Professor at my school put these outside his door
when i was in middle school, my dad taught me to swing an axe. we had a lot of trees in our backyard, and whenever we had a storm, my dad would have to go out and sever half-fallen branches with his chainsaw, and in between storms, he’d survey the trees and periodically remove trees or branches that he deemed a risk in future storms.
once those trees or tree parts came down, he’d have to chop them up to make them useable, or at least make them not in the middle of the backyard. that’s where my brothers and i came in. my dad sold us learning to chop wood as a “life skill”, but really, it was just exhausting to have to split all of those logs himself. regardless, my dad wanted us to do it, so we were into it. also: what’s more badass than chopping wood, really?
by the time i got to high school, i was used to the routine of being summoned to take a shift behind the axe, being mocked for being so weak by my brothers, and carting split wood up to the house. high school was also when my mom and i started arguing more. i wasn’t turning out the way she’d expected or wanted me to, and we were both a little resentful of each other.
one day, my dad asked for just my help removing a stump in the backyard after dinner. i obliged. ”i just thought we could talk about life for a minute,” he told me.
as we walked out to the stump, he said, “you know, tree stumps are a lot like life.” for the record, i am a fan of the extended metaphor, and that fandom came from a very specific place. but yes, i was about to hear a moralistic metaphor about life and… tree stumps.
my dad took the first few swings. ”see,” he explained between swings, “this stump is an obvious problem. i can’t mow over it, and it’s in a frustrating spot to mow around. it’s a problem that needs to be solved. and your first few swings don’t matter much - see: it’s still there, just as annoying as it was before. we aren’t going to make too much progress on it today.”
he handed me the axe. i swung it and it glanced off the corner of the stump. ”damn it!” i said.
“not every swing is going to be a hit - just keep chipping away though, and it’ll get easier.”
we worked until it was getting to be too dark to see. my dad inspected our work at the end of the stump-removal session, running his hands along the dents we’d made and pulling off chunks that hadn’t quite flown clear. ”good work today,” he told me. ”we just have to keep chipping away at it, and we’ll get it.” we put away the axe and trudged back inside. we didn’t even talk about my mom.
that’s kind of a joke between my dad and i now, and whenever i have some big problem in life, his advice is always, “you just have to chip away at it. i was thinking about all of the little bits of folksy wisdom that my dad has bestowed on me over the years, and i remembered stump removal. it occurs to me that the metaphor is even better than he likely knew.
how do you know when you’re done with stump removal? the test comes when you try to mow over the spot, and if you didn’t do a good enough job solving your problem, you’ll find out the hard way. and some stumps have big root systems. how do you know if you need to remove the roots, or if the fact that they’re no longer attached to the bigger problem is good enough? and what if you think you need to remove the roots, but you can’t because that tree was growing on a hill or something, and is part of what helps that hill keep its shape? when have you taken out enough roots? what if you do more damage removing them than you would have done if you’d left them?
and after you adequately do solve the problem, you’ve got to keep thinking about it. yes, you mow, but you have to remember where your stump was. you have to check in with yourself: did i get this taken care of? am i okay to mow? you have to pay attention to what happens when you do go over it: did it make any weird sounds? is there anything worrisome happening? you can’t quite forget about it, at least not until you’re sure you’re okay. but if there’s a storm, you’re going to have to check back: did the storm expose more roots? do i need to revisit this stump and make sure it’s still okay to mow over?
stump removal is a long process, kind of like personal development. it takes patience and a lot of persistence. it takes awareness and careful thought about the best approach for each unique stump. it takes mindfulness after the fact and a certain level of comfort with ambiguity. it’s annoying to have to do, but in the long run, it’s necessary. so yeah, folksy wisdom is kinda campy, but thanks, dad. it’s not every day you get the gift of an extended metaphor that grows as you grow, and that parallels real life on so many levels.
so, problems, prepare to be chipped away at and stuff.
a while ago, a friend sent me a short paul krugman piece called “building a caste society” on the social stratification being caused by the price of higher education. the article was more or less what i was expecting, but this article also coincided with my brief foray into reading the comment sections at the end of online articles (overall, that was a highly unfulfilling adventure and kind of made me hate everyone). there was a comment - that i can guarantee is buried too deep to merit trying to find by this point - by a woman who pointed out something that is both obvious and original. it really stuck with me, and i’ve been mulling it over quite a bit since. i’ve brought it up a few time with friends who are interested in education and ed policy, but i have yet to really flesh it out.
the comment pointed to the fact that companies no longer provide in-house training for their employees for the most part, and so schools have become those training programs. so while you may have learned the principles of how engines work in mechanic school and then worked for an employer who invested in your education to teach you about car engines or boat engines or helicopter engines, we now have programs for each of those types of engines that you the student have to pay for, and that quite often we the taxpayer help pay for. the employer no longer expects to invest time and money into the development of his employee; he expects to receive a worker who is ready to hit the ground running on day one.
and that’s not just for trades, either. think about business school, where you can receive training to be a manager or accountant or marketer and then apply to work in a ready-made slot in a company upon graduation. you become replaceable, even though you are highly skilled. what’s more, you can’t easily switch jobs, because it’s not like today’s mechanics get engines; they get one type of engine. and it’s not like today’s business people necessarily get business; they get one specialized field. you have to go back to school if you want to switch careers - at cost to yourself and potentially at cost to all of us.
want another example? what about nursing? that used to be a two-year degree. now, part of your graduation requirements (the two-year programs are being largely phased out) include working in a hospital so you already are proficient when you start working for real and taking all sorts of science classes so the hospital doesn’t have to spend time explaining anything technical to you, even things that are just peripherally related to your job. you just are supposed to know already.
what about everyone’s favorite thing to hate: the internship? you basically have to have one if you want to work in a job in your field of study after college, but now that companies know that, they don’t even really pay you all that often. that little remnant of in-house training becomes free.
so much of the conversation surrounding education is on how much it costs. it costs a lot, but part of why it is so expensive is because people are getting an education that they should be getting from an employer. employers have become these complete free riders because we’re all freaking out about jobs all the time. ”well, i’m providing jobs, so you do everything else, society.”
i would like the conversation of education to turn into what the pollution conversation can sometimes hit: it’s about privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs. and that’s fucked up. the ideals of education are about learning because it matters in and of itself. education is supposed to be a tool kit for life: skills you learn should be things like critical thinking, problem solving, and how to see things through different lenses. it should be about learning to live together and value each other’s contributions. that’s what i always believed about education growing up, and it’s why i love the field of education still. it’s why a lot of people go into education.
but the fact is, what we think about education doesn’t really reflect the reality of education. education exists to feed the corporate machines who need workers, it seems, and if we want to do enlightening shit, it has to be on our own time, or after we’ve made sure we’ve adequately prepared for a life of work. ideals bring great teachers into teaching, but teaching burns you out. and honestly, i don’t think it burns you out because it’s really hard (though it is), i think it burns you out because there is no way to really succeed as a teacher. trying to use the system for something other than what it was designed for is exhausting.
i believe in the importance of access to education, and i definitely think more school is better than less school as a general rule of thumb. but i also think we’re seriously doing kids a disservice by providing them with these false opportunities to “get educated” in one of a million career track programs that leave them fully automated and completely lacking the skills they need to make it as human beings so that when (not if) their jobs become obsolete, they have been left behind by the world and have little hope of catching up.
it sucks! can we please talk about this?
but this doesn’t!
omg i love him. how could you not?
Cory Booker, Super Mayor: The Quiz
So Newark Mayor Cory Booker saved a woman from a burning house last night. That means he can now add “firefighter” to his résumé, right below police officer, football player, councilman, Rhodes scholar, suicide preventer, snow shoveler, poet <pause for breath>, mediator, salsa dancer, and “America’s sexiest mayor.” And some other stuff, too.
Really, is anybody surprised that Booker dove into a flaming home, against the advice of his security team, and suffered burns to his hand while pulling a woman out of her bed? It just seems to fit the whole mythology of Cory Booker, Super-Mayor. (Try searching Twitter for #CoryBookerStories to see how he’s morphed into Chuck Norris since this morning.) With that in mind, can you pick the true Booker facts below from the ones we just made up?
Cory Booker is so invested in his city that he gains weight if everything’s not running smoothly.
True! As he told Menswear: “I was so stressed, with massive layoffs and terrible police negotiations, I gained 50 pounds. Even my relaxed jeans weren’t fitting me.”
Cory Booker was offered a top job in the Obama administration, and a chance to run for Senate. He turned both down.
True! Soon after the 2008 election, Obama approached Booker about leading the White House’s Office of Urban Affairs (a job that eventually went to the ill-fated Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion). But so far, he’s stayed off of the national political stage, though The Daily Beastwent so far as to call him an inspiration for Obama in 2010.
Cory Booker dates supermodels, exclusively.
Well, he did go out with supermodel Veronica Webb. And the Guardian reported that he’s followed on his daily rounds by posses of “cleavage-thrusting women who weren’t even from Newark.”
Finish the quiz at The Atlantic Cities. [Image: Reuters]
saw this in the new york times and it raised a few questions regarding the figures as they were reported:
it raised some other questions too, like “how has police work changed over time?” and “are they trying to say that even though violent crime is decreasing, for some reason hatred of cops is skyrocketing?” along those lines, “if that’s true, why aren’t we looking at why people are less skittish about cop killing than they used to be?” seriously, can we look at cause and effect? are cops getting more belligerent, or are civilians? who’s provoking who?
but for right now, that’s besides the point (i mean, not really… it kind of IS the point; but i want to talk about data).
this article bugged me as a statistician, so i went and looked up some data to see what the story is. unfortunately, BLS/OSHA only has data up to 2010, so i don’t have numbers on the big jump we apparently experienced in 2011. i found another article online that broke out homicides and traffic accidents (the biggest cop killer), which sets the nyt a little high - 68 as opposed to 72 homicides, and 64 traffic deaths.
this still isn’t rates though, which bothers me a lot. i looked up police death rates on the OSHA site from 1993-2010, which are unfortunately not broken up by cause of death (i’m sure that’s findable, but i was doing this at 4 am just as a thought experiment), but do provide some interesting insight into what eric holder called a “devastating and unacceptable trend”. for the record: i think eric holder needs to look “trend” up in the dictionary.
here’s what i found:

again, no data from 2011 yet, but the total cited by the AFP article is 173. high, but not the highest it’s been. the interesting thing is what appears to happen between 2002 and 2003: the rate of police deaths jumps. this also coincides with a halving of total employment in law enforcement (1.2 million to 600,000 in just one year!). so while the same number of police are dying on the job each year, only half as many are employed as once were. wtf? does that mean being a cop just got three times as dangerous overnight? did 2003 signal some radical change in policing style? madness. i want to know more, but that’s not part of this sleeptime project.
anyways, the mean and median number of police deaths is almost identical (136.6 and 137, respectively), and if you look at the distribution around the mean, it looks pretty random:

i included the deaths from 2011 on this one and not the last one because i didn’t have the rate for 2011, which is part of the top graph. using the most current data, the standard deviation is 21.1.
136.6+21.1=157.7
157.7+21.1=178.8
we’re within 2 standard deviations of the mean, or well within the realm of expected given 18 years of data. again: these numbers include police officers who die from other things, not just homicides, but still.
there are fewer years of data with homicides and transit accidents that are easily available through BLS/OSHA, but i wanted to take a look regardless. the data available is from 2003 onward, which is kind of annoying because whatever happened between 2002 and 2003 is the interesting thing. also this data doesn’t have rates per 100,000 employed, which expresses some fascinating information (as demonstrated above), which also makes this less interesting. le sigh.
so, homicides - 2003-2011:

mean=48
median=46
standard deviation=9.15
assuming normality (give me more data and i won’t make these strong, likely false assumptions!), we can say that 2011 is an anomaly. the z-score ends up being 29.2, which is evidence that 2011 fits in the pattern of what a “normal” level of people killing police should be.
but with the exception of 2011, this line looks pretty flat. i wish there were more years of data; it’s too hard to tell if there are trends from just 9 data points.
but here’s the difference from the mean, first with 2011 and then without:


2011 really pulls the mean up like crazy. prior to 2011 there was a fairly uniform distribution that shows that, at least since 2003, there hasn’t been a trend in police homicides, just a crazy bad year in 2011. and if there were more data, we might find out that 2011 wasn’t really even that unexpected. when you look at overall police deaths, 1995 had the highest number. unfortunately it’s hard to say what portion was attributed to homicide and what portion to traffic or other accidents, but all i’m saying is, what trend? it seems like a fairly dangerous job all the time, and 2011 might just have been a particularly bad year.
i don’t like when people throw around words they don’t know.
i also really wish i had the rates for homicides per 100,000 employed in law enforcement, because that would be so much more telling than just raw numbers. again, i could find that out, but i just kinda want to already have it. also now it’s 8 am and time to get ready for school and work.
oh yeah, also:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2007/11/killed_by_the_cops.html
and can somebody please tell me why no government agency keeps good stats on how many people the police kill each year? that’s wack as hell.
Evangelical minister Rick Warren has a warped understanding of poverty and self-worth. Warren recently told ABC’s Jake Tapper (h/t theamericanbear):
The only way to get people out of poverty is J-O-B-S. Create jobs. To create wealth, not to subsidize wealth. When you subsidize people, you create the dependency. You — you rob them of dignity.
The evidence supporting the necessity for food assistance is overwhelming and of course sharply clashes with Warren’s ideology. 85 percent of households receiving SNAP benefits live below the poverty line ($22,000/year for a family of four and $11,000/year for an individual). And in case you’re like Warren and incessantly equate all government assistance with joblessness, keep in mind that about half of SNAP beneficiaries with children are employed.
I’m more inclined to believe that a single mother with children to feed is only worrying about the loss of dignity when she struggles to feed her children. Same goes for the 21-year-old mother of two who moved back in with her violent-tempered boyfriend after she lost her welfare check. Same goes for the mother who pays rent by selling groceries she purchased with food stamps and keeps her children fed with help from neighbors and school lunches. Same goes for the 37 percent of SNAP recipients who are elderly and/or disabled.
The only morally ambiguous characters here are those who want to slash programs that benefit low-income individuals, all in the name of “prosperity.”
[Graphs via CBPP]
i met an octopus during a rather intense period of my life. it was calm and still, sitting there right in the front of my brain, with these wild patterns running through it. it was a deep, rich, beautiful purple with shifting geometric shapes - i remember them being triangles, though i might be wrong - that were that kind of summer-dead yellow, against a sort of muted purple background.
i see patterns and colors when i get to know people. it’s a big part of how i understand what and who they are as humans. i can’t explain it; it’s just there. and i assumed this octopus was a person. and i probably figured it was so vivid because of how well i felt i knew them and how into them i was.
i couldn’t shake that octopus, even though i didn’t really see it quite as clearly after that first night it showed up. but i made a purple octopus halloween costume about seven months later, and the only way i’d feel comfortable on the dance floor was when i was doing octopus dance moves - something i realized a year after the first octopus halloween when i decided to be an octopus again. i suddenly lost all semblance of bashfulness, and as long as i can move like an octopus, i can dance all night long. that octopus set me free in that way.
and then it came back, but this time in the form of a recurring dream. i didn’t know what to make of it. it was one of the most disconcerting dreams i’d ever had. it was just a dark ocean - probably navy blue, but like super dark. and i’m underwater, but i don’t feel it. it’s more like i’m a camera, just watching the scene, except the hearing is underwater hearing - gently moving currents, muffled “glubs” of bubbles and moving water - and i could just, like inside of me somehow, feel the heaviness of the water around me, even though that wasn’t relevant. i just knew where i was. and that octopus was there, with a little friend.
the big octopus was calm as ever, just sort of looking straight ahead at me, completely expressionless. and i don’t mean covering up an expression, but just completely at peace, and really not feeling much of anything except for okay about everything. it felt amazing to look at that octopus and to feel what it felt. it was calm.
its little friend next to it was not quite so calm. i don’t know how else to describe it except to say it had a lot of unmet needs. it was a little nervous, and poking the calm one next to it with its little tentacle. it wasn’t freaking out or anything, but it definitely needed some reassurance or maybe some help, and wasn’t getting any, because that big one was busy staring into my soul.
i wasn’t a part of the little one’s world; it was focused on trying to resolve whatever worries it was experiencing.
the little one made it hard to focus on the big one. the big one was unconcerned with the little one. the little one did not notice me, or if it did, then it made no effort to connect with me.
i had that dream maybe four or five times over the course of about a week. it was weird. it was also right around when i was trying to sort out a lot of intensely complicated feelings, which apparently is when octopi show up in dreams according to the internet.
i also just knew - and i don’t know how - that that big one was either me, or definitely on the same page as me. i just knew that i was catching its vibe and we saw each others souls in some weird way that’s beyond what i understand, especially considering this is not a thing i buy into.
i can’t shake the memory of the dream; it’s almost haunting the way it sticks in my head, even though it’s not recurring anymore, and even though a bunch of bullshit has happened that has completely thrown me off of that octopus’ vibe.
but through processing the fallout of the aforementioned bullshit, i came to realize something: if that big octopus is me, the little one is me too. it’s got its blinders up; it wants to get its problems solved. it is focused. the big one is ignoring its plight - whether it’s to mind meld with me or because it just has no interest in petty little octopus problems - and is outwardly focused. but that little one might freak out if it doesn’t get its shit handled, and it apparently doesn’t think it can handle whatever is bothering it on its own.
which is how i felt just prior to bullshit exploding.
the more i think back, the more i realize: i totally and completely understand the little one just as much as i understand the big one, who was making direct contact with me. that little one is a laser beam, and bound to miss some important shit going on if it can’t handle its nervous energy a little more internally. that big one has everything figured out, but still has a little friend to contend with. ignoring that little friend leads to bad places: i went there. i lost at least one good friend - maybe permanently - and am now sensing a changing tide in terms of my attitude.
i think the weird nervous energy has abated for now, but at a certain cost. had i paid attention to more of what these octopi had to offer, would i be in a different place now? what would i have done differently? who and what would i be if i acknowledged and embraced both octopi as myself and as things to love and care for? what if i had recognized myself and my nervous tendencies within the little octopus before shit got unnecessarily bad?
now, i just want to make sure i take this lesson and learn it well. i have two travel companions. more might appear one night, or they might never be present in my dreams again, but they are here, in my memory, vivid as all hell, and probably will stick around for a while. i want to embrace my friends - both the wise, understanding, calm, deep big octopus and the nervous, incomplete, assurance-seeking little octopus - as parts of myself and parts of a larger whole.
i need to make sure i am not neglecting this little octopus, but also that i am not letting it drive my brain. can the big one be behind the wheel and also pay attention to the insecurities the other feels? i think that will be the central test of my ability to be a good person - to be outwardly focused, calm, and able to handle anything, and to pay attention to the nagging imperfections that i see when i look inward. those must be acknowledged, validated, fixed if possible and accepted if not, and above all analyzed - though not at the cost of living in the world and experiencing things external to my own weird self.
jesus. it’s weird to write that all down, and it probably reads like bullshit, though it’s a weird dawning and i just can’t shake its essential perfection in explaining (at least within my own brain) what, who, and why i am.
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.
-tolkien
—-
another old favorite.
one of my all-time favorite poems, for sure.
So…this exists.

Wish I could have been at the product development meeting for this.
Executive: What we need is a new angle to corner...