Brushing up on means and medians can help journalists

Everything I see points to the coming July 4 weekend signaling the absolute worst of our current travel nightmare, combining staffing shortages, slow regrowth after the pandemic, high energy prices, and raging inflation.

Of course, a large percentage of all travelers will be fine, and they will handle more expensive tickets and gas in the same way that people who REALLY want to see, say, the Colorado Avalanche hockey team play in person. Playoff tix were going for upward of $2,000 just a couple weeks ago. 

Life is full of choices, and for most Americans there is enough flexibility to spend more or less, depending on values and enthusiasm and desire. Holiday travel seems like a choice, though the urge to get out of town and check in with relatives... or simply hang out somewhere new or exciting or both is strong. 

A chance of delays and even cancellations is just enough to stop those eager to visit somewhere.

A recent study says the average American family spends 2.57 percent of its available income on gasoline each month, and recent price hikes have raised that percentage quite a bit compared to previous expectations. I have previously mentioned in this blog that every increase in gas per gallon of one dollar leads to about an additional $55 in monthly gas bills for average drivers.

But we know that "average" is sometimes not very helpful... and I would guess that the range of amounts spent on gas each month is quite large. I was surprised to find that Alabama drivers pile up way more miles each month than many other states. Many who live in dense metropolitan areas like New York City or Washington, D.C. simply don't pile up the miles, no matter how high or low gas prices get. 

I was thinking that we need to teach young journalists to more closely examine the terms "average" and "typical," and create discussions over which of the two measures is more useful.

Everything I found searching online depended on "average," or simply adding up all the miles driven and dividing the total number of driving family members into that number, and then multiplying the cost of gas. In theory, you could have a lot of drivers like Kathleen and me who fill up the tank once per month... maybe. You could have a select few drivers, like contractors for Uber, who might pile up ten thousand miles in a month. Computing the average of those diverse results gives a number that is WAY too high for some percentage of the population that doesn't drive all the time and WAY too low for ride share drivers.

And I'm not sure exactly what we learn from that average.

A "typical" driver might accumulate (I am making this up) 30 miles a day... or make it 100 miles a day... the point will be the same. If we can identify the "typical," we may get a more useful figure. This is the median in "stat talk," and the median is simply the number that sits exactly in the middle of the range, with an equal number of instances of smaller and larger data points.

I only spent a few minutes searching online for the "mean number of miles driven by Americans," but rarely got any links that were not AVERAGES. Maybe a calculation that includes many millions of data points, all needing to be ranked in order to find the data point in the exact middle, is just too complex. Or maybe the sites didn't see the point.

I finally found one site that claimed, after applying standard deviations, that the mean number of miles driven by Americans is 12,494, or about 1,041 per month. The average is 14,263 per year or about 1,188 miles per month. Those two figures are not dramatically different, but adding 140 miles per month at $5 per gallon comes to $735 dollars of difference... and that is substantial.

I maintain that "typical" has to be the best number to refer to when we are reporting on almost anything that involves large numbers of people or businesses, as well as simply measuring dollars and cents and miles. 

Schools are full of extremes, and some individuals are far off the charts in terms of extreme choices, intellectual ability, home life, mental health, etc. Schools and governments tend to aggregate everything and arrive at averages to compare and contrast. If a school's average score on some standardized test goes down or up, we may be overdoing our sorrow or joy, respectively.

We just need to keep educating students that "average" is unlikely to look like them. Those average resemble them. 

Typical behavior is much more likely to help us in choosing topics and appealing to readers, particularly if we are most interested in reaching the widest audience.

Fighting bad court decisions with smarter laws

Some weeks are so loaded with news that we lose track of all the various implications and reactions. I suppose Ukrainians would appreciate top stories in American papers being about Russia bombing a shopping mall with a missile -- the very definition of a war crime and national terrorism.

But the January 6 committee hearings continue to be top of the fold, so to speak, along with primary elections and a giant baseball brawl and... well, the list goes on an on.

One of the Supreme Court decisions announced just a few days ago was Carson v. Makin, which seemed initially like a victory for private religious schools and their radical overseers. A 6-3 decision (and soon we will not need to see the actual votes anymore... that 6-3 is the new normal) held that the state had to provide funding for religious private schools as well as non-discriminatory private schools. The nation's CINOs howled in glee.

But the Maine legislature had already anticipated the court's extreme right wing swing and passed an amendment to the law in question that effectively creates an end run around the court.

From the Washington Post's commentary on this: 

The revised law forbids discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, and it applies to every private school that chooses to accept public funds, without regard to religious affiliation.

The impact was significant: The two religious schools at issue in the Carson case, Bangor Christian Schools and Temple Academy, said that they would decline state funds if, as Maine’s new law requires, accepting such funds would require them to change how they operate or alter their “admissions standards” to admit L.G.B.T.Q. students.

What an elegant solution to the problem and such a clever argument against the CINO minority of America! The right wing parochial schools retain freedom of choice (nice irony) and must take ownership of their own choices (to discriminate against anyone they don't agree with). Private schools that follow state and federal laws are free to tap some of the state's education money for specific purposes.

Bottom line: Carson v Makin ends up being much ado about nothing, a Pyrrhic victory for the radical right that shines the spotlight on just how bigoted some private "Christian" schools really are. 

My personal reaction to the entire tussle was to admire state legislators who not only favor doing the right thing and serving the public without discrimination but also with the smarts to find a terrific strategy to get the job done.

This makes me a small person, I suppose, but I love seeing the CINOs squirm.   

Politics is a dirty business, and it always has been

Today is Primary Day for Colorado and that means we get treated to the latest bloviating from Rep. Lauren Boebert, who told a religious service this past Sunday that she is “tired” of the U.S. separation of church and state, a long-standing concept stemming only from a “stinking letter” penned by one of the Founding Fathers.

Of course, she skipped over that pesky First Amendment thing, but it's always been useful to pick and choose among your "sacred" documents, whether the Constitution or the Bible. 

This pseudo-campaign speech was literally preaching to the choir, with an audience of white CINO cheering every attack on what we used to think of as basic rights and democracy. 

Her primary opponent is Don Coram, who was co-sponsor of our state's updating of our student free expression law to include protections for advisers simply doing their job. He is smart and consistently works across the aisle on legislation that western Colorado needs. 

I assume he will get slaughtered. Reasonable is out of favor in the Republican Party.

Today also brings to an end the peculiar and expensive negative ads attacking a somewhat reasonable Joe O'Dea (who is what we might call Classic Republican) and urging voters to choose the wacko Ron Hanks, who embodies the Trumpist mentality in all its glory. The peculiar thing is that a PAC funded by Democrats is paying for those ads... and they have been everywhere.

The apparent strategy is to get Hanks nominated today and thereby pit Democratic incumbent Michael Bennett against a "weaker" candidate. Hah! I thought Trump would be easy to beat when he started his circus-atmosphere campaign seven years ago. By sheer bad (or good, depending on your perspective) luck, Trump was thumped in the popular vote but became president, a beneficiary of the peculiar American Electoral College. 

Something about this strategy just doesn't sit well. And once a wacko is on the ballot...

The deference to small, rural states and populations within states is yet another of the lingering problems that slavery, our original sin, continues to impose on us. The system was built as part of bringing southern slave states into the union, part of an unholy compromise that eventually led the nation to a civil war. 

Trump got three "originalists" on the Supreme Court, and the Republican radicals got everything they wanted without having to tick people off by drafting legislation to end abortion. After all, five members of the court are bought and paid for.

Trump may never regain any power, beyond his pop culture allure, but those court picks will torment the majority of Americans for decades to come. Now the country must hope for different luck, perhaps in a debilitating disease or sudden (and, of course, tragic) death of one or two of the current arch conservatives. But even having some court openings won't help if Dems don't control the Senate.

Trusting in luck is not a solid political strategy, just as it's not a great strategy in Vegas. 

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for all her sterling qualities, must have really wanted to be on the court when our first female president was in office (ha!)... but her personal wishes backfired on us all when she refused to retire during Mr. Obama's second term, despite her long battles against cancer. 

More appalling was Senator McConnell pulling the most extreme power play in the history of our government by denying Merrick Garland even a hearing when he was nominated a full year before the 2016 election. Today McConnell brags about stacking the court as his supreme achievement in a long legislative career. Shameful.

Whatever the combination of luck, political machinations, and an imbalance of power in our Congress, particularly the Senate (California's two senators represent 39 million people, while North Dakota's two senators represent 770,000), we are stuck in a constant state of turmoil and anger. We are stuck with a Supreme Court that guarantees rule by the privileged minority of our citizens.

The one glimmer of good news is that those ugly and always deceptive TV ads will finally give way this evening, bringing back the barrage of Frank Azar law firm ads.

Ah, normalcy.

CINOs hijack religion to troll anyone "less worthy'

Today's Supreme Court brouhaha -- ruling that a Washington high school football coach could pray after games on the field -- is a great example of how things tend to escalate and how they eventually get a bit out of control.

The coach took a knee for a minute after games for years, evidently, until a few players started joining in and then opposing players and coaches and finally all sorts of loosely connected adults who basically just wanted to take on public schools and prayer.

And it eventually got to the Supreme Court, now noticeably open to almost any issues or cases that can troll Americans who don't fit a specific profile. In a sense, this is much ado about nothing, since the coach moved to Florida some time ago and isn't likely moving back to Bremerton. And it is fair to ask whether the informal praying on the field caused disruptions and hurt feelings.

But that's the thing. When the majority puts an official OK on one sort of religious belief, those who are made to feel uncomfortable or excluded tend to NOT protest loudly.

American politics currently suffers from the "tyranny of the minority," in that our system is rigged in favor of smaller states and more rural areas. But it is important to remember that the more common tyranny is of the majority. 

Today's boastful and proselytizing Christians feel free to scream loudly any time they feel the least uncomfortable. I am grateful that public school officials continue to resist particular religious practices being forced on students and their families. 

These public protestations of faith give me the willies. And the peculiar new tradition of using religion to poke at our neighbors is hardly a sterling advertisement for these oh-so-holy people. 

I saw the term CINO the other day -- Christian in Name Only -- based on the Republican in Name Only phrase that radical right wingers fling at anyone in their political party not sufficiently pure.

There's no good reason to even try to create arguments about religion, which is why I discourage students in my writing classes to even try in that area, much like the silliness of trying to convince people about abortion, trans sports participation, etc.

But I like the CINO approach generally. It's a good reminder that most humans don't really measure up to their professed values, and never will. I would guess most supposed Christians are picking and choosing among all sorts of values, some antithetical to what religious authorities desire.

I was thinking of all the celebration among Catholic bishops and their most radical adherents after Roe was overturned, while knowing that nearly 65 percent of Catholics in America support the basic protections of Roe. 

Then I thought of how, immediately after the "big win," so many "pro-life" fanatics began plotting to force EVERY American to give up personal autonomy. All while fighting with equal vigor for the rights of anyone to care any sort of weapon at all times. 

There is nothing logical about all these anti-abortion people being fine with unlimited guns and the death penalty... and allowing 25 percent of American children to go hungry. 

We are all hypocrites in some way, and I just wish knowing that would dampen our enthusiasm for fanatical ideas and our desire for just one way of life to prevail. But that would require self-reflection and a sense of shame... and many Americans can do neither.

Looking back on fifty years ago through rose-colored glasses

The early '70s sure seem like the "good old days."

Title IX was passed on June 23, 1972, finally providing some equality to opportunities for women in education, athletics, and other areas. Many high school athletic programs continue to dodge the law, but I saw a stat that every case of discrimination (violating some part of Title IX) is settled in favor of the complaining families or individuals showing that behavior.

The Roe v. Wade decision was announced in favor of a woman's right to an abortion on Jan. 22, 1973. Today the Supreme Court cemented its reputation as a politely radical arm of America's obsession with the past by overturning that ruling, which every justice proclaimed "settled law" during confirmation hearings.

And Richard Nixon resigned the presidency on Aug. 8, 1974, caught in shady doings and succumbing to the shame of being impeached had he not done so. Shame has become almost nonexistent in modern politics, and the January 6 hearings remind us of just how far the presidency has descended.

I know we are supposed to be working to uphold our institutions, from schools to churches to families, but it's tough to be proud of how our government works.

The presidency has become so debased that we are shocked when the executive branch is both efficient and effective, and many Americans see violence and disruptions if and when a former president goes to jail or is pardoned (a reminder of the Nixon debacle -- the bad guys with power and money always win).

The Supreme Court has lost all claim to "blind justice," now just a gaggle of radical Catholics -- sorry, but what else can we call them? -- intent on doing all they can to serve their Republican overlords. Thomas is married to a woman who consorted with traitors, if she is not one herself. Three other justices were handpicked by the felon Donald Trump to do exactly what they are doing. We were warned.

And the Congress rarely does anything at all, other than the occasional too little, too late legislation that can pass, like the recent bolstering of gun safety laws just passed by the Senate. At least six House members asked for pardons of the departing president, indicating that they knew they had crossed legal lines (though I'm sure they feel justified).

The future of gay marriage? Iffy. The future of interracial marriage? Who knows? 

Some sort of federal requirement for every American to carry an unregistered handgun? Unlikely. After all, the Republican Cult of the Gun certainly does not like the idea of every American who doesn't look like them carrying weapons and evening the odds. 

The early 1970s also featured passionate anti-war protests and violence, and that's only one portion of the "not so good" time period. But those events of five decades ago offer a sort of hope, albeit hope that must be patient because the U.S. is stuck in an age of constant argument and scrambling for power.

Perhaps our grandchildren will see the next big swing in our country's meandering journey to a "more perfect union."

For the rest of us? All we can do is make it as tough as we can for the bigots and ignorant and shameful to make a mockery of us all.

Distractions help us navigate the cascade of bad news

While scanning the Washington Post website today I came across this lead:

Thousands of people were convicted of practicing witchcraft in Scotland in a hunt that spanned nearly two centuries — and the majority of those sentenced to death and executed were women. Many were also tortured.

Now, a bill proposed in the Scottish parliament is trying to set the record straight, said Natalie Don, a Scottish lawmaker who introduced the proposal. It could allow for posthumous pardons to thousands of women who faced convictions hundreds of years ago.

On first sight, this seems like a weird issue to spend much time on. After all, those poor women were still tortured and executed... all for nothing, and nothing can reduce or recompence that pain and loss for their families. So why bother?

The story can be filed under "oddity," in terms of news values, but it's refreshing to read something that diverts me from January 6 and from the pandemic and from gun violence and from war in Ukraine -- all involving mostly bad news. 

I suppose the proposed bill is about justice and making some sort of statement about women being discriminated against... and there are still people who believe deeply in witches. It's harmless, as far as I can tell, and the distraction is worth it for many readers.

Another national story was about President Biden proposing that the federal gas task of about 18 cents per gallon be suspended for three months. Simple math points out that even if distributors deducted every one of those cents per gallon, the savings amounts to 3.6 percent on the current average per gallon price of $4.995.

Taken together, all those tax savings amount to a sizeable sum, but for any one driver? Not so much. But the government is looking frantically for almost anything that can be labelled "good news" for consumers.

Increased production and reduction of state gas taxes might eventually produce nearly $1 per gallon in savings, but the effect would take months to become clear.

The whole idea just doesn't seem like the game changer that can lead to more positive messages from Democrats about why they should be retained as elected officials. It's basically a distraction.

A third distraction is the brouhaha over a TV crew being inside a government building after hours, complete with a short time under arrest and the rather quick release of those involved. A puppet was involved. Radical wacko Jim Jordan of Ohio jumped on this tidbit and proclaimed Democratic hypocrisy, asking how this was any different from the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. Give me a break.

There is no "there" there, as the saying goes, but some media outlets are having a fine time with the story.

All three of these distracting news reports will soon fade away, surpassed by new oddities and misunderstandings and unapproved proposals. 

But the news can't be all crucial decisions and actions and policies. I will continue to scan for such coverage. I just need to remind myself that these sorts of reports don't need to take up much space in my brain.

I need some room for new revelations from the January 6 Committee hearing today. Great story telling.

No one thanks the person who reveals the 'man behind the curtain'

Another great post by Tom Nichols, an Atlantic columnist, came my way the other day, with the headline "What are Trump supporters so afraid of?" and that column was a way for me to recalibrate my thinking about the many Americans (some my relatives) who just can't break away from the Trump Cult.

Here's his key graf: 

I think the Trump superfans are terrified of being wrong. I suspect they know that for many years they’ve made a terrible mistake—that Trump and his coterie took them to the cleaners and the cognitive dissonance is now rising to ear-splitting, chest-constricting levels. And so they will literally threaten to kill people like Adam Kinzinger (among others) if that’s what it takes to silence the last feeble voice of reason inside themselves.

This made sense to me. Who wants to be forced to realize they have made a serious mistake and who wouldn't want to deflect the blame to someone else... anyone but them?

Fear has become the top motivator for most voters, maybe most PEOPLE, and perhaps across the planet. Fear of being show to be a fool has got to be powerful, and it seems normal that most people would try to avoid outright admitting that they were snookered.

"There's a sucker born every minute," said someone (not P.T. Barnum, though he is often associated with the memorable phrase). What we all want to do is brag about how smart and clever we are/were... not how silly, overmatched, and gullible we are/were.

Here's my idealistic hope: many people who are reluctant to publicly announce that they have been fooled for years but who are now confronted by all sorts of their political allies who can prove they WERE being fooled will cast their votes for someone other than those who played them for fools. The secrecy of the ballot box may allow reason and logic to return.

I know. I'm nutty just to imagine such a thing.

We have watched every minute of the January 6 Committee on the Capitol incursion hearings and both Kathleen and I have found them engrossing. It's like watching a trial without law enforcement involved and without a judge to oversee it all... everything is based on procedures the House of Representatives has developed over many years.

The mix of live witnesses and video clips and narratives from individual House members on the panel move things along and have been brilliantly organized to create cohesive arguments. At this point, anyone who continues to cheer for Trump has made a clear choice to remain ignorant and to deny reality, and I still think most Americans are not that far gone. 

Ignorance and refusal to face reality can't be legislated against, and there have always been plenty of wackos in this country entertaining the most far-fetched ideas. Those people will never go away. But if we can just pry a few people away from the cult around the edges...

I could be proven wrong and all the cynicism people expressed about the committee hearings may turn out to be accurate, with nothing being done, but the hearings at least qualify as a manageable history of Jan. 6, 2021, and what led to the insurrection and what might be coming.

After all, a large percentage of Republicans still cling to the weird belief that the 2020 election was rigged in some way and that Trump got cheated. At least, that is what they say out loud.

Of course, the opposite is true. Trump and his cronies are the cheaters, the liars, the thieves, and the traitors. That last one is a stretch, perhaps, but what else can you call a person who tries to disrupt the Constitution and the peaceful exchange of power?

Lock him up!