Tony Proudfoot

Perhaps courage is in short supply in our times. But the charge cannot be levelled against Tony Proudfoot. 

Proudfoot died yesterday from ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease. Diagnosed in 2007, Proudfoot continued with his life at full pace. Most notably, he continued working as a radio broadcaster of Alouettes' football games, despite his impeded speech. And his foundation raised more than a half-million dollars for ALS research. 

I should also like to note that in the fall of 2006, when a gunman entered Dawson College and began shooting, Proudfoot left his office in that college (where he'd taught for many years) and administered first aid to a wounded student, despite the obvious and mortal danger. 

What courage, and what character. 

On altruism and organ donation

This weekend, the Toronto Star ran a remarkable story about a man who gave an anonymous liver transplant. You can read it here, along with an accompanying video.

By some metrics, this is an act of near pure altruism. This man gives something of himself to save someone else, without any material benefit. Ah, but you say, he receives the benefit of the admiration of his neighbours, his colleagues, and most certainly his wife, with whom he made the decision to give. But once reading the story, one gets the sense that he made the decision to give long before this admiration was due to him. Indeed, it was only after deciding to give and booking in for the procedure that he explained it to his colleagues and friends.

Perhaps he anticipated their praise and admiration, and this compelled him to give. But, there is an equally plausible story in which he felt some urge or impulse to do this act, quite apart from the expected praise. He felt a warm glow. This glow is merely prolonged by the admiration of others. There is, perhaps, a more purely altruistic mechanism at work here than a cynical account would suggest.

That's up for readers to decide, I guess. Either way, it's inspiring stuff.

On homelessness and the ethics of randomized controlled

The NYT has a very interesting article up on a randomized controlled trial for a homeless program in NY.

A social agency in New York runs a program which helps poor people with housing. The objective of the program is to prevent people from becoming homeless. It competes and works with several other programs to achieve this objective. However, they face a small problem: they have no idea if their program works. So, the organization has decided to randomly assign some people to enter their program, while denying others the right. 

You've read that correctly: they randomly chose some people by some lot or another to receive assistance, while others are denied it by virtue of the same draw. Dear reader, your initial reaction is probably that this is terribly cruel. This is certainly the reaction of many in NYC who are now opposing this trial. I'd like to argue that this is the most ethical course of action, in terms of both procedure or means, and ends. 

Two arguments recommend my position. First, while we should be concerned that social programs are just in their procedure -- think about the difference between feeding the poor respectfully and throwing them food from the back of a truck -- we should be most concerned that they are effective in their outcomes. Randomized controlled trials tell us more than any other method ever can whether a program has a negative or positive causal effect. This is no small matter. We waste billions of dollars every year on social programs that are meant to make peoples' lives better with virtually no systematic evidence that these programs work. If you believe that policy makers have an obligation to help the citizens who rely on them, then good intentions are not enough. We need to do our best to figure out what programs actually work and which do not. RCTs are the best way to do this. 

Second, this program suffers from scarcity, such that not everyone who applies can be accepted, despite their suitability for the program. So, we need some mechanism to decide in a fair manner who is admitted into the program and who is not. In the absence of randomization -- in which everyone has an equal chance -- some other criteria must be used. Now, a policy maker could select on need or suitability, or some other metric, but selecting on this eliminates the ability to figure out whether a program is effective, because you can't be sure that any differences in outcomes between those in the program and those out are a function of the program or the differences on which entrance into the program was granted. Alternately, a policy maker could grant access to someone they simply like more than others. This assuredly happens more often than we'd like to admit. I am sure there are other criteria, but the point remains that these other methods either limit our ability to measure outcomes, or they are arbitrary. In the worst case, they are both of these things. Contrast this with random assignment, in which everyone has equal chances of service. This is many scores more ethically defensible than some arbitrary selection mechanism. 

Experiments may seem unfair at first glance. After all, we don't like to think of humans as subjects in an experiment. But better subjects than participants in a series of arbitrarily administered and monitored programs bound for continued failure. That's more cruel than a coin flip. 

One more thought on BC

Given that the leaders of both major parties in BC have been pushed out by factions in their caucus, it appears that elected members are more powerful there than elsewhere. If this is true, how much of it is because of fixed election dates? In the absence of these set elections, one can imagine party leaders holding more sway over risk averse caucus members who fear a snap election under an interim or a new leader. But now, with the election date set, members know how much time they have to elect a new leader if they push out the current head. This is speculation at best, but the hypothesis has some face validity, I think.

A win for caucus authority?

Carole James has been made to resign as leader of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia. (The Globe has a quick story here).

This is the short story. James has faced serious dissent in her caucus, such that 13 members (out of a caucus of 35), have publicly signalled their wish for her to go. However, two weeks ago she won the support of her party's provincial council, which is some group of its elected and appointed riding executives with some union members thrown in for good measure, I am sure. I suspect Royce Koop knows for certain. Anyways, armed with this endorsement of party members, James' leadership looked secured. However, she met with just one of the 13 dissenters since then. The pressure on her increased when Jenny Kwan, a member of her caucus, released a long statement asking her to resign.

This is not a perfect battle between the authority of some unelected party members and elected members of the legislature, if only because the dissenters among the latter don't represent a majority in their caucus. But, it's close enough for the purposes of noting that a caucus has just turfed its leader for for the second time in BC politics in less than a year. This is a victory for those who think that elected politicians should have more say over who leads them than party members. I can preach it round or preach it straight, but for now it's enough to note that this is good evidence that the supremacy of parliamentary leaders in Canadian politics is not absolute. This is a very good thing.

Altruism and Political Participation

A little self-promotion is here.

But what's his position on the Gravy Train?

Rob Ford gives an interview with CBC while running a football practice. This is truly amazing. Listen here.

Jack Layton proposes to subsidize polluters

Herein Jack Layton proposes to subsidize big polluters. Namely, all of us who heat our homes. 

I don't even really have the energy to complain about this, as it's so obviously wrong-headed. I'll leave it to Worthwhile Canadian Initiative. 

Suffice it to say that it just reflects how central and serious the NDP's problems are. They prefer policies which will disproportionately benefit the rich while trying to appear to help the poor.  It's too bad, really.    

H/T: To Calgary Grit, who notes that this reflect the NDP's "always consistent climate change policy."

Russell Williams, Muslim Cartoons, and a question for the Star

Last week, the Toronto Star pasted a picture of Russell Williams, in female underwear, staring blankly back at readers. It was a picture as haunting as off-putting. The Star justifies its decision here. Whether you believe their arguments or not, it should at least be noted that they are hypocritical. 

In 2005, protests and violence flared up across the world in response to a series of 12 cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. As a result of their publication, embassies were burned, journalists and politicians had their lives threatened, the Danish economy was punished by boycotts of their exports, and more than 100 people were killed by police during protests in Muslim countries. This was no small matter. 

The Toronto Star was, like other major papers in Canada, unwilling to publish the cartoons that generated this controversy. This is the Star's prerogative, and whether it reflects cowardice or not is for that good paper's editors to consider. Readers can draw their own judgements. But it's clear that it's not an unshakeable principle of the Toronto Star to choose "the harder way for the right reasons."

Bob Probert

Bob Probert died this weekend. As always, this is a shame for family and friends. It's also a shame for hockey. All of his problems aside, I think Probert was the best enforcer of his generation. First, he was universally feared. But, more importantly, he was also productive offensively. Consider his numbers against four other tough guys. Probert was good for 384 points in 935 NHL games. That's .41 points per game. Tie Domi? 0.24. Joey Kocur? .20. Stu Grimson? .05. George Laraque? .22. Marty McSorley, who played among the greatest offences in the game? .37.

An enforcer who can also put the puck in the net creates havoc for a defense. Is there another pure enforcer with numbers like Probert's? In fact, can you think of a single one who's had three 20 goal seasons? McGinnis? Bodet? Gimme your answers. 

Air Canada smashes priceless lute*

I've had my share of baggage trouble of late, including a bag lost for a month, and a bottle of wine stolen from my luggage. But, if I was travelling with the equivalent of a suitcase full of $300,000, you can be sure I'd be taking up Air Canada on it's offer to buy the suitcase a seat and to carry it on board. 

The story is here. 

*Despite the headline, the lute does in fact have a price. 

Ignatieff's new foreign policy

Michael Ignatieff has released a new policy paper outlining his party's foreign policy. Among it's recommendations is keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011, though in a training capacity. The merits or faults of this aside, it's an immensely important policy. 

So, what happens when Canada's largest paper writes an editorial about this? First, it buries this proposal in the last paragraph. And then it tells us that such details matter less than how bold the paper is. Really? What matters more than what a country does is how boldly and loudly it proclaims what it wants to do? Isn't that sort of the problem with our foreign policy in the first place? 

War deaths increase local Conservative support

Daniel Rubenson and I presented the latest version of our paper on war deaths and Conservative candidate support. The basic story is that in 2008, Conservative candidates did better in constituencies that had experienced a war death. The abstract is here: 

War comes with terrible costs both in terms of money and lives. Do voters punish incumbents for theses costs? Much of the existing literature on the effects of war deaths on public opinion toward incumbents and their war efforts suggests that the answer is yes. We test this proposition on data from a non-US case: Canada's war in Afghanistan. We estimate models of the effect of local war deaths on government candidate support using both individual level panel data from the 2006 and 2008 Canadian Election Study and aggregate district level data. In none of our models do we find support for the conclusion that war deaths decrease support for candidates of the governing party. Instead we find strong evidence at both the individual and district levels that support for Conservative Party candidates is higher in districts that experienced war deaths.

The paper is here. And a nice article about it in the Toronto Star is here!  

Question Period and Television

Tasha Kheirridin has a nice piece in the Post today about saving Question Period. She makes the common argument that the introduction of television is a principal cause of the decline of Question Period. I think the essence of this article is that the demands of television make for shorter, more sensational questions. The second order effects, I imagine, is that this type of debate and coverage trickles all the way down into other political reporting. 

But is this true? However plausible, I've yet to see convincing evidence that the introduction of TV actually changed QP. Moreover, I can imagine equally plausible reasons why QP would have featured poor debate even prior to the introduction of TV. It seems like a great dissertation topic, and one that could pretty convincingly be demonstrated through some modelling and textual analysis. It would be helpful for our own debate over the topic, as well. 

Brown outflanks Cameron

And in one moment looks a little more like Jean Chretien and a little less like Paul Martin. 

On my mind

Death Stands Above Me, Whispering Low

Death stands above me, whispering low

I know not what into my ear:

Of his strange language all I know

Is, there is not a word of fear.

Walter Savage Landor, 1853

Changing Question Period

Michael Chong has recommended substantial changes to Question Period. His recommendations will soon go before the House and then a Committee. Among his suggested changes are having a dedicated day for PM's question (as in Westminster), having themed days so not all ministers need to be briefed every day, and allowing the Speaker to call out to MPs off the list of questions. Taber has a nice summary here. 

This could fail spectacularly. It could work marvellously. Since things can't be much worse than now, it's most certainly worth a try.

You can read the article here. 

Ignatieff and the GG: It is very unhelpful and unwise.

At the same time that Parliament is fighting for its right to be trusted with confidential documents of the most sensitive nature, the Leader of the Official Opposition is behaving as though he cannot be trusted with the most simple of discrete consultations. This is not helpful.

As often, Coyne is right on.

Update: Peter Russell weighs in and pulls no punches: "It is very helpful and unwise."

On tonight's election debate

Britain will be hosting it's first ever televised leaders' debate this evening. It should be great, if for no other reason than that British politics prizes the parry and thrust so much more than our own. 

As for the debate, I point to this old post and repost the abstract of a paper by Blais and Perella on the effects of debates. 

Almost an entire generation of election survey data was pooled together from the United States and Canada to assess the systemic effects of televised debates. Four questions were posed: (1) Is there a general tendency for evaluations of candidates to improve or deteriorate after a debate? (2) Do evaluations of one candidate negatively correlate with changes in evaluations of opponents? (3) Do debates disadvantage incumbents? (4) Do debates advantage less popular candidates? Using "feeling thermometer" items to measure voter evaluations, four patterns are revealed. First, candidates generally gain points.The supposed mudslinging that characterizes a debate appears not to feed into any notion of cynicism. Instead, voters appear to gain an appreciation for the debaters. Second, a candidate's gain is not earned at the expense of those deemed to have "lost" the match. Third, a debate does not disadvantage an incumbent. A candidate with a record to defend stands about as much chance of benefiting from a debate as a challenger.And fourth, any evaluation gaps before a debate become narrower following a debate. This final effect, which is particularly true of American presidential debates, may reflect a debate's ability to raise awareness of less popular candidates.

Why private members business matters

This morning, Ron Bruinooge is holding a press conference about some private members bill he is introducing in regards to what he calls 'coerced abortion.' I'll say nothing on the merits of the bill, other than that Coyne's Contradiction must be noted here.*

That is an aside. The main point is that Bruinooge is introducing a private members bill, which he will no doubt use to raise funds for his next election. Opponents of restrictions on abortion will similarly trumpet this. The media will ask whether Bruinooge has any chance with this bill. The truth is, he does. He sits 79th on the list of consideration. This means 78 members get a crack at introducing bills which will be debated and will actually have a chance at passage. (It's a rather good chance, actually, and nothing like popular account suggest). So, he has some wait before his time. But, as it happens, we're now at that moment. Only James Rajotte sits ahead of Bruinooge on the list. So, this is going to come up for debate, it will be voted on for second reading, and will then possibly be referred to committee. If it makes it through committee, it will be voted on again by the entire house.

This is also a time for me to highlight the importance of this legislation generally. Private members business matters for at least three reasons:

First, it demonstrates that party discipline is not as strict as we like to think. Members regularly introduce legislation which their party leadership would rather they not.

Second, private members business matters for reelection, at least for government members. I have a paper with Koop and Fowler (recently rejected from a top science journal, if you need to know), that shows that the right to propose legislation is worth about 2.5 percentage points to members of the governing party. Ask Rahim Jaffer if he'd take that 2.5 points now!

Third, government members routinely use private members legislation to propose bills of national interest, and to push forward preferred policies. Kelly Blidook has shown, in a rather convincing fashion, that this matters for policy outputs. In a short, overly chatty piece, Koop and I extend this line of thinking.

In short, private members business gives representatives a small sliver of time in which to be legislators. It tells us about their preferences, and it allows them to lobby for the wishes of their constituents. This is what politics are about. Members should be praised when they make the most of these opportunities.

*Coyne's Contradiction goes something like this: we have no law in Canada on abortion, despite the fact that we heavily regulate almost every other aspect of health care. Some will say there is no need for a law, because there is a consensus. If there is a consensus, this should be easily put into law in the Commons. Some of those same people will then say that this cannot be debated in the Commons, because it is too contentious. If it is contentious, there is likely no consensus. If there is no consensus, then how else do we deal with this? Well, it is the stuff of politics and it should be dealt with by our politicians. I note that politicians have shown sufficient courage to deal with other issues of fundamental rights in the Commons, with same sex marriage being but the latest example.