KC-X Contract Announced Today: Protest Too?

AF Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley hopes there won't be a protest by the losing bidder.

His appeal asking "...(the losing tanker bidder) to think about the country and think about the people that are flying the airplanes" carries moral authority ONLY if the Air Force really didn't pull a bonehead move -- like changing the rules of the competion AFTER the bids were submitted.

I hope the AF played this one straight.

Update @1603 Central
Well, CNBC reports Northrop Grumman/EADS won the contract. Smart money should be on a protest and 'ugliness' since Washington Governor Christine Gregoire is already demonstrating a typical modern 'Democratic' grasp of the concept of 'competition'.

Updated 20 March 08: The AF played it straight. See next post. Boeing's claims of 'changes' refer to changes before the Final Proposals were submitted.

"Eco Moms" - Riiight

H/T Instapundit

Eco Moms? Who hoo! I think I'm going to be revisiting these concerned and caring people in the future. Of course I wouldn't have to if they weren't budding 'activists'. I'm thinking of setting up a counter organization. Hmmm, it will need a catchy name. I'll work on it.

Up front let me state I'm definitely NOT anti-conservation or anti-'ecology' Who IS? (Outside of Red China of course). Hell, for a decade I lived in a solar home in Northern Utah that was also partially earth-sheltered, and probably saved more energy than any ten of these people will in their lifetimes-and all without giving up any trappings of modern civilization. From the article, I'm guessing some might be spending more on 'therapy' than most of us will ever lay out for energy.

I'm more of a "better living through progress" kind of guy, and I get the feeling that these Eco Moms, like so many of the "dripping concerned", yearn for a simpler time. One that really never was.

Republican Primaries: WTFO?

What can I say? McCain didn't pull a majority anywhere until it was just him or Huckabee. He 'Pluralitied' the oppostion to oblivion.

My past posts prove why I'm an engineer and not a political adviser. But here's some thoughts and questions I'm having about the sad state of things to date.

Mike Huckabee
Huckabee will still fade like a high and tight-- he's just delusional enough, with enough like minded fans to hang in there after it's pointless for him to do so. Whether he's angling for the future or some hidden plum now is anybody's guess. I stopped trying to figure out self-serving populists from Arkansas in 1992. But his candidacy raises some interesting questions:

Who would have thought it would be the brain-dead branch of the Southern Baptists that would prove so key to the downfall of the 'Conservatives' in the race? Who would have foreseen that Southern Baptists, of all people, would be the key demographic enabling a left-leaning, blue-nose Rockerfeller-Republican troublemaker like McCain clinch the nomination? Thank you, you "idiot-evangelicals".

Update: 18 Feb 2209 hrs : USA Today's Daniel Gilgoff (H/T Captain's Quarters ) blames evangelicals in general, but I still think it was mostly the sheeple wing of the SBC.

John McCain
I've known two former male POWs from two different wars and have met several others along the way. All of them are/were simply outstanding people: amazingly unflappable, well grounded, rational, extremely professional, and self-effacing gentlemen--every one. John McCain strikes me as none of the above. In fact John McCain reminds me of a former co-worker in LA who had been shot during the LA riots. I cut him a lot of slack for his behavior because I thought he was affected by being shot, when another co-worker informed me :"No - he was an a**hole before he got shot". I'm thinking McCain was probably an a**hole before he got shot down.

Here's hoping he figures out he can't win using a 'I'm a better liberal' strategy before the general election, and that Conservatives make him earn their vote.

The Democrats
More than Huckabee, more than the brain-dead Southern Baptists, I blame the Democrats for John McCain being the Republican nominee and the sad state of Republicans in Congress. If the Democrats weren't so pathetically awful, the Republicans would have to be better than they are. Its like watching a mismatched sports game and the better team doesn't win because they didn't think they had to bring their 'A' game.

The good news is the Democrats really are SO pathetic that there's a good chance they'll screw themselves. Thank goodness for small miracles.

Note: Nowhere did I assert ALL Southern Baptists were idiots. Just the ones who played into McCain's hands.

From My "I Love Me Wall"

I'm indulging my self a bit and surrendering to my more base instincts in this post. I won't explain it here, and will take this down in a few days after its purpose has been served.

Update 20 Feb 08: Illustration of a minor point now removed. Viewers may see it again if I ever get my study remodeled and ready for public viewing again. (Its long story - involving about 15 ft of built- in bookcases and a gun safe among other things. Next time I'll hire a professional )

Rocket Sled Land Speed Record (Update: Not Quite)

Update 6Feb08: Looks like preliminary data was in error. Although the Navy got the test results it wanted, the old record (held by the same track) stands. dang. Original post beyond this point:

Looks like somebody had a long day yesterday, finishing up with a big bang just before ‘quiet hours’. From the press release:

“On 31 Jan. 2008, at 9:20 p.m., Mountain Standard Time, the Holloman High Speed Test Track conducted a Navy Test with a Sandia-designed payload. Initial indications are the test was successful and the payload reached a velocity of 6,589 miles per hour. This test is 136 miles per hour faster that the existing land speed record of 6,453 miles per hour – setting a new world record.”

The sled covered “3.61 miles in about 6 seconds” and while no one is yet saying what the payload was, it sounds like there is an interesting application in mind:

“The detonation of the payload at the north end of the track and speed of the sled created multiple sonic booms felt throughout the Tularosa Basin.”

The previous record (also held by the Holloman track) stood for 20 years before falling in 2003. Seems we may be “accelerating” things these days in more ways than one.

Update 01/02 @ 09:41 & corrected @19:49
A photo of the payload is now posted here. Believe it or not, the payload has only a superficial resemblance to these, so I wouldn't jump to any conclusions from the similarity. When you go really fast in an atmosphere, there is only a limited number of shapes that make any sense.

Florida Votes Against McCain Too!

We are now being told that McCain has 'momentum'. Why, just look at the difference between South Carolina and Florida! Big improvement for McCain huh? 33% to 36%. wow.
Why he's the proverbial steamroller !

Seriously, the only recent developments I am really alarmed about is how there seems to be a push to marginalize McCain's detractors in the Conservative base as the 'fringe' and the absolute gullibility of the Huckabee supporters and what they might do in the coming days and weeks.

Loose Lips (You Know the Rest)

From the AP's Eileen Sullivan Today:

"The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret."

Geez. I remember when 'officials' WOULDN'T even speak if the information was classified. Of course, once upon a time most 'officials' were concerned about being traitors instead of just being known as one.

Hey AP! Can Eileen do a waterboarding story next so we can find out who's got the loose lips?

The Jack Cafferty, George Soros, and Moonbat Brigade

They're the Axis of Idiocy!

I saw the so-called War Card ‘study’ announcement earlier this week and of course recognized it immediately for the hogwash it was. I figured at the time anyone with at least two brain cells could do the same and didn’t pay much more attention to it. Unfortunately I forgot about the people with their two brain cells sitting so far apart in their punkin’ heads that have to tilt their head side to side to get them to roll close enough for a spark to jump.

Yes, I’m talking about people like know-nothing Jack Cafferty!

Now, I haven’t really watched CNN since Desert Storm, but I accidentally clicked on Cafferty’s (Warning: BDS ALERT!) vile little rant with readings of moonbat-dominated feedback on my internet provider’s ‘content’ site.

Contrast the content-free snarkfest at CNN with Bob Owens’ exposure and analysis at PJM.

Facts are stubborn things Mr. Cafferty! So start clunking those two grey cells together and maybe, just maybe, you will be able to recognize one someday.

GOP Votes AGAINST McCain in South Carolina

Geez. Some ‘winner’.
(Up front: I’m with the Discerning Texan and FOR Thompson.) South Carolina was really the first test of Republican candidates with a Conservative ‘factor’ and nearly 70% of Republicans voted for someone other than John McCain in yesterday’s primary.

How many of those 67% had McCain as their SECOND choice? How many had him at or near their LAST choice? Well let’s think about it. Here’s the breakdown:

Almost as many for Huckabee, and Thompson and Romney split an almost equal amount, with Giuliani and Paul picking up the change. What would drive most of the other Republicans to McCain in future contests? His stand on illegal aliens? His support for so-called 'Campaign Finanace' reform?

McCain is a classic RINO, and I see nothing to discern him from a pro-War On Terror Democrat. I see nothing-- NOTHING that would make me want to vote for McCain, and a lot that would make me vote against him.

McCain got only 33% of the vote in a state where he had an established organization? Except for the ‘bandwagon’ types, McCain is at his peak. That peak will only be good enough if the opposition remains fractured. If McCain wins the Republican nomination via the fragmentation of his opposition, a small majority of Republicans will vote for him holding their nose in the General Election. The rest will stay away in a funk and the next President will be a Democrat in a landslide.

Huckabee will fade like a Marine haircut. Thompson and Romney will pick up parts of Huckabee’s support. Giuliani will hang in there collecting ‘moderates’ and Ron Paul will remain a sideshow.

For all the hoopla the press creates, you'd swear McCain has some kind of momentum. Two points:

1. There's only been about 150 delagates of over 1900 to the National Convention declared so far.

2. If Fred Thompson keeps doing better every time out, the media can’t continue ignoring him: and he’s the only candidate that actually looks better the more you look at him.

I’m with Fred as long as he's in the fight.

Update 01/22/07: Well it didn't take long. Fred is no longer in the fight. Crap. Looks like it will be between Romney and Giuliani for me. Romney is ahead.

We'll try this for a while

There is now an e-mail address on the right-hand column for anyone interested in contacting me but does not want to create a Blogger ID first.

If people read this blog at all they will notice that sometimes (OK often) I have a hard time finding the time to even post on simple things, and my real life is getting even more interesting very soon. Hopefully everyone will understand if I don't answer all or most e-mails.

I'll keep the mailbox as long as things don't get out of control.

Regards to all

Horton is the Who Part III: More Lancet Dirt

Gee....this is getting kind of monotonous. At this rate I'll need a separate category just for Lancet expose's.

The story so far:

Horton Is the Who Part I :(updated w/direct YouTube link.): Meet the Lancet Editor Richard Horton!

Has Lancet Fired Horton Yet?: Meet 'study' author Les Roberts

Horton Is the Who Part II: See serious inconsistencies in the study exposed!

Now we find out Anti-American George Soros is the enabler behind the "Gagillion Iraq Deaths" Study.

What next? Are we going to find out the survey crew doing the canvassing were Al Queda?

And still I ask: Has the once prestigious Lancet fired Horton YET?!

Krugman Warns...Again (Yawn)

Megan McArdle at Atlantic.com’s Asymmetrical Information calls out Paul Krugman and his latest prediction for “Recession”-- noting he has been worrying about one for quite some time. She lists a series of Krugman quotes:

--"[R]ight now it looks as if the economy is stalling..." — Paul Krugman, September 2002

--"We have a sluggish economy, which is, for all practical purposes, in recession..." — Paul Krugman, May 2003

--"An oil-driven recession does not look at all far-fetched." — Paul Krugman, May 2004

--"[A] mild form of stagflation - rising inflation in an economy still well short of full employment - has already arrived." — Paul Krugman, April 2005

--"If housing prices actually started falling, we'd be looking at [an economy pushed] right back into recession. That's why it's so ominous to see signs that America's housing market...is approaching the final, feverish stages of a speculative bubble." — Paul Krugman, May 2005

--"In fact, a growing number of economists are using the "R" word [i.e.,"recession"] for 2006." - Paul Krugman, August 2005

--"But based on what we know now, there’s an economic slowdown coming." - Paul Krugman, August 2006

--"this kind of confusion about what’s going on is what typically happens when the economy is at a turning point, when an economic expansion is about to turn into a recession" - Paul Krugman, December 2006

--"Right now, statistical models ... give roughly even odds that we’re about to experience a formal recession. ... [T]he odds are very good — maybe 2 to 1 — that 2007 will be a very tough year." - Paul Krugman, December 2006

So, how does all this doom compare to the economic record?

Like this:


Eventually of course we will have a recession and Krugman will get lucky... just like the proverbial ‘blind pig’. The real question is: how deep and how long ?

At McArdle’s place I commented with an extract of a G.B. Shaw quote:

"If all the economists were laid end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion."

Which I enjoy only marginally more than:

Q: Why did God make economists?
A: To make the Weathermen look good.

I loved Econ in college (sick, I know) but I've always marveled at how economists who live by the phrase of "All other factors held constant" never seem to fully appreciate how fantastic that assumption really is.

How 'Fraidy Cats' Do Public Relations

The 'Lifeboat Foundation' has a little 'poll' going on at their blog .

H/T Instapundit

Here's how I responded (w/typos and grammer cleaned up a titch)to the question of allocating their hypothetical $100M budget:

$1M Biological viruses [By improving early warning and mitigating/preventative actions]
$1M Environmental global warming [To study ways to exploit its benefits since we can't do anything about climate change anyway]
$0 Extraterrestrial invasion [If "they" can get here, what are we going to do to stop it?]
$34M Governments abusive power [3/4 to subvert totalitarian regimes and promote free markets abroad, and 1/4 to teach American History, Civics, and the Constitution in the U.S.]
$0 Nanotechnology gray goo [Free market will take care of this]
$1M Nuclear holocaust [By Adding 1% to a baseline 6+% GNP DEFENSE and Intelligence covert action budget]
$0 Simulation Shut Down if we live in one [E.T. Quote: "This is REALITY, Greg"]
$.05M Space Threats asteroids [High Risk (Low Probability & High Consequence) easily mitigated through current technology and development pace]
$0 Superintelligent AI un-friendly [Free market will take care of this too]
$62.95M "Other" To be allocated as needed to educate the American public on the nefarious ways in which Non State Actors (Including the United Nations) attempt to subvert the American Republic on behalf of despots, tyrants and utopian fantasists, with special attention to: 1. self-important celebrity 'activists' ,
2. discredited political and social movements such as socialism, fascism, and communism
3. adaquate mental health care counseling for the paranoiacs and mentally deficient among 1 & 2(likely to be the biggest slice of the budget pie).

$100 million total

Easy.

It’s not the figures that lie, it’s the liars that figure

Or: “The press sabotages the economy news in an election year”

I saw this in my local paper and it is also of particular interest to an associate of mine so I thought I would 'blog' it.

Our Man in Academia, Dr Paul, is particularly attuned to how the press seems to bury ANY positive news about the economy and how the media seems to always try to emphasize the ‘bad’. (He’s not the only one by the way). I knew he would love this one.

Into the mix of economic news comes a little hit-piece by R.A. Dyer (January 2, 2008, page 4A) via our local paper, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, once again reminding us why many locals often refer to it as the ‘Startlegram’. The article is titled: “Surprise, your paycheck doesn’t go as far as it used to. Here’s why” with the tickler “Area Hit Hard by Energy Costs”. The online version can be found here.

The major problem with the story is that it claims that the impact to incomes due to energy costs has increased significantly since 2000… WITHOUT telling us exactly WHAT the impact is. The author seems more intent on presenting some rather soft data in as dramatic a fashion as possible, than in providing any real and useful insight into what changing energy costs really mean to the public. As a further indicator of some sleight-of-hand going on, the author uses about 20% of the column space presenting purely anecdotal information! The article is frankly: ‘all heat and no light”.

The article paints a bleak picture indeed:

“Combined energy costs – gasoline, home heating and electricity – for a typical local household [possibly the author’s household?] have gone up 72 percent.”

Rousing 'Average Reader'
It is easy to see how someone who is trusting and/or not well versed in mathematics , let’s call them ‘Average Reader ‘, might get some wrong ideas from this article. Average Reader would look at the number 72 percent and divide it by 7, and think they were experiencing increasing energy costs that were rising 10.3 percent per year. This is only the first incorrect assumption since mathematically you cannot simply divide 72 by 7 and get the correct result. Average Reader would then try to put that number in perspective and think “Holy smokes, my raise was only 4.8 percent and energy costs went up more than twice (10.3 percent) as much!”

Now, 72 percent does sound like a lot, but that averages out to 8.1 percent per year (not 10.3) over 7 years. 8.1 percent is not nearly as dramatic a number as 72 percent and somewhat less dramatic than 10.3 percent. This is not to deny it is still a significant increase when compared to the annual pay increase number given, but again, what is the real impact?

More directly put: HOW MUCH OF OUR INCOME HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY THIS INCREASE? The author doesn’t say, and in fact appears to NOT want to divulge this all-important parameter by carefully arranging his argument around it.

The author dances only so close as he dares to the heart of the question with: “The findings show a 55 percent increase between 2000 and 2006 in the proportion of monthly income that goes to energy.” OK, we got it. Now what does it mean? A 55% increase of ‘what’ exactly? How much real dollar difference is involved?

In a nutshell, Dr. Paul would point out that the author is just giving us the change in the data, but not what the data IS. For the mathematically inclined, this is akin to giving the derivative of the function, but not the function. Again, Average Reader would incorrectly come up with around 9.2 percent (if Average Reader assumed the rather vaguely-stated “between 2000 and 2006” meant 6 years), but in reality this would actually be only about 7.6 percent per year for 6 years, Not nearly as dramatic as 55 percent, is it?. Also, note that this is the PERCENT CHANGE to the PROPORTION of income spent on ‘energy’ and is NOT the INCREASE in AMOUNT THAT IS SPENT on energy.

This almost seems like intentional obfuscation, doesn’t it?

Next, the author states that incomes have only risen 29 percent between 2000 and 2006. Average Reader would again (and incorrectly) just divide the percentage by the number of years to get 4.8 percent, but the real answer is a somewhat smaller 4.3 percent per year.

Dr. Paul offers an exercise using two examples. This is made somewhat more difficult than it could be, because of what the author leaves out: the percentage of income spent on energy either to begin with or at the end of the timeframe. Like the word problems the author undoubtedly despised as a child, if you have ‘n’ variables in one equation, you have to have ‘n-1’ that are known to solve for the third. The author only presents the CHANGE in the percentage spent on energy and the AVERAGE amount spent on energy.

(If tables are unreadable click to enlarge)

Nevertheless, if we assume an annual salary of $23,000 in 2000:

The example above shows how income could increase by 29 percent and the percentage spent on energy could increase by 55% and what that means in dollars and cents to the household. As a percentage of household income, the change is between 8.4 percent (2000) and 12.9 percent (2006). Again, note that we do not know whether the data in the third column is representative or not -- since the author did not provide it.

To illustrate the major shortcoming of the article, consider the following equally valid yet very different example. This time let’s assume that in 2000 the income is $70,000 instead of $23,000.
Again, the second example shows how income could increase by 29 percent and the percentage spent on energy could increase by 55% and what that means in dollars and cents to the household. However, in this example the change is relatively small as a percentage of household income, and is between 2.9 percent (2000) and 4.5 percent (2006). Average Reader STILL does not know whether the data in the third column is representative (or not) since the author did not provide it.

To make matters worse, the author then presents anecdotes as authoritative information. The author (apparently) interviewed two ‘people on the street,’ so to speak: a retired insurance salesman, Cyrus Francis and a telephone company employee, Pamela Bradford.

Mr. Francis, who has a “7 mile-per-gallon motor home,” is quoted as follows:

“I used to not consider energy a major expense. Before, the major expenses were the mortgage or the car payment. But now, it’s the energy costs that are the major expense coming out of our budget.”

Could it be that Mr. Francis has no car payment and no house payment and lives in a motor home in his retirement? We do not know and cannot tell from the article. By presenting Mr. Francis’ case, the author has committed the Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

Ms. Bradford appealed to the Texas Railroad Commission (TRC) in 2005 over her high natural gas bills. Note that the TRC regulates natural gas prices in Texas. The striking part of this part of the article is the following quote: ‘“Everybody is feeling the crunch,” Bradford said.’

How can Pamela Bradford, who works for the phone company, possibly know what’ everybody is feeling’? This is a good example of the Appeal to Belief fallacy.

Adding yet another odd dimension to the article is the rather bizarre attempt to 'plug-in' some gravitas via commentary from a UT Austin economics professor:

Mike Brandl, a University of Texas at Austin economics professor. "What people don't realize is that the cost of living -- and especially energy costs -- are increasing faster than their pay."

While an interesting phrasing if the quote is accurate, IMHO it might have been better stated as: What people don't realize is that the cost of living is increasing faster than
their pay -- and that is largely due to energy costs --.

Without stating at this time whether Dr Paul or I either agree with or doubt the statement that asserts cost of living is increasing faster than pay, mine is the better phrasing because as shown here and in the graph below (downloaded 01/04/08 –it will change over time) we see that lately, overall inflation is more often than not driven largely BY energy costs.

We can ALMOST get some idea of the real net impact of rising energy costs by observing how low overall inflation is, both with and without the intrinsically linked ‘food and fuel’ numbers. This graph shows a lot of interesting data that perhaps we could discuss at another time, but what it tells me first and foremost is two things:

1. That the author of the paper 'cherry picked' and truncated his time-span (shades of global warming alarmists!) to cover the timeframe where energy costs were moving from a DEFLATIONARY influence in early 2002 to a peak inflationary influence around in 2005-6. While the terminus may have been determined by the cutoff of available statistics, the starting point was clearly selected as convenient (perhaps sub-consciously?) to suit the author’s ‘message’.

2. That clearly, if rising energy costs are driving inflation, then based upon the data the author presented, the total inflation is being held in check by factors other than energy because the data the author offers as representative of energy cost growth far exceeds the net impact of all factors in the inflation rates shown.

Would it also be too simple to point out here that if Average Reader would merely overlay the author’s numbers for income growth over the same timeframe, it would become apparent that income growth probably approximated and at times exceeded the inflation rate? If from the numbers offered by the author the rising cost of living increased faster than pay overall, it couldn’t have been by much.

Back to how Professor Brandl’s inputs are further manipulated. I think the author by either clever device or pure ignorance crafts a remarkable series of three paragraphs here:

Brandl said the cost of other basic needs such as groceries has also continued to creep up. In mid-December, for instance, the government reported a 0.8 percent increase in consumer prices -- the highest rate of increase since November 2005.

Brandl said extra expenses can lead to increased dependence on consumer debt, which then becomes part of a vicious cycle and takes a toll on disposable income.

"We're seeing increasing consumer debt, with the idea that consumers are making up the difference between income and spending by putting more on their credit cards, or accessing the home equity of their homes," he said. "This is very dangerous."

They are seemingly intended to read ‘Wham!”,”Bam!”,”Thank-You Ma’am!”, but in reality are “Blip”, “So”, and “Oh, By the Way”.

First the ‘Blip’: “In mid-December, for instance, the government reported a 0.8 percent increase in consumer prices -- the highest rate of increase since November 2005”. By itself this statement means exactly: "zip". If viewed in reference to our inflation plot above, we see that ‘big increase’ started from a LOW POINT. This could mean a lot in the long run, but it could also mean ‘squat’ in the long run. Right now, it is as meaningful as talking about the large decrease that happened a little while beforehand. It is a little snippet of data that is meant to imply a harbinger of bad things to come. I would characterize this as a Hasty Generalization as it was employed

Which Brings us to the ‘So’: “…extra expenses can lead to increased dependence on consumer debt…” So? Not changing you engine oil CAN lead to excessive wear. Yes, the logic rings true: but it isn’t demonstrated to be happening in the article – So What? As written (without data supporting the assertion), this should very well be considered a form of False Dilemma.

Now the OBTW: “increasing consumer debt, with the idea that consumers are making up the difference between income and spending by putting more on their credit cards”……"This is very dangerous."
“The IDEA? ’ if it is -- tell us, if it isn’t -- don’t bring it up! As to “This is very dangerous"—We agree. Thanks for the tip. Another potential False Dilemma!

Please note, on my end there is no real contention with the Professor’s sentiments and observations beyond perhaps whether or not pay is rising apace with the cost of living. My complaint with this portion of the article is that it appears, either via an author’s sloth or an editor’s overreach, that all meaningful relevance to what Dr. Brandl had to say is missing from the article.

Summary
This article was a pure 'puff piece' designed to evoke a particular emotional response. From the comments at the Star Telegram’s website, I’d say they they’ve gotten Average Reader’s number.

Dr. Paul thinks Math Teacher (in the comments) has a good idea for using the article and also plans to use it to teach statistics next semester.

In reviewing his textbook (Elementary Statistics - A Step by Step Approach - Bluman, pp. 16-19) Dr. Paul notes the following uses and misuses of statistics are cited:

1. Suspect samples - not specifying the size of the sample set; convenience samples; phone-in or mail-in surveys

2. Ambiguous averages - mean, median, mode, midrange?

3. Changing the subject - different values used to represent the same data. For example, if 6 million dollars is 3%, use the number which generates the desired effect. ("rose a whopping 6 million dollars" versus "rose only 3 percent")

4. detached statistics - a statistic in which no comparison is made - aspirin works 4 times faster - faster than what?

5.Implied connections - imply connections between variables tha may not actually exist

6. misleading graphs

Dr Paul finds this article guilty of at least numbers 2, 3 and 5. [He also informs me that Saturday’s (01/06/07) 'Startlegram' got around to violating #6 on page 6C with some ‘employment’ graphs (note the scales).]

Mr Dyer’s article is just one contemporary illustration of how statistics are used, or rather ‘misused’, by the media... and how the articles can mislead readers and woefully misrepresent the truth.

Horton is the Who...Part II

As in “Who is STILL the ranting Anti-globalist, Anti-capitalist, Anti-Western, Useful Idiot, Lancet Editor with his panties in a knot?”

After this revelation, NOW will the Lancet finally get around to firing Horton ?