Thursday, May 31, 2007

Data Mining White Paper

I address in this monograph a number of techniques for those without a great deal of training to engage in some productive methods for mining data -- from Text Mining, through Exploratory Data Analysis, to a focus on the use of Contingency Tables, using some advanced methods of text tagging.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Immigration Puzzle

For years, I have watched the debate on attempts to develop a rational policy to encompass the problem of illegal immigration. Given the proposition that no politician votes for anything unless it meets the test of personal self interest, the proposed Senate proffered legislation would appear to violate this “Natural Law” of political behavior.

That this beleaguered President has been able to achieve, in the face of substantial opposition from legitimate legal citizens of the United States, agreement, uniting congressional forces which are otherwise locked in a political war missing only lethal weapons, is among the most puzzling of societal mysteries.

Far beyond this mystery is the genuine risk to national security, and to an end of an American culture which has evolved over the last quarter millennium. An OpEdNews.com contributor, Donna Poisl, has written a four part Article, titled Everyone will benefit from immigration reform. These writings frankly are very, very scary. Why? Because the naiveté demonstrated by the writer, is the same dangerous naiveté shown by people of goodwill and compassion as they join with special interest groups in advocating what amounts to total amnesty for illegal aliens.

What is even stranger is that the members of the House and the Senate who are trying to push through an Immigration Reform Act, are quite possibly committing political suicide, since the proposed legislation is in total opposition to the electorate. Look at some of the polls collected by FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform, as it mounts the battle against the currently proposed Act.

Here are the results of just one of several polls found on that site:

89% of Americans think illegal immigration into the U.S. is a problem (30% "extremely serious," 33% "very serious," and 26% "somewhat serious." (Time Magazine, Jan. 2006)

82% think that not enough is being done along the borders to keep illegal immigrants from crossing into the country. (Time Magazine, Mar. 2006)

68% feel that the number of immigrants who cross the border, whether legal or illegal is “too high”. (Polling Company, Sept. 2006)

62% oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of America. (Quinnipiac Univ., Feb. 2006)

Leaving aside the Hispanic and special interest groups spearheading the call for amnesty, there appear to be three elements being employed, all irrational and factually unsupported by those who support the Guest Worker element of the act.

1. Finding and deporting illegal aliens cannot be achieved: Poisl quotes George Bush asserting, “… the idea of finding and deporting all illegal immigrants might sound good, but it won't happen,” during a recent Arizona speech. It is unclear whether her personal view is that she agrees with Bush, or that she believes that he has made a personal determination not to enforce the laws of the United States.

As we have seen with the Iraq war, the last thing this President attends to is rational analysis of issues. It is he who has decided that adherence and enforcement of this country’s laws are simply a matter of his personal choice. From his intractable stubbornness in holding to his Iraq war prosecution against all evidence, despite universal advice to the contrary, to his disregard for and manipulation of NSA wiretap law, there is ample proof that this is a President responding only to his own inner voices, regardless of external reality.

2. The Guilt Trip: Poisl asserts, “Most people admit that we are all responsible: whether we hire the workers; buy what they produce; vote for the people who passed the laws that allowed it to get this far or if we didn’t vote at all. And since we are responsible for the problem, we should be responsible and try to fix it.

Sorry! I had nothing to do with allowing any illegal to enter this country, nor have I hired any, nor knowingly purchase any goods or services from any of these people. Nor did I vote for the incompetent President who actively thwarts enforcement of existing law – so please take your ridiculous guilt trip and dump it somewhere else.

3. Integrating illegals will economically benefit the United States: This assertion flies in the face of every economic and security study bearing on the subject, of which I am aware:

“The people who are against this should consider that legalizing these people will benefit the whole country; the military, Social Security, our economy, our future economy, education, even our national security.”

In an article by David Limbaugh, titled, ”The Immigration Debacle,” some estimated real costs of amnesty are projected:

“As reported in the Washington Times, the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector calculates that during their lifetimes, they will likely receive "$2.5 trillion more in government services than they will pay in taxes." Among those benefits are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, public housing, subsidized college education and Social Security Disability Insurance. So those persisting in challenging the amnesty characterization should be reminded that many illegals will be receiving an enormous economic windfall to accompany their anemic wrist-slapping.”

Even if all of the above assertions made by Poisl were, in fact, accurate, the dangers faced by our society override any or all of these justifications. To understand these dangers, we must wade into the thousand page document with which the Senate is wrestling. Title VI: Nonimmigrants in the United States, Previously in Unlawful Status.

In essence, key provisions of this Act allow almost everyone to acquire a “Z-Visa,” which once held gives the holder access to all services offered to a citizen with the sole exception of voting. This short summary makes that provision crystal clear:

· Creates a Z nonimmigrant visa program for illegal aliens and illegal aliens only. No one else is eligible.

· Probationary benefits, including work authorization, protection from removal, and a social security number are granted to illegal aliens immediately, based only on the submission of an application (with fingerprints) and a 24-hour wait on a background check.

· These probationary benefits are not subject to the trigger in Title I of the bill. Z nonimmigrant visas are valid for 4 years and may be renewed indefinitely.

· Numerous criminal provisions are waived for eligibility purposes. No medical exam is needed to get a Z visa.

· There is no English requirement to get a Z visa. A Z nonimmigrant must only demonstrate “an attempt to gain an understanding of the English language” upon the first renewal of a Z visa (i.e. after four years).

· State and local governments are required to assist illegal aliens in providing documentation to support a Z visa application in order to receive state impact assistance money.

· State impact money will be granted to states to provide services for non-citizens (see § 402(b) (p. 156-159)).

· Z nonimmigrants may apply for green cards and become citizens. While they must wait until some existing applications are processed, they are not required to wait in line behind those who have applied for green cards after May 1, 2005. Moreover, they get to live and work in the U.S. while they wait.

Literally, all that stands between the granting of a visa to any terrorist, drug dealer, violent criminal, or homicidal maniac, is a background check which must be completed within 24 hours of receipt of application. Presumably, under these provisions, Osama Bin Laden, could, with little difficulty, become a legal resident of this country, and freely access medical treatment for his various ailments, before he set off to attack on an American City!

The net result of this admissions policy is that of giving complete freedom to roughly six time the number of currently incarcerated violent prisoners currently imprisoned in the United States,

To become an LPR (Legal Permanent Resident), a Z-1 nonimmigrant must pay a $4,000 penalty (Z-2 and Z-3 aliens are only required to pay applicable fees).

Even if we were to somehow find a way of separating and deporting or containing the criminal element of all who will seek the Z-Visa, that does nothing to ameliorate the billions of dollars that has already been spent and will continue to grow in an accelerating spiral, if this legislation passes. A 2004 study by the Heritage Foundation demonstrates some of the governmental programs where expenditures will always exceed revenue from this unskilled and dependent population.

While these expenditures may ultimately be simply too large for most of us to grasp, there are three elements, directly experienced which result from the presence of these unwanted, unneeded, and uninvited additions to our population:

1. Public Education: Once having arrived, immigrants either bring existing or form new families. Inevitably, their progeny adds overwhelming numbers to the existing school infrastructure. Unlike previous immigrant populations, these children have little motivation to learn, are disruptive, and most importantly seek to require the schools to provide instruction in their native (predominantly Spanish) language, rather than being motivated to rapidly acquire skills in English. Resulting in overcrowded classrooms, the need for multilingual faculty, disruptive and aggressive behavior, the results for those students for whom the process was intended are nothing but bad.

2. Health Care: The next time you are stuck for hours waiting for emergency medical services, or the next time you find your medical insurance premiums have become more costly, you know who you have to blame. All over the country, emergency rooms are closing, medical practice is deteriorating and costs are rising – due largely to the uninsured illegal who demands free medical services.

I started these thoughts with a mystery – the presence of congressional willingness to, rather than attempt to limit the damage caused by the flood of illegal immigrants, become willing participants in increasing the damage they cause. While most may be greedy, power hungry, and self serving, the majority are far from stupid people. With a constituency dead set against the provisions of this bill, a President who has lost almost all support, there remains only the advocacy of corporate America to motivate passage.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

November, 2006 was a time of celebration and high hopes. The newly elected Democratic majority would soon wrest control of a hated war from the sole control of a megalomaniacal President, and begin the process of returning our courageous military to their families and loved ones. Beyond the progressive thinking of Congress the country could expect a field of presidential candidates, any of whom could be counted on to bring the dawn of new hope to despondent America.

That was then. Today, the country remains mired in a war showing no signs of progress, and in fact has become even more deadly. Not only has the surge failed to end the violence, the current deployment has increased the casualty rate for our soldiers and marines. While the visible death and injury rate continues to grow, while the once relatively safe Green Zone is now subject to almost daily shelling, it seems far too optimistic to expect that the President will give even the most passing thought to the terrible psychological damage suffered by repeated deployments to the combat zone. A recent MSNBC article sheds the light of day on Athis dark problem:

“While much of the attention has been on physical wounds like traumatic brain injuries, as well as squalid living conditions for recovering soldiers, doctors, families and lawmakers are expressing growing concerns that veterans are not be getting the right mental health help.

“Those worries come as President George W. Bush has ordered almost 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Already 1.5 million soldiers have been deployed in the U.S.-led war on terrorism, with one-third serving at least two combat tours, which increases the chances of PTSD.

“The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates 12 percent to 20 percent of those who served in Iraq suffer from PTSD. A 2004 Army study found 16.6 percent of those returning from combat tested positive for the disorder.

“Individuals suffer from PTSD if they relive the trauma, experience emotional numbness, isolation, depression, substance abuse, and memory problems. These often lead to job instability and marital troubles."

The July/August 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs makes clear the extent to which the Iraq war has decimated the ability of the United States Military to maintain, let alone expand its war fighting manpower resources.

"The U.S. military suffers from a glaring manpower deficiency. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated that in operations such as counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, stabilization, and peacekeeping, even the United States' impressive technology cannot substitute for soldiers. As Kagan observes, only soldiers possess the requisite combination of brainpower and weaponry to "mix with an enemy's population, identify the combatants intermingled with that population, and accomplish the critical tasks of governance and reorganization that are so essential in persuading an enemy government to surrender."

The Bush administration, however, does not share this assessment, as evidenced by its handling of the invasion of Iraq. Before the war, Rumsfeld was dismissive, even contemptuous, of warnings from senior U.S. military officials, such as former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, that securing Iraq would require a vast number of boots on the ground. The secretary and his allies contended that the war and the occupation could be managed with a relatively light and short troop deployment. This belief reflected the strategic theory underpinning Rumsfeld's military-transformation agenda, which prioritizes long-range airpower and the development of ever more technologically sophisticated equipment and weaponry over expanded ground forces."

And so the war rages on. Congress talks and talks and talks, passes legislation aimed at starting withdrawal, while the President scolds, and ignores. Meanwhile the slate of Democratic presidential candidates universally decries the continuation of the war. Yet none offer a plan for ending the actions of a President run amok. Instead we here vague references to “phased withdrawal,” and “benchmarks,” as though either of these concepts will be implemented during the remainder of Bush’s term.

I have yet to hear a single candidate, Democrat or Republican, present an action plan for addressing the war. By “action plan,” I mean something more substantive than John McCain’s lemming-like fantasy of adding more non-existent warriors to achieve what even he acknowledges, is, at best, a hoped for, “Victory.”

When the pejorative, “Surrender Monkeys,” issues from an O’Reilly, Hannity, or Beck, most will simply discard such primitive name calling as the drooling product of the low end of the spectrum of knuckle-draggers. Yet, when carefully considered it seems quite appropriate as a description of our elected leaders – bereft of solutions, and lacking the courage to implement, even when they are clearly available.

Can there be any among us that can make a single argument on behalf of retaining Alberto Gonzalez as the Attorney General of the United States? Are there any who find reasonable doubt in the assertion that he has violated the sacred trust that he shall protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, prosecuting lawbreakers, while protecting citizens from the excesses of an unfettered government? Daily, new evidence of his criminality, dishonesty, and incompetence is piled higher and higher for all to see.

An argument can be made explaining the failure to find solutions to the problem of a chaotic, confused and disorganized Middle East Region. The consequences are serious, options limited, and resources, few. Yet the same cannot be said for the continuing criminality of Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez and Rove. The solution is clear. Removal from office is the only way we can rid ourselves of those who have either forgotten or never knew of their responsibility and accountability to those who elected them.

The process for removal is available now. But it takes moving from talk to action. It takes courage to take the lead, or just simple agreement to act in a way that potential political consequences; it take placing the good of the country in place of self-interest.

In short, it takes Leadership. Between now and the primaries, and the 2008 election, we all will have the opportunity to find who will lead, and who not.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Atheists, take heart!

Perhaps it is the difference between theoretical and applied science, but one gets the sense that a far greater preponderance of astrophysicists, or mathematicians remain advocates of theist positions than, let’s say the biologist, or statistician. Perhaps if true, the difference rests with the expectation that the applied scientist will develop something of value, while the pure theoretician, in the end is accountable to the acceptance or rejection of his peers. I for one, have an aging brain which finds it impossible to make much, if any, sense out of this singularity, stringy, banging universe stuff, in which the students of the universe apparently find so much pleasure conjuring up. While it all sounds very intriguing, I am completely unable to remotely relate it to anything in my daily life.

Assume (please, only momentarily) that "God," whatever it is, exists. Now, what do I do with it? Unlike electricity, gravity, or even a pet goldfish, its behavior is totally unpredictable. We can predict with varying accuracy the occurrence and location of such natural phenomena as pandemics, tornadoes, floods, blizzards, and earthquakes. All can, and do, have terrible consequences for real people, yet with all of our technology, the best we can do is to warn of their occurrence, marginally mitigate their results through varying levels of preparation, and clean up after they occur.

Just recently astronomers have celebrated the existence of a potential "Goldilocks" planet. That it it may be capable of supporting life is indeed interesting, but again, so what? We aren't going there anytime soon, its potential inhabitants not soon likely to pay us a visit, nor even chat with us. We have no way to make any use of our knowledge of its existence.

If, by some unlikely chance, Dr, Paul Tipler, a much maligned author of (allegedly terribly boring and useless) physics textbooks has got it completely right when he asserts, “Sorry Atheists, God has been Scientifically Proven,” his complete disregard for Occam’s Razor, and Marketing 101, dictate that his shining pearls of wisdom will remain forever, unused.

Recall the frequently used adage, “Observations are gold; hypotheses, silver; and conclusions, bronze.” When it comes to discussing the theoretical construct that theists have labeled, “God,” I see a whole bunch of differing and frequently contradictory conclusions, no discernable, testable hypothesis(es), and surely not a single repeatable, verifiable observation.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

This Is Your Brain Online, How Video Games, Multitasking And Blogging Are Shaping The GenTech Brain - CBS News

A CBS News discussion of the impact of online multi-tasking on teen brain development

This Is Your Brain Online, How Video Games, Multitasking And Blogging Are Shaping The GenTech Brain - CBS News

Military Recruiting - A Seduction of the Innocent

In a recent article, Titled, Lying and Dying, Missy Comley Beattie suggests that if only military recruiters would fully disclose the lies perpetrated by the Bush Administration, potential recruits would make far more informed decisions, resulting in far fewer additions to the combat forces.

This writer holds a quite different view than does Ms. Beattie. There are a number of problems with her proposed solution, making its implementation a forlorn fantasy, impossible to achieve.

Army recruiters are first and foremost, true believers. They are career NCOs (Non-Commissioned Officers), all with a minimum rank of Sergeant First Class. Invariably they have had several combat deployments. Whatever political opinions they may hold, any public policy criticism is certain career ending behavior (perhaps only running a close second to having a relationship with one’s Commanding Officer’s underage daughter!)

Whatever criticism one may have of military effectiveness, efficiency, or intelligence, there is one thing the Department of Defense does exceedingly well. It operates a marketing/public relations machine that might well engender the envy of any private sector company.

Beyond TV ads advertising the “opportunities” offered by the Army, special appearances by combat veterans are designed to motivate and co-opt the interest of potential recruits As one example, the “Why I Serve” program is a careful appeal to the protection of personal family, and the camaraderie of one’s military family. The comments of one of the participants leaves no question as to the focus of this program.

“’My biggest reason for serving is my family,’ said MacDonald, a combat medic who returned in 2006 from a deployment to Iraq. ‘I looked at my family, and I realized that I want them and their way of life to be protected,’ he said. ‘And one of the only ways to do that is to go overseas and take the fight to the enemy who are perfectly willing to come here and kill themselves just to kill an American. … It requires some sacrifice, but I am willing to do that.’”

America’s Army provides a sanitized view of combat that offers the immature the ultimate pain–free virtual opportunity to “kill people and break things.”

“’America’s Army,’ offers a range of games that kids can download or play online. Although the games are violent, with plenty of opportunities to shoot and blow things up, they avoid graphic images of death or other ugliness of war, offering instead a sanitized, Tom Clancy version of fantasy combat.”

In the end, it is not the PR, not the advertising, not the computer games. nor any of the other varied recruiting techniques employed by the Defense Department.

Rather, it is the gullible readiness of the targeted group – young adult men and women – to uncritically accept all of the promised opportunities as accurate and truthful, while rejecting the more probable threats to health, and life itself.

Regardless of the portrait painted by recruiters, can potential recruits be so unaware of the increased deployment time, and the ugly conditions that exist in a combat situation? Even were recruiters to disclose all of the ugly lies, misrepresentations, and distortions engaged in by Bush, Cheney, et al, would this information dissuade those who choose this career?

The answer would seem to be that the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” would have little effect on the number added to the military each year. This view is readily understood after reading this description of adolescent risk taking:

“The socioemotional system, which processes social and emotional information, becomes very active during puberty allowing adolescents to become more easily aroused and experience more intense emotion, and to become more sensitive to social influence. Conversely, says Steinberg, the cognitive-control system is the part of the brain that regulates behavior and makes the ultimate decisions, but is still maturing during adolescence and into a person's mid-20s at least.”

The ideal recruitment target can be typically described as an adolescent male endeavoring to satisfy his ever present need for thrill-seeking, risk-taking, adrenaline producing behavior. Military service additionally provides both peer and adult community approval and support. Coupled with a frequent lack of a respected male role to help guide and place limits on impulsive, self-destructive behavior, the successfully recruited trainee resembles nothing so closely as the “groomed target” of the sexual predator.

For those who may find the above to be an insult to the courage, commitment and driving sense of duty to country and comrades alike, be assured it does not. Rather, it is a critique of the essential slavery under which the military “volunteer” is placed once having accepted employment as a member of the United States Military. He must go where sent, do anything assigned, accept any environment, allow himself to be placed in harm’s way, with no option to withdraw from such assignments until his employers allow it. In fact, even after having left active duty, as a member of the military reserve, he can be recalled at the whim of the Federal Government.

For those who choose to perform their civic duty as first responders to natural disasters, through membership in their state National Guard, they can be Federalized, placed in an active combat environment, and ripped from their homes, jobs, and families for whatever period of time the government deems necessary.

The soldier relinquishes his Constitutional rights during his service with the military, under the draconian provisions of the United States Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Here are a couple of items, illustrative of the surrender of personal rights to which all member of the military must acquiesce. These behaviors, engaged in by a civilian, at worst case, might result in loss of employment. However, under military law each can result in imprisonment:

Article 86—Absence without leave

“Any member of the armed forces who, without authority— (1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed; (2) goes from that place; or (3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Depending on the duration of the absence, maximum punishment can include forfeiture of all pay and benefits, Dishonorable Discharge, and most importantly, up to 18 months in a Federal Prison!

Article 89—Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer

“Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

This behavior is defined by the following behaviors: 1) That the accused did or omitted certain acts or used certain language to or concerning a certain commissioned officer; (2) That such behavior or language was directed toward that officer; (3) That the officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or words were directed was the superior commissioned officer of the accused; (4) That the accused then knew that the commissioned officer toward whom the acts, omissions, or words were directed was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and (5) That, under the circumstances, the behavior or language was disrespectful to that commissioned officer. Maximum punishment can include: Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

This is neither an argument for nor against the provisions of UCMJ. Rather the failure of the recruitment process to inform potential trainees of all of the negatives, potentially consequential to signing a largely inescapable commitment to a dangerous and inflexible employer, appears to this writer to be an egregious breach of a most fundamental ethical concept applied to the citizen vis-à-vis his government. That concept is that of informed consent, to employment or circumstances putting the individual in danger, at economic risk, of unknown duration, etc.

Quite frankly, the nuances of why we are fighting which enemy pale before this deliberate “Seduction of the Innocent,” achieved through planful omission of risks and costs associated with military membership, vs. the offered benefits dangled before wide-eyed, willing victims.

Sunday, May 6, 2007

It's in the brain

My thoughts about how the findings of neuroscience affect our political preferences and affiliations.

It's All in the brain

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Whose War was it?

An interesting take on whether Bush had the authority to actually engage in the Iraq war, or for that matter whether the troops actually "belong" to him.