Statistics 101

In today's Democratic debate at Dartmouth College, Tim Russert proved he doesn't understand statistics. He said, as part of a question on Social Security:

"The reason Franklin Roosevelt set the age of eligibility to 65 — that was life expectancy. You made it onto the program for a month or two, and that was it."

Life expectancy figures simply don't work that way. An average life expectancy of 65 does not mean that adults are likely to die at age 65. Historically speaking, many children died at birth, or shortly after. All those 0s and 1s weighted the average lower. In fact, in 1930 the average life expectancy was only 59.2 years. But if you had already made it to age 65, on average you could expect to live an additional 12.2 years, not "a month or two" as Tim stated.

Petraeus=Powell

Seagull and I have been saying it (I think he might have been the one who said it first), but now everyone is saying it: how very stupid is the media consensus that Gen. Petraeus is a completely unassailable witness, that we have to believe everything he says even when it contradicts everything else we know and even though he's transparently a frontman for a president no one believes anymore, that generals never, ever lie.

And it's just so reminiscent of how, in February of 2003, retired General and then-Secretary of state Colin Powell bullshat the U.N. with a basically truth-free account of Saddam's big scary weapons of mass destruction, and the media establishment declared that, since Powell would never ever lie to us--the man is a decorated general!--at that point, not supporting the war was actually a horrible character flaw.

As is often the case, Jamison Foser, at Media Matters (which might be the most important site on the internet), has spelled it out better than I could hope to.

When Colin Powell delivered the case for the invasion of Iraq before the UN Security Council, the media accepted his argument with unquestioning obedience. Even after it became clear that Powell's address was riddled with untruths, many journalists steadfastly refused to criticize Powell believing that his stellar credentials and polished military reputation transcended ordinary political criticism. The results were disastrous. Four years later Gen. Petraeus has assumed the role as the as the polished mouthpiece of the Iraq war, but the question remains; can the media overlook Petraeus' unvarnished reputation or will they make the same mistakes?

Unfortunately, the answer was probably a foregone conclusion. To our national punditry, history is whatever just happened in the last week.

I Drew This

First Sale Doctrine under attack in UMG v Augusto

I'm going to break with the political coverage for a moment and talk about a court case to keep an eye on.

The case involves an eBay merchant who sells collectable CDs. These CDs were originally promotional copies, and Universal Music Group (UMG) filed a complaint alleging that he is violating their copyright by selling these items. Their position is that because these are labeled "promotional use only," they are licensed, not sold, and remain the property of UMG. The eBay merchant has filed a counterclaim, with the help of the EFF.

There's more to this case than meets the eye, because it targets the "First Sale Doctrine," a 100-year-old legal precedent that says that once you legally obtain an item, you have the right to resell it. If the First Sale Doctrine can be negated just by applying a sticker to an item, this could cause problems for everyone from used CD stores to libraries, not to mention individual consumers. On The Media has an interview with the EFF lawyer handling the case that discusses these issues.

Petraeus speaketh

Recap of today's events:

A Bush administration dude in a uniform with a very serious expression told us that everything is going great in Iraq and we all have to just sit back and wait another six months.

You know, exactly what every sentient being knew was going to happen.

More when I've got time.

Saturday eagle blogging

I do apologize for the glitch where it sometimes ends up being June again. We know how to fix it, but we don't yet know how to make it stop happening altogether.

Posting will stop being so light in a few days. Thanks for your patience.

But here's a thought for you about media coverage of presidential candidates.

Can we please stop with the discussion of who does or doesn't "look like a president" or "seem presidential"?

You know who looks like a president? The president. Even when we're stuck with one who looks disturbingly chimplike. Even if you look like the worst president, that's a kind of looking like a president. So, could we please start analyzing what these guys actually want to do in office (Thompson wants to stay in Iraq forever, Giuliani wants to bomb Iran, Romney wants to "double the size of Guantanamo") and stop acting like we're casting the role of the president in a movie of the week?

Memo to the media

Dear Mainstream Media,

Can you please stop referring to the "Petraeus Report," or at least qualify the term when you use it? It's already been widely reported (LA Times, Washington Post, NPR) that the White House will actually be writing the report. It's only Petraeus's report in the sense that he's the mouthpiece who will be delivering it. They're using him for his perceived credibility, the same way they used Colin Powell. You really ought to be smarter than to fall for this one again.

Welcome to his delusion.

I wonder when George W. Tumbleweed entered the realm of the clinically delusional.

To be honest, I think it may have been years before his presidency, since all evidence suggests, to me at least, that Bush has always believed, as the worst sort of spoiled rich brat always does, that the good things that happen around him are either his own doing or proof that God favors him.

In any case, it's impossible to argue, anymore, if it ever was, that the leader of the free world even lives within shouting distance of reality:

A day after the Government Accountability Office reported that the Iraqis have met just three of 18 benchmarks they had agreed to meet, George W. Bush offered a slightly rosier assessment of the war during his visit to Australia today. Asked by Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile to say how things are going in Iraq, the president of the United States declared: "We're kicking ass."

"We're kicking ass." He actually said this. About Iraq.

Words fail me. And yet, it gets worse.

Bush publicly admitted in 2004, a year and a half after invading and occupying Iraq to find those WMDs everybody knew were there, that, oops, no they weren't. Why did it take him so long to realize there were no weapons? Turns out he still hasn't realized it, or at least hadn't in 2006:

Though it was not the sort of thing one could say publicly anymore, the president still believed that Saddam had possessed weapons of mass destruction. He repeated this conviction to Andy Card all the way up until Card’s departure in April 2006, almost exactly three years after the Coalition had begun its fruitless search for WMDs.

Remember how the media insisted for so long that Bush was a "pleasant, down-to-earth guy who would not rock the boat"?

And how we should make him president, because Al Gore is boring and sighs and wears earth tones, and John Kerry windsurfs and orders the wrong kind of cheese and "looks French"?