Forensic Science

A school bus careens out of control, through a busy intersection, striking multiple cars and killing two people. The NTSB has investigated this accident for two years with no definitive conclusion.

The school bus driver claims she was applying the brake to no avail.

The mechanics insist the brakes were working fine.

What can be made of this?


Suppose we assume BOTH statements are valid. Does it follow there must be something overriding the functional brakes; otherwise, the brakes would be working.

What could this be?

I speak from experience here, because this happened to me. Driving around 635 coming from South Dakota, suddenly the car accelerated. I mean really, really accelerated. The more I applied the brake, the louder you could hear the engine roar, seeking to resume to it's "previous speed". I had no idea what I had touched, and my only thought was getting home. But then I realized I had to fix the problem there, because I would not be able to park the car! I have no idea what buttons I hit to solve the problem, nor have I been able to recreate the event.

Would a city school bus operator have need for "cruise control"? Who would set the control in the city? What if there was a district rural route traveling along the highway? Sound familiar?

The current NTSB hypothesis is driver misapplication of the accelerator instead of the brake. That's the likely cause. But suppose it's not. I believe the above, then, becomes a very likely scenario, all the more believable since the unlikely incident happened to me, and the theory additionally seems to fit the facts.

A More Perfect World

Though this quote from "Exodus" refers to Arabs and Jews, we could as well say "The day will come when EVERYBODY will share in a peaceful life this land they have always shared in death. IT IS TIME FOR THE LIVING TO HAVE A TURN!"

Rational Math Policy: In Search of a ...

Sputnik gave rise to the "New Math". So history tells us - but what is the meaning of this? Let's see if we arrive at a reasonable understanding of the statement. Was it Sputnik itself? Of course not - it was the technology Sputnik represented. But what has this to do with math? Is advanced technology based on math? Largely, yes. Therefore, if the Soviet Sputnik demonstrated advanced Soviet technology, and if technology is based on math, then - then what? Well, at this point, we merely know there needs to be an emphasis on math, right? There is no indication there is a need for a revised curriculum.

There must be something lacking in the system - more than an emphasis is needed. We must not be satisfied with the current math system - and are in need of a new math system.

A reasonable explanation? I think so. But what would constitute "the New Math"? Why were we not satisfied with the old system? What was wrong with the old system? What WAS the old system? In a situation like this, should we scrap the old system in favor of a new system, or get the most we can from the existing system?

Rational Energy Policy: In Search of a ...

Energy independence is once again the clarion call of policy-makers. It's convenient to assert such a claim in times of global friction, yet I wonder the legitimacy of the claim when drilling platforms and Alaska are considered offlimits.


I'm reminded of my earlier assertion regarding "political gain":

But I digress - partially. What I'm interested in today is the predicted effects of policies in place. For example, CAFE standards mandate certain mileage standards for auto-makers, ensuring gas-guzzlers are weeded out of the production process in favor of fuel-efficient cars.

Is this a role for the government? Let's set this aside for a second, and ask a general question: Is this a good policy? If the goal is to improve fuel efficiency of vehicles, who could argue against it? Force auto-makers to get more-and-more from cars. Make them smaller. Make them lighter. Make them more "fuel-efficient". We've got a valuable resource out there. Let's do all we can to get the most we can from it. Let's not waste it. This policy is pure constraint management.

But I return to the question: is this good? Is constraint management always a good first step? Are there consequences to this action?

Metrics, resources, policies, etc., focusing on the constraint can leave us in a position where we are unable to - or disincentivized from - dealing with the core problem.

This reminds me of the Newton-Raphson method of finding roots of non-linear equations. When there are multiple roots to be found, the selection of the initial condition determines what root can be found. The chosen root, then, might be considered a "basin of attraction", where a range of initial conditions leads to the one root - to the exclusion of others. Might this basis of attraction be considered, metaphorically, a paradigm? Once locked in to one paradigm, it's very difficult to escape to search out new paradigms (roots).

An update: the government is about to approve 35mph CAFE standards, and percentages for ethanol. Ethanol! And here we end up. Farmers financially incentivized to pursue a crop to the exclusion of other crops. Will wheat production go down? Of course. Will corn demand go up? Of course. The interrelationship between those two statements is obvious - as is the cause-effect relationship.

And, by way of government fiat, we become locked into a long-term direction of a solution not addressing core problems - NOR CONSTRAINT, suggesting, of course, the negative undesirable effects will start to multiply. Food prices? Through the roof.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

"So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my battle." "Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it? ... Just take that question back with you, as the last premise left for you to check."

Rational Justice System: In Search of a ...

The Supreme Court IS the law of the land. The Supreme Court renders a decision. Must it be so? It seems so.

But in our country, we once allowed slavery. The Dred Scott decision, just prior to the Civil War, affirmed slavery and slave-owner-rights. Was this not the law of the land? Lincoln then, with his Emancipation Proclamation, frees all slaves. This was a good thing - yet it is counter to what we said above. There we said the Supreme Court was the law of the land, and Lincoln created a proclamation above that of the Supreme Court!

In what circumstances is this good? What is the relationship between the judicial system and other branches of government? What is the relationship between judicial system within itself - local -state - federal? What role does our democratic process play in all this? What about our legislative process? What role does the executive branch have in all of this? If one part of the process says one thing, who can over-turn it? We've been taught there are checks-and-balances in our tripartite system of government, but are there?

Honesty and Rationality in Action

An Impossible Outcome

The Olathe School Board reached a decision at the May 3rd meeting I didn’t believe was possible. The impossible becomes the actual only when the rules of the game change. When rules change, it’s deuces wild.

The 6th / 9th grade reconfiguration has been a highly contentious issue. From the Bond Task Force recommendations to a Design Team, the public has been subjected to an unprecedented full-court press in favor of this reconfiguration. That’s good. If public support of a radical change is needed, go and get the public support. What are the results of this massive campaign to educate the public? ETC Institute sampled likely voters to quantify this. The funding level discussed most often ($190 million) showed 32% in favor of the reconfiguration, 39% against, 22% “somewhat likely”, and 6% unsure. What can these numbers mean?

The ETC Institute representative stated the “somewhat likely” contingent, in the absence of further education / information, would be likely NO voters. If there has been a massive education campaign and this block of voters remains in this classification, then it seems likely they will not be reached.

So what has the public said on this issue? Despite this educational campaign, less than 1/3 of the sampled public is in favor of this proposal.

What should the School Board do? Under certain circumstances, a reasonable plan of action would be to move forward with the reconfiguration plan, despite what the data is saying, with the conviction the job of the leader is to lead. An admirable strategy.

But these were not the rules of the game. The School Board’s stated policy was to vote for reconfiguration ONLY IF Board consensus was reached.

What I expected, given the absence of this consensus, was two motions. The first: a 5-2 vote in favor of reconfiguration (meaning reconfiguration was not going to pass); the second: a 7-0 vote on a bond issue for $190 million without the reconfiguration.

There were not two motions. A single motion sought to “have the cake and eat it, too”.

This lone motion excluded reconfiguration in this bond election, but approved it in general, addressing it in the next bond election. This motion clearly violated the spirit of the Board policy. School Board members, particularly those in favor of the measure, should have stood up and said, “Now wait just a minute – this is not what we talked about doing. I’m in favor of this – but not like this.” Nobody did.

There is work to be done, for sure. In planning for reconfiguration, we now know many 9th-grade-as-high-school teachers are not certified. We know despite the massive educational campaign, only 40% of the public is in favor of the $190 million bond issue – without considering reconfiguration. That is an ominous number. And finally, the School Board has to work to regain the trust it lost by way of this voting slight-of-hand.

Michael Round
Parent

Ps: I make this objection to the way this vote was handled despite being in favor of the reconfiguration plan. I am a defender of a rational process. The ends never justify the means.

How to Explain What We See ... and Don't See

Let's pretend a bit of objectivity regarding the reporting of the Iraqi War, just you and I. We're friends, and friends can talk honestly. You say the Iraq War is going horribly and when is President Bush going to bring the troops home. Being friends, of course, doesn't mean we agree on everything - in fact, you're a liberal and I'm a conservative, and I believe your side has little credibility on matters of foreign policy. Why should I give an inch? If I admit anything, it only accelerates the tone of your incoherent screeching!

But will I remain silent - even in the face of changing circumstances? You've created an environment of distrust - I believe - why blame me? But we ought not lose sight of the fact things are happening, and failing to acknowledge them doesn't dismiss them.

And here's the tragic irony of the situation. The more things happen, the more I know you'll exploit the issue for political gain, and the more likely I am to dismiss the claim. And on and on and on ... a viscious loop for certain!

But how does one break out of such a loop? How does one change the environment to ensure such viscious loops do not exist in the first place?

Above, I've used the word "Political Gain" as though it were common knowledge. Is it? If you say you don't know what it means, you're not being truthful. The phrase is used regularly in the press, so even absent a rigorous definition, you have an idea what it means. Be honest with yourself.

But let's not be content to have an intuitive idea of what it means - let's take a closer look. Political Gain? What could it mean? If one is acting honestly, we simply say you are acting honestly. If you're actions are described differently, it calls into question one's motivation. Are you being honest?

On Jason Whitlock

Jason Whitlock, KC Star Sports Reporter, has received great praise lately for his commentary on Black America - and the need to look within, rather than blame disparaging white talk show hosts.


Credibility is the currency of the professional journalist. Read for yourself - judge for yourself.

Rational Health Care Policy: In Search of a

More and more seniors are Medicare-eligible, incurring claims at a much greater rate than ever anticipated. If Medicare is funded primarily via "government" coffers, and there is more and more of a strain on "government" coffers, the government predictably seeks to keep payments to Medicare providers down.

Let's not stop there. Physicians earn a living by providing a valuable service. If they're not getting the amount they need from one population, likely - and reasonably - they'll get it from another. How do they make up this difference, and who do they make it up from? The commercial insured market? You bet.

Who would have thought, in 1965, the inception of Medicare would lead to a deepening health care crisis? The logic above suggests anyone who gave the issue a reasoned thought would have deduced it.

Rational Educational Policy: In Search of a ...

Education scores are, at best, stagnant over the past couple decades. The government - both republicans and democrats, view this as unsatisfactory. The public views this as unsatisfactory! Graduation rates decline, and we hear horror stories of violence at schools. How can we tell what are the good schools and what are the bad? How can we ensure the essential subjects are taught well at schools? This seems a reasonable goal, yes? A good target? Ensure the USA achieves Excellence in Education?


But how to achieve this goal? Surely, if we're to determine where the bad schools are, and where the kids are not learning, there needs to be accountability. And though there are a number of important subjects, it makes sense to start with those subjects "most" important: reading and math.

Therefore, if we have accountability and if we focus on the important subjects, then we're on the way to ensuring excellence in education.

Reasonable? Yes. This is the conceptual NCLB. How did what was suppose to be so good become "so bad"? Or is it so bad? Is it just the "implementation" you squabble with? IS there a way to implement this?

Rational Foreign Policy: In Search of a ...

Many hold the belief dealing with Iraq is none of our business. "Who are we to impose our 'system of democracy' on others?" Well, it seems reasonable to say, doesn't it, that if Iraq is an independent country, and if the USA has no right involving itself in the business of others, then it follows the USA should not be in Iraq.

At the same time, we watch the carnage in Sudan, and wonder how we, as citizens in the 21st century, can let this happen? Should we? Or should we stand up against atrocities of this magnitude? It seems reasonable to say if the people of Sudan are subject to genocide, and if the USA should stand againt such practices, then the USA should involve itself in the Sudanese conflict.

Therefore, on the one hand, there is a hesitancy to involve ourselves in the affairs of other countries, yet on the other, there seems a demand TO do something!

Rational Penal System: In Search of a ...

The majority of the population is a law-abiding lot. They work hard in earning a living, providing for their families. They want - they expect - at a minimum a safe environment.

What should be done against those violating the safe environment? Breaking the law? Surely, the "punishment needs to fit the crime" ... prison should not be a haven of comfort, right? At a minimum, it seems we should ensure guilty persons are brought to justice and punished so they do not commit another crime. In doing so, prison is used as a place of "punishment".

On the other hand, let's be realistic. The majority of prisoners get out of prison. Only a small minority are sentenced to life, and a fraction of this group serves life. If you're in prison, you likely will get out of prison. But what does it mean to get out if you're only returning to the environment you were in prior to committing the crime? Surely, prison then, shuld be a place of rehabilitation, right?

A frequent dilemma heard in the penal system - what is prison for: punishment or rehabilitation?

And how has the penal system bridged this dilemma? How are they doing? A look at reincarceration rates tells us: pretty poorly! Can we do something more than "a balancing act" between "punishment" and "rehabilitation"?