“All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others” a very famous line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm a book I was forced to read at high school, however unlike some of the other compulsory reads this one was quite interesting albeit my interest in social constructs and politics was still fairly low at that time.
For those that haven’t read the book it is George’s commentary on Communism, where the animals on a farm revolt and throw off the oppression of the human farmer and run the farm themselves. I can’t recall how the book ends but given that George was not a fan of communism it probably ends badly for the animals.
I was reminded of this line for a couple of reasons but principally because I was listening to a radio article on poverty in America. The setting is only of passing interest as the commentary was probably applicable to most developed western economies. They were discussing the outcomes of various assistance programs, who were the clients, how they could be helped and if that help worked long term after the programs were withdrawn.
In part they were talking about LBJ’s (Lyndon Johnston) “war on poverty” which was a group of programs he initiated. It seems that US Presidents are keen on “wars” as another one had the “war on want” and of course we have had the “war on terror”. War is a very emotive term of course but it also carries connotations of direct, goal focused action with certain outcomes. LBJ’s war was really a skirmish as he lost the next election with his opponents attacking the idea of big government versus personal responsibility, a fairly constant battle ground in US and other democracies, and dismantled a lot of his programs.
The idea of poverty as a personal responsibility is relatively recent and arose with the erosion of the class system in England on the back of the industrial revolution. Previously you were either born poor or rich and as there was no movement between the classes it clearly wasn’t your fault you were born poor, it was just your burden lot to bear. Once we had the rise of commerce and “self made men” then the conclusion became “if they can do it so can you” This idea is very powerful today and we all have a bit of “if they just got their act together” thinking in our attitude to the poor.
So what struck me about the tone of the conversation was the mostly unspoken but implied contrasting views on what constituted poor. This lead me to consider my own definition and the one that sprang to mind was the media sound bit phrase that anyone earning less than X% of the average wage was “in poverty”. But this isn’t a real definition of poverty is it, it is really a statement about a standard of living expectation.
Given that the basis for the measure is a statistical normal curve of income levels what this really argues for is a narrowing (?) of the bell curve. i.e. a taller curve so that everyone is more closely aligned to the centre. In fact the logical conclusion of this type of measure is that we should all earn the average and hey presto no poverty.
But are all animals created equal should we all be paid the same. I suspect most people would answer no we shouldn’t all be paid the same (especially those on higher incomes). So that means the pigs (the authors of the opening quote in the book) were right some animals are more equal than others. If one person is “worth” more than another it is hard to argue we are all equal. And if we are not equal what does that say about some other ideas founded on the basis we are all equal, like universal suffrage for example.
Random thoughts on Random topics sparked by my travels through life and the things I see or hear on the way
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Strength and Honour
So I own very few DVD’s as there are not that many movies that I have a great desire to see more than once, one that I do own is Gladiator. In the event that you don’t know the film it is the story of a Roman General who falls from grace, endures and then rises to triumph again. Part of the reason I bought the DVD is that there is an opening battle scene that sounds particularly good on a surround sound system where you can hear the arches fire the arrows over your head and pots of flaming oil likewise catapulted over you to crash into the trees with a very satisfying explosion.
Prior to the commencement of the battle we find our General delivering the pre match pep talk which is suitably stirring before they all ride off to kill some Germanic tribe. At the end of his speech he concludes with a salute which includes the phrase “Strength and Honour” to which his troops all respond likewise “Strength and Honour” The historic accuracy of this particular phrase seems to be doubtful but it has returned to my memory while I was turning over the issue of what it means to be a man in today’s society, a topic I alluded to in my last post.
I had started with the idea of a sort of bullet list of things a man might ideally be and first on that list was Strength as it is an obvious differentiator between the sexes. In this context I am talking about physical strength and while I accept there are wide range of male and female examples, as a statement of averages men in general have the capacity to lift heavier weights etc than women. They also have greater genetic capacity in this arena, you only need to look at the extremes of body building to see that women never reach the gigantic size of some of the steroid enhanced males in this activitiy.
So this initially physical attribute has morphed into some of the other things we like our men to be, they should be able to protect their loved ones. They should be “handy” with tools etc, which I believe to be a manifestation of the heavy lifting sometimes associated with this type of task. They should be less emotional at times of crisis, which is not to say that men don’t have emotions or shouldn’t share but when the ship is sinking we admire those that can put aside the immediate concerns of fear etc and act for the good of the group. Women do this too especially in relation to their children but we still operate on the “women and children to the life rafts first” system. Even some of the negative things that men get up to like drinking too much with their mates is something to do with being the strongest and therefore last man standing. So a lot of being a man is derived from being strong one way and another.
Now a muscle bound man who simply knows how to be “strong” is to be avoided as their solution to all problems will probably be from the school of “hit it harder”. A man simply with strength is probably a danger to themselves and almost certainly to others. We need a modifier of that strength and it comes in the second part of our pseudo roman saying, Honour.
To act with honour, which implies “doing ones duty”, “a gentleman never tells”, “to protect my good name”, “a man’s word is his bond” and other clichés in both words and actions are bound up in the concept of Honour and acting with honour. We respect and admire people who can act with integrity and while this is not a trait reserved for men it is perhaps even more important to have when you are cast into the role of acting with strength. It is also the part that allows men the freedom to be caring and nurturing and not devoid of feelings to be giving and appreciative of the world. To honour learning etc is mans route to the intellectual to balance the physical.
So to be a man is “strength and honour” however it troubles me to have to base my foundation of manliness on a made up pseudo roman quote, but being fortunate to have been born in Aotearoa I don’t have to I have the word Mana to turn to and guide my quest for manliness. Mana in my mind encompases strength and honour and more. So to act in a way that enhances my Mana this, I think, is what it is to be a man today as it was yesterday and as it will be tomorrow.
Prior to the commencement of the battle we find our General delivering the pre match pep talk which is suitably stirring before they all ride off to kill some Germanic tribe. At the end of his speech he concludes with a salute which includes the phrase “Strength and Honour” to which his troops all respond likewise “Strength and Honour” The historic accuracy of this particular phrase seems to be doubtful but it has returned to my memory while I was turning over the issue of what it means to be a man in today’s society, a topic I alluded to in my last post.
I had started with the idea of a sort of bullet list of things a man might ideally be and first on that list was Strength as it is an obvious differentiator between the sexes. In this context I am talking about physical strength and while I accept there are wide range of male and female examples, as a statement of averages men in general have the capacity to lift heavier weights etc than women. They also have greater genetic capacity in this arena, you only need to look at the extremes of body building to see that women never reach the gigantic size of some of the steroid enhanced males in this activitiy.
So this initially physical attribute has morphed into some of the other things we like our men to be, they should be able to protect their loved ones. They should be “handy” with tools etc, which I believe to be a manifestation of the heavy lifting sometimes associated with this type of task. They should be less emotional at times of crisis, which is not to say that men don’t have emotions or shouldn’t share but when the ship is sinking we admire those that can put aside the immediate concerns of fear etc and act for the good of the group. Women do this too especially in relation to their children but we still operate on the “women and children to the life rafts first” system. Even some of the negative things that men get up to like drinking too much with their mates is something to do with being the strongest and therefore last man standing. So a lot of being a man is derived from being strong one way and another.
Now a muscle bound man who simply knows how to be “strong” is to be avoided as their solution to all problems will probably be from the school of “hit it harder”. A man simply with strength is probably a danger to themselves and almost certainly to others. We need a modifier of that strength and it comes in the second part of our pseudo roman saying, Honour.
To act with honour, which implies “doing ones duty”, “a gentleman never tells”, “to protect my good name”, “a man’s word is his bond” and other clichés in both words and actions are bound up in the concept of Honour and acting with honour. We respect and admire people who can act with integrity and while this is not a trait reserved for men it is perhaps even more important to have when you are cast into the role of acting with strength. It is also the part that allows men the freedom to be caring and nurturing and not devoid of feelings to be giving and appreciative of the world. To honour learning etc is mans route to the intellectual to balance the physical.
So to be a man is “strength and honour” however it troubles me to have to base my foundation of manliness on a made up pseudo roman quote, but being fortunate to have been born in Aotearoa I don’t have to I have the word Mana to turn to and guide my quest for manliness. Mana in my mind encompases strength and honour and more. So to act in a way that enhances my Mana this, I think, is what it is to be a man today as it was yesterday and as it will be tomorrow.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
And – which is more – you’ll be a man my son
The above is the last line of a poem by Rudyard Kipling (1865 – 1936) someone who was in no doubt about the qualities one should possess or the activities one should indulge in to be described as a man. He had the fortune (from his perspective) of being born British at a time when “The Empire” was at its height and the roles of men and women were well defined. To put that in context women only achieved limited suffrage in 1918 and it wasn’t till 1928 in Britain that universal suffrage was achieved, both events relatively at the end of Rudyard’s life.
In 2010 the role of men is not so clear cut as I suspect it was in 1910. In today’s society we have seen the “rise” of women which has had a profound influence on the traditional gender roles. One good example is the often quoted statistic is that the majority of students entering university in New Zealand are now female in contrast to only a few generations ago when women were achieving firsts. The first Otago University Graduate was 1897, in Law and many other degrees had to wait much longer to boast a female graduate.
So I mention all of this as I had some “mans” yoghurt in the weekend. I have had plenty of what was presumably women’s yoghurt before without realising I could be putting my man status in jeopardy. What makes it “mans” yoghurt is that the company making the stuff is running a deliberate advertising campaign targeting men and it uses descriptions of what is manly to make an admittedly tongue in cheek humorous pitch at the male consumer. Which is fair enough, but it took my attention as it is only one of a number of campaigns that are currently around targeting the idea of “being a man” There are a couple of beer adverts, which admittedly are always blokey in their approach, however these have a theme of freedom from the tyranny of the way you are supposed to act. Then there is the road safety campaign which uses “being in control” as a manly attribute and a hook for its campaign, something I suspect that will be more effective than the blood and gore campaign they have been running up till now.
All of these campaigns were likely to have been subjected to a focus group study prior to going to air. A fairly standard marketing technique where you ask a group of consumers about your product and its attributes etc as well as potentially commenting on the effectiveness of the campaign. So the conclusion would seem to be that men are interested in being men, perhaps no surprise there. Of interest is that they need the idea to be reflected in the media and do not have the confidence to already be men. The slightly worrying point might be that they may be looking to advertisers to provide them with the answer to what a man should be. This is an opportunity for men to learn something from women who have been beset by the media telling them what it is to be a woman and not always (possibly never) a positive thing.
Clearly advertisers don’t have social agenda’s, they have a desire to sell their product so this does not make them a reliable source of information on any topic really and as much as we already know this it is amazing how many of these messages get picked up and incorporated into the main stream.
The question for me remains, why are men currently so uncertain of what it means to be a man, is it a wider set of choices, is it a lack of fathers in some families, has society been “feminised” Or am I reading this wrong are men still safe and secure in their manhood. As a sample of one I don’t feel too bothered but then I am old fashioned and a bit of a dinosaur on these matters sometimes. Probably more to come on this topic but in the mean time here is the poem
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
In 2010 the role of men is not so clear cut as I suspect it was in 1910. In today’s society we have seen the “rise” of women which has had a profound influence on the traditional gender roles. One good example is the often quoted statistic is that the majority of students entering university in New Zealand are now female in contrast to only a few generations ago when women were achieving firsts. The first Otago University Graduate was 1897, in Law and many other degrees had to wait much longer to boast a female graduate.
So I mention all of this as I had some “mans” yoghurt in the weekend. I have had plenty of what was presumably women’s yoghurt before without realising I could be putting my man status in jeopardy. What makes it “mans” yoghurt is that the company making the stuff is running a deliberate advertising campaign targeting men and it uses descriptions of what is manly to make an admittedly tongue in cheek humorous pitch at the male consumer. Which is fair enough, but it took my attention as it is only one of a number of campaigns that are currently around targeting the idea of “being a man” There are a couple of beer adverts, which admittedly are always blokey in their approach, however these have a theme of freedom from the tyranny of the way you are supposed to act. Then there is the road safety campaign which uses “being in control” as a manly attribute and a hook for its campaign, something I suspect that will be more effective than the blood and gore campaign they have been running up till now.
All of these campaigns were likely to have been subjected to a focus group study prior to going to air. A fairly standard marketing technique where you ask a group of consumers about your product and its attributes etc as well as potentially commenting on the effectiveness of the campaign. So the conclusion would seem to be that men are interested in being men, perhaps no surprise there. Of interest is that they need the idea to be reflected in the media and do not have the confidence to already be men. The slightly worrying point might be that they may be looking to advertisers to provide them with the answer to what a man should be. This is an opportunity for men to learn something from women who have been beset by the media telling them what it is to be a woman and not always (possibly never) a positive thing.
Clearly advertisers don’t have social agenda’s, they have a desire to sell their product so this does not make them a reliable source of information on any topic really and as much as we already know this it is amazing how many of these messages get picked up and incorporated into the main stream.
The question for me remains, why are men currently so uncertain of what it means to be a man, is it a wider set of choices, is it a lack of fathers in some families, has society been “feminised” Or am I reading this wrong are men still safe and secure in their manhood. As a sample of one I don’t feel too bothered but then I am old fashioned and a bit of a dinosaur on these matters sometimes. Probably more to come on this topic but in the mean time here is the poem
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master,
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
What have you got to lose.
Recently I came across some thoughts on 5 things you can do to make you happier. They struck me as sensible small things we could all do without turning our lives upside down and so unlike a lot of self help advice might actually work. So here they are.
Accept unhappiness, this one seems a little odd but the point is happiness is not achieved by the avoidance of unpleasantness. This is there can be no light without dark type of thinking to be happy you need to have a contrast and also an acceptance that not everything in the world is pleasant. A trivial example but not confronting the neighbour about his tree may avoid a difficult conversation but you will be stuck with the tree.
Share real time with family and friends, the research shows that the more time you spend with the people you care about the happier you will be. These should be real face to face interactions without distractions, eg watching TV with the family is good but better is no TV. Emailing friends is ok but no substitute for a sit down conversation over coffee. Arrange a face to face conversation with someone you care about today.
Do some exercise. Well apart from all the other benefits 20mins of moderate exercise 3 times a week will make you feel happier. The good news is a walk with the dog will do it and if you don’t have a dog become a volunteer walker for the SPCA and if you hate dogs (well you should try and get over that cause you are missing out) you can always walk yourself or better yet a walk with someone you care about. In other words you don’t have to turn into a multisport nut just a little bit will do it.
Do more of less. We have a tendency to cram a lot into our lives and then be busy running from one thing to the next. Instead pick out the activities you really like and spend more quality time focused on the activities that bring you the most joy. We have all met someone who is passionate about something and it seems to consume their lives and when you talk to them about whatever it is you can see them light up. Well you don’t need to be that obsessed but you can see the joy a focus on some things you love could bring you rather than trying to do a little of everything.
Keep a gratitude journal. At the end of the day note down in a journal the good things that happened in the day. Just a few notes not an essay. Eg had coffee with Jim, heard a great song on the radio, my boss said thanks for a job well done. So for some bosses that last one might be a stretch but you get the idea, you don’t have to write much and the items don’t need to be big. I reckon even the worst days should be able to yield three.
That was the list, all of them are small ideas and achievable so give it a go what have you got to lose.
Accept unhappiness, this one seems a little odd but the point is happiness is not achieved by the avoidance of unpleasantness. This is there can be no light without dark type of thinking to be happy you need to have a contrast and also an acceptance that not everything in the world is pleasant. A trivial example but not confronting the neighbour about his tree may avoid a difficult conversation but you will be stuck with the tree.
Share real time with family and friends, the research shows that the more time you spend with the people you care about the happier you will be. These should be real face to face interactions without distractions, eg watching TV with the family is good but better is no TV. Emailing friends is ok but no substitute for a sit down conversation over coffee. Arrange a face to face conversation with someone you care about today.
Do some exercise. Well apart from all the other benefits 20mins of moderate exercise 3 times a week will make you feel happier. The good news is a walk with the dog will do it and if you don’t have a dog become a volunteer walker for the SPCA and if you hate dogs (well you should try and get over that cause you are missing out) you can always walk yourself or better yet a walk with someone you care about. In other words you don’t have to turn into a multisport nut just a little bit will do it.
Do more of less. We have a tendency to cram a lot into our lives and then be busy running from one thing to the next. Instead pick out the activities you really like and spend more quality time focused on the activities that bring you the most joy. We have all met someone who is passionate about something and it seems to consume their lives and when you talk to them about whatever it is you can see them light up. Well you don’t need to be that obsessed but you can see the joy a focus on some things you love could bring you rather than trying to do a little of everything.
Keep a gratitude journal. At the end of the day note down in a journal the good things that happened in the day. Just a few notes not an essay. Eg had coffee with Jim, heard a great song on the radio, my boss said thanks for a job well done. So for some bosses that last one might be a stretch but you get the idea, you don’t have to write much and the items don’t need to be big. I reckon even the worst days should be able to yield three.
That was the list, all of them are small ideas and achievable so give it a go what have you got to lose.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Myth of Sisyphus
Stu’s comment on one of my earlier entries posed a question "what is comfort?" which in the context of the blog I chose to reinterpreted into What is happiness? My quick answer was “you get to choose” eg whatever you want it to be, which on the face of it looks either flippant or designed to be clever (in the negative use of the word) It was neither and so I thought I would expand on that thought.
Albert Camus (pronounced Kamay) 1913-1960 was a French Philosopher who among his credits was a Noble Laureate in Literature. So he is contemporary (as these things go most famous philosophers are long since dead) and clearly no dummy. He is mostly associated with a theory in Philosophy known as Absurd. As I understand it (I have no formal philosophical training) in a search for the meaning of life there are various ways you can go, one is to look for an external meaning most commonly god. Alternatively you can look for an internal meaning a Platonic view of living a good life as dictated by universal laws (not from god but more from nature) Or you could decide that life has no meaning and is an “Absurd” enterprise.
Faced with the dilemma of a meaningless life most philosophers end up abandoning the idea and arrive back at God or Reason. Camus did not but embraced the idea of a meaningless life and focused on what the logical conclusion would be. Is it suicide for example in the face of futility? Camus uses The Myth of Sisyphus to explore this idea.
Sisyphus was a Greek King who managed to capture and imprison death so that humans would no longer die. The gods freed death and to punish Sisyphus they granted him immortality but he was condemned to roll a rock to the top of a hill only to see it roll down to the bottom again over and over again. Among other ideas explored by Camus he posed the question “what does Sisyphus think on his walk down the hill?” You see in his “free” time of walking down to resume his labours he has two (significant) possible thoughts. The negative option of reflecting on the futility of the task and the doomed existence that is now his lot. Or he can choose to think about a job well done on reaching the top and look forward to the challenge of achieving the outcome again.
The fact that the task is immediately undone as soon as it is completed does not make the task any less worthy. As soon as we are born our life starts to run out with each passing day getting shorter and shorter but this does not negate the value of life.
A lot of life can seem like rock rolling and our attitude to that will be an important part of our happiness with our lot. Even if you do not subscribe to an “absurd” view of life the active choosing to see your rock rolling as a job well done and not a hopeless exercise in never ending futility can’t really hurt now can it. So you choose, choose happiness.
Albert Camus (pronounced Kamay) 1913-1960 was a French Philosopher who among his credits was a Noble Laureate in Literature. So he is contemporary (as these things go most famous philosophers are long since dead) and clearly no dummy. He is mostly associated with a theory in Philosophy known as Absurd. As I understand it (I have no formal philosophical training) in a search for the meaning of life there are various ways you can go, one is to look for an external meaning most commonly god. Alternatively you can look for an internal meaning a Platonic view of living a good life as dictated by universal laws (not from god but more from nature) Or you could decide that life has no meaning and is an “Absurd” enterprise.
Faced with the dilemma of a meaningless life most philosophers end up abandoning the idea and arrive back at God or Reason. Camus did not but embraced the idea of a meaningless life and focused on what the logical conclusion would be. Is it suicide for example in the face of futility? Camus uses The Myth of Sisyphus to explore this idea.
Sisyphus was a Greek King who managed to capture and imprison death so that humans would no longer die. The gods freed death and to punish Sisyphus they granted him immortality but he was condemned to roll a rock to the top of a hill only to see it roll down to the bottom again over and over again. Among other ideas explored by Camus he posed the question “what does Sisyphus think on his walk down the hill?” You see in his “free” time of walking down to resume his labours he has two (significant) possible thoughts. The negative option of reflecting on the futility of the task and the doomed existence that is now his lot. Or he can choose to think about a job well done on reaching the top and look forward to the challenge of achieving the outcome again.
The fact that the task is immediately undone as soon as it is completed does not make the task any less worthy. As soon as we are born our life starts to run out with each passing day getting shorter and shorter but this does not negate the value of life.
A lot of life can seem like rock rolling and our attitude to that will be an important part of our happiness with our lot. Even if you do not subscribe to an “absurd” view of life the active choosing to see your rock rolling as a job well done and not a hopeless exercise in never ending futility can’t really hurt now can it. So you choose, choose happiness.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Speed Kills......
Clearly not or there would be F1 drivers with their heads exploding when they reached the magic speed at which it killed you. So as we all know it is the abrupt stop at the end that does the damage, however this safety message has and continues to be drummed into us and frankly I am sick of it. In my view it is a simplistic and boneheaded answer to a far more complex problem.
So lets examine the question does the average driving speed increase the rate of driving deaths.
Of course running experiments to prove or disprove this point is problematic however there are some natural experiments that we can look at. One of which is the experience of the United States. During the oil shocks of the 70’s the US Federal government took over the setting of speed limits to aid in lowering fuel consumption. The older members of the audience will recall that the government here also lowered the speed limit at that time for the same reason. After the oil price settled down the Federal government passed this function back to the individual state governments who then set a range of speed limits. So how do the states compare to each other?
Well here is the table of results and asking Excel to Correlate the Deaths per 100,000 with the speed limits it calculates a correlation of 0.21 or in other words no correlation of any statistical significance. Also if you look at Hawaii at 6th lowest with a low speed limit and death rate but then Utah with the highest speed limit is only 8 places higher. And there are 5 other states with higher speed limits lower than Hawaii. So clearly there is other stuff going on here, some of which might be obvious such as New York which encompasses New York City where there are a lot of people but no one drives anywhere much . But we know that California is the driving capital and with a speed limit of 70 and 9th on the table it is doing well. New Zealand also included is very mid table and 2008 was the best road toll NZ had had for 30 years.
So let’s look at a New Zealand experiment in 1985 the government raised the speed limit from 80kph to 100kph. At this point let me remind you of the world’s most famous physics equation E=MC^2 with the important bit for us being the C squared bit C equals velocity or speed in our case so the impact of an accident with the 20 extra ks is exponentially worse because of the squaring. Eg 1000kg vehicle hits at 80 kph equals 6,400,000 energy units where as at 100kph it is 10,000,000 so a 50% increase in the severity of the crash. So there should be a massive increase in deaths as a whole bunch of survivable crashes suddenly become 50% worse. So what happened well 1986 did show a spike in deaths (nowhere near a 50% increase) but in 1987 and subsequent years it showed a decline which is now an established trend, so despite a 50% increase in potential road deaths are falling. So much for Speed Kills.
In doing some research for this I came across this page http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/safety/road-casualities.html
It shows an increased mortality for Maori in road deaths of twice the rest of the population, why this should be so is of interest as it may reveal something the rest of us could learn from. I doubt that Maori as a population drive on average any faster than the rest of us so I bet it isn’t speed that is killing them (my pick is because Maori, as a group, are worse off economically it is because they drive worse cars) so rather than handing out more and more speeding fines how about we look for the real causes.
So lets examine the question does the average driving speed increase the rate of driving deaths.
Of course running experiments to prove or disprove this point is problematic however there are some natural experiments that we can look at. One of which is the experience of the United States. During the oil shocks of the 70’s the US Federal government took over the setting of speed limits to aid in lowering fuel consumption. The older members of the audience will recall that the government here also lowered the speed limit at that time for the same reason. After the oil price settled down the Federal government passed this function back to the individual state governments who then set a range of speed limits. So how do the states compare to each other?
Well here is the table of results and asking Excel to Correlate the Deaths per 100,000 with the speed limits it calculates a correlation of 0.21 or in other words no correlation of any statistical significance. Also if you look at Hawaii at 6th lowest with a low speed limit and death rate but then Utah with the highest speed limit is only 8 places higher. And there are 5 other states with higher speed limits lower than Hawaii. So clearly there is other stuff going on here, some of which might be obvious such as New York which encompasses New York City where there are a lot of people but no one drives anywhere much . But we know that California is the driving capital and with a speed limit of 70 and 9th on the table it is doing well. New Zealand also included is very mid table and 2008 was the best road toll NZ had had for 30 years.
 |
| Double click to enlarge |
In doing some research for this I came across this page http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/safety/road-casualities.html
It shows an increased mortality for Maori in road deaths of twice the rest of the population, why this should be so is of interest as it may reveal something the rest of us could learn from. I doubt that Maori as a population drive on average any faster than the rest of us so I bet it isn’t speed that is killing them (my pick is because Maori, as a group, are worse off economically it is because they drive worse cars) so rather than handing out more and more speeding fines how about we look for the real causes.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Crime and Prejudice
What is up with this country and locking people up? We have the second highest incarceration rate (per head of population ) in the OECD. (second to the red necks in the good old US of A). Are we particularly bad or mad? Or is it more to do with our attitude to punishment, lets face it rehabilitation isn’t even in our zip code for discussion when it comes to criminals.
The reason for this outburst is that the news today seems dominated by rampant stupidity surrounding locking people up. We have the case of a guy convicted of manslaughter for the death of a four year old that he beat to death. For which he has served 12 years in jail, the total length of his sentence and is now to be released. The parole board has imposed a further 6 months restrictions on him as they have the power to do but after that he is once again a free man. Foul screams the mob, this guy is a monster and because the parole board has concerns that he may reoffend (presumably he has anger issues as a particular issue with children does not seem to be part of the commentary) we should keep him behind bars forever until the parole board is satisfied he will not offend.
Really? Am I the only one that is slightly perturbed by the idea that people could serve their sentence and then be arbitrarily detained by a committee with no recourse to due process or review? Where do I start with what is potentially wrong with this picture. For one thing presumably all prisoners who are released carry a high risk of reoffending. According to Corrections the recidivism rate after 4 years is 50%. So that is half of them that we shouldn’t let out.
Another burst of stupidity surrounds David Tamihere with calls for him to remain locked up until he reveals the site of Heidi Paakkonen’s grave. There are questions about the safety of this conviction which are not worth going in to but some facts are agreed, Tamihere has always maintained that he didn’t kill Heidi and her boyfriend. This ongoing position has cost him additional years in gaol already, so maybe just maybe he didn’t do it so how is he going to reveal the grave site if he doesn’t know where it is. And if you don’t like that one if he is stubborn enough to maintain his innocence for 22 years and cost himself additional gaol time already I think we are on a loser keeping him locked up.
And if these sort of calls from the mob aren’t enough to make me worry about my civil liberties, how about the government attempting to legislate away your right to silence by extending so called “examination orders” This is the situation where you are minding your own business as an accountant say and suddenly realise that you are doing the books for a dangerous mob boss. The government now wants the power to make you a criminal by extension if you don’t dob in your client, despite the fact that mob bosses don’t deal well (or fairly) with people who do that.
Not to mention additional unnotified surveillance powers etc, and please don’t tell me that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. Even in little old NZ people have come under surveillance for being members of the communist party or for being part of Halt All Racist Tours, both organisations and most of their activities being perfectly legal (ok so the HART guys stepped over the line sometimes). Neither organisation I support in any way, however I am not a big fan of organised religion and I am a bit concerned about masons and those guys that play with little plastic soldiers are a bit weird. None of which gives me or the government any rights to do anything to them provided they conduct themselves within the laws of the country.
And if they do break a law, just like when I get caught speeding, after they have done the time or paid the fine they should be free to start again.
The reason for this outburst is that the news today seems dominated by rampant stupidity surrounding locking people up. We have the case of a guy convicted of manslaughter for the death of a four year old that he beat to death. For which he has served 12 years in jail, the total length of his sentence and is now to be released. The parole board has imposed a further 6 months restrictions on him as they have the power to do but after that he is once again a free man. Foul screams the mob, this guy is a monster and because the parole board has concerns that he may reoffend (presumably he has anger issues as a particular issue with children does not seem to be part of the commentary) we should keep him behind bars forever until the parole board is satisfied he will not offend.
Really? Am I the only one that is slightly perturbed by the idea that people could serve their sentence and then be arbitrarily detained by a committee with no recourse to due process or review? Where do I start with what is potentially wrong with this picture. For one thing presumably all prisoners who are released carry a high risk of reoffending. According to Corrections the recidivism rate after 4 years is 50%. So that is half of them that we shouldn’t let out.
Another burst of stupidity surrounds David Tamihere with calls for him to remain locked up until he reveals the site of Heidi Paakkonen’s grave. There are questions about the safety of this conviction which are not worth going in to but some facts are agreed, Tamihere has always maintained that he didn’t kill Heidi and her boyfriend. This ongoing position has cost him additional years in gaol already, so maybe just maybe he didn’t do it so how is he going to reveal the grave site if he doesn’t know where it is. And if you don’t like that one if he is stubborn enough to maintain his innocence for 22 years and cost himself additional gaol time already I think we are on a loser keeping him locked up.
And if these sort of calls from the mob aren’t enough to make me worry about my civil liberties, how about the government attempting to legislate away your right to silence by extending so called “examination orders” This is the situation where you are minding your own business as an accountant say and suddenly realise that you are doing the books for a dangerous mob boss. The government now wants the power to make you a criminal by extension if you don’t dob in your client, despite the fact that mob bosses don’t deal well (or fairly) with people who do that.
Not to mention additional unnotified surveillance powers etc, and please don’t tell me that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. Even in little old NZ people have come under surveillance for being members of the communist party or for being part of Halt All Racist Tours, both organisations and most of their activities being perfectly legal (ok so the HART guys stepped over the line sometimes). Neither organisation I support in any way, however I am not a big fan of organised religion and I am a bit concerned about masons and those guys that play with little plastic soldiers are a bit weird. None of which gives me or the government any rights to do anything to them provided they conduct themselves within the laws of the country.
And if they do break a law, just like when I get caught speeding, after they have done the time or paid the fine they should be free to start again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)