Yeah, I didn't like it much when I learned it in elementary school. I do remember my elementary teachers hammering it into my head that in high school and college all of my papers would need to be written in cursive. They were wrong (no fault of their own - they just didn't see the computer revolution that was imminent).
So is it worth it to still be teaching cursive? Look at it from a foreign language standpoint. My teachers also beat it into me that learning a foreign language was the doorway to the rest of the world. Really? As I have grown up, I found out no, it isn't - not being afraid to go to a foreign country and ask for help is.
I have been to Canada, England, Germany, India, Japan, and Taiwan. I learned German in high school but never used it. I speak Mandarin which was useful in Taiwan, but I was with native friends so would have survived without knowing any (my wife did fine and she doesn't speak it). Japan, everyone speaks English. India, most people you interact with speak English and the chauffeur I had didn't speak it but we got along fine with sign language and pointing at things.
Had I "listened" to my teachers I would have had to spend years learning German, Mandarin, Japanese, French, Hindi, and Tamil to enjoy the places I have been. I'm glad I didn't. I found English speakers and enjoyed those places anyway. We are fortunate to live in a country where the primary language is English. The rest of the world has adopted English as the de facto language of the world. Which means we don't necessarily have to learn theirs.
Does that mean we shouldn't learn another language? No, but it also means we shouldn't force it on people. One of the great conundrums of the modern world is there is so much knowledge it is impossible to try and gain it all. Leonardo Da Vinci would be flabbergasted by how much a sixth grader has learned. Which means it is more important than ever to prioritize what you are going to learn with your time.
For me, things like 19th century bonnet literature (i.e. Jane Austen) have ZERO value. I am not interested. I think the stories are dull. Unfortunately, my English teachers had different ideas. Good for them. I'm a grown up now and I don't need to waste my time reading "Pride and Prejudice." Would understanding that stuff add value to my life? Probably. My guess is that there are plenty of allusions to "great" 19th century literature throughout life that I miss.
So what? I am not interested. I have chosen to dump that crap from my mind and replace it with scientific knowledge that I like. So, when I read an article on the Higgs-Boson, I see all sorts of nuances that are satisfying and enjoyable to understand. I once spent a two hour meal talking with a stranger about the nuclear fuel process. She seemed genuinely interested and I was happy to impart the knowledge that I had. Do some people do the same with F. Scott Fitzgerald? Absolutely, just not me.
What does this have to do with cursive? Well, it is no longer a necessary skill for the vast majority of written communication. We have computers and Ipads for that. It will always be around in historical documents, but like foreign languages, learning American cursive has its limits. There are plenty of people who have learned the cursive writing styles of 18th century Germans.
Learning to read cursive nowadays is akin to learning juggling. It is a neat skill to have, but very limited practical applications. If you are going to be a clown in the circus, by all means juggling becomes a necessary skill. For someone like me, it is just a trick I do to entertain my kids. Likewise, reading and writing cursive is a must for historians and genealogists. For the rest of us it is a parlor trick to decipher hidden codes. Juggling and cursive writing are rather easy skills to acquire. It probably takes less than a month of a little practice each day to become proficient (I learned juggling over the course of a month in New Jersey, maybe a half hour of practice a day). My wife taught my daughter cursive in about the same amount of time.
So, no, we shouldn't force everyone to learn cursive anymore than we should force them all to learn juggling. Even though it takes minimal time to learn, our schools shouldn't fill up their time with "useless" skills that take minimal time. Let's all recognize that cursive's time has come and gone. But if your kids want to learn cursive, or you want to teach them this curiosity on your time, by all means do it!
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Some People Aren't Obese
With recent reports that 1/3 of Mississippi is obese and obesity being "epidemic" throughout the US, I can understand the First Lady promoting healthy eating. But there are a couple of people who do not need to be told they can't eat junk food.
#1 President Obama. At the Iowa State Fair he said Michelle wouldn't allow him to have a fried twinkie. Why not? Fried twinkies at the Iowa fair are good, I've had one. Its not like our President is out of shape. He looks to be in very good shape. Quitting smoking is about the only bad habit I see him having, and that even probably helps keep his weight normal. So, President Obama, tell you're wife you are going to indulge. Your campaigning schedule is rather grueling and you are in no danger of gaining weight.
#2 Gabby Douglas. On Leno just after the Olympics, Michelle jokingly ribbed her for having a Egg McMuffin to celebrate, particularly that it should be on a whole wheat bun. Gabby can eat whatever she wants. She has finished all of her competitions, her metabolism is sky high, and an Egg McMuffin is not going to balloon her like a blimp. In actuality, I am a little disappointed in Gabby. An Egg McMuffin is not something that is traditionally considered unhealthy. It has eggs, bread, meat and cheese. Couple it with an orange juice and you have all four food groups.
#1 President Obama. At the Iowa State Fair he said Michelle wouldn't allow him to have a fried twinkie. Why not? Fried twinkies at the Iowa fair are good, I've had one. Its not like our President is out of shape. He looks to be in very good shape. Quitting smoking is about the only bad habit I see him having, and that even probably helps keep his weight normal. So, President Obama, tell you're wife you are going to indulge. Your campaigning schedule is rather grueling and you are in no danger of gaining weight.
#2 Gabby Douglas. On Leno just after the Olympics, Michelle jokingly ribbed her for having a Egg McMuffin to celebrate, particularly that it should be on a whole wheat bun. Gabby can eat whatever she wants. She has finished all of her competitions, her metabolism is sky high, and an Egg McMuffin is not going to balloon her like a blimp. In actuality, I am a little disappointed in Gabby. An Egg McMuffin is not something that is traditionally considered unhealthy. It has eggs, bread, meat and cheese. Couple it with an orange juice and you have all four food groups.
In 1984, Sharlene Wells consumed a half pound of fudge just hours before appearing in the Miss America swimsuit competition on national TV. Next time Gabby, when you are in England go with a Treacle tart and clotted cream. And there is no reason if you are satisfied with your body, to apologize to anyone for what you are eating. If you are not satisfied with your body, the only one you have to apologize to is yourself.
And just so you all know, I had a scoop of Haagen Daas ice cream on a cone last night and it was delicious. I felt no guilt, and my pants fit just fine this morning.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Piecing Out Appliances for Money
Last year our glass oven top met an unfortunate demise at the hands of our stone cookware (serves the glasstop right for busting one on the stones when it was set on the "On" burner three years ago). So after much internet searching I found that a new glasstop for the stove would cost $425 delivered to our house. A brand spanking new stove and oven would cost only $525.
Looking over the life expectancy of stoves/ovens it is around 8-12 years. So paying 80% of the replacement cost for the repair just didn't make much sense. We ordered the new stove. In the meantime, I decided to do some more internet searching to see what the cost of some of the replacement parts that aren't broken are.
Control Panel - $381
Large Burner - $109
Small Burner - $62
Burner Switch - $45
Control knob - $15
So with a half hour, I removed all of these items from the old stove, since they were still in perfect working order. If I can just get 25% of the retail price, I have paid for half of the new stove. If I get 50%, then the new stove was free. $500 for 30 minutes of work, isn't too bad. The sad thing is, if I was really tenacious, I could have stripped the whole thing and probably had $2000 worth of parts to sell, and then sell the shell for scrap steel and get another $2.
Maybe I should go into the spare parts business. Just buy new stoves, take them apart and sell the parts. It would work with cars too. I could be a millionaire in just a matter of months. After the week of auctions, it turns out I made a total of $23.48, the market just isn't there. So, I am not quitting my job and moving to the Bahamas.
Looking over the life expectancy of stoves/ovens it is around 8-12 years. So paying 80% of the replacement cost for the repair just didn't make much sense. We ordered the new stove. In the meantime, I decided to do some more internet searching to see what the cost of some of the replacement parts that aren't broken are.
Control Panel - $381
Large Burner - $109
Small Burner - $62
Burner Switch - $45
Control knob - $15
So with a half hour, I removed all of these items from the old stove, since they were still in perfect working order. If I can just get 25% of the retail price, I have paid for half of the new stove. If I get 50%, then the new stove was free. $500 for 30 minutes of work, isn't too bad. The sad thing is, if I was really tenacious, I could have stripped the whole thing and probably had $2000 worth of parts to sell, and then sell the shell for scrap steel and get another $2.
Maybe I should go into the spare parts business. Just buy new stoves, take them apart and sell the parts. It would work with cars too. I could be a millionaire in just a matter of months. After the week of auctions, it turns out I made a total of $23.48, the market just isn't there. So, I am not quitting my job and moving to the Bahamas.
Retrospectively, the market has got to be really slim. Consider that there were 2 million of this model made. And they were made over a 10 year period, 200,000 a year. Parts don't start breaking until the 8-12 years and only in 25% of them, so 50,000. There are still 52 weeks in a year, so only 1000 potential customers at the time that I am selling the stove parts. Only 25% of these are regularly online, and only 25% of those think to check eBay. So, that puts me at 65 potential customers. There are about 30 different parts on the stove that could break, I had 10 of them for sale, so now my customer base is down to 20. It wouldn't take too many errors in my estimates to bring it down to the 1 to 3 people that were bidding on the parts. Markets can be funny that way when you look at the variables that make up demand.
New York Forgets About Police Officers
In New York's ram-em-through gun law, they forgot to include exemptions for their law enforcement officers. Seems once the law becomes effective, they will all be law breakers with their service pistols, issued by the government. The best quote though is below:
State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"
NY doesn't want its police officers (who may arrive on the scene 1-20 minutes after being called) to face criminals with less than 15 rounds in a magazine, but it doesn't care if victims (who are already on the scene because they are the scene) only have 7 rounds.
Criminals vs. Police Officers - BAD.
Criminals vs. Victims - GOOD.
I sure hope Texas' plea to gun owners from NY to move there is effective.
State Senator Eric Adams, a former NYPD Captain, told us he's going to push for an amendment next week to exempt police officers from the high-capacity magazine ban. In his words, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals"
NY doesn't want its police officers (who may arrive on the scene 1-20 minutes after being called) to face criminals with less than 15 rounds in a magazine, but it doesn't care if victims (who are already on the scene because they are the scene) only have 7 rounds.
Criminals vs. Police Officers - BAD.
Criminals vs. Victims - GOOD.
I sure hope Texas' plea to gun owners from NY to move there is effective.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
A Housewife with Some Sense on Guns
This is my cousin-in-law (is that really a thing?):
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprepared-housewives.com%2F2013%2F01%2F17%2Fend-the-violence%2F&h=MAQF45VM7
Great sense of humor!
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fprepared-housewives.com%2F2013%2F01%2F17%2Fend-the-violence%2F&h=MAQF45VM7
Great sense of humor!
Why Do We Still Have the Dollar Bill?
I've said in the past get rid of the dollar bill. While this is probably the 20th time in the last 50 years that Congress has looked at the proposal, perhaps we will have some sense this time and do it. Don't bet the house on it (when has Congress made a fiscally sound decision in the last decade), but I'm hoping for a long shot here!
One thing why you shouldn't get your hopes up - the Treasury is finishing up an 18 month study of this issue. Whatever money we spent on this study is a complete and utter waste. Several countries have gotten rid of their $1 bills, and not just third world banana republics - trading partners like Canada, England, and even the Eurozone have recognized for decades that the $1 bill was a money waster.
One thing why you shouldn't get your hopes up - the Treasury is finishing up an 18 month study of this issue. Whatever money we spent on this study is a complete and utter waste. Several countries have gotten rid of their $1 bills, and not just third world banana republics - trading partners like Canada, England, and even the Eurozone have recognized for decades that the $1 bill was a money waster.
The fact that we are behind several third world countries who don't have reliable running water or electricity is an embarrassment. If we really need a study, we should have asked the Canadians for their 30 year old study and then relabeled it - total price $100K. If the study from 30 years ago showed that it was cheaper back when everyone carried money, it is going to be that much more cheaper now that hardly anyone carries money.
If it is the metal composition, we are also behind the eight ball. Since we stopped putting precious metals in coins in the 60s, we should have immediately gone to the cheapest metals possible. No sense in trying to pretend like the money has melt value. Once again, several other countries (including many banana republics) have done this. While I am not too keen on steel from a collector's standpoint, it is very practical. I'd prefer a chrome steel or nickel steel alloy that doesn't rust. Cupronickel is good (what our nickels are made from) but expensive. If we wanted to stick with this then get rid of the penny, nickel and quarter and just have dimes and half dollars (then no one will get the dollar confused with the quarter). Several countries use a stainless steel alloy which remains nice and shiny decades later.
So, if all of these other countries have been able to figure this out, why do we need to spend 18 months and millions of dollars on a study to come up with the same answer? And people wonder why we are adding $1 trillion in debt each year. Easy, just take this philosophy and magnify it by every item in the federal budget.
One area of the economy that would be affected is strip clubs. I am not sure strippers would like to be pelted with dollar coins for their performance. However, this could easily be solved by the strip clubs printing their own bills and then patrons can purchase a bundle upon entering. The workers would then turn in their gathered bills at the end of their work day for real money. (Sure, this would eliminate a lot of the under the table transactions that probably go on, but that would mean more tax dollars - its a good thing!) Disney does this as sort of a souvenir gimmick (or at least they did 30 years ago). I have Disney Dollars (with portraits of Mickey and Goofy) that can be used as real money in the Disney themeparks, but have no value elsewhere.
One area of the economy that would be affected is strip clubs. I am not sure strippers would like to be pelted with dollar coins for their performance. However, this could easily be solved by the strip clubs printing their own bills and then patrons can purchase a bundle upon entering. The workers would then turn in their gathered bills at the end of their work day for real money. (Sure, this would eliminate a lot of the under the table transactions that probably go on, but that would mean more tax dollars - its a good thing!) Disney does this as sort of a souvenir gimmick (or at least they did 30 years ago). I have Disney Dollars (with portraits of Mickey and Goofy) that can be used as real money in the Disney themeparks, but have no value elsewhere.
Good Luck New York! Hope Those Gun Laws Work Out for You...
While reading this, please keep in mind that the number of guns in the US has increased each and every year since at least 1965. Furthermore, it is estimated that the number of guns in the US is increasing at a faster rate than population such that now we (probably) have more guns than people. Read on...
New York became the first state to pass gun control legislation since the Newtown murders. Obama has made it known that he is signing executive orders to ... follow the laws that were already passed. Meanwhile he is also trying to get Congress to pass some of the same stuff that New York did. In a nutshell, New York is requiring the registration of existing assault weapons and banning their sale and transfer, and limiting magazine capacity to 7 rounds. Plus all of the grandfathered 10+ round magazines are no longer grandfathered, but must be disposed of within a year. All of this to decrease gun crime and make everyone safer. Of course, the law makers don't realize that they already had an AWB ban (the new one makes it a one cosmetic feature test rather than a two cosmetic feature test - and I am not being sarcastic about that, they are cosmetic features which do not affect the firepower of the rifle at all) and a magazine limit left over from the Federal AWB and magazine limits which expired in 2004.
First point to understand. Rifles are used in very few murders throughout the country and especially so in New York. Based on FBI statistics, all rifles (of which assault weapons are a subset) are used in about 1% of murders. There is enough variability from year to year that I can guarantee no affect to crime will be measured - because none can be, which is what was found with the last assault weapons ban.
Second point to understand. Magazines are used in handguns and handguns are used in the majority of murders. However, the vast majority of murders only have one victim, and the vast majority of the time, that victim is not shot more than 7 times. (Shots tend to attract attention and most criminals don't like to draw attention to themselves in the process of committing a crime.) I make these statements without citing evidence, because I haven't come across a source for this evidence. Which makes my statements just as supported as anyone who arbitrarily chooses a number that is going to make us safer and reduce crime. So, even if criminals decided to obey the magazine law, the law is not going to hinder them from carrying out their plans.
But, I like to see some sort of evidence to support my position, so I went and gathered data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Since gun control laws are suppose to decrease gun crime, they should have a noticeable affect on the murder rate because approximately 70% of murders are committed with guns. The FBI has statistics going back to 1965 for NY.
Some things to learn from this graphic. First, in spite of the murder rate being 1/100 of overall violent crime rate, it is a very good proxy for what the violent crime rate is doing. The increases and decreases line up almost perfectly. In most cases the relative magnitude between periods is fairly uniform as well. Except that crimes committed with guns are a minority of violent crimes, only around 20% of violent crimes are committed with guns. If the availability of guns is a contributor to crime, then murder and violent crime should not be so closely correlated. Some other factor or factors have to be the impetus behind violent crime (and therefore gun crime).
Second, on the graph I have listed the major gun control legislation with bars indicating when it was in effect. If gun control were effective at reducing gun crimes, then we should see a drop in murders that is relationally 3 times the drop in violent crime when new gun control is implemented. We don't. In some cases we see the exact opposite. After the 1968 Gun Control Act, murders went up, but violent crime went up even more. One could argue that gun control in this case resulted in more crime and more murders, not a good thing in either case. In 1986, FOPA passed and violent crime and murders both went up again, with violent crime again outpacing the increases of murder. More evidence that gun control had no positive effect on our crime rates. In 1994 AWB were passed and crime went down. But violent crime (remember only 25% of it involves guns), went down proportionately more than murder rates did. Of course there were other provisions to this bill so perhaps they were the major contributors. Except that crime rates and murder had already been decreasing for 2-4 years prior to the passage of the bill, so maybe there wasn't anything to this bill (which is what the government found when they studied the issue). Finally, in 2004 we had an excellent opportunity for a test case. The Federal AWB ended, but NY kept theirs (including the magazine restriction to 10 rounds). If gun control really was effective, then we should see a dramatic difference between NY and the US as a whole. We didn't, more on that later.
Third, murder rates have remained relatively stable since 1998. Yes, there has continued to be a downward trend, but nothing like the upward or downward swings that the previous 30 years had had. Violent crime didn't reach a leveling off until 2004, but is also has seen relatively minor changes compared to the 30 previous years.
Fourth, while not on the chart, it is interesting to note that violent video games never even got off the ground until the early to mid 90s - the video graphics technology wasn't there before. By the time that the market was going strong in the late 90s, murder rates were already below anything seen since 1970. Perhaps this explains why we haven't seen a further drop, on the other hand, we haven't seen an increase either so if video games are to blame, then they certainly aren't doing too much.
Next, I expanded out to look at all of the types of violent crime. Some quick figures about gun usage based on Department of Justice Statistics. Guns are used to commit these crimes the following percentage of the time: murder 70%, rape 10%, robbery 40%, aggravated assault 20% (I just label it assault in the chart for simplicity). So, what I would expect from effective gun crime prevention legislation is that there should be little to no change in rape, barely noticeable in assaults, a noticeable change in robbery, and a significant change in murder.
This does not match that at all. Lets go through each one. I already pointed out how murder doesn't fit the mold for any of the gun control regulations passed. Next is rape, the type of violent crime that least uses guns in its commission. The US rape rate mirrors the violent crime rate. NY tracked the US rate up until the late 1970s and then leveled off (while the US rate continued it's rise). In the mid 80's, the NY rate started a decline which accelerated with the overall decline of violent crime in the early 90s. No evidence that gun legislation affected this in the least, which is expected. Rape rates move independent of gun control.
Up until the early 2000's, NY has had a robbery rate that far exceeded the US rate. In some years, NY's robbery rate exceeded the total violent crime rate for the nation. After gun control legislation passes, the robbery rate changes in the same manner as the murder rate or the violent crime rate, which is to say, it doesn't provide any supporting evidence that gun control works.
While having more assaults per 100,000 than the US as a whole for 30 years, NY finally crossed under the US curve in 1995. Of course, the results of gun control legislation match what occurred for the violent crime rate. Since 2008, assaults have climbed to match what the US rate is. Overall, the data doesn't match the hypothesis, so the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Earlier I mentioned that NY gave us a test bed by keeping their assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions. So, I looked a little closer at the last ten years in NY. Surely, if the AWB and magazine restrictions (which NY just made more stringent) had an effect it would show up here.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it hasn't. The only area that NY and the US are different in is assaults, and as I mentioned before, NY is on the rise. But, once rates get low enough, there are only going to be minor changes, so let me see if I can amplify those minor changes. I started by taking each rate from NY as a percentage from of the US (>100% means NY rate is higher than US, etc.). Next, I found the year to year change: negative numbers mean one of two things (both of which are in NY's favor) 1) the rate in NY is decreasing faster than the US rate (or crime is decreasing faster in NY than in the US) or 2) the rate in NY is increasing less than the US rate (or crime is increasing faster in the US than in NY). Likewise, positive numbers mean the opposite (bad for NY compared to the US).
I added a polynomial trendline in black and marked the end of the US AWB in red - remember, NY still has it. It appears that NY was seeing decreased crime (or less increases) compared to the US from 1974 to 2006. Neither one of those years correspond to a gun control legislation in their favor. If gun control legislation were effective, we should have seen greater negative numbers after the red line. Unfortunately for NY, since 2006 crime rates have been stagnant, while for the US it continues to decline. If this means that there is some threshold below which we cannot reduce crime rates for our society and NY has reached it, then any gun control legislation under the guise of reducing crime at this point in NY is a farce. As it is, there is ample evidence that gun control legislation to reduce crime is a farce under any circumstances.
But don't we need to do something? Why? If whatever we are proposing to do has already been shown to be ineffective, why burden the government with more laws to enforce or burden the people with more laws to break. But, what if one life were saved? One life hasn't been saved. There is no evidence that gun control has helped the crime situation. If you think that one life will be saved, show me the evidence.
On the other hand, what if I told you that there isn't a damn thing we can do about crime? What if I said that the primary cause of crime is so completely out of our control (because the solutions are horrifying to any sane person), that there is no point in trying. Playing around, I created the following graph that shows a pretty darn good correlation between something and violent crime.
In both NY and the US, the percentage of Males between the ages of 20 and 39 is one of the best predictors of the violent crime rate. I would have extended the graph all the way back to 1965, except I only could find reliable population demographic data back to 1981. The crime rates are from the FBI, the population data is from the CDC's WISQARS database.
We have long known that Males disproportionately are responsible for crime. We also know that the 20-39 age range is the most common age for violent crime offenders. For nearly 20 years in the US (and 17 years in NY), the violent crime rate (which is a proxy for murder rate and gun crime rate) is directly predictable by the ratio of males between the ages of 20-39. What is the solution? Lock up all men? Kill them all at 20? Drug them all into submission? I am talking about a stage in life that half of the population goes through for approximately 1/4 of their life. When the number of men in this age range is a higher percentage of the population, we have more violent crime. When it decreases, crime goes down.
Do I believe this is the major cause? I don't know, I stumbled across this while I was playing with other numbers and will have to do some more research. This is by far one of the closest approximations of estimating crime that I have found. It is far more predictive than the number of guns or the strength of the gun control laws. But people don't want to be told they can't do anything.
We want to control things. In the end, we can't. Life will go on.
New York became the first state to pass gun control legislation since the Newtown murders. Obama has made it known that he is signing executive orders to ... follow the laws that were already passed. Meanwhile he is also trying to get Congress to pass some of the same stuff that New York did. In a nutshell, New York is requiring the registration of existing assault weapons and banning their sale and transfer, and limiting magazine capacity to 7 rounds. Plus all of the grandfathered 10+ round magazines are no longer grandfathered, but must be disposed of within a year. All of this to decrease gun crime and make everyone safer. Of course, the law makers don't realize that they already had an AWB ban (the new one makes it a one cosmetic feature test rather than a two cosmetic feature test - and I am not being sarcastic about that, they are cosmetic features which do not affect the firepower of the rifle at all) and a magazine limit left over from the Federal AWB and magazine limits which expired in 2004.
First point to understand. Rifles are used in very few murders throughout the country and especially so in New York. Based on FBI statistics, all rifles (of which assault weapons are a subset) are used in about 1% of murders. There is enough variability from year to year that I can guarantee no affect to crime will be measured - because none can be, which is what was found with the last assault weapons ban.
Second point to understand. Magazines are used in handguns and handguns are used in the majority of murders. However, the vast majority of murders only have one victim, and the vast majority of the time, that victim is not shot more than 7 times. (Shots tend to attract attention and most criminals don't like to draw attention to themselves in the process of committing a crime.) I make these statements without citing evidence, because I haven't come across a source for this evidence. Which makes my statements just as supported as anyone who arbitrarily chooses a number that is going to make us safer and reduce crime. So, even if criminals decided to obey the magazine law, the law is not going to hinder them from carrying out their plans.
But, I like to see some sort of evidence to support my position, so I went and gathered data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Since gun control laws are suppose to decrease gun crime, they should have a noticeable affect on the murder rate because approximately 70% of murders are committed with guns. The FBI has statistics going back to 1965 for NY.
Some things to learn from this graphic. First, in spite of the murder rate being 1/100 of overall violent crime rate, it is a very good proxy for what the violent crime rate is doing. The increases and decreases line up almost perfectly. In most cases the relative magnitude between periods is fairly uniform as well. Except that crimes committed with guns are a minority of violent crimes, only around 20% of violent crimes are committed with guns. If the availability of guns is a contributor to crime, then murder and violent crime should not be so closely correlated. Some other factor or factors have to be the impetus behind violent crime (and therefore gun crime).
Second, on the graph I have listed the major gun control legislation with bars indicating when it was in effect. If gun control were effective at reducing gun crimes, then we should see a drop in murders that is relationally 3 times the drop in violent crime when new gun control is implemented. We don't. In some cases we see the exact opposite. After the 1968 Gun Control Act, murders went up, but violent crime went up even more. One could argue that gun control in this case resulted in more crime and more murders, not a good thing in either case. In 1986, FOPA passed and violent crime and murders both went up again, with violent crime again outpacing the increases of murder. More evidence that gun control had no positive effect on our crime rates. In 1994 AWB were passed and crime went down. But violent crime (remember only 25% of it involves guns), went down proportionately more than murder rates did. Of course there were other provisions to this bill so perhaps they were the major contributors. Except that crime rates and murder had already been decreasing for 2-4 years prior to the passage of the bill, so maybe there wasn't anything to this bill (which is what the government found when they studied the issue). Finally, in 2004 we had an excellent opportunity for a test case. The Federal AWB ended, but NY kept theirs (including the magazine restriction to 10 rounds). If gun control really was effective, then we should see a dramatic difference between NY and the US as a whole. We didn't, more on that later.
Third, murder rates have remained relatively stable since 1998. Yes, there has continued to be a downward trend, but nothing like the upward or downward swings that the previous 30 years had had. Violent crime didn't reach a leveling off until 2004, but is also has seen relatively minor changes compared to the 30 previous years.
Fourth, while not on the chart, it is interesting to note that violent video games never even got off the ground until the early to mid 90s - the video graphics technology wasn't there before. By the time that the market was going strong in the late 90s, murder rates were already below anything seen since 1970. Perhaps this explains why we haven't seen a further drop, on the other hand, we haven't seen an increase either so if video games are to blame, then they certainly aren't doing too much.
Next, I expanded out to look at all of the types of violent crime. Some quick figures about gun usage based on Department of Justice Statistics. Guns are used to commit these crimes the following percentage of the time: murder 70%, rape 10%, robbery 40%, aggravated assault 20% (I just label it assault in the chart for simplicity). So, what I would expect from effective gun crime prevention legislation is that there should be little to no change in rape, barely noticeable in assaults, a noticeable change in robbery, and a significant change in murder.
This does not match that at all. Lets go through each one. I already pointed out how murder doesn't fit the mold for any of the gun control regulations passed. Next is rape, the type of violent crime that least uses guns in its commission. The US rape rate mirrors the violent crime rate. NY tracked the US rate up until the late 1970s and then leveled off (while the US rate continued it's rise). In the mid 80's, the NY rate started a decline which accelerated with the overall decline of violent crime in the early 90s. No evidence that gun legislation affected this in the least, which is expected. Rape rates move independent of gun control.
Up until the early 2000's, NY has had a robbery rate that far exceeded the US rate. In some years, NY's robbery rate exceeded the total violent crime rate for the nation. After gun control legislation passes, the robbery rate changes in the same manner as the murder rate or the violent crime rate, which is to say, it doesn't provide any supporting evidence that gun control works.
While having more assaults per 100,000 than the US as a whole for 30 years, NY finally crossed under the US curve in 1995. Of course, the results of gun control legislation match what occurred for the violent crime rate. Since 2008, assaults have climbed to match what the US rate is. Overall, the data doesn't match the hypothesis, so the hypothesis cannot be correct.
Earlier I mentioned that NY gave us a test bed by keeping their assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions. So, I looked a little closer at the last ten years in NY. Surely, if the AWB and magazine restrictions (which NY just made more stringent) had an effect it would show up here.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it hasn't. The only area that NY and the US are different in is assaults, and as I mentioned before, NY is on the rise. But, once rates get low enough, there are only going to be minor changes, so let me see if I can amplify those minor changes. I started by taking each rate from NY as a percentage from of the US (>100% means NY rate is higher than US, etc.). Next, I found the year to year change: negative numbers mean one of two things (both of which are in NY's favor) 1) the rate in NY is decreasing faster than the US rate (or crime is decreasing faster in NY than in the US) or 2) the rate in NY is increasing less than the US rate (or crime is increasing faster in the US than in NY). Likewise, positive numbers mean the opposite (bad for NY compared to the US).
I added a polynomial trendline in black and marked the end of the US AWB in red - remember, NY still has it. It appears that NY was seeing decreased crime (or less increases) compared to the US from 1974 to 2006. Neither one of those years correspond to a gun control legislation in their favor. If gun control legislation were effective, we should have seen greater negative numbers after the red line. Unfortunately for NY, since 2006 crime rates have been stagnant, while for the US it continues to decline. If this means that there is some threshold below which we cannot reduce crime rates for our society and NY has reached it, then any gun control legislation under the guise of reducing crime at this point in NY is a farce. As it is, there is ample evidence that gun control legislation to reduce crime is a farce under any circumstances.
But don't we need to do something? Why? If whatever we are proposing to do has already been shown to be ineffective, why burden the government with more laws to enforce or burden the people with more laws to break. But, what if one life were saved? One life hasn't been saved. There is no evidence that gun control has helped the crime situation. If you think that one life will be saved, show me the evidence.
On the other hand, what if I told you that there isn't a damn thing we can do about crime? What if I said that the primary cause of crime is so completely out of our control (because the solutions are horrifying to any sane person), that there is no point in trying. Playing around, I created the following graph that shows a pretty darn good correlation between something and violent crime.
In both NY and the US, the percentage of Males between the ages of 20 and 39 is one of the best predictors of the violent crime rate. I would have extended the graph all the way back to 1965, except I only could find reliable population demographic data back to 1981. The crime rates are from the FBI, the population data is from the CDC's WISQARS database.
We have long known that Males disproportionately are responsible for crime. We also know that the 20-39 age range is the most common age for violent crime offenders. For nearly 20 years in the US (and 17 years in NY), the violent crime rate (which is a proxy for murder rate and gun crime rate) is directly predictable by the ratio of males between the ages of 20-39. What is the solution? Lock up all men? Kill them all at 20? Drug them all into submission? I am talking about a stage in life that half of the population goes through for approximately 1/4 of their life. When the number of men in this age range is a higher percentage of the population, we have more violent crime. When it decreases, crime goes down.
Do I believe this is the major cause? I don't know, I stumbled across this while I was playing with other numbers and will have to do some more research. This is by far one of the closest approximations of estimating crime that I have found. It is far more predictive than the number of guns or the strength of the gun control laws. But people don't want to be told they can't do anything.
We want to control things. In the end, we can't. Life will go on.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Why You Shouldn't Believe 100% of What You Read
One of my favorite subjects in college and something that is both abhorred and misunderstood by 99.999% of the population. Rest assured, when anyone uses statistics, you should feel very confident in throwing the BS flag for the following simple reasons.
1. 79% of statistics are made up on the spot (or is it 78%)
2. If they aren't making it up, the person quoting some statistic has a 90% chance of not knowing where the statistic came from.
3. If they know where it came from, there is a 95% chance that they haven't actually read the source material.
4. If they have read the source material, there is a 37% chance it was made up (see rule 1), or if the source is Facebook, blog, or comment forum, this number jumps to 93%.
5. If the source material is accurate, the quoter still has a 82% chance of not understanding what the statistic was actually measuring.
6. If they understand what the statistic was actually measuring, there is a 61% chance that the situation they are applying the statistic to was never intended because of the exceptions or assumptions within the study.
7. If the statistic is applicable, there is less than a 2% chance that the quoter has logically thought through the implications of the statistic and realized that there is a 66% chance that A) it is irrelevant or B) it actually means the opposite of what was thought.
8. More than likely, the statistic contradicts some other strongly held belief of the quoter and he will simple ignore it in that situation.
So in summation to the quoter's favor there is a (.21*.9*.05*.07*.18*.61*.02*.6
1. 79% of statistics are made up on the spot (or is it 78%)
2. If they aren't making it up, the person quoting some statistic has a 90% chance of not knowing where the statistic came from.
3. If they know where it came from, there is a 95% chance that they haven't actually read the source material.
4. If they have read the source material, there is a 37% chance it was made up (see rule 1), or if the source is Facebook, blog, or comment forum, this number jumps to 93%.
5. If the source material is accurate, the quoter still has a 82% chance of not understanding what the statistic was actually measuring.
6. If they understand what the statistic was actually measuring, there is a 61% chance that the situation they are applying the statistic to was never intended because of the exceptions or assumptions within the study.
7. If the statistic is applicable, there is less than a 2% chance that the quoter has logically thought through the implications of the statistic and realized that there is a 66% chance that A) it is irrelevant or B) it actually means the opposite of what was thought.
8. More than likely, the statistic contradicts some other strongly held belief of the quoter and he will simple ignore it in that situation.
So in summation to the quoter's favor there is a (.21*.9*.05*.07*.18*.61*.02*.6
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Real Life Implications of "Crying on a Suitcase"
Since we bought a Karaoke Machine for Christmas a few years ago, I have paid more attention to the lyrics of songs. Yes, half of those songs my parents told me had bad lyrics really do have bad lyrics. Of course, then you put on their music and find out that theirs was just as bad. Recently one of the favorite tunes on the radio that I have heard is Casey James "Crying on a Suitcase". It is the old cliche guy does something stupid, girl leaves, guy realizes he did something stupid, guy then goes to great lengths to win the girl back. Countless movies, stories, and songs have stuck with this tried and true meme. However, today I really listened to the lyrics and realized A) this guy is a psychopath, B) he probably hasn't seen what society is like since the year 2001, and C) there are a number of ways he will end up in jail before he even gets to the girl. So let me break it down for you:
"Boy don't wait, don't think, don't lock the door behind you" - The song begins with an invitation for anyone who is casing out his house to come on in. Seriously, unless you live far out in the country you should lock your door when you leave.
"Run and jump into your truck, and hit the gas, burn some rubber up" - Based on the urgency, I am going to guess that traveling within a reasonable facsimile of the speed limit is not in the cards. Depending on where he is burning the rubber up, he could be passing through a school zone, passing a stopped school bus, not yielding the right of way to an emergency vehicle, traveling excessively in a construction zone, etc. Some of these are only a light fine. But being pulled over is going to delay his getting his girl by at least 20-30 minutes. Unless he chooses not to pull over and decides to run from the cops. This has got to be at least a misdemeanor if not a felony in every jurisdiction. Jail time #1.
"Take a shortcut, take a back road, take the shoulder to the exit" - Shortcuts and back roads are not necessarily bad. Unless that shortcut takes you across the median against traffic. Reckless driving, its enough to get a ticket if not a suspended license. Using the shoulder for the exit is forgivable if your close to the exit, my guess since he isn't talking about a traffic jam is that he just is trying to shave the last few seconds off. Not good. Besides, broken down cars and emergency vehicles use the shoulder so now, the guy is risking an accident just to see the girl. Pulled over once again or running from the cops. Jail time #2.
"Skip the parking, screw the ticket, hit the curb and leave it sitting" - I usually skip the parking and wait in my car at the loading zone, but he is talking about screwing the ticket to, so obviously he is looking for a no parking zone, handicapped, or some other place he shouldn't be putting his car. This may work for a few minutes, but he is definitely going to get a parking ticket, if not being towed. It is not impressive to your newly won girlfriend to walk her out of the airport and hail a taxi to go to Bubba's Towing and Wrecking because you were irresponsible. If there is a cop on hand (which at many airports there are) he may stop the guy before he has a chance to screw the ticket and then the guy is left with waiting 20-30 minutes to get to his girl or running from the cops. Jail time #3.
"Whatever it takes You gotta get to that gate" - What is this guys definition of whatever. Surely he must have an idea of where he is going. Without that, the search is going to be futile unless you are at a single concourse airport. Can you even imagine showing up to Atlanta Hartsfield without knowing where your girl is going? Let's say you do know where she is going, does that mean you know where her connecting flight flies through? And do you know what airline. The two of you left on a bad note, so she probably didn't relay her travel plans (unless this is a romantic comedy and its necessary for the plot). Since 2001, they don't let just anyone through security, particularly disheveled 20ish men running through the airport after leaving their running car on the curb. So, I am assuming that Casey's theoretical guy is going to skip the security lines and make a beeline for the concourse exit. There is only one TSA agent here, so it should be easy to run past. Of course, I think purposely doing this is a crime that will land him in jail. Jail time #4.
So, by the end of the first verse, our guy has miraculously found his girl crying on her suitcase (which if it is large enough to be used as a seat, probably should have been checked baggage, but the airlines don't seem to care much about this). If he is lucky (and swift footed) he will have about 5 seconds to express his undying love and apology before he is tackled by personnel from 3 or 4 different law enforcement agencies. This will be followed by questioning by the FBI, TSA, County Sheriff, Airport Police, and State Troopers. No one will believe his story and probably through him in the slammer to sober up (whether he was drinking or not - no sensible person in their right mind does what he just did).
And his girl, seeing this situation, she'll realize she made the right decision, wipe away the tears and start up a conversation with a junior stock broker on the flight back to Kalamazoo. The conversation will lead to a blossoming relationship and they'll live happily (and boringly) ever after.
I know, my story can't really be expressed in song and Casey James is inadvertently advocating breaking the law, but I still like it. Besides, I like Taylor Swift too, and all she sings about are her boyfriend breakups and get togethers.
"Boy don't wait, don't think, don't lock the door behind you" - The song begins with an invitation for anyone who is casing out his house to come on in. Seriously, unless you live far out in the country you should lock your door when you leave.
"Run and jump into your truck, and hit the gas, burn some rubber up" - Based on the urgency, I am going to guess that traveling within a reasonable facsimile of the speed limit is not in the cards. Depending on where he is burning the rubber up, he could be passing through a school zone, passing a stopped school bus, not yielding the right of way to an emergency vehicle, traveling excessively in a construction zone, etc. Some of these are only a light fine. But being pulled over is going to delay his getting his girl by at least 20-30 minutes. Unless he chooses not to pull over and decides to run from the cops. This has got to be at least a misdemeanor if not a felony in every jurisdiction. Jail time #1.
"Take a shortcut, take a back road, take the shoulder to the exit" - Shortcuts and back roads are not necessarily bad. Unless that shortcut takes you across the median against traffic. Reckless driving, its enough to get a ticket if not a suspended license. Using the shoulder for the exit is forgivable if your close to the exit, my guess since he isn't talking about a traffic jam is that he just is trying to shave the last few seconds off. Not good. Besides, broken down cars and emergency vehicles use the shoulder so now, the guy is risking an accident just to see the girl. Pulled over once again or running from the cops. Jail time #2.
"Skip the parking, screw the ticket, hit the curb and leave it sitting" - I usually skip the parking and wait in my car at the loading zone, but he is talking about screwing the ticket to, so obviously he is looking for a no parking zone, handicapped, or some other place he shouldn't be putting his car. This may work for a few minutes, but he is definitely going to get a parking ticket, if not being towed. It is not impressive to your newly won girlfriend to walk her out of the airport and hail a taxi to go to Bubba's Towing and Wrecking because you were irresponsible. If there is a cop on hand (which at many airports there are) he may stop the guy before he has a chance to screw the ticket and then the guy is left with waiting 20-30 minutes to get to his girl or running from the cops. Jail time #3.
"Whatever it takes You gotta get to that gate" - What is this guys definition of whatever. Surely he must have an idea of where he is going. Without that, the search is going to be futile unless you are at a single concourse airport. Can you even imagine showing up to Atlanta Hartsfield without knowing where your girl is going? Let's say you do know where she is going, does that mean you know where her connecting flight flies through? And do you know what airline. The two of you left on a bad note, so she probably didn't relay her travel plans (unless this is a romantic comedy and its necessary for the plot). Since 2001, they don't let just anyone through security, particularly disheveled 20ish men running through the airport after leaving their running car on the curb. So, I am assuming that Casey's theoretical guy is going to skip the security lines and make a beeline for the concourse exit. There is only one TSA agent here, so it should be easy to run past. Of course, I think purposely doing this is a crime that will land him in jail. Jail time #4.
So, by the end of the first verse, our guy has miraculously found his girl crying on her suitcase (which if it is large enough to be used as a seat, probably should have been checked baggage, but the airlines don't seem to care much about this). If he is lucky (and swift footed) he will have about 5 seconds to express his undying love and apology before he is tackled by personnel from 3 or 4 different law enforcement agencies. This will be followed by questioning by the FBI, TSA, County Sheriff, Airport Police, and State Troopers. No one will believe his story and probably through him in the slammer to sober up (whether he was drinking or not - no sensible person in their right mind does what he just did).
And his girl, seeing this situation, she'll realize she made the right decision, wipe away the tears and start up a conversation with a junior stock broker on the flight back to Kalamazoo. The conversation will lead to a blossoming relationship and they'll live happily (and boringly) ever after.
I know, my story can't really be expressed in song and Casey James is inadvertently advocating breaking the law, but I still like it. Besides, I like Taylor Swift too, and all she sings about are her boyfriend breakups and get togethers.
Monday, January 14, 2013
President vs. Miss America
Question of Wisdom:
Why do Americans choose from just two people to run for president and 50+ for Miss America ?Answer of Truth:
Because none of the people running for president in the last 200 years have looked very good in a bikini.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)