The Intern's Bailiwick

Following the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, I posted this graph from The Atlantic with a critique on the poor data analysis employed (my original post was titled: “Where to Go Wrong with the Causes of Gun Violence, Or, Why the Above Graph is Less Useful Than it Looks”). I concluded the post with:

It would be problematic to conclude from these data, for instance, that mental illness has no significant correlation with gun violence - in fact, it may well be that while there is an elevated risk of gun violence among people with serious mental illnesses, the United States has such an uncommonly high rate of gun deaths that the severity of numerous other factors obscure mental illness as a strong cause here. The point is there are far more accurate and less misleading ways of investigating these factors on the individual level, and in a way that can actually establish causal relationships. This isn’t it.

In the wake of tragedies like the Aurora and Tuscon shootings, we should of course always strive for reasoned discourse about how we can try to prevent future gun violence. But sensitivity and careful deliberation are of utmost importance in these kinds of policy debates: both out of respect to the victims and their families, and to avoid allowing emotions to cloud our judgement and evaluation of rhetoric and data.

Details are still emerging from today’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But as we enter into reflection and policy debate, we must strive to be informed and discriminating producers and consumers of information. That can be a difficult task in today’s information environment.

timekiller-s:

istealforksfromrestaurants:

Hi Tumblr, it’s me, a slightly older person…

I see a lot of you 20 somethings saying things about how you aren’t going to choose the lesser of two evils and that their policy on important matters are identical so what’s the point they’re both stooges for Wall Street and the Industrial War Complex. 

You are right. Kind of. 

I know y’all LOVE the 90’s. Me too. And I remember after after eight years of Clinton/Gore, I thought those motherfuckers were the devil. I was soooooooooooo upset with Bill Clinton waving his deregulation wand and his fucked foreign policy that I was all FUCK THE DEMOCRATS and I strongly advocated for Ralph Nader, even though he too didn’t really care about my “gonad politics.” Even when not choosing between the “lesser of two evils,” I was STILL having to compromise major issues. 

Having been an adult person through 8 years of Clinton/Gore and 8 years through Bush/Cheney, I can tell you without a shred of hesitation that I will line up like my ass is on fire to vote for the lesser of two evils because the greater of two evils almost had us all living outside and eating dog food. 

And if you think that a Romney presidency won’t be worse than Bush/Cheney, you are out of your mind. 

I am fucking begging all of you, please, go vote. Aside from the fact that far more dangerous things are happening on your local level, (like collective bargaining being taken away in Illinois) this shit does matter. 

If you think voting for Obama is the lesser of two evils, you’re wrong, it’s the lesser of three because not voting IS voting for Romney. Not voting is voting for dickbag judges that sentence people to jail in counties that have privatized prisons for minor drug infractions. Not voting is voting to remove pensions and collective bargaining and the last shreds of union power from the people. Not voting this election is voting for Feudalism.

Go vote. 

Now pardon me, there’s some damn kids on my lawn and they want candy. 

Bold emphasis is placed by me.

Shout-out to all of the 6 and 7 supporter ID’s out there: wake up.

(via apsies)

Follow-up to the last post: Col. Larry Wilkerson, W&M professor and chief of staff to Colin Powell during the Bush administration, making his default facial expression on the front page of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” website.