Hurricane Irene Brings Floods

A weakening-but-dangerous Hurricane Irene tore through southwestern Connecticut Sunday morning, dumping between five and six inches of rain in an area that had already been saturated by previous storms. The highest winds arrived at almost the same time as high tide, which had already been exacerbated by the new moon. The counterclockwise motion of the storm shoved water into Long Island Sound, compounding the problems.

Mandatory evacuations were ordered for beachfront properties in Fairfield, Conn., where several houses collapsed as flood waters crested. Since I live only shortly further inland along the banks of Ash Creek, I checked the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain maps for our area the night before the hurricane.

The garden in my backyard was within the 100-year flood zone, as was the end of the street, which terminates in a construction area for the new Metro North train station. These sections, as you can see in the video below, ended up under water.

Our house, fortunately, was sufficiently high up on the slope to avoid inundation.

Parsing the Paranormal Debate

UFO? Photo by Håkan Dahlström under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

The Connecticut Post published a front-page article on Aug. 13 about a local paranormal research group’s activities. After it appeared, an exchange ensued through the newspaper’s opinion section, with skeptics decrying the article and true believers insinuating that the skeptics were close-minded.

Seeing that the vitriol wasn’t subsiding, I jumped into the fray. The Post published my letter, which follows, on Aug. 23:

Unlike some of the skeptical commenters who appeared in the You Said It section throughout last week, I wasn't offended that the Connecticut Post published a front-page article about the Orange-based paranormal group Smoking Gun Research Agency (SGRA).

Regardless of my own skepticism regarding the paranormal, the local nature of the group and its growing popularity within the community make it a newsworthy subject.

The piece was disappointing in one major way, though: it failed to examine the standard of "evidence" for some of the SGRA's claims.

However professional-sounding it may be, the SGRA uses long-debunked pseudo-scientific tools and methods in its investigations. It also employs psychics, not one of whom has ever been able to demonstrate any ability that a well-trained magician or mentalist couldn't perform.

The SGRA's staff members "screen all material" before adding it to their library, according to the article. Yet SGRA's online library includes a title on global conspiracy by David Icke, who famously proposed that a race of shape-shifting "reptoids" from the constellation Draco were secretly controlling human civilization by posing as world leaders.

The evidence for most paranormal phenomena is scant at best. Nevertheless, I do think that paranormal research is important, as long the work is rigorous and scientific.

An open mind accepts new evidence -- after critical scrutiny. The SGRA's bar is apparently much lower than that.

Tips on Arguing: Decorative Statistics

At the end of 2008, National Public Radio commentator Frank Deford railed against a growing trend among sports aficionados that he found downright annoying.

“It's getting harder for the statistics freaks in all sports to dream up anything original,” he said. “And so I began to notice that a whole new category of stupid records was now being created.”

Deford went on to list some of the most convoluted stats he had come across, such as the following:

“’He's the only pitcher in’ - get this – ‘the last 4,113 to debut with 10 strikeouts and no walks.’”

Whoever came up with the above statistic had to work hard to make it sound impressive. And it might be effective for the casual observer, who is likely to see the words “only pitcher” followed by a large number and assume that this “record” is significant.

But look a little more carefully, and the emptiness behind the number becomes apparent.

The most glaring problem here is the seemingly arbitrary range of 4,113 pitchers. This pitcher’s record would be meaningful, if, say, it was the first time it had ever happened. That’s apparently not the case, or else the author of the statistic would have said so. Chances are that the reason the statistician picked 4,113 as a starting point is that pitcher number 4,114 had the exact same record (or better).

It turns out that 4,113 isn’t even a big number when put into context. The website MLB.com lists over 1,100 current pitchers in Major League Baseball alone – never mind the other leagues. Granted, not every one gets replaced every season. Still, it only takes a decade at most to see 4,113 new pitchers.

That’s the nature of all decorative statistics: they’re relatively mundane numbers that are tweaked to look more impressive.

Decorative statistics are rife in the sports world, but they can be found in other arenas as well.

Take movies. The 2009 film Avatar was heralded as the highest grossing movie of all time, at approximately $761 million in domestic sales, according to Boxofficemojo.com.

It is the highest, until you adjust for inflation. Measured in today’s dollars, Gone with the Wind weighs in at over $1.6 billion in domestic sales, blowing those Na’vi out of the water. Avatar doesn’t even make the top ten.

Senators Make Headway by Talking Across the Aisle

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Photograph by Medill DC.

Discussions in Congress generally take on one of three forms. The most common is the individual monologue. Another tactic is the choreographed “conversation” between two or more members of the same political faction. This gives the illusion of a dialog, while promoting a single point of view.

The rarest form of discussion, though, is my favorite. In it, politicians of differing political stripes talk to one another and try to find their commonalities. I particularly enjoy it because it forces both sides to be more rational and honest.

There were two instances of this third kind of exchange in the last weekend of July, when the nation appeared to be on the edge of default, that stuck with me. On July 30, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) gave a detailed presentation, replete with charts, on the way that governmental structure contributes to the deficit. He said he'd found multiple savings through common sense, including increasing electronic services to reduce the amount of paper printed by the federal government. He was particularly incensed that the bills proposed by Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were both equally disingenuous, because they were calling a reduction of the overall increase in spending “cuts.”

“We have all these programs that are broke, and we have a discussion about the debt ceiling, but we are not talking about what is the real problem,” he said.

“What are the problems?” Coburn continued. We have 100 different programs with 100 sets of bureaucracies for surface transportation alone. Why do we do that? Why have we not fixed it? That is a question the American people ought to be asking.”

A moment later, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) asked if Coburn would “yield for a question.” He agreed with Conrad about the inefficiency of governmental structure, and then pointed out that Coburn himself had been a member of the “Gang of Six” senators who had developed a bipartisan fiscal strategy in the form of a “grand bargain.”

Kerry asked Coburn “if it is not fair and accurate to say that the so-called Gang of Six...came together with an understanding that we needed balance in the approach to satisfy both sides and build a critical mass. That balance requires cuts. We have to put the big items – big ticket items on the table, and that means Social Security, reforming it for the long term; Medicare and Medicaid, which are unsustainable on their current paths; defense, where we have to find a handle on some of the procurement and expenditures. The Senator [Coburn] has joined in this. We have to close some tax loopholes and have tax reform and find some level of revenue at an appropriate ratio that allows us to fix this. That is where the problem has been. There is a group of folks in the House who have insisted no revenue at all.”

“Quite frankly,” Coburn responded, “I am willing to work with my colleagues. I have been out there. I said we have to move and eliminate some of these loopholes; we have to reform the tax code. I am willing to take heat from my side on that.”

“What I am not willing to take anymore is a Senate that will not work on the details of the specific problems,” he said. “What I am trying to do is outline where the problems are.”

Coburn explained that he didn't consider Washington's fiscal troubles a partisan problem. “Our deal is that we don't have the courage to actually make the cuts listed in here. We don't have the courage to eliminate the waste, and we don't have the courage to eliminate the duplication. Why? Because every one of these programs has a political backing. We are politicians. Unfortunately, too often, we are that instead of statesmen. It is time for us - both sides - to lead this country, to lead the country in a vision of here is the real truth of our problem.”

“We need to be doing the right things at the right time for the right reasons, considering that we make sure we take care of those who need it and demand participation from everyone else,” he added.

Kerry redirected Coburn's attention to the debt ceiling. “I am trying to help us get out of this predicament where we have a couple days before the United States defaults,” he said. “Everything the Senator has said is worthy of inquiry.”

“Isn't the key to resolving this crisis and not defaulting our ability to be able to come together on a sufficient trigger or some sufficient mechanism that guarantees we are actually going to deal with this in a similar fashion to what the Senator is raising?” Kerry asked.

“I don't disagree that those negotiations are going on as we speak,” Coburn said. “I am not a party to them.... We are not going to decide that. That will come to us for a decision. Look, I worked for a long number of months with my colleagues from the other side of the aisle. I put my name on a bill that doesn't fix it, but it was something to get us moving. It is better than where we are today. I agree with the Senator. But that is not good enough. We are not good enough yet to be where we need to be if we are actually going to solve the problem.”

A second inter-party exchange occurred on July 31 when John McCain (R-AZ) invited Dick Durbin (D-IL) to have a “colloquy” with him.

“Does the Senator from Illinois believe we are close to an agreement?” McCain asked.

“I hope so,” Durbin said.

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Photograph by Adam Fagen.

“Does the Senator from Illinois agree that, most likely, that agreement will not have an increase in taxes associated with it, at least in the short term?”

“I hope not.”

“You hope so?”

Durbin clarified: “I hope there is revenue included in any agreement.”

“Well, everything I have heard is that the agreement does not have tax increases in it. Has the Senator heard differently, being in the leadership?” McCain wondered.

“I honestly am not party to this,” Durbin replied. “But I can tell the Senator, as the Gang of Six and fiscal commission [Durbin sat on both commissions], we believe everything should be under consideration to reduce our national debt.”

“So I assume that would also mean the Senator from Illinois would advocate another stimulus package?” McCain countered.

“I wish to make sure we have some stimulus to the economy to create jobs and help those out of work find work with training and education,” Durbin said.

“So one would have to assume that the Senator from Illinois believes the last stimulus package was successful, which was, counting interest, over $1 trillion,” McCain said. “The Senator from Illinois and others who advocated the stimulus package and the administration said, 'If we pass this, unemployment will be a maximum of 8 percent. This will stimulate our economy and create jobs.'”

“Do you know what the Senator from Illinois and others are saying now?” he continued. “'It was not enough, that it was not enough, that we didn't make the deficit larger.' Because certainly nothing in the stimulus package was paid for. So I hope the Senator from Illinois understands – the American people understand – that just spending more money has failed and failed miserably.”

Durbin met McCain's challenge with one of his own. “I think one of the real bedrock beliefs among Republicans is that if we cut taxes, particularly on the wealthiest people in America, the economy will prosper. We hear that over and over,” he said.

“Didn't we try that experiment under President George W. Bush? Didn't the debt of the United States double under the President - and he left a shambles behind him, 2.3 million jobs lost in the first three months of President Obama's administration because of this failed economic policy which the Senator continues to espouse; that if we cut taxes on the rich, America is going to get wealthier. Haven't we tried it? Where are the jobs?”

McCain agreed. “The spending that went on in the previous administration was not acceptable and led to the deficit. But I would also say, speaking for myself, I voted against the Medicare Part D because it was not paid for. I voted against the earmark and porkbarrel spendings which were abundant as every appropriations bill came to the floor and dramatically increased spending in the worst way, wasteful and corrupt way, I will say. I am proud that at least some of us said: 'If we don't stop this spending and get it under control, then we are going to face a serious problem.'”

However, he added, “it has gotten a lot worse – a lot worse – since the last election. You can't keep up B-I-O-B. You can't keep up Blame It On Bush.”

As Kerry had done the day before, Durbin steered the conversation toward the matter immediately at hand. “Does the Senator believe that defaulting on our national debt for the first time in our history, which has been the threat looming over us from the House Republicans and others for a long period, is good for America's economy?”

Durbin pointed out that one of McCain's colleagues “on the floor from the State of Pennnsylvania has come in and said, 'Listen, defaulting on the debt is not that big a deal.' It can be, in his words, 'easily managed.' Does the Senator from Arizona agree with that thinking?”

“As the Senator may know,” McCain answered, “I came to the floor a couple days ago and made the comment that the Senator from Illinois and I are in agreement.”

“We can prioritize for a while where we want what remaining money that is left,” he said. “But the message we send to the world – not just our markets but to the world – that the United States is going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and beneath a great nation.”

As for the tactic by House Republicans to force passage of a balanced budget amendment, McCain said “it was not only a wrong assessment; I think it is not fair to the American people to say we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution through the Senate at this time.”

“I would just say it pains me to say I agree with the Senator from Arizona, but I do,” Durbin said.

“We both feel threatening the debt ceiling is not in the best interests of the United States and both of us feel that holding out the threat that if we don't pass a constitutional amendment, we can't let the economy continue is not a good-faith bargain.”

Before they finished, McCain and Durbin agreed on one further point: they both wished that Senators would engage in cross-party exchanges on the floor more frequently.

That would be a bipartisan deal I could get behind.

Important Books: The Voyage of the Beagle

Darwin was extremely interested in geology. He produced this drawing of a “volcanic bomb” from the island of St. Helena in The Voyage of the Beagle. “Not only their external form, but, in several cases, their internal structure shows in a very curious manner that they have revolved in their aerial course,” he writes.

In the conclusion to his book, The Voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin writes, “it appears to me that nothing can be more improving to a young naturalist, than a journey in distant countries.”

He couldn’t have known at the time just how true those words were - for himself. The observations he made while sailing with the English ship H.M.S. Beagle would provide an underpinning for Darwin when he later formulated his theory of evolution.

The five-year expedition, under the command of Captain Robert FitzRoy, had two official purposes: to conduct a charting survey of the South American continent, and to run chronometric readings around the planet. Darwin acted as the crew’s naturalist, collecting specimens of plants and animals everywhere the ship traveled. He took copious notes concerning the geology of the places he visited.

During the trip he explored the shores of Brazil, the high plains of Patagonia, the fjords of Tierra del Fuego, the Chilean Andes, the deserts of Peru, as well as Tahiti, New Zealand, and Australia.

The Voyage of the Beagle is arranged in roughly the same chronology as that of the survey itself. There were some places, such as Montevideo, that Darwin journeyed to more than once; he often consolidates these portions of the trip into a single chapter, which can make the order of some events confusing.

The book reveals that Darwin was thinking deeply about the origins of the world’s species long before he formalized his most important theory. Most famously, he was confounded by the wealth of rare creatures to be found in the Galapagos Archipelago. With palpable astonishment, he writes:

“Why, on these small points of land, which within a late geological period must have been covered by the ocean, which are formed by basaltic lava, and therefore differ in geological character from the American continent, and which are placed under a peculiar climate, why were their aboriginal inhabitants, associated, I may add, in different proportions both in kind and in number from those on the continent, and therefore acting on each other in a different manner – why were they created on American types of organization?”

Darwin would answer his own question two decades later.

In addition to his meticulous descriptions of creatures and their habitats, Darwin recorded numerous observations of the cultural practices in each region where he went ashore. Many of these are personal anecdotes, told through the lens of an educated Englishman brought up at the height of the empire’s success. He comments approvingly of the productive potential of Brazil’s untouched landscape, and lauds the Chileans for their industrious mining efforts.

Still, Darwin bucked many of the commonly held beliefs of his own time. He continually laments the injustice of slavery throughout the narrative, and points out how, in some regions, the European settlers enjoyed a high standard of living by conscripting natives as low-wage laborers. Although he typically views “civilized” men as superior to “savages,” he seems to prefer the effort by many in his time to bring modernity to indigenous populations, rather than simply taking them over.

Although the book is primarily a scientific endeavor, the enthusiasm that Darwin felt towards the natural world comes across strongly through his storytelling. For instance, when crossing the Pacific, he was fascinated by the role of corals in building atolls and barrier reefs. He writes of these structures:

“We feel surprise when travelers tell us of the vast dimensions of the Pyramids and other great ruins, but how utterly insignificant are the greatest of these, when compared to these mountains of stone accumulated by the agency of various minute and tender animals! This is a wonder which does not at first strike the eye of the body, but, after reflection, the eye of reason.”

Both that wonder and that ability to reason are on full display in The Voyage of the Beagle.