Flashback – Rights

Here are some ideas about our constitutional rights from an entry four years ago. The same problematic behaviors have been even more evident since then. 

[Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the [2016] election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls. Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen no efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite is true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements: background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others. If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.  

We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview. Students are supposedly in college to learn. Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view. Instead, they protest demanding a cancellation of the event, or they attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive. When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students. Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself. Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression. If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population. And on it goes. Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets. 

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same. Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored, some opposed and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?]

Flashback – Build a Wall?

[Believe it or not, at the end of 2011, long before Donald Trump rode this issue to the White House, I wrote a piece with the title “Build a Fence.” Back then; when a Trump presidency was less than a minor consideration, many other people were talking about the need to control the southern border. Some of them later opposed the idea merely because of who was promoting it.

I also opposed a fence or wall because the issue could not be solved without changing the incentives that drive behavior. As long as illegal action yields positive consequences, it will continue. It called for better policies, and we are still waiting. Here are my thoughts from New Years Eve 2011.]

You are pushing your cart to check out at the grocery store and see ahead of you a man with his young son. The man is unloading his cart onto the conveyor and the toddler is sitting in the child seat. Suddenly the boy notices the candy along the side of the lane, lets out a scream and starts reaching. His father, distracted with the groceries and embarrassed, tries shushing the kid. Well, that just leads to more screaming and reaching. The father is at his wits end, trying to get control of two demands on his attention, the groceries and his son, while glancing around with an apologetic look to everyone in earshot. Finally, he relents and hands the child a candy bar so that he can pay for his groceries and get out of there.

What you are probably thinking at this time is: “Quiet, at last!” but also “That father is in for a real challenge because he has just reinforced a negative behavior." He rewarded the screaming and fussing and can surely expect more of the same in the future. You are also hoping you do not end up in the store at the same time as this family in the future. Don’t feel guilty. That’s exactly how most people would feel. Any right-thinking adult with an iota of life experience knows that for children, as well as for adults, behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Behavior discouraged is behavior modified.

Now let’s look at the problem that some people refer to as illegal immigration. People sneak into the United States. They get free public education for their children. They are given jobs by employers who look the other way, just grateful to be able to get someone to do the work “that Americans refuse to do.” They get free medical care at emergency rooms. If that medical care is the delivery of a baby, their new family member automatically becomes an American citizen eligible for government benefits.

Some people who want to discourage this behavior think that the answer is to build a wall or a fence instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Others think that the solution is to confer citizenship on those who have gotten away with it for a given number of years instead of recognizing what we all know: behavior rewarded is behavior repeated.

For some reason, logical thoughts like this can get a person branded as a racist because most of the people in that category are from one country. This is not about race or country of origin; it’s about behavior. If you don’t want a person, any person of any age, to sneak into your country (or have a temper tantrum in the grocery store), you set up a system or react in a way that discourages such behavior. You get more of what you reward and less of what you repress. 

There are already significant barriers, the hurdles of the immigration laws, that hundreds of thousands negotiate every year to come into this country legally from Mexico, India, China, Canada, Russia and all over to study, work and live free. Most proposals from all sides for dealing with this problem, if it really is a problem, don’t seem to recognize what we already know about human behavior.

[Eight years later the government is still trying to figure this out.]

What is Income Inequality?

What is the opposite of income inequality? It certainly can’t be absolute equality of income. Without being more specific, how can the term mean anything?

For years we have heard about goals like clean water and clean air. The US has been moving in the right directions. According to the EPA, “Since 1970, implementation of the Clean Air Act and technological advances from American Innovators have dramatically improved air quality in the U.S.  Cleaner air provides important public health benefits.” Follow the link to find a graph of nine measured pollutants, excluding CO2. It shows a downward trend since 1990 for all, excluding unusual events like dust storms and wildfires. Overall, pollutants have dropped significantly despite the fact that “Americans drove more miles and population and energy use increased.”

All the pollution levels dropped below a line labeled “Most Recent National Standard” as of five years ago. Note that there is a standard that defines an acceptable level of particles in the air. Totally pure air is not a practical or realistic goal.

Similarly, the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act “resulted in major changes in the way drinking water is managed and treated in the United States, and it achieved substantial measurable benefits in risk reduction and public health protection.”

On a side note, these facts do not seem to sway Americans influenced by media reports designed to stimulate concerns about hypothetical risks related to drinking water. A survey from 4 years ago showed that 56% of Americans “were concerned or very concerned about their tap water, 77% were regular users of bottled water, and 43% used some type of home treatment device.” The water industry and regulators have their work cut out for them figuring out how to promote acceptance and confidence in public drinking water supplies “and to maintain the public’s support for needed improvements.”

Once again there are measurable standards. Customers of public water systems receive a report from their water utility every year showing how the water supply measures up to various standards. Again, absolute purity is unachievable.

The same is true for lakes and rivers. “Human health ambient water quality criteria represent specific levels of chemicals or conditions in a water body that are not expected to cause adverse effects to human health.” 

Applying this to income inequality leaves critical thinkers puzzled.

The news media emphasizes stories about the shrinking middle class. “A graph from Reason, however, shows that about 50 years ago, 53 percent of people were middle-income, making between $35,000 and $100,000 per year. Although that statistic has since fallen to 42 percent, the reason [behind the change] is that many people moved into upper-income brackets. The share making more than $100,000 rose from 8 percent to almost 28 percent. (These numbers are inflation-adjusted.)” It’s shrinking, but not in the direction the news media and politicians imply.

Stories about income inequality don’t mention this information. Instead they attempt to stir up envy toward the super-rich, at least some of the super-rich. Notice that the emphasis is always on bankers, CEOs and hedge fund managers, not on sports stars, celebrities, Internet influencers or software developers. We are supposed to be irate that some people are rich, undeserving jerks, but others deserve wealth because they entertain us. Often the people who report these stories are rich themselves.

Furthermore, the evidence that income inequality negatively effects economic growth or social mobility is based on correlation, and, as every student of statistics knows, correlation does not mean causation. Whether or not income inequality is a drag on economic growth remains debatable.

But beyond that, it makes no sense to get upset about income inequality until it is defined and a goal it set. Anything that can’t be measured can’t be said to improve (or get worse). With no goal, there is no definition of victory. (This can also be said about so many other vaguely defined points of contention such as diversity, sustainability, and social justice.)

Some Odd Thoughts for the New Year

1.  The opioid epidemic rages.  “More than 63,600 people died from drug overdoses in 2016” with 66% of those deaths coming from opioid abuse.  The most publicized initiatives are:  increasing availability of naloxone (narcan) to revive people who have overdosed; and needle exchange programs to reduce the risk factors for AIDS and hepatitis.

This New York Times article explains the first.  “Every day across the country, hundreds, if not thousands, of people who overdose on opioids are being revived with naloxone. Hailed as a miracle drug by many, it carries no health risk; it cannot be abused and, if given mistakenly to someone who has not overdosed on opioids, does no harm. More likely, it saves a life.”

Perhaps an important question to ask is whether these programs are doing anything to change behavior.  One FDA study from a few years back, when the problem wasn’t as widespread, estimates that almost one in five patients are receiving naloxone not for the first time.  This was based on EMT data.  With it now available to many private citizens, spouses and roommates, such incidents could be higher.  Some people are so seriously addicted that a brush with death is insufficient disincentive, while some taxpayers are asking how many second chances should be allowed.

Needle exchanges are likewise controversial.  Some programs recommend a one-for-one swap, but don’t enforce it.  Others receive objections from neighbors about an increase in discarded needles on the street.

But this from the LA Times almost 4 years ago:  “Alcohol is responsible for about 88,000 deaths in the U.S. each year, according to a new government report on the toll of excessive drinking.”  That’s 88,000 compared to 63,600. 

What's the deal?  Why is only one considered a crisis?  Is it because alcohol is legal?  Is it because we have been fighting (and losing) the war on drugs since 1970 but quit fighting a war on alcohol in 1933?  Is it because an overdose death is immediate but an alcohol-related death is often gradual?  Or is it just another instance of "shark attacks" where what makes the best headlines gets attention?

2.  Back in November I wrote that when looking for reasons to be offended, some people aren’t satisfied citing ordinary matters.  They will dig deep and use plenty of imagination to uncover the most obscure examples.  In mid-December we learned of a Boston University professor “who has researched the origins of the popular Christmas carol ‘Jingle Bells’ [and] says she has found proof that the seemingly-innocent song is steeped in racism.”  Why not add White Christmas to the list, pretending it doesn’t snow around Boston?  Forget white; a quick search of the Internet reveals that using the C-word to describe the holiday is not politically correct and may be offensive.

3.  A few weeks ago the New York Times reported that the pentagon spent $22 million on the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program to investigate UFO sighting.  A pet project of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the funds were hidden in the budget.  Coincidentally, most of the money went to an aerospace research company run by one of his personal friends.  Shouldn’t revelations of such waste and abuse of power be as disturbing as a senator mock-fondling an actress?  Yet it goes in and out of the news cycle with almost no comment except for a few lame UFO jokes.

 A couple of other comments on the UFO investigations:  one on cost, the other on value.  First, I heard in one report that the program was discontinued in 2012, but the government employee running it resigned only this year - good work if you can get it.  Second, with cell phone cameras everywhere and the tendency to take pictures of and post every unusual (or ordinary) event, what is the likelihood of having aliens in our midst without evidence being spread all over social media?

4.  Wildfires in California have burned about 300,000 acres of mostly trees and brush.  The Governor conceded that this kind of devastation will become a new normal due to changing weather patterns.  How would the situation improve if the State and the people who so loved trees allowed logging companies to harvest a reasonable number to build new houses instead of leaving them all in place to help spread the fires and to act as fuel, destroying occupied houses?  The Governor’s real message is that they are consciously choosing to continue yesterday's policies, knowing they will get the same result.  Critical thinking, anyone?

Have a Correct Halloween

Speaking of tolerance, as I did last time, along comes news of offensive Halloween costumes.  They are not offensive in themselves, but have been declared offensive by various groups of teachers and other authorities.

As we learn here, “From first-graders to college seniors, schools are cracking down on a wide swath of Halloween costumes.”  The list of banned costumes is long and varied.  Anything considered controversial is disallowed.  Some elementary schools have cancelled Halloween in favor of an “orange and black” celebration with no costumes involved.

The schools are walking on eggshells prohibiting any dress that can be considered racist by anyone!  Superhero costumes are discouraged for violence or carrying pretend weapons.  “Tufts University last year threatened investigations by campus police against any student whose costume was deemed offensive, especially if the outfit is thought to be culturally appropriated or ‘relating to tragedy, controversy, or acts of violence.’”  Imagine being detained or arrested for your choice of costume based on one administrator's hypersensitivity!

Halloween is a big holiday.  Last year spending on candy, costumes and decorations was projected to be $9.1 billion in 2017.  But maybe the fun is coming to an end.

The only fun left seems to be trying to guess what is acceptable and what will get you sent home, or worse.  Based on the vague guidelines one writer opined that students are “presumably restricted from dressing up as samurais, hombres, geishas, belly dancers, Vikings, ninjas, rajas, French maids, Bollywood dancers, Rastafarians, Pocahontas, Aladdin, Zorro, or Thor.”  The list goes on.  It reminds me of the story about magician Penn Jillette going to his daughter’s preschool party dressed as a ghost and suddenly realizing he might be mistaken for a Klansman.

“The company HalloweenCostumes.com recently pulled an outfit of Holocaust victim Anne Frank from its website after it was hit with a slew of criticism.”  Personally, I wouldn’t recognize an Anne Frank costume if I saw it, but someone objected.  Clowns are out, because of recent creepy-clown incidents.  A hobo was a favorite years ago, but it could be interpreted as disrespecting the homeless.

Remember from last time:  It’s more acceptable to say, “I’m offended” than to admit, “I’m intolerant,” but it boils down to the same thing.  What one person thinks is cute or funny, can be banned by a single complaint.  What’s worse is that the “injured party” is free to go on social media to try to exact revenge by destroying a reputation or a business or even indirectly calling for violence.

The reaction to this by schools is understandable.  They too are required to guess what a single person might find objectionable and do “everything possible” to avoid it.  (These are the institutions with zero tolerance policies.)

Think of how well off one has to be, how unconcerned with survival, how sheltered from conflict, to let someone else’s choice of a Halloween costume for a day out of the year cause such upset as to drive that person to complain!  But being offended and complaining is the new national pastime.  Some are so needy that they will be offended on behalf of a group they don’t even belong to.  Where is the perspective?  Where does the insanity end?

This and That (2)

I.  In the grocery store the other day I saw 12-packs of cola selling for $3.33.  At the end of the aisle was a big sign announcing 24-packs of the same product for $7.68.  How much critical thinking does it take to figure out that two 12-packs is a much better deal - $6.66 vs. $7.68?  It’s like someone walking up and handing out dollar bills just for paying attention.

II.  Will the day come when no one has a vocabulary larger than 20,000 words, because all other words have been declared by someone or other to be hurtful or offensive?  We will run out of letter-words and have to double up - the N-word, the F-word, the B2-word, the C23-word, etc.

III.  A question that seems to be coming up more frequently:  Is any particular website (or Facebook posting) real, a parody or someone’s idea of a joke?  It’s getting harder and harder to tell them apart.

IV.  Has the news media deteriorated because of the American need to be entertained?  We will no longer stand for the talking heads, so they send reporters to the scene of an incident long after everyone else has moved on, having them stand out in the weather (sometimes in the dark) to tell us about the shooting or collision that happened hours ago.  To keep us from turning back to our smartphones, they must show us more non-news just to keep things everyone interested, to elicit amusement or outrage:  cute pets or wildlife, what’s “trending,” (usually dire) predictions of the future, opinions of non-experts like "the man on the street” or their media colleagues.  Based on what they deliver, I no longer believe they deserve to be referred to as journalists.  Many just do Google searches, pass along press releases, publish leaks, tell us their opinion of celebrity or political Tweets or send cameras to public or weather events.  As one friend put it, “If we could only harness the energy of Walter Cronkite spinning in his grave, our problems would be solved!”

V.  Breakfast is back, rising like a phoenix.  This study reported in an August 17, 2017 article finds that children who skipped breakfast “were missing out on key nutrients which impacted their productivity throughout the day.”  Researchers discovered this after studying the habits and performance of 802 children.

Why the phoenix analogy?  Years ago breakfast was “your most important meal.” As indicated above, it got you off to a good start.  But recently this has been the subject of debate rather than accepted wisdom.  About 6 years ago people began calling it a myth, as here where they come right out and say breakfast is not important.  Others hopped on board the myth bandwagon.  The controversy centered around whether skipping breakfast was good or bad for weight control rather than its effect on overall health or performance.  A 2014 CBS report recommends eating breakfast because previous studies gave conflicting advice, “with some suggesting that eating breakfast can help people lose weight and others finding the opposite.”  This continued conflicting advice is clear from a 2015 headline reading:  “New Study Shows No Signs That Skipping Breakfast Will Make You Gain Weight.”  But an earlier CBS report said it would.

As of today breakfast is good for children, and another study last January said that “skipping breakfast or eating late in the day could raise the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.”  Perhaps the phoenix comparison was a bad one and a ping pong ball is more appropriate.  What’s a mother (or a dieter) to do?!  Pick a side and you can find a study to back you up.

Thanksgiving

Usually at this time of year I write about perspective.  Black Friday yields plenty of good behavioral examples.  It is common for people to throw perspective out the window, pay no attention to the distinction between wants and needs, line up or camp out in anticipation of the “door-buster” sales, and in some cases literally risk their lives and those of their neighbors in a human stampede to secure the best bargains.

This year I’d rather write about perspective from the standpoint of yesterday’s celebration, Thanksgiving, one day set aside for gratitude.  

We live in such a comfortable and convenient world.  Even those considered poor in America today have far more than many people living in the rest of the world.  The vast majority has access to indoor plumbing, refrigeration, microwave ovens, color television, the Internet and much more.  They can play games on their smartphones to pass time while waiting in line for free winter clothing for their children.

And the rest of us are much better off.  As we sit in front of the wide screen HDTV watching football, we don’t need to get out of our seat to change the channel or to run our own instant replays using the DVR.  The house is heated and the food plentiful.  A major worry is how to recover from having eaten too much, not where the next meal is coming from or how we are going to pay the rent.  This is a big step forward for many families over only a few generations, but we take most of this for granted.

Instead of appreciating all the conveniences and comfort, instead of being thankful for what we have, we complain about more and more trivial things.  We have hot buttons.  We experience outrage and offense at insignificant words and actions of others.  No one is allowed to tell jokes unless they are the right kind of jokes – “A shopping mall Santa Claus in Florida is out of a job for telling a 10-year-old girl that Hillary Clinton was on his ‘naughty list.’”  (The mother explained that the girl was a Clinton supporter.  So we have a politically savvy 10-year-old who still believes in Santa Claus!)

Gratitude, on the other hand, draws us toward the present.  It focuses our attention on what we have and how lucky we are to have it.  When we don’t take the time for gratitude, regrets from the past and worries about the future overwhelm us.  We make up scary scenarios about possible future disasters.  What if this happens?  We dwell on disappointments.  This may be the result of having too many possessions, too much food and too much free time, but it’s probably more of a case of searching for things to upset us to publish our distress and get sympathy from likeminded friends on social media.

When I teach yoga, I emphasize the need for gratitude.  It draws students to the present, to spending one hour on the mat away from the stresses and worries of a typical day.  Being grateful for just one circumstance or one relationship can drive out fears and worries.  Focus on the breath, and as you feel the cool inhale at the tip of the nose, know that even that single next breath was never guaranteed to you.  But we all take it for granted and instead compound our misery with imagined slights, while we play the prophet by manufacturing a future of ruination.

Our ancestors saw everyday as gift, as they struggled against nature to stay alive.  Our struggles are so minor that we have time and energy left over to stress over tomorrow’s possibilities and to be nasty to people who didn’t vote the same way we did in the last election (or the ones before that). 

Perspective on Campus

Last time I described perspective as the ability to distinguish the important from the trivial, to put proper emphasis where it belongs to help make sound decisions and to keep calm in the face of an apparent crisis.  Taking a careful, but realistic approach to the annual health-related news that the media is eager to turn into an annual crisis was only one example.  Perspective has more to it than health scares.  Lack of perspective is widespread.  Each time advertisers, the news media or advocacy groups beat the drum about some new must-have product, new crisis or societal injustice, we need to be grounded to avoid falling for the hyperbole and emotional excesses that usually accompany these complaints.

Here comes a story from University of Wisconsin at Stout about two “harmful” paintings on the interior walls of one of their buildings.  “The paintings by Wisconsin-born artist Cal Peters were created for the Works Progress Administration during the Great Depression” in 1936 and recently restored.  The paintings show trappers and Native Americans in canoes on the Red Cedar River and a frontier trading post.  After complaints from some Native American students that viewing the pictures kept students in the past and “stood in the way of an effort to create an inclusive and comfortable environment for everyone,” the Chancellor agreed to put them in temporary storage until they can be moved to a more appropriate location.  (The paintings seem to depict trappers and Native Americans working together.  How this stands in the way of "inclusion" is puzzling.)

The Chancellor insists that this is not a concession to political correctness.  (The chancellor doth protest too much, methinks.)  After meeting with several campus groups, he decided to move the paintings to a location where people would be exposed to them only if they chose to be.

One of the professors got anti-censorship groups involved explaining, “moving the painting[s] does not educate anyone or stimulate any learning or dialogue,” and “hiding them doesn’t change the past or the future."  The chancellor, however, apparently believes that the feelings of each student or group of students should carry precedence over freedom of expression.  This is not unusual.  Many campuses are establishing safe zones where students don’t have to hear or see anything that might upset them.  As the NY Times puts it, “Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being ‘bombarded’ by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints."

What does this have to do with perspective?  As Americans have gotten richer over the last few decades with bigger houses, more conveniences, more technological advances (and toys) and generally more leisure, Americans have become more sensitive, touchier and more on guard against anything they find offensive or uncomfortable.  It’s a trend, a fad, a hobby, even a contest – I can get more offended than you can!   People are programmed to look for offense around every corner.

These are supposedly mature, responsible college age students.  (Remember the arguments back in the 70s for lowering the voting age to 18?)  They are being educated, among other reasons, to allow them to take their places in an adult world, a world without safe places, a world that unfortunately doesn’t always provide a comfortable environment for everyone.  They are privileged enough to be receiving a college education and don’t appreciate it unless it’s also safe and gentle. 

Instead of looking at these pictures and deducing some hypothetical slight – the fear that these pictures will somehow inhibit efforts to create an inclusive environment, they should look at these pictures, one of trappers and First Nations people in canoes and the other of a crude frontier fort, and reflect on how lucky they are.  When they finish college they will likely work in an air-conditioned office with indoor plumbing.  They will take their smartphone home to a place with these same conveniences plus modern appliances, cable TV, Internet access and all the other things we’ve come to expect.  The only time we will find them in canoes or living in the wilderness will be by choice on their vacations – not for survival!

Are college Chancellors working to educate students to grow up and see the world through the eyes of perspective or are they encouraging them to continue their childhood of isolation and protection from the real world?  Are they creating an environment where every student who is offended by a piece of art or a book or a comment by a teacher, is expected to organize a protest demanding changes and apologies?  As enough of these children graduate, will these values continue to be forced upon the rest of us until we are all walking on eggshells, censoring ourselves for fear of offending, unable to air and debate hard subjects to reach tough decisions.  Look around; it’s already happening.