the digital is the actual

I'm not sure I'm really sold on the idea that augmenting one's own reality makes one less of a machine. And I'm not sure the world needs more visual clutter as random folks project their desktops onto office windows and subway walls (tip for oblivious passersby: don't stare into the blinding beam). And don't we need a space where we can escape the noise for a time? ("Tell that idiot to quit watching YouTube on that cliff face already.")

But the idea of taking one's computation out of a plastic tower and into the wider world is otherwise pretty darn cool.

LD weekend open thread

My squad had a practice tournament this weekend: 4 rounds of LD, 3 of PuFo, and an obligatory round of Impromptu. It was fun, but I spent the whole time running Tab, so I didn't get my usual view from the ground of the latest and greatest/worst in LD arguments.

No matter: that's what you, the reader, are for, right? Regarding the immunization resolution, what worked for you this weekend? What didn't? What stumped you? What would you like help with? The comments are yours. Fire away....

best television of the Oughts

The AV Club, steadily unveiling its best of the '00s, has generated a massive list for the best TV series. There are no runners-up, only winners.

I note with pride and a little sadness that I have seen, in their entirety, half of the acclaimed shows, including 8 of the top 10. (I let my wife carry the Lost burden, and The Shield is on my queue.)

Of course, there's no spoiler in noting that The Wire is #1.

Capital High School football update

If you've been following the Capital Cougar football team, you already know that Tyler Sundberg has been ridiculous this year, running for--count 'em--31 touchdowns. But he's not the only vector in a multidimensional attack, as Enumclaw discovered yesterday.

Alex Everson, Capital’s junior quarterback who moved into the starting lineup this season, made sure of that. He ran for two touchdowns, passed for another and ran the option to perfection.

“They were biting on the fakes a lot,” Everson said. “It’s worked before, but that was the best it’s worked all season.”

Coming into the game, Everson had run for four touchdowns and passed for another 14. Against an Enumclaw defense that was giving up just 16.2 points a game, Everson completed 7 of 9 passes for 108 yards and rushed for 44 yards on five carries.

While the offense tends to get most of the attention in a 42-7 win, it's important to note that Capital's defense has been stifling all year long. Looking at the 3A rankings, this is a team that nearly knocked off Times-ranked #7 Timberline and #5 O'Dea (and, in the Spaghetti Bowl, exposed the weaknesses in the recently eliminated 4A Olympia squad.)

Capital rolls on to State to face #4 Union next.

I should also mention that Capital's girls cross country team finished 14th at state. Meanwhile, the volleyball team faces Holy Names next weekend in Kennewick.

because we love ugly cars

Whoa. Might want to put on ugly-filtering specs before viewing this gallery of the ugliest cars at SEMA. [via Instapundit]

of one Accord

The wife and I have been car shopping. Because it was for "my" car, I'd estimate I had about 70% of the say in the final decision. Here's how I convinced myself--and my wife--that I should drive a Honda.

For the last six years, I've driven a Malibu, a cheap V6. Despite its numerous flaws, I've apparently gotten too used to having the extra horses in the barn when I need them, too used to the feel of a midsize sedan. Goodbye, Elantra Touring. Goodbye, Honda Civic. Goodbye, Mazda5. Six cylinders in a flying V.

In the end, I was torn between a Sonata ('09 Limited) and an Accord ('07 LX). Torn because of the crazy features available on the Sonata, but because I really liked driving the Accord--and I got a great price on a high-demand model.

The Accord won.

Why?

Responsiveness. The Hyundai's stability control, touted as a safety feature, made me feel like it wanted to go where it wanted. Steering and handling felt mushy. The Honda, on the other hand, would do whatever I wanted it to, whether that meant cornering, accelerating on a short onramp, passing uphill, or navigating a parking spot. (The salesman pumped the Accord's "grade logic," but I didn't really notice it too much--our steepest grades are hills, not mountains. But it might be nice for road trips to see the folks in Wyoming.)

Reliability. Hyundai has vastly improved in this regard, but the car in my price range, the '09, was the first of a redesign, whereas the '07 Honda was the last. Hyundai has released 14 service bulletins for the '09 Sonata, versus 5 for the Accord (in two more years). Honda also offered the Certified Used program, with a powertrain warranty out to 7/100,000, while Hyundai clipped short its normal powertrain warranty, from 7/100,000 down to 5/60,0000 on a used Sonata.

Resale value. The edge here goes to Honda, and my informal assessment of the glut of '09 Sonatas on the lot, in 4- and 6-cylinder editions, versus the hard-to-find Accords with higher MSRPs, is that this trend will continue.

It wasn't a huge factor, but styling went to the Accord. I actually prefer the '07 edition to the '08 redesign, which looks chunkier. The Sonata is clean, but bland. Trim, even in the Limited, looked and felt cheaper. (One car I initially considered, the Camry, really surprised me with its cheap plastic components. And the nose on that thing--looks like it swallowed a warthog.)

I spent about 1900 less on the '07 than the best price on the Sonata, opting for cloth over leather and fewer powered accessories. (The more knickknacks, the more potential longterm failures.) I pressed hard for the Hyundai dealer to make a better offer, but they wouldn't budge, and I have a feeling they're going to regret it in a month, when the '11s roll in and the V6 is still sitting on the lot.

If I'm wrong, no matter. I'm a happy Honda owner, and glad to put the ol' Malibu behind me for good.

car shopping

Today, while discussing argumentation structure and strategies with a group of rookie debaters, I used a sample claim: The Ford Focus is a reliable car. "What kind of evidence might you use to support that claim?" I asked.

"None," one shot back. "There isn't any."

"As debaters, we can always do better," I said, then gave my own (admittedly very fake) example of repair statistics. What if, for example, 86% of Ford Focuses (Foci?) are trouble-free after five years? And what if this compared favorably to the latest imports? And what's the best measure of reliability, anyway?

The discussion was cut short by the end of practice, but it continued in my mind throughout the rest of the evening, as I sat in the living room, watching college football on mute and surfing Edmunds.com and the NHSTA's recall / defect investigation database. The wife and I are about ready to replace my poor ol' Chevy Malibu, and we'd like something that's going to run for a long, long time--hopefully with fewer mishaps and brake jobs.

Some of the cars on my radar include the Honda Accord, the Ford Fusion / Mercury Milan, the Hyundai Sonata, the Hyundai Elantra Touring, and the Mazda5. (If you have strong feelings about any of 'em, feel free to share in the comments.) I've read every review and road test and recommendation, and driven all of them, so it doesn't surprise me that today, KOMO would offer the highlights of Consumer Reports' upcoming reliability ratings, and the makes and models I'm seriously considering are the makes and models that owners recommend.

I've had bad experiences with Chrysler and GM products, so I was curious to see if they've recently turned things around. Nope:

Chrysler had only one model that Consumer Reports recommended based on reliability and its staff test, and the Chrysler brand finished last out of 33 brands sold in the U.S. One third of Chrysler's models were much worse than average in reliability.

Six models from GM were recommended by the magazine, but it's still inconsistent. Only 21 of 48 models the magazine studied scored average or better in reliability.

Even fewer surprises if you compare it with CR's overall assessment published in April.

I'm finding that the surfeit of available information doesn't make our choice any easier. But at least we have five good choices. And none of them is a Malibu.

approaches for the affirmative for the immunization resolution

Regarding the November / December LD immunization resolution, a reader writes,

I'm having some trouble thinking of argumentation lines for the affirmative, insofar as a minority refusing a vaccine shouldn't affect the majority, because the majority has been vaccinated and is (of course, to a limited extent) immune. This is frustrating every brainstorm I have on affirmative argumentation lines. Some ideas?

Let me see if I can help you out of this self-imposed jam.

First, the "to a limited extent" is important. Vaccines don't provide 100% immunity. For some unlucky recipients, they provide no immunity at all; for others (and this number is most likely much larger), they merely reduce the severity of symptoms. So unimmunized persons are a danger even to the immunized.

Second, unimmunized persons are a danger to those who, for health reasons, simply cannot be immunized. (Of course, this also presents a dilemma for the affirmative; does "compulsory" allow any exceptions?)

Third, a minority refusing a vaccine can influence others to avoid the vaccine, decreasing "herd immunity" (which often requires a high threshold--90% or more). That's why, in recent years, outbreaks of dangerous contagious diseases have increased in areas where they were nearly a non-factor. Polio. Diphtheria. Whooping cough. All over the world, missed vaccinations are putting lives at risk.

Fourth, the risk of bioterrorism or a pandemic that might justify quarantine would probably also justify compulsory immunization in the interest of national security.

Fifth, children who would otherwise receive safe vaccinations risk dying due to their parents' unnecessary or even irrational concern.

Sixth, people who refuse vaccination are a danger to themselves; in a paternalistic political philosophy, this is grounds for intervention.

Seventh, unimmunized persons who lack insurance are a drain on public coffers.

Eighth... well, that's all I've got in ten minutes.

Readers: other ideas?

the expanding waistline of public health law

Another in a series of posts covering the Nov/Dec immunization resolution.

Public health law seems to want to gobble up more and more legal categories, if Mark Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest, is correct. In an article titled "The scope and limits of public health law," found in the Summer 2003 edition of Perspectives in Biology and Medicine,, Hall describes, through anecdote and argument, how public health law is perpetually expanding in influence.

First, Hall distinguishes health care law from public health law, and what makes the latter inherently power-hungry.

Public health law is about enforcing government efforts to promote health. It starts with the assumption that public authority is plenary* and sets restraints on this authority only it if invades fundamental interests or is demonstrably unbalanced or excessive. Under public health law, the presumptions are all in favor of intervention, whereas under health care law, the presumptions are all in favor of privacy. Public health law is not troubled by making vaccinations mandatory, despite possible harm from side effects that may greatly outweigh the benefits of vaccination to any one individual (due to an individual's ability to free ride on the "herd immunity" of the community), nor is public health law troubled by requiring that more potent and riskier forms of a vaccine be used, even though the enhanced benefits accrue to people other than those who take on the risk.

*Absolute, unqualified.

This is the obvious first prong of a potential Neg strategy: pointing out that "public health concerns" are coldly utilitarian, and woe betide the unfortunate soul who is forced to take one for the team.

Of course, the Aff will argue that not only are the rewards worth the risks, but that the very nature of the problem demands compulsion. Hall again:

The classic subjects of public health law are communicable diseases, personal hygiene, sanitary water and sewer systems, safe food, and injury prevention. These disparate situations all involve significant collective action problems, meaning that individuals acting in their own self-interest, even if fully informed and rational, will not effectively address the problem because they do not internalize some of the major costs or benefits of action or non-action, or for other reasons a centralized response is much more cost-effective.... Identifying and eliminating the source of contagion for a communicable disease requires more effort and cost than any one individual or small group is likely to undertake. A public agency is necessary to garner the resources needed for collective action and to wield the authority for coercive restrictions on liberty or property.

But the Negative isn't done yet; the second prong of the argument regards the larger risk of allowing public health advocates ever-increasing power, which has

...a pervasive effect on public health officials' sense of what they are entitled to do and of the tools that are available to address a public health problem. The uncompromising authoritarian and utilitarian public health perspective... is intensely ends-oriented, which tends to ingrain the following habit of thought: once having identified a causal connection to a widespread health problem, action is necessary to eradicate the cause and eliminate the problem at its source, and it falls within the authority of public health or other government officials to take the necessary actions. The necessary actions are those that produce the desired results. Public health officials may start with less intrusive, more innocuous measures, such as information, education, or taxation, but if these fail, then the case is even stronger for pursuing a panoply of more aggressive and coercive strategies, including mandates and bans, closures and seizures, quarantine, and criminal sanctions. The metaphors of public health strategy are war-like. Its rhetoric is to attack, conquer, and eradicate, rather than to exercise prudence, balance, and restraint.

As the saying goes, "desperate times demand desperate measures." The problem is the tendency to see desperation in any risk, and to trample over individual needs, desires, or rights in the process. As problems like crime or poverty are cast in terms of public health, we risk going beyond the Nanny State to a form of medicalized tyranny.

vaccines... for the children

Professor of epidemiology Tara Smith explains why she'll be getting her children vaccinated this year.

Taking a brief hiatus from my hiatus to discuss a question I've been asked a number of times in recent weeks by friends and family: what about flu shots? Are you getting one for yourself? Your kids? The answer is yes to both, with more explanation after the jump.

And the post-jump reasons are worth investigating.

Meanwhile, Stephanie Tatel asks, have you considered those with limited immunity?

Ordinarily I wouldn't question others' parenting choices. But the problem is literally one of live or don't live. While that parent chose not to vaccinate her child for what she likely considers well-founded reasons, she is putting other children at risk. In this instance, the child at risk was my son. He has leukemia.

What does any of this have to do with vaccinations? While the purpose of chemotherapy is to kill the cancer, it also kills the good cells—most notably the infection-fighting white blood cells. That means my son has limited ability to fight off anything. A single unimmunized child in an ordinary child care setting is the equivalent of a toddler time bomb to him.

For students of the November/December LD resolution--or for any parent of a youngster--something to think about.

the "point of order" in LD debate

We've all seen it happen: the LD round is wrapping up as the affirmative offers a breathless set of rebuttals and voting issues. The Neg, meanwhile, is doodling on the flow, pretending to be engaged and attentive. All of a sudden, the Neg's ears prick up. What's that? A new argument in the 2AR? This cannot be!

Frequent commentator oceanix asks,

...so in LD, if I'm the negative, is there any way I can say the Aff is out of order for making new points in his or her last speech that I can't refute? Thanks.

Yes there is. The rules specifically state:

The negative team shall not be denied the right to rise to a point of order after the closing affirmative rebuttal. However, if they argue the point instead of stating the point, they shall be heavily penalized on the point. In this contingency, final disposition of the matter shall rest entirely with the judge. In general, this practice is to be discouraged.

So, in other words, if you stand to protest, you do so at your own risk. And this is right: after all, you should trust that the judge understands the rules, and knows that new arguments in the 2AR are forbidden.

Do note that the rules call for a heavy penalty if you "argue the point." Suppose you decide to risk it and cry foul. How do you protest properly?

Bad Example
"The Affirmative made new arguments about [fill in the blank] in the 2AR. The Aff is a cheater! Cheater cheater pumpkin eater."

Good Example
"I rise for a point of order. The Affirmative has made a new argument in the 2AR."

That's it. Keep it short and sweet, and let the judge do the sorting-out. After all, it's her prerogative.

chemiosmosis and the origin of life

Learned a new word today: chemiosmosis.

Before Mitchell, everyone assumed that cells got their energy using straightforward chemistry. The universal energy currency of life is a molecule called ATP. Split it and energy is released. ATP powers most of the energy-demanding processes in cells, from building proteins to making muscles move. ATP, in turn, was thought to be generated from food by a series of standard chemical reactions. Mitchell thought otherwise. Life, he argued, is powered not by the kind of chemistry that goes on in a test tube but by a kind of electricity.

The energy from food, he said, is used to pump positively charged hydrogen ions, or protons, through a membrane. As protons accumulate on one side, an electrochemical gradient builds up across the membrane. Given the chance, the protons will flow back across, releasing energy that can be harnessed to assemble ATP molecules. In energy terms, the process is analogous to filling a raised tank with buckets of water, then using the water to drive a waterwheel.

Mitchell dubbed his theory chemiosmosis, and it is not surprising that biologists found it hard to accept. Why would life generate energy in such a complicated and roundabout way, when simple chemical reactions would suffice? It just didn't make sense.

More, much more, at the link about how chemiosmosis might be the key to understanding the origin of life on earth.

Or read the snapshot version: from hydrothermal vents to full-fledged cells in ten increasingly plausible steps.

changes in Student Congress, Public Forum debate rules

Bill Nicolay, director of forensics at Snohomish High School, sends along word of NFL rule changes to Student Congress and Public Forum debate. The highlights, which I've edited only for formatting:

Public Forum

• Final focus goes from one to two minutes
• Ballots will be redesigned
• No reading of evidence in Crossfire (this seems to mean that competitors should be discouraged from asking for cites during crossfire)

Congress

• Will now be called “Congressional Debate” rather than Student Congress
• Preferential ranking by judges becomes the preferred method of advancing students to either a super congress (if used) or straight to nationals (if no super congress).  However, ranking by judges could be used to produce a slate of candidates for student vote [via preferential ballot], should a district choose to do so.  Base and board vote are gone.
• Standardized ballots for congress ranking will be provided to all districts
• Both the authorship/sponsorship and first negation speeches will be followed by two-minute questioning periods.  I’m assuming all other speeches remain at one minute (not addressed).
• Committee meetings may not be scored
• This may be a big one, depending on current district procedure: A total of two three-hour sessions of debate is required to legitimize the congress, so congress moves from five to six hours (plus time for setting up), meaning that it may no longer be doable in a single day along with speech, since it all events have to end by 10:00 p.m.  There is language which says that “if a district offers a super session, it has the flexibility to have additional smaller preliminary chambers before advancing students to the super session.  I believe the key term here, “smaller,” refers to chamber size and not time, because...
• Congress sessions are limited to 18-20 students, and for each student beyond 20 we have to add ten minutes to the session.
• Presiding officers may be selected or an adult may serve.  No provision or language was given regarding scores received by presiding officers.
• All nationals legislation will now be vetted by Nationals Office Staff and may be approved, rejected, or improved and resubmitted.  Each district can submit two items of legislation.
• Affiliate chapters can now enter as many entries as charter chapters (based on the manual table).

I like the added minute in PuFo--that "final focus" has always been a waste of fevered breath. In Congressional Debate, I have mixed feelings about extending question time for the first speech in negation, if only because question time tends to turn into Thinly Disguised Speeches.

Mr. Nicolay also noted that a committee is exploring the use of laptops in LD (I'm not yet convinced) and in extemp (which needs to happen yesterday--otherwise, how many forests of magazine trees must die?).

football for nerds, and nerds for football

1. Kevin Kelley of Pulaski Academy High explains his team's no-kick approach to football. The short story: it's all about the numbers, and the numbers say keep possession.

2. In an excerpt from his book Eating the Dinosaur, Chuck Klosterman explains why he loves football more at 37 than he ever did at 17. The short story: it's all about the game's radical/conservative duality.

Who says nerds can't love / rule sports?

the tensions inherent in public health law

The November/December resolution throws light on a growing area of legal interest: public health. In "Mapping the Scope and Opportunities for Public Health Law in Liberal Democracies," found in The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, Winter 2007, Roger Magnusson, a law professor at the University of Sydney, notes (among other things) the tensions in contemporary public health law.

The first, as always, is the tension between proper government action and individual rights:

Lawrence Gostin points out that the protection of the public's health is necessarily a public function that should also be regarded as a duty of government. Discharge of that duty carries "intrinsic and instrumental value for individuals, communities, and entire nations." At the same time, public health law is that body of law which - in a liberal democracy - keeps the state on a short leash, and there is considerable resistance to lengthening it. At the same time, in one of many contradictions in American law, Nan Hunter argues that this is precisely what is occurring as public health and national security have moved closer together to meet the threat of bioterrorism and pandemic influenza.

The "national security" angle is one that affirmatives should explore. The resolution doesn't specify who would be receiving compulsory immunizations; the Negative, presumably, would have to defend the right of medical workers and soldiers (among others) to refuse immunization, even in a crisis.

However, an important Negative consideration is the tension between wider and narrower conceptions of just what constitutes "public health concerns"--and the propensity for the debate to expand into the international arena.

The health and human rights movement provides a further example of public health law expanding to embrace, in this case, global human rights norms and laws, exploring the potential for the promotion or neglect of global norms to enhance or harm the health of populations. The usual criticisms of these approaches is that they turn "life, the universe and everything" into a subdivision of health. In Mark Rothstein's words, "just because war, crime, hunger, poverty, illiteracy, homelessness and human rights abuses interfere with the health of individuals and population does not mean that eliminating these conditions is part of the mission of public health."

The effect of such a broad definition is not only to increase government overreach, but to insulate the government from criticism, since "public health" is a powerful way to frame policies that might otherwise be seen as the normal risks of everyday life, accepted in a free society. Furthermore, globalization puts the drafting and enacting of such policies out of the reach of citizens within any given nation. Thus, from a social contract perspective, a widening "public health" definition is doubly a menace to individual rights and governmental legitimacy.

the ugliest ugly building

No matter how aesthetically atrocious Olympia's Ugly Building is, repeat to yourself: it's no Portland Building. It's no Portland Building.

today's vaccination links

The Nov/Dec LD resolution, "Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization," couldn't be more topical.

You're all over the CDC's website, right?

Swine flu vaccines are ready. But not everybody wants one--for themselves, or for their kids.

How distrust of swine flu vaccine unites right and left.

It doesn't help when journalists get the facts very, very wrong.

Something to think about: let's say smoking is a public health concern. Does that justify compulsory anti-smoking vaccinations?

value / criterion pairs for the immunization resolution

LD casewriters studying the November/December compulsory immunization resolution might consider the following value and criterion pairs. (Have your own ideas? Suggest them in the comments!)

See also: my guide to some useful philosophers, plus a way to consider the criterion in LD debate.

A work in progress.

V: Societal Welfare
C: Act or Rule Utilitarianism
As I've mentioned elsewhere, many affirmative cases will use either explicit or implicit utilitarian reasoning. It's easy to figure out why: compulsory immunization, from the state's perspective, violates autonomy in order to keep the herd immune, and reduce suffering and death. Of course, some may argue that Mill's nonpaternalistic utilitarian scheme, via the harm principle, supports the negative, but that's what makes it fun.

Note: a potentially fruitful line of argument might be an analogy based on the infamous Trolley Problem. Also, see here for a deeper look at utilitarianism as a moral criterion.


V: Governmental Legitimacy
C: Social Contract
Because the resolution concerns compulsory immunization, making the agent of action the State, social contract theory comes into play. Change your value to "societal welfare," and you can make arguments based on contractarian reasoning as well. (My initial thought is that Hobbes or Rousseau are your best bets here.)


V: Freedom
C: Reducing Biopower
Foucault, anyone?


V: Autonomy
C: Deliberation
Without autonomy, humans are slaves, robots, or worse. Autonomy is the core of human freedom, rights, and responsibilities. Compulsion is a direct affront to autonomy; deliberation (especially deliberative democracy) uses dialogue and education to create change. (As you can probably see, this is a Negative approach.) Potential philosophers: Arendt or Habermas.


V: Autonomy or Humanity
C: Kant's Categorical Imperative
The Neg might argue that compelling someone to take a (potentially risky) vaccine in order to protect the herd is a classic case of using someone as a mere means to an end. If so, Kant says no.


V: Life
C: Utilitarianism
A fairly straightforward setup.


V: Justice
C: Rawls' "Original Position" or "Veil of Ignorance"
Compulsion is always a matter of justice. But with competing rights claims--and competing visions of the right--how can societies agree on what justice means? John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" offers an interesting form of a moral criterion, especially given Rawls' biography. Does compulsory immunization in the service of public health meet this standard?


V: Societal Welfare or Life
C: Negative Utility


V:
C:

stretching the truth; sketching a lie

A clever little experiment was recently designed to determine whether liars could be discovered through drawing. How it turned out:

While many of the liars gave convincing verbal accounts to the agents, when their drawings were compared with those of truth-tellers, there were features that distinguished them (Applied Cognitive Psychology, DOI: 10.1002/acp.1627).

The first was who they drew: 2 out of 16 liars included the first agent in their drawing, whereas 12 out of 15 of the truth-tellers included that detail. Vrij suggests this is because the liars visualised a place they knew and simply drew this, neglecting to include the agent.

The second difference was perspective, with liars tending to draw the laptop handover from a bird's-eye perspective rather than a first-person one. Vrij suggests that while liars are adept at quickly coming up with a plausible verbal account, they find imagining spatial relationships between conjured-up objects more difficult from a first person perspective.

The technique isn't perfect, but as a supplement to existing interrogation techniques, it seems pretty useful. (And anything's got to be better than a polygraph.)

Of course, you can arrest veryone who asks if they can just draw stick figures. They're bound to be guilty of something.

what puzzles psychologists

When they're not helping you solve your (manifold) problems, what are they puzzling over?

The email edition of the British Psychological Society's Research Digest has reached the milestone of its 150th issue. That's over 900 quality, peer-reviewed psychology journal articles digested since 2003. To mark the occasion, the Digest editor has invited some of the world's leading psychologists to look inwards and share, in 150 words, one nagging thing they still don't understand about themselves. Their responses are by turns candid, witty and thought-provoking.

And, in the spirit of blogging, brief. Check 'em out.

[via Mark Frauenfelder]