Ripped off because we don’t do well at math

I'm in the process of reading Stopped Getting Ripped off: Why Consumers Get Screwed, and How You Can Always Get a Fair Deal, by Bob Sullivan (2009). He starts off by asking you to pretend that you are in a restaurant and you are presented with a menu that he illustrates on page 5 of his book. You are asked to assume that you ordered the onion soup (the price is clearly listed on the menu as $.60) and the "Lancaster Special Sandwich" (the price is clearly listed on the menu for $1.95). The question he asks is this: "How much should you leave for a 10% tip? I'll wait for a bit while you do your calculation in your head. No calculators, please. What did you come up with? [more . . . ] The answer is 25.5 cents, so either 25 cents or 26 cents would be an acceptable answer. What Sullivan next states is shocking:

If you answer this question correctly, consider yourself part of an elite group, because when the US Department of education asked US adults to answer it as part of a nationwide study, only 42% answered correctly. Less than half of American adults were able to pick two numbers from the list, add them, then perform the most basic of all percentage calculations--simply moving the decimal point one column to the left to calculate 10%.

Innumeracy is literally killing us. Try to think of a major issue facing our country that does not require a basic proficiency in mathematics that most of us don't seem to have. Think of the environment, energy, national budget, climate, health care, evolution being taught in public schools, space exploration, public health issues (e.g., the importance of vaccinations), the true cost of the "war on drugs," reform of financial institutions or taxation policy. Since most Americans cannot understand how to calculate a 10% tip, there is little chance that they could meaningfully participate regarding most of the big issues facing our country. These are truly painful words to write. Just think of the many math-related claims that got math-ignorant voters excited during the last presidential election, including Sarah Palin's claim that American could live long and prosperously on Alaskan oil (when straight-forward calculations based on known reserves showed that there is only enough Alaskan oil to supply America's current rate of use for six months). Imagine how different things would be if most Americans could actually calculate the minimal chance that they would be affected by an act of terrorism, and if they were able to compare that risk to the immense numbers of lives that could be saved by much more modest expenditures. But it's not even clear whether most Americans can benefit from further training regarding statistics. It's certainly true that many health care professionals don't adequately understand basic problems involving risk. The reasons so many of us are innumerate are not easily addressed. We desperately need proficient math skills to tamp down our fears. I know it has been tried (and abused) before, but a sinister thought enters my mind. The information presented by Sullivan makes me wonder whether we should make voters take and pass a rudimentary math test before allowing them to vote. How indignant could a rejected voter be if he/she can't figure out a ten percent tip? Understanding the many math-based claims asserted by candidates is sometimes the only way to see past their slick acting abilities. I'm not seriously suggesting a poll quiz, though I'm sure that my frustration is showing through. What we really need to do is provide better math education all the way through school. It appears that we are paying dearly for the many grade schools that fail at math education, individually and as a country.

Continue ReadingRipped off because we don’t do well at math

Google, China, and hypocrisy

You've probably heard the stories in the news. A superpower has been shamed, a totalitarian state has been outed. A tyrannical government has been spying on the private communications of its citizens, including that of activists and journalists. What they plan to do with the fruits of their techno-espionage is not well understood, but given their history they can hardly be up to any good. What is clear is that this government is fanatical about crushing any challenge to their perceived supremacy, whether those challenges are internal or external. They even demand that private companies aid them in censoring unfavorable news (with a stunning degree of success), and these private companies (mostly based in the United States) may even have helped them spy on their citizenry. You could be forgiven for thinking that this was just another blog posting about Google and China. It's actually a post about hypocrisy. First, if you haven't heard, Google is re-evaluating their decision to do business in China, ostensibly as a result of some cyber-attacks directed at the Gmail accounts of some human-rights activists. The U.S. State Department is planning to lodge a formal protest on the alleged attacks. Plenty of others have already analyzed this story. As usual, the real story is behind the headlines. The San Francisco Chronicle reported last week:

The Google-China flap has already reignited the debate over global censorship, reinvigorating human rights groups drawing attention to abuses in the country and prompting U.S. politicians to take a hard look at trade relations. The Obama administration issued statements of support for Google, and members of Congress are pushing to revive a bill banning U.S. tech companies from working with governments that digitally spy on their citizens.
To prevent United States businesses from cooperating with repressive governments in transforming the Internet into a tool of censorship and surveillance, to fulfill the responsibility of the United States Government to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to restore public confidence in the integrity of United States businesses...
So far, so good. Restoring public confidence in the integrity of U.S. businesses might be a tall order for any bill, but whatever. The rest are all noble goals: preventing repressive governments from using the internet as a tool of censorship and surveillance, promoting freedom of expression, and so on. Just one problem: none of these provisions apply to the U.S. Government. You see, the U.S. Government is the tyrannical superpower from the first paragraph of this blog post. You might have asked yourself why it is that the Chinese people put up with having their private communications read by their government. The real question is this: Why do you put up with it? [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingGoogle, China, and hypocrisy

New Center to explore the role of religion in politics at Washington University

Wonderful news from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. The Danforth Foundation has made a huge financial contribution to create a specialized Center on Religion & Politics. Former U.S. Senator John Danforth was instrumental in making this possible. The following is from the Center's press release, which was issued last month:

$30 million endowment gift from Danforth Foundation funds creation of center

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2009 — Washington University in St. Louis is establishing a scholarly and educational center that will focus on the role of religion in politics in the United States, according to Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton.

“The establishment of the John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics reflects the legacy of Jack Danforth and his belief in the importance of a civil discourse that treats differences with respect,” Wrighton said in making the announcement Dec. 16 at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

“The center will serve as an ideologically neutral place that will foster rigorous, unbiased scholarship and encourage conversations between diverse and even conflicting points of view,” Wrighton said.

“Knowing that religious values and beliefs can either encourage or undermine civility, the center and its educational programs and scholarly research can provide a bridge between religious and political communities and will inform new kinds of academic explorations focusing on the relationships between the two. We think that’s a worthy goal.”

The creation of the center, which includes the recruitment of five new faculty members with endowed professorships, is being made possible by a $30 million endowment gift from the St. Louis-based Danforth Foundation. It is believed to be the largest gift of its kind made to a university to fund such an academic center.

The center opens January 2010 and will convene public conferences and lectures to address local, state and national issues related to religion and politics and also will offer an educational program in religion and politics, including an interdisciplinary undergraduate minor in religion and public life.

The new faculty appointments will be in the area of American religion and politics and will complement the work of scholars already on the Washington University faculty in the departments of history, anthropology, literatures and religious studies. The new faculty members will hold joint appointments between the new center and existing academic departments.

The center will attract visiting scholars to St. Louis and create opportunities for interaction with Washington University faculty, students and members of the St. Louis community. It also plans to publish and disseminate proceedings of conferences and results of studies by faculty, visiting scholars and students of the center.

“Historically, the responsibility for this kind of dialogue has most often been left to universities with religious connections,” said Danforth. “But great non-sectarian institutions like Washington University combine rigorous academic standards with traditions of civil conversation, and that’s why this is the perfect place for such a center. Few issues are more critical to the well being of a democracy than how religious beliefs — or the denial of such beliefs — co-exist with civic virtue and of how the ‘truths’ of the one are made compatible with the toleration and good will required by the other.”

The Columbia Missourian (based in Columbia, Missouri), provides additional context:

John Danforth, 73, of St. Louis, has often been at odds with others in the GOP because of his concerns about the influence of the Christian right. In newspaper columns, speeches and in a book, he has argued that Christian conservatives have focused on divisive issues that polarize Americans.

Washington University Chancellor Mark Wrighton said the center in St. Louis will reflect Danforth's belief "in civil discourse that treats differences with respect."

"The center will serve as an ideologically neutral place that will foster rigorous, unbiased scholarship and encourage conversations between diverse and even conflicting points of view," Wrighton said.

This is a wonderful development. Washington University is a first-rate center of scholarship, and there might not be a more important topic in these times. Here is yet more information on the new Center, from Washington University's website. I very much like the motto for the Center: "Common ground for civil dialogue."

Continue ReadingNew Center to explore the role of religion in politics at Washington University

Drones, dollars, and the open-source insurgency

Yesterday, I wrote on the massive new $636 billion "defense" spending bill passed by the House of Representatives. An article in today's Wall Street Journal should make us further question the efficacy of this type of high-technology spending. A MQ-1 Predator drone costs some $4.5 million dollars each. They have a wingspan of approximately 48 feet, weigh 2,250 lbs. when loaded, have a range of over 2,000 miles, and have a ceiling altitude of 25,000 ft. They can be loaded with two hellfire missiles, making them available for a combination of reconnaissance, combat or support roles. The MQ-9 Reaper drone, the larger and more-heavily armored cousin of the Predator, cost about $10.5 million each. The Air Force maintains a fleet of 195 Predators (total cost ~$877.5 million) and 28 Reapers (total cost ~ $294 million). The New York Times reported earlier this year that they are flying 34 daily surveillance patrols in Afghanistan and Iraq, up from 12 in 2006. They transmit some 16,000 hours of video each month. Insurgents can spend $25.95 to purchase Skygrabber, a program available on the internet which allows them to intercept the video transmitted by these drones.

Continue ReadingDrones, dollars, and the open-source insurgency

Border Incident

You may have heard about this by now. Biologist and science fiction writer Peter Watts was stopped on his way back into Canada by border guards. He'd been helping a friend in the United States move and he was returning. He was flagged to the side and the guards fell on his vehicle. He stepped out to ask what was going on, was told to get back in his vehicle, and when he asked again for the reason for the search, he was pepper sprayed, beaten, thrown in a lock-up overnight, and the next day sent into a winter storm on foot in shirtsleeves, all his personal property confiscated pending arraignment on charges of assaulting a federal officer. In his own words:

Along some other timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the vehicle. In that other timeline I was not punched in the face, pepper-sprayed, shit-kicked, handcuffed, thrown wet and half-naked into a holding cell for three fucking hours, thrown into an even colder jail cell overnight, arraigned, and charged with assaulting a federal officer, all without access to legal representation (although they did try to get me to waive my Miranda rights. Twice.). Nor was I finally dumped across the border in shirtsleeves: computer seized, flash drive confiscated, even my fucking paper notepad withheld until they could find someone among their number literate enough to distinguish between handwritten notes on story ideas and, I suppose, nefarious terrorist plots. I was not left without my jacket in the face of Ontario’s first winter storm, after all buses and intercity shuttles had shut down for the night.

In some other universe I am warm and content and not looking at spending two years in jail for the crime of having been punched in the face.

Here is a post on his behalf. A legal defense fund is being built by the writing community as you read this. The first thing, I admit, that occurred to me when I heard about it was a kind of reflexive "well, he must've said something," the kind of self apology for representatives of my government that springs automatically to mind. Because none of us want to believe that thugs and bullies work for us. I dismissed that idea. Watts is the least likely individual to provoke such a response. [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingBorder Incident