I don't get it.
On probable cause the government can get a warrant from a judge and search my house. But they shouldn't' be able to search my phone?
Privacy is an abstract concept, what does it mean in the real world?
What data could be on my phone that I would perceive as more important than accommodating to governments efforts to protect us from violent attacks?
The techies argue this is a slippery slope, if they open the door to let the government into a terrorist suspects phone soon all manner of bad people (or the government) will then be able to troll through the data in all of our phones. So? Maybe I don't do my banking on my phone to protect financial data. An inconvenience, but in my mind worth not providing safe havens for those seeking to engage in potentially murderous criminal activity.
It would be helpful to understanding if the techie claims have merit if they could give a few concrete examples of what other data from my phone could present a threat. Because I haven't been able to come up with much.
I can accept that some governments in this world would collect data to stifle dissent, maybe even arrest people on trumped up charges. But as my mother used to say, two wrongs don't make right. Hamstringing governments ability to investigate potential threats to public safety doesn't seem like the way to deal with bad government.
I wonder if the tech industry isn't overly wrapped up in the idealistic notion that technology is going to save the world. They don't want to face up to the problems their ambitions are creating. I'm old enough to remember life when it didn't revolve around the phone in our pockets, I'm no happier now than I was then.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Friday, February 26, 2016
The Underdog Democratic Senator from a Small State
Pushing the Democratic establishment candidate with idealistic aims to make revolutionary change that appeal to and motivate young people and attract celebrity endorsements.
No, not talking about Bernie. Talking about George McGovern who startled the Democratic establishment and ended up pushing aside Edmund Muskie, the presumptive Democratic nominee in 1972.
In 1972 the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for 17 years. But in the general election McGovern got clobbered 60.5% to 37.5% in the popular vote. McGovern's idealistic liberal views, coupled with Nixon's southern strategy (backing away from active civil rights enforcement to swing southern whites, solidly democratic since the Civil War, over to supporting Republicans) laid the groundwork for a new Republican coalition that has dominated politics since. By 1980 the Republicans grabbed the momentum and by 1996 Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and held it for 12 years, power that had eluded them for 66 years in the middle of the Twentieth Century (other that one session where they rode the coat-tails of Dwight D. Eisenhower when he was first elected).
The times are different, the issues are different and Bernie Sanders is not George McGovern. But the Bernie campaign reminds me in so many ways of George McGovern's idealistic campaign. Bernie is idealistic and uncompromising in his progressive prescriptions for what ails us as a country. I like Bernies vision of what this country should be better than what the decades of Republican dominance have bequethed us. But getting from where we are to where Bernie wants to be is a little like turning an aircraft carrier around in a bathtub. Not surprisingly Bernie talks a lot about goals and ambitions and not so much about how to achieve them.
I feel like the Republicans are spent, out of ideas, burdened by the fact swing voters are aware of the Republican legacy of Iraq, the financial collapse and the last 5 years the most do-nothing Congress in modern history. Their primary has been a spectacle of nonsense and name calling. This is a significant opportunity to begin moving the country away from the Republican ideology that enriches the powerful and punishes the most vulnerable. But leftish idealism has a poor history in this country as a formula for winning elections. I don't want to see the country lose the opportunity because the Democrats can't resist overreaching.
No, not talking about Bernie. Talking about George McGovern who startled the Democratic establishment and ended up pushing aside Edmund Muskie, the presumptive Democratic nominee in 1972.
In 1972 the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for 17 years. But in the general election McGovern got clobbered 60.5% to 37.5% in the popular vote. McGovern's idealistic liberal views, coupled with Nixon's southern strategy (backing away from active civil rights enforcement to swing southern whites, solidly democratic since the Civil War, over to supporting Republicans) laid the groundwork for a new Republican coalition that has dominated politics since. By 1980 the Republicans grabbed the momentum and by 1996 Republicans took control of both houses of Congress and held it for 12 years, power that had eluded them for 66 years in the middle of the Twentieth Century (other that one session where they rode the coat-tails of Dwight D. Eisenhower when he was first elected).
The times are different, the issues are different and Bernie Sanders is not George McGovern. But the Bernie campaign reminds me in so many ways of George McGovern's idealistic campaign. Bernie is idealistic and uncompromising in his progressive prescriptions for what ails us as a country. I like Bernies vision of what this country should be better than what the decades of Republican dominance have bequethed us. But getting from where we are to where Bernie wants to be is a little like turning an aircraft carrier around in a bathtub. Not surprisingly Bernie talks a lot about goals and ambitions and not so much about how to achieve them.
I feel like the Republicans are spent, out of ideas, burdened by the fact swing voters are aware of the Republican legacy of Iraq, the financial collapse and the last 5 years the most do-nothing Congress in modern history. Their primary has been a spectacle of nonsense and name calling. This is a significant opportunity to begin moving the country away from the Republican ideology that enriches the powerful and punishes the most vulnerable. But leftish idealism has a poor history in this country as a formula for winning elections. I don't want to see the country lose the opportunity because the Democrats can't resist overreaching.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Justice Scalia - Not a Tribute
He may have been a decent guy but he represented a most unfortunate tendency that has plagued the law profession down through history. He saw words as reality, not as imperfect tools we use to communicate about reality.
You and I go through our lives relying on context to interpret the meaning of words. Not just the context of the word within the larger body of words, but the context from which the words sprang, and the context within which the words are to have meaning. Generally the more we know about context the better we understand.
Justice Scalia publicly disdained context. He was not going to go outside the words to determine meaning. He loftily argued that in this way he would not impose his views on the words. In reality ignoring context outside the words is the ultimate indulgence. As we see from politicians daily, ignore context and with clever words you can obscure factual reality. You can make the words mean what you emotionally want them to mean - be that to accomplish a particular goal, or just to make your job easy. All you have to do is cultivate the ability to manipulate words and you don't have to spend lots of time investigating and understanding the world that provides context.
Our country is the worse for it.
In the Citizens United case he ignored the context to give us a law - that government can't regulate corporate political contributions - that is corroding the foundations of our democracy. It is a decision that could only be justified by ignoring context.
Modern corporations did not exist when the founding fathers drafted the constitution. They developed generations later as something akin to an agreement between government and investors. Government wants investors to take risks so government allows people to create a corporation in which they put money they want to invest. The corporation is subject to regulations as the government sees fit. As long as the entity obeys the rules government establishes the investors are shielded from losing any more than what they invested.
Allowing corporations the privilege of limited liability can impose tremendous costs on real people. We recently spent billions in taxpayer money bailing out big corporations because their limited liability meant their stupid activities were sending waves of huge economic losses rippling through the world economy while the corporate officers and owners went home to their massive estates and fabulous fortunes, insulated from responsibility for their folly.
Justice Scalia found in the founding fathers words the intent to preclude the government from regulating political contributions by these corporations that did not then exist. As a result corporations still have limited liability but governments ability to regulate what is deemed inappropriate behavior is severely limited.
Fixing the problems caused by Citizens United will be really difficult. As a legal matter we could abolish corporations - state governments could repeal all the laws under which corporations operate. But corporations are so embedded in our financial system we can't just abolish them. The economic upheaval would be disastrous.
Perhaps state governments could make consent to regulation of political contributions a condition of doing business within their state. But that would take years, perhaps decades, and make economic life for all very complicated. This really is a national issue and should be dealt with at the Federal level.
At some point (I hope) some future Supreme Court may find a way to lead us out of this mess. But it will be a mess - for many years, thanks to an agile legal mind that celebrated words over reality.
You and I go through our lives relying on context to interpret the meaning of words. Not just the context of the word within the larger body of words, but the context from which the words sprang, and the context within which the words are to have meaning. Generally the more we know about context the better we understand.
Justice Scalia publicly disdained context. He was not going to go outside the words to determine meaning. He loftily argued that in this way he would not impose his views on the words. In reality ignoring context outside the words is the ultimate indulgence. As we see from politicians daily, ignore context and with clever words you can obscure factual reality. You can make the words mean what you emotionally want them to mean - be that to accomplish a particular goal, or just to make your job easy. All you have to do is cultivate the ability to manipulate words and you don't have to spend lots of time investigating and understanding the world that provides context.
Our country is the worse for it.
In the Citizens United case he ignored the context to give us a law - that government can't regulate corporate political contributions - that is corroding the foundations of our democracy. It is a decision that could only be justified by ignoring context.
Modern corporations did not exist when the founding fathers drafted the constitution. They developed generations later as something akin to an agreement between government and investors. Government wants investors to take risks so government allows people to create a corporation in which they put money they want to invest. The corporation is subject to regulations as the government sees fit. As long as the entity obeys the rules government establishes the investors are shielded from losing any more than what they invested.
Allowing corporations the privilege of limited liability can impose tremendous costs on real people. We recently spent billions in taxpayer money bailing out big corporations because their limited liability meant their stupid activities were sending waves of huge economic losses rippling through the world economy while the corporate officers and owners went home to their massive estates and fabulous fortunes, insulated from responsibility for their folly.
Justice Scalia found in the founding fathers words the intent to preclude the government from regulating political contributions by these corporations that did not then exist. As a result corporations still have limited liability but governments ability to regulate what is deemed inappropriate behavior is severely limited.
Fixing the problems caused by Citizens United will be really difficult. As a legal matter we could abolish corporations - state governments could repeal all the laws under which corporations operate. But corporations are so embedded in our financial system we can't just abolish them. The economic upheaval would be disastrous.
Perhaps state governments could make consent to regulation of political contributions a condition of doing business within their state. But that would take years, perhaps decades, and make economic life for all very complicated. This really is a national issue and should be dealt with at the Federal level.
At some point (I hope) some future Supreme Court may find a way to lead us out of this mess. But it will be a mess - for many years, thanks to an agile legal mind that celebrated words over reality.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Fact check - Democratic President v. Republican Congress
Republicans on the stump spend a lot of time talking about President Obama's executive orders - that he is exercising power he doesn't have. On the other hand Democrats have alleged for the last few years that Republicans are more interested in obstructing Obama than in doing the peoples business and Obama says he is using Executive orders because problems need to be solved and the Republican Congress is doing nothing to solve them.
As a voter the claims that the Executive Orders are unconstitutional is just background static I ignore. Obama has his lawyers who say they are constitutional, Republican lawyers say they are not constitutional. I may be many years from law school, but not so far as to have forgotten how fuzzy the Constitution is when applied to the relative powers of the President and Congress. To me this issue will be determined by the ideological orientation of the Supreme Court that addresses the issue at some point in the future.
But two of the three Republican front runners dissing Obama's executive orders most vehemently are currently members of the Senate. How Congress has behaved during Obama's term in office compared to past Congresses seems to have some bearing on whether Republicans have been more interested in obstructing Obama than in doing the peoples business. Objective measures of congressional activity can provide some evidence of whether Republicans have been willing to engage in good faith efforts to compromise with other viewpoints to move the country forward. So I looked back at Congressional data back to 1973.
To me the objective facts support the theory the Republicans for the last 7 years have been more interested in undermining Obama than in doing the peoples business, but decide for yourself.
Summary of the data:
The average number of laws enacted per year
From 1973 through 2008 - the pre-Obama period, regardless of the party of the President and who controlled Congress, Congress enacted an average of 298 laws per year. The lowest average was 228 during GW Bushes first 6 years, the highest was 385 during the Carter years in the late 70's.
In Obama's first administration, even with a Democratic Congress the number of laws enacted per year dropped to 192.5, well below even the lows of the GW Bush years. Since the Republicans regained control of Congress in 2011 the total of enacted bills has dropped to 140 per year, less than half what was typical from 1973 to 2010.
Some might suggest that fewer bills passed by Congress is a good thing. But no need to change or add laws would suggest that the status quo under Obama is pretty good. But according to Republican primary candidates the country is in a disasterous decline. One would therefore think Congress ought to be doing more, not less.
Vetoes
The drop in enacted laws isn't because Obama is vetoing bills. During the prior periods when a President of one party dealt with a Congress controlled by the other party the President averaged 8.6 vetoes per year. In the five years since Republicans took control of Congress in 2011 Obama has vetoed an average of 1.4 bills per year. This is lower than what Jimmy Carter vetoed per year when he was working with a Congress of his own party (1.7 per year). I doubt that Republicans are afraid to send legislation to Obama. It seems more likely to me this is evidence of their focus on marginalizing him by not dealing with him.
Number of Bills Congress actually casts a vote on per year.
Republicans might argue fewer bills have gone to Obama because they can't work with Democrats. But since the party that controls Congress controls the ability to bring legislation to a vote (through their control of committees) how many bills Congress is allowed to vote on seems to reflect how interested the controlling party is in the negotiation that makes the democratic process work.
In any given year thousands of bills are introduced in Congress. A tiny fraction actually get to any kind of floor or committee vote. Since 2011 fewer bills have been allowed by the Republican leadership to go to any kind of vote than any period in the last in the last 43 years. From 1973 to 2010 an average of 303 bills per year went to a vote. Looking specifically at years where Congress dealt with an administration representing the other party 321 bills per year got to a vote. In the last five years the average number of bills that the Republican leadership allowed to go to a vote was 241.
Side note - Democrats are more democratic
The statistics on how many bills get a vote also reveal that prior to Obama when a Republican Congress is dealing with a Democratic President (Clinton - 1995 to 2000) Republicans allowed an average of 275 bills per year to go to a vote. When a Democratic Congress has worked with a Republican President, in contrast, an average of 333 bills go to a vote.
Thus statistically Democrats are - well - more democratic. They are not as inclined to use control of Congress to choke off votes as the Republicans.
To me this all suggests the problem isn't that Democrats aren't willing to work with Republicans, it is that Republicans have always been inclined to use every lever available to exercise their power to do things their way and have been particularly prone to that approach during the last 5 years.
Source of the Data Summary
This compilation was compiled from data at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
Numbers are average number of bills per year during the specified period. Administrations highlighted in red indicate Congress controlled by opposing party - presumably the most accurate comparable to Obama's last 5 years.
1973-76 - Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford administration
As a voter the claims that the Executive Orders are unconstitutional is just background static I ignore. Obama has his lawyers who say they are constitutional, Republican lawyers say they are not constitutional. I may be many years from law school, but not so far as to have forgotten how fuzzy the Constitution is when applied to the relative powers of the President and Congress. To me this issue will be determined by the ideological orientation of the Supreme Court that addresses the issue at some point in the future.
But two of the three Republican front runners dissing Obama's executive orders most vehemently are currently members of the Senate. How Congress has behaved during Obama's term in office compared to past Congresses seems to have some bearing on whether Republicans have been more interested in obstructing Obama than in doing the peoples business. Objective measures of congressional activity can provide some evidence of whether Republicans have been willing to engage in good faith efforts to compromise with other viewpoints to move the country forward. So I looked back at Congressional data back to 1973.
To me the objective facts support the theory the Republicans for the last 7 years have been more interested in undermining Obama than in doing the peoples business, but decide for yourself.
Summary of the data:
The average number of laws enacted per year
From 1973 through 2008 - the pre-Obama period, regardless of the party of the President and who controlled Congress, Congress enacted an average of 298 laws per year. The lowest average was 228 during GW Bushes first 6 years, the highest was 385 during the Carter years in the late 70's.
In Obama's first administration, even with a Democratic Congress the number of laws enacted per year dropped to 192.5, well below even the lows of the GW Bush years. Since the Republicans regained control of Congress in 2011 the total of enacted bills has dropped to 140 per year, less than half what was typical from 1973 to 2010.
Some might suggest that fewer bills passed by Congress is a good thing. But no need to change or add laws would suggest that the status quo under Obama is pretty good. But according to Republican primary candidates the country is in a disasterous decline. One would therefore think Congress ought to be doing more, not less.
Vetoes
The drop in enacted laws isn't because Obama is vetoing bills. During the prior periods when a President of one party dealt with a Congress controlled by the other party the President averaged 8.6 vetoes per year. In the five years since Republicans took control of Congress in 2011 Obama has vetoed an average of 1.4 bills per year. This is lower than what Jimmy Carter vetoed per year when he was working with a Congress of his own party (1.7 per year). I doubt that Republicans are afraid to send legislation to Obama. It seems more likely to me this is evidence of their focus on marginalizing him by not dealing with him.
Number of Bills Congress actually casts a vote on per year.
Republicans might argue fewer bills have gone to Obama because they can't work with Democrats. But since the party that controls Congress controls the ability to bring legislation to a vote (through their control of committees) how many bills Congress is allowed to vote on seems to reflect how interested the controlling party is in the negotiation that makes the democratic process work.
In any given year thousands of bills are introduced in Congress. A tiny fraction actually get to any kind of floor or committee vote. Since 2011 fewer bills have been allowed by the Republican leadership to go to any kind of vote than any period in the last in the last 43 years. From 1973 to 2010 an average of 303 bills per year went to a vote. Looking specifically at years where Congress dealt with an administration representing the other party 321 bills per year got to a vote. In the last five years the average number of bills that the Republican leadership allowed to go to a vote was 241.
Side note - Democrats are more democratic
The statistics on how many bills get a vote also reveal that prior to Obama when a Republican Congress is dealing with a Democratic President (Clinton - 1995 to 2000) Republicans allowed an average of 275 bills per year to go to a vote. When a Democratic Congress has worked with a Republican President, in contrast, an average of 333 bills go to a vote.
Thus statistically Democrats are - well - more democratic. They are not as inclined to use control of Congress to choke off votes as the Republicans.
To me this all suggests the problem isn't that Democrats aren't willing to work with Republicans, it is that Republicans have always been inclined to use every lever available to exercise their power to do things their way and have been particularly prone to that approach during the last 5 years.
Source of the Data Summary
This compilation was compiled from data at
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
Numbers are average number of bills per year during the specified period. Administrations highlighted in red indicate Congress controlled by opposing party - presumably the most accurate comparable to Obama's last 5 years.
1973-76 - Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford administration
Republican President, Democratic Congress.
292.75 went to a vote but did not pass
375.25 enacted
15.25 vetoed
1977-80 - Carter Administration
Democratic President and Democratic Congress.
290 went to a vote but did not pass
385 enacted
7 vetoed
1981-86 - Reagan Administration
Republican President & Senate, Democratic House.
267.33 went to vote but did not pass
307.16 enacted
8.66 vetoed
1987-88 - Reagan Administration
Republican President, Democratic Congress.
289 went to a vote but did not pass
380.5 enacted
8 vetoed
1989 to 1992 - Bush Administration
Republican President, Democratic Congress.
319.25 went to a vote but did not pass
318.75 enacted
10.75 vetoed
1993-94 - Clinton Administration
Democratic President, Democratic Congress
251 went to a vote but did not pass
236 enacted
0 vetoed
1995-2000 - Clinton Administration
Democratic President, Republican Congress
275.16 went to a vote but did not pass
224.16 enacted
5.83 vetoed
2001 to 2006 - GW Bush Administration
Republican President, Republican Congress
313.83 went to a vote but did not pass
228.33 enacted
.2 vetoed (1 in 6 years)
2007-08 - GW Bush Administration
Republican President, Democratic Congress
430 went to a vote but did not pass
230 enacted
3.5 vetoed
2009-10 - Obama administration, Democratic President, Democratic Congress
300.5 went to a vote but did not pass
192.5 were enacted
1 vetoed
2011 to 2015 - Obama administration
Democratic President, Republican Congress
241.8 went to a vote
140.8 enacted
1.4 vetoed
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Police Training
All who watch the TV news or get their news online are now used to seeing videos of 6 or 8 police officers with weapons drawn, probably all wearing protective vests, confronting one unarmed or poorly armed suspect. The video's seldom reveal a suspect making any kind of threatening action toward the police, yet one officer evidently feels threatened and fires his weapon then the suspect is killed in a hail of bullets.
The reaction to the shooting is depressingly predictable. Community outrage as the city and police officers and their union stand by the officers arguing the officers were threatened so the shooting was justified under their protocols.
Apparently the protocols and police training in many jurisdictions are oblivious to the notion of proportional response. They seem to be following the tactical military view that any response must be with overwhelming force. In effect it often means anyone who challenges their authority either submits or is, effectively, executed.
When confronted by a suspect that is unarmed or is armed with a knife, all officers draw their weapons. Why? One bullet could probably disable a suspect in almost any circumstance yet it seems like if one officer fires nearly every other officer is going to fire reflexively. Why can't one officer or two officers be designated as the lead officer with a weapon drawn and the others be prepared with non-lethal defense mechanisms? Why aren't police departments developing and using nets or other non lethal physical restraint options?
In our effort to protect officers we have become much too tolerant of the use of lethal force. I believe the protesters in San Francisco and Chicago are correct - the problem is at the top. Until Mayors and Police Chiefs start getting sacked for the actions of their trigger happy cops no change is going to happen.
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
Dying Shouldn't Be Hard
Death is a fact of life. We all die at some point. Yet we as a society seem incapable of viewing death as a fact of life we can manage, except to spend enormous resources to keep people alive, even if they are ready for death.
My mother is currently in a skilled nursing facility where she has been for many months. She has Alzheimer's so no longer can recognize her family, her attention span is non-existent, her life is spent in bed unless they bring in a machine to lift her up to sit her in a wheelchair so can be in a different position. She is largely oblivious to what is going on around her, except to be fearful of loud noises. She cannot eat without someone working patiently at spooning food into her mouth. What she has lost in life is irrevocably gone. She will never be able to converse with her children, or walk outside, or even sit on the sidelines at a family gathering and have any idea who the people are or what is going on.
About 20 years ago I was helping her set up legal paperwork to manage her life as she moved into old age. In my conversations with her she was clearly comfortable with the fact she was going to die at some point and wanted no extraordinary measures to keep her alive - she did not want to be a burden on others, and in particular her children and grandchildren. There is no doubt in my mind if at that time she could have viewed what she has become now she would be very unhappy with her current situation and if given the option would have chosen assisted death at some predetermined point in the deterioration without hesitation. But there was not then, nor is there now, any legal way for someone to chose to die at a point in the future where their options in life deteriorate to a point they find intolerable.
Another person I was close to just passed at 96 years old. Her life was pleasant enough in the assisted living place in which she lived her last years. But her life was shrinking as her capabilities declined. She expressed the desire to just die a number of times. Finally she just stopped eating and drinking. It is not a pretty decline. Hospitals and Hospice services do wonderful work making it as comfortable as possible but one has to ask - with all the wonders of modern technology why does someone have to starve and dehydrate themselves to death if they are done with life?
We as a society make it astonishingly difficult for ill or elderly people to choose to leave life. The worst case scenario folks, maybe in part because they haven't come to terms with the fact they will die someday, come up with all sorts of reasons why the law must rigidly control death. Most the reasons are rooted in the notion kids will be knocking off their parents over money or property, .
As medicine continues to develop techniques to prolong life we need to do more to help folks who are done with life. It is nuts to be telling folks in their 80's or 90's they cannot chose to end their life.
My mother is currently in a skilled nursing facility where she has been for many months. She has Alzheimer's so no longer can recognize her family, her attention span is non-existent, her life is spent in bed unless they bring in a machine to lift her up to sit her in a wheelchair so can be in a different position. She is largely oblivious to what is going on around her, except to be fearful of loud noises. She cannot eat without someone working patiently at spooning food into her mouth. What she has lost in life is irrevocably gone. She will never be able to converse with her children, or walk outside, or even sit on the sidelines at a family gathering and have any idea who the people are or what is going on.
About 20 years ago I was helping her set up legal paperwork to manage her life as she moved into old age. In my conversations with her she was clearly comfortable with the fact she was going to die at some point and wanted no extraordinary measures to keep her alive - she did not want to be a burden on others, and in particular her children and grandchildren. There is no doubt in my mind if at that time she could have viewed what she has become now she would be very unhappy with her current situation and if given the option would have chosen assisted death at some predetermined point in the deterioration without hesitation. But there was not then, nor is there now, any legal way for someone to chose to die at a point in the future where their options in life deteriorate to a point they find intolerable.
Another person I was close to just passed at 96 years old. Her life was pleasant enough in the assisted living place in which she lived her last years. But her life was shrinking as her capabilities declined. She expressed the desire to just die a number of times. Finally she just stopped eating and drinking. It is not a pretty decline. Hospitals and Hospice services do wonderful work making it as comfortable as possible but one has to ask - with all the wonders of modern technology why does someone have to starve and dehydrate themselves to death if they are done with life?
We as a society make it astonishingly difficult for ill or elderly people to choose to leave life. The worst case scenario folks, maybe in part because they haven't come to terms with the fact they will die someday, come up with all sorts of reasons why the law must rigidly control death. Most the reasons are rooted in the notion kids will be knocking off their parents over money or property, .
As medicine continues to develop techniques to prolong life we need to do more to help folks who are done with life. It is nuts to be telling folks in their 80's or 90's they cannot chose to end their life.
Monday, December 7, 2015
Religion and Altruism
An recent study looked at altruism among religious and non religious folks. The study found the children of folks that identified themselves as non religious demonstrated more spontaneous altruism than the children of folks who identified themselves as religious.
The study looked at 1170 families and focused on one child in each family between the age of 5 and 10. Using a series of forms asking questions about beliefs they broke the participants up into groups according to how religious each family reported itself to be.
They then had the child from each family play a game whereby each child was given 30 attractive stickers and told they could keep 10, but that the child could give away some of his 10 stickers to schoolmates who were not able to take part. They were given a few minutes to decide whether to give some of their 10 stickers away.
The non-religious children gave away an average of 4.1 stickers. The children from families reporting themselves as religious gave away 3.3 stickers on average. Muslims and Christians were by far the largest religious beliefs reported, there was little statistical difference between the Muslim and Christian children, Muslims gave away 3.2 on average, Christians 3.3. Further the researchers found statistically the more religious a family reported themselves to be, the fewer stickers children were willing to give away.
The religious / non religious relationship held regardless of wealth and status (although rich children generally gave more stickers away than poor children). The results were also contradictory with the parents reported perceptions of their child's sensitivity to injustice. Religious parents generally evaluated their children as more sensitive than the non-religious parents evaluated their children.
Query - Is this a function of religious training effecting children's judgement? Or is this self selection - parents who are less altruistic are more likely to feel a need fulfilled by religion?
Relying on report in the Economist (11.7.15 - p.77). The study was authored by a University of Chicago developmental nueroscientist in collaboration with researchers in Canada, China, Jordon, South Africa and Turkey, was published in "Current Biology".
The study looked at 1170 families and focused on one child in each family between the age of 5 and 10. Using a series of forms asking questions about beliefs they broke the participants up into groups according to how religious each family reported itself to be.
They then had the child from each family play a game whereby each child was given 30 attractive stickers and told they could keep 10, but that the child could give away some of his 10 stickers to schoolmates who were not able to take part. They were given a few minutes to decide whether to give some of their 10 stickers away.
The non-religious children gave away an average of 4.1 stickers. The children from families reporting themselves as religious gave away 3.3 stickers on average. Muslims and Christians were by far the largest religious beliefs reported, there was little statistical difference between the Muslim and Christian children, Muslims gave away 3.2 on average, Christians 3.3. Further the researchers found statistically the more religious a family reported themselves to be, the fewer stickers children were willing to give away.
The religious / non religious relationship held regardless of wealth and status (although rich children generally gave more stickers away than poor children). The results were also contradictory with the parents reported perceptions of their child's sensitivity to injustice. Religious parents generally evaluated their children as more sensitive than the non-religious parents evaluated their children.
Query - Is this a function of religious training effecting children's judgement? Or is this self selection - parents who are less altruistic are more likely to feel a need fulfilled by religion?
Relying on report in the Economist (11.7.15 - p.77). The study was authored by a University of Chicago developmental nueroscientist in collaboration with researchers in Canada, China, Jordon, South Africa and Turkey, was published in "Current Biology".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)