SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: T L Comiskey who wrote (28037)9/18/2003 11:37:14 AM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Unable to walk on water after all, Bush flees DC:

18 Sep 2003 01:22:40 GMT
Bush leaves White House ahead of storm
WASHINGTON, Sept 17 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush left Washington for his Camp David retreat on Wednesday evening, a day early, to beat the expected arrival of Hurricane Isabel.

Bush left the White House by helicopter for a meeting at Camp David with Jordan's King Abdullah on Thursday.

He originally planned to travel to the retreat in the Maryland mountains on Thursday, but forecasters say the storm by then will threaten Washington with high winds and heavy rain. Camp David also lies in the projected storm path.

"It's because of the hurricane," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Bush's' early departure.

White House workers prepared the presidential residence to withstand the storm. "We are working to secure items that may be blown away in the event of the high winds here," McClellan said.

An exterior remodeling crew was told to pack up early, and workers prepared to take down awnings, check drains and lower flags ahead of the storm that was expected to hit the Washington area on Thursday, officials said.

Television crews were told to remove their equipment from the White House lawn by Thursday morning.

Bush met Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Mike Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to go over storm preparations for East Coast regions expected to be hit by Isabel, McClellan said.

"They talked about the priorities for the federal government in terms of initiating life-saving and life- sustaining operations," he said.

FEMA and the Homeland Security Department were holding video conferences with federal, state and local authorities to coordinate responses to the storm, McClellan said.

alertnet.org



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (28037)9/18/2003 1:52:18 PM
From: Jim Willie CB  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
The Real Target of the War in Iraq was Saudi Arabia

By Jeffrey Sachs
The London Financial Times
Tues Aug 26, 2003

The crucial question regarding Iraq is not whether the motives for war were disguised, but why. The argument that Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat was absurd to anybody not under the spell of round-the-clock White House and 10 Downing Street spin. But the actual reasons for launching the war remain obscure. The plot thickened with the release last month of the US Congressional investigation into September 11. It seems increasingly likely that Iraq was attacked because Saudi Arabia was deeply implicated in the terrorist attacks.

Two truths have long governed US energy security. The first is that Saudi Arabia is the key to world oil stability, the accommodating supplier when markets get too tight. It would be a potential threat to the world economy if Saudi oil flows were disrupted. In 1973-74, with the Arab oil embargo, the Ford presidency was brought down by the disruption of the US economy, a point not lost on two young senior officials at the time, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney, respectively Gerald Ford's defence secretary and White House chief of staff. Pentagon and academic planners began making contingency plans for the military seizure of the Middle East oilfields.

The second truth is that Saudi Arabia has been a spigot of private wealth for key US figures, and for the Bush extended family in particular. The Saudi royal family lacks political legitimacy at home, so it buys US protection from abroad. The Saudis purchase Washington influence through consultancy contracts, big defence outlays on US military hardware, lucrative speeches for Washington insiders, investments in US businesses with influential figures, and the like. A long line of US senior officials has benefited, with the Ford, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush White House and Pentagon at the front of the line. Saudi business has helped to make multi-millionaires of Henry Kissinger, Frank Carlucci, James Baker, George H.W. Bush, Mr Cheney and dozens of other insiders.

September 11 threatened these two truths. Within hours of the attack, the White House apparently understood that senior Saudi intelligence officials were probably involved and that 15 out of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. They were no doubt stunned to realise that parts of the vast Saudi royal family were not only corrupt, but also deeply intertwined with anti-American terror and extremist fundamentalism. A new book by former CIA agent Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil*, details how the US government had systematically turned away from the growing evidence of Saudi complicity in fundamentalist terrorism, thereby frustrating the kind of investigations that might have headed off September 11.

To say that Saudi complicity in September 11 led the White House to war in Iraq is speculative, but several insiders have suggested that the conflict was incubated, perhaps hatched, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. There are at least four plausible channels that together might explain the speed with which the decision on Iraq was taken after September 11. First, September 11 was a dramatic confirmation that the stability of Saudi oil was in jeopardy. The regime was unstable and perhaps even a lethal threat to the US. The only quantitatively significant alternative to Saudi oil was Iraqi oil, but that option was barred as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power. The long-standing contingency plans to seize Middle Eastern oil were probably rolled out within days of September 11.

Second, a substitute had to be found for the US military bases in Saudi Arabia. Like Saudi oil, the bases too were now under threat, especially because the US presence in the Saudi kingdom was known to be the principal irritant for al-Qaeda. Iraq would become a new base of US military operations. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, has already explained during an interview with Vanity Fair.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were but a bureaucratic pretext that hid other core motives for war, including the reduction of the US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Mr Wolfowitz's remarkable statement seemed bizarre at the time it became public but was allowed to pass in the US without scrutiny. But it makes full sense in the context of a White House debate about the US's response to a teetering Saudi regime.

Third, the Bush White House needed to issue a powerful threat to the Saudi leadership: one more false step and you're finished. Attacking the next-door neighbour was no doubt judged to be quite persuasive. A direct diplomatic attack was probably ruled out by the deep and inextricable links between the White House and the Saudi leadership. Finally, there was probably a strong hope that the public could be diverted from the true roots of September 11. The Bush administration needed to turn the public's eyes away from the intelligence failures and head off the danger, however slight, that Saudi associates of the Bush family and friends would be implicated in the attacks. Mr Hussein was the perfect target: a true despot, long-standing public enemy of the US and a wastrel of energy resources needed by US consumers.

Perhaps the Iraq war had roots other than September 11 and Saudi Arabia. There is even a tiny, if fading chance, that the ostensible motive - weapons of mass destruction - had merit. But if the Iraq war was an opportunistic response to September 11, it is crucially important that we know it. Thousands of lives and perhaps $100bn have gone into this war, with little to show for it except an enraged Iraqi public and enormous costs of occupation extending into the future.

The US media have so far shown little interest in connecting the dots. Meanwhile, the administration continues to play on the public's post-September 11 fears and its pride and comfort in US military might. Yet the questions do not fade away. The administration's seeming unwillingness to examine the Saudi connections and the enormous costs of Iraqi occupation are now causing concern even among the president's stalwarts in Congress. The issues are too big to be swept aside, even by the powerful currents of patriotism, fear and spin.

* Sleeping With the Devil: How Washington Sold our Soul for Saudi Crude, by Robert Baer (Crown Publications) The writer is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University



To: T L Comiskey who wrote (28037)9/18/2003 2:16:55 PM
From: Jim Willie CB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
EXTREME VALUE THEORY, The freakish event foretold
By Robert Matthews
Published: September 4 2003

Call it Shakespeare's Rule: when bad things happen, "they come not single spies, but in battalions". After economic recession and the Sars epidemic, Hong Kong looked set to learn the truth of that line from Hamlet this week, in the form of Typhoon Dujuan.

In the event, there was relatively little damage - largely because everyone was ready for it. For those in the insurance and risk management business, the real nightmare is the freak event that strikes out of the blue - and against which there seems no protection.

Now there is growing excitement about a mathematical technique that, though not quite a crystal ball, can help lessen the chances of being wrong-footed by fate.

Extreme value theory is starting to have an impact on areas as diverse as financial risk planning and marine safety and to judge from the range of applications described in a new book*, this is just the beginning.

At first glance, EVT seems to do the impossible: to predict events so extreme that they have never been seen before, from freak floods to financial disasters.

It took the genius of the Cambridge mathematician Ronald Fisher, the father of modern statistics, even to think it might be possible. In 1928 he showed that extreme events follow a distribution: a curve that captures their relative frequency.

Take the example of human height: the heights of people follow the familiar bell-shaped Gaussian curve, which reflects the fact that while most people have near-average heights, some are much taller or shorter. Just what percentage of people fall into these extreme categories can be estimated from the shape of the curve.

What Fisher showed was that extreme values themselves follow a distribution - a curve that allows the chances of even more extreme values to be estimated from past data.

The potential uses of such a technique were clearly legion but for many years EVT was regarded as a mathematical curiosity, requiring colossal amounts of data to be put to use.

There were also concerns about the technical assumptions underlying EVT. But during the past decade or so, mathematicians have worked to allay those qualms, allowing the power of EVT to be used in many applications.

Among the first to benefit have been insurance companies faced with gauging the chances of extreme events such as floods, storms and hurricanes. Overestimate the risk and the unrealistically high premiums could scare off business; under- estimate it and the insurance company will suffer the consequences.

For many years the industry has used rules of thumb such as the "20-80" formula, which asserts that 20 per cent of events are responsible for more than 80 per cent of the total cost of claims. Using EVT to analyse historical data, Paul Embrechts, a financial mathematician, and his colleagues at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, have shown that while this rule works fairly well for many insurance sectors, it fails disastrously for others.

For example, EVT shows that hurricanes follow a "0.1-95" rule - showing that the real threat is the 1-in-1,000-type hurricane, which can swallow up 95 per cent of the total cover in one go. Knowing this allows insurers to set more appropriate premiums, to the benefit of both themselves and their clients.

EVT is also making inroads into the world of financial risk management, still smarting from the Long Term Capital Management debacle of 1998. Wrong-footed by the meltdown of the Russian economy, the huge hedge fund had to be bailed out with $3.5bn from a consortium of 15 banks.

To guard against a repeat performance, risk managers keep watch on their so-called value at risk (Var), the biggest loss likely to strike over a fixed time period (typically 10 trading days) with a probability of, say, one in 100. But Vars are only as good as the probability curves on which they are based and EVT suggests that using the familiar bell curve is not good enough, leading to underestimates of the true risks of taking a big hit.

EVT is still in its infancy. Mathematicians are still exploring its potential, especially for predicting several extreme events all striking at the same time. Even so, this technique is already helping to save lives as well as fortunes (see left).

It may not be a crystal ball - but its formulas can help us all sleep more easily at night.

*Extreme Values in Finance, Telecommunications and the Environment, edited by Barbel Finkenstadt and Holger Rootzen, published by Chapman & Hall/CRC. The author is visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham

..............................................................................................................................................

Practical applications of a mathematical theory on extreme occurrences

The lives of 16m inhabitants of the Netherlands are protected by a formula. With more than half its land below sea level, the country is surrounded by a series of sea dikes, designed to cope with the worst nature can throw at them using the mathematics of extreme value theory (EVT).

Following the disastrous storm surge of February 1953, which killed 1,800 people and destroyed 47,000 homes, the Dutch government demanded the construction of new sea defences that would protect the nation for centuries to come.

Analysing historical records of extreme events, scientists came up with a 5-metre height standard for the improved dikes. EVT was then used to confirm that the chances of another disaster in the near future were vanishingly small.

EVT is also at the heart of new marine safety recommendations to prevent tragedies such as the loss of the cargo ship MV Derbyshire, which sank with all its 44 crew in a typhoon off the south coast of Japan in 1980. In 2000, an official inquiry found that the vessel's forward hatch cover had given way in heavy seas, allowing water to flood in. The conclusion exonerated the drowned captain and crew of the Derbyshire, who had been blamed for the tragedy.

It was a conclusion based partly on research by Prof Jonathan Tawn and Dr Janet Heffernan of Lancaster University, who used EVT to examine scenarios in which the ship was exposed to waves violent enough to break the hatch covers.

In research carried out with Lloyd's Register, the two academics also used EVT to show that hatch strengths for Derbyshire-sized ships should be increased by 35 per cent, over and above the doubling recommended following the tragedy. A few months later, in December 2001, the giant bulk-carrier Christopher sank off the Azores with 27 crew. A final radio message reported that the forward hatch cover had collapsed.

It was an eerie echo of the fate of the Derbyshire - and perhaps demonstrated that even the most sophisticated theory offers no protection if it is not acted upon.