We have warned our readers in past blogs (Poll Data) to be wary of figures reported to be the results of a public poll until you know how the questions were asked. In USA Today the paper reports the results of a recent poll with the following "table."
"Who wins? What group of Americans will get the most benefits from the tax-cut bill, if one is signed into law?
The poor: 6%
The Middle Class: 17%
The Wealthy: 64% "
It would be helpful to know what dollar value was used (or if any was used) to define the meaning of "the poor" or the other two categories. The paper also reports three "volunteered" categories of Everybody, Nobody, and Undecided/Refused, but do not tell readers how the "volunteered" responses were obtained (were they responses from those who did not answer in terms of the three established categories, or were they in addition to established category responses). This kind of table and this kind of "data" reporting would never make it through an introductory research methods course in sociology, but USA Today thinks it is fine for their readers.
Monday, December 11, 2017
Swamp Rats
Robert noticed in todays newspaper of calls for continued investigations of Trump and associates by Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. The Senator is a frequent guest on evening and Sunday news shows. What is never mentioned by the media is the fact that in the recent past Senator Blumenthal has lied about his service in Vietnam, and his achievements while he was there. As best I could determine, the Senator never was in Vietnam in any capacity. His main achievement during the Vietnam War was to obtain five deferments from his draft board. Apparently this never bothered the voters in Connecticut who elected him to be their Senator.
I think that the people of Connecticut should get together with the people of Alabama and have a discussion about who is in their swamps.
Update, 12/13/17: The citizens of Alabama have started to drain their swamp. Will the citizens of Connecticut do the same?
Update, 1/29/18: On NPR this morning Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut was calling for the impeachment of Trump, which he has every right to do. But why does the media not give him credit for being a draft evader and for lying about his military service. We need to know who is speaking, whether they had KKK backgrounds or were draft evaders and liars.
I think that the people of Connecticut should get together with the people of Alabama and have a discussion about who is in their swamps.
Update, 12/13/17: The citizens of Alabama have started to drain their swamp. Will the citizens of Connecticut do the same?
Update, 1/29/18: On NPR this morning Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut was calling for the impeachment of Trump, which he has every right to do. But why does the media not give him credit for being a draft evader and for lying about his military service. We need to know who is speaking, whether they had KKK backgrounds or were draft evaders and liars.
Sunday, December 3, 2017
Perps' Profile:Early Warnings or Apple Pie
We have identified thirty-six men who have been accused of some form of sexual harassment. In order to get ahead of the rush to judgement we have decided to take a look at their personal and professional lives to see if there are any strong similarities that could serve as "warning signs" of what would come. Working from available public profiles, we looked at their early years as boys and young men, looking for evidence of early troubles at home or at school. We turned next to their post-college years in order to examine their career paths, searching for evidence of ordinary professional lives, or early indications of "young stars" on the move. In short, we looked at the normal profiles of events that occur over the life course and that have been a part of all of their lives.
Concerning age, the Perps are neither randy Millenials nor over-active Octagenarians. They are mostly middle-age men with ages between the upper 40s and mid-60s. This age category is probably closely correlated with their careers and the opportunities they have to oversee those who work with them and for them.
In their early lives, they were mostly raised in conventional middle-class families, often with parents who were both employed in stable careers. We found only one case of what could be called a dysfunctional family. As young adults, only about 30 percent entered into conventional marriages, and as a result there are not many children of these Perp parents.
There is no evidence of extensive early socialization with religion. Only one-third provide any evidence of religious up-bringing, and in these cases 10 Perps report being Jewish and 3 Christian. The absence of information about religious preference in the biographical material suggests that most had little or no religious preference.
There is an indication of involvement in selective early education, usually in so-called Academies aimed at being college-prep schools. Beyond the high school prep years, well over one-half of the Perps (25) obtained a college degree, with less than one-half (11) having graduated from an elite college or university.
The careers of the Perps are primarily in journalism, TV production, and animation. Contrary to expectations, there is no evidence of their having received a "leg up" in their careers or having done anything other than high quality professional work. There is evidence of their professional achievements in the form of having shows nominated for professional awards. In short, their professional careers reflect continuous efforts to produce high quality journalism, films, or TV shows.
If the Perps are high achievers, they probably enjoyed the high regard of their professional colleagues. Why, then, would they believe that is was acceptable to use their positions to intimidate women working with or for them to act in ways that resulted in sexual harassment? The answer to this question would require an examination of the culture of these workplaces in the entertainment and television industries.
Concerning age, the Perps are neither randy Millenials nor over-active Octagenarians. They are mostly middle-age men with ages between the upper 40s and mid-60s. This age category is probably closely correlated with their careers and the opportunities they have to oversee those who work with them and for them.
In their early lives, they were mostly raised in conventional middle-class families, often with parents who were both employed in stable careers. We found only one case of what could be called a dysfunctional family. As young adults, only about 30 percent entered into conventional marriages, and as a result there are not many children of these Perp parents.
There is no evidence of extensive early socialization with religion. Only one-third provide any evidence of religious up-bringing, and in these cases 10 Perps report being Jewish and 3 Christian. The absence of information about religious preference in the biographical material suggests that most had little or no religious preference.
There is an indication of involvement in selective early education, usually in so-called Academies aimed at being college-prep schools. Beyond the high school prep years, well over one-half of the Perps (25) obtained a college degree, with less than one-half (11) having graduated from an elite college or university.
The careers of the Perps are primarily in journalism, TV production, and animation. Contrary to expectations, there is no evidence of their having received a "leg up" in their careers or having done anything other than high quality professional work. There is evidence of their professional achievements in the form of having shows nominated for professional awards. In short, their professional careers reflect continuous efforts to produce high quality journalism, films, or TV shows.
If the Perps are high achievers, they probably enjoyed the high regard of their professional colleagues. Why, then, would they believe that is was acceptable to use their positions to intimidate women working with or for them to act in ways that resulted in sexual harassment? The answer to this question would require an examination of the culture of these workplaces in the entertainment and television industries.
Sunday, November 19, 2017
Greed is Good: Use It or Lose It
In a 2014 article published in Sociological Forum (March 2014) we quoted Gordon Gecko, the lead character in the movie Wall Street, who was telling an assembled audience of stockholders that what makes our economy strong and vibrant is "greed." We propose to harness that greed by letting Gordon Gecko be Gordon Gecko, and give him the social honor of recognizing that his wealth and lavish life style do contribute, however indirectly, to the public good. Moreover, we propose to create
entrepreneurial projects or philanthropic gifts for the common good that the Geckos of the world might embrace under a heading of "targeted opportunity philanthropy" (TOP). In this proposal we would link wealthy donors with specific projects like college tuition endowments for talented students from low-income families; support for students to attend non-college technology programs; rebuilding schools in poor neighborhoods; and second-chance programs for school dropouts and ex-offenders.
But, and it is a big but, we propose that a major portion of the accumulated wealth that Gecko does not consume or give away in his lifetime via targeted opportunity endowments must be returned to the public treasury upon his death. In short, use it or lose it. There is much more to this proposal including the creation of a Family Inheritance Court to allocate some of Gecko's unspent wealth to family members. What the proposal prevents is the creation of family dynasties that allows wealth to be transferred across generations.
If you want to know more about our "use it or lose it" proposal we encourage you to read the article in Sociological Forum.
entrepreneurial projects or philanthropic gifts for the common good that the Geckos of the world might embrace under a heading of "targeted opportunity philanthropy" (TOP). In this proposal we would link wealthy donors with specific projects like college tuition endowments for talented students from low-income families; support for students to attend non-college technology programs; rebuilding schools in poor neighborhoods; and second-chance programs for school dropouts and ex-offenders.
But, and it is a big but, we propose that a major portion of the accumulated wealth that Gecko does not consume or give away in his lifetime via targeted opportunity endowments must be returned to the public treasury upon his death. In short, use it or lose it. There is much more to this proposal including the creation of a Family Inheritance Court to allocate some of Gecko's unspent wealth to family members. What the proposal prevents is the creation of family dynasties that allows wealth to be transferred across generations.
If you want to know more about our "use it or lose it" proposal we encourage you to read the article in Sociological Forum.
Friday, November 10, 2017
On being an "outsider": From Ike to Trump
We were recently discussing the possible reasons why the media seem to be so hard on Trump, and why he has responded in kind. Thinking about past presidents it occurred to us that former presidents like Eisenhower, Truman, and Carter also had strained relations with the media. Why would that be the case, and what might it have to do with Trump? Our speculations took us to a view of Eisenhower, Truman, Carter, and Trump as "political outsiders;" that is, they did not have political careers that would have properly "socialized" them for their new job. If you have a political career in Washington, DC, you would have learned about the proper respect that should be shown to media elites, and the conventions of Congress and the proper respect that is shown to persons in various leadership positions.
Lacking this prior political socialization people like "Ike" Eisenhower were treated as a "mental midget" when he first assumed he could be president of Columbia University. How could he possibly become the leader of this elite university when he lacked any academic credentials that might give him credibility with the faculty? Moreover, he had the audacity to want to become President of the United States. The media somehow didn't give him credit for leading the Allied invasion of Europe and driving the German Army out of Western Europe.
Next we have Harry Truman, who had the misfortune to be Vice President when a beloved President (who was a political careerist) died in office. The press frequently reminded us that Truman was a "haberdasher" from some Podunk town in the Midwest. When they weren't beating up on Truman, the media focused on his daughter Margaret's musical talents, and reported that she had none. Truman's experiences with the media led him to refer to them as "prostitutes of the mind."
And then there is Jimmy Carter, who could not escape the fact that he was a rube peanut farmer, and totally out of his element in Washington. Rarely mentioned was the fact that the "rube" had a degree in nuclear engineering, but then, he talked funny.
So we offer the theory that what Trump has in common with Eisenhower, Truman, and Carter, is that he is a "political outsider" who has not learned the tribal customs of the political and media elites. As an "outsider" he is fair game for the media and the careerist politicians to reject someone who is not a political careerist.
Now it is your turn. See if you can apply this theory to your favorite past presidents.
Lacking this prior political socialization people like "Ike" Eisenhower were treated as a "mental midget" when he first assumed he could be president of Columbia University. How could he possibly become the leader of this elite university when he lacked any academic credentials that might give him credibility with the faculty? Moreover, he had the audacity to want to become President of the United States. The media somehow didn't give him credit for leading the Allied invasion of Europe and driving the German Army out of Western Europe.
Next we have Harry Truman, who had the misfortune to be Vice President when a beloved President (who was a political careerist) died in office. The press frequently reminded us that Truman was a "haberdasher" from some Podunk town in the Midwest. When they weren't beating up on Truman, the media focused on his daughter Margaret's musical talents, and reported that she had none. Truman's experiences with the media led him to refer to them as "prostitutes of the mind."
And then there is Jimmy Carter, who could not escape the fact that he was a rube peanut farmer, and totally out of his element in Washington. Rarely mentioned was the fact that the "rube" had a degree in nuclear engineering, but then, he talked funny.
So we offer the theory that what Trump has in common with Eisenhower, Truman, and Carter, is that he is a "political outsider" who has not learned the tribal customs of the political and media elites. As an "outsider" he is fair game for the media and the careerist politicians to reject someone who is not a political careerist.
Now it is your turn. See if you can apply this theory to your favorite past presidents.
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Sociology and Science
When Robert was a graduate student his major research professor would often say: There is only one field of sociology that has any chance of having standing as a science. What was it and why? It was demography, and the reason was that they didn't talk to people, they only counted them.
When sociologists interview people or ask them to complete a questionnaire you are learning about their opinions, beliefs, and recollections, all of which are unstable and questionable as real data. The only possible way out of this dilemma is to measure something that is more stable like a person's education or income, and then compare persons with such "structural" differences on their opinions, beliefs, etc.
Unfortunately, a great deal of sociological research today is based solely on recollections, beliefs, and attitudes, and often comparisons are made about what people report that they believed at different points in times ---not exactly what we would call "hard data." The only solution is to pay less attention to people and what they say, and more attention to the collective products of what people create--that is, their social institutions, like their educational system, or their economy, or their criminal justice system.
The sociological study of social institutions may be the best way to move beyond what people say and to realize some of the advantages of demography.
When sociologists interview people or ask them to complete a questionnaire you are learning about their opinions, beliefs, and recollections, all of which are unstable and questionable as real data. The only possible way out of this dilemma is to measure something that is more stable like a person's education or income, and then compare persons with such "structural" differences on their opinions, beliefs, etc.
Unfortunately, a great deal of sociological research today is based solely on recollections, beliefs, and attitudes, and often comparisons are made about what people report that they believed at different points in times ---not exactly what we would call "hard data." The only solution is to pay less attention to people and what they say, and more attention to the collective products of what people create--that is, their social institutions, like their educational system, or their economy, or their criminal justice system.
The sociological study of social institutions may be the best way to move beyond what people say and to realize some of the advantages of demography.
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
What is in the swamp: Lobbyists or Bureaucrats?
When Trump was running for President he made much of his intention to "drain the swamp." Robert had always assumed that he meant a swamp full of lobbyists. In contrast, Carolyn believed that what he had in mind were the thousands of low-level and mid-level bureaucrats that every new President hires as a way to say "thank you" to his biggest campaign contributors. So we both now believe Trump's "swamp" is filled with the thousands of newly hired people in the State Department, Department of Defense, Commerce Department, and the dozens of other departments that make up the continuing bureaucratic structures of government, those who stay while Presidents come and go. Others may have called Trump's "swamp" by different names, like the "deep state" or the "permanent government," but we now believe that they are all referring to the same thing.
By almost any measure, Trump has been slower than any of the recent Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Bush) in filling top-spot and second-spot jobs at 20 agencies. It is not clear if this represents his "swamp cleaning" efforts or simply poor administration. We would like to get more information on the thousands of positions below the top spots, because this is where we will find evidence of the existence of a permanent government. So, there is more work to be done on this question.
We are back. It is not easy finding the number of bureaucratic-type employees in the federal government. Using the Internet, we found out that there are 2.7 million federal civilian employees, from "janitors to judges" as they put it. We are more interested in how many janitors and judges are employed and what are there salaries. The best we could do was to determine that the "entry level" salary for cabinet and cabinet-ranked officials is $205,700. So, it is back to the drawing board. Please send us your information on these questions, as well as ideas for using the internet to uncover the data that is needed.
Update, 11/18/17. On the swamp-draining front. Tonight's TV news reported great anxiety among employees of the State Department about the possibility of "cuts" in personnel in the near future. A spokesperson for the State Department expressed great concern about these rumors and spoke at great length of the importance of the work done by all members of the State Department to further the goals of the United States. The news reporter also commented that the State Department has 25 thousand employees around the world. That is a lot of bureaucrats in the swamp, which obviously extends beyond DC. Stay tuned!
By almost any measure, Trump has been slower than any of the recent Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Bush) in filling top-spot and second-spot jobs at 20 agencies. It is not clear if this represents his "swamp cleaning" efforts or simply poor administration. We would like to get more information on the thousands of positions below the top spots, because this is where we will find evidence of the existence of a permanent government. So, there is more work to be done on this question.
We are back. It is not easy finding the number of bureaucratic-type employees in the federal government. Using the Internet, we found out that there are 2.7 million federal civilian employees, from "janitors to judges" as they put it. We are more interested in how many janitors and judges are employed and what are there salaries. The best we could do was to determine that the "entry level" salary for cabinet and cabinet-ranked officials is $205,700. So, it is back to the drawing board. Please send us your information on these questions, as well as ideas for using the internet to uncover the data that is needed.
Update, 11/18/17. On the swamp-draining front. Tonight's TV news reported great anxiety among employees of the State Department about the possibility of "cuts" in personnel in the near future. A spokesperson for the State Department expressed great concern about these rumors and spoke at great length of the importance of the work done by all members of the State Department to further the goals of the United States. The news reporter also commented that the State Department has 25 thousand employees around the world. That is a lot of bureaucrats in the swamp, which obviously extends beyond DC. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)