University of Hypocrisy

Today, Mark Blumenthal reports that the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers (AAPOR) censured Dr. Gilbert Burnham who is one of the authors of the Iraq War casualty paper.

Burnham was censured for not disclosing all of the study materials that were requested by AAPOR in their investigation, although it seems like he turned over just about everything. One of the main pieces that AAPOR claims was not turned over (though the allegations of what Burnham actually failed to be turned over is nowhere in the AAPOR press release) is the question wording. But, it seems (as Blumenthal notes), he did release his question template. Granted, it is not a survey instrument; but, I wonder if AAPOR has an Arabic translator to read the actual survey instrument -- and if so, how many members of AAPOR would be able to understand it. In response to the press release, at least two people (Blumenthal and Science blogger Tim Lambert) asked AAPOR to clarify what, exactly, Burnham failed to release to AAPOR. The answer

We do not provide public reports of the investigations but if there are other specific questions that I could answer, I would be happy to try to do so.

Basically, Burnham gets censured for not turning over all of his materials for review by an organization (of which, it should be noted, Burnham is not even a member) that cannot be bothered to turn over their own evidence used in the report. I have a lot of respect for AAPOR, and think that they did some great things during the election—aided tremendously by Mark Blumenthal—to make sure that the public and journalists knew how to interpret polls, but this is just absurd.^[1] What's good for the goose...

I am all for more transparency in data. I think that more needs to be done in social science (and public health) to deal with replication and increasing access to data^[2]; however, for an organization to claim that they can censure a non-member for ethical violations and then turn around and violate the same spirit of their rule strikes me as something members of AAPOR (I am not one) should address.

^[1] As a side note, I should mention that there are some problems with the Iraq studies. Their response rate is very high, particularly since they only went to sampled houses on a single day (although this National Journal summary quotes famous soc blogger Kieran Healy noting that this response rate is not unusual for Iraq) and, because of their sample size, the confidence intervals are very, very large. The appropriate venue for such debates, however, is in the academic press to challenge the validity of the findings, not for some organization to nitpick on violations of ethics of non-members.

^[2]In fact, a recent special issue of Sociological Methods & Research pertains to this very issue. I highly recommend the issue of the journal for many of the interesting points that are raised.

The Health Care You Have, Not The Health Care You Want

I believe in health care reform, but since I can't read or listen to more than 20 or so words at a time without thinking about food or wanting to take a nap*, it's hard for me to sink my teeth into, you know, learning anything about it. Fortunately for me, there exist magazines to cater to me and my tiny attention span.

The New Yorker came out this week with Atul Gawande's kind of sweet overview of how universal health care evolved in slavering backwards socialist nations like France, Switzerland and the UK. The thesis is pinned to path-dependence: there was never a traumatic overhaul with bureaucrats scrambling to radically change everything, rather, things just kind of happened. For example in the UK, WWII required massive government assistance to put health services out in the sticks, where everyone's kids were fleeing, and then when all that stuff got bombed they had to redo it. So by 1948 the NHS sort of already existed.

Many Americans envision universal health care as a change on the level of a Bolshevik revolution, and the author's idea is that it doesn't really have to be that way. No one is going to shut hospitals down for 5 days and raise your taxes to 50%. You build gradually on what you have, and the result is an imperfect but workable patchwork-quilt-style safety net.

I like the idea of making universal healthcare a palatable idea, which Gawande does in a very straightforward, non-wonky way. The problem he overlooks, I think, is that for these European countries, there was a serious impetus for these incremental changes like war (UK), famine (France), everyone else is doing it (Switzerland). Here, it seems that impetus does not exist, but for the Cries Of The People (and who ever listens to those anyway).

Well, actually, there is the obvious: that nearly 50 million of us have zero insurance, but that doesn't seem to have resonated with many of us. (I don't like thinking that we're so callous as to say that a Teddy Grahams heiress should be able to have lots of extra money lying around for Botox but not have to contribute jack to a laid-off factory worker's cancer treatment. But maybe small, incremental edits to our collective consciousness have created that culture.) It does seem that at a minimum, almost everyone agrees that more people need to have their basic needs cared for. So, a journey of a thousand miles, etc. But will there have to be a catalyst to, you know, take that first step? A catalyst besides the problem itself? I hope an administration that is supposedly built on pragmatic competence will find a way to get us somewhere without requiring it.

*Which makes being a) married to an academic and b) the sister of a health policy nerd AWESOMELY FUNNY. Them: "So basically this method of measuring the effect gives us new ways to control for these variables, and predict the..." Me: "Look, a butterfly."

Labor Glory

This emptywheel piece gives the rundown of how unions and their oh-so-cumbersome insistence on safety training saved the bacon of the passengers of the airbus that glided onto the Hudson on Thursday.

Fascinatingly, the lauded pilot was a "former safety chairman, accident investigator and national committee member for" ALPA. Representatives of various airport unions have criticized pilots' for a perceived bugger-anything-the-flight-attendants-and-mechanics-or-anyone-else-at-the-airport-needs arrogance and lack of solidarity. (Imagine how much power pilots, flight attendants, skycaps, mechanics, baggage handlers, and everyone else would have at the airport if they worked together effectively.)

But while our unions don't play together as nicely we would like them to, this case is certainly something the labor movement should feel great - and brag - about. Let's hail the awesomeness of these experienced and union-represented pilots, flight attendants, air traffic controllers, ferry crews, cops and firemen who have stuck around long enough to be effective, their choice to stick around partially due to guaranteed wage increases, nice benefits, and pride in their jobs. And the piece concludes, sweetly:

"But I haven't heard much about Bob Corker and Richard Shelby saving 155 people's lives."


Zing!

A Girl and Her Racist Dog

Mike3550 is out of commission this week defending his prospectus. So I thought I would attempt to insert some blog posts between last week and next, bringing the level of discourse down from politics and neighborhood effects - all the way down, in fact, to topics like our stupid dog.

We've suspected it for a long time, but the events of this evening have pushed me to state publicly: my dog is racist. Tonight Dog and I are going for a nice brisk walk in our neighborhood, and it becomes apparent that someone is walking behind us. I turn around, and it is a tall Latino. Dog looks behind her, starts barking her head off for about five barks. I apologize, man laughs. Okay, I think, he's behind us, he surprised her, fine. But then I thought, wait, we live in New York City, not the postapocalypse. These sidewalks are busy. People walk behind us all the time. Just - mostly white people. This is, by the way, at least the fifth time she has singled out a Latino for her rage.

The rest of our walk goes nicely, without any hate/harassment. We get back to our building and get into an elevator. Who comes through the door - surprise! - but our nice new white neighborman and our nice new Indian neighborwoman. NEW neighbors. Would you expect some skepticism from Dog? She has never met them before. But lo and behold, she puts on the greatest kiss-ass puppy-eyes display known to man. She is a hit, and gets her chin rubbed and ears scritched. Score.

They get out on 3. We get out on 5. A Latino who doesn't live on our floor stands before us on 5. Dog freaks out. Barks as though the man is ripping apart my body and feasting on my entrails. In fact - and I've never seen her do this before - she lunges at him.

No one was hurt, thank goodness - she didn't really get on him, just near enough to provoke deep visible fear in the man's eyes - but the man got a profuse gushing apology from me and was very gracious considering an animal apparently wanted to end his life because he was standing there. Dog got some serious yelling and alpha-domination by yours truly.

I don't get it! I never thought of myself as a racist owner, but maybe I evoke barely perceptible tension when I'm around people who are different from me and she picks up on it. Maybe she turns on Lou Dobbs when we're asleep. Maybe the other dogs in our building are a bad influence. Maybe my racism is like a dogwhistle, and only she can hear it.

Inauspicious Start

Although I tend not to make New Year's Resolutions, I have decided to try to make two this year:

1. Try to be more consistent blogging


2. Eat healthier and exercise more (I know, how cliché, right? But, since I figure that I study health, perhaps it would be wise for me to actually pay attention to some of the research and keep myself healthy)

I have made less than an auspicious start on the first. However, I am going to give myself a pass for last week and the next couple of weeks because I have spent the last five days finalizing my dissertation proposal. It's all done - submitted, in the hands of my committee to do with it what the will. I will find out what they intend to do with it this coming week when I head back to the Midwest for my defense. Then, after that, I am off to Philadelphia immediately from Michigan, then off to D.C. next week, then back to the Midwest the week after that. Needless to say, if I can find some time (and an internet connection) to catch my breath and write in the next month, I will be amazed. But, seeing as how I have made this public revelation, let's see if that will encourage me to write more!

In the meantime, here is a Wordle of my proposal. I bet you would never be able to guess what I study!

Lesser-Known Subway Rules

As someone who rides the NYC subway nearly every day along with millions of other riders, I fancy myself a sort of connoisseur of the subway. I have identified the factors that should determine where and how I stand on a crowded train. I have perfected the art of pulling my card out of my wallet well in advance of bellying up to the turnstile. I am a master of slipping out of a rush-hour packed car without physically harming other human beings.

And most of the commuters I (literally) rub shoulders with on the subway have done the same. After 2.5 years of riding, I have identified four levels of subway ridership: 1) folks with years of riding experience that have etiquette and strategy down pat, 2) people in the intermediate phase who know the unspoken rules and mostly don't piss people off but who still slip up in more challenging situations (me), 3) people who don't know the rules but make a valiant effort to be considerate, and 4) jackasses.

As I strive to climb the ranks into that first category, I'm developing a mental list of subway rules you won't find on the MTA website. Here are three of them.

1. Do not use your offspring as a battering ram to get past another rider to a seat. Most people will let a kid sit down, and you do a disservice to your alleged mission, the comfort of your wee babe, by deploying him/her as a weapon. It can only be assumed that you are doing this to get not only your child, but yourself, a seat, which is very unsavory behavior.

2. When you are standing, reading the Jack Welch self-help book, using the top of another rider's seat as an elbow rest is ill-advised, as your elbow inevitably slips when the train jerks and rocks that rider in the shoulder - so, so hard.

3. Please, for the love of God turn your tunes down when you get into the train. It's not as loud in here as it is outside, and some of us don't enjoy Vampire Weekend/salsa/Natasha Bedingfield at all, let alone at full blast at 8 AM for 45 minutes straight.

Palin Only Picks Up The Phone For Fake Politicians?

Oops. Palin didn't answer or return Bush 41's call--twice.

"Our source ran into the 41st prez recently at a Texas restaurant. When the subject of Palin came up during their chat, Bush told of twice phoning her office but never receiving a call back. The first message was left at McCain HQ after she was picked to be Sen. John McCain's veep; the second with the governor's office after the election was over. He shrugged it off as staff error, but our source says he was clearly perplexed."

Someone needs a new advance team...