On the limits of economic analysis in occupation policy evaluation
On the excellent "Nation Building" site, Aziz Poonawalla points to a post by economist and "Freakonomics" author Steven Levitt discussing MIT economist Michael Greenstone's analysis of Bush's so-called "surge" in Iraq ("Is the 'Surge' Working? Some New Facts," 9/14/07, Dept. of Economics working paper).

Levitt and Poonawalla rightly praise Greenstone's efforts to carefully analyze the "surge" using the data at his disposal. To Levitt, the most interesting part is Greenstone's analysis of bond markets, which indicate waning investor confidence in Iraq's future as a political entity. Greenstone says his findings suggest that "to date, the Surge is failing to pave the way toward a stable Iraq and may in fact be undermining it." But Levitt leads with more upbeat news:

On at least one dimension, there is strong evidence of progress. The data clearly suggest that deaths of civilians in Baghdad have fallen...*

In Greenstone's words:

...Specifically, the upward trend in fatalities in the pre-period is evident. Most notably, there is a sharp downward break in trend after the initiation of the Surge. The figure provides compelling evidence of a decline in civilian fatalities after the Surge’s initiation.

Overall, the civilian fatality results demonstrate that the Surge is associated with an important decline in civilian fatalities.¹¹ It is certainly possible that some of these results are due to the reported increases in migration out of Baghdad and Iraq more generally, but the sharpness of the results makes it unlikely that that this is the entire story. In many respects, this result confirms the popular theory of domestic policing that putting more cops on the beat reduces the crime rate.

Strictly speaking, there aren't any false sentences in this excerpt. The data at least arguably show a "sharp" decline; it happened around the time of the "Surge"; some other stuff happened, too, but the author doesn't think it explains the sharp decline; this reminds one of community policing. The question is, how much significance to attach to the "sharpness of the results," how much to "other stuff", and whether all the "other stuff" is accounted for.

The rabbit I'll pull out of the hat now will be familiar to those who've recently read this blog: "Progress is just another word for nothing left to kill" (9/14/07). Follow the link or scroll down; by comparing maps provided under oath** to Congress by General Jones and General Betray Us pardon me, Petraeus, it was plain that the latter's presentation concealed a very significant fact in the Baghdad story: the progress of ethnic cleansing and separation in Baghdad neighborhoods. While it's not definitive, it certainly suggests that an alternative explanation for the bulk of the decline in civilian casualties in Baghdad was simply that there were fewer and fewer neighborhoods that "needed" sectarian scaring and cleansing.

What about that sharp decline? First off, looking at the figure (#3, for all of Iraq), it doesn't look all that sharp to me. More importantly, Greenstone's methodology seems designed to capture a pre-post treatment effect -- that is, it rather assumes what it sets out to demonstrate. You could probably fit all kinds of other curves to the data -- for example, ones based on models that factor in the number of Iraqis with bull's eyes on their backs: that is, those still living in ethnically mixed neighborhoods or on the borders of segregated neighborhoods.

But leave that aside, and stipulate there was some kind of sharp "change in trend" in casualties. coinciding with the "surge." Well: so what? No one ever suggested that dropping thousands of additional U.S. troops in Baghdad and around the country wouldn't have some effect. Take some smooth curve over time, subtract some constant from it after time "S", and the course of that trend line will reflect a sudden change -- whether or not the actual amount subtracted by the surge per se is a significant part of the story.

There'll always be another factor to consider, and I couldn't have done what Greenstone did even without factoring in Baghdad or Iraqi sectarian geography. To repeat, Greenstone doesn't say anything factually wrong in the above. I just think he oversells the significance of his casualty data observations. They're consistent with a "surge" effect -- but they don't require it, and Greenstone may overestimate it given other factors.

Levitt's post, on the other hand, is titled "Is the Surge Working? Ask the Data, Not the Politicians." And that actually is wrong.

I know what he meant: look at the facts, don't listen to bloviations from Capitol Hill. But as the above discussion seeks to demonstrate, facts are funny things, and new ones come along all the time. Deciding which facts about an issue like Iraq are important and which ones aren't is more than half the battle -- and even a well spoken, thorough economist may not make the right choices. That's actually what I elect politicians for -- with indifferent success, to be sure.

Fundamentally, any worthwhile analysis would have to consult the data and the politicians -- particularly the ones living in the middle of the data. The point of the 'surge' was ostensibly to quickly provide some time for Iraqi politicians to achieve some stability, come to some agreements, settle differences. The fact that all of them left town in August instead was the plainest indication possible that the surge was having, if anything, the opposite political effect to the one intended.

And that might be about all the analysis you really needed about the "surge."



=====
* I've shortened the quote in order to focus on the first part of it. The rest of the quote is "..., and there is no evidence that the crackdown in Baghdad has shifted violence to the rest of the country." I have no opinion on that at this time.
** I mention this because of that pesky "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" phrase. Jones provided the accurate maps of Baghdad ethnic composition, Petraeus did not, resulting in a significantly misleading account of the 'surge' -- or escalation, to call it by name rather than euphemism. posted by Thomas Nephew at 3:37:00 PM -- |    

 
Act now! Reduce your influence by 67%!!!
I've been getting a bunch of e-mails from the DCCC asking for money. No objection to them asking, and I like to see what they're up to. The pitch lately is that if you give some money, someone else pledges to as well. And check out who's doing the matching:

If Democrats show more strength than Republicans before midnight this Sunday, it will mean more Republican retirements, more rejection of their disastrous war, and less money to change the subject with their campaign of lies and attacks.

Now is the time to make the difference -- but there's only 48 hours left. If you contribute by Sunday night's FEC deadline, your gift will be tripled by House Democrats.

Help House Democrats slam the door on the Bush/Cheney era by contributing $50, $75 or more

So let's say the DCCC was a million dollars short of where they want to be. And let's "sweeten" that deal to where if you give a dollar, House Democrats give not $2, but $10. And let's imagine that 4545 of us give $20 ($90900), so House Dems give $909,000, and throw in the rest because what's a hundred bucks between friends.

Now, who gets the big thank you note from the DCCC? Who do they really want to hear from when it comes to charting the course of the Democratic Party? You and me... or their House Democrat buddies? And if those buddies love the Democratic Party so much and have all this cash lying around, where'd it come from, and why don't they just fork it over?

Contrast this with the Democratic National Committee's "Grassroots Donor Match" before the 2006 election, where I was the matching donor, up to the level of my choice, and you start to see the difference: the DNC gained my approval of its political agenda (kick Bush's butt, grow my Democratic party) and organizing agenda (50 State Strategy), and I contributed to get other people to join in. The DCCC mainly wants my money, it seems -- though a "lucky" five donors to the latest pitch will get to talk shop with Paul Begala -- and assumes I won't notice where the thank you notes will really be headed.

There are plenty of ways to give to the Democrats you like and build the Democratic Party you want, ranging from DNC Democracy Bonds, to ActBlue, to Progressive Patriots, to Progressive Democrats of America, to Democracy for America, etc. This isn't one of them, it seems to me.

But it could always be worse: "If you contribute by Sunday night's FEC deadline, your gift will be tripled by a consortium of Hollywood stars, K Street lobbyists, insurance PACS, and assorted other outfits with your very best interests at heart." Oh, wait. posted by Thomas Nephew at 5:45:00 PM -- |    

 
State by state costs of the Iraq war
For Maryland, the current budget request will bring the total to $11.8 billion dollars since the beginning of the war; call it about $3 billion dollars a year.

This at a time when Maryland legislators are about to do grim battle over how to close a $1.5 billion dollar shortfall -- social service spending cuts? tax increases? slot machines? bake sales?

Via the Center for American Progress:

The Bush administration [submitted] a request for an additional $42.3 billion in war-related funding to Congress today. This is on top of the extra funding already allocated to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year, which means that they are, in effect, requesting a supplemental for the supplemental.

The additional funds will bring the total amount of 2008 supplemental funding to $189.3 billion—a nearly 30 percent increase over the $142 billion that was requested in February of this year. The overwhelming majority—approximately $158 billion—will go to funding the war in Iraq. If approved, the total spending for the Iraq war would total $617 billion.

The National Priorities Project today released new calculations showing just what effect this surge in spending has had on taxpayers in each state. The interactive map below displays this data and shows state-by-state how much taxpayers have already spent, how much more they will likely spend this year, and what their total cost will be.

Follow the link to find the totals for your state.

Sure, state and federal budgets are separate accounts, and savings from ending the Iraq war wouldn't suddenly turn up in Annapolis. But the fight over a comparatively few measly bucks for SCHIP illustrates that even helping kids get well (instead of killing them) isn't a reliable winner in Bush and Cheney's Washington, D.C.

Add to that the valuable programs -- health, environment, law enforcement, education, -- that are low-balled or not even proposed at the federal level, and the connection is clearer: unmet needs are being left to states and communities, who are struggling to make ends meet as it is. In an interview with a Vermont blogger Philip Baruth ("Vermont Daily Briefing"), Senator Patrick Leahy puts it this way:

These blank checks are a terrible mistake. Especially when we’re told we have to cut out the COPS [Community Policing] program here at home in the United States, because we don’t have the money — it has to go to the Iraqi police, so they can kill each other. We don’t have the money for school loans — we’re going to put it into an educational system over there where they’re shooting the teachers.

My whole point is that we’re told we don’t have the money for child healthcare, we don’t have the money for cancer research, because we need it for Iraq. And what do we get? We get open-ended appropriations to companies like Haliburton and others, and they do very, very well. We’re basically told, Trust us.

All for a lie, and for a president's, a party's, and an establishment's need to avoid admitting what a catastrophic mistake they've led the country into. posted by Thomas Nephew at 7:32:00 PM -- |    

 
Cool stuff on the Internet

Web Trendmap 2007 -- The developers describe it as "the 200 most successful websites on the web, ordered by category, proximity, success, popularity and perspective." It's laid out like a subway map, with weather reports for the major sites. Jeff Jarvis and Michelle Malkin are on the map, too, but inexplicably, Talking Points Memo and "newsrack blog" are not.

The Vertical Farm Project -- "By the year 2050...

...nearly 80% of the earth's population will reside in urban centers. Applying the most conservative estimates to current demographic trends, the human population will increase by about 3 billion people during the interim. An estimated 109 hectares of new land (about 20% more land than is represented by the country of Brazil) will be needed to grow enough food to feed them, if traditional farming practices continue as they are practiced today. At present, throughout the world, over 80% of the land that is suitable for raising crops is in use (sources: FAO and NASA). Historically, some 15% of that has been laid waste by poor management practices. What can be done to avoid this impending disaster?"

These guys say skyscraper greenhouses, that's what. And whether or not you're convinced by their arguments -- year-round growing, less energy spent getting produce to market, reducing agricultural runoff -- there are some really cool architectural and urban planning design drawings straight off the cover of Astounding Science Fiction that make me hope it pans out. I assume they've got a handle on the key "plants really need a lot of light," "moving tons of water straight up," and "who'll pay for it" issues.

Edward Hopper at the National Gallery of Art -- In addition to being about the painter of some of the classics of American art -- Nighthawks, Chop Suey, Light at Two Lights-- this is a nice web site in its own right, featuring what seems to be the same film (narrated by Steve Martin) that is screened at the exhibition, as well as a very well done online tour of Hopper's work. The physical exhibition runs through January 21 of next year.

Clock widgets brought to you by Poodwaddle.com show stuff like world population and remaining oil reserves; sources are provided on a second page.

WorldChanging --- "Tools, Models, and Ideas for Building a Bright Green Future." Interesting site; tabs include Stuff, Shelter, Cities, Community, Business, Politics, and Planet. That pretty much covers it.

Farecast.com --- Via Ian Ayres, occasional "Balkinization" blogger:

Do you ever wonder if you could save money on airfare by buying today or waiting a day or two for a price drop? We predict where fares are going and show where they've been—now for more than 75 home airports (indicated in green within the search form).

=====
UPDATE, 9/26: CNN "Business 2.0"'s Hillary Woolley covers vertical farming; proponent Dickson Despommieres claims an $84M skyscraper-style farm could clear $13M per year in New York City, based on deli produce prices and demand.
UPDATE, 10/1: I took the clock widget down; I think it was slowing down the site too much. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
A town hall meeting on Capitol Hill

[crossposted in adapted form from Takoma Park Impeach Bush and Cheney]

On the morning of Thursday, September 20, over two dozen impeachment supporters from Takoma Park, Garrett Park, and elsewhere in Maryland's 8th Congressional District crowded into a meeting room in Longworth House Office Building for a wide ranging discussion with Rep. Chris Van Hollen.

State Senator and constitutional expert Jamie Raskin and Takoma Park Mayor Kathy Porter were among the delegates, who also included Lisa Moscatiello, Thomas Nephew, and Hank Prensky from Takoma Park, Warren Kornberg and Jim Agenbroad from Garrett Park, and Alan McConnell from Silver Spring, to name but a few.

Rep. Van Hollen was presented with a folder containing the Takoma Park City Council impeachment resolution, a list of signatories for the Garrett Park referendum, the agenda and attendance list for the meeting, prepared statements by several of the delegates, books on impeachment by Elizabeth Holtzman and John Conyers and his Judiciary Committee staff -- and, in a small gesture he appreciated, a small box of "Impeachmints" candy bought at "Now and Then."

What came next was basically a town hall meeting on Capitol Hill. In prepared statements by Lisa Moscatiello and others, as well as in frank give and take, we told Rep. Van Hollen that impeachment must be tried and can succeed. While we regret he doesn't agree with us (yet!) we’re encouraged by the fact that he really listened to us at length -- the meeting was scheduled to last just half an hour, but went to nearly twice as long -- and that he promised continued dialogue with us about this issue.

Van Hollen said he agreed on the merits of the issues Lisa and others raised such as torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detentions, but felt that between the courts and congressional oversight, these issues were being addressed. He didn't agree that Congress had been "silenced," and argued that a failed, "botched" impeachment attempt would be worse than none at all. He thinks that impeachment might not get a majority in the House at this time -- although he did say it could get a majority of Democrats.

The congressman – who is head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – observed that by January the primaries would be underway. Warning about the effect on the elections, he asserted that the political benefit was questionable – impeachment appeals to the base, but not the general electorate.

"A single throw of the dice"
None of that went unchallenged, to put it mildly. Warren Kornberg asked “we wonder if you see what you’re staking on a single throw of the dice—on the outcome of the next election.” Regarding Van Hollen’s seeking “the best possibility of advancing our agenda," I said Van Hollen's bedrock obligation wasn't to pass legislation, but was “in your oath of office: to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.” In a tense exchange, Hank Prensky asked whether Van Hollen was waiting for more co-sponsors to H.Res.333, Kucinich's bill calling for Cheney's impeachment; Van Hollen replied that he resented that. Garrett Park's David Haley said he'd left the Republican Party and voted for Van Hollen, but that independent voters like him would react if they see Congress has let Bush run off with the Constitution.

It was an extraordinary meeting, in my opinion. If he didn't know it before, Representative Van Hollen knows now that he's got some serious disagreement with his position on impeachment. The full texts of the joint statement and prepared statements delivered at the meeting are on the Takoma Park and Maryland 8^th CD Impeach Bush Cheney web sites. For now, have a look at this excerpt from a recent article by John Nichols in The Nation:

The unfortunate reality of the moment is that a Democratic Congress that was elected to restore a measure of balance to the federal stage has responded to necessity with caution. But that does not change the eternal reality of the Republic, which is that this "opposition" Congress has a simple, basic, yet essential Constitutional duty. Members of the House and Senate must impeach and try a president who is assaulting the most basic precepts of the American experiment. Anything less is a mockery of the document they swear an oath to defend – and an invitation to this and future presidents to further unchain the dogs of war that the founders struggled so mightily to contain.

Tipping Point
In her remarks to Congressman Van Hollen, Mayor Porter said the impeachment movement was one of the biggest grassroots movements she's witnessed in Takoma Park. And it’s spreading: Garrett Park residents have taken up the cause, forcing a referendum on the issue in upcoming city elections. The Montgomery County Council may consider a similar resolution as well.

I think there will be a tipping point for Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic leadership, and all of Congress, and I think we helped push things a little closer to that on Thursday.

Mr. Van Hollen's rosy view of this Congress's ability to check Bush and Cheney is difficult to accept. The shameful "Protect America Act" cave-in on FISA in August actually has us going backwards on one of the key issues Bush deserves impeachment for. And just this week, Congress proved more willing to censure a grassroots organization for exercising free speech about a disastrous war than it has been to punish the President and Vice President who deceived this country about that war in the first place.

Still, I think we can succeed if each of us takes some time right now to call Rep. Van Hollen at 202-225-5341, or your own Congressperson at 202-224-3121. Then call him or her again early next week, and again and again and again in the weeks ahead.

Urgethem to honor their oaths of office by supporting the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Urge them to start by co-sponsoring H.Res 333, the resolution calling for Dick Cheney's impeachment.


=====
EDIT, 9/24: I stop referring to myself in the third person re my "oath of office" statement. posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:26:00 AM -- |