Miscellany: 7/10/14

Quote of the Day

Love is a fire.
But whether it is going to warm your hearth
or burn down your house,
you can never tell.
Joan Crawford

Image of the Day

Via Catholic Association
HINT: World Cup Final

Tweet of the Day

The Wicked Witch of the Left Coast is fearmongering about SCOTUS. No, Hobby Lobby did not make birth control illegal. http://t.co/0VpfG5FG6x
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) July 10, 2014

A Note About 9/11 Truthers

I have occasionally mentioned in past posts that I had become active in a Yahoo low-carb diet group forum around 2003-2004. I had always been struggling with my weight since college, although I was fairly healthy, rigorously working out every other day at a minimum. I had joined a nationally-affiliated fitness chain during my first stay in the Chicago area (during the 1990's), but when I moved to the San Jose area over the turn of the decade (about 18 months), I discovered my membership wasn't usable at any local facility--I would have to head up Route 101 to the SF area maybe 40 miles away. There were other fitness clubs in the area, but I deferred a decision and in any event I found myself working a ton of hours. I never really had bad eating habits in the sense of buying fast food, pizza, snacks, sugary desserts, ice cream or whatever, but I think the change in my exercise regimen and lack of portion control led my weight to increase slowly over time. By the time I returned to the northwestern suburbs of Chicago in 2001, I knew I was seriously overweight, but it wasn't until I put on a suit for a job interview flight to Baltimore, that I realized it was snug. (In most IT gigs, business casual was the rule, and so I mostly wore suits to interviews.) I never did get the Baltimore job offer (and ironically I never worked in Baltimore during the period I later lived in the area), but I remember thinking on the flight back to Chicago that I needed to get serious about my diet again.

In 2002, I was working as the contractor DBA for a Chicago government agency when I met a replacement project DBA for an upgrade project. (He was grossly incompetent and rather idiosyncratic, but that's another story.) At some point, I must have talked to him about my failed past diets, and he started talking about the Atkins diet, and how he dropped around 50 lbs without feeling hungry, that you could eat as much meat as you wanted, even a one-pound steak. So, after I got home after the flight back from Baltimore, I started reading everything I could find on the Internet; I bought the standard books (including South Beach), researched low-carb food products, recipes, etc. I think it was on one of the recipe group threads which often veered off topic as members discussed some of their dieting issues--like they would get on a plateau and ask for advice, say publishing their diets.

Now I haven't earned degrees or certifications in nutrition, but I did a lot of background research, and I did a lot of questioning of heuristics or guidelines, e.g., the old saw about drinking 8 glasses of water a day. Now there were a number of what I called Atkins fundamentalists whom would cite chapter and verse on Atkins' guidelines. So they would always pump the struggling dieter with, e.g., 'how many glasses of water are you drinking?' or 'what's in your mixed vegeables?' and if the poor dieter mentioned corn among the ingredients, it was an "Ah-HA!" moment for the wolf pack. I would roll my eyes and say, "Oh, PLEASE. Her vegetable mix was very healthy; she is NOT retaining water over a few corn kernels." I remember in one case, I was like the boy noticing the emperor was wearing no clothes: "What kind of exercise are you doing?" She responded back, "What exercise? I'm wheelchair-bound." Other group members then picked up on the thread with suggestions.

Now I had remarkable success on my lower-carb regimen, probably dropping 3-3.5 lbs. a week at a regular clip, even without a major change in my exercise routine (I don't think there was a club in my area), I think about 91 pounds over 10 months or so. (But the diet was boring; I took time off to attend a family event and made a couple of attempts to restart and found myself plateauing.) But somewhere around the end, I found myself getting attacked in wolf pack fashion yet again; one mother emotionally started screaming at me that I should be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. (Her child had epilepsy, and many follow a ketogenic diet (think of it as a low-carb diet weighted more towards fats than proteins).) This forum did not deal with people with special dietary restrictions, e.g., organ disease; it had more to do with people in otherwise good health but trying to lose weight. I think at one point I pointed out my academic credentials, not so much to argue subject matter expertise but my background in research design and studies, statistical analyses, limitations to study result interpetations, etc. I don't know to what extent Atkins' guidelines were based on empirical findings, but I thought, for instance, assigning a 20-carb gram limit regardless of activity level, was ridiculous. I read people choosing vegetables strictly on carb counts, even for just 1 carb-gram difference per serving; it was clear that eating a variety of vegetables would be more nutritionally diverse. So I saw one of my functions in that group was to be a voice of reason; I had done much more research on the diet and had a more balanced perspective than the typical Atkins fundamentalist regurgitating Atkins' unreferenced guidelines as if he was a god.

You would soon find yourselves ambushed with say a half-dozen to dozen NIGYYSOB respondents with ill-toned ad hominem attacks which typically mocked and/or questioned your credentials (ivory-tower academics whom can't function in the real world, or all the PhD's they knew whom didn't know the simplest things, etc.) or sought to trap you with highly technical gotcha questions in an attempt to "stump the professor" or "expose" your lack of credibility. They studiously avoid addressing the points you've addressed; their sole purpose is to intimidate deviations from orthodoxy. All this was really nothing new to me; I was in academia for 8 years, 5 years as a professor. Students played these games; so had anonymous paper reviewers. I remember in one case I had written a critical note on MIS behavioral research, particularly the development and validation of computer user satisfaction. I can't prove this, but I suspect the reviewers had a vested interest in the research I was criticizing; so one reviewer wrote "this guy hasn't really told us anything new in the field of applied psychometrics over the last 20 years", and another reviewer said, "You know, instead of bitching about what a bad job other researchers have done in creating their measures, why don't you do something constructive and create an alternative?" In fact, those might have been good points for future research, but my issue had more to do with e.g., criticisms of measures that were being used by researchers whom were not aware of any published critiques and certain measures with artificially high Cronbach alpha's (a reliability measure) due to poor questionnaire design, and not one reviewer dealt with the substance of what I wrote; it was not an attempt to attack the efforts of others per se. I was just trying to give fellow researchers a more balanced perspective from someone whom had designed and validated his own measures and had read literally thousands of research papers in other disciplines. So other people take cheap shots at your research; life isn't fair--move on.

There's a part of me that didn't want these fascists to succeed in intimidating people whom stray from orthodoxy, and a number of these trolls are like annoying little dogs which persistently nip at your heels, determined to have the last word. You are sorely tempted to kick their asses and teach them a lesson, but I had little interest in playing a game where they set the rules. I found that I was spending hours dealing with fascist trolls instead of helping other dieters; it wasn't worth my time and effort. Apparently I had developed a following of sorts whom emailed me after me after I left the group, encouraging me to return.

Now why did I revisit this history? People may have noticed over the past week I started covering a new faith-based libertarian Facebook group, my first invitation-only Facebook group. I probably subscribe to a half-dozen to a dozen libertarian Facebook groups, including a Catholic one, and many more email distribution lists. In all that time, I've never come across a 9/11 truther (i.e., someone whom disbelieves the conventional 9/11 story of foreign terrorists causing the collapse of the World Trade Center towers); the conspiracy theories differ in specifics, but quite often there's an assertion that the airliner collision could not have led to the collapse, but this was really an inside job, say, by government-planted explosives, necessary to cause the life-taking tower collapses. Many assert this was some devious plot by Bush and others to instigate war in the Gulf region, and the follow-up official investigation was manipulated by the government to cover up the plot from detection by an independent review by experts. They claim scores of physicists, architects, engineers insist the "official" story doesn't wash.

We all know some prominent truthers, e.g., from the left wing, Van Jones and Rosie O'Donnell. I vaguely remember some truther allegations made about Ron Paul, but he flatly denied it outright here (in fact, he's constantly pointed at 9/11 as blowback for earlier US meddling in the region). Now I can understand why people might think that more limited government/anarchy type people might be skeptical of those in government and government investigations of itself. But I see a government that botched a simple website launch it had 4 years to prepare for, billions in failed or overbudget projects etc. Cheney was on the record of opposing deposing Hussein in 1994 for sectarian reasons; both also knew that the Soviets (and prior invaders) ran into serious issues in Afghanistan. Bush had run against Clinton's nationbuilding. I don't dispute the fact that Bush did go into Afghanistan and Iraq, but 9/11 caused massive damage to an already shaky economy, especially the travel and hospitality sector; war in the Gulf region would destabilize the energy markets. Bush had won a disputed election and held a weak hand in the Senate; he knew why his Dad hadn't gone after Hussein. The idea that he would have engaged knowingly in a plot to get us into two troublesome wars is rather difficult to believe; it's more likely he felt he had to respond to attacks on the US mainland. This is not going to convince conspiracy theorists, but I'm dealing with the reality of a politician whom had seen his Dad lose reelection because of a weak economy, despite a successful war. Opening the Pandora box of two war fronts while dealing with a recessionary economy, worsened by a catastrophic attack?  Not my idea of a good plan to reelection. In fact, the catastrophe occurred on his watch, and voters could have blamed him for the government failure, one of the worst attacks on American soil since the War of 1812.

Another point: I soon discovered the default notification scheme was increasing my overall personal emails probably maybe over 100 daily while I was with the group, the vast majority of which were not substantive or relevant to my own comments. Granted, I could have probably tweaked group settings, but it was a harbinger. Sooner or later, I might have a significant difference of opinion--for example, many Christians have very prejudiced opinions about Catholics and the Church; for instance, I could easily see a Westboro Baptist nut job with an anti-government perspective might target one of these groups. I didn't really see Catholicism raised in the group one way or other except for one thread involving a prayer request for a Catholic Iraq veteran friend being haunted by disturbing visions and the Protestant was discussing Gospel verses which his friend didn't want to discuss, apparently relating to Catholic exorcisms.

I had a bad feeling when I ran into a thread the other day which started off effectively, "What do you guys think of the official 9/11 story?" This seemed to be phrased, not from a standard but from an truther perspective. I thought maybe it would attract one or 2 truthers, but it would turn out I was wrong: the thread probably attracted close to a dozen or so--and I was probably one of the few group members not a truther. For example, at one point I declared I was not a truther and never had been--and I think I got one "like" from the group: not a good sign.

I think some of them simply were fairly innocuous;  they saw the government as using its monopoly power to prevent an independent inquiry by experts over what they considered anomalous details over the collapsing towers, including a third tower not hit by aircraft. Almost everything smacked of a conspiracy, even hauling away debris was not seen as a health issue but like a coverup, burning a body before an autopsy could be performed. They self-righteously proclaimed that they were acting on behalf of surviving families to learn "the truth" that the government was suppressing. A lot of them debated very tediously about material properties and how many SME's (subject matter experts) had disputed the "official story". I gingerly added a comment about how most engineers probably hadn't stress-tested building designs for the effects of suicidal airliner attacks and how debris haul was motivated by public health issues. I started taking some personal shots, including one to the effect of what flavor Government Kool-Aid I preferred. At some point I got fed up and said something to the effect, "Look, I hold 3 advanced degrees, including a PhD, and I'm not buying any of this crap. Stop being so gullible about crackpot conspiracy nonsense you read on the Internet." (I had also done quite well in my high school and college science courses, and represented my high school and district twice in UIL science; if I had stuck with my original intent to major in secondary education, I would have chosen science as my second field. Instead, I double-majored in math and philosophy.)

This brought out the ad hominem wolf pack in full force, including the anti-academics. I can't speak for other doctoral programs; no doubt some programs are more rigorous than others. I took some wicked research courses, had to pass written major and minor (accounting) written comprehensives (the major took 2 full days and I had writing hand cramps) and an oral comprehensive, with no idea what type questions might be asked. I did not do an offshoot of my dissertation chair's research; he served mostly as an editor. I had to defend my dissertation proposal. I solicited and conducted expert interviews, designed a measure and got it through the Committee to Protect Human Subjects, and collected hundreds of data points, having to sell many Houston-area organizations on agreeing to cooperate (and each participant was explicitly told they were not required to participate). I used data analytic methods which I had not seen documented in my own discipline's literature. I then finished my writeup and defended the dissertation. It was a lot of hard work, but I came out of my program knowing how to do research and cranked out a series of projects and articles, without a single senior faculty member interested in doing joint projects; at any time, I was working on at least 6-8 projects in different phases. (I did discuss one topic at UTEP with a fellow faculty member, but it was my initiative and I backed away when I was confidentially told at an academic conference that the reason he had left his prior position was because of some academic honesty issue, like plagiarism.)

So when I mention I have a doctorate or was a professor, it's not a matter of ego. (In fact, recruiters tipped me off to drop reference to my PhD on my post-academic resume, and most clients and co-workers did not know--at least from me. In fact, I think I mentioned this in a past post in passing: I had a bridge contract to do an Oracle EBS installation at a gaming manufacturer in the far north Chicago suburbs. The contractor intended to make me a post-install full-time offer with standard no-compete clause, etc. One day the client summoned me into a room with probably a dozen or more staffers; to my absolute shock, one of the managers produced a copy of my resume, asking me point blank whether I had a PhD. I confirmed and they excused me; I was in a state of panic because I had never sent them a resume and worried that the contractor would sue me over breach of contract. What I didn't know was that the contractor was in the process of filing for bankruptcy and the client was negotiating to hire their project employees internally. At the end of the bridge contract, I was sent a lowball offer from contractor HR about $15K below our earlier negotiated, expected figure. When I balked over accepting the offer, the account manager walked me off the project 2 hours later.)

It has more to do with my intellectual curiosity, what I think is worth researching. But basically Ockham's razor convinced me that the existing reality of what I had seen from independent news sources was a more economical explanation of the events than some speculative government plot dovetailing with a terrorist assault on the towers. The same government who let the underwear bomber board a flight over a misspelling of his name could pull off an intricate plot designed to kill thousands of fellow citizens to manipulate the country into a war frenzy? Give me a break. It might be interesting to understand the physics behind an airline collision with an office tower, but it doesn't surprise me that the building's structural integrity had been compromised by a catastrophic event.

So as the wolf pack basically started attacking me, questioning my credentials, and characterizing me as a Statist manipulated puppet, I was done with it and the hypocritical "Christian" group. It's not about the pettiness; I've been in academia and you have to have a thick skin to survive there. If it had been 2 or 3 people and if they had stuck to mentioning their beliefs one time and moved on, I probably would have been more tolerant (after all, I am a libertarian and believe in the free market of ideas); but there were these tedious, arcane disagreements clogging my inbox and 5 or 6 people determined to have the last word. I felt like I was the only sane person in the room; there may have been other normal people there, but they probably didn't want the truthers coming after them.

Finally, if you want some rebuttal sources to truthers, here are a few sources: Screw Loose Change, Rational Wiki, and 9/11 Myths. Here is a rant by prominent libertarian Stephan Kinsella.

Responding To An Open Letter to Congress

Gordon Hodges via IPI (cf FB Corner below)

This is NOT an attempt to single out Mr. Hodges for criticism but to provide more of a libertarian alternative vision:

• We have veterans whom have not gotten medical care consistent with the quality of sacrifices overseas. First, let's stop putting them in harm's way by meddling in the affairs of other countries instead of repelling a direct attack on America. Second, let's privatize veteran healthcare putting money in local, more convenient local providers than in an expensive, unnecessary centrally-administered bureaucracy.
• With a $17T debt and over $80T in unfunded retirement liabilities, let's stop bribing other governments with aid packages and shutdown expensive overseas bases and apply the savings to debt reduction.
• Let's help employment prospects for veterans and the other unemployed by repealing federal benefit mandates and other counterproductive policies like minimum wage; let's repeal occupational licensing cartels, unnecessary government paperwork; let's reduce business taxes and the $1.7T regulatory chokehold of the economy; let's stop penalizing income, including investment and savings; we need an end to Federal Reserve manipulative monetary policy leading to asset bubbles and penalties to savers; we need across-the-board fiscal discipline to stop starving the real economy from investment resources.
• Let's privatize failing public education where the only winners are top-heavy administrations and teacher unions at taxpayer expense, giving parents more control over their own money for a more competitive education market.
• Let's decentralize government, shifting resources and authority to local/state government by the principle of Subsidiarity. Let us stop causing uncertainty and moral hazard in the economy with failed programs.
• Let's promote free market and free trade policies and liberalize immigration.
• Let's engage in true Congressional reform with term limits and Constitutional caps on spending and deficit spending, and a Constitutional mandate to force paydown on the debt and funding of entitlement liabilities.

Facebook Corner

(IPI). It is a sad commentary on our political system when a lawmaker has to file suit in federal court to enforce the law. But earlier this year, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., did just that. He filed suit in federal court “to make Congress live by the letter of the health care law it imposed on the rest of America.”
Given the net worth of the average member of Congress is probably in the 7 figures, this comes across more as a populist gimmick than substantive reform. Let's see true interstate commerce reform, allowing interstate pooling and marketing via any state-certified vendor, self-insurance, shoring up state/regional high risk pools, portability of state occupational credentials, accelerated path to citizenship of medical professionals, etc. Let's decouple insurance from employment, eliminate relevant tax expenditures. Let's vest the consumer in ordinary healthcare expenditures. Let's eliminate centralized health administration, busywork for doctors, engage in tort reform and decentralize Medicaid/Medicare. Just a starting point, but let's deal seriously with a government-dominated inflation-bound sector with corrupt crony influence.

(Reason). The attitudes of the American electorate have shifted dramatically toward greater tolerance with regard to how racial minorities, women, drug use, and now, even same-sex marriage are viewed over the past half century. Genes didn't change, yet political beliefs did.
Authoritarian political correctness, cultural/mainstream media propaganda and "progressive" groupthink in academia wouldn't have anything to do with it, Reason? Pathetic analysis....

More Marriage Proposals









Political Cartoon

Courtesy of Robert Ariail via Townhall

Musical Interlude: My Favorite Vocalists

Anne Murray, "You Needed Me"