Predictions

First Tobacco, Now Food

by

I was not happy with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement for many reasons.

One of my main objections was that the entire premise behind the complaint against the tobacco industry was that they used advertising to control the minds of their customers. It seems extremely obvious that the dangers of using tobacco were well established long before my birth in 1964, yet it was claimed that tens of millions of Americans were too stupid or weak minded to pay attention. Consenting adults in this country could be trusted to choose political leaders in elections, but they were helpless to resist when confronted with a picture of the Marlboro Man.

One of the most moronic claims by the anti-tobacco crowd was that the cartoon advertising mascot Joe Camel was enslaving the youth of America. It was said that children recognized Joe more readily than they did Mickey Mouse, even though the cigarette ads only ran for 9 years and giant amusement parks featuring the anthropomorphic camel were never constructed. It looked to me to be a blatant attempt to demonize an industry in order to force them to pony up some cash.

The title of this article is “10 Things the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know”, and it shows that some people figure the same methods used against Big Tobacco will work just fine when applied to the food industry.

Click on that last link and all the same tricks are on display. Food companies target little kids to advertise unhealthy food. They sponsor studies that obscure the fact that unhealthy food is bad for you. The industry puts pressure on legislators to keep them from passing laws limiting consumer access to fattening and sweet foods. They bankroll front groups which fight anti-obesity laws. And so on.

This appears to me to be exactly the same tactics used against tobacco companies. They are evil, unconcerned with the health of their customers, and all too willing to employ Jedis working on Madison Avenue to use their powers on the minds of vulnerable little children. (“Broccoli is not what you want to eat! Ice Cream would be much nummier!”)

The author of the article claims that obesity is a major health concern, and I have no problem with that. But I do object to the idea that people in this country are so stupid that they just can’t figure out that eating unhealthy foods will make you unhealthy.

How long will it take before state legislatures combine resources to blackmail the food industry into making a huge payment? I figure about ten years on the outside.

I see the campaign against the tobacco industry, and now the food industry, as an attack on the free market system. Free markets means free choice, which means that individuals have to be allowed to make bad personal choices if that is what they want to do.

I mean, isn’t that the very basis of American society?

Random Thoughts

by

The big war (not the Iraq campaign) isn’t over. We have continuing problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but we’ve suppressed our enemies for a while in most places. However, eventually we are going to have to fight large battles again, because our enemies will eventually attack us in a way that we can’t ignore. I suspect that we are now in a situation like that of Israel, which has never been allowed or willing to defeat its enemies decisively and so has to fight a major campaign every decade or so. We will probably have to keep fighting until we develop the political will to win decisively. This is going to be true no matter who is President or which party is in charge in Washington.

One counterexample to my speculations is Korea, where we have been in a mostly peaceful stalemate for more than fifty years. And there are always conflicts simmering around the world that rarely do us harm. But North Korea is an isolated regime that seems likely to fall apart eventually. Radical Islam is a much more distributed, dynamic, ambitious and aggressive enemy that does not seem likely to stop fighting unless it is defeated. Remember the anecdotes that suggest that the Syrians and Iranian mullahs and Hamas want Obama to win? The usual assumption by Obama critics is that Hamas et al favor Obama because they think he’s one of them. I suggest that they are favoring him because they think he’ll pursue policies that will make it easier for them to defeat us.

In the old days America could walk away from wars, because most of the costs of our walking away would be borne by non-Americans. Technology has removed this security and we should update our sense of security accordingly. Most of us haven’t, or have become complacent, because 9/11 now feels like distant history. But the metaphor of distance is misleading here. We are not physically more distant from threats; advances in technology and in the technological sophistication of our enemies may even make us more vulnerable. Like it or not we are probably going to be at war for many more years, even if it doesn’t feel like war most of the time.

We Don’t Know What’s Going On

by

Last November (2007) conventional wisdom held that the Democrats held a lock on the next presidential election and that Hillary Clinton held a lock on the Democratic nomination. However, by  February  (2008), a mere three months later, Obama came from out of nowhere and seized the lead. By July (2008) Obama had won the Democratic convention and most people seemed assured that he would easily win the general election. Then McCain picked Palin a month later and suddenly McCain stands either tied with Obama or slightly ahead.  

Why didn’t all the thousands of professional political analysts in the media, think tanks, political groups and  academia  predict the impact someone like Palin would have on the election? Why do we keep paying these people or even listening to them?

Face it, for all that we all, amateurs and professionals alike,  pontificate  on politics, none of us really understand what drives elections or can predict how they will turn out. We don’t know what’s going on.  

[Thoughts inspired by this post  via Instapundit]

“The Palin Effect in the Intrade Presidential Election Futures Market”

by

Arthur De Vany:

At the Tools Page on Mathestate.com, Dr. Bob Rimmer analyzes the price data in the elections futures market. It is very sophisticated modeling, using stable distributions to forecast the probability of winning for McCain and for Obama.
 
The raw data show the Palin Effect in the dramatic turn around in the futures prices with McCain trailing for many months and Obama leading. In early September there is a sudden reversal. Politics, like life, is dominated by extreme events which only a heavy tailed distribution can capture. None of the other election models are capable of capturing these extreme events. They are far too static and tame. The polls only partly capture the Palin Effect. It is real and dramatic.

(Via John Lott.)

UPDATE:

black swan

Singing W’s Praises

by

Steve H. is in great form with his latest post. I mostly agree with him. Bush screwed a lot of things up, wouldn’t fire incompetents and can’t communicate worth a damn. But on the main issue of our day he showed vision, courage and resolve at a time when anything less would have been disastrous. I doubt that either Gore, Kerry or Bill Clinton would have done nearly as well, and I suspect that Bush will eventually be seen by Americans in a much more positive light than is currently the case.

UPDATE: Ginny points out Glenn and Helen’s interview with Doug Feith, which is probably worth listening to.

UPDATE 2: A commenter points out The Diplomad’s excellent post on this topic. I read it several days ago, it probably influenced me and I should have credited it.