Some light on the debt ceiling

With President Obama's speech on the debt ceiling tonight, I thought I'd round up some the best information. I also want to shed light on an issue that was confusing me, in case others had the same problem.

Who's to blame for deep debt?
A while ago, Politifact reviewed a Mitt Romney claim that Obama's first term added more debt than the first 43 presidents. They rated it "Mostly True" because the calculations relied on where you started his term. So depending on where you start and stop counting, Obama has increased the debt to between 170 and 205 percent of what it was when he took office.*

But then, I saw this New York Times infographic on the right (accompanying editoral), which lays the blame at Bush's feet.

The chart's numbers largely check out, although the number for the Bush tax cuts are high because they represent the total impact, including years in which he's not in office. Even if you cut away those years, Bush's added expenditures outnumber Obama's.

But how can Bush be responsible for more new spending and Obama be responsible for more debt? The reason: continuation. Look at the programs Bush started at the left. Which of the ongoing ones (i.e., not TARP or 2008 stimulus) did Obama cut?

As far as I know, not one. The Iraq war may be on the wane**, but the Afghanistan war is basically as costly as ever and the Bush tax cuts have been left untouched.

So while Obama is responsible for starting new ongoing expenditures, he hasn't stopped many, hence his budget's responsibility for a good chunk of our debt.***

Debt Ceiling Crisis 101
The United States has never yet defaulted on its debt. (Edit: see bottom for details) The government shutdowns you may recall from the past were results of failing to pass a budget and debt payments continued on even if other things didn't. Mostly because of this, America enjoys a AAA rating, meaning investors can trust they will be highly likely to be repaid. But if the federal government were to stop repaying investors they would lose their trust in the government's ability to do so.

The effects would likely ripple out beyond U.S. treasury bond investors, and hurt the global economy, especially the United States's.

At this point I turn it over to more capable hands. (I do not want to describe the messy politics behind the debt ceiling negotiations.) So here are some helpful links:

• The Washington Post's excellent take, all the way back from April. (Ignore the part about hitting the limit in May.)
• PBS Newshour's video and transcript on the subject, from May. (This explains why we haven't hit the limit yet, among other things.)
• Ratings agencies considering downgrading U.S. credit. 
• The Washington Post again, but more recently. (Not exactly the same info as April article.)
• The New York Times on why negotiations failed. 

The links are in chronological order. You can probably skip the top two, but I'd read the bottom three if possible. If you can only read one, though, read the second-to-last Washington Post article. That'll bring you up to speed the quickest.

I'd like to do a post like this again; it really helps me get to figure out what's going on myself. Feedback as always is welcome!

*I calculated the percentages from the numbers given in the Politifact article (linked to above), which in turn come from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

**This does not seem to account for the tiny black box in the upper corner representing $126 billion in cuts. That mostly came through miscellaneous savings.

***Since the president cannot, constitutionally speaking, set a budget without congressional approval, it technically is not entirely his responsibility. However, it is something of a bipartisan convention to assign all the blame/praise to the president and quicker to write.

Edit(7/29/11): Phil Rosenthal recently wrote in the Chicago Tribune that the default is not unprecedented, in contrast to what many articles and commentators are saying. In 1979, the United States defaulted on a small number of payments because of an unexpected surge in demand. The dates given for default are always approximate and in that case caused a small but significant problem. His column has more details.


The '79 mini-default notwithstanding, the United States has never had a full-scale default, which could still happen if congress doesn't raise the ceiling.

First Two Reviews

As I mentioned before, I have several reviews to share with you. I actually read and reviewed these a while ago, but only just got around to polishing them.

A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense
Normand Baillargeon takes the whole "self-defense" metaphor pretty seriously. Take this for example: "Your brain is territory that an enemy wants to occupy by persuading you of certain things." The writing has a tendency to go to such extremes occasionally, but it is a very good book.

In particular, his chapter "Thirty-one Strategies for Fostering a Critical Approach to the Media," near the end has an excellent list of tips. They are very practical, which is something I like in books on this subject. They are rather involved--one suggests reading the past fifty articles by a given author when analyzing a given op-ed.

Another bias that shows through clearly is his love of Noam Chomsky: the front cover even says "release your inner Chomsky." He quotes Chomsky once or twice within, but generally it doesn't seem to unbalance the work unduly. The exception is in the aforementioned chapter of 31 strategies which includes, as number 25, "Read Chomsky." A list of recommended authors wouldn't have been remiss, but giving Chomsky his own point? A bit much.

I don't know very much of Chomsky; indeed, what I do know mostly comes from cursory research after reading this very book and some unrelated research I did on his work on mass media*. Since he seems an advocate of critical thinking, I suppose his inclusion is somewhat appropriate. I still think it's a bit extreme—perhaps the book ought to have been titled "A Chomskean Approach to Critical Thinking."

Anyway, don't let the author's politics dissuade you from reading this useful text. It is a practical introduction to critical thinking and recommended to any student of critical thinking.


The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
This book is more of a case for science and against psuedoscience, rather than a "how-to" book on critical thinking. Nonetheless, it has excellent parts and can be read as a manifesto in favor of rigorous checking of claims. Carl Sagan is an engaging writer and comes across as very human and sincere, important in a book on a subject that could easily be cold and dull.

This book does belabor points. Lee Dambert, in his Los Angles Times review, writes that eight chapters of UFOs "seems a bit excessive."Since the points are made well and illustrated with copious examples the book is saved from becoming a rant; Dambert himself considers this issue "a minor quibble."

Some people have found this book to be anti-religion or partisan. The book ends with two chapters Sagan wrote with a co-author that deal with politics. However, the main thrust of the book is basically non-political and as a whole can't be described as partisan. (Sagan himself considered the last two chapters non-critical.) The anti-religion claim is a bit harder to shake. Certain religious practices and beliefs would easily fall under Sagan's definition of "baloney." Examples would include faith healing, astrology, and probably miracles in general.

While Sagan was an agnostic, it's harder to make a case that this book is an attack on religion generally. He doesn't group religious belief explicitly with belief in psuedoscience or try to replace it with science. Certainly the skepticism he discusses in The Demon Haunted World is popular among atheists, but certainly critical thinking is compatible with religious faith, even if "skepticism" is.

Probably the closest he gets to condemning religion is the chapter "The Dragon in my Garage." Sagan informs us that he has a bona fide dragon in his garage. However, he tells us that the dragon has the power of invisibility and so we'll just have to take his word for it. He argues that such is the nature of many allegedly true supernatural phenomena: any non-appearance of the supposed effect is explained away, so it can never be disproved. This is a similar to popular lines of reasoning employed against the existence of a god, and so it could be taken as a justification of agnosticism. That may be the case, but I think Sagan was more concerned with psuedoscience than religion and I think most religious readers will get plenty out of it anyway.

One of the best-known parts is the baloney detection kit. (In fact, Normand Baillargeon includes a summary of it in his book.) Even if you find the main text tedious, before returning it (or selling it) skip to chapter 12, where the kit is. It consists of nine warning signs that something is, well, baloney.

So there you have it: two good starting texts on critical thinking. Look for more in the coming weeks: I just finished two books and am writing up reviews now.

* Specifically, his work with Edward Herman on "Manufacturing Consent." In it, they lay out a theory of mass media called the Propaganda Model.

Useful Extensions

Now, your web browser can't think, write, or research for you, so none of these extensions can help you with those things. At least not directly. I consider these useful extensions for the "frequent commenter"–some one who posts frequently and maybe does some research (imagine that!). I've limited these to extensions I use personally so browser rss readers or blogging extensions are out because I don't use those (I use a standalone program for feeds and Blogger's built-in post composer). Enough of all that. Here are the utilities:

Lazarus
I just found out about this, and it's definitely promising. I'm sure we've all hit 'back' by mistake when we were composing  a post and have lost what they were writing. Lazarus solves this problem by saving everything* entered into textboxes and allows you to recover them later. Available for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.

*With certain limitations on Chrome (see their FAQ).

Resurrect Pages (aka Arantius)
Gives you the option, when faced with a "this page cannot be displayed" message, to 'resurrect' a page. That is, grab a page from a cache. Lets you select from seven caching or mirroring services, but I find Google and the Internet Archive are the only ones you need. If they don't have it, then, typically, none of them will. Available for Firefox only, unfortunately.

Readability
Distracted by ads, sidebars, and other peripheral 'content'? Readability is the solution. A click turns the page you're viewing into a reading-centric experience. The creators turned to turn their simple extension into a fuller experience that allows readers to compensate content creators, but it requires a subscription fee. The basic extension is still available for free here. Safari users have the 'reader' function built-in that does much the same thing.

These extensions are all polished and functional, so I suggest checking out their creator's other offerings. And if you find them particularly useful—donate!

Enter the Fact-checkers and Debunkers

I debunk/fact-check claims here, but of course I am one of many such sites. In another post (or series of  posts, most likely) I will shed some light on the sources I use to check/debunk claims.

General

One of the best known is Snopes, which focuses primarily on the myriad claims that are forwarded from inbox to inbox. Most of the claims tend toward the ridiculous/trivial (as you might expect, given the ridiculous trash that people forward), but some appear in serious conversation. One disadvantage is that Snopes doesn't detail how they determined a claim's truthfulness, but that is a minor problem.

Politics

Focusing around individual claims, Politifact, provides the necessary context to verify claims made by pundits, politicians, and the public. Features the memorable 'Truth-o-meter,' which ranges from 'true' to 'pants on fire' (complete with animated flames). The site also looks at President Obama's promises at the Obamameter and the GOP's promises at the GOP Pledge-O-Meter. A Pulitzer prize winner in 2009.

One of my favorites is FactCheck.org, which offers a well-written and thorough analysis of claims made re politics. It doesn't have anything as easily remembered as the 'Truth-o-meter,' perhaps, but is very reliable and thoroughly non-partisan.

Pseudoscience

For debunking medical myths and snake-oil salesmen, look no further than Quackwatch.org. Written by a medical doctor, the site has won several awards and has been recognized by the American Cancer Society and the National Institutes of Health. Along with (sourced!) take-downs of unscientific "medicine," the site features information on how to find legitimate healthcare.

When compared to medicine, astronomy may not seem to have much pseudoscience, but you'd be surprised. From astrology to 2012 "planetary alignment" myths, Phil Plait has his work cut out for him. You can see his ongoing efforts at Bad Astronomy. The site includes an index of claims and his blog.

A quick note on 'non-partisan'

All the sites above, as far as I can tell, are non-partisan and aren't out to push propaganda for either side. Also, they typically 'show their work,' so you can read the same studies and reports that they looked at to make their determination. None of the allegations of bias I've seen hold up to scrutiny.

All of these sites come as highly recommended from me, but I suggest that you look at them with a critical eye, holding them accountable even as they hold others accountable.

Preliminary Resources for Critical Thinking

Even though I consider my personal study of critical thinking to only have just begun, I already have some useful resources. I do consider this list incomplete and I welcome suggestions, or even criticisms of these sources. Starred items are those I'm hoping to read (and review) in the (near) future.

Books

The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan. A convincing case for science and against a host of irrational beliefs, especially pseudoscience. Has the famous "baloney detection kit" (courtesy of Google Books), which you should definitely check out, even if you don't read the entire book. Update(5/01/11): Review.

A Rulebook for Arguments, Anthony Weston. Seems to focus on constructing good arguments, rather than identifying bad ones. Since that is very useful, I'm going to have to read this one. A recomendation from Kevin deLeplante (see below for his video series).

A Short course in Intellectual Self-defense, Normand Baillargeon. More specifically on critical thinking. The author cheerfully admits a bias towards the ideas of Noam Chomsky (The cover reads "unleash your inner Chomsky"), but useful nonetheless. Update(5/01/11): Review.

Videos

The Critical Thinker, Kevin deLeplante. An ongoing series on critical thinking. Covers topics ranging from logical fallacies to rhetoric. Also available as an audio podcast.

Critical Thinking, QualiaSoup. A quick introduction. Also see his videos 'The Problem with Anecdotes' and 'Open mindedness.'.

Websites

The Fallacy Files Probably one of the first sites I encountered. Comprehensive, but not always the most clear.

Humbug!, Jef and Theo Clark. Seems to have good explanations, but has a distracting watermark on each page. Also available as a physical book (with no watermarks).*

Badarguments.org Have not signed up for the email service (yet?), but the non-subscription part of the site is a helpful practical tool.*

In the near future, expect longer reviews of at least the books and maybe some of the websites and videos as well. In the meantime, enjoy!

Edited 5/01/11 to add links to reviews and change the italicized entries to starred ones.