"Research Must Pursue The Truth Wherever It Leads"

Can't recall whether the hat tip I owe should be directed at Instapundit or Marginal Revolution. Here's British economist John Kay on a practice that really chaps my ass:

The studies I have cited are carefully referenced and use advanced statistical techniques. But sophistication of method is used to torture data to reveal conclusions that do not obviously follow from them, but which fit either the researchers’ preconceptions or the sponsor’s policy objectives, or both.

Bad arguments do not necessarily invalidate the causes in which they are deployed. People should not drink and drive. Smoking is unpleasant and perhaps harmful to non-smokers. But these observations do not justify blurring the distinction between genuine scientific analysis and propaganda disguised as science. Policy should follow evidence, not evidence policy. It is time to reassert the principle that research must pursue the truth wherever it leads: the principle on which the social and economic progress of the past few centuries has depended.

Amen, brother.  Every time I hear another innumerate nitwit dismiss data with the insufferable "lies, damn lies, and statistics" line, I have the urge to declare douchnozzle clobberin' time. But when so many skilled practitioners of research and data analysis torture data in the way Kay describes, one can hardly blame careless observers from dismissing the entire enterprise of collecting data to, you know, learn something true.

Of course, this never really changes. So count this as a reminder to everyone who feels Kay's pain: keep fighting.

The Deficit Hawks Versus the Plain Old Hawks

Englebert Humperdinck once famously crooned

After the lovin', I'm still in love with you... .

After the lovin' of last week's  GOP congressional victories, how long will the afterglow endure? I predict the next tune is Robert Cray. Because the forecast calls for pain. 


Everyone knows that the traditional conservative rant against federal overspending exempts our military. The GOP will wrap itself in as many flags as need be to ensure the security of our good fighting men at risk, protecting our freedom overseas. And to ensure funding for a new weapons program, Especially if it's in their district.


But for a hint that Boehner, Cantor, and McConell may face a cat-herding task, see below. [Hat tip to sometime amigo tillyosu over at donklephant for pointing out that Think Progress compiled these]:

OK senator Tom Coburn this week said:

Taking defense spending off the table is indefensible. We need to protect our nation, not the Pentagon’s sacred cows.

 Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul said:

In order to address the deficit the only compromise that I think we can have is you have to look at the whole budget. We’ve always excluded the military and said we’re not gonna look at the military…everything has to be on the table.

PA senator-elect Pat Toomey said:

But the fact is, there is waste pretty much everywhere in the government, and that includes the Pentagon. Part of the problem is Congress voting on systems the Pentagon doesn’t even want.

 Illinois senator-elect Mark Kirk said:

For example, I back spending restraint across the board. At the DOD like no second engine for the F-35 Fighter, closing down joint forces command, across the board reductions.

Georgia senator Johnny Isakson said:

Well first of all there’s not a government program that shouldn’t be under scrutiny. And that begins with the Department of Defense and goes all the way through.

TN senator Bob Corker said:

Everything! I mean, look, Secretary Gates will tell you there’s a lot of waste there. We need to streamline it.

 So the GOP is apparently not unanimous in extending the military's exemption into the promised era of the new austerity. 


Let the acrimony begin!!

Tim Pawlenty Making Sense

Here's Tim Pawlenty with some good points, similar to the ones Chris Christie has been making. Be sure to read the whole thing here. Below, my edited version of his short list:

1. Set clear priorities but cut almost everything else. Not everything government does is equally important.

2. Reform out-of-control entitlements. By far, the biggest long-term driver of the federal debt is entitlement spending, including Social Security and Medicare. These programs are going to have to be changed. And despite Beltway rhetoric, it can be done.

3. Sacrifice. Americans have sacrificed enough; it’s time for government to sacrifice for a change.

The explanations behind this short general list can be found at the link. While I am personally not reflexively opposed to tax increases in some cases, as Pawlenty is, I think he's pointing in the right direction. And has good concrete examples of things he did in his state.

These are the sorts of changes the future holds for all of us, If we are lucky and wise, we get on board now and do them by choice. If not, they happen anyway when insolvency forces them on us in more ugly, unfair, uneven, unpleasant ways.

Positive Feedback for Talking Sense

Sadly for Independent prospects, the path is straight uphill. That means walking right up to the turd in the punchbowl, patting him on the back, and saying "Tell me more." We live in a political environment where a true but unpopular message usually brings no more than a chastening firestorm.

For any effort to encourage political independent to survive and thrive, we have to be ready to reward independent, good-faith truth telling no matter who is telling it, and no matter whose ox it gores.

Here's one simple truth as I see it, and the teller is Tim Pawlenty. Quoted at Thinkprogress from his appearance on MSNBC:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) essentially called his party’s congressional leaders liars, saying anybody says they want to cut spending but won’t touch entitlements or defesne is “lying to you”:

HOST: What are you going to cut?

PAWLENTY: If you look at a pie chart of federal outlays, discretionary spending being the red, non-discretionary being the blue. The blue is already over the over the half way mark and it’s growing in double digits. Anybody who comes in here and tells you they’re not going to cut anything other than waste fraud and abuse, they’re not going to touch entitlements — they’re lying to you. If you want to deal with the spending issue, in terms of total federal outlays, you got to deal with interest on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — if you have the time I can walk you through my ideas. But that’s the truth, you got to do entitlement reform, particularly if you’re going to hold defense harmless.

Predictably, THINKProgress's focus is expresing glee at a republican who apparently suggested his party leaders were liars. I've got a different takeaway.

Tim Pawlenty is telling the unvarished truth about our federal budget. We should applaud that, and acknowledge its truth and the ramifications that come with it. I could not have LESS interest in any argument about the relative truthiness of party-leading talking heads.

Any sensible independent has to read this and think, "hmm, I am willing to listen to more of what this guy has to say on the federal budget. I think his many not even be relevant to this matter."

More to come.

Open Thread: Potential Independent Leaders for 2012

It's an open thread, so smoke if you got 'em on any topic. Sports, beer, whiskey, cool gadgets, what you're up to.

And if you have a mind to, can you point me at some leaders out there who seem willing to face facts about our future even if these facts are inconvenient and suggest unpopular solutions. Have at.

Republicans: Is the New Script the Old Script?

It's not very hard to understand why so many republicans are so sure today that their script was always right, and the reason the last show bombed was bad acting.

It's also not very hard for longtime politics wonks to see that both parties reach this conclusion each they go through their boom-bust cycle. Democrats "learned" that they should have really passed healthcare, so when they got their next swing at the ball, they made sure they did it, by whatever means necessary. How'd THAT work out? To this day, they are convinced of their courage and rectitude on HCR.

And now it's the GOP's turn to fail to learn. Even as the president (granted, predictably) announced his commitment to identifying and working on important business with the GOP at the table. various GOP members trumpeted their zeal to be uncompromising. I must have missed the part where we all voted for our leaders to fiddle while the nation keeps burning.

We're poised for an epic 2-year food fight where almost nothing gets achieved, and nearly every political act by both sides is done first for the sake of signaling. The GOP seems ready to keep talking big about cuts. Then they plan to deliver little, and blame democrats. Because most of them lack the courage to propose unpopular cuts or structural adjustments to the nondiscretionary spending that comprises most of the budget, and they are terrified to cut the only arguably discretionary portion of the budget that is a big chunk: military spending.

So they'll nibble at non-defense discretionary spending, and blame the subsequent lack of success at cutting spending on the democrats. They will act without courage, because most of them cannot get past their gut instinct that such courage is political suicide.

As an advocate of independent thought and independent candidates in 2012, I am hoping to identify some politicians, regardless of party, who have on occasion shown a willingness to speak the truth even if its inconvenient for their side. How about an open thread for that?

The Things Barack Obama Still Doesn't Seem to Get

When it comes to empathy for the electorate., Barack Obama continues to show that he's no Bill Clinton. Clinton, warts and all, had an innate connection with the evolving whims and feelings of the people. On top of that, he genuinely likes and enjoys interacting with all sorts of people.

As of 2010, the passionate sure-footed candidate of 2008 is gone. He's been replaced by a careful, tempered, detached President, riddled with doubts. Worst of all, his deep attachment to his sense of the world as it was for the 2008 candidate continues to threaten his future viability. And his effectiveness as a President in the upcoming months.

He is clinging to the elephant of two years ago. But the economy didn't bounce back as  he promised, making people doubt the wisdom and efficacy of the stimulus. The healthcare reform he was sure people wanted in 2008 has given way to the bastardized reality of a package that improved access but failed to address the real problem of cost. A package that was bought only at the price of ALL the political capital he had.

Yesterday, Obama showed he wasn't entirely clueless by stressing that the nation has urgent business and that he is ready to work with both parties in congress to do it. Then he went on to show that he is still wedded to the kinds of approaches that sounded good  to some in 2008, but which many Americans are deeply skeptical about in 2010.

How long will Obama persist in believing in expanded rail and other expensive public works projects without any demonstrable acid test of regard for whether any given project is truly necessary. Necessary beyond providing short-term employment at taxpayer expense, that is.

And how much longer will Barack Obama remain so cool, so tempered, so detached, so careful in tumultuous times? He would do well to talk to Mike Dukakis, who learned the lesson of the value of passion and fight too late. Obama needs to find passion and fight, and he needs to find the lyrics to the right song. Vy that I mean a song that resonates with the public circa today, not 2008.