Well, my weekend spent wandering the web did produce some valuable insights. Thanks to a reference to Lorenz attractors I was drawn once again to the subject of chaos theory, and this time found some interesting material.

The Lorenz attractors are part of a set of mathematical equations developed by Edward Lorenz in his work on weather prediction. To cut a long story short, he discovered that very small differences in the initial data sets produce very huge differences in output. The result was his determination that weather was so responsive to minute variations that weather prediction over any substantial period of time was all but impossible.

Bear in mind that this discovery is one of the foundations of chaos theory. In fact the whole overused phrase "butterfly effect" comes from Lorenz's work. So, as far as I know, this work has not been disproved and no one has seriously challenged these assumptions.

And yet we hear daily how "computer models" are predicting the effects of anthropogenic global warming.

Now, I know there is a difference between predicting state at a specific moment and predicting overall trends for an entire system, so I will deal with both. Please do not think I am setting up a straw man here, there is a very good reason for my approach.

Now the gross models for AGW are simply models of the aggregate systems, they model the weather on a very simple level, allowing for very few confounding factors. Perhaps some allowance for increased plant growth, the oceans as heat sinks, maybe increased cloud cover. And all of those models, assuming the premises are correct, do predict global warming.

But such models are absurdly simplified. As we know from the massive impact of El Niño and La Niña, as well as recent discoveries such as heat funnels and other interesting phenomena, things such as winds, ocean currents, cloud movements, rainfall, and so on, all have a massive impact on temperature.

And the AGW advocates recognize that, which is why they have started using weather models in their proofs. They are trying to develop models to show the effects of warming on weather and then use those models to prove their theories.

But there we run into that pesky discovery by Lorenz, that a very tiny change in data produces massive differences. And since we don't even know all the factors effecting weather, we probably don't have all the relevant factors. But even with those factors we do measure, such as temperature and wind speed, the limits of our measurement may mask differences that make the system have different results from apparently identical starting conditions. For example, we may have the same temperature from point A for two different days, but the weather differs because the temperature 10 feet away is different. We simply cannot gather enough data to make realistic predictions.

And we have seen this in the computer models of AGW. The more realistic they become, the worse their performance. It has become common practice to modify the equations every day so that they can generate today's data using yesterday's conditions. The models are simply unable to accurately predict even a day into the future with any reliability.

All of which makes it difficult to take seriously those who argue that the debate is over. There are a  number of reasons to doubt even some of the basic premises of the AGW theories, but, supposing we grant those assumptions, they still have no reliable means to show what the result of those assumptions will be. Either they must use an absurdly simple model, or else they are unable to produce reliable results.

It does not make a strong case for the theory when their models can't even predict tomorrow, yet they ask us to believe their predictions about twenty or forty years in the future.

POSTSCRIPT

A similar problem exists in attempts to "scientifically" manage economic systems. The supposed supply and demand curves are impossible to determine, no matter how much data is gathered, as they are aggregate subjective valuations, which change by the second. All sampling, being historical, tells us nothing about the present. And even if it did, if we could sample everyone instantly, we would still have a curve valid for that one instant and no more. And if we can't even establish something as simple as a supply or demand curve, how can we scientifically manage the market?

An older essay entitle "Knowing Our Limits" relates to this. While it touches on many topics, from atheism to economics to global warming, it basically argues that there are boundaries to what we can know, and at some point we need to admit that data is simply insufficient for us to state anything with certainty. (And before any atheists get offended, all I argue is that those who say atheism is proved by evolution or other science are as misguided as those who find proof of G-d in science. Religious faith and science are unrelated and one cannot prove or disprove the other.)

As I was writing my last post, I realized why conspiracy theories are so appealing to so many.

I had always assumed that conspiracy theories were adopted because they are so comforting. The reality of history is that many things happen for reasons we do not fully know, and may never fully know. A lot of history is simply the outcome of a number of unrelated events.

World War I, for instance, was the outcome of a combination of a set of treaties, combined with an assassination plot by a handful of Serbian nationalists. Historians like to speak as if the treaty system would have inevitably resulted in war, but in reality, but for the unpredictable assassination of the Archduke, none of it would have necessarily come to pass. The Warsaw Pact and NATO were pretty much late 20th century reincarnations of the treaty system preceding the war, yet never resulted in a widespread conflict.

Or look at the Great Depression. While economists can easily explain how the use of the dollar or pound (depending on the nation) to replace gold and silver reserves, combined with escalating inflation by any number of nations resulted in conditions which made the depression possible, but it was still a series of discreet, nearly unpredictable events which caused the collapse. Without any of these, the disaster might have been postponed. (I doubt given the circumstances the depression could have been avoided indefinitely. It could at best have been made less severe by a gradual deflation, and even that would have risked bank runs, stock market crashes, and a sudden  economic collapse.)

The conspiracy theory gets rid of all this uncertainty. It makes of every event a manifestation of some underlying plot. The world is no longer driven by events which cannot be foreseen, it is no longer subject to events driven by unpredictable causes. Now it is all explained by the conspiracies which drive every event.

For a long time, I thought that was enough of an explanation. But, now I realize there is another reason so many believe in conspiracy theories, ancient astronauts, Jesus' bloodline and other such beliefs.

Everyone wants to be an expert. Or almost everyone. People do not like to think of themselves as mundane.And in the past, it was relatively easy. When one's circle of friends was limited to a few dozen, he could memorize baseball statistics or learn all the lyrics to every song by Wham and become a local expert. He could find some trivial area and feel he was the best at something. But now, with the internet, he finds himself competing with hundreds or thousands who have taken a similar route to fame. Where previously geography and lack of interest insulated him from competition, now he finds himself challenged constantly.

And that is where the conspiracy theory comes in. It allows every aspiring expert an endless means of achieving distinction. With lax standards of proof, it  allows even those with limited knowledge to put on a veneer of authority, and every new theory is eagerly absorbed by a legion of other theorists. Where before there was an objective measure of one's success, in the realm of conspiracy theories, there is no standard of proof, every theory is accepted, and the only measure of success is the popularity of a theory. And even if one should prove unpopular, he can gain some measure of comfort from believing that he is rejected precisely because he got "too close".

In short, conspiracy theories are the manifestation of Andy Warhol's fifteen minutes. While many do still turn to them to find a comforting explanation for everything that happens, many others turn tot hem to find validation. To find approval from others by turning out the most outlandish explanations possible. And since the internet makes entry costs almost zero, a field previously limited to a few lunatics with mimeograph machines has now opened up to the public at large. And with the explosion of theorists, so too has the audience expanded. So where one could reach an audience of dozens, the new conspiracy theorist can now reach thousands, and so the appeal is greater than before.

POSTSCRIPT

I do have to say that in some ways the internet makes conspiracy theories seem more popular than they truly are. Those who use the internet regularly may be more open to conspiracy theories than others.

Then again, Townhall is a relatively mainstream conservative site, yet we have more than our fair share of those who find conspiracies everywhere, from the CFR to the USS Liberty, I have heard quite a few conspiracy theories espoused here. So I don't think I am wrong in assuming that paranoia is increasing as a political philosophy.

ADDENDUM

I will admit that many blog for precisely the same reason,. the chance to appear an expert. And in some ways this is just as standard free as the conspiracy world. Provided you find a venue which appreciates your ideology you can get away with murder.

So, I am not criticizing those who set out to find fame from their writing, I just criticize their choice of subjects.

I recently purchased a video game, Assassin's Creed, which is quite amusing, at least half of it is. The historical part is entertaining. And the scenery is magnificent. Climbing the Dome of the Rock and seeing the artist's conception of 12th century Jerusalem spread out below is terribly entertaining.

What does bother me is that they took this intriguing historical period and decided it wasn't enough. And so they tacked on some warmed over Holy Blood, Holy Grail, with a bit of X-Files nonsense mixed in. (You can read this article to get a feeling for it.) Rather than finding the real history intriguing, they thought modern fans wouldn't be interested unless it included Nazca lines, Templar conspiracies, crystal skulls and chaos theory.

Unfortunately, I think they are probably right. The more I read popular media, the more I have come to realize that many people believe this stuff. Oh, they probably never read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but the same conspiracy theories of mystical Templars and Jesus' bloodline came to them either via the X-Files and Millennium or The DaVinci Code, which shameless ripped off Mssrs. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln.

Now, I am not going to deny that there is much about history that we do not know. And that there is much about the universe that we don't know as well. But it does trouble me some of the things people choose to use to fill in those gaps.

The "crystal skull" is, in all likelihood, a fraud. If not, it is still well within human capacity to manufacture, as proven by German curios produced in the 19th century (which it may actually be).

Some of Baigent and Leigh's biblical analysis is at best slightly plausible, if that, but overall they were taken in by a rather amusing character names Pierre Plantard*.

The Templars were just a powerful holy order. They likely did admit people of dubious orthodoxy, and they probably did have some grand schemes, but those came to an end when Philip V decided to use the Holy Office to wipe out his debts to the order. And whatever scheme s they had in mind were much more mundane than those ascribed to them, more likely plans to outflank their rivals the Hospitaliers who planned to ask the pope to merge the two orders.

Nor is it likely the Templars survived the inquisition that Philip started. Baigent and Leigh make a weak case for the Templars becoming, over time, the origin of the Freemasons, JJ Robinson makes a stronger one, but I still have trouble believing in either, as the evidence is very weak, highly speculative, and still largely based on very late Masonic claims. Even if there were conclusive proof, it does not prove any grand conspiracy, only that men on the run can form a pretty effective underground network. And that such a network can survive a long time. (If the theory that the mafia originated in the network of cells established by John of Procida during the period preceding the Sicilian Vespers, then this is hardly unprecedented. Then again, I am not convinced of that argument either. Criminals have been forming secret societies for a long time, without need for a political motive.)

The Nazca lines were carved by men to placate the divinities, or maybe simply to amuse themselves or to decorate a vast waste. There is no need to postulate UFOs. Do we need UFOs to explain the farmers who carve patterns into their corn fields? Then why do we need them to explain the Nazca lines?

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. There is much that is unknown and mysterious in the universe, but these things aren't it. We don't need mysterious conspiracy theories, hidden bloodlines, alien astronauts and all the other pulp fiction trappings to make the universe wonderful. There is plenty at which to wonder in the more mundane real world**.

I find it both sad and troubling that so many find the world needs such bizarre additions to hold their interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* One problem in conducting any research, especially on the internet, is that people have taken Holy Blood, Holy Grail and its sequel, The Messianic Legacy, as primary sources, and so one stumbles across "evidence" that actually is based upon what one is trying to verify. To provide one example, I wanted to see if there were any historical significance granted to Gisors prior to the publication of these works. Unfortunately, every reference I found had at least some mention of Holy Blood, Holy Grail in it. I simply could not find a source which had not been tainted by the very writing I was trying to verify. In some ways I feel like those trying to confirm Biblical events, as the Bible has had such an influence on our culture for almost 2000 years (for the Torah even longer, though within a more limited sphere), that it is hard to separate Biblical influences from the independent evidence. (Eg. Is the tomb of the patriarchs what is claimed, or so designated because of Biblical reference to that location? And other than Biblical reference, what evidence exists for this location?) But this is a pulp paper back, who would have thought it could so thoroughly taint the internet?

** Nor do we need 9/11 Truthers, Zionist cabals, Illumniati, NAU conspiracies, Bohemian Grove, Bildebergers, the Trilateral Commission and the CFR to explain the evil in the world. There are conspiracies, but they tend to be more prosaic, and tend to be revealed very quickly. Those who can explain the world only by reference to vast, all powerful conspiracies need to examine the more mundane world as well, as simple explanations exist for all the evil we see.

----------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Even with all the annoying conspiracy theory, I will probably buy the sequel, as the game itself was enjoyable and filled a number of hours. Plus the scenery alone was worth the price. And, if I am honest, I can't resist seeing the loopy direction in which they take this, what new insane conspiracy theory they mix in next.

I am afraid my recent writing on criminal justice have made me sound as if I would prefer to see every shoplifter strung up at the nearest crossroad, and that just isn't the truth. I do think that proven felons, especially those who kill others or who commit more than one violent crime, should probably be strung up, and I do think prisons should be made less pleasant and the Miranda warning is outdated, but on the other hand I also believe in providing every legal protection to defendants. (I also believe in removing laws against drug abuse and prostitution, so I am hardly a hardliner there¹.)   And my views on immigration are rather mixed, as I am somewhat lenient on immigration laws, but would be rather harsh toward illegals who commit crimes².

Be that as it may, I have a topic which shall likely serve to dispel any belief that I am for uniformly harsh treatment of criminals. That topic is victim impact statements.

During the late 1980's and 1990's, a movement arose which usually went by the name of victim's rights. In response to the perception that criminals were being coddled by the system, victims of crime began to petition to have a voice in the punishment of criminals. Some of the propositions were harmless or even beneficial, such as providing notification tot he victim of a criminal's release. Others were stopgap measures intended to make up for weaknesses in the system, such as sex offender registries, about which I have written recently. And then there were some bad ideas, among which were victim impact statements.

As I wrote before, one can take two differing views on punishment, the practical and the just. While normally these two produce conflicting results, in this case both views suggest that allowing victim impact statements defeats the purpose of punishment.

Let us look at the statements first form the justice point of view³. This is the more complex argument, as it covers everything from the punishment to the rehabilitation point of view of our penal system. However, no matter how you look at it, the victim impact statement is counter-productive. There is one possible perspective from which the statement may be of some help, but even there it is inconsisten and far better means of achieving the same result are available.

When we look at prison as a means of rehabilitation, the victim impact statement is obviously pointless. How much harm has been done to the victim says nothing about the mindset of the prisoner. In fact, it may be particularly counterproductive, as a very repentant prisoner may have a victim with an inordinately strong impact, resulting in imprisoning a good candidate fro reform longer than another far less likely to be rehabilitated.

Even when we ignore rehabilitation and ask simply for just punishment, we find that the statements are counterproductive. In some ways we  want a criminal punished in a degree equal to the harm he has done, but we cannot tie this to the random variation fo the victim's personality. Do we really want one burglar to receive 5 years for robbing a normal individual while another gets 15 years for the same act, but committed against someone who is extremely sensitive or simply better at expressing outrage? And that is really what the end resutl of the victim impact statement is, the punishment, rather than being tied tot he crime itself, ends up being related to the sensitivity and eloquence of the victim. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that those two factors should be the driving force in sentencing.

There is one way in which this randomness could possibly be beneficial. If we view punishment primarily as a means of deterring other criminals,  then this random nature of punishment could possibly serve as an added deterrent. When criminals realize that they might accidentally injure an excessively sensitive victim and thus receive a very harsh sentence, it could cause them to reconsider. On the other hand, should all of those they know encounter relatively ambivalent victims, or at least victims insufficiently eloquent to increase the penalty, they could draw the opposite conclusion. And, in either case, the same result could be achieved more consistently by simply increasing the penalties for everyone.

Turning from just to practical views of punishment, we find similar results.

The practical view of punishment I have proposed is quite simple. We want to imprison criminals long enough that a combination of isolation, deterrence and rehabilitation prevents them from harming citizens ever again. We do not care why they stop committing crimes, all we desire is that those who are released have a recidivism rate of zero.

From this perspective the victim impact statement is worthless, as it does not in any way determine how likely the criminal is to offend again. All it tells us is how much harm has been done to the victim which tells us a lot about the victim, but very little about the criminal. Worse, if ti causes a criminal to be kept in jail longer than needed it takes up space that could be used to house another prisoner. With limits on construction keeping prison space from being expanded, we need to try to keep prisoners no longer than necessary.

In short, while the victim impact statement was an understandable reaction tot he excesses of the legal system, it really did more harm than good. It may have been satisfying to victims to play a part in the process, but it was more of an emotional than a logical response, and like most emotional responses it did little to resolve the underlying problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I have an entire blog on the subject of drug laws, so I doubt I will write more on that here. However, on the subject of prostitution, I shall probably be writing later. Until I do write more, some general thoughts on this topic can be found in my essays "Standing By My Principles", "A Rational Approach to Punishment", and "The State and Morality". More on the law, in general, can be found in my blog index, currently covering articles from the first posting through May 5, 2008.

2. I just realized while writing this essay that I never posted on this topic. I have written on reforming and somewhat liberalizing immigration laws, but I never wrote about my thoughts on criminal illegal aliens (or if I did, I cannot find it). That being the case, I intend to write in the immediate future a comprehensive essay on my thoughts about immigration, both legal and illegal.

3. As I have written before, I find the practical approach preferable to the justice point of view.

Many people have written about the harmful effects of affirmative action in education and hiring. However, it seems that few have written about the effects of affirmative action int he area in which it first began, the awarding of federal contracts.

The very first affirmative action laws were nothing more than government guidelines on the awarding of contracts. Where contracts had previously been awarded solely on the basis of competitive contracts, now there would be a requirement that a certain percentage go to minority contractors.

The entire policy makes little sense to me.

Now, if we assume that the intention was to redress past discrimination, we have to ask what discrimination occurred. Assuming the government was following their own policy, the contracts would always go to the lowest bidder, which would preclude discrimination. The only way in which there could have been discrimination would be if the government had violated their own rules. Assuming that happened, then how would this remedy work? The same people who broken the rules to discriminate would now be forced by new rules to stop discriminating? What would prevent them from simply breaking these rules as they had broken those in the past?

Of course, the truth is, there was no allegation of past governmental discrimination in granting contracts. The theory was that general, overall societal discrimination prevented blacks from engaging in various fields, and so the government was going to give them preferential treatment in order to make amends for society's overall racism. I doubt it was ever state so clearly, but that was the basic theory.

Assuming that was the reasoning behind affirmative action, two questions come to mind. First, is it the best approach. Second, did it achieve its goals. And I think we are safe in saying that in neither respect did it succeed.

First, it is hardly the easiest approach to curing any economic disadvantages. Most government contracts are fairly large scale and require large existing companies to carry them out. That is why there are a handful of companies which tend to receive most government contracts. Admittedly, they do farm our parts of the contracts to smaller companies, but still, if minorities were so disadvantaged by discrimination that they could not previously apply for these contracts, would it not take years for them to reach a point where they could fulfill the contract requirements?

It would have been far better, if we were interested in helping minority businesses rapidly develop, to offer loans, tax breaks, and other incentives. The mechanism used, that of government contracts, forced minorities into a relatively limited number of fields, those which would obtain government contracts, but without requiring extensive overhead or experience. At the time, that meant largely construction and service contracts. So, through the mechanism they chose, the government directed minority businesses into a few select fields.

Which leads us to our second question, did it work?

Well, before I answer that, let me look at one question unanswered by the last section. If the government mandated certain percentages of minority contractors in all areas, how did they fulfill those needs in fields such as aerospace or defense procurement, where there just were no minority owned businesses available, and where the equipment and experience needed would preclude entering the field rapidly?

The answer to both questions is one word. Fraud. Oh, it isn't called that most of the time, but that is essentially what it is. From first hand experience I can attest that any number of "minority contractors" are so only on paper. They are companies owned and run by whites, usually white males, who have signed over enough stock to figureheads in order to become minority contractors. If they are truly clever, they have signed over to not just minorities, but minority women, to get added advantages.

And that, by and large, has been the outcome of much of affirmative action in government contracting, the creation of a number of wealthy minority figureheads who collect money for being black or Asian or female. Affirmative action may have helped some companies establish themselves, may have helped some minority businesses, but it also created a new job, that of just being a minority.

As I wrote elsewhere, it is an interesting take on the vision of Dr. King. We judge them not on the color of their skin, but on the color of the skin of their figurehead. Inspiring is it not?

But that is the logical outcome of government set asides. Even in fields where there are enough minorities, if the contracts are profitable enough, people will still create fictional minority owners, simply to be able to bid on a job.

Of course, I have not even asked the obvious questions, such as after almost fifty years is it still fair to exclude whites from specific contracts in order to redress past wrongs/ When will the past wrongs finally be redressed? Is it not just perpetuating racism to judge people based on race? And so on. We don't need to look at them.

All we need to know is this. There were easier, more efficient, and less dmaaging means to encourage the growth of minority businesses. The method chosen forced minorities into certain fields, rather than allowing them to choose their own path. And, in the end, the solution itself tended to create an environment rife with fraud.

Is that not enough to make us ask if it is not time to try something else?

POSTSCRIPT

This essay came, in part, from my comments on another blog.


UPDATE

When I speak of fraud, I do not mean only fraud in a legal sense, I include in this also perfectly legal practices such as selling off corporate subdivisions to minority owners in order to have sufficient minority participation on a project, as well as make work schemes where minorities were hired and paid to meet contract guidelines, but not actually expected to produce work in proportion to their payment.

While legal, I don't think either was what was intended by the law. The first does not benefit "minorities" but again benefits a single figure head who is sold a company at below market value to ensure sufficient "participation", while the second is simply a variation on union featherbedding, and seems fairly insulting to those who are so employed.

As I said above, I believe there were much better solutions available at the time, and the one chosen is truly one of the worst alternatives.

Nothing shows the problems with our penal system more clearly than the sex offender registries in many states. While it is an incredibly popular move politically, in this one case the civil libertarians have a point, though not the one they think.

Basically, the argument of the civil libertarians is that once someone has been released, he is assumed reformed and should be subjected to no additional punishment, including the requirement to register. And they are right, though for the wrong reasons.

I would not so much argue that we should assume that a person is rehabilitated on release, but instead argue that should someone be a continuing threat, he should not be on the streets. If someone is likely to molest children, rape women or otherwise cause harm, and is such a risk that we need to notify everyone in his vicinity, then why has he been released from jail? If he continues to be a threat, then obviously we have not imprisoned him long enough.

But, of course, that is the problem. While lawmakers like to take grandstanding positions about being tough on crime, supporting such half-measures as sex offender registries, none are willing to undertake the tedious, and less than glamorous work, of reforming our penal code, of fighting judges who go light on criminals, and of standing up to civil liberties groups. There are votes to be won with registry votes, not through instituting mandatory minimum sentences.

Then again, while it is easy to blame the politicians, they are hardly the only ones at fault. From prosecutors who allow lenient plea bargains to parole boards too willing to release offenders to community activists who oppose new jail construction to race baiters who fight stricter sentences for all criminals to civil liberty groups which bring overcrowding suits to judges who simply refuse to apply adequate sentences, there are more than enough guilty parties to blame. But when the dust clears, whoever we blame, the truth is that we simply do not provide adequate punishment.

The question is why?

And I think the answer is to be found in something I wrote earlier. Rather than approach sentencing primarily as a means to protect society from dangerous individuals, both sides of the political spectrum tend to take alternate views. They focus on punishment or rehabilitation, or maybe some other goal, but in the end, none of them are interested in the simple, practical goal of quarantining crime. It is as if we were confronted with an epidemic and we asked how many people a carrier infected, and then quarantined him based on that number, rather than quarantining him until he was no longer contagious.

The correct approach in disease is to keep the infected away from the healthy until they are no longer a threat. The same applies to crime. Rather than trying to provide some sort of "just punishment" or to allow for rehabilitation or even to create a deterrent for others, we should design punishment so that it minimizes the risk to society. In doing so we may need to consider deterrence and rehabilitation, as they play a role in the likelihood of offending again, but, in the end, our one question should be "how long must he stay in jail to prevent him from ever reoffending?"  Our goal should not be to reduce the rate of crime, but to reduce the rate of recidivism.

If we adopted this simple rule, then the whole idea of a registry would be meaningless. If prisoners were kept in jail until they had no likelihood of committing another crime, then there would be no need to register, as prisoners would be the one group about which we would need not worry.

But I am sure some will find fault with my ideas, so let me ask some questions not based on my view of prison, some gernal questions which still make the idea of a registry a bit absurd.

If we have a registry, will every offender need to register for life? If not, then for how long? And if he is a threat for, say five years after he is released, why not just keep him in jail five more years, remove the threat completely, and remove the need for  registry? On the other hand, if he needs to register for life, then are we saying that a sex offender is a permanent threat? If so, why not, once we identify one, do we not either imprison him for life, or execute him, if the risk is life long and serious enough to require registration?

They are difficult questions, and I cannot answer them. It simply makes no sense to me.

I admit, I understand that the registry is primarily a stop gap forced on us by the lenient legal system, but, if there is the political capital to get the registry laws passed, why not just use that capital to get longer sentences enacted? Is that not a much safer alternative?

Well, I have been griping for some time about the fact that I can edit neither my blog roll nor my biography. Today, I decided to see if I could edit my biography, and, sure enough, it took. I admit the new biography is a bit silly, but I will be changing it shortly. For now I am happy to have a biography that works.

Blog roll is still not working. But I am too happy to gripe about that.

Oh, for those who miss the original biography before I change it to something more serious, it reads:

I am Andrew S. I have strong opinions about bigfoot, politics and ninja movies. For the most part, I will be sticking to politics on my blog.

I will be replacing it with something a bit less silly shortly, but for the moment it amuses me to see myself so described.

POSTSCRIPT

I suppose I should explain the description. It was something said to my wife. I was writing a comment online (not on my blog) about how 1980's ninja movies lost audience sympathy whenever they granted ninjas superhuman powers. She gave me a bit of an odd look, so I shrugged and said "I have strong opinions about ninja movies." And, as she had wondered why I was watching bigfoot footage earlier, I added "And bigfoot".

And thus my new description was born.

Actually, I am thinking of keeping it, at least for a while. I have a small group of loyal readers, I don't seem to be picking up any more, so why not have fun rather than try to sell myself? After all, this isn't a job, I do it for enjoyment. And a little bit of frivolity isn't such a bad thing.

So, for the time being, bigfoot and ninjas make their (hopefully) first appearance in a Townhall biography.

UPDATE

Well, it is barely past midnight and the charm has already worn off my silly biography. I am reverting to a blank biography until I can come up with something a little more informative. I do hate the bland "I am X years old and have Y children", and I really despise the "I am a professor of astrophysics, a bishop in the catholic church, a green beret, the undersecretary of state, a neurosurgeon, and the ambassador to Uruguay" ones as well. I don't want anything too arrogant, but I don't want anything too bland either.

I did enjoy having something a bit more light hearted, but I think I went a bit too far in that direction. Plus having both ninjas and bigfoot in the same sentence makes me sound as if I am an unwashed, 500 pound lummox still living in my mother's basement. And while my mother is in my home, so are my wife and son, so I don't quite fit the bill. (In case that wasn't completely clear, I moved out on my own at eighteen, and my mother moved in with my family when we all purchased a new home late last year. I didn't want it to sound as if I had just moved my wife and son into my mother's basement with me. -- Oh, and I am under 200 pounds, to get rid of that part as well. And I bathe. -- There, I think that is everything.)

Well, I will see what I can come up with over the next few days. I hadn't really thought about it, as I never expected the biography feature  to be fixed, to be perfectly honest. So I suppose I have to give myself a bit of time to come up with a decent  blurb.

I admit this is pretty unusual for me, but let me change gears for a moment and discuss cryptozoology.

Now I am sure most of my readers imagine that I am going to voice the standard skeptical line on this subject, and in some respects they are right, but not for the reasons they suppose. In reality, I am quite open to the possibility that there are completely unknown species, even here on the North American continent. Despite the impression some give, most of the Earth is very lightly inhabited, there are still vast tracts of uninhabited, even untouched, land, and plenty of room exists where creatures could exist without our knowledge. Now, I don't necessarily believe in any specific creatures, but I admit to the possibility that there are unknown species, even unknown primates and other large mammals.

However, being open to a possibility and believing the most outlandish claims are two different things. So while I am open to some of the propositions of cryptozooligists, I am quite amused by many of the absurd claims that specific cryptozoologists present. But they are often good for a laugh, and during slow times I sometimes check out their sites.

And that is how I stumbled across this particular site, which takes the Patterson sasquatch film and centers the frames on the beast so that viewers can get a good view of the supposed big foot to better assess its gait, behavior and so on.

I admit ton having spent little time analyzing this footage. In fact, until today, I think I spent a total of maybe ten minutes of my life looking at it, maybe less. So I certainly am at a disadvantage compared to the many experts who spent time reconstructing the creature's height by comparing to known landmarks, or measured the bend of the knees and gait.  I do know that many of these experts claim that the specifics of the motion shown could not possibly be reproduced by a man in a suit, and at the moment I am not in a position to challenge their calculations.

What I can question is why the first few frames show that bigfoot's feet are soled with a layer of suede or felt. If you doubt me, look at the footage. The beast has featureless white soles. As something supposedly related to both man and gorillas, I would expect either black or tan soles, with ridges, folds and all the other features primates possess. Not suede.

In fact, I can't name a primate that has featureless white soles. Well, except "man in a gorilla suit". I suppose that counts as a primate.

Which is where I can tie this into my usual topics. You see the believers and the critics have been so caught up in the argument already established, whether the angles and movements can be attributed to a man in a suit, that they completely miss the obvious bright white soles.

And how does that relate to politics? Very simply. We see the same thing in every field of politics, such as the housing "crisis". We spend so much time arguing over how the government should respond that we forget to ask the obvious of whether the government should be doing anything. The argument has been over what response should be made for such a long time that we forget to go back to the basics and ask why we think the state should be doing anything at all.

But in doing so, we are like those who fail to notice the bigfoot's suede soles, we miss the obvious and argue over irrelevant minutiae.

POSTSCRIPT

I imagine some believers would argue that white mass was not the foot's sole but mud stuck to the creature's feet. However, mud does not stick in giant flat slabs, it gets caught in crevices and forms uneven models of the foot's sole. In fact, Patterson claimed he took castings of the footprints, which would argue against the feet picking up big, flat slabs of mud.

Even if it is mud, the flat, featureless mud would argue for a flat sole of the foot under the mud, which still fits best with the primate known as "man in a a gorilla suit."

Whenever we ask for the government to protect us from something, whether we realize it or not, the cost of such protection is the surrender of some of our freedom. Now, to some this may not matter, they may think that surrendering the absolute right of contract is a small price to pay for protection from excessive credit card late fees, for example, but that right may matter to others. And, more important, they may be harmed by the lost rights, even if they don't realize it.

One example that comes to mind is today's lenient tort law. It is sold as a protection of the "little guys" against the "big guys", and is said to be of little or not cost to those who it protects, being entirely financed through suits against wrongdoers. Now, I could write volumes on this topic, on how it drives up all prices, how the scattershot awards mean that while some get rich, many who are actually harmed walk away with nothing, and so on, but let us just look at one case, medical malpractice.

The realm of medical malpractice used to be very simple, if apparently unfair. The area was governed entirely by contract, and you got what you contracted to get. If the doctor made no promises, then you could not collect. If he made outrageous promises, even if he did a fine job, if he failed to live up to his promises, then he paid. In other words, the parties involved set the terms for compensation in the event of a mishap. In one way, it was absolutely fair, as the people involved set the terms before the exchange, so they really had no room to complain. On the other hand, many argued that the doctor had an unfair advantage in negotiating, as he did it all the time and could fine tune a contract, while most patients had little knowledge. Also, they added, the patient is rarely in a situation where he can refuse to agree to terms, so the doctor can draw up the contract to favor himself.

So we entered the second phase of malpractice law. This phase was still relatively fair, but it began the movement of malpractice from the concept of contract and private law tot eh area of torts and public law. Instead of being governed entirely by consensual arrangements, medical care was now to be judged by external "standards of care". In general this was harmless, as by definition the standard of care was that provided by the average doctor, so most would meet the standard. However, something was lost in this process, the freedom of both parties to agree to care which fell below the standard. No longer could a patient agree to "bargain basement" care in hopes of getting cheaper rates. He was forced to receive at least the minimum demanded by the "standard of care", and as we became richer as a society, that standard continued to increase.

That sounds trivial, but it is not. Assume that the standard of care for a head injury requires performing a CAT scan or MRI to rule out brain injury. Let us farther suppose I am a poor man with no insurance. In the past, under the contractual system, I could sign a contract to receive nothing but suture for a lacerated scalp. Under the new tort-driven system, no doctor would see me unless I agreed to a CAT scan or MRI, as failing to do so opened him to liability, even if I agreed to forgo such a procedure. In gaining supposedly greater protection, I also lost some rights, and in this case, the protection actually means I can no longer receive only the care I want, or can afford. I must receive what the courts insist doctors must provide, regardless of patient wishes.

The system remained in the tort form for some time, but inevitably, the logic of protection forced it to change. If it was a good idea to ignore the contract to provide extra protection,t he argument ran, then why should we be bound by the practices of doctors? If all doctors in a given market are negligent, should we then hold negligence as the "standard of care"? And thus was born today's expansive medical malpractice law. Instead of holding to the standard of care, the courts also began to bring in concepts from other areas of tort law, such as "reasonably foreseeable", as well as allowing juries to reinterpret "standard of care" to include far more than simply the normal care provided by doctor's in that locality under normal circumstances. The law became more arbitrary and far more driven by jury whim than by any sort of predictable law.

As with all modern expansions in tort law, the theorists sold this change as a form of "social insurance". Using the same logic they had for targeting "deep pockets" in product liability cases, they argued that those most able to pay were also likely those most able to prevent an injury, and so they should be made to bear the burden*. As a result of this mindset, modern tort law has become somewhat divorced form questions of liability and traditional concepts of fault and centered instead more on who can pay when something goes wrong.

And what has been the result? Well, mostly that you can no longer find a doctor. Honestly. In several areas the high cost of malpractice insurance has made it impossible to find an obstetrician. In others it has become difficult to find other specialties. Or if one can find them, they tend to perform endless rounds of testing and other defensive medicine in hopes of staving off any liability claims.

And that is the point of this long-winded digression. Those who supported hitting doctors with strong malpractice suits imagined that it would be paid by the doctors. They thought that patients would get better care, or else get easy reimbursement, and the only cost would be to the doctors. Instead, the patients who were supposed to be helped can no longer find a doctor, or have to undergo needless testing and increased costs. Those who were supposed to benefit ended up losing.

And that is what my original point was, that to get supposed government protection, we have to surrender rights, and, in the long run, it costs us, whether we realize it or not.

In a previous essay, for example, I discussed the calls for caps on interest rates or limits on the fees lenders can charge. And while this sounds like it would benefit borrowers, it really does not. To get this protection, we have to give up some right to contract freely. We decide that certain contracts simply can no loner be enforced. And that sounds fine until you are in a situation where you cannot get a loan because the interest rate required would be illegal, or the lender would give it, but the fees he wants are prohibited. So, in the name of protecting people with bad credit, we prohibit them from making choices and deny them the right to decide for themselves what contract to make.

And that, really, is the very nature of the nanny state, the state which promises to take care of us. Taken to its logical extreme, the nanny state becomes the asylum state, where we are denied the ability to make any choice and become prisoner-patients in the state asylum. Having decided that we are not competent to decide anything for ourselves, the state regiments and controls our every act. We are far from reaching that condition, but it is only a matter of degrees. At the moment we confine our nanny state to select areas of life, but there is no way one can logically limit it. Inevitably it will expand to more and more areas of our lives, until, in the end, we have precisely the asylum state I described.

Of course many will deny that. They will argue that the asylum state is taking things too far, that they want only to protect people from a few specific harms. But look at their logic. To protect people, we must deny them certain choices. We must say they are not allowed to make these decisions, are not competent to make the right choice. Then take that to its logical conclusion. If we can do that for one decision, why not all? If we know better than some citizens in one case, why not apply it in every case where we know better? And is there even one area in which there is not someone who will certainly make a mistake? What area can we name where people won't harm themselves through poor judgment? Why not enforce rules to make everyone make every decision in the best possible way?

And at that point, the asylum state is inevitable. Once you substitute your judgment, masquerading as the judgment of the state, for the judgment of another, you have said that compulsion is right, that adults should not be allowed to choose for themselves, and that was should guide those who might choose wrongly. You have set the stage for the eventual asylum, it is just a question of time.

As long as you deny adults the right to make mistakes, so long as you want to substitute your judgment for that of another, you are supporting dictatorship, whether you admit it or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Though many lawyers argue that Huber's case is incorrect, I don't think anyone can dispute the many citations in his book Liability tracing the evolution of the modern tort law. As he cites the brains behind the social insurance theories of tort liability, it seems hard to argue against him. Then again, after Rev. Wright, it is rather fashionable to say people mean something other than what they said, so I suppose even direct quotes don't really prove much any longer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I would point out that these laws are based on a strange, contradictory view. The asusmption is that people in general are incompetent to lead their lives on their own, that the decisions they make will likely be wrong. However, when those same people are elected to office, they become wise enough to tell their fellows exactly what to do.

I wrote on this contradiction before. However, it is easily reolved one way. The solution is to assume that, while most people are stupid, those making these decisions are some sort of elite. That helps explain two phenomena. First, the tendency toward elitism among the members of supposedly populist movements, such as the Democratic party. And second, the tendency for welfare states to establish dictatorial features (eg. the supposedly stateless communism of Marx becoming the clearly authoritarian communism of the USSR and China), as if there is only a small elite intelligent enough to decide, democracy is a foolish approach, a dictatorship of the elite makes much more sense.

UPDATE

While Wikipedia is generally pretty unreliable, as I have said before, it is handy for topics where there is little debate and you know enough about the topic to spot outrageous modifications. That being the case, the page on standard of care is not a bad description of the various meanings ascribed to the phrase in both the law and medicine.

"You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can [and will] be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Did anyone reading this have any trouble reciting that along with me? Except for small changes in wording, varying with jurisdiction, is that unfamiliar to anyone? Is there anyone in the United States who could not recite that, or at least summarize the main points, without any help?

And that is my point. Why do we insist that police must conduct this ritual every time they question or arrest someone?

Allow me to explain my reasoning.

In the original Miranda case, the logic behind the ruling was that defendants, by and large, were not aware of their rights, and thus had to be informed of them prior to the police questioning them. Whether it was right or wrong, that was the reasoning behind the ruling and the reason for issuing the Miranda warning in the years since. Basically, it was assumed that citizens were not aware of their rights and so they had to be given this formal notice by the police or else they would likely not exercise these rights for their own protection.

Can anyone reasonably argue that today the majority is unaware of these rights? Small children, foreigners who watch American movies, people who don't even speak English can all recite this warning. I seriously doubt that one person in 100,000 can be found to be unaware of these rights. Yet we continue to dismiss evidence for the failure of the police to inform suspects of facts about which they are already aware. It has become what amounts to a meaningless ritual, but failure to perform it has dire consequences.

As I have said before, I think it is time that we did away with this requirement. While it is true that the court said that all defendants must be advised of these rights, is it not arguable that, since everyone is aware of these rights already, it is safe to presume that any given individual is also aware of them, obviating the need for a formal warning? We do not tell prisoners that resisting arrest will result in additional charges, as we assume everyone knows that, so why not the Miranda rights as well?

It just makes no sense any longer, to throw out evidence because the police failed to engage in a senseless ritual, telling the prisoner things which are now definitely common knowledge. It would make as much sense to require police to tell the prison that the sky is blue, or tell him his own name before questioning him. As the public at large is well aware of these rights, the point of the ritualistic recital has been lost. Now it is simply another technicality to use in dismissing evidence.

I am sure someone will argue that there are those who are unaware of these rights, either because of complete isolation or because of limited mental capacity. However, in the case of the first, I am not convinced. When people on other continents who do not even speak English are aware of these rights it would take a pretty profound isolation to remain unaware of them within the country. In fact, it would seem to me such a  rare event that I think it can be safely dismissed. The law simply cannot take into account excessively aberrant circumstances when establishing general rules. A case which applies to less than one hundredth of a percent of the populace is rare enough that it can be ignored when establishing public policy*.

The second is no better an argument. If someone is unaware of these rights because of some sort of mental illness, brain damage, or mental incapacity, that indicates a pretty profound problem. Does anyone really believe that one more recital, rattled off quickly by the police during an arrest, will really make it clear? After years of hearing these words yet failing to understand them, that one final police reading will be the one spark which will kindle understanding?

No, I think if someone has failed to understand these rights throughout their life, nothing is going to make it clear to them, meaning that any additional statements, such as that required by law, will not make it any more clear to them.

Then again, I doubt my argument will ever bear fruit.  I doubt any police department would stop reading this warning, even if the courts waived the Miranda requirements. Though it is perfectly sensible to assume defendants are aware of these rights, I am sure that every defense attorney, confronted with an inconvenient statement, would claim that his client is the one person who never heard a Miranda warning. So every police department in the nation would continue reading the warning, just to preclude such a defense argument**.

Unfortunately, I think the Miranda warning is with us for the foreseeable future, as are challenges based on its omission. Whether it makes sense or not, this meaningless recitation will not be going away.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* For example, we do not require that traffic lights use colors other than red and green to avoid problems with those suffering from color blindness. Then again, recent trends in our society do seem to point toward adjusting to appease every minute segment of society. But so far, this has been more of a private initiative than a public one, and the law still tends to deal only with the majority or substantial minorities, though a few cases suggest otherwise. Still, I doubt the law would tailor itself to fit a handful or hermits unaware of their legal rights.

** Of course, the court could eventually rule that lacking awareness of the right to remain silent or the right to have an attorney present does not invalidate a confession, but that would be the only way that any police department would stop issuing Miranda warnings, whether the courts required them or not.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I am of two minds about the original Miranda ruling. While I favor constraining government, and think it is a good idea to make citizens aware of their rights, I also think a democratic (or constitutional republican, for those who always correct that statement) society demands a certain level of civic awareness form its citizens. To a degree you need to be aware of your own rights and can't rely on the state to tell you about them.

As I said in the essay proper, we don't warn detainees that resisting arrest will bring new charges. Nor do we warn them about their right to petition for habeas corpus, their right to confront their accuser, and a number of others. It seems peculiar that we single out this handful of rights for special treatment.

So, while I don't have strong feelings about it, I think the original Miranda case was probably decided wrongly. It really is the responsibility of citizens to know their own rights, not of the state. However, as far as bad rulings go, this is abut the most harmless bad ruling I can imagine. Yes, it does create some rather specious grounds for dismissing evidence, but most bad rulings do much more harm than that.

Oh, and to those who would argue that the ruling should exist for recent immigrants and foreigners, I would argue that it is the duty of anyone visiting a foreign land to acquaint themselves with the local laws. And that anyone seeking citizenship should certainly be as informed about his rights as a native born citizen, if not more so.

I just heard on television that Tim Russert has died of an apparent heart attack.

While I disagreed with his politics and have written rather negatively of him in the past, it is still tragic when anyone dies suddenly and unexpectedly, nor would I wish anything ill upon those with whom I disagree.

So, farewell, Mr. Russert. Many will miss you. I may not have been among your fans, but my mother is, and I am sure your absence will be felt.

I have already written recently on all the issue where Obama has adopted contradictory positions or else changed his opinion multiple times in a very short time. Now, it appears there is yet another one, from Al_Hayat :

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign managers had reassured Baghdad that if Obama is elected he will not dramatically change Washington's policy towards Iran and will take into account the opinions of the commanders in the field.

Zebari noted that this reassurance is important, in light of the widespread impression that Obama is expected to completely overturn current policy.

I seem to recall Obama claiming that Bush's policy toward Iran was a complete failure. However, he is now telling Iraq that he is not going to dramatically change course.

So, how does that work? Either he thinks Bush is a complete failure, yet now he is going to continue that failed policy, or he doesn't think that it is a failure, but he simply said that for political reasons. Or, perhaps he is lying to Iraq.

No matter how you read this, Obama is doing something wrong. Either he is planning to continue what he thinks is a failed policy, or he is lying to someone.

POSTSCRIPT

On a related note, I also wrote recently, a bit tongue in cheek, on all the things that the left claims are off limits concerning Obama.

UPDATE

Apparently the original article contained a typo, and Iran should read Iraq. Which makes this even more of a lie, as Obama keeps promising quick withdrawal, while promising no dramatic change in policy to Iraqis themselves. Wow, change you can believe in!

This is an interesting bit form a Time article about Obama's attempts to stop rumors, using his website:

According to campaign officials, what finally launched Obama into a full rumor counteroffensive was a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson. Quoting "someone in touch with a senior Republican," Johnson claimed that there was a video of Michelle Obama "blasting 'whitey' during a rant at Jeremiah Wright's church." (Later versions of the rumor had Michelle's "rant" happening at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition conference.) No such videotape has surfaced.

When the Obama campaign got wind of the rumor in April, Michelle's close friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett asked Michelle if there could be anything to it; the candidate's wife dismissed it out of hand. But by mid-May, it was picking up steam on the Internet, and Michelle's advisers decided it was time to have a serious talk with her about it. On a campaign swing through Oregon, Michelle's chief of staff Melissa Winter grilled her on the particulars of the various versions. Had she ever spoken at Trinity Church? Could she ever recall having uttering that racial epithet? No, no, Michelle answered again and again. Additionally, she said, "whitey" is simply not a word that African Americans of her generation tend to use — or that she herself would ever say. Michelle was shocked and frustrated when her aides approached her the second time about the alleged incident.

Two interesting things here.

First, the fact that people close to the Obama's thought it plausible enough that they not only questioned Mrs. Obama, but that they did not believe her first denial and felt the need to ask her AGAIN. If people who knew me heard an analogous rumor, they would know it was not true. And even if they did not, they would certainly believe my denial. Why is it that Obama's closest advisers, including someone described as her close friend and her own chief of staff, who presumably know both of them well, and not just from the campaign, believed that rumor enough that they had to question her denial? Does Mrs. Obama perhaps say things of a somewhat racist nature regularly? Or perhaps they are simply familiar with Trinity and think that Mrs. Obama would have been inclined to spout such rhetoric there? Whatever the case, it is interesting.

The second interesting part is her denial. If blacks of her generation do not use "whitey", then what slur does she use?

Well, to me this is really a non-issue. I don't care about candidate's wife says. So long as she is not given pseudo-governmental powers the way Hillary Clinton was, I could not care less what a first lady thinks.

Actually, the Obama anti-smear site raised a question for me. If McCain wanted to do a similar site, what would he post there? And then it struck me. There already is such a site, listing line by line every smear against the McCain, Bush and the entire Republican party. Admittedly there is no rebuttal, but at least it puts all the smears in one place.

It is called www.nytimes.com.

In reading some quotes form the presumptive Democrat nominee, it appears that his line for the upcoming election regarding tax cuts is that Americans "didn't need then and weren't asking for them". So, if I am understanding him, the only reason to grant tax relief is if the people are so sorely taxed that there must be relief, or if there is enough dissatisfaction that people are agitating for tax breaks.

I would think we should be asking whether taxes are needed, not whether tax breaks are needed. The rule should be that we do not impose a tax unless the state absolutely needs the money, not that we continue to tax until the people absolutely need a break. Unfortunately, on this one I think more politicians are in agreement with Obama than with me, but I still find his perspective frightening. And his forthrightness in saying he is going to bleed us dry promises that not only will taxes not decline, but they are destined for Carter-like, even FDR-like heights.

The one bright spot in this new policy is that Obama apparently is not a fan of history. Were he, he might remember that no one yet has won the presidency by promising to raise taxes. He may want to take that into account before trying his "tax ourselves into prosperity" shtick.

Then again, at least his ignorance of history has allowed us a revealing insight into the real Obama. Though I don't think the promise of tax increases will help him sell himself to the independents, or even many Democrats.

Normally Ms. Saunders is a sensible, if slightly left-ish, author, but in the case of her most recent article, she simply drops the ball. Giving in to populist arguments and economic misunderstanding such beliefs engender, she ends up arguing for practices that nominally help borrowers, but really only favor the irresponsible at the expense of the responsible. Worse still, she indulges in an arrogance usually shown by liberals rather than conservatives, thinking she knows better than borrowers what they should do, and thinking the state should enforce her opinion through law, that is the threat of force.

We will leave until later her mistaken impression that new bankruptcy laws favor only banks and lenders, and instead deal first with her other obsession, the need to cap interest rates and fees.

Repeatedly, Ms. Saunders argues that congress should have "helped borrowers" by capping the rates lenders can charge, as well as the fees they can assess. Admittedly she intermingles this with a number of facts and figures about the merits of savings, and statistics that she claim show thos ewho take on "too much" debt end up failing economically. (Of course, the counter argument that perhaps their incipient economic failure is why they had to resort to taking on debt is never raised.) Still, it is clear that her main point is the one with which she closes:

Now, having helped the banks [by changing the bankruptcy laws], Washington should do something about rapacious bad-faith lending before there is a cascade effect across the economy.

By which she means they should have supported a bill capping interest rates and prohibiting excessive fees.

I often criticize those who overuse that Santayana quote about history, but in this case it is so apropos. The populists continue to trot out the myth of predatory lending, of "unearned income", of "dead money" versus productive labor, and their favorite, the concept that there is some "fair" interest rate above which we should not rise. Have these people never studied history? Among the many factors that kept European progress at a standstill during the middle ages was the church's prohibition on lending for interest. It was hardly the only cause, or even the most prominent, but is it coincidence that the cities which allowed something like modern banking, mostly merchant cities in Italy, both became immensely wealthy and were the centers of the Renaissance? Or that other states only began to enter the modern economy when they threw off the prohibitions against intere