nate.verse.com

My friend Ethan recently wrote a post that talked about a recent report from the JFA Institute about ways to improve the American prison system. The report, entitled Unlocking America makes the argument that we need to find ways to reduce the rapidly growing prison population in America. It argues that while America now has more people in prison than any other country (both in total number and in percentage), this doesn’t seem to be helping to reduce the number of crimes committed. It concludes, among other things, that we should give shorter sentences and release prisoners sooner back into the mainstream of society.

I’m sympathetic to this argument, and do worry that long prison terms are as likely to push people toward a life of crime than to convince them of the error of their ways. So my initial reaction to the paper was positive, and I appreciated that they offered a number of statistics showing that the “rates of return to serious crime on the part of those released from prison are not high.” Since these statistics were based on the Department of Justices own report, they seemed trustworthy.

But I was surprised by the numbers offered — they seemed almost too good to be true. Table 4 seemed to show that released prisoners only constituted 1% of the arrests for violent crimes. If true, this would make it seem that either practically no one is released, or our prison system is actually having striking success at rehabilitation.

So I decided read the underlying report, a 2002 study entitled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. To my surprise, it was very readable. To my greater surprise, the conclusions and even some of the numbers didn’t seem to agree with what was presented in the JFA report. The JFA report said:

The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a major study of criminal involvement of prisoners who had been released in 1994. It found that only 5% of the 3 million arrests made in seven states between 1994 and 1997 were of recently released prisoners (Table 4)

While the DOJ report did say that “rearrests of the released prisoners were 4.7% of all arrests for serious crime from 1994 to 1997″, it also made clear that this was not all recently released prisoners, but only those released in 1994. It also put a very different spin on this number:

Although these percentages may seem small, they are actually the product of
high rates of criminality. For example,to account for the 8.4% of 1995 homicides, the 234,358 released prisoners were arrested for homicide at a rate 53 times higher than the homicide arrest rate for the adult population.

Note also that the 8.4% does not include homicides by (a) prisoners released in 1995, (b) prisoners released before 1994, or (c) released prisoners who had crossed State lines. The percentage of homicides attributable to released prisoners would be substantially greater if it included persons in categories a, b, and c.

Most of the numbers in the JFA report’s Table 4 come from Table 6 in the DOJ report.

So let’s look closer at Table 4, trying to match it up its data with the underlying DOJ report cited.

• First, the title is misleading. “Percent of Arrests Attributed to Released Prisoners” should really mention that this is of prisoners released during a single year (1994), and is not the percentage for all released prisoners.
• Second, “Arrests in 7 States” looks to be a simple mistake. The first line numbers for total arrests clearly match up with the table for “Percent of adult arrests for 7 crimes that released prisoners in 13 States.” So it should be 13 states, not 7. This doesn’t affect their case, but seems sloppy and makes one wonder about the amount of review this table received.
• Next, the title “Total Arrests of Prisoners Released in 1994-97″ is wrong in a way that could be misleading. The numbers given are not for prisoners released over the course of 3 years, but arrests during 1994-97 of prisoners released in 1994. Incorrectly labeled as it is, it makes the number seem much smaller than it is.
• Worst, the final row, which shows “Total Arrests of Released Prisoners” at 1%, seems to both mislabeled and contradicted by the report. The report only deals with prisoners released in a single year, and while it doesn’t break down a percentage for all ‘violent crime’ arrests, all of those listed in Table 6(murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) are much higher than 1%. I can find nothing in the DOJ report that would substantiate the 1% figure cited in the table as coming from that report.

Now, the DOJ report is not perfect. Statistics based on arrest rates rather than conviction rates certainly could be irrelevant if there is a strong tendency to ’round up the usual suspects’. But using a report showing that 47% of the released prisoners studied were reconvicted for a new crime within three years as evidence that ‘rates of return to serious crime are not high’ seems at best disingenuous. Maybe one of the authors of the report could offer a more charitable interpretation, along with a better explanation for the 1% figure listed in Table 4?

In some exchange a few months ago, I used the phrase ‘destroy the globe’ to refer to the worst case scenario for global warming. Colin (correctly) called me on it, and I backed away from it, agreeing that few reasonable people are making claims quite that drastic.

However, reading a recent piece by James Hansen, an eminent climatalogist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), I found very similar language: “Make no doubt, however, if tipping points are passed, if we, in effect, destroy Creation”.
The Real Deal: Usufruct & the Gorilla

The whole piece is an interesting read, and for me creates the impression of Hansen as a crazed fanatic devoted to the cause of Global Warming to the detriment of science. The context of the article is a recent correction to the temperature record proposed by Steve McIntyre.

Steve’s point was that this error was indicative of the need to review the methods used to process the imperfect raw temperature records into the inputs used for the climate models. Hansen, while promptly correcting this admittedly small error, disagrees and continues to refuse to release the code or exact methodology that is used.

I can’t see how this is a good move on his part. Presuming Hansen is a true believer, I have to think that greater openness of code and methods would be a good thing. If one is confident in one’s conclusions, and worried that others refuse to see the imminent danger that you alone see, why not bend over backwards to help them reproduce your results and spread the word?

I recently read a blog post claiming that (among other things) global warming is a subject that should be beyond debate. This was my response.

With this being said, how can we say we are not contributing to this
global warming? The next simple fact is that CO2 levels are higher than theyhave been for the past 400,000 years. … I have not had one person challenge this.

I’ll challenge that. What you say isn’t false, but it has a fairly large logical gap: CO2 levels are not the same as global warming. Even among skeptics, it’s pretty universally accepted that the world is getting warmer and that CO2 levels are increasing as a result of human activity. It’s also pretty universally accepted that in the absence of other effects, increased CO2 levels produce a warmer climate. But the direct warming caused by increased CO2 levels is agreed to be a relatively small declining logarithmic effect — it’s not nearly enough to account for the warming projected by the climate models. Instead, the models show that the small increase in temperature due to CO2 is going to be tremendously amplified by secondary effects like changes in cloud cover, reflectivity of the earth, precipitation patterns, and the like. It’s generally the predictions of these models that are being doubted by the climate skeptics, not the underlying facts.

The way in which global warming is a lie is not that the earth is not getting warmer, and not that humans are not contributing to this warming to some degree. The lie is that the evidence for the run-away-feedback-doomsday-scenarios is being oversold, and the certainty that the bulk of current warming is anthropogenic (human-generated) is being exaggerated. Having personally read through several of the papers on which these scenarios are based, I’d say they are full of holes. And the reaction of the authors of these papers upon being questioned about these holes is troublesome: they refuse to release the data on which their papers are based, argueing in some cases that they’ve invested years of work gathering it and have no obligation to turn it over to someone who just wants to find fault in it. While I can understand this reaction on a human level, it doesn’t feel like the impartial science on which I want base massively important societal decisions.

The counter-argument is that although some of the individual papers have flaws, there is a constellation of evidence all pointing in the direction of extreme warming. This is a conundrum, but I think the best way out of it is to examine the evidence for each of these key papers and see how well each holds up on its own. So far, I haven’t found anything that feels solid enough. Politically, I’m all for many of the energy policy changes that are suggested (CO2 credits, alternative energy research, green living), but scientifically I think the evidence is still weak. Now, it might be argued that the precautionary principle justifies the need for immediate action, but at that point one is no longer dealing with science but with politics.

I realize this probably won’t change your point of view, but I hope it will encourage you to consider that there still might be room for debate on this topic. If you are interested further, and want to read what people who can state this case better than I have to say, you might check out [www.climateaudit.org]. It’s sometimes a somewhat bristly group, but if you stick to the science and ignore the attitude, I think you’ll find some solid points of view there. And over time, you might find yourself adopting some of the attitude yourself.

We had supper last night at Wink in Austin. I’ll start with the positives: it was wonderfully friendly and inviting, they were great at accomodating our indecision in ordering, they happily split entrees and glasses of wine into two. On the downside, it was pricey even with a $25 restaurant.com certificate, the variable pacing between courses was awkward, and two of the dishes were flawed to a level highly unexpected for a restaurant of this price level.

The amuse bouche (a blue cheese mouse on a vegetable chip with lemon oil) was very tasty and things boded well. I started with the Buttered Chicory Soup, which was delicious, and unfortunately my favorite dish of the night. My companion had the Endive and Parsley salad, which was visually appealing but she felt fell flat in flavor. I liked the bits of it I sampled, appreciating the lemon dressing, but felt the olives didn’t fit the other flavors.

The scallop with mushroom was very tasty, if a bit salty. The hebi (spearfish) with beets, mushroom, and red onion marmalade was good. I felt there were too many competing flavors, but my dining companion though the combination worked. Unfortunately, the thumb-sized beets were unpeeled and not well washed. My companion was smart enough to peel them, staining her fingers red. I unsuccessfully tried to convince myself the grit was pepper, and was left with a furry feeling tongue that took a full course to get rid of.

The duck would have been excellent had it been cooked. Were it seared tuna, it would have been perfect; were it beef, it would be called bleu; but as it was duck, it was simply raw. It looked beautiful (and the sauteed edges were very tasty) but the room-temperature center portions were inedible. Had I been smarter I would have asked it to be redone before trying it, but as they had so nicely split the entree into two appealing plates I felt silly doing so. As it was, they very graciously broiled my uneaten single slice after I had finished the rest edible portions.

The waiter apologized, and said that unless otherwise specified this is how they cook their duck. I presumed he was just covering for the kitchen’s error, for through no stretch could this have been classified as medium-rare, but reading through Chowhound, I find that someone else has had the same experience. While I realize that tastes vary, I’m still hard-pressed to come up with any explanation other than a chef who does not eat duck. At the least, the waiters should be explaining how it will be prepared and asking if this is desired.

We had the chocolate soup for dessert, which was a tasty combination of melted chocolate and chocolate mousse flavored with ginger and tea. It went very well with the tasty Talijancich White Solero.

Overall, I came away disappointed. I’m sure it’s possible to eat a great meal here, whether by chance or better planning, but the misses that did occur were large and inexplicable enough to shake my faith in the kitchen. The friendliness made up for a lot, and I’d happily explore more of the menu were someone else were footing the bill, but for myself—at that price point—I’m looking for something closer to flawless.

I and a friend had supper last night at Uchi, and were pleasantly suprised: yes, there is great sushi in Austin! Service was an excellent combination of informed and informal, the eating environment was pleasant if a bit loud, and the food ranged from pretty good to world class excellent.

We had a 6:00 reservation, arrived at 5:50, and were seated immediately. The Omakase for two was offered at ~$175, but fearing the expense we chose to order off the menu as we went along. Here’s what we had:

Brown Butter Sorbet: We started with a small serving of the brown butter sorbet that would have begun the omakase: tasty, but so sweet and buttery that it felt like an odd beginning to a meal.

Higawari Carpaccio: About six slices of madai snapper with a delicious tangerine oil and a scattering of golden tobiko. Delicious, and put us back on track after the oddly buttery beginning. We had it accompanied by a shared glass of Aneri Prosecco, which matched wonderfully.

Japanese Pumpkin Tempura (two orders): Excellent, although a bit greasy from the perspective of perfect tempura. Served with a strong and tasty ginger dipping sauce which we happily drunk as a soup broth after finishing the tempura. Two orders because we really like pumpkin, and because it was on sale as a ‘Happy Hour Special’.

Kai Mushi: The mussels were also ordered because they were a Happy Hour Special. This was the one failed dish of the night. Some of the mussels were quite good, and others, umm, not so good. Not spoiled, just stronger in flavor in a bad way and not too tender. We mentioned this, and were happy to see we weren’t charged for it at the end. Mussels were served in a mild but tasty Thai coconut curry broth.

Hiya Yako: A delicious and delicate cold tofu dish served over shaved ice, and at $4 probably the best bargain of the meal. Sprinkled with bonito, scallions, and I think some yuzu. Large enough to share comfortably.

Kabocha Hotate: A delicious single fried scallop with a pumpkin puree. I thought it was really good but not a good value, my dining partner thought was OK but nothing special.

Saba Shio: A small but very tasty piece of boneless mackerel, served with small piles of salt, black pepper, and red pepper. Delicious, and for $5 we probably should have ordered one for each person.

Miso Soup (one with shiitake, one without): Solidly good miso soup, well priced at $2/$2.50. Nothing extraordinary, just good.

Sushi Selection: 2 Hamachi, 1 Super Toro, 1 Hotate, 1 Uni. The hamachi was tremendous, probably the best I’ve had (including in Japan). I had the scallap which was good but nothing special. My dining partner had the uni with quail egg, pronounced wonderful. The bluefin toro was great, but not great enough to justify the price or probably the killing of such a rare fish.

Sake: We shared a single glass of the Wakatake “Demon Slayer” with the suchi, which was very good on the smooth and subtle side. We also sampled three others, and found the unfiltered California Takara Nigori to be the tastiest (good balance of sweet, sour, and body), the Hokkaido Otokoyama to be wonderfully pure and clear, and the Suishin Ani sort of artificial tasting. As the Takara Nigori was the cheapest on the menu and I liked it best of the four, I’d probably get it next time, although the Wakatake was certainly a more refined flavor and we liked it better than the other two. But I know little about sake, and the samples were tasted after the sushi, so you might be better trusting your own tastes and the generally accurate descriptions on the menu.

Bacon Steakie: Horrible name, but a truly delicious piece of boar belly bacon. Although pork not beef, it’s a worthy homage to the local BBQ scene, but served with a tangerine glaze it fit in well with the meal. Large enough for two to share at the end of a meal when most of the hunger has been sated.

Chocolate and Wasabi Fondant: Better than it sounds. My dining partner thought the chocolate/wasabi combo was perfect; I think I would have preferred pepper to horseradish for contrast. I thought it went great with the pistachio ice cream and tuile cookie; dining partner thought it best on its own, unadulterated.

Including the two shared drinks (and minus the not-the-best mussels) the total came to $115 pre-tip — pretty expensive by our standards, but it felt like a very fair price for a wonderful hours long meal.

Recommendations:

Hamachi Sushi — probably should be ordered periodically through the meal, and as dessert. That good.

Hiya Yako and Saba Shio and Pumpkin Tempura — low priced and delicious. I’m interested in trying the other lower priced items on the menu, as these were hits.

Bacon Steakie — high end BBQ rivalling the traditional stuff around Austin. Perhaps awkward to find a place for in the meal, but worth fitting in.

It’s a bit of an understatement to say that I had some BBQ for lunch today, and perhaps closer to the truth to say that thanks to Luling City Market (Luling, TX) my faith in American restaurants has been rejuvenated. The food was wonderful, but even better, the restaurant itself was as well honed as the finest Parisian neighborhood restaurant.

One enters through the two dining rooms, packed with local families and couples (equally Mexican, White, and Black), and finds in the back the enclosed smokehouse where one orders the meat. For $8 a pound one gets brisket and pork ribs, and for $1.75 more a smoked homemade beef sausage. Pickles and onions and fluffy white bread are available, and many people ordering for a family carried off a whole loaf of bread still in the plastic bag. The meat is served on two layers of butcher paper with the corners folded up to make it easier to carry to your table.

From a counter in the middle of the dining room one can order soft drinks (Big Red and root beer seemed most popular), potato salad, and beans. If you had two people you could save a bit of time by each hitting one line, but the experience wouldn’t really be complete for either one. The sauce (sweet, mustardy, red-peppery, black-peppery goodness) is already in bottles on the tables, but you can get more from the counter if the bottle is empty.

The beef sausage was coarse and juicy, almost like a burger that was smoked in a casing. It was good, but not really my thing. The ribs were sweet, succulent, and salty, also good, but I like my pork a little drier and spicier. The beans were straightforward, unspiced pintos — a nice complement, but forgettable. The potato salad was standard mayonnaised stuff, but perked up nicely with some of the sauce added. But the brisket, the brisket was perfect: crispy on the outside, moist and juicy inside, wood smoke throughout, too good even for the otherwise tremendous sauce.

There may be better brisket out there (I’ve yet to eat the neighboring BBQ mecca of Lockhart) but this was pretty good. And as restaurants go, this is the sort of place one should take food conscious Europeans or Asians to show them that at least in parts of this country we know how to eat too.