Danger and Prevention (or not)

So while reading Yahoo! Sports NHL page, there is an article discussing eliminating fighting from hockey. However, when looking at the list of serious injuries at the end of the article, only two were from fights with one leading to a fight and one a suckerpunch before a fight. The other week, the announcer on NBC (who has spent more time behind a microphone than on the ice) talked about forcing players to wear eye protection. However, the play that led to his comment was when a goalie hit a player in the face with his stick, a penalty not called.

This is where this segues into a political discussion. Instead of banning something, look at a root cause. If the goalie had been hit with a penalty when he hit a guy with his stick, maybe next time his stick won't come up that high. If the skater had been wearing a face shield, what would have stopped the goalie from raising his stick? What would stop anyone? This ties into a study done on car safety. When cars are made safer so that people in the car are not injured in an accident, there is actual more danger to other people on the road. I could give you the economic reasons for this, but would suggest you look into the podcast "Peltzman on Regulation" at www.econtalk.org.

Now, going back to fighting, what would happen if there were no instigator rule, where if a player starts a fight there is no added on penalty? How likely would a player on the other time be to rough up a star player if they knew that guy's teammate would come kick their ass? Like everything else, regulation changes people's incentives, both positive and negative, and thus change behaviors.

You know what other argument is very similar to this, the city that bans guns vs. the one that "requires" them. No one would ever expect the city that bans guns to be more dangerous, but it is. In logical terms (using real words instead of economic ones) what criminal in their right mind would attack someone when that person could be armed? Now, how many criminals would willingly attack someone who they know is unarmed if that is how they operate? The regulation that bans guns thus makes the criminal safer and more willing to attack.

Lists of "Greatness"

People often make lists of "great" blank, be in movies, songs, politicians, etc. However, what makes something great? Today I read a list of the 50 greatest movie soundtracks (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2032992,00.html). Now, I like a good soundtrack, but I haven't heard of half of these movies. Why exactly are they so great?

There are a few ways to define greatness. One is just subjective, I like something therefore it is a great. Another is by popularity, though not in the usual sense. The list has The Wizard of Oz in the number 1 spot. I agree with that choice. Who doesn't know "Over the Rainbow?" Thus, it is great because it is timeless, a part of pop culture over 70 years later. A third way to define greatness is by some technical measure. When discussing greatest sci-fi movies, Star Wars Episode IV has to come in near the top simply because of the technological breakthroughs in creating it.

One issue I have with "great" lists is that often they discount in some way. For example, in this list, a John Williams score is listed only once. But think about it. Go to a piano and play the low, menacing shark theme from Jaws and see who says, "What is that?" Likewise, the Harry Potter and Indiana Jones themes are known by almost everybody. (Real greatness is when a movie is remade or has a prequel from a completely different writer and director and they use the original theme song as Shaft and Superman Returns.) Even if a score is by the same composer doesn't mean it can't be greater than another score on the list.

Overall, greatness is really subjective. But wouldn't it be nice to see a list of great soundtracks actually have soundtracks that people know and understand intuitively are great?

Racism In Reality

What is racism? I am serious. What is racism? Does it only apply to certain groups? Or is it a preference for one group over another?

Here is the reason I ask. An Asian student wrote an article named "Why I Hate Blacks" for an Asian newspaper. Wow, what an uprising and calls of racism. Ok, I can give ya that one. However, that ain't the end of the story. This same Asian student also wrote articles named "Why I Hate Whites" and "Why I Hate Asians" (seems Latinos and Indians are exempt). Where was the uprising from those two? To focus on one article at the expense of the others would actually be racist itself. Think about it in line with my earlier question. A preference for blacks is actually racist against whites and Asians. Therefore, I would suggest the writer is NOT racist (since he is an "equal opportunity offender," as one comedian says) while the blacks who complained are the real racists. A non-racist would have supported the whites or Asians before blacks could be targeted.

So what is racism? Complaining because one group is targeted even though all groups were equally targeted. (Note: Yes, I know Latinos and Indians weren't insulted. However, it seems likely that those two groups would have been next. Thus, 3 out of 5 ain't bad, as the song goes, and the writer was not racist, assuming those two groups were next.) Think about it.

Message to the Gas Boycotters

On Facebook, there is a group calling for a day-long gas boycott. So, I joined the group just so I could post on the message board. Here is what I posted:

Instead of trying to organize a boycott, do something better. Take your $25 or so that you aren't going to spend on gas and invest it in a company that works with "green" energy. That company can then try to create a product that is both green and cost efficient. Until something better comes along, why should anyone be made poorer to help the environment? I know someone will say "it is for their health," but studies have shown poverty lowers life expectancy more than all the smog in Los Angeles.
One reason why the global warming movement will never gain traction is too often the proponents of global warming focus on forcing people to change rather than trying to convince them or leading by example. If you truly believe oil is bad, then don't make it a day or a week or even a month. Stop buying gas and put that money towards your goal of alternative energy. Create something that will make me, the big bad oil addict, WANT to switch. Until the day that alternative fuels are cheaper than oil, without government intervention, environmentalists will only convince the gullible. Government intervention won't solve anything. For proof, look at how many "endangered" animals are killed every year by conservationists who don't want their property rights taken away and put in poverty because an animal lives in one tree on a large farm.
Hopefully I have given you something to consider. In order to make an effective argument, one must know the person being persuaded. Until groups such as this realize that to many people, money and not the environment drives individual actions, global warming will be seen as scaremongering (just as global cooling was in 1974).



Ok, see if that makes sense to you.