Deterrence: Theoria vs. Praxis in Sequestration

Deterrence in modern usage is the certain use of blunt force to produce an overwhelming, devastating outcome in order to prevent an undesirable activity. Deterrence theory was the basis of the Cold War's Mutually Assured Destruction policies, and one could argue that it kept us from nuclear war for fifty years. I might suggest that Vasili Arkhipov (in 1962), Stanislav Petrov (in 1983), and others not recognized had more to do with avoiding nuclear war than the game theorists would like to admit.

Deterrence has two main requirements: (1) the key personnel on both sides must be rational actors, and (2) the promised response must be both credible and unacceptable to the opponent.

The self-imposed financial sequestration agreement between the House, the Senate, and the Executive seems a legitimate deterrent on the face of it; it's a blunt-force dumb program, cutting the prime and the waste without discernment or judgment. The conceptual framework was that sequestration would be so painful and odious that nobody would let it happen.

And yet, here they are on the Eve of Sequestration.

An unexpected outcome calls for a review of the initial assumptions, and so we might review the two requirements given above.

• Could it be that Congress is not an intelligent rational actors? That would certainly explain the present situation.
• Could it be that the Administration has miscalculated, believing that sequestration was an effective deterrent to the Party of Newt, who shut the government down in 1995? Was the threat acceptable if not desireable to Team Red?

The thing about betting the house on deterrence theory is: if the deterrent doesn't work you're screwed. There's really very little new under the sun (VLNUS), and this tension between theory and practice was all covered by Aristotle and Plotinus. But I suspect that doesn't mean much to a federal employee who just got a furlough notice.

Socially Acceptable, Pathological Violence Against Cyclists

I believe there is a dark side, the sinful nature of man and the evil that we do. I've seen enough of it.

I'm sure that in the 1850's, northern anti-slavery advocates could not understand how supposedly decent Christian people (who would otherwise earn respect) supported and defended slavery, and yet loved their families and considered themselves righteous.

I don't understand how an otherwise non-violent American, who teaches their children to behave and is otherwise an honorable citizen, believes it's acceptable to trifle with the safety of another human being because they're defenseless on their bicycle.

• If that other vehicle was a bulldozer, they wouldn't play games with it.
• If that were a person riding a horse, they wouldn't do it.
• If that were a policemen on the bicycle, they wouldn't do it.
• They will, however, also do it to runners.

The conclusion would seem to be:

• They do it because they're momentarily powerful and the other person is momentarily defenseless.
• They do it because nobody's watching and nobody will know.
• They do it because society says it's OK and there's no offense in it. Fair game, no shame.
• They do it because the bicyclist isn't a human being on their own level.

How many of these drivers who intentionally use their vehicles to harass, intimidate, and hurt bicyclists would do the same thing to a homeless man, or a lost child, or a mentally challenged individual? I think very few of them would play "fun with a skell", and yet they'll do it to a cyclist without hesitation.

Timely and trenchant editorial from Sunday's Boston Globe:

DOES INTRINSIC bias against cyclists explain why a grand jury recently failed to hand up an indictment against a driver suspected of vehicular homicide in last summer’s death of 41-year-old rider Alexander Motsenigos? Bicycle advocates believe so — fervently. And Wellesley Police Chief Terrence Cunningham and Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey aren’t far behind.

Many accidents involving bicycles and motor vehicles can be traced to road design, inclement weather, or attention lapse. But law enforcement traced Motsenigos's death to truck driver Dana McCoomb, a man with an extensive history of driving infractions who fled the scene after striking the Wellesley cyclist from the side. Witness statements, video footage, and subsequent police analysis of the scene suggested that the deadly collision was more than an unavoidable accident.

Sharing the road with increasing numbers of cyclists can be frustrating for drivers. But disregard for the safety of cyclists has reached pathological levels among some drivers. And this contempt, whether conscious or subconscious, may well have played a role in the minds of grand jurors. There are widespread misconceptions that cyclists should ride on sidewalks — which is dangerous for pedestrians — or that it’s up to cyclists to stay out of motor vehicles' way.

No matter one’s opinion of cyclists or their riding habits, they are practically defenseless against the smallest sedan, never mind an SUV or a truck. Drivers simply have to take the high road — not only around cyclists who abide by the rules of the road, but even around selfish cyclists who don't. Shaving a few minutes along the way can’t possibly outweigh the risk of maiming or killing a fellow human being.

Police and prosecutors shouldn’t be dissuaded from pursuing similar cases. And cyclists shouldn’t lose heart. As disappointing as this case may be, it is an opportunity for public officials to review road engineering, enforcement policies, and public education campaigns that all play important safety roles. Planners may find that physical barriers between roadways and bike lanes are the best approach wherever feasible. But softer approaches, such as publicizing "best routes" for cyclists, also help drivers to stay alert or avoid such routes altogether.

Judges and attorneys who are exquisitely sensitive to the prejudices of prospective jurors should come to terms with a new problem — deep-seated bias based on mode of transport. Cycling, meanwhile, will continue to expand. The key question is whether public education and awareness can keep up.

Unforeseen Consequences: Two-Way Mayor's Race

It's such a sad line, it should be a country music title: If they only knew then, what everybody knows now. To put it in geek terms: Where's the Undo Button?

Probably, if they knew then what people know now, they would never have let Young Luke sit in the Council President's Chair; none of the grownups could agree so they put the rookie in the big chair and planned on having a fun year. In retrospect, maybe that wasn't brilliant.

If they knew then what they know now, the wags would not have complained that a three-way race for Mayor was a very bad idea because Bill and Mike would split the ABL (anybody but Luke) vote. When Luke implodes (or, more to the point, when his handlers get tired of all the attention in about three weeks) then it'll be a Bill vs Mike election. Good thing we started with three.

Finally, if they knew then what they know now: Peduto probably would not have decided to skip the March Dem party committee vote. (edit) May primary. With his earlier organization he might have taken the primary and had easy sailing to the coronation.

Unwarranted Prediction: Luke's campaign folds/crashes before May, and it's a Bill vs. Mike election.

EBay Speculation: get all the Ravenstahl 2013 buttons and yard signs you can get your hands on, since they'll be valuable collector's items in a few years.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Reconciling the Election: Cursing the G^ds 2.0

Oh, the crazies.

There is a long-standing tradition among humans that when faced with a situation that our assumptions do not like, we consider that our Assumptions are Valid and that Reality is Fickle and we seek - well, we seek somebody (else) to blame. It could be a single individual but if a sole-source scapegoat is insufficient we willingly blame groups; we blame different groups at different times, but generally the Other, the people WhoDon'tLookLikeUs™ - Gypsies, Jews, Mexicans, Gays, whatev.

When teh crazies can't stretch their own cognitive dissonance around blaming a person or a group, then we need to level-up to a bigger scapegoat. It could be a philosophy (The Greens, The Unions) or it could be another country (Iraq), preferably something that fits in a simple, passionate phrase like Operation Iraqi Freedom or Wisconsin Right-to-Work.

When cultures and countries are insufficient to blame for our own situation, the spectrum of scapegoats escalates and narrows. We can blame natural forces like hurricanes, we can blame unexpected global events like global warming, but after a while there's only one ScapeGoatOfLastResort and then the distressed actually blame G^d for their troubles.

It's nothing new, we did this way back in the day:

Look now how mortals are blaming the gods,
for they say that evils come from us,
but in fact they themselves have woes beyond
their share because of their own follies.
Odyssey, by Homer

To a cynic, it might seem an ironic circle; people starting using scapegoats to appease the Gods, and when that failed they just got mad at the Almighty.

Even more ironic: in the political realm does a Party that presents itself as the party of moral virtue and religious belief forfeit the opportunity to blame G^d? It would be very difficult for the Moral Majority or Pat Robertson or NewtG and his TrueBelievers to start blaming the Deity, and so what do they do? How do they explain that the Omniscient dropped the ball, that He didn't read the memo and foolishly didn't see things their way?

People who can't imagine that G^d might not agree with them do what people have always done, but with a twist - except instead of building and worshiping a false G*d, they build-and-blame one. We see a perfect example of this in this week's RedState.org, in which the writer describes an omniscient Power that might have been a force for Good but went TheOtherWay, and now it's a force of darkness that explains our current predicament.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are presented with: Google, the Slayer of TrueBelievers. Mind you, we're not saying that these are the EndTimes; but be prudent and watchful.

The article is actually worth reading, if only to experience the state of mind. How could Team-Blue have done so much better that Mitt Romney's Business Intelligence system, honed with his years of boardroom experience? How could Obama be so in tune with what's happening in America?

It's simple, really. Google was reading everybody's email, datamining the issues by geo-location, and real-timing the keytrends via The Cloud to the White House. (Cloud references are obligatory these days, and perhaps the Google-Cloud duality appeals to polytheists.) Could the symbolism be more apparent? How did you miss this?

How else could Mitt Romney, a Mormon who wears special underwear, a rich financier who bankrupts businesses, a visionary that considers 47% of the country to be Moochers, and who ran on a platform of cancelling my kid's health insurance - how else could Mitt Romney have lost to these people?

The outcome of the last election was so unacceptable and unthinkable that it must have been the work of a malevalent, uncaring Being who had method, motive, and opportunity - why, it just has to be Google's fault. Couldn't be anything else. Has to be.

Damned Google.
Wait a minute.
Didn't Eric Schmidt just go to North Korea? Which is - gasp - part of the Axis of Evil?

Dark times. Update on FoxTV at 9pm.

Petty Officer Warren Lee Hill, USN

From The Atlantic, the story of Georgia vs. Warren Lee Hill, a convicted murderer scheduled for execution next week.

There does not seem to be much question of Hill's guilt, but there is an issue about his execution since the Supreme Court has ruled against capital punishment of criminals who are mentally retarded. Originally, three state psychiatrists testified that Hill was not retarded and was instead a malingerer.

All three of those experts have since recanted their testimony and notified the court that their original finding was invalid. Nevertheless, the execution remains on schedule.

Here's why one of the doctors was sure that Hill couldn't be mildly retarded and just had to be faking it:

Finally, I simply found it difficult to believe that someone with mental retardation could function even minimally in the United States Navy as a petty officer, although I have never served in the military. Therefore, at the hearing in December 2000, I was unprepared to find that Mr. Hill met the criteria for mild mental retardation.

Having served in the United States Navy, I would like to confirm that there are many people with varying degrees of cognitive impairment that are minimally functional petty officers in the US Navy. I worked for several of them.

Getting executed because he made E-4 seems like the ultimate Navy "good deal".