Archive for cartoon

voting inequalities in the US

Posted in Kids, pictures, Travel with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2020 by xi'an

“We’re the only advanced democracy that deliberately discourages people from voting.” Barack Obama

Following a poorly attended local election in France last weekend, over-interpreted by media and political analysts as usual, with poorer categories more likely to abstain, I reflected on the supplementary degree of voting inequality in the US, where active voter suppression and voting discrimination run uncontested by legislative and constitutional bodies. As it happens, even for federal elections, the election laws are state-based, voted by partisan state lawmakers and implemented by equally partisan officials.This means discriminating practices can become part of these laws, including different restrictions on acceptable forms of identification that poorer voters may be unable to purchase, restrictions on voter registration and in particular on active drives for minority registrations, discriminatory closures of voting (poll) places,  as e.g. a single voting place for 600,000 voters, meaning unreachable stations for those without transportation means and those housebound, abusive voter purges by local administrations, e.g., the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck System having 99% more chances to remove legitimate than illegitimate voters, lifelong felon disenfranchisement, including for citizens having completed their sentence, some places asking for on-the-spot proof of US citizenship, involving document poorer voters cannot access, mail-in voting discrimination, no worker protection for participating in the vote, which takes place during the week, grossly underfunded poll budgets, leading for instance to hour long polling queues and various mismanagement of the votes, the possibility for National Guard staffing poll stations, and the century long absurdity of gerrymandering, where something like 60 million Americans live in a place where the ruling party has received the minority of the votes in a state election. Not to mention the election by an electoral college of the president where the winner may lag by 3 million votes behind his contender… And running uncontested grossly misleading political adds

 

a cartoon that could have been made for lockdown

Posted in Books, pictures with tags , , , , , , , on June 27, 2020 by xi'an

cartoon satire for dummies [from Charlie]

Posted in Books, pictures with tags , , , , , , , , on January 7, 2018 by xi'an

On the very day 12 persons were killed at the Charlie Hebdo offices in 2013, I found it worth reposting a cartoon (en anglais!) from Luz attempting to explain why political satire has to go “too far” to expose dysfunctions in societies, invasions of creeds and the irrational, hypocritical double-talk from governments, and whatever other ideas it aims at criticising. 

absolutely no Bayesians inside!

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , on December 11, 2017 by xi'an

5 ways to fix statistics?!

Posted in Books, Kids, pictures, Statistics, University life with tags , , , , , , , on December 4, 2017 by xi'an

In the last issue of Nature (Nov 30), the comment section contains a series of opinions on the reproducibility crisis, by five [groups of] statisticians. Including Blakeley McShane and Andrew Gelman with whom [and others] I wrote a response to the seventy author manifesto. The collection of comments is introduced with the curious sentence

“The problem is not our maths, but ourselves.”

Which I find problematic as (a) the problem is never with the maths, but possibly with the stats!, and (b) the problem stands in inadequate assumptions on the validity of “the” statistical model and on ignoring the resulting epistemic uncertainty. Jeff Leek‘s suggestion to improve the interface with users seems to come short on that level, while David Colquhoun‘s Bayesian balance between p-values and false-positive only address well-specified models. Michèle Nuitjen strikes closer to my perspective by arguing that rigorous rules are unlikely to help, due to the plethora of possible post-data modellings. And Steven Goodman’s putting the blame on the lack of statistical training of scientists (who “only want enough knowledge to run the statistical software that allows them to get their paper out quickly”) is wishful thinking: every scientific study [i.e., the overwhelming majority] involving data cannot involve a statistical expert and every paper involving data analysis cannot be reviewed by a statistical expert. I thus cannot but repeat the conclusion of Blakeley and Andrew:

“A crucial step is to move beyond the alchemy of binary statements about ‘an effect’ or ‘no effect’ with only a P value dividing them. Instead, researchers must accept uncertainty and embrace variation under different circumstances.”