisely, on how long we allow it to remain a third world.

It seems that if we spent 1% of what we did on invading Iraq on increasing standard of living in, say, Pakistan, then they'd have 2.25 billion ($) less reasons to support terrorism. Happy educated people are less likely to become terrorists than disgruntled oppressed poor ones.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by Jack Jones

So much for chill…

Don’t ya just love statistics. We can spin them any way we want. Let’s compare the State of California with Iraq. The two are about the same area. Iraq has 5/7 the population of California.

Although many of the American deaths in Iraq were accidental, or an act of war, let’s label all 1,040+ murders. The murder rate in California is 6.8/100,000, which means that, in the same time period, there were 3,610. Adjusting for population we see that an American was about 2.5 times more likely to be murdered in California than in Iraq.

If it’s not the human cost, then it must be the $225 billion that should dissuade us? Well, according to extrapolated census statistics, federal funds and grants expended in California during the same period have exceeded $300 trillion – that’s over a thousand times the amount spent on the liberation of Iraq!

Maybe we should get the hell out of California and leave a sovereign and secure nation in our wake.

Ok (removing tongue from cheek) this is not about numbers, nor our buddies the French; and it’s for damned sure not about Vietnam. This is about the fact that we were attacked and will be again. How many times and how vicious they are will depend on how long we allow tyrants the freedom to oppress the third world. More precisely, on how long we allow it to remain a third world.

The reason Bush is unapologetic is that the coalition of the unwilling do not deserve one. It is they who aid and comfort the enemies of freedom; it is they who want profit from absentee colonialism; it is from them that the third world should demand an apology. If, instead of bringing down every last rogue state and offering the chance for prosperity, we revert to chasing boogiemen into hiding, with the occasional capture and subsequent release when the unwilling buckle again to the boogiemen’s clones, then the third world will continue to export it’s pain.

With specific regard to your "So much for chill…" comment... By disagreeing with and challenged your statements I don’t mean to either insult or attack you as a person. I respect you as a person, Jack, just like I have respectfully disagreed with other good people (Andy Baker, Paul Copioli, etc.) on many political issues, some pertaining to Iraq.

I believe that the logic behind your comparison between Iraq and the state of California (both the American “murder rate” and the federal money put towards each) is fundamentally flawed, and I question the numbers you’ve cited, as well. We can discuss this in our future posts if you wish.

I didn’t bring up Vietnam as a country or the Vietnam War in particular (but I’ll say that the trumped up false information that was used as a justification for invading Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction and the blatantly false tie to 9-11 that Dick Cheney and others continue to chirp about to this day, was used exactly like the false Gulf of Tonkin situation to justify heavy American involvement in the Vietnam War).

I believe that this is certainly as much about the French/Germans/Russians/etc. as it is about the rest of the world. I believe you and I both agree that if there’s anything we should have learned from foreign terrorist attacks on American soil it’s that we, as a world superpower, cannot continue to have a selfish, ignorant foreign policy that has tunnel vision without running an increased risk of being attacked by foreign terrorists again, although, this doesn’t help much when it comes to domestic terrorism. Terrorism is a plague upon the entire world, not just individually a Russian, Israeli, American, or Iraqi issue.

I agree with you, and there’s no doubt in my mind, that there will be another major act of terrorism on American soil. I agree that a major problem for nations of all governments is an uneducated, starving, bigoted, and otherwise uncared for “third world” (even within our own country and other “advanced nations”). We happen to have a difference in opinion on how to raise the aggregate standard of living for the world as a whole.

You appear to believe that we should forcefully overthrow all tyrannical governments, and somehow replace them with another, less repressive, form of government. After doing so, we would either pray that they educate themselves and become a tolerant and peaceful country, or we’d have to spend untold billions of dollars per country building up their economy and education systems.

<tangent>
All of this, of course, after passing more tax cuts for all Americans (or at the very least the ones already making enough money so that they wouldn’t be spending this additional amount, just putting it in a safe for their great-grandchildren to use) since we want our government to spend all of this money while not wanting to give up any of our own personal earnings. Why else would we pass another tax cut while fighting a war in Iraq, peacekeeping in Kabul, and trying to fight “the war on terror” while already running up the largest deficit in the history of the world (estimated to be between $425 and $500 billion this year)? Why the hell is it that we ask our soldiers to sacrifice their lives for the prospect of stabilizing Iraq and supposedly making our country safer, yet we the American taxpayer are so greedy that we cannot sacrifice the necessary portions of our individual incomes (adjusted so that those who can afford to pay more than others do so) to pay for this war without forcing our country into the largest deficit in our history?
</tangent>

Please feel free to correct me; I’m just extrapolating this from your position on the overthrowing of Iraq (and throwing in some more tax cuts for good measure). Since there are more than 20 such governments on the planet (that’s a very conservative estimate on my part), many of which are backed by the USA, this isn’t a reasonable course of action. We do not have the military power nor would we have the international support needed to engage that large a front without bringing back conscription (and I’m sure as hell not in favor of being drafted to fight that fight).

Can we agree that at this point in time it would behoove us, and the rest of the world, if we focused on one country at a time? We need to fix Iraq, we’re already militarily spread too thin between Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s the fault of our current administration that that is the case. It is their fault, and no one has yet been held accountable for it. There have been no public firings of intelligence officials (Tenent publicly retired to “spend more time with his family”), no firings of defense department staff for the lack of postwar planning and the prisoner abuse scandals, and no firings of other white house advisors who were involved in this decision making process. No one, other than a handful of the American soldiers who were in those prison pictures, has been held accountable for the blunders and scandals that have plagued this military campaign. Relating a Nixon-era quote to the present, Bush was either responsible or irresponsible when it comes to both the handling of the prewar justification and the management of the war and this is yet another reason to hold this group, starting with the president, accountable on November 2nd by not voting for them. If conservative America really cares about the children of our country, then how on earth could they support a candidate who doesn’t accept responsibility and hold his staff/appointees accountable for their actions or inaction? It is not a healthy life lesson for our children to see that people, who do not accept responsibility for their actions, whether they were benevolent or malevolent in intent, do not need to be held accountable for their actions.

Are you saying that the third world should demand an apology from France/Germany/etc. and not demand one from England and us, as well, just because we overthrew Iraq? It is plainly clear that President Bush doesn’t agree with you that every dictatorship or otherwise tyrannical government must be overthrown and replaced. President Bush has neither gone so far as to apologize for the USA having backed brutal totalitarian states in the past nor has the USA ceased to back brutal totalitarian regimes in the present. The only comments that have been made about the world being better off without Saddam Hussein in power have been lame attempts by the current administration to retroactively change their justification for the invasion of Iraq. If freeing the Iraqi people was the only reason for invading Iraq, then, like you believe, there should be countless other countries on the way to “liberation” by American troops, but freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator wasn’t even mentioned as a reason to invade Iraq before action was taken. If the American people were pitched this idea of just “liberating” all of those countries, starting with the many of them not posing any threat to us, there wouldn’t be enough support to warrant any action at all, not even a leaflet drop. As an example, you cannot possibly believe that the USA is going to overthrow the “rogue” North Korean government in an attempt to follow the “Bush Doctrine.” This venture would be much too costly (both in human lives and in cash) for any president with aspirations to either be re-elected or have his/her party hold onto the presidency after his/her term ends. While it would be nice in a perfect world to rid the world of all tyrannical governments and replace them with fair governments and an educated and not poverty stricken population, this isn’t going to happen.

The USA and UK are just as guilty of profiting from this “absentee colonialism,” as you call it, as the next superpower. The USA has raped and pillaged, and continues to rape and pillage poor, undeveloped, and tyrannical countries. This is not a unique characteristic of those powerful countries that opposed our invasion of Iraq. It is a trait common in materialistic humanity. In order for there to be rich people, there will inevitably be poor people. Until you can convince superpower governments, credit card companies, banks, real estate developers, educational institutions, insurance companies, oil/power companies, and other industries that it is in all of our best interest to not think about profit so much as it is to encourage economic growth, education, industrialization, social tolerance (religion, political criticism, and other social issues) and worker safety in the “third world” there will be no chance at sufficiently raising the standard of living to the point where the world becomes a safer more peaceful place.

[Jack Jones]

Bill,

First of all, as indicated by the tongue in cheek, there was no logic intended in the California/Iraq comparison, other than to show how talk of body counts and dollars spent come nowhere near proving anything.

It appears we agree that the heart of the problem goes to man’s inhumanity to man. We agree that the U.S. and Britain are as guilty as any. We agree that terrorism is a plague that has thrived on our complicity with evil dooers. I hope we can agree that we're better off not sending the message; “We’re sorry, please kill us!” We would not do that intentionally, of course, but I’m not so sure that backing down now would be interpreted as anything else. I am sure that replacing our President would be interpreted as backing down now.

I have the feeling that we even agree that our choices in November basically s--k. While I’m of the camp that believes that if you want to make an omelet, then you have to break some eggs, I also believe that you don’t have to make too big a mess of the kitchen to do that. That means I believe that the right way to deal with Soddamn Insane was to cut him off at the knees and to raise a prosperous Iraq from his ashes. I know we’re real good at doing the former. What we have left is to pull off the latter, which at this point in time I’ll admit is not looking good. On the other hand, your guys trotted out a dog that just won’t hunt. (Historic examples omitted.) There was one from the Democratic National Kennel that I could have gotten behind, but that wing of the party gave way to the sloganeers. So, I’ll cast my vote to stay the course.

Please excuse the all the clichés, but when the shoe fits…