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. 

 

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.

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.