See this site ...
www.autosocratictimes.com
Monday, April 13, 2009
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Law Enforcement and Racial Profiling
LAW ENFORCEMENT and RACIAL PROFILING
In Search of a Reasoned Response
Governor Sebelius:
Recent Kansas action regarding law enforcement and racial profiling is good. In our country, where all have equal rights under the law, it’s essential to demonstrate this equality is carried out as well in fact.
A recent article in the KC Star (August 5 titled “Kansas Law on Traffic Stops Often is Ignored”) I believe irresponsibly demands acceleration of the data-collection process in documenting the perception of racial profiling by the Kansas law enforcement community. Wherein lies the irresponsibility? The columnists site Missouri as a model to replicate.
Let’s see.
As our Kansas task-force moves about the state talking about this important issue, it would be interesting to see how other states have dealt with this issue. Luckily, our good neighbors to the east, Missouri, have been at the forefront of this issue, and have collected an impressive arsenal of data over the past 7 years.
What does their recent data show?
In Search of a Reasoned Response
Governor Sebelius:
Recent Kansas action regarding law enforcement and racial profiling is good. In our country, where all have equal rights under the law, it’s essential to demonstrate this equality is carried out as well in fact.
A recent article in the KC Star (August 5 titled “Kansas Law on Traffic Stops Often is Ignored”) I believe irresponsibly demands acceleration of the data-collection process in documenting the perception of racial profiling by the Kansas law enforcement community. Wherein lies the irresponsibility? The columnists site Missouri as a model to replicate.
Let’s see.
As our Kansas task-force moves about the state talking about this important issue, it would be interesting to see how other states have dealt with this issue. Luckily, our good neighbors to the east, Missouri, have been at the forefront of this issue, and have collected an impressive arsenal of data over the past 7 years.
What does their recent data show?
This ominous statistic suggests blacks are pulled over alarmingly 57% more frequently than whites. The racist perception seems confirmed! But if the ratio is 1.57 now, imagine what it must have been when the data collection process first started in 2000. Surely, with all the attention, data collection, and improvement initiatives, things are getting better, right? Let’s take a look at the historical data: 
Things have gotten much worse! How can this be? Over the course of this 7-year period, the “disparity index” has risen substantially! This doesn’t make any sense.
What is the Missouri Attorney General, Jay Nixon, doing about all of this? They’re collecting massive amounts of data, the data seems to show racism, and it’s getting worse. What is he saying about it? What action items have come from the process?
The remarkable similarity in the AG’s annual executive summary provides a hint. Each year, the summary statistics are changed, dates updated, and a caveat added, alerting us the data doesn’t tell the whole story. That’s it. Is there no action to be taken from this data? No – and the Attorney General and every law enforcement department in the state of Missouri knows it as well. The data is meaningless.
Is there racial profiling taking place in Kansas law enforcement? Let’s collect the proper data to properly answer the question. Are there rogue officers leading to a general perception? The data should find them. Bad apples don’t have to spoil the bushel. If there are bad apples, find the apples. Are officers unconsciously making stops based on race? Let’s find out and bring this to the conscious level and improve it. Is everything fine, and the perception simply not correct? The data should show this as well. Data used in this regard is information.
Mirroring Missouri only asks the proposed full-time analyst to spin straw into gold when given wrong data. Let’s be sure Kansas does not follow the same tragic Missouri footprints in this regard. The stakes are too high – the issue too important.
Let’s work to create a process that ensures action, if warranted, will be taken. Our Kansas citizens deserve this. Missouri citizens as well deserve this! Rather than site Missouri as an example to follow, let’s ourselves be the leaders in actionable task-force recommendations, from which Missouri can follow.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Michael Round
Statistician: Rational Systems, Inc.
Educator: Center for autoSocratic Excellence
http://www.rationalsys.com/
Be Careful What You Wish For
The lead editorial for The Olathe News, October 13-15, lamented low voter participation for the coming school bond issue. Are citizens “lazy, uninformed or apathetic”, as the editorial concludes?
Despite the district sending brochures home with students, direct mailing, e-mails, and text messages reminding voters to vote, only ¼ of eligible voters have voted. How can this be? Despite myriad meetings of staff members, the bond task force, board meetings tweaking the plan, and special editions of the newspaper, ¾ of the community responsible for paying for the bill have not weighed in.
Why not?
The editorial says “We can’t hold the district accountable.”
On the contrary, I believe it is precisely the district that should be held accountable.
The bond task force was tasked with the responsibility of developing informed recommendations for the future of the district. They did. Among their recommendations were grade reconfigurations and a call for a significantly higher bond.
The former recommendation was pursed with diligence by the district by repeated presentations by more task forces. The latter recommendation was never considered at all.
Why create a bond task force if this was to be the result?
What was the result of the educational campaign to convince voters of the grade reconfiguration? A firm was employed to find this out. A vast majority of the citizens, having been subjected to the educational campaign, said either they were against reconfiguration, or they were not sure. The firm surprisingly concluded voter education might sway such voters. How did they reach this conclusion? They don't say.
The board itself voted in favor of the measure, despite evidence to the contrary in front of them. Why conduct the survey if the results were inevitable? The board provided no answers.
And to make matters worse, to me, was the “political calculation” of the final bond dollar amount: $138 million. Where did this number come from? I can only guess the sound of "one hundred forty-something" didn't sound good. What is the relationship of this final amount to anything in reality? We were not shown.
The numbed voter understandably views this whole process with disgust and distrust. The district creates a bond task force to generate recommendations, and then discards them. The district employs a firm to gauge “the pulse of the voter”, and then discards this information. The district finally pulls a bond amount out of thin air with nothing more than political calculation, and, adding insult to injury, tells us this is the result of a multi-year process involving the community. Nonsense.
And the crushing blow: it’s our fault because we don’t vote.
To me, the message of the average eligible voter is clear: a non-vote is a reluctant "yes" to a process they know has not made sense. With the influx of students in our district, they realize more schools must be built. That much makes sense. But be careful what you wish for: collect our money while calling us lazy, uninformed or apathetic and you may get the precious voter turnout you desire, and you may not like the results.
Despite the district sending brochures home with students, direct mailing, e-mails, and text messages reminding voters to vote, only ¼ of eligible voters have voted. How can this be? Despite myriad meetings of staff members, the bond task force, board meetings tweaking the plan, and special editions of the newspaper, ¾ of the community responsible for paying for the bill have not weighed in.
Why not?
The editorial says “We can’t hold the district accountable.”
On the contrary, I believe it is precisely the district that should be held accountable.
The bond task force was tasked with the responsibility of developing informed recommendations for the future of the district. They did. Among their recommendations were grade reconfigurations and a call for a significantly higher bond.
The former recommendation was pursed with diligence by the district by repeated presentations by more task forces. The latter recommendation was never considered at all.
Why create a bond task force if this was to be the result?
What was the result of the educational campaign to convince voters of the grade reconfiguration? A firm was employed to find this out. A vast majority of the citizens, having been subjected to the educational campaign, said either they were against reconfiguration, or they were not sure. The firm surprisingly concluded voter education might sway such voters. How did they reach this conclusion? They don't say.
The board itself voted in favor of the measure, despite evidence to the contrary in front of them. Why conduct the survey if the results were inevitable? The board provided no answers.
And to make matters worse, to me, was the “political calculation” of the final bond dollar amount: $138 million. Where did this number come from? I can only guess the sound of "one hundred forty-something" didn't sound good. What is the relationship of this final amount to anything in reality? We were not shown.
The numbed voter understandably views this whole process with disgust and distrust. The district creates a bond task force to generate recommendations, and then discards them. The district employs a firm to gauge “the pulse of the voter”, and then discards this information. The district finally pulls a bond amount out of thin air with nothing more than political calculation, and, adding insult to injury, tells us this is the result of a multi-year process involving the community. Nonsense.
And the crushing blow: it’s our fault because we don’t vote.
To me, the message of the average eligible voter is clear: a non-vote is a reluctant "yes" to a process they know has not made sense. With the influx of students in our district, they realize more schools must be built. That much makes sense. But be careful what you wish for: collect our money while calling us lazy, uninformed or apathetic and you may get the precious voter turnout you desire, and you may not like the results.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Biased Reporting
CBS is reporting North Korea, after lying to two administrations on nuclear weapons, has agreed to dismantle its program.
This is a true statement.
The Clinton administration, however, sold nuclear technology to the North Koreans in exchange for a promise not to develop their nuclear program. They trusted the North Koreans, and the North Koreans broke the promise.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, refused to talk with the North Koreans, knowing they were liars.
Is this the picture one gets from the CBS statement above? Of course not.
But how should an honest country deal with a dishonest one? An immoral one? On the one hand, we were told the path of the UN was the optimal path. We should build a coalition. On the other hand, we were told regardless of what anyone else does, we should lead, and if need be, talk with the North Koreans ourselves. That's what a super power should do.
Both parties are guilty of hypocritical policies like this, hypocritical in the sense they are contradictory.
This is a true statement.
The Clinton administration, however, sold nuclear technology to the North Koreans in exchange for a promise not to develop their nuclear program. They trusted the North Koreans, and the North Koreans broke the promise.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, refused to talk with the North Koreans, knowing they were liars.
Is this the picture one gets from the CBS statement above? Of course not.
But how should an honest country deal with a dishonest one? An immoral one? On the one hand, we were told the path of the UN was the optimal path. We should build a coalition. On the other hand, we were told regardless of what anyone else does, we should lead, and if need be, talk with the North Koreans ourselves. That's what a super power should do.
Both parties are guilty of hypocritical policies like this, hypocritical in the sense they are contradictory.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Statistical Reporting
Childbirth death rates (of mothers) is on the rise, we're told. "US women are dying from childbirth at the highest rate in decades, new government figures show."
We're given various reasons for this "increase", including new reporting measures, maternal obesity, and the increased age of the mother.
Is this what the data tells us? The numbers are clear-cut, aren't they? How could there be any problem reporting these numbers, calculating rates, graphing results, and viewing the conclusion?
An Alternative Headline:
Childbirth death rates continue to decline for all ages of mothers.
Is it possible this headline describes the "same reality" as the headline above?
Yes.
We're given various reasons for this "increase", including new reporting measures, maternal obesity, and the increased age of the mother.
Is this what the data tells us? The numbers are clear-cut, aren't they? How could there be any problem reporting these numbers, calculating rates, graphing results, and viewing the conclusion?
An Alternative Headline:
Childbirth death rates continue to decline for all ages of mothers.
Is it possible this headline describes the "same reality" as the headline above?
Yes.
The Nature of Bias
Image doctoring has been in the media lately, as the media has been taking hits for "touching up" photos. Of course, doctoring a photo by definition distorts reality, but an incorrect inference is the original photo DESCRIBES reality.
A larger part of the reporting process, however, is why the particular image was shot in the first place. Of all images a reporter could submit, why focus on the French President in a boat (to use the recent photo-doctoring incident as an example)? Does submitting the undoctored image "move us closer to the truth"? Why did the reporter claim this to be news in the first place? War coverage is a further example. Iraq is a big country. Reporters cover "what's happening" and submit images. Undoctored images don't necessarily mean "truth", as this is but a small part of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
What is one to do, then?
Walter Shewhart's first rule for the presentation of data, taken from Donald Wheeler's book, Understanding Variation, assists in this regard:
"Data should always be prsented in such a way that preserves the evidence in the data for all the predictions that might be made from the data"
This is a start - a great start.
A larger part of the reporting process, however, is why the particular image was shot in the first place. Of all images a reporter could submit, why focus on the French President in a boat (to use the recent photo-doctoring incident as an example)? Does submitting the undoctored image "move us closer to the truth"? Why did the reporter claim this to be news in the first place? War coverage is a further example. Iraq is a big country. Reporters cover "what's happening" and submit images. Undoctored images don't necessarily mean "truth", as this is but a small part of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
What is one to do, then?
Walter Shewhart's first rule for the presentation of data, taken from Donald Wheeler's book, Understanding Variation, assists in this regard:
"Data should always be prsented in such a way that preserves the evidence in the data for all the predictions that might be made from the data"
This is a start - a great start.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The (Im)Morality of Political Endorsements
It seems all so natural. The political season is in full swing, and the politicians rush to secure ... what? The endorsements of other politicians? Other leaders? It's become so natural, it seems unnatural to ask the question, "Is this good?"
Let's see.
Let's see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)