Imagine you have a 20-year-old son. Now, you're having a party at home and need a 12-pack of beer to re-stock the refrigerator. Your son drives up, returning from school and you run out, hop in the car and ask him to take you to the liquor store so you can buy some beer for your party. You get to the store and hop out and pick up some beer while your son stays in the car bobbing his head to the rock band playing on the radio. You grab the beer, put it in the trunk and slide into the passenger's seat and ask your son to take you home.
Re-read that paragraph above and imagine yourself as the Dad in that situation.
Did you realize that you have just committed an illegal act?
Bizarre as it may seem, it appears that driving someone (who is of legal drinking age) to a liquor store if you are underage is illegal. Notre Dame quarterback, Jimmy Clausen found that out when he was arrested as he was waiting outside in his car while his 23-year-old friend bought some liquor at a store. He said he was just driving his friend to the store and the arresting officers admit that there was no evidence that the liquor was for any minor consumption. Still, they arrested him, charged him with the offense, and had him pay a fine of $170.
I don't get it. Sometimes we go so crazy over protecting our kids from drinking that we reach ridiculous extremes. You can read the full story on ESPN here.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Trust No One
Have you ever heard of a kid who averages 89% on quizzes, tests, and projects but gets a D in the class because his average on homework assignments is a pathetic 39%?
Why? Most homework assignments were not turned in and the rest were turned in late!
How can that be? I don't get it. Isn't it reasonable to expect some effort at ensuring that the homework gets done on time and is done correctly?
Why? Most homework assignments were not turned in and the rest were turned in late!
How can that be? I don't get it. Isn't it reasonable to expect some effort at ensuring that the homework gets done on time and is done correctly?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Trapping Child Sex Offenders
Okay, so let's start with the basic premise over which there is no disagreement - pedophiles are scum. How desperate can you be that you can't find a consenting adult for your sex?
But, that's not the point of the post. The other excellent article in Rolling Stone is about this group called Perverted Justice that along with Dateline NBC is trying to trap these sexual predators into situations where they can be arrested and thrown in jail. Now that sounds like a perfectly admirable and laudable effort on the surface. However, the article is unnerving in terms of the lengths these guys go to in order to trap these people. Further, it makes the interesting point of whether all this money and effort is really being targeted at the people most likely to harm children. Ninety percent of the people caught in their nice little made for TV show have no rap sheet for sex offenses or arrest record of any kind. If you watch the show, it almost seems like some of these people have been tempted into these situations by pushy pretenders. Further, interestingly, by focusing on these online stranger encounters, attention is diverted from the real danger - not strangers, but family & friends. Looking at data on reported sex offenses, over ninety percent of perpetrators of child sex abuse are known to the child.
Apparently, there is already some increasing concern about this show that cloaks itself in virtue and morality. And, if the article is to be believed (who knows how biased the reporting is in the article), the leader of the movement is a strange dude himself - not someone I want my kids hanging out with.
You can read the full article by Vanessa Grigoriadis here.
But, that's not the point of the post. The other excellent article in Rolling Stone is about this group called Perverted Justice that along with Dateline NBC is trying to trap these sexual predators into situations where they can be arrested and thrown in jail. Now that sounds like a perfectly admirable and laudable effort on the surface. However, the article is unnerving in terms of the lengths these guys go to in order to trap these people. Further, it makes the interesting point of whether all this money and effort is really being targeted at the people most likely to harm children. Ninety percent of the people caught in their nice little made for TV show have no rap sheet for sex offenses or arrest record of any kind. If you watch the show, it almost seems like some of these people have been tempted into these situations by pushy pretenders. Further, interestingly, by focusing on these online stranger encounters, attention is diverted from the real danger - not strangers, but family & friends. Looking at data on reported sex offenses, over ninety percent of perpetrators of child sex abuse are known to the child.
Apparently, there is already some increasing concern about this show that cloaks itself in virtue and morality. And, if the article is to be believed (who knows how biased the reporting is in the article), the leader of the movement is a strange dude himself - not someone I want my kids hanging out with.
You can read the full article by Vanessa Grigoriadis here.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
If You Don't Support Corn Ethanol, You Must be a Terrorist!
There were a couple of outstanding articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine that are worth reading. One is about Ethanol as a substitute fuel and the other (which I may discuss in a later post) is about Dateline's show To Catch a Predator. Both are excellent because they reasonably and rationally build arguments that buck the conventional wisdom. Think due process and legal protection are worth sacrificing to catch potential pedophiles? Think again - if you want to bother considering where those resources could be better spent to achieve the broader goal of protecting children.
But, let's focus now on corn-based Ethanol - the biofuel that's going to save the earth! According to former CIA Director John Woolsey, "American farmers, by making a commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." Here are some quick facts from the article - summarized here for your protection:
But, let's focus now on corn-based Ethanol - the biofuel that's going to save the earth! According to former CIA Director John Woolsey, "American farmers, by making a commitment to grow more corn for ethanol, are at the top of the spear on the war against terrorism." Here are some quick facts from the article - summarized here for your protection:
- Last month, the Senate mandated the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.
- Corn is today the most subsidized crop in America (getting twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans). Ethanol is further subsidized (including a 51-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners)
- Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5% of our gasoline consumption, but consumer 20% of the entire U.S. corn crop.
- The resulting increase in the price of corn means ...
- ...devoting more acreage to the production of corn (less land for other staple crops)
- ...giving incentive for South American farmers to destroy more tropical forests for corn fields
- Even corn growers admit that turning more grain into fuel would disrupt global food supplies.
- Ethanol's energy density (how much power you can generate from a certain amount of the fuel) is one-third less than gasoline.
- Since it has a tendency to absorb water, it can't be transported by pipelines, but must use truck or rail, which is inefficient and results in an increase in consumption of fossil fuels for delivery.
- When you add up the fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, transport, refine and grow corn into usable ethanol, its energy balance is 1.3-to-1 (the energy balance of gasoline is 5-to-1). Huge amount of fossil fuels are burned to produce corn.
- When corn ethanol is burned in automobiles, it is as "dirty" as conventional gasoline and does not help global warming.
- Even if ethanol producers manage to hit the mandated 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, that will replace only 7% of our current oil needs.
- Even if you were willing to give up ALL corn consumption and devote 100% of the U.S. corn crop for making ethanol, it would replace only 12% of current gasoline use. Ethanol is not the magic bullet to free us from dependence on foreign oil.
- Runoff from industrial-scale cornfields silts up the Mississippi river creating the Gulf of Mexico dead zone.
- Creating the equivalent of one SUV fill-up of pure ethanol requires more than 450 pounds of corn - enough calories to feed one person for a year.
- The increased devotion of corn to ethanol production has resulted in massive increases in the price of poultry , beef, and pork as farmers can't afford the corn to feed the animals.
- The biggest corporate beneficiary of corn subsidies and related tax breaks, ADM has cozy link to ethanol supporting politicians.
- The closer we get to the Iowa primary, the greater the rush among politicians to publicly shout their support for corn ethanol.
So forget the fact that ethanol is bad for the environment, does not help with global warming, does not reduce dependence on foreign oil (and may actually increase it), and may leave more of the world's poorest hungry. Because, as our friendly, caring politicians will let you know, if you don't support corn ethanol, you obviously hate our country, you unpatriotic SOB!
I urge you to read the full article in Rolling Stone by Jeff Goodell, here.
Monday, August 6, 2007
How Can You Absolutely Ensure We'll All Be OK?
Speaking of the Minnesota bridge collapse, I really need to chill sometimes. I don't know why idiocy bugs me so much. I've got to learn to tune it out!
I was at the Doctor's office on Friday and the TV was turned to CNN. A pretty blonde was interviewing the Secretary of Transportation. She asked such ridiculous questions that I felt like jumping up and yelling at the TV asking the woman to just shut up. However, I was luckily able to restrain myself and didn't alarm any of the elderly patients sitting in the lounge with me. Still, I was incensed enough to quickly write down the dumb questions on a sheet of paper (is that a normal response to being incensed?). Here's some of what the pretty blonde (PB) asked "What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?" (PB actually emphasized the word "ensure" even tapping her pen on the table to make the point) and "Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?" Remember, PB was not interviewing some dimwitted joe blow on the street with these questions - they were directed at the Secretary for Transportation! I know I could never hold public office because my responses to these questions would not have been as polite as Madam Secretary. Even if I'd managed to control myself, it may have gone something like this:
PB: What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?
ME: Well, PB, if you're so confident you can absolutely ensure (in a tone that mocks hers) that a future event does not happen, we'd love to employ you in our government. Perhaps I should ask what you are doing to ensure (continued mocking tone) that your vehicle does not fail tonight. In fact, I'm curious to know what you have done to ensure (mocking tone) that your jacket doesn't crumble while you are on the air embarrassing yourself and the network. To be serious, PB, we will do all we must to reduce the likelihood that such events don't happen again. I would argue the fact that this is such a rare and tragic event underscores that we're doing a good job of minimizing that likelihood. Do you realize how many bridges there are in this country and how many cars travel over these bridges every day? How about you calculate the likelihood of a bridge collapse causing a fatality. Surely there are more likely dangers we also need to focus our attention and resources on? Speaking of more likely dangers, I'd love to know what you've done to ensure (even more mocking tone) you or your family are not killed by lightning this week. But, I go on too long. I'd like to hear your next question.
PB: Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?"
ME: Well, PB, what else do you suggest should draw attention to the condition of bridges? Didn't you answer your question in your question? The very fact that you want attention (point emphasized by tapping a pen on the camera) drawn to something means that something has to happen to draw attention to it. The point, I think you are trying to make is whether this tragedy was preventable. And that is worthy of investigation. However, all of us are constantly making trade-offs between protecting our lives and reasonably getting on with things. By sitting under those heavy, hot studio lights, PB, you have essentially made the decision that the likelihood of those lights falling and killing you right now is not large enough for you to avoid sitting where you are and getting on with your job. A more intelligent question for you to have asked is: Could we reasonably have predicted this bridge collapsing at that time? Current indications are that the answer to that question is NO.
PB: Uh, well. I guess that's all ... We now take you to an interview with a victim of the collapse who was in a car when the bridge fell out from underneath her. Maam, how did you feel when you realized the bridge under you was collapsing?
ME: (muttering in the background assuming the mic is off) Dimwit!
I was at the Doctor's office on Friday and the TV was turned to CNN. A pretty blonde was interviewing the Secretary of Transportation. She asked such ridiculous questions that I felt like jumping up and yelling at the TV asking the woman to just shut up. However, I was luckily able to restrain myself and didn't alarm any of the elderly patients sitting in the lounge with me. Still, I was incensed enough to quickly write down the dumb questions on a sheet of paper (is that a normal response to being incensed?). Here's some of what the pretty blonde (PB) asked "What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?" (PB actually emphasized the word "ensure" even tapping her pen on the table to make the point) and "Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?" Remember, PB was not interviewing some dimwitted joe blow on the street with these questions - they were directed at the Secretary for Transportation! I know I could never hold public office because my responses to these questions would not have been as polite as Madam Secretary. Even if I'd managed to control myself, it may have gone something like this:
PB: What are you doing to ensure that this never happens again?
ME: Well, PB, if you're so confident you can absolutely ensure (in a tone that mocks hers) that a future event does not happen, we'd love to employ you in our government. Perhaps I should ask what you are doing to ensure (continued mocking tone) that your vehicle does not fail tonight. In fact, I'm curious to know what you have done to ensure (mocking tone) that your jacket doesn't crumble while you are on the air embarrassing yourself and the network. To be serious, PB, we will do all we must to reduce the likelihood that such events don't happen again. I would argue the fact that this is such a rare and tragic event underscores that we're doing a good job of minimizing that likelihood. Do you realize how many bridges there are in this country and how many cars travel over these bridges every day? How about you calculate the likelihood of a bridge collapse causing a fatality. Surely there are more likely dangers we also need to focus our attention and resources on? Speaking of more likely dangers, I'd love to know what you've done to ensure (even more mocking tone) you or your family are not killed by lightning this week. But, I go on too long. I'd like to hear your next question.
PB: Why does it take a huge tragedy like this to draw attention to the condition of our nation's bridges?"
ME: Well, PB, what else do you suggest should draw attention to the condition of bridges? Didn't you answer your question in your question? The very fact that you want attention (point emphasized by tapping a pen on the camera) drawn to something means that something has to happen to draw attention to it. The point, I think you are trying to make is whether this tragedy was preventable. And that is worthy of investigation. However, all of us are constantly making trade-offs between protecting our lives and reasonably getting on with things. By sitting under those heavy, hot studio lights, PB, you have essentially made the decision that the likelihood of those lights falling and killing you right now is not large enough for you to avoid sitting where you are and getting on with your job. A more intelligent question for you to have asked is: Could we reasonably have predicted this bridge collapsing at that time? Current indications are that the answer to that question is NO.
PB: Uh, well. I guess that's all ... We now take you to an interview with a victim of the collapse who was in a car when the bridge fell out from underneath her. Maam, how did you feel when you realized the bridge under you was collapsing?
ME: (muttering in the background assuming the mic is off) Dimwit!
Thursday, August 2, 2007
We're In Minnesota, and The Kids Are Alright!
I know some of you will think that I'm being cruel by poking fun at the genuine concern of my friends and relatives, but then you're missing the point.
I've always found it interesting how people are completely unable to reasonably calculate the odds of an event happening. They tend to distort the probabilities and think some things are much more likely to happen than they really are and others are much less likely to happen than they really are.
So, after the world's news media splashed the tragic story of the Minnesota bridge collapse across their pages and screens, I got emails from some friends and relatives just wanting to make sure we were alright.
What are the odds of my being in one of the fifty cars that were on the bridge when it collapsed. At the most naive level, the odds would be about 1 in 5 million (approximately the MN population) assuming that each resident of the state has an equal chance of being on the bridge at any given point in time. But, the bridge collapse happened in Minneapolis and I live about 150 miles away. Assuming that people living in Minneapolis have a much higher likelihood of being on the bridge at that particular time (or alternately that I have a much lower likelihood of being on a bridge in Minneapolis), that lowersthe odds somewhat. I am sure there are numerous other sophisticated adjustments that can be made to calculate a more accurate estimate of the odds of my being injured in the bridge collapse, but that isn't my point either.
Most of those who wrote expressed genuine concern and were not joking when they inquired about our safety. Yet, it is only such media-hyped stories that seem to elevate peoples' sense of danger, fear and the care of family. The odds of being struck by lightning are approximately 1 in 2 million. Yet, I don't get calls from concerned friends telling me they heard there was a lightning strike in Minnesota and they wanted to know if I was safe. Interestingly, it doesn't even seem to work on positive events. I have never received a call (and I would never expect to receive a serious call) from a relative saying "Oh, I heard the $25 million lottery winner was from Minnesota - I just wanted to check to see if it was you." There are so many more likely things that can befall me but the media seem to be very successful at heightening everyone's sense of insecurity and fear such that they are unable to reasonably evaluate the probability of the danger.
Think of the implications of this if your success depended on keeping people in a state of fear and insecurity ...
I've always found it interesting how people are completely unable to reasonably calculate the odds of an event happening. They tend to distort the probabilities and think some things are much more likely to happen than they really are and others are much less likely to happen than they really are.
So, after the world's news media splashed the tragic story of the Minnesota bridge collapse across their pages and screens, I got emails from some friends and relatives just wanting to make sure we were alright.
What are the odds of my being in one of the fifty cars that were on the bridge when it collapsed. At the most naive level, the odds would be about 1 in 5 million (approximately the MN population) assuming that each resident of the state has an equal chance of being on the bridge at any given point in time. But, the bridge collapse happened in Minneapolis and I live about 150 miles away. Assuming that people living in Minneapolis have a much higher likelihood of being on the bridge at that particular time (or alternately that I have a much lower likelihood of being on a bridge in Minneapolis), that lowersthe odds somewhat. I am sure there are numerous other sophisticated adjustments that can be made to calculate a more accurate estimate of the odds of my being injured in the bridge collapse, but that isn't my point either.
Most of those who wrote expressed genuine concern and were not joking when they inquired about our safety. Yet, it is only such media-hyped stories that seem to elevate peoples' sense of danger, fear and the care of family. The odds of being struck by lightning are approximately 1 in 2 million. Yet, I don't get calls from concerned friends telling me they heard there was a lightning strike in Minnesota and they wanted to know if I was safe. Interestingly, it doesn't even seem to work on positive events. I have never received a call (and I would never expect to receive a serious call) from a relative saying "Oh, I heard the $25 million lottery winner was from Minnesota - I just wanted to check to see if it was you." There are so many more likely things that can befall me but the media seem to be very successful at heightening everyone's sense of insecurity and fear such that they are unable to reasonably evaluate the probability of the danger.
Think of the implications of this if your success depended on keeping people in a state of fear and insecurity ...
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
I Loved What I Got Till I Saw What You Got!
It continues to be interesting how I fall victim to the same psychological foibles I read about and teach about. I guess it shouldn't be surprising given that I am a human being (despite what some people would say).
So, I know fully well that satisfaction should be based on the absolute value of the benefit you get. If you are given $100 why should the value of the $100 diminish just because you find out that your friend was given $150? But, we know it does. It triggers the "fairness" reaction that results in people repeatedly choosing to gain nothing rather than gaining something small while your "opponent" gains a large amount. Despite puzzling classical economists, it has been considered quite normal among behavioral scientists.
So, we get our listing of department salaries this week. And though I tried to tell myself I was being irrational, I couldn't suppress a surge of frustration and anger when I see a colleague get paid significantly more than me despite a lot of other work factors being the same. Interestingly, I keep telling myself I'm being silly, but can't get rid of the feeling that maybe I should do something about it. The question is not only what? but why?
So, I know fully well that satisfaction should be based on the absolute value of the benefit you get. If you are given $100 why should the value of the $100 diminish just because you find out that your friend was given $150? But, we know it does. It triggers the "fairness" reaction that results in people repeatedly choosing to gain nothing rather than gaining something small while your "opponent" gains a large amount. Despite puzzling classical economists, it has been considered quite normal among behavioral scientists.
So, we get our listing of department salaries this week. And though I tried to tell myself I was being irrational, I couldn't suppress a surge of frustration and anger when I see a colleague get paid significantly more than me despite a lot of other work factors being the same. Interestingly, I keep telling myself I'm being silly, but can't get rid of the feeling that maybe I should do something about it. The question is not only what? but why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)