Maybe the number of instances (40 in all) is too small, but it still seems surprising. Any ideas what’s going on?
UPDATE: It occurs to me that Congressional Districts are not variegated in size: indeed, within a state, they must be close to the same size (in population). This could throw the statistics off.
UPDATE 2: The more I think about it, the more I realize that Benford’s law would not apply in this case, in which the counts are essentially random variations from the same total (the total size of a district).
President Bush may continue to block inquiries into his administration after he leaves office. “The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
The Bush administration has so far committed $290 billion of the $700 billion financial bailout package. However, “no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.”
Although many of those who voted against Obama nevertheless see that his election is a very promising development in America, still there are those so mired in racism and ignorance that they can’t contain their bile but spew it out publicly. They should reflect that (a) they are on the losing side, and (b) most people in the country not only think Obama’s election is a good thing they actually voted for him.
With Benford’s law (PDF), it’s easy to tell when figures have been faked, provide you have enough figures. For example, you could readily tell whether the vote totals for a state were authentic or faked by looking through the totals by individual polling place or by county. Similarly, the IRS could readily run through the figures in a tax return and determine whether they were authentic or faked. But how to get the ear of those who can act on the information?
UPDATE: Welcome to visitors from James Fallows’s blog. And let me recommend the book on shaving as a great gift to men who shave or are about to learn to shave.
UPDATE: Very interesting. I just made this for lunch, and it’s thick—quite thick. I used Whole Foods balsamic vinegar. The mustard is an emusifier, so I’m not surprised it all mixed, but I am surprised at how thick it turned out. But very, very tasty: just had a salad for lunch.
A fascinating talk, never before published and given (more or less) in private by Leonard Bernstein 22 years ago. The introduction sets the scene, and the talk follows. Thanks to Ben for passing this along. This is the second issue of American Scholar I have come across—it seems to be an excellent publication. (Another article in the current (Autumn 2008) issue that will be of interest to The Younger Daughter: “The New Old Way of Learning Languages”, by Ernest Blum. The blurb says: “A once-popular system of reading Greek and Latin classics could revitalize modern teaching methods.” Unfortunately that article’s not on-line.)
At any rate, click the link for an extremely interesting piece of recent history. From the introduction (at the link):
… Bernstein, a 1939 graduate of Harvard, was invited by the university to address a celebration banquet for students in the fall of 1986. Then-president Derek Bok recalls:
Since agreeing to speak, he had not been in touch with Harvard….As a result, the organizers of the banquet abandoned hope that he would appear. They had also scheduled too many other speakers with the result that the evening dragged on interminably until something like one in the morning….At some point well after the festivities had begun…Leonard unexpectedly arrived dressed in a cape and announced to me that he had only just arrived the day before from an extended trip abroad and was expecting to speak….The organizers assured him that he was definitely still on the program and would be the final speaker. By the time we reached his place in the program, however, it was past midnight.
Bernstein apparently offered the audience a choice of listening to his remarks or calling it a day. Much to his chagrin, they chose to leave. Then, Bok explains, some students led by Gilbert (whose violinist parents played under Bernstein at the Philharmonic) asked Bernstein to speak at Adams House, a Harvard dorm.
Bernstein agreed, with certain caveats: that Bok be present, along with at least 15 students and two bottles of scotch. Seventy undergraduates turned up for the speech, delivered at 2 A.M., and, as reported in The Harvard Crimson, the event lasted an hour and a half. At the conclusion of his talk, Bernstein announced with a flourish that he would forgive Bok and Harvard for publishing a book with an introduction by Bok advocating restraints on weapons technology instead of an outright freeze. Bok recalls that Bernstein made his announcement and then “enfolded me in a great (and exceptionally long) hug.” …
The Chevy Volt is, IMO, a surprisingly good response from GM, which faces a situation that calls for finding new solutions. The Wall Street Journal‘s Holman Jenkins, Jr, attacks the vehicle but seems to be misinformed. Here’s an interesting post at CalCars that responds to Jenkins—along with tackling a number of other targets. Interesting column, anyway, especially if you’re interested in cars.
Mark Benjamin has a good article in Salon, exploring what steps President Obama might take with respect to the war crimes of the Bush Administration. It begins:
With growing talk in Washington that President Bush may be considering an unprecedented “blanket pardon” for people involved in his administration’s brutal interrogation policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead with plans for a nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under Bush.
The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.
The proposed commission — similar in thrust to a Democratic investigation proposal first uncovered by Salon in July — would examine a broad scope of activities, including detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, the practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for abusive interrogations. The commission might also pry into the claims by the White House — widely rejected by experienced interrogators — that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary intelligence tool.
A long article in Rolling Stone that is well worth reading in its entirety. It begins:
On October 13th, when the U.S. Treasury Department announced the team of “seasoned financial veterans” that will be handling the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, one name jumped out: Reuben Jeffery III, who was initially tapped to serve as chief investment officer for the massive new program.
On the surface, Jeffery looks like a classic Bush appointment. Like Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, he’s an alum of Goldman Sachs, having worked on Wall Street for 18 years. And as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 2005 to 2007, he proudly advocated “flexibility” in regulation — a laissez-faire approach that failed to rein in the high-risk trading at the heart of the meltdown.
Bankers watching bankers, regulators who don’t believe in regulating — that’s all standard fare for the Bush crew. What’s most striking about Jeffery’s résumé, however, is an item omitted when his new job was announced: He served as executive director of Paul Bremer’s infamous Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad, during the early days of the Iraq War. Part of his job was to hire civilian staff, which made him an integral part of the partisan machine that filled the Green Zone with Young Republicans, investment bankers and Dick Cheney interns. Qualifications weren’t a big issue back then, because the staff’s main function was to hand over stacks of taxpayer money to private contractors, who were the ones actually running the occupation. It was this nonstop cash conveyor belt that earned the Green Zone a reputation, in the words of one CPA official, as “a free-fraud zone.” During Senate hearings last year, when Jeffery was asked what he had learned from his experience at the CPA, he said he thought that contracts should be handed out with more “speed and flexibility” — the same philosophy he cited back when he was in charge of regulating Wall Street traders.
The Bush Administration has since reversed the Jeffery appointment, perhaps thinking better of giving a CPA alum such a central role in the Wall Street bailout. Still the original impulse underscores the many worrying parallels between the administration’s approach to the financial crisis and its approach to the Iraq War. Under cover of an emergency, Treasury is rapidly turning into an economic Green Zone, overrun with private companies collecting lucrative contracts. Fittingly, one of the first to line up at the new trough was none other than the law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani — yes, that Giuliani. The firm’s chairman, Patrick Oxford, could scarcely conceal his glee over the prospect of cashing in on the bailout. “This one,” he told reporters, “is very, very big.” At least four times bigger, in fact, than the post-9/11 homeland-security bubble, from which Giuliani and his various outfits have profited so extravagantly. Even bigger, potentially, than the price tag for the Iraq War itself. …
Something that kind-of-sort-of-not-really-but-close-enough ties into Daphne’s post about Obama and Guantanamo: Rush Holt, the New Jersey Democratic congressman who’s become increasingly influential on intelligence and interrogation issues, has urged Obama to issue an executive order upon being sworn in banning torture across all government agencies (hint, hint, CIA). This is from a release Holt’s people just sent out:
“Torture tarnishes our nation’s values and damages our credibility,” Holt said. “I have worked for years to end our government’s use of torture. While an executive order will not remove the need for legislation on the issue, it is a way for President-elect Obama to put an immediate halt to our government’s use of torture during interrogations and to prevent secret detentions. By exercising his authority and acting quickly, he will begin to restore our moral leadership on the issue and repair some of the harm that has been done to our international reputation.”
Such an executive order would essentially nullify George W. Bush’s July 2007 executive order that left wiggle room for such torture techniques as waterboarding. Holt threw in some suggestions for what a prospective Obama executive order on torture should contain:
1) Bar the use of interrogation techniques which we would not find acceptable if used against Americans.
2) Create one national standard for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners for all personnel affiliated with all U.S. forces and agencies.
3) Require that we acknowledge all detainees to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and allow the ICRC access to them.
4) Require that we allow all detainees to have the opportunity to defend themselves in court.
5) Bar transport of people to other countries where there is an expectation of torture.
6) Provide for transparency in our confinement and interrogation procedures, including the videotaping of all interactions between prisoners and American personnel.
7) Make clear that any U.S. official who authorizes, implements, or fails to prevent the use of torture will be held accountable.
That’s pretty comprehensive. No secret prisons, no torture, no extraordinary rendition, no outsourcing torture to Egypt or Jordan or Thailand or wherever, no loopholes for CIA, no denial of habeas corpus. (See, Daphne, I found a way to get back to your post!) Now to see if Obama agrees.
Tabac soap makes a remarkably good lather, especially when used with a good brush like the Rooney Style 3, Size 1 Super Silvertip pictured. And the Edwin Jagger ivory-handled Chatsworth with a new Swedish Gillette blade did a supersmooth job. Tabac aftershave for the final touch.
Great gift for bar mitzvah, for graduation, for Father's Day (17 June 2012), for birthdays, ... for guys who shave but do not yet enjoy the task.
User comment: "I bought this as a gift for my fiancé, along with a wet-shaving starting kit and a safety razor. He DEVOURED this book, and finds himself reading it again and again. He finally enjoys shaving. This book has helped him figure out so many things about wet shaving, and has recommended it to all of his friends and family. Truly a great source of information for any man."
A perfect gift for a man who answer "Yes" to "Do you shave most days?" and "No" to "Do you actually enjoy shaving?" Give him a chance for happiness in one frequent task.
