Public policy is a decision to intervene (or not to intervene if intervention is called for) on an issue facing people living under a particular political system. Previous posts have established that we live and work under certain beliefs and operate through perspectives, so what to make of these policy interventions (or non-interventions)?
At the core of public policy is the idea that something is not as it should be. How this is understood and communicated is based on these perspectives which mean that the idea of things not being as they should be may or may not be "true." Where "truth" is highly subjective to these individual perspectives, what collectively governs our decision to act? Depending on the political system, action (the use of public resources such as taxpayer funds, or material resources such as equipment) can be marshalled by convincing those with access to public resources to do something (or not do something, if action is called for). I've found even under a democratic republic, there are usually just a small number of people who motivate those with access to resources to do something, because there is usually such little public participation in most of what government does. On the local level, it even tends to be the same few people over and over again who make public officials dance on all issues.
So now with our subjective "problem" identified, those with resources motivated to act (or not act), what do we do? Part of the problem identification stage, by definition of things not being as they should be, involves a partial solution. If there was no deficit between wehere we are and where we should be, then there is no problem is there? So by simply identifying such a defecit, we've also identified a target goal. Establishing the process of achieving that goal is again based on perspectives, and is therefore also subjective. There may be a myriad number of ways to arrive at the goal, and choosing one over the other depends on what one person or another believes is the "best" way to do so.
This action, the actual policy, may be based on data generated through research, through examples from similar situations in history in that place or any other, or if a new "problem," might be based on assumptions and perspectives. There is however, no one "right" way to do things, just those that have the most desireable consequences with the least unforseen or undesirable consequences. In some cases, it may be more desireable not to act, as I've mentioned frequently. The consequences of action may create a bigger problem than the one the action was designed to address, for example.
The action must also be tailored to the issue as it will be at the time of action; human experience is fluid and dynamic, and as I've pointed out, everything chages, nothing is static. This means that an issue is not a monolithic unchanging obstacle; it is not like a runner facing a hurdle on the racetrack. In reality, problems move through time with us, they change and evolve, and are interconnected with other issues that may or may not be a problem at the moment. In this sense, the aforementioned deficit or problem is like a hurdle on a racetrack that moves with the runner at varying speeds and heights around the track, and when the runner decides to pick up the pace to overcome it is a subjective choice--but jumping over the hurdle always has implications for the obstacles to come.
The interconnectedness of everything adds another level of challenges. As I wrote about the problems with labels, the act of applying a label to something limits it. By identifying the problem, by giving it a name and therefore what the desired outcome is, limits have been placed on the possible solutions. When faced with a loose screw, for example, the appropriate screwdriver is important to fix it. A pair of pliers might work, but not as effectively as the right screwdriver. Similarly, if faced with a loose board, glue might be a solution over a screwdriver if the board is held with nails. But what if the board is part of a wall in a house, and rain has leaked through the roof making the wood swell, and thus, loosened it? That requires a whole host of other solutions. This is the key to problem solving, getting at the root cause.
However the interconnectedness of everything complicates things; in the screw/board/leaky house example, any intervention at any step of the scope of the problem is "right." However if the ultimate problem is a leaky roof, the screw fix will only be temporary. It may be that the best solution is to move to a drier climate where it doesn't rain as much. Any of the possible solutions to the problem will meet a need--the solutions are limited more by resources than what will ultimately fix the problem.
Take crime, for example. The role of the police department isn't to eliminate crime, but to minimize it as much as they can given the resources at their disposal. Given enough resources they could eliminate crime, however to do so is prohibitively expensive. Crime is a good example of interconnectedness--what causes crime? There are a number of factors, such as the economy, the state of American families, the culture of the location where crime might be committed, not to mention the biology of serial killers and so on. The police have not been given the power to completely intervene in all of the conditions that create crime or criminals--they cannot raise children with values that deter them from being criminals, for example, or change a person's biology. So where on the spectrum of society they can intervene is limited to resources and their scope of control.
In short, public policy is a complex association of resources, political power, arbitrary decision-making and relativity. Given this, its a wonder anything the government does actually bears fruit of some kind!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
On national politics
I wish I knew who to credit with this idea, and if anyone knows let me know who to credit with it because the last thing I want to do is plagiarise the work of another. In management circles there is a train of thought that our professional weaknesses are nothing more than the overdoing of our greatest professional strengths. For example, determination or persistence can easily become stubbornness if taken too far. This basic (and to my mind, correct) idea is evident in any number of other fields. Here, I'll apply it to politics.
There is a widening gulf between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and the bases of each party are digging in their heels to fight for the most extremist beliefs of their political party. But what are we fighting over really? Rhetorical flourish paints Democrats as tax and spend liberals and Republicans as American Taliban, where each view is irreconcilable with the other. Take one of America's strengths or values, say, freedom, and apply the above philosophy of weaknesses being overdone strengths. Both parties, even most Americans I'd say, support the idea of freedom. At the heart of our disagreements are where those strengths become weaknesses, and therefore where intervention is (or isn't) required.
A libertarian might desire as little restrictions on freedom as possible, meaning that at no point on the continuum of the issue is action merited to curb it. On the other extreme are religious conservatives, who might say that having legalized abortion is too much freedom, and draw the line there, while advocates for a woman's right to choose would disagree. Advocates for minorities might argue that government action is required to eliminate structures that impede the freedoms of minorities, while others might argue that government action impedes on their freedom to discriminate or some such thing. The point is that on the issue of freedom, where we choose to act (or not act when action is called for) depends on when an individual interprets that the value of freedom moves from being an asset to a hindrance. But in the end, we need to recognize that "the other" places values on freedom just like we do, or any other issue, and stop painting each other like tyrants and Nazis in divisive rhetorical flourish.
We paint opponents as extremists for the reason that it presents clear choices; the truth, we fear, is that in the case of elections the voters won't be able to tell us apart. When presented this way, differences are clear and the position of each candidate makes more sense without tearing at the public's faith in our political system.
The only difference between the position of Democrats and Republicans on public policy is where they believe America's strengths have become weaknesses.
There is a widening gulf between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and the bases of each party are digging in their heels to fight for the most extremist beliefs of their political party. But what are we fighting over really? Rhetorical flourish paints Democrats as tax and spend liberals and Republicans as American Taliban, where each view is irreconcilable with the other. Take one of America's strengths or values, say, freedom, and apply the above philosophy of weaknesses being overdone strengths. Both parties, even most Americans I'd say, support the idea of freedom. At the heart of our disagreements are where those strengths become weaknesses, and therefore where intervention is (or isn't) required.
A libertarian might desire as little restrictions on freedom as possible, meaning that at no point on the continuum of the issue is action merited to curb it. On the other extreme are religious conservatives, who might say that having legalized abortion is too much freedom, and draw the line there, while advocates for a woman's right to choose would disagree. Advocates for minorities might argue that government action is required to eliminate structures that impede the freedoms of minorities, while others might argue that government action impedes on their freedom to discriminate or some such thing. The point is that on the issue of freedom, where we choose to act (or not act when action is called for) depends on when an individual interprets that the value of freedom moves from being an asset to a hindrance. But in the end, we need to recognize that "the other" places values on freedom just like we do, or any other issue, and stop painting each other like tyrants and Nazis in divisive rhetorical flourish.
We paint opponents as extremists for the reason that it presents clear choices; the truth, we fear, is that in the case of elections the voters won't be able to tell us apart. When presented this way, differences are clear and the position of each candidate makes more sense without tearing at the public's faith in our political system.
The only difference between the position of Democrats and Republicans on public policy is where they believe America's strengths have become weaknesses.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
On education
The media is full of dire warnings about how American schools stack up to schools in other nations. The general consensus is we're falling behind, and evidence of this slip goes back to the 1970s when our students began to test lower than other students globally.
Remember the seismic shift that occurred during World War II where we escaped the devastation that other nations faced? That coincidentally is also when we were at the top of student test scores. As the nations of Europe rebuilt, their factories came online and their social institutions such as schools followed suit. We can see that turning point reflected in 1970, when we first began to have major manufacturing competition, and our wages plateaued. Test scores follow the same pattern, where our students resumed roughly the same level they occupied before the war broke out.
That's not to say there aren't problems with education in America; the largest being local control of school districts. The theory goes that the closer a service provider is to those using the services, the better, and more efficient the delivery of those services will be. In many ways it is a holdover of the nation's founding, where Americans were skeptical of centralized government as found under a king, and preferred decentralization to spread power and responsibility among many entities.
The problem is this results in at least 50 different education policies, as each state has some kind of state-wide educational authority. Within each state are any number of school districts to administer education to those students. In effect, for every 20,000 students or so, there is a whole bureaucracy that must be paid and maintained to administer local education at a district level. Depending on its size, a city may have one or more separate districts for elementary education and others for high school education.
In a time when resources are scarce, why do we cling to a model of local government that duplicates effort so often? Surely this isn't efficient. It may also be harmful to students. By uniting two districts, the cost in administration saved could provide improvements in teaching such as computer use, better teacher salaries (for those that have earned them based on performance), and better buildings. The local control model is costly, and for what benefit?
In general terms, to be a successful American my children need to know certain things. Are these things different in one district in one city than they are in another city? Are they different between states? I understand regional emphasis on agriculture in the Midwest for example, but the basics aren't that different--math has universal application, as does basic reading and critical thinking skills, regardless of where they are learned. Are parts of our nation so much different that we can't centralize the education system to use money to educate children instead of feeding a monstrous web of hungry bureaucracies? The answer to that question is pretty clear.
Remember the seismic shift that occurred during World War II where we escaped the devastation that other nations faced? That coincidentally is also when we were at the top of student test scores. As the nations of Europe rebuilt, their factories came online and their social institutions such as schools followed suit. We can see that turning point reflected in 1970, when we first began to have major manufacturing competition, and our wages plateaued. Test scores follow the same pattern, where our students resumed roughly the same level they occupied before the war broke out.
That's not to say there aren't problems with education in America; the largest being local control of school districts. The theory goes that the closer a service provider is to those using the services, the better, and more efficient the delivery of those services will be. In many ways it is a holdover of the nation's founding, where Americans were skeptical of centralized government as found under a king, and preferred decentralization to spread power and responsibility among many entities.
The problem is this results in at least 50 different education policies, as each state has some kind of state-wide educational authority. Within each state are any number of school districts to administer education to those students. In effect, for every 20,000 students or so, there is a whole bureaucracy that must be paid and maintained to administer local education at a district level. Depending on its size, a city may have one or more separate districts for elementary education and others for high school education.
In a time when resources are scarce, why do we cling to a model of local government that duplicates effort so often? Surely this isn't efficient. It may also be harmful to students. By uniting two districts, the cost in administration saved could provide improvements in teaching such as computer use, better teacher salaries (for those that have earned them based on performance), and better buildings. The local control model is costly, and for what benefit?
In general terms, to be a successful American my children need to know certain things. Are these things different in one district in one city than they are in another city? Are they different between states? I understand regional emphasis on agriculture in the Midwest for example, but the basics aren't that different--math has universal application, as does basic reading and critical thinking skills, regardless of where they are learned. Are parts of our nation so much different that we can't centralize the education system to use money to educate children instead of feeding a monstrous web of hungry bureaucracies? The answer to that question is pretty clear.
Capitalism Hits the Fan
I saw the full video on Free Speech TV, and little I could write would more directly explain the American economy since the end of WWII, and the structural flaws within our economic system.
In order to know where we are, we need to know where we've been. As a fan of history I was 90% of the way to where Professor Richard D. Wolff was headed on my own. While I don't agree with his final conclusions about how to remedy the situation we're facing, the full video is food for thought. I highly recommend the video to anyone interested in why we are now in economic uncertainty.
Monday, May 9, 2011
On unemployment
There are some basic facts we should be aware of before starting any discussion on unemployment. Most important is that the unemployment rate as discussed in the media is a contrived number, produced by monthly telephone surveys. If someone has been looking for work for more than four weeks, the Current Population Survey does not count them as actively looking for work, and does not then officially consider them unemployed--in the minds of the CPS, they are no longer part of the labor market at all.
The implication of this in a period of economic downturn is that anyone unemployed for more than a month is not counted in the official unemployment rate. The recent upward adjustment of the unemployment rate does not reflect those people who have been without work for more than a month, making the real unemployment rate much higher.
Since those people are not considered part of the labor market, by dint of the way the figure is calculated, they could be counted once again if they meet the criteria for looking for work. Thus the economy could improve, and the unemployment rate could go up as more of those who were not counted are now counted.
Given this, the unemployment rate is not a reliable number. It depends on phone calls, so does not reflect those who do not have phones, or do not answer when they are called. The CPS does not call everyone in America who has a phone either, but rather conducts a small sample and extrapolates that information out to the general population based on what is known about the population's demographics. Those demographics are known from the US Census, which is conducted once every ten years. People will move, die, be born, etc during that time, and so the demographics of the nation change between the census. Having just completed the census, the information we have on the nation's demographics is as accurate as it ever will be until the next one, but get less accurate with every year that passes. Therefore the information gleaned from the phone surveys is less accurate with every year that passes, as well.
A literature review on unemployment issues shows that the five most salient points about unemployment are:
1. The individual's skill level--how much they know, and how much their skills match what employers are looking for.
2. Spatial accessibility--how physically close a person is to where jobs are.
3. An individual's social networks--who they know that is working for an employer that is hiring.
4. Immigration--competing especially with the lower rung of the economic ladder, or those with the least/no skills.
5. Outsourcing--employers move factories overseas in pursuit of ever cheaper labor costs.
In the US the first issue is addressed through public or private education. Once beyond college age, there is little public assistance for the further construction of skill sets; neither is there for so called "blue collar" jobs, which are largely left to private, for-profit schools. An individual may take out student loans to attend these schools (or go back to college). The US is one of the only industrialized nations in the world where job retraining is not "free." Sweden, for example, makes enrollment in such programs mandatory for anyone receiving unemployment benefits.
Spatial accessibility is especially tough for workers in rural areas and Indian reservations as they tend not to be close to where the most work is located. Even within metropolitan areas, however, are pockets of low-income neighborhoods that have spatial accessibility problems. Competition for residents of these areas is fierce, as they tend to have the least skills and are therefore competing against immigrants and outsourcing for jobs. Being low-income workers, spatial accessibility can be overcome by public transportation systems, however studies show that the further a person lives from where they work, the more they make. In other words, the longer the commute, the more money made by residents of low income neighborhoods. This indicates that there are few to no local jobs to be had in these areas and that the best paying work is elsewhere.
Social networks are important, as many studies have shown work depends less on what you know than who you know. At its core, social networks link the supply side of labor markets (workers) with the consumers of labor (employers). In lieu of social networks, the want-ads in newspapers or websites can substitute. However, when we look at the social networks of those in low-income areas, they can only lead the worker to more low-income work. Similarly, the children of immigrants connected to their parents' social networks are at a disadvantage as well. If your social network is full of manual labor, for example, it will likely lead you to more manual labor.
Taking all of this into account, putting people to work is more difficult than instituting a single government policy. Section 8 housing is a step in the right direction, as is disbanding and disseminating public housing residents so poverty is not so concentrated. A jobs retraining program would add flexibility to the labor market that it is currently lacking. In high school it is important to supply students with alternative social networks that give them a chance to move up the economic ladder out of poverty. Finally, the issues of immigration and job outsourcing need to be addressed, though how exactly is a complicated subject with geopolitical and economic repercussions. None of these solutions are band aids, but address the core problem of unemployment; as more than band aids, they will take time to implement and perfect.
The implication of this in a period of economic downturn is that anyone unemployed for more than a month is not counted in the official unemployment rate. The recent upward adjustment of the unemployment rate does not reflect those people who have been without work for more than a month, making the real unemployment rate much higher.
Since those people are not considered part of the labor market, by dint of the way the figure is calculated, they could be counted once again if they meet the criteria for looking for work. Thus the economy could improve, and the unemployment rate could go up as more of those who were not counted are now counted.
Given this, the unemployment rate is not a reliable number. It depends on phone calls, so does not reflect those who do not have phones, or do not answer when they are called. The CPS does not call everyone in America who has a phone either, but rather conducts a small sample and extrapolates that information out to the general population based on what is known about the population's demographics. Those demographics are known from the US Census, which is conducted once every ten years. People will move, die, be born, etc during that time, and so the demographics of the nation change between the census. Having just completed the census, the information we have on the nation's demographics is as accurate as it ever will be until the next one, but get less accurate with every year that passes. Therefore the information gleaned from the phone surveys is less accurate with every year that passes, as well.
A literature review on unemployment issues shows that the five most salient points about unemployment are:
1. The individual's skill level--how much they know, and how much their skills match what employers are looking for.
2. Spatial accessibility--how physically close a person is to where jobs are.
3. An individual's social networks--who they know that is working for an employer that is hiring.
4. Immigration--competing especially with the lower rung of the economic ladder, or those with the least/no skills.
5. Outsourcing--employers move factories overseas in pursuit of ever cheaper labor costs.
In the US the first issue is addressed through public or private education. Once beyond college age, there is little public assistance for the further construction of skill sets; neither is there for so called "blue collar" jobs, which are largely left to private, for-profit schools. An individual may take out student loans to attend these schools (or go back to college). The US is one of the only industrialized nations in the world where job retraining is not "free." Sweden, for example, makes enrollment in such programs mandatory for anyone receiving unemployment benefits.
Spatial accessibility is especially tough for workers in rural areas and Indian reservations as they tend not to be close to where the most work is located. Even within metropolitan areas, however, are pockets of low-income neighborhoods that have spatial accessibility problems. Competition for residents of these areas is fierce, as they tend to have the least skills and are therefore competing against immigrants and outsourcing for jobs. Being low-income workers, spatial accessibility can be overcome by public transportation systems, however studies show that the further a person lives from where they work, the more they make. In other words, the longer the commute, the more money made by residents of low income neighborhoods. This indicates that there are few to no local jobs to be had in these areas and that the best paying work is elsewhere.
Social networks are important, as many studies have shown work depends less on what you know than who you know. At its core, social networks link the supply side of labor markets (workers) with the consumers of labor (employers). In lieu of social networks, the want-ads in newspapers or websites can substitute. However, when we look at the social networks of those in low-income areas, they can only lead the worker to more low-income work. Similarly, the children of immigrants connected to their parents' social networks are at a disadvantage as well. If your social network is full of manual labor, for example, it will likely lead you to more manual labor.
Taking all of this into account, putting people to work is more difficult than instituting a single government policy. Section 8 housing is a step in the right direction, as is disbanding and disseminating public housing residents so poverty is not so concentrated. A jobs retraining program would add flexibility to the labor market that it is currently lacking. In high school it is important to supply students with alternative social networks that give them a chance to move up the economic ladder out of poverty. Finally, the issues of immigration and job outsourcing need to be addressed, though how exactly is a complicated subject with geopolitical and economic repercussions. None of these solutions are band aids, but address the core problem of unemployment; as more than band aids, they will take time to implement and perfect.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
On fear
Its funny what we're afraid of, when you break common fears down.
Take the surge in gun sales following the shootings in Tucson that killed six people and wounded a Congresswoman. That surge could be attributed to people who are seeking to arm themselves to carry out similar attacks in copycat crimes, or they could be in reaction to the fear the shootings caused--people are arming themselves in self defense.
I like to think the best of people, and statistically the safer assumption is the self defense argument, since there would have been by now thousands of such attacks if the intent behind the purchase of these new weapons was to promote more violence. So what exactly are people protecting themsleves against? Given the purchase proximity to the attacks, we can assume some have decided they were going to arm themselves to prevent falling victim to similar violence. Having a weapon on hand must makes these people feel safer. But what were they afraid of to begin with?
The FBI compiles statistics on criminal activity as reported to them by police departments and through telephone surveys. These statistics are certainly incomplete, as there are crimes that are not reported to police, and crimes committed against people without phones. But given those limitations, it paints a pretty clear picture of the most violent crimes committed in society.
These criminal statistics are reduced to rates, per 100,000 residents, in given states; these statistics are further broken down into age ranges, ethnicities, and genders. Since 2010 was a census year, we have the most up-to-date information on populations in a state this year. Using the FBI statistics, it is possible to see how many people of your age, gender and ethnicty were killed in your state. Look them up, because I'll bet the statistics will surprise you. Across the board, the number of white women of any age are the least likely to be murdered. The rates are single digits per 100,000 residents, usually in the low single digits at that. I can virtually guarantee that the number of white women killed in a given state in a year is below ten, with possible exceptions for large states. This while the rates for young black men are in the hundereds per 100,000 residents--an astronomically high number, one usually ascribed by people to be the imagined murder rate for their own gender and ethnicity. The victims of crime are more often ethnic minorities, and likely killed by other ethnic minorities.
Why do we think so many more people are killed in certain social categories than in others, rather than the categories borne out by facts? There may be many reasons, but the largest factor is surely the media. TV shows like CSI, the Mentalist and others often portray whites as victims of crime. There is even debate about how news media covers murders--any murder is newsworthy, as demonstrated by the oft used news phrase "if it bleeds it leads." There may also be a bias toward emphasizing white victims, who are the likely viewing audience, to more effectively get viewer attention. There are also subtle ways that the media biases the information they convey to us; note how a 17 year old male is treated in a news story. As a victim, the male will be referred to as a "boy" while as a perpetrator will be called a "man."
But set aside whatever the causes of the fear may be; the facts don't justify the extent of the fear. Use the statistics--let's say the murder rate for your age and your ethnicity and gender in your state is 1 per 100,000. Look up the population of your state. The census breaks that down into age, ethnicity and gender calculations, so find the figures that represent you. Take that number, and divide it by 100,000. Now take that number, and multiply it by the murder rate for your age, gender and ethnicity. If you are a young person, this figure will likely be higher than if you're older, but either way I'm guessing the number will surprise you. Unless you're a black male, the number will most likely be less than ten, for a whole year in your whole state. Add to that the fact that most people are killed by people they know, and your chances of being murdered are clearly quite statistically small, bordering on the highly, highly unlikely. You don't have as much to fear as you thought.
Are you still scared? In light of this new information you shouldn't be. Sure, take precautions--don't associate with murderers, don't pick up hitchhikers--but there's no need to go out and buy a gun to defend yourself against a threat that's nonexistent. If you still want a gun, then you've proven my following point.
We choose what to be afraid of, if despite evidence to the contrary we are still afraid. You've made a choice to be scared, and that should prove liberating because you can just as easily choose not to be scared. And if there's no need to be afraid of being murdered, what more could someone do to you that could be worse? Arm yourself with information, for those without knowledge have the most to fear.
Make the choice--don't be afraid.
Take the surge in gun sales following the shootings in Tucson that killed six people and wounded a Congresswoman. That surge could be attributed to people who are seeking to arm themselves to carry out similar attacks in copycat crimes, or they could be in reaction to the fear the shootings caused--people are arming themselves in self defense.
I like to think the best of people, and statistically the safer assumption is the self defense argument, since there would have been by now thousands of such attacks if the intent behind the purchase of these new weapons was to promote more violence. So what exactly are people protecting themsleves against? Given the purchase proximity to the attacks, we can assume some have decided they were going to arm themselves to prevent falling victim to similar violence. Having a weapon on hand must makes these people feel safer. But what were they afraid of to begin with?
The FBI compiles statistics on criminal activity as reported to them by police departments and through telephone surveys. These statistics are certainly incomplete, as there are crimes that are not reported to police, and crimes committed against people without phones. But given those limitations, it paints a pretty clear picture of the most violent crimes committed in society.
These criminal statistics are reduced to rates, per 100,000 residents, in given states; these statistics are further broken down into age ranges, ethnicities, and genders. Since 2010 was a census year, we have the most up-to-date information on populations in a state this year. Using the FBI statistics, it is possible to see how many people of your age, gender and ethnicty were killed in your state. Look them up, because I'll bet the statistics will surprise you. Across the board, the number of white women of any age are the least likely to be murdered. The rates are single digits per 100,000 residents, usually in the low single digits at that. I can virtually guarantee that the number of white women killed in a given state in a year is below ten, with possible exceptions for large states. This while the rates for young black men are in the hundereds per 100,000 residents--an astronomically high number, one usually ascribed by people to be the imagined murder rate for their own gender and ethnicity. The victims of crime are more often ethnic minorities, and likely killed by other ethnic minorities.
Why do we think so many more people are killed in certain social categories than in others, rather than the categories borne out by facts? There may be many reasons, but the largest factor is surely the media. TV shows like CSI, the Mentalist and others often portray whites as victims of crime. There is even debate about how news media covers murders--any murder is newsworthy, as demonstrated by the oft used news phrase "if it bleeds it leads." There may also be a bias toward emphasizing white victims, who are the likely viewing audience, to more effectively get viewer attention. There are also subtle ways that the media biases the information they convey to us; note how a 17 year old male is treated in a news story. As a victim, the male will be referred to as a "boy" while as a perpetrator will be called a "man."
But set aside whatever the causes of the fear may be; the facts don't justify the extent of the fear. Use the statistics--let's say the murder rate for your age and your ethnicity and gender in your state is 1 per 100,000. Look up the population of your state. The census breaks that down into age, ethnicity and gender calculations, so find the figures that represent you. Take that number, and divide it by 100,000. Now take that number, and multiply it by the murder rate for your age, gender and ethnicity. If you are a young person, this figure will likely be higher than if you're older, but either way I'm guessing the number will surprise you. Unless you're a black male, the number will most likely be less than ten, for a whole year in your whole state. Add to that the fact that most people are killed by people they know, and your chances of being murdered are clearly quite statistically small, bordering on the highly, highly unlikely. You don't have as much to fear as you thought.
Are you still scared? In light of this new information you shouldn't be. Sure, take precautions--don't associate with murderers, don't pick up hitchhikers--but there's no need to go out and buy a gun to defend yourself against a threat that's nonexistent. If you still want a gun, then you've proven my following point.
We choose what to be afraid of, if despite evidence to the contrary we are still afraid. You've made a choice to be scared, and that should prove liberating because you can just as easily choose not to be scared. And if there's no need to be afraid of being murdered, what more could someone do to you that could be worse? Arm yourself with information, for those without knowledge have the most to fear.
Make the choice--don't be afraid.
Things always change, nothing is static
Chinese President Hu Jintao agreed publicly that China had a long way to go on human rights issues, and explained in a reasoned way why they had issues on human rights. Russia replaced Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer of oil. India has a nuclear-powered submarine.
The world we knew a few years ago has changed dramatically, and this has both positive and negative implications for our nation. Change in its own right is neither inherently one or the other, since "good" and "bad" are based on perspectives and require attaching values to change that aren't universal.
I recall people of my parents' generation complaining about Nirvana when I was in high school. Their parents complained about Elvis, and their parents' parents complained about swing music. Looking back, Nirvana is practically elevator music compared to modern rage-rock. Are any of these musical choices really as bad as opponents made them out to be? No, they are just different. People are scared of things they aren't familiar with, which is a natural biological reaction that has allowed our cautious species to survive.
That doesn't mean we need to be scared of everything. Music is not harmful (unless played too loud, I've come to find out), different cultures are not harmful, different people are not harmful. Yes, there are elements of each that we may not personally agree with, but that doesn't make them wrong; it makes them different. In a nation that prides itself on individual liberty, we must recognize that different is just that, and not something to be feared or hated. After all, without new things, without different things, there would be no progress--things would not change for the worse, but neither would they change for the better.
The world we knew a few years ago has changed dramatically, and this has both positive and negative implications for our nation. Change in its own right is neither inherently one or the other, since "good" and "bad" are based on perspectives and require attaching values to change that aren't universal.
I recall people of my parents' generation complaining about Nirvana when I was in high school. Their parents complained about Elvis, and their parents' parents complained about swing music. Looking back, Nirvana is practically elevator music compared to modern rage-rock. Are any of these musical choices really as bad as opponents made them out to be? No, they are just different. People are scared of things they aren't familiar with, which is a natural biological reaction that has allowed our cautious species to survive.
That doesn't mean we need to be scared of everything. Music is not harmful (unless played too loud, I've come to find out), different cultures are not harmful, different people are not harmful. Yes, there are elements of each that we may not personally agree with, but that doesn't make them wrong; it makes them different. In a nation that prides itself on individual liberty, we must recognize that different is just that, and not something to be feared or hated. After all, without new things, without different things, there would be no progress--things would not change for the worse, but neither would they change for the better.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
What is a sports statistic worth?
Sports are defined by rules, and these rules are aribitrary. A football field is 100 yards long, not 90 or 120, for example. Why not? Because it would change the game in some respect. There are four bases on a baseball field, but there could just as easily be three, or five. Some authority has chosen these parameters to define what is, and isn't, their sport. If football was played on a basketball court, it would neither be basketball nor football.
In the course of playing these games some players rise to distinguish themselves for being considered talented at that sport. What does that mean really? That given the perameters of their sport, these people excel. If one must do cartwheels from one hole to another in golf, would Tiger Woods still be considered an excellent player? Maybe there's some cartwheelin' maniac who would kick butt in golf then, and his or her face would grace Wheaties boxes instead. Could Tiger excel at baseball? Probably not, since that sport plays with a different set of perameters than Tiger trained for.
It was said during the steroid doping scandals of baseball that those stars who test positive for steroids should have an asterisk beside their statistics, because back in the days of Babe Ruth, people didnt have human growth hormone to bulk up. In fact, everyone who plays should have an asterisk, since nutritional information and physiology have vastly improved an athlete's conditioning over the life of the sport; players today are in far better shape to play a game with arbitrarily established rules than those who played in the past with arbitrarily established rules. Life expectancy alone has risen considerably from Babe Ruth's day, and by the standards of today would be the equivalent of a 40 year old man at the beginning of his career. Not to mention that Babe Ruth was known for partying it up before a game--so to most accurately compare his stats with those of any other baseball player's, that player must have been shaking off a hangover at the time of play just like the Babe.
With so many qualifications and such a narrow set of parameters to define "greatness" in a sport, I'm going to say that I'm the greatest living athlete who ever posted on this blog, and mean it.
In the course of playing these games some players rise to distinguish themselves for being considered talented at that sport. What does that mean really? That given the perameters of their sport, these people excel. If one must do cartwheels from one hole to another in golf, would Tiger Woods still be considered an excellent player? Maybe there's some cartwheelin' maniac who would kick butt in golf then, and his or her face would grace Wheaties boxes instead. Could Tiger excel at baseball? Probably not, since that sport plays with a different set of perameters than Tiger trained for.
It was said during the steroid doping scandals of baseball that those stars who test positive for steroids should have an asterisk beside their statistics, because back in the days of Babe Ruth, people didnt have human growth hormone to bulk up. In fact, everyone who plays should have an asterisk, since nutritional information and physiology have vastly improved an athlete's conditioning over the life of the sport; players today are in far better shape to play a game with arbitrarily established rules than those who played in the past with arbitrarily established rules. Life expectancy alone has risen considerably from Babe Ruth's day, and by the standards of today would be the equivalent of a 40 year old man at the beginning of his career. Not to mention that Babe Ruth was known for partying it up before a game--so to most accurately compare his stats with those of any other baseball player's, that player must have been shaking off a hangover at the time of play just like the Babe.
With so many qualifications and such a narrow set of parameters to define "greatness" in a sport, I'm going to say that I'm the greatest living athlete who ever posted on this blog, and mean it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)