jrtom

So apparently I missed this story first time around: it appears that US veterans are committing suicide at about 2x the rate of the rest of the population:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/earlyshow/main3494261.shtml

to the point where there have been more suicides than combat fatalities--possibly several times more. It's been publicized again recently:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/06/cbsnews_investigates/main4076241.shtml

Now, as a scientist of sorts, I recognize that there are several unanswered questions:

(1) How has the US veteran suicide rate changed over time? (Stats prior to our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan would be useful here, as a point of departure. Stats before and after the Gulf War, Viet Nam War, would also be handy.)
(2) How many of those veterans that are suiciding are doing so after having had a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan?
(3) How many are doing so shortly before being (re)sent to Iraq or Afghanistan?

A brief search hasn't turned up any studies, or data. If anyone has any (pointers to) such, I'd really like to see it.

However, as a political activist of sorts, even without answers to those questions...I'd really like to see one of the Democratic candidates bring up the fact that N times as many US service members have committed suicide since 2003 as have died in combat: that is, the true casualty rate appears to be considerably higher than the combat death stats suggest.

(This leaves out the injury rates here: part of the reason why there have been fewer deaths than in some previous conflicts is simply that medical technology is now capable of saving some of those that would have died. For an SFnal take on this, see http://www.bestsf.net/reviews/dozois5.html for a reference to the short story "The Million-Dollar Wound".

...and now I'm wondering how many US veteran _suicide attempts_ there have been, and how _that's_ changed...although I'd also bet that the 'success rate' of veteran suicides is considerably higher.)

I've been really annoyed recently by the abuse of the phrase "mathematically impossible" in the popular press to describe the likelihood of either of the following:

(a) either candidate gaining the support of at least 2025 delegates (pledged or super)...
(b) Senator Clinton gaining the support of more pledged delegates than Senator Obama...

...by the time the primaries are over (but before the convention).

In short: neither of these are "impossible". Highly unlikely, maybe. But calling it "mathematically impossible" is simply ridiculous.

( math geeking )

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/24/03048/4526

Makes me wonder what it is, and will be, like for Obama's kids.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

Yup, that's the Onion all right. Awesome.

(fdmts, that clip above is for you. ;) )

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/14/fisa/index.html

The House just now approved a new FISA bill that denies retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecoms and which refuses to grant most of the new powers for the President to spy on Americans without warrants. It passed comfortably, by a 213-197 margin.
...
As impressive as the House vote itself was, more impressive still was the floor debate which preceded it. I can't recall ever watching a debate on the floor of either House of Congress that I found even remotely impressive -- until today. One Democrat after the next -- of all stripes -- delivered impassioned, defiant speeches in defense of the rule of law, oversight on presidential eavesdropping, and safeguards on government spying. They swatted away the GOP's fear-mongering claims with the dismissive contempt such tactics deserve, rejecting the principle that has predominated political debate in this country since 9/11: that the threat of the Terrorists means we must live under the rule of an omnipotent President and a dismantled constitutional framework.

Lots more good coverage in this story.

I still think that almost all of the FISA extensions (IIRC) were a bad idea, so I sympathize with the 5 liberal Democrats that voted against this bill on the grounds that it didn't go far enough. But damn, it's nice to see even this much resistance to Bush's belated attempt to legitimize one of his power grabs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/mmemmottpdf/Obama-editing-of-Clinton-3-13-2008.pdf?loc=interstitialskip

What can I say? I do like well-done snark. (It's so rare.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/washington/08cnd-policy.html?ex=1362718800&en=8f3ee954c2c17b14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Senator John McCain, now the Republican presidential nominee, has been an outspoken opponent of torture from his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In this case, however, he supported the administration’s position, arguing as Mr. Bush did on Saturday that legislation would have limited the C.I.A.’s ability to gather intelligence.

Not so much, any more.

(This isn't really news. But it's a nice, concise, recent example.)

The existing system is broken. If you don't believe that, I don't plan to convince you of this here, so move on.

Method 1: Divide the states into 10 groups of 5, either regionally or such that the number of voters involved in each group is as close to parity as possible. (Both criteria simultaneously would be ideal, but let's face it, California and New York--for example--make that impossible.) The primaries are then spread out over 10 weeks, one group of primaries per week. The ordering of the groups rotates (so in 2012 the ordering would be 1, 2, 3, ..., 10; in 2016: 2, 3, ..., 10, 1; etc.) so that no group is always early or always late.

This is a pretty straightforward proposal, and no doubt similar to things that have been proposed elsewhere. It could get passed.

(Iowa and NH will bitch. To them I say "Suck it up, there's nothing sacred about you getting to go early.")

Method 2: Assign (a maximum number of) delegates to each state in the usual way. Define an absolute earliest and absolute latest date during which primaries/caucuses can happen; states may schedule their contests at any point in this interval.
Now for the fun part: The earlier that a state holds its contest, the fewer delegates that it receives.
This sets up negative feedback: going early gets more attention but loses impact (which seems fair, because the impact of the early states on the national contest is disproportionate in the other direction anyway). Going late runs the risk of making your contest irrelevant, but gives you a bigger club to swing.
Now, I might modify this to give smaller states less of a penalty for going earlier, but I think that the basic concept would lead to some fascinating strategizing.

Sadly, this kind of proposal is probably too complicated to get passed (it need not be complex at all, really, but it would be presented as such), but I'd love to see it tried.

(This second method was suggested by a conversation I was having with Megan earlier today about our sense that while Florida and Michigan weren't playing by the rules, it still seemed harsh to the citizens (who had no direct voice in the decision to change the date) to make their primaries entirely irrelevant, at least on the D side.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0FJhOMc-vA

I knew that they had a lot of time off...but damn.

Because, you know, talk is cheap and all that.

But, damn:

http://stateoftheunion.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/jefferson-jackson-day-dinner/

It may be rhetoric, but it's at least rhetoric that I'm happy to be hearing right about now.