SoluProb™: Prohibit lane-splitting

lanesplitting

 Acknowledgement:

To Byron Callas for suggesting this SoluProb™


Presumed Problem

In slow-to-standstill traffic, motorcycles sometimes move down the space between lanes of cars, thereby creating a hazard.


Solution

Prohibit the practice of motorcycles “lane splitting,” also known as lane sharing or filtering.


Narrative

Lane splitting is illegal in 49 states in the USA and in all of Canada, though it is a common practice in much of the world. In August, 2016, hollywood-vector-doodle_G1bnWtLO_LCalifornia made the practice officially legal, though it had been informally tolerated previously unless it was done recklessly. As the LA Times Reported (2016):

California is expected to become the first state in the nation to formalize the practice of lane splitting after state Assembly members on Thursday passed a bill authorizing the California Highway Patrol to establish guidelines for motorcyclists on how to do it safely.

The bill, sponsored by Assembly member Bill Quirk (D-Hayward), passed Thursday with a 69-0 vote. It now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. On the floor, Quirk said the proposed law had many positives, including reducing traffic congestion and promoting safety.

 

Was the Problem Real?

Research on motorcycle accidents over the years have failed to identify lane splitting as hazardous. Indeed, when California (allowing lane splitting) was compared with Florida and Texas (disallowing it), California had 30 percent fewer motorcycle fatalities due to rear end collisions. Motorcycles running into opening car doors is rare.

In 2010. Myra Sperley Amanda Joy Pietz at the Oregon Department of Transportation Research Section did a major review of the literature relevant to this topic in the USA and Europe. They concluded, in part,

A review of literature relevant to lane-sharing revealed that research on the topic is limited. No studies were found that primarily focused on the benefits or safety concerns of the practice. Benefits were often cited in motorcyclist advocacy publications and enthusiast articles. Quantitative data were limited and more generally related to capacity and emission benefits of motorcycles relative to cars.

Relevant to the safety implications of lane-sharing, motorcycle crash causation studies provided the most direct information on lane-sharing. Studies, such as the 1981 Hurt report and the 2009 MAIDS report, considered lane-sharing as a causation factor. Statistics from these and other publications showed that lane-sharing was a factor in <1% to 5% of motorcycle accidents. Because studies incorporating lane-sharing as a potential causation factor are limited, the range presented above should be considered with caution.

They further conclude by saying “more research is needed,” the mantra for the Researcher Full Employment Plan. (Disclosure: I have spent a long career as a social researcher.) Levity aside, we clearly don’t know the full story about the potential dangers of lane splitting by motorcycles, but everything we do know suggests the risks are minimal. This is especially true when we compare lane-splitting accidents with motorcycles being rear-ended in the middle of lanes.


Negative Consequences

Banning lane splitting and enforcing such laws has had the consequence of slowing traffic for both cars and motorcycles. The longer motor vehicles sit idling in traffic, the greater the air pollution. We could imagine that drivers suffering through traffic congestion may suffer increased cardio-vascular problems and may be more likely to abuse their spouses and children–though that may be a stretch.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

Oregon Report on Lane Sharing

Lane Splitting Resources & Links

Motorcycle.com

Hurt Report 

SoluProb™: More Babies

 


empty-cradleNote: 

This post was initially entitled, Birth Dearth. However, my previous practice has been to name posts after the Solution without a Problem rather than the presumed problem. Hence the name change.

Presumed Problem

The reduced fertility rate in the USA will cause economic and other problems.


Solution

Encourage Americans to have more babies.

crawling-babies

Narrative

In 1968, Paul Ehrlich and David Brower published The Population Bomb, which was the first serious warning about overpopulation since Thomas Malthus published several editions of An Essay on the Principle of Population between 1798 and 1826. The Population Bomb led to the formation of Zero Population Growth (now Population Connection) and other research and activist organizations. Overpopulation became a hot button issue. It was seen as the chief cause of world hunger, resource depletion, and pollution, as well as aggravating international conflict, public health problems, species extinctions, and a host of other problems.

Despite the widespread concern and activity since 1968, the world’s crowdpopulation has more than doubled from 3.5 billion to 7.4 billion. The UN now predicts world population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050. The population of the USA has increased by more than half since 1968 from 207 million to 32o million).

Though world and American population has continued growing at what many consider an alarming rate there have been some signs of progress. In fact, some developed nations have reduced their fertility rates to below replacement (2.1 births per woman). Currently, the average American woman bears 1.87 children; German women 1.44; British women 1.89; Japanese women 1.4; Taiwanese women 1.12; Russian women 1.61; Canadian women 1.59 to name just a few.

The decline in fertility rates in the USA and elsewhere has belly-globegenerated the term, “birth dearth,” suggesting there are too few babies being born, with the fear there will be too few young people entering the labor force to provide for the needs of growing elderly populations.

 


Was the Problem Real?

This is a complex matter. In the short term, some of the problems associated with the “birth dearth” are real. The American economy, and other capitalistic economies, are fundamentally dependent on population growth: ever more consumers and more workers. Perhaps no one is experiencing these problems more seriously than the Japan, who have been actually shrinking their population in recent decades.

In the long run, however, population growth is a huge problem, far overshadowing any short-term adjustment needs when populations stop growing. This is particularly obvious in the impoverished countries who cannot currently feed their populations–and their rapidly growing numbers make their problems all the more impossible. Burundi, in Central Africa, is on course to double their population in 22 years. Niger, in West Africa, with the highest fertility rate in the world (over 7 births per woman) could triple by 2050.

Brazil

Population growth is also a problem in the more prosperous, developed nations. Even wealthy countries have an impoverished underclass, and population growth increases their numbers and their needs. Moreover wealthier individuals have a greater per capita impact on the natural and social environments. They eat more, drive more, and waste more. They have larger lawns to water, a problem debated during the recent California drought.

However, focussing on the “birth dearth” in the USA, we must conclude the problem is simply non-existent. Yes, fertility rates have declined, but when immigration is added to the formula, America’s population continues to grow.

2000: 282.16 million

2001: 284.97 million

2002: 287.63 million

2003: 290.11 million

2004: 292.81 million

2005: 295.52 million

2006: 298.38 million

2007: 301.23 million

2008: 304.09 million

2009: 306.77 million

2010: 308.11 million

2011: 310.50 million

2012: 312.86 million

2013: 315.18 million

2014: 317.68 million

2015: 320.22 million

2016: 322.48 million

Pretty clearly, we are not running out of Americans. Some white supremacists may worry about the composition of the American population, and we sometimes hear blatant calls for more white babies, but any increase to population is a bad idea, regardless of race.


Negative Consequences

Frantically increasing the American fertility rate, would cause many problems, as I’ve already indicated. While an increase in new babies would benefit some businesses (you know who you are, Gerbers and Huggies), it would also require the society at large to provide increased medical services, housing, schools, libraries, truant officers, juvenile detention facilities, shopping centers, highways, etc. By the way, many of those needed expansions would reduce the land available for growing food, and we would need lots more food.

And given the unusually high standard of living of Americans as a whole, increasing our numbers has a more substantial impact on the planet than similar increases in developing countries. Adding a million Ethiopians presents big problems for Ethiopia, but adding a million Americans presents big problems for the whole world.

 

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

Population Media Center

Global Fertility Rates

USA Population 2000-2016

Population projection

SoluProb™: Stand Your Ground Laws


Special Announcement

Other the past two months, I have posted a number of examples of what I’ve been calling Solutions without Problems (soluprobs). One of my purposes has been to engage others in this effort, and I want to start addressing that aspect now.

This post addresses what some feel is a solution without a problem: Stand Your Ground Laws. Rather than presenting my own analysis of this issue, I invite you to join with me and other viewers of the website in developing an analysis together. You’ll see below that I’ve asked questions regarding each topic in the analysis, and you can contribute to the answer of those questions with the Comment space below this post or by using the link at the top of the page. You can respond to all the questions or just some of them.

See the thoughtful comment by William Wann below, for example.

Depending on the responses I receive, I would like to create a composite post on the topic, and I would like to acknowledge any contributions you make to the exercise. (If you would like to participate but not be acknowledged, just let me know.)

Thanks in advance for your interest and your participation.


Presumed Problem

Innocent, law-abiding citizens were defenseless against armed intruders.


Solution

Laws that permit citizens to arm themselves and use lethal force, if necessary, to protect themselves and their homes.


Narrative

What are some of the key events leading up to the creation of Stand Your Ground laws? Examples of different states’ laws?


Was the Problem Real?

Are there any data that would suggest the initial, presumed problem was not a real one, that no solution was needed?


Negative Consequences

What have been some of the negative results experienced in connection with Stand Your Ground laws?


Sources

What are the sources you used in creating your responses?
© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved Terms of Service/Privacy

SoluProb™: Drug-test Welfare Recipients

Let me know what you think 

urinanalysis


Presumed Problem

There is a belief among some that welfare recipients will spend their welfare payments on drugs instead of food, medicine, clothing, and the like. Hence tax-payer dollars are possibly going to support drug abuse instead of helping the disadvantaged obtain necessities.


Solution

Make welfare recipients submit to drug tests as a condition for receiving support and revoke their payments if they test positive for drug use. It was  believed this would result in substantial savings for the government.


Narrative

The National Conference of State Legislatures indicates that there have been discussions about drug-use and public assistance for some time, but 2009-2011 saw and large number of programs proposed, several of which were enacted into law. As of March, 2016,

At least 15 states have passed legislation regarding drug testing or screening for public assistance applicants or recipients (Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.)

Some of the drug-testing programs were halted in federal courts as unconstitutional but a number have now been in effect for a number of years. We now have enough experience with such programs that we can assess both how big the problem was and how much money can be saved by throwing drug-users off the welfare rolls.

 


Was the Problem Real?

In 2015, Brian P. Kelly and Josh at Salon.com pulled together information to evaluate several state programs. For example, their review of the 2009 Arizona program produced this conclusion:

But in 2012, three years and 87,000 screenings later, only one person had failed a drug test. Total savings from denying that one person benefits? $560. Total benefits paid out in that time? $200 million….Arizona officials believed that testing could save the state $1.7 million a year.

Arizona was not the only program to demonstrate the “problem” was not what law-makers had assumed, not was it the only one denied the financial windfall they expected to enjoy as they threw drug-users off the welfare rolls.

In one year, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee collectively tested 74,320 welfare recipients. In some cases, only recipients they believed to be users were tested. In these six states, a total of 424 of those tested produced positive results, or 0.6 percent, without even proving that welfare payments were used for the purchase of drugs in those rare instances. (Some people trade sex for drugs or do other favors.) Data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that 7.5 percent of the general public over 12 years of age currently use illegal drugs–mostly marijuana. So the “drug problem” among welfare recipients is less than one tenth what exists in the general public.

We have no reliable data regarding drug use among those politicians who pass bills for drug-testing welfare recipients. Surely Representative Trey Radel (R-FL) was not typical of the Congress, but after voting to require the drug-testing of Food Stamp recipients, he was arrested for cocaine possession and resigned from the Congress.

Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post commented:

Rep. Trey Radel voted in favor of drug-testing the folks who get food stamps.

In that case, why don’t we drug-test all people who get federal money? Let’s start with members of Congress!…

Yup, in Radel’s version of Absurdistan, it’s totally okay for a guy in a suit to use coke and collect a government paycheck, but a single mom who needs help buying milk for her kids has to be drug-tested before she gets one government dime.

 


Negative Consequences

Poor people have enough problems without having an additional serving of humiliation, which the testing results indicate was unwarranted. Drug-testing is an inconvenience for people working one or more minimum-wage jobs, and in some cases, the recipients are required to pay the costs of testing, though they may be reimbursed if the results were negative.

The financial situation is complex. In 2014, Missouri reportedly spent $336,297 to identify 48 drug-users. Arizona, with 142,424 welfare recipients between 2010 and 2014 only tested 19 recipients for a cost of $499.06. There is no report on the cost of administering the program aside from actual drug testing.

Florida has presented an especially complex situation. Governor Rick Scott has been strongly committed to requiring drug-tests for all welfare recipients as well as a random sampling of state workers. However, resistance by the ACLU, unions, and other parties forced the termination of the program after 4 months in 2001. Governor Scott settled the flurry of law suits at a cost of $1.5 million according to the Miami Herald: hardly the big savings tax-payers had been promised.

A different controversy arose over Governor Scott’s $62 million personal investment in Solantic, a health-services corporation already doing substantial business with the Florida state government. Some argued that Solantic could benefit further from a required drug-testing program. Perhaps to counter such criticisms, Governor Scott transferred his shares in Solantic to his wife. In any event, drug-testing of welfare recipients in Florida is on hold at present.

Overall, drug-testing welfare recipients has proven to be another solution without a problem. And as we’ve seen other cases, that “solution” caused a set of problems that didn’t exist before.

 

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/rep-trey-radel-expected-to-face-judge-on-charges-of-cocaine-possession/2013/11/20/b029caba-51ce-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/27/trey-radel-resign-congress-cocaine/4934741/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/rep-trey-radels-arrest-inspires-a-brilliant-idea-lets-drug-test-members-of-congress/2013/11/21/8f19c51e-52e6-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/gop’s_inane_money_eating_sham_drug_tests_for_welfare_a_huge_failure/

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/nationwide-trends

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article25114639.html

SoluProb™: Don’t Vaccinate Your Kids

Let me know what you think 

image


Presumed Problem

It has been asserted that vaccinations, such as flu shots or children’s innoculations are more dangerous than the illnesses they are intended to prevent.


Solution

Stop vaccination programs, especially for kids.


Narrative

It would be impossible to estimate how many human lives have been saved thanks to the imageresearch and experimentation of Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur in their developing the idea and procedures for immunization against diseases through vaccination. When people contract a disease like smallpox or influenza, their bodies set to work creating anti-bodies to counteract the disease. If they are lucky enough to survive the disease, they are subsequently immune to it. Vaccination involves infecting the patient with a very small dose of the disease, leading the patient’s body to create those anti-bodies that will protect against the real thing should the patient later be exposed to it.

You are probably familiar with this process in two ways. First, children in modern societies are routinely vaccinated against such diseases as diphtheria, typhoid, measles, mumps, and rubella among other potential threats. If you are older, you may have formed the habit of getting an imageannual flu shot and a periodic pneumonia shot. These have become standard fixtures in modern life. (I haven’t had the flu in years.)

There has always been a small degree of resistance to the practice of vaccinations, especially for young children, but that has been a distinctly minority view. Beginning in 2011, however, this resistance gained political currency and some politicians were urging parents to avoid vaccinating their children. In one well-known instance, then-Congresswoman and Republican presidential hopeful Michelle Bachmann reportedly was contacted by a supporter who said her child had developed autism subsequent to being vaccinated. Bachmann concluded from that story that vaccinations may cause autism, and the bandwagon began.

imageTwo years earlier, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, another Republican candidate for President, had ordered that sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against human papilloma virus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer. As the primary campaign heated up, Bachmann had an issue that distinguished her from Perry.

Soon, most politicians were being routinely asked where they stood on childhood vaccination. Many tried to evade the question, often taking the libertarian position that parents should decide for imagethemselves. Senator Rand Paul, M.D., went a step further, reporting that in the Swine Flu scare of 2009, more people died of the shot than of the flu. However, he offered no numbers to flesh out that claim.


Was the Problem Real?

There are so many forms of vaccine used with so many different kinds of people in different situations that it would probably be foolhardy to make global generalizations. However, there has been enough research on the 2009 Swine Flu epidemic that we can test the assertion made by Rand Paul.

During the pandemic itself estimates of deaths varied widely, partly due to a varying quality of medical reporting in different countries. Other factors complicated the accounting. Let’s say you are an older person, coping with a chronic cardiovascular problem. As long as you watch your imagebehavior and take your medication, you get by. However, the flu could very well push you over the edge and into cardiac arrest. The cause of death, then would probably be recorded as heart attack, even though the flu was what prompted your demise. For several years following the pandemic, it was commonly reported that the number of deaths was between 151,700 and 579,000—quite a range.

By 2013, an international group of scientists had evaluated and analyzed all the data available from around the world and concluded that as many as 203,000 people died of the swine flu. As large a number of deaths as that represented, Senator Paul asserted even more died of the flu shots.

Worldwide that year, it is estimated that fewer than 1500 people died of the flu shot, however. In short Dr. Paul’s report was off by more than a factor of more than 100 to 1. In case 1500 deaths worldwide still seems like a lot, it is worth noting that 22,000 Americans died that year due to reactions to presecribed drugs.

Clearly, people were better advised to get vaccinated than to avoid it. The problem he and his colleagues sought to “solve” didn’t exist. However, the “solution” had consequences of its own.


Negative Consequences

Many parents became so confused that they chose what they regarded as the conservative path and withheld vaccinating their children. One consequence was a widespread measles epidemic in imageCalifornia. Not only were schoolchildren suffering the preventable disease but vulnerable populations, such as the very elderly and very young were put at risk.

In the midst of this public health regression, another rumor began to spread. It was said that those who were vaccinated could infect those who were not. The medical community’s response was that (1) it was conceivable but would be extremely rare and (2) if it did happen, the unvaccinated party would “catch the vaccine,” not the disease itself. In other words, they would become vaccinated.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

Bahar Gholipour, “2009 Swine-Flu Death Toll 10 Times Higher Than Thought,” LiveScience, November 26, 2013 – http://www.livescience.com/41539-2009-swine-flu-death-toll-higher.html – accessed September 24, 2015

The Skeptical Libertarian, “By the Numbers: Did more people die from the swine flu vaccine than from swine flu?” September 16, 2014 — http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/16/by-the-numbers-did-more-people-die-from-the-swine-flu-vaccine-than-from-swine-flu/ — accessed October 3, 2015

SoluProb™: Banning Sharia Law


Let me know what you think 
 gavel

Presumed Problem

Muslims in America may arrange for Qu’ran-based Sharia Law to govern states or other political subdivisions.


Solution

Amendments to state constitutions that prohibit the imposition of Sharia Law.


Narrative

In 2010, Oklahomans worried that the hawks “makin’ lazy circles in the ok-mapsky” might be Islamic terrorists about to establish Sharia Law in the Sooner State.

Probably most Americans have heard at least some mention of Sharia Law, a system of theocratic governance and laws in several predominantly-Muslim countries in the Middle East. Sharia Law is based on the Qu’ran, traditional commentaries on the Qu’ran, and open-korantraditions from Islamic culture over time. There is no single Sharia Law, and variations exist from country to country. Topics covered include religion, family, food, finances, crime and punishment, war and peace among others.

Some of the rules may seem harsh by contemporary Western standards. Pre-marital sex (Zina) may warrant 100 lashes. A thief may have his or her hand cut off. And a Muslim who leaves Islam for some other religion may face execution. Little wonder that the good folks of Oklahoma wanted no part of it. When it was placed on the ballot in 2010, the anti-Sharia-Law Constitutional Amendment was approved by 70% of the voters. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) both sued to have the measure revoked, and in 2012, the Circuit Court of Appeals did just that, saying it violated the U. S. Constitution.

While the courts struck down the Oklahoma Anti-Sharia-Law libertyAmendment, that did not prevent Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Tennessee from following suit. In their defense it must be said that none of those states has been forced to submit to Sharia Law. Dodged the bullet on that one.

But why did this come about in the first place? The Ban Sharia Law website states the case this way, with a petition to be signed:

This petition is meant to create national awareness of  the “Creeping Sharia” threat to America, and to show all of our federal and state legislators that “We The People”, want the Constitution upheld and our American laws protected!

The “Creeping Sharia” threat is further detailed in three stages.

Islam is a totalitarian political system, usually introduced into western countries through three phases. The first phase introduces Islam as “tolerant” and peaceful, intentionally deceiving westerners, using“taqqiya,” Qur’an- sanctioned deceit.

The second phase uses “lawfare” to destroy a country from within using its own laws. And, by the time the third phase is implemented “no-go zones” and violence . . .

Much of the hysteria over creeping Sharia Law in America can be traced to an astounding National Report account of one example of Sharia Law becoming the law of the land in the USA.

In a surprise weekend vote, the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law.  The tough new law, slated to go into effect January 1st, addresses secular law including crime, politics and economics as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, fasting, prayer, diet and hygiene.

The new law could see citizens stoned for adultery or having a limb amputated for theft. Lesser offenses, such as drinking alcohol or abortion, could result in flogging and/or caning. In addition, the law imposes harsh laws with regards to women and allows for child marriage.


Was the Problem Real?

The above National Report story has fueled hysteria across the country. Several political office seekers have used it to support an anti-Muslim agenda. In branding the story False, the Snopes fact-checking service quotes the National Report’s own disclaimer page: “National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental.” In other words, the story was intended as a joke, though there was obviously a pool of belief waiting for it.

On the same webpage as the Dearborn story was another in which Bristol clockPalin revealed that her mother never taught her to tell time. “I know it’s something about the big hand and the little hand. That’s as far as we got.” Another story proclaims, “ISIS Leaders Praise Kim Davis – First Female to Win ISIS Courage Award.”

Except in the worlds of satire or anti-Muslim fantasy, there seems to be no imminent threat of Sharia Law being established in the USA. It is estimated that one percent of the U. S. population is Muslim, making a forceful overthrow of the U. S. A. unlikely. The several Anti-Sharia-Law state constitutional amendments are another example of solutions without problems.


Negative Consequences

The primary consequence of these anti-Sharia measures is the stirring up koranof anti-Muslim hysteria among low-information citizens. Americans have long suffered from a takeover mentality. Only the culprits supposedly taking over has varied: Jews, Irish, Italians, Catholics, atheists, African-Americans, Mexicans, and others.

During the 2016 presidential campaigns, Donald Trump had no trouble heating up the pre-existing bigotry toward Muslims: saying he would refuse entry of any Muslims to the United States and even taking actions against those already living in America, including native born citizens. The threat to take actions against American Muslims, quite aside from moral and legal aspects, would need to confront the fact that Americans are never asked to record their religion when registering to vote, get a driver’s license, enroll in school, etc. However, logic was no match for hatred.

Once again, we find citizens and their governments moved to install “solutions” for which there is no problem. But the phony solution causes problems of its own.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

http://bansharialaw.com  – accessed November 3, 2015

“City in Michigan First to Fully Implement Sharia Law” — http://nationalreport.net/city-michigan-first-fully-implement-sharia-law/ — Accessed November 3, 2015

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/sharia.asp — accessed November 3, 2015

National Report, “Bristol Palin Slams Obama Over Support of ‘Clock Kid’, Admits She Never Learned How To Tell Time”  — http://nationalreport.net/bristol-palin-slams-obama-support-clock-kid-never-learned-tell-time/  — accessed November d3, 2015

http://nationalreport.net/isis-leaders-praise-kim-davis-first-female-win-isis-courage-award/ — accessed November 3, 2015.

Group Punishment

Let me know what you think 

cropped-Earl-Photo.jpg

From time to time, I will present some thoughts on Solutions without Problems (soluprobs) as a general phenomenon. For example, they often take the form of “Group Punishment.”

When I have said elsewhere that a problem doesn’t exist, that is sometimes a slight exaggeration. For example, Voter ID laws are designed to prevent in-person election fraud: pretending to be someone else, someone who is eleigible to vote. All the studies of this problem conclude that it is extremely rare, but it does happen in a few cases.

Similarly, a Michigan legislator proposed forcing foster chlldren to purchase clothes from thrift shops as a way of preventing foster parents from spending the children’s clothing allowance on booze. (I was never clear on the logic of that.) He never offered evidence as to how much clothing allowance was being boozed away or whether the problem really existed at all. But let’s be momentarily cyncial and assume it happens sometimes.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume there were NO witches in Colonial Salem, but I think it’s fair to say that many of the other examples discussed on this website are solutions to problems that are RARE but may occur sometimes.

I would suggest there are two reasonable responses to problems that almost never happen.

Option One: ignore them. Life isn’t perfect. No matter how hard we try to prevent problems, a few slip through the cracks–and we survive.

Option Two: track down the specific instances of the rare problem and sanction them. If somebody tries to vote using someone else’s name, arrest them, try them, and put them in prison. If you discover foster parents spending the clothing allowance on booze, arrest them, try them, and put them in prison–at the very least, don’t let them be foster parents.

Make sense? Of course. More commonly, however, when we sense that a problem exists, we establish a “solution” that applies to everyone, the few wrongdoers and the great majority of straight arrows. Everyone has to get a Voter ID card, the vast majority of whom are eligible voters who have never cheated at the polls. What’s the likely impact of this group punishment?

Those who were doing nothing wrong are suddenly burdened with sanctions they don’t deserve. All those foster parents who spent the kids’ clothing allowance on, well, clothing for the kids now face limits on how to do their jobs. They probably have to fill out forms and jump through other hoops. Moreover, they will know that those in government assume they are misusing the funds, when they have been doing nothing but good.

How about those few wrong-doers? Do you think there’s any chance they’ll figure out a way to get around the new rules? Maybe they’ll forge receipts, find thrift store employees who’ll look the other way, etc. Officials who are busy applying the rules to all the innocent foster parents will probably miss the few bad apples.

All this can be avoided easily. Before taking action, measure the problem. See if it’s big enough to deserve a one-size-fits-all solution. If it’s not all that big a problem, ignore it or deal with the few cases that do exist. Don’t punish all the people who are playing by the rules.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy

SoluProb™: War of 1812

Let me know what you think 

M_Dubourg,_Boarding_and_Taking_the_American_Ship_Chesapeake,_by_the_Officers_and_Crew_of_H.M._Ship_Shannon,_Commanded_by_Capt._Broke,_June_1813_(c._1813)


Presumed Problem

The British were boarding American vessels, taking sailors believed to be British, including some Americans, and forcing them into service in the British navy: a practice known as impressment.


Solution

Declare war on the world’s great naval power and make them stop impressing our seamen.


Narrative

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was not the first time the USA used war as the solution to a non-existent problem. For another example, we’ll look at one of America’s oddest wars, one that is little understood by Americans: the War of 1812.

Battle_of_New_Orleans,_Jean_Hyacinthe_de_LaclotteAt the opening of the 19th century, Britain was caught up in a long, expensive war with Napoleon Bonaparte and France. America was theoretically neutral, which offended both parties, but American merchantmen were actively supplying France much of the time. Matters were further complicated by divided loyalties among American citizens. For many, England was still felt as their cultural homeland, despite political independence. Others felt a special loyalty to the land of LaFayette for their support of the American fight for independence decades earlier. Still others saw an opportunity for money to be made.

American-British relations became more strained through the policy of impressment. As the French war dragged on, a number of British seamen had decided to desert the British Navy sign on with American ships for better pay and less danger. At the same time, Britain was feeling the pinch of diminishing Warshipresources–and the lack of able-bodied seamen was part of the problem. The British solution was to begin boarding American commercial ships at sea and capturing any crew members who seemed to be British–including some American citizens. The captured seamen were impressed into service on British ships of the line. American unhappiness with Britain also involved economic issues, but outrage at the impressment of American seamen was a powerful rallying cry.

The British policy of stopping American merchantmen at sea, which laid the grounding for inspecting the crews and seizing any believed to be British, was known as “Orders in Council,” first enacted on January 7, 1807. American official protests to Britain were to no avail, and the British continued stopping American commercial John_Vanderlyn_-_James_Madison_-_Google_Art_Projectvessels at sea and impressing any seamen who looked and sounded British. President James Madison became convinced that more deliberate action was needed, and he lobbied Congress for a declaration of war against the most powerful nation on earth. Congress was reluctant, but Madison’s urging finally paid off with a divided vote in his favor, and he was able to sign a declaration of war on June 18, 1812.

The war that followed was not America’s most gallant. Initially, Britain ignored the declaration of war as something of a farce. America’s navy was hardly a threat to the British fleet. America decided to make the war more real through several invasions of Canada. All failed, despite a relative lack of support from Britain for the locals. Canadians celebrate the War of 1812 as their own War for Independence. Americans were the bad guys in that version of the war.

Once the British had defeated Napoleon’s troops in Europe, they were able to turn their attention to the annoying fuss across the pond. As you may recall, the British invaded Maryland, marched to the nation’s capital in Washington, trashed the city and burned the White House. You may Dolley_Madison_poster,_Orange,_VA_IMG_4298have read about FLOTUS Dolly Madison’s heroism as she stayed in the White House until she was able to rescue important documents and paintings–fleeing the city just ahead of the British firebugs.

So, all things considered, the war wasn’t going really well for the Americans. But I’m sure you know of the one shining exception: thanks in large part to singer Johnny Horton. The Battle of New Orleans, culminating on January 8, 1815, was America’s finest engagement in the war. Overwhelming British forces under the command of the great British general, Edward Pakenham, faced off against General Andrew Jackson and a smaller, less professional, less experienced American force.

newOrleansThe final score sheet for the battle was as lopsided as such things can be. The British lost 2600 men: 700 of them died in battle, 1400 were wounded, and another 500 were taken prisoner. On the other side, 7 Americans died and another 6 were wounded.

Another oddity about the January 8th, 1815, battle had to do with timing. Being fought 167 years before the advent of the internet, 110 years before television, and 43 years before the transatlantic telegraph cable, the Battle of New Orleans was fought two weeks after the Peace Treaty of Ghent ended the war.

.


Was the Problem Real?

What qualifies the War of 1812 for inclusion in this project? While the practice of impressment had been a “recruitment” policy for the British navy for centuries, American Independence saw treaty procedures for the return of any Americans falsely impressed in the belief that they were British. (The common language and lack of formal birth certificates made some degree of erroneous impressment inevitable.) John Deeben argues that the size of the problem was much less than commonly imagined. Moreover, he offers federal archival evidence that the United States was also impressing seamen into service and, like the British, made mistakes as regards the nationality of their new recruits.

In June, 1812, in response to American complaints, Britain repealed the “Orders in Council” that allowed them to board American ships at sea. Two days later, James Madison signed the declaration of war. Obviously the U. S. did not know about the suspension of the Orders until after war had been declared, but it was known before serious fighting began.

All historians seem to agree that the British stopped the practice of impressment altogether upon the defeat of Napoleon in 1814. Thus, the presumed cause of the war had completely disappeared prior to the invasion of Maryland, the burning of Washington, and the Battle of New Orleans. While impressment, real and imagined, may have been a key problem for which war was the intended solution, it ceased as a problem before the war commenced and was surely not a problem that could be solved by the most dramatic events of the war.


Negative Consequences

Well, let’s see: the British burned the White House and most of Washington. There was expense, destruction, and loss of life throughout the young nation.

While Britain may have learned to take the USA a little more seriously, Canada learned not to. Any visions the Americans had for annexing their northern neighbors were dashed in the War of 1812.

I mentioned earlier that President Madison had some trouble getting Congressional approval for the way, and the division of opinion was largely regional. New England was generally opposed, and the war’s conclusion left some bitter feelings on both sides of the issue. To some degree, the Southern hawks viewed Northern opposition as disloyalty to the nation.

The South suffered in another way. Prior to the war, they were able to maintain a view that their slaves were contented with their status. However, when the British offered freedom to any slaves who would join them, and many slaves deserted their masters and did precisely that. What must have been a disappointment to slaveholders was a preview to a similar disenchantment later on,  in the Civil War.

Compared to other American wars, the negative consequences of the War of 1812 were relatively mild, but we need to remember it was a solution to a problem that didn’t really exist.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

An excellent history of the War of 1812 is Troy Bickham’s The Weight of Vengeance: The United States, the British Empire, and the War of 1812, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Consequences of the War of 1812

SoluProb™: TRAP Laws

Let me know what you think 

nurses


Presumed Problem

Women seeking abortions in abortion clinics face special risks to their health and safety.


Solution

Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) Laws seek to remedy the presumed problem by requiring that clinics satisfy major physical-plant specifications and requiring that those physicians providing abortions have admitting privileges at a local hospital.


Narrative

In 1973, the U. S. Supreme Court legalized abortion throughout the nation in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision. While that brought about profound changes for women’s reproductive rights, it probably changed very few minds on the topic. Resistance to abortion has persisted and numerous legislative actions have sought to chip away at women’s right to choose an abortion.

One form this resistance has taken is the TRAP laws that raise the bar to corridor-with-gurneypractice so high that few clinics can satisfy the requirements. The Guttmacher Institute provides an overview.

While all abortion regulations apply to abortion clinics, some go so far as to apply to physicians’ offices where abortions are performed or even to sites where only medication abortion is administered. Most requirements apply states’ standards for ambulatory surgical centers to abortion clinics, even though surgical centers tend to provide more invasive and risky procedures and use higher levels of sedation. These standards often include requirements for the physical plant, such as room size and corridor width, beyond what is necessary to ensure patient safety in the event of an emergency. State standards, however, do vary, with the most burdensome standards in place in states such as Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.

Prior to the institution of TRAP laws in Texas, the state’s women had access of 36 abortion providers scattered across the very large state. The website, Fund Texas Women, provides this update:

As of June 9, 2015, the Fifth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of HB2 except as applied to Whole Woman’s Health McAllen. This leaves 10 clinics. The only cities that have clinics now are Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, and McAllen.

Texas has not been alone in anti-abortion legislation. Bloomberg News offers a visual report on the number of anti-abortion measures in state legislatures over time. They are clearly on the increase.

anti-abortion-laws


Was the Problem Real?

There has evidently been a substantial concern for the safety of women getting an abortion. Has that concern and the resulting solutions been justified?

As the Center for Reproductive Rights reports:

Leading medical associations have gone on record opposing TRAP requirements. For example, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) oppose a Texas law requiring abortion facilities to meet ambulatory surgical facilities requirements and physicians providing abortion services to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. In a court brief, those two leading medical associations argued that the Texas law “does not serve the health of women in Texas but instead jeopardizes women’s health by restricting access to abortion providers.”

While it is often argued that women’s safety requires that abortion clinics and abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals in the ambulanceevent that emergency medical care is needed. Actually, President Reagan and the U. S. Congress solved this problem in its Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) of 1986, requiring that emergency rooms treat patients in need–even if they aren’t citizens or are unable to pay. It doesn’t matter if their physician has admitting privileges or even if they have a physician.

The argument that TRAP laws have nothing to do with women’s safety and are merely an attempt to prevent them from getting abortions has been given additional support  by the pronouncements of various anti-abortion crusaders.

For example, in 2011, Ohio Right to Life executive director, Mike Gonidakis, said precisely that. NARAL has provided a transcript from the video recording:

We’re going to introduce a law in Ohio that any facility that performs… five abortions or more in a year have to meet the same standards as a hospital… to the point where they’re not going to be able to stay open…We’ve been chipping away and closing and closing and closing, and if we get this legislation we can close a whole heck of a lot more.

Mississippi Governor Bryant heralded the passage of his state’s TRAP laws as “the first step in a movement, I believe, to do what we campaigned on: to say that we’re going to try to end abortion in Mississippi.” The law was later blocked by a federal judge, who pointed out that no case had been made regarding women’s health and safety.

Ironically, abortions can pose a threat to the health and safety of women, as this graph from the Guttmacher Institute dramatically shows.

 abortion-mortality-graph
In 1965, 200 women died of illegal abortions. Following the liberalization of state laws on abortion and, finally, the federal legalization of abortion by Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion mortality dropped off to virtually nothing. As long as abortion is legal, there is virtually no threat to women’s health and safety, while driving us back to earlier times would very likely start killing women again.

Negative Consequences

I’ve just alluded to a major problem flowing from the unnecessary TRAP laws: to the extent that shutting down legal abortion providers will force some women to seek truly dangerous alternatives. Thus alleged attempts to protect women will endanger them.

For women who try to adapt to the restrictive circumstances they now face, there will be necessary time and financial costs. Single mothers working low-paying jobs, for example, may need to take time off work to drive a hundred or so miles for consultation and then again, later, for treatment.

The clear effect of TRAP laws in Texas and elsewhere is to make it harder for women to obtain safe, legal abortions. A study by the University of Texas at Austin, summarized the logistical difficulty for Texas women this way:

Researchers analyzed surveys from 398 women seeking abortions at ten Texas abortion facilities between May and August 2014. The analysis shows that women whose nearest clinic had closed after HB2, which was the case for 38 percent of study participants, lived farther from open clinics and traveled longer distances to obtain services compared to women whose nearest clinic remained open. After HB2, the average one-way distance to the nearest abortion provider among women whose nearest clinic closed was 70 miles, compared to an average one-way distance to the nearest clinic of 17 miles before HB2 was passed. Some women confronted extreme travel burdens due to clinic closures, with 25 percent of women whose nearest clinic closed living more than 139 miles from the nearest facility and 10 percent living more than 256 miles away.

However, the Texas TRAP laws were not just inconvenient for women but expensive as well.

The study also documented increased out-of-pocket costs, overnight stays, and frustrated demand for medication abortion among women whose nearest clinic closed after HB2. Thirty-two percent of women whose nearest clinic closed reported spending more than $100 in out-of-pocket expenses beyond the cost of the abortion (i.e., lost wages, child care, transportation, or overnight costs) as opposed to 20 percent of women whose nearest clinic did not close. More than three times the number of women whose nearest clinic had closed reported needing to stay overnight (16 percent compared to 5 percent among those whose nearest clinic did not close). Thirty-seven percent of women whose nearest clinic closed did not get the medication abortion they wanted—instead scheduling a surgical procedure—as opposed to 22 percent of women whose nearest clinic did not close. Women themselves noted the burdens to obtaining care, with 36 percent of women whose nearest clinic closed reporting that obtaining an abortion was difficult, in comparison to 18 percent in the nearest-clinic-open group.

This is also a truly ironic negative consequence of many of the TRAP laws. Much of the anti-imageabortion anger has been focused specifically on one provider: Planned Parenthood. Discussions of this matter have revealed that abortions constitute three percent of PP’s services. Primarily they offer cancer screening and other medcal exams and treatments. As their name suggests, much of their work is in relation to family planning, offering a variety of contraceptive methods.

As Planned Parenthood clinics are closed by TRAP laws, women are denied contraceptive support. The lack of contraception results in more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. This means more women are in the market for abortions. The Guttmacher Institute has estimated that publicly-funded family planning in the U. S. annually prevents nearly two million wanted pregnancies that would have resulted in 810,000 abortions.  Thus, closing family planning clinics will likely increase the number of abortions.

If one were to argue honestly that the real problem being addressed was women’s ability to obtain abortions as guaranteed by the Supreme Court, TRAP laws would be a logical though unlawful solution. However, the pretense that the problem involves risks to women’s safety in abortion clinics is plainly false.

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy


Sources

“State Policies in Brief, as of March 4, 2016: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers”  – accessed March 19, 2016 http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_TRAP.pdf

Videoclip: Saturday Morning Public Forum Featuring Guest Speaker Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director of Ohio Right to Life on Pending Ohio Legislation Including the Heartbeat Bill.” March 12, 2011 at http://www.youtube.com/user/AMFANEdu#p/a/u/2/MKcgxljoe40 (last visited Nov. 6, 2015, also on file with NARAL Pro-Choice America).

Rich Phillips, “Judge lets Mississippi’s only abortion clinic stay open — for now,” CNN, 11 July 2012, accessed 26 July 2012, <http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/us/mississippi-abortion-
The graph of declining abortion mortality is taken from https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html
Clare Coleman, “Five Myths about Planned Parenthood,” Washington Post, April 15, 2011 – https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-planned-parenthood/2011/04/14/AFogj1iD_story.html
Estimates of abortions prevented by family planning is found in http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/23/
FiveThirtyEight map of TRAP Law states is found at http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/maps-of-access-to-abortion-by-state/
A report of  the University of Texas study of the impact of abortion clinic closing can be found at http://www.utexas.edu/cola/txpep/releases/impact-of-clinic-closures-release-.php

You Can Help End SoluProbs™

Let me know what you think 

black-voters

Want to help make the fight against SoluProbs a reality? As this website  is being launched in late-April, 2016, it should be regarded as a Beta version of what it will become, and your help is needed for it to evolve. (I’m asking for your ideas, not your money.)

Welcome aboard. Here are ways to help. 

First, listed at the bottom of this page are some SoluProbs I am considering for future posts. Your observations, knowledge, and comments about any are encouraged and welcomed. Your input can make a difference helping to shape our articles and spread the word.

Second, I am especially interested in identifying SoluProbs that have escaped my attention. I know they are out there. I encourage you to suggest new SoluProbs with a Comment at the bottom of this page, or make a more structured suggestion, using the Join the SoluProbs Team section provided in the right column of this page.  Join our growing team and help spread the word. Your participation in this growing community makes a difference, and is welcomed.

Third, if you want to try your hand at drafting a SoluProbs article, or just provide the details to the degree you are aware of them, the outline to the right provides the format that helps pull it all together. Using the outline, remember the key elements of a SoluProb are:

  • A presumed problem, such as voter impersonation in polling places that, in truth, is not a real problem.
  • A solution to the presumed problem, such as Voter ID laws.
  • Empirical evidence that the “problem” does/did not exist, such as the several studies indicating voter impersonation in polling places almost never happens. Empirical evidence matters, a pillar of our principled approach to raising awareness.
  • A background narrative, that provides context, history, and  discussion of the presumed problem that led up to the “solution,” how, when, and where the “solution was implemented, and anything else that fleshes out the story to help readers make sense of it.  And finally…
  • Negative consequences of the “solution.” This is the meat that matters, why it is important for all of us to raise our cultural awareness that ultimately affects public policy decisions that can help or harm society. Identifying the true, often horrifying consequences to individuals and society is necessary to reach inside of people, have them care, and take action that brings forward more enlightened, constructive, and healing social policy.

Any Comments you make will be automatically posted. I will review your more extensive submissions and, as appropriate, post exactly what you submitted or ask if you are interested in co-authoring a more extensive treatment.

Subscription: If you would like to stay in touch with this discussion, please use the subscription form to sign up for periodic notices.

Working together, I am confident we can shame this lunacy into remission, help our society Stop Shooting at Ghosts, and bring about more enlightened, constructive public policy.   

If you have any questions, just ask. If you want to share your thoughts or throw yourself into a SoluProbs article, go for it. Welcome aboard and thank you for taking action. Tell your friends. 

So I invite your participation and partnership. For now, here are some of the SoluProbs I am considering and/or working on.

 


North_Vietnamese_P-4_under_fire_from_USS_Maddox_(2_August_1964)Presumed Problem: Vietnam attacked the American Navy at Tonkin Bay

SoluProb: Vietnam Escalation by USA

 


usa-mexico-mapPresumed Problem:  Mexicans and others are pouring over our Southern border

SoluProb: The Trump Wall


posterPresumed Problem: If women enjoy sex, they will be promiscuous

SoluProb: Female Genital Mutilation


keep-syrians-outPresumed Problem: Terrorists will enter the USA pretending to be refugees

SoluProb: Block Syrian Refugees


used-clothesPresumed Problem: Foster Parents use clothing allowances for drugs

SoluProb: Make Foster Kids use thrift shops


boypeeringPresumed Problem: The Federal government is dictating what students should learn

SoluProb: Dump Common Core

 


Again, your thoughts and further participation with these soluprobs and any that I have not yet identified, are welcomed. Together, we can help our society and its public policy makers stop chasing ghosts and ease the enormous human suffering these misguided “solutions” cause.   

© Earl Babbie 2016, all rights reserved  Terms of Service/Privacy