TSA, Probability and Profiling

US airport security is enough of a mess to generate a great SNL parody (above and here). My question, as a statistician, is how many underwear and shoe bombs have been detected with enhanced screening procedures? If the answer is "zero" or can be written in scientific notation, a lot of innocent people are being subjected to unresonable search and seizures.

Asra Nomani, a Muslim reporter with the Daily Beast, has proposed (here) that we rethink profiling. From a statistical standpoint, profiling on every relevant observable factor increases the probability of identifying terrorists. On the other side of the debate (hosted by Intelligence Squared US, here) was Michael Chertoff, former director of Homeland Security. Chertoff argues that "...racial and religious profiling would be not only ineffective, but counterproductive from a security standpoint." My comment to Mr. Chertoff would be (1) "Prove It" and (2) who said "racial and religious profiling" was the only way to profile.

TSA and Health Care Reform

Recent enhanced screening measures (body scanners and more invasive pat-downs) are starting to upset airline passengers in the US. At the same time, Republicans in Congress are calling for the repeal of health reform.

Although the Republicans have, so far, been quiet on rolling back TSA security measures, here's an idea that will allow the US to have strongly invasive airport screening while at the same time shifting the cost of some routine health care procedures to the private sector (something Republicans should like).

Combine routine proctological and gynecological exams with air travel. We can screen for enlarged prostates, positive pap smears, and underwear bombs all at the same time. Yes, people will have to get to the airport a little early but when was your primary care provider ever on time? And, for those who travel a lot, on-line medical records will allow TSA to determine that someone is good to go.

I suppose it would be simpler to have people pre-screened for air travel (much like the military and some law enforcement agencies award security clearances after an investigation), but that doesn't solve our health care problem. There just aren't enough primary care physicians.

Stack & Tilt: My Finish

After not having very good numbers in the hitting area, surprisingly my swing ends up in a pretty good place (good enough to look OK at the finish but not produce very good shot results). My shoulders are rotated 108 open to the target (Tour average is 138) and my hip turn is 98 degrees open to the target (Tour average is 106). There is more potential here that would result from more body rotation during the swing. Thirty degrees more rotation at impact would put me right where I need to be on the follow through.

The changes needed in the start of my swing are (1) better posture at address, (2) more weight shift on the backswing, and (3) better arm position at the top--as can been seen from the after video (here). I've been playing with the new (old) swing for the last two months. The results have actually been very good. In future posts, I'll show a video of the new swing and we can see if the follow through looks any better.

In retrospect, I don't regret the Stack & Tilt Journey. It helped me understand my golf swing better and also understand my bad shots and their causes. From the sequence of still images and analysis (here) it should be clear that I never got to the S&T model swing. If you plan on trying the swing, video taping is essential. It would also be useful to have an S&T instructor although they seem hard to find. The availability of good instruction and high-quality video analysis at GolfTec (here) or at Golf Galaxy (here) is one good reason to stick with the traditional golf swing.

Stack & Tilt: My Follow Through

Here, the result of casting (releasing the club in the downswing) and not rotating my body enough toward the target clearly generates a poor follow through. Notice how Ernie Els (left frame) has rotated his body and released his right arm more fully toward the target.

This a point in the S&T instruction that I never really understood. Plummer and Bennet talk about extending the arms but not shaking hands with the target as Ernie Else is doing. Ernie is fully releasing the right hand directly toward the target. I'm not sure what the S&T instruction is driving at. The result for me was probably not what S&T instruction intended.

Stack & Tilt: My Swing At Impact

Here is my swing at impact. Particularly notice the right two images (me against Tiger) and the associated numbers. All these numbers (shoulder turn, shoulder tilt and hip turn) should be in the 40-degree range at this point. My shoulder turn is at 18 degrees open (Tour average is 48 degrees open to the target), my shoulder tilt is 26 degrees right (Tour average is 43 degrees) and my hip turn is 30 degrees open (Tour average is 42 degrees open). I'm basically in the same position I was at address. At impact, I'm not bent over enough so that my body can clear out of the way and turn more toward the target and my shoulder tilt is not enough to maintain my wrist angle (the flying wedge) to prevent casting. Notice how Tiger is bent over more at impact with his hands further away from his body, his body turned much further toward the target with his right shoulder working down and under the chin.

Notice in the image above that I'm adding loft to the club (there should be a straight line from my left shoulder to the club head at impact as in the Ernie Els image). In other words, I'm hitting the 7-iron in this image as if it was an eight or nine iron, thus the predicable loss of distance and inability to control ball flight. Notice that my shoulder turn (18 degrees) is in the red numbers, that is, not enough shoulder turn toward the target.

Stack & Tilt: My Downswing

Here's where my problems with consistency of contact and power loss start happening (I thought it was because I'm getting old).

Notice that both Ernie Els and Tiger have maintained their wrist angle (the flying wedge) late into the downswing. In my case I have released that wrist angle (cast the club) early loosing leverage and power. My body is in my way (not rotated enough toward the target) forcing the casting motion. Maintaining the flying wedge is not something that you can think about (a negative swing thought). It's the body rotation that maintains the flying wedge (something I wasn't doing and didn't understand fully from the S&T instruction books and DVD).

The biggest thing for the tour player on the downswing is body drive, right elbow moving out in front of the body, club on the swing-plane line, lots of right leg drive, right foot off the ground, left pocket and left leg visible, and the left side of upper body visible. Body rotation gets you from the top to this point, the arms and the club are along for the ride.

In my swing, the club is underneath the swing-plane line (I'm force to adjust two extreme angles to square the club up), right elbow jammed up against the body, body position is static and in the way of my arms, not turned toward the target, no right knee drive, and not clearing the left side out at all.

Here's the reason I'm hitting fat shots. It's not body sway but rather releasing the wrist angle early. This issue is discussed a lot in S&T instruction, I just didn't get it and didn't know how to maintain the flying wedge with the S&T swing.

Unintended Consequences: Afghan War Strategy

The NY Time reports today (here) that the current strategy of killing mid-level Taliban leaders in Afghanistan may have unintended consequences. If mid-level fighters are replaced by people with no allegiance to the current Taliban leaders, the possibility of a peaceful settlement diminishes. The leadership simply might not be able to deliver (for some background on the Afghan War strategy read Bob Woodward's book Obama's Wars).

Supply Side vs. Demand Side

This Sunday on CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Fareed interviewed Paul Krugman (Princeton University Department of Economics) and Raghuram Rajan (University of Chicago School of Business). It was as clear an exposition as I've heard of supply-side vs. demand-side economics and worth watching (here and for more Rajan, here, more Krugman, here, and more Zakaria on this topic, here).

Rajan argued for supply-side measures to return US competitiveness (increased business confidence, improved labor force skill levels, tax cuts to stimulate investment, etc.) while Krugman made the Keynesian argument (the subprime mortgage crisis has reduced consumer demand, business have excess capacity and won't invest or expand until there is more demand, and therefore government has to step in with economic stimulus).

It's hard not to agree with both positions since each is right, in theory. As a practical matter, however, the supply-side solutions only work in the long-term (how long will it take to retrain the US workforce?) and the demand-side solutions may not work at all (the US political system is unable to act quickly enough and with enough unity of purpose to enact a stimulus that would be large enough to have any impact).

Eventually, the economy will heal itself or at least find a new equilibrium. There's just no guarantee that the new equilibrium will be at a high level of either growth or employment.