Monthly Archives: September 2010

Scouting the personal lives of umpires

Posted on by

The Toronto Blue Jays may be the forerunners of a new trend: including personal information in the scouting of umpires and officials by sports teams. Here is the rationale behind the gathering of personal information:

It’s not meant to curry favor or influence calls but rather to humanize the umpires. In fact, veteran Toronto catcher John Buck, who says he had already gotten to know most of them during his six seasons with the Royals, says he makes a conscious effort to be personable but professional with the umpires…

Of course, what’s most pertinent is the research on each umpire’s tendencies. One such report included a head shot, a short bio with age, education and hometown, and the strike-zone traits for each umpire working a particular series.

I could see this catching on – as the Blue Jays suggest, this is an information age and it would be easy to compile reports about all officials.

However, baseball umpires have always held positions very distinct from players and coaches. How would they respond to these efforts by teams to humanize them? For officials in all sports, couldn’t this humanization be seen as a threat to their partiality?

The changing meaning of eavesdropping

Posted on by

A number of academics comment in a USA Today story about how the concept of eavesdropping is changing. One change that I have noticed myself: one often can’t avoid eavesdropping on cell phone calls, particularly in smaller spaces like trains. A second change: compared to the past, more people are sharing more information on sites like Facebook.

IMF warns of social consequences of global recession

Posted on by

A new report from the International Monetary Fund and the International Labour Federation suggests the recent global economic crisis could lead to social instability:

A joint IMF-ILO report said 30m jobs had been lost since the crisis, three quarters in richer economies. Global unemployment has reached 210m. “The Great Recession has left gaping wounds. High and long-lasting unemployment represents a risk to the stability of existing democracies,” it said.

The study cited evidence that victims of recession in their early twenties suffer lifetime damage and lose faith in public institutions. A new twist is an apparent decline in the “employment intensity of growth” as rebounding output requires fewer extra workers. As such, it may be hard to re-absorb those laid off even if recovery gathers pace. The world must create 45m jobs a year for the next decade just to tread water.

The Telegraph headline say this social instability was termed a “social explosion.”

So what kind of social consequences are these groups talking about? A number of commentators have noted how such recessions affect future behaviors, particularly among younger generations who become scarred by such experiences. But when a term like “social explosion” is used, it suggests images like riots, labor strikes, labor demonstrations, perhaps even the collapse of democracies in the face of pressure from angry citizens. In the United States, it is hard to imagine this. (Indeed, it is an interesting question to ask: what would have to happen for a majority of Americans to participate in more demonstrative collective action?) Even the Great Depression didn’t lead to many violent or excessive disruptions (or at least the history books don’t discuss much of this).

I wonder how much of this language is prompted by particular political viewpoints. The Telegraph hints at this:

“Most advanced countries should not tighten fiscal policies before 2011: tightening sooner could undermine recovery,” said the report, rebuking Britain’s Coalition, Germany’s austerity hawks, and US Republicans. Under French socialist Strauss-Kahn, the IMF has assumed a Keynesian flavour.

The whole situation bears watching – how will average citizens respond?

From corn syrup to corn sugar to boost image

Posted on by

The Corn Refiners Association is putting in a request to the Food and Drug Administration to change the name of “corn syrup” to “corn sugar.” This rebranding is being done to help shed the image that consuming corn syrup increases the likelihood of obesity.

Apparently, there is some precedent for changing a name like this. Ever heard of “low eurcic acid rapeseed oil”? Once renamed “canola oil,” sales apparently picked up.

If this name change goes through, how long before those opposed to corn syrup start a campaign against corn sugar? I wonder how much time the Corn Refiners Association thinks they can buy.

“I was lovin’ it”: battling over fast food

Posted on by

McDonald’s is a favorite target for those opposed to fast-food culture and typical American eating patterns. Amidst discussions in many municipalities about allowing fast-food restaurants, a new advertisement to run in Washington, D.C. adds to the debate:

In the commercial, produced by the nonprofit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a woman weeps over a dead man lying in a morgue. In his hand is a hamburger. At the end, the golden arches appear over his feet, followed by the words, “I was lovin’ it,” a play on McDonald’s longtime ad slogan, “I’m lovin’ it.” A voiceover says, “High cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart attacks. Tonight, make it vegetarian.”

Americans tend to eat a lot of fast food: Gallup found in 2006 that 23% of Americans eat fast food several times a week or more with another 33% claiming to eat fast food about once a week.

Another option being discussed would allow for extra taxes on fast food and soft drinks. In another survey, Harris found “Over half of Americans (56%) are opposed to [an obesity] tax going into effect with two in five (42%) being strongly opposed. Three in ten (31%) support this tax being imposed.” There were some differences: people living in the South and Midwest or with lower incomes or with less education were more opposed to such measures.

Trying to figure out why crime rates are down

Posted on by

Crime rates are down but experts are having difficulty figuring out exactly why:

There are no neat answers. Among the theories: As overall economic activity slows, more people who otherwise would be at work are unemployed and at home, and when they do travel they are not as likely to carry items of value, so burglaries and street robberies decline.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, when the economy went south crime rates went up. Inflation was high then, low now. Is that the difference? For the experts, it’s back to the drawing board.

A couple of thoughts:

1. In a large system like American society, it can be very difficult to isolate individual or even small groups of factors that are causing the downward trend in crime. Some might take this as evidence that social scientists can’t figure anything out about society. I would suggest that it simply illustrates how complex social life can be.

2. Perhaps like the economy, politicians will get credit for crime going down and get blamed if crime goes up even if policies had little known effect on these changes.

3. Across American society, do the American people perceive that crime has gone down? While the statistics say it has, do people feel safer? This is an issue of how crime is portrayed and whether individuals accept these societal-level figures (if they even ever see them) over anecdotal evidence.

Intellectuals and football: two objections and two points of defense

Posted on by

Hampton Stevens discusses the frequent dismissal of football by intellectuals (like those who believe “the game is a malevolent force in American life”) and how one might defend the game.

Stevens points out two common objections: the games don’t really matter compared to more important things and that it is violent. In response, Stevens argues that “Sports are a refuge from real-world problems—and a place to release all the angst they cause” and “Football tells us that violence can be beautiful when performed for the sake of a greater good.”

To me, all the four points, two from intellectuals, two from Stevens, sound reasonable. To be a real fan doesn’t mean that one can’t point out some of the issues with football. A dividing line for me would be when fandom moves beyond an occasional escape from the real world and becomes an obstacle to accomplishing important things in life. Similarly, football may be a good outlet for violence but going so far as to glorify this sort of behavior as the only true form of masculinity is shortsighted.

Paying attention to Presidential reading lists

Posted on by

Americans are apparently interested in what the President reads.

A question: who exactly is interested? On the whole, many Americans read very little and these numbers grow among the younger generation. Tevi Troy argues, “We as Americans seem to like the notion that our presidents are reading more than just their daily briefing books — especially since, we assume, their busy schedules make it hard to find reading time.” So we expect more reading from our President than what many Americans are willing to do themselves?

Another question (perhaps too cynical): how much is the Presidential “reading list” just an opportunity to help shape an image?

A roundup of views on “supercharged Wi-Fi”

Posted on by

Federal regulators are about to open up more of the wireless spectrum for Wi-Fi use – but commentators disagree about who will benefit most. Google and other big companies? Consumers? Rural areas? Cities? Read a useful round-up here.

On list of generous nations, US ranks 5th

Posted on by

Gallup has released “The World Giving Index 2010” and the United States is tied for fifth with Switzerland and behind Australia and New Zealand (tied for first) and Ireland and Canada (tied for third).

It looks like respondents were asked whether they did three things within the past month: gave money to an organization, volunteered for an organization, or helped someone they didn’t know.

Gallup suggests “the level of satisfaction or happiness of the population is emerging as the key driver for increasing the giving of money.” They also argue there could be “a positive cycle of giving” where happier people give to others who then are more likely to give.

I would be interested to know how much a country’s culture affects this. Are there certain societal traits that lead to more giving? Or are there certain economic and governmental structures that encourage more giving?