May 23, 2013

Fear on the rise in our literature

Could we be using fewer words associated with happiness and joy and more associated with fear in recent decades?

Researchers were able to chart historical periods of positive and negative moods through literature. Values above zero indicate generally "happy" periods, and values below the zero indicate generally "sad" periods.

Researchers were able to chart historical periods of positive and negative moods through literature. Values above zero indicate generally “happy” periods, and values below the zero indicate generally “sad” periods.

With Google digitization of hundreds of years of literature, British anthropologists are mapping the rise and fall of “emotion” words through history, says an NPR story.

This effort began simply with lists of “emotion” words: 146 different words that connote anger; 92 words for fear; 224 for joy; 115 for sadness; 30 for disgust; and 41 words for surprise. All were from standardized word lists used in linguistic research.

The original idea was to have the computer program track the use of these words over time. The researchers wanted to see if certain words, at certain moments, became more popular.

 Perhaps not surprisingly, the valleys and peaks matched large, societal and international events: the “roaring” ’20s were a high point for joy, while 1941 saw sadness dominate.

What is most surprising about the study, though, is that our use of “emotion” words is decreasing, with one interesting exception.

“Generally speaking, the usage of these commonly known emotion words has been in decline over the 20th century,” Alex Bentley says [who led the researchers]. We used words that expressed our emotions less in the year 2000 than we did 100 years earlier — words about sadness and joy and anger and disgust and surprise.

Ironic, considering the rise of “openness” and transparency in our society. Reality shows follow “housewives” (in the loosest sense of the word) practice keeping up with the Jones for national audiences, while singles pursue love in game show formats. Social media like Facebook and Twitter instantly transmit our highs and lows, snark and snide, to the internet, never to disappear. And blogs, like this one, turn anyone with access to the internet into a writer.

Yet, in spite of increased sharing, our language sounds like it may be losing its emotion, except for in one area: fear.

In fact, there is only one exception that Bentley and his colleagues found: fear. “The fear-related words start to increase just before the 1980s,” he says.

I don’t know why fear in our language has increased while joy, sadness, anger, disgust and surprise have decreased, but it gives me pause. “Fear is the mind killer,” wrote Frank Herbert, while Jesus of Nazareth counseled to “Fear not; only believe.”  At a time when we as a nation face great problems–like how we deal with the mass murder of innocents like in Aurora, Colorado or Newtown, Connecticut, how we address rising costs of healthcare, and where we will find solutions to a sluggish economy and falling wages–fear is the last emotion we should let guide us.


Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter F.


Guns and Social Network Reactions

I think it would be safe to say that very few of political watchers had gun regulation on the radar in the days before the Sandy Hook shootings. Since…well, it’s hard to talk about anything else (and not just because the fiscal cliff story is the least-interesting-and-most-difficult-to-understand-but-perhaps-most-important-story this year).

With that in mind, I asked a couple friends over at PoliticIt to take a look at what trends they saw in social media immediately before and immediately after the Newtown shooting.  (PoliticIt, if you’ve not heard of it before, is the brainchild of Josh Light and Sterling Morris. They collect data from social networks, the internet, and “the real world” to create a measure of politicians digital influence that accurately predicts electoral success.)

They showed me some interesting things. First, the number of comments on Twitter (or “tweets”) about gun laws rose dramatically.

save image

 

 

Clearly, people felt passionately about the gun laws, whether it was the need for more of them or the opposition to their proliferation. Another piece of information that came back from PoliticIt was the tone surrounding the tweets, and while tone is hard to define in the digital world, some words can tend to indicate a positive or negative tone.

save image

 

 

The PoliticIt guys noticed that while there was a slightly negative tone in tweets around “gun laws,” tweets that discussed “mental health” received more positive response.   This seems to follow an observation I’ve made during the subsequent ten days since the shooting, and that is this: while people seem to be very much divided and equivocal about what should happen with guns—i.e. how should the Second Amendment (for an interesting review of how the Supreme Court has applied the Second Amendment, see this post) be applied: to require registrations? To outlaw certain firearms? etc—there is much more support for looking at the mental health of individual seeking to acquire firearms.

That is, none of us seem to think it’s a good idea to allow the mentally ill to have access to deadly weapons. Interestingly, the chatter on Twitter remained divided, but fell in volume within only a few days after the shooting reflecting, perhaps, that our ability to retain and maintain a conversation after our initial outburst was limited.

A couple more observations from PoliticIt on their sample using the hashtag #gunlaws:

  • 52% of tweets referencing gun control were “pro-gun” while 61% of tweets just referencing guns were supportive of Second Amendment rights.
  • Despite the broadcast of President Obama’s comments over network and cable television calling for more gun regulation, the sample did not find any reference to the comments. Either people just didn’t care or they didn’t find his comments were noting.
  • Anti-gun commentary seemed to focus on the need to restrict certain guns, commented on the intelligence of gun owners, made appeals to call your local elected official, or discussed Australia’s gun regulations.

Zeitgeist? A word map from the sample: 

save image

  

 Two things that PoliticIt saw tweeted, and retweeted, several times included this quote from Ronald Reagan and an article by Thomas Sowell:

Sowell argues in his piece that those calling for more regulation are acting on emotion, not facts. The following is what I thought was a pertinent part of his piece:

The key fallacy of so-called gun control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

If gun control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

Places and times with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many. When it comes to the rate of gun ownership, that is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

What of the NRA?

Naturally, the National Rifle Association has come under fire for its Second Amendment advocacy. How has it been affected on social media? The NRA had just under 69,000 followers on Twitter (@NRA) before the shooting and was adding about 1,500 a day. After the shooting, the NRA added  8,989 followers, or 471% of their average growth. After Wayne LaPierre addressed reporters at a press conference on December 21, that average grew 3,100 followers a day (according to Twitter Counter).


Is there any correlation between politics and homicide by firearm?

Another question that I saw, and that the PoliticIt guys researched, was the number of deaths by firearms compared with how states voted during the recent presidential election. Here’s the graphic they created:

The graph shows which states voted for Obama versus the number of murders by firearms per 100,000 people. Nationally, 2.75 people out of every 100,000 are killed by firearms.

It appears that blue states and red states fall on both sides of the line without any clear division. Some states are far higher than the national average, though, including Mississippi, Louisiana and the District of Columbia, all of which exceed the furthest deviation below the average (Hawaii) by almost two. The District of Columbia, with some of the nation’s strictest gun laws (can one even carry a gun in D.C.?) has the highest per capita rates of murder by firearm in the nation.

Other states with strict gun laws that exceed the national average include Illinois (just barely), New Jersey, California, and New York.   On the other hand, Utah, where I live, has some fewest gun regulations and is below the national average. I’m not sure that gun regulations, or how voters vote in national elections, is the right place to look for determining what states are likely to see murder by firearm, but it is interesting.

 

Hitting the Limit: A Financial Argument for Limiting Government [Contributor]

Tyler Lees is a conservative engineer and train nerd from Midvale, Utah.You can follow him on Twitter as @ThePacificSlope. After he and I discussed on Twitter the necessity of establishing priorities for government in order to cut spending, I invited Tyler to share his view on the topic in a format longer than Twitter’s 140 characters. The following are his thoughts.

_____________________

taxes

taxes (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

I believe that there is a practical limit to how big government can get, irrespective of ideological points of view. Let me explain.

There is a real limit on how much a government can permanently spend. Taxes can only be raised so much and only so much debt can be incurred before the amount of revenue a government can raise tapers off. Where those points are can often be determined only after they have been reached. Just because we want something more, does not mean we can have it.

Taxes can only be raised to a certain point before the increases cease to yield significant gains in revenue. (This is the much-debated, much maligned, but holding firm concept known as the Laffer curve.) The reason for this is that taxes pull money out of private hands and place that money in the public till. The money will not go to expansion of business, repayment of debt, investment in new equipment or research and development,or, on the personal level, to where you—the individual taxpayer–want to spend it. The more taxes rise, the less cash businesses and individuals have to spend on their priorities, and with the effect that economic growth is reduced.

Debt is the second way governments can raise cash for their needs, but the amount of debt a government can accrue is also limited – in much the same you and I are. You can only borrow as much money as someone is willing to lend you. And that debt has to be paid back, eventually. The financial problems we are seeing in Europe is due to the loss of creditors confidence (and in the case of Greece, confirmation) that the Euro zone nations can honor their debts.

How about an example to demonstrate – what if a nation finds itself in an emergency (such as a war or natural disaster), and has to spend more than it can bring in? Looking at the United States in World War Two, the national debt rose  to the equivalent of over 110% of GDP by 1945 as the nation mobilized for war and put ten percent of the population in uniform. This,despite rates of taxation that might have seen communists up in arms. However, there was little, if any, protest because, and this is the key,the emergency ended, along with the high levels of borrowing. The need for budget-busting expenditures ended with the war, and taxes remained at high levels only long enough to pay down the national debt. A gross oversimplification, perhaps, but not inaccurate

In 2011, the United States national debt again exceeded 100% of GDP. The difference is that only a small portion of the debt over-run can be classed as temporary – most are a permanent part of the budget, items that will not end with an emergency or a cease-fire.

When our future obligations to Medicare, Social Security, and national health insurance (aka “Obamacare”) are factored in, expenditures will continue to grow.  As the baby boomers retire those expenses will grow faster than our ability to tax and borrow.

The budget will have to be cut, and we will have to make major changes to Social Security, Medicare, and the national health insurance plan to stay viable. This will happen – we can either do so voluntarily, now, or have it forced upon us when no one will let us borrow any more. “Austerity” will seem kind compared to the choices that will be forced upon us when the money runs out.

Our beliefs and principles can only guide what our priorities should be going forward.

Alliance for a Better Utah or Alliance for a Democratic Utah? Follow the money.

When an organization purports to have the public’s interests at the heart of their actions, it’s prudent to look into their motives. And when you want to know motives, look at where their money is coming from and to whom they are giving to.

In other words, head on over to OpenSecrets.org and start typing in names.

__________________________

Occupy Movement Email Starts a Look at a Local Organization

I’ve occasionally run into the Twitter account of the “Alliance for a Better Utah” online. Until this week, however, I’ve not paid much attention to them. This week, I started hearing murmurings from Alliance for a Better Utah that something wicked was coming to town. An email sent out from an organization called “ALEC Welcoming Committee” came under the subject line “We Start Today! Occupy ALEC slc! VICTORY!!!

Not only did I not know what ALEC was, but the Occupy movement’s anti-capitalism/anti-free market predilections raises my hackles.

A little time on the internet led me to Alliance for a Better Utah. Their website is currently advertising an “ALEC Exposed Event” for June 26th that purports to “expose” what ALEC was doing “behind closed doors” to promote issues like school vouchers, privatization, and  public land initiatives.

Also, voter suppression.

Except for that last one, I’m not sure why any of those are particularly nefarious issues to promote. I can agree that these are issues that Republicans and Democrats can, and do, stand on both sides of, though none, except voter suppression, is particularly the role of a government watch dog.

American Legislative Exchange Council

American Legislative Exchange Council (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Apparently, the Alliance for a Better Utah disagrees. Their main argument appears to be that ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council…far less evil sounding when not an acronym) holds an annual conference with legislators. These meetings are closed to the public. (More on the American Legislative Exchange Council later…because it interests me, as well).

One question that came to mind as I was looking at this was what allies form the “Alliance for a Better Utah.” Usually, one thinks of an alliance as a group of organizations. Think NATO. Or the US and UK during the World Wars. None were one person, but nations allied in a cause.

__________________________

Who are the allies and donors of Alliance for a Better Utah?

It’s hard to say, and the closest Alliance for a Better Utah comes to saying is citing its board members and staff. Apparently I was not the first person to seek this information. When I asked over Twitter, Alliance for a Better Utah deferred, offering to meet in person but preferring not to answer. And then a number of other people started to pile on Alliance for a Better Utah for a lack of transparency.

Back on the Alliance for a Better Utah page advertising the “Expose ALEC” meeting on July 26th (today), several organizations are listed as participating:

The Delicate Arch, a natural arch near Moab, Utah

The Delicate Arch, a natural arch near Moab, Utah (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

For what is supposed to be a “bi-partisan organization,” or at least a non-partisan government watch dog, the list seems more fit to watch Republicans and conservative issues than government in general. I’m willing to agree that each has sought non-partisan goals, but each has also taken positions that are left-leaning.

  • The AFL-CIO is one of the largest and most powerful unions in the country, spending a record $4.5 million on lobbying in 2010 and “has long supported Democratic candidates and frequently runs television ads against Republican opponents.”
  • Common Cause has often taken up the issues dealing with fundraising and donor disclosure, but its employees have given almost exclusively to Democratic campaigns, including Elizabeth Warren in New York and Barack Obama for President. For a non-partisan organization, that indicates a left leaning tilt.
  • ALEC Exposed appears, based on their rhetoric, to be an Occupy movement organization.
  • Like the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, I like our canyon country in southern Utah. However, I disagree that with SUWA that the federal government is the appropriate manager of public lands. While less has been spent by SUWA lobbying in recent years, SUWA has long been an advocate of federal government locking up public lands from access and resources.

The list makes Alliance for a Better Utah look less non-partisan and more left leaning. But this is all just speculation without knowing who Alliance for a Better Utah relies upon for funding. The organization is only about a year and a half old, and as such has not been required to file with the IRS its 990 form disclosing donors. Clearly it does not agree with the American Legislative Exchange Council, but less clear is why.

What is wrong with vouchers, privatization, or public land use such that it requires a “government watch dog” to oppose them? These aren’t the issues that a watch dog covers–they’re issues that an advocacy group opposes. Government watch dogs should be focused on transparency, accounting, government spending, and so on, not issues that fall under one partisan umbrella or another.

As I indicated earlier, I’ve asked Alliance for a Better Utah to send me a list of their larger donors (I figure smaller donors don’t really define an organization or get a say in what an organization does or supports). We’ll see if a response is sent. In the mean time, it’s hard to take Alliance for a Better Utah at its word–that it is a government watch-dog and not just another advocacy group.

__________________________

Josh Kanter, founder and largest donor of Alliance for a Better Utah with President Barack Obama from @jkanter3 on Twitter.

UPDATE: Alliance for a Better Utah just tweeted, in response to a question, that they did not have any donors above $2,000. Another tweet, in response to a comment by Ben Horsley, indicated that their largest donor is Josh Kanter, who is also Alliance for a Better Utah’s founder. Not sure how non-partisan Josh Kanter is…his Twitter picture has him shaking hands with Barack Obama and Open Secrets lists him as a donor to Jim Matheson, the Democratic Committee of Utah, Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Barack Obama, as well as an Obama Inaugural Donor.

Clearly, we need more information on Alliance for a Better Utah and why they oppose the American Legislative Exchange Council (and more on that, too). A first look at them, though, is anything but clear.

 

In lieu of a daily post…

I’ve been asked to be on some kind of Deseret News live panel blogging about the election results tonight. Please join me there as we watch the primary results come in from Arizona and Michigan.  Click on the image below to find the panel. Coverage starts at 5:30 PM.

You can also follow me (should you be so inclined to stalk) on Twitter under the handle @publiusdb.

Hide your children, hide your wife…it’s the 2012 Legislative Session!

In case you missed it, the Utah Legislature went into session yesterday, and Utah held its collective breath. It’s anyone’s guess what will come out on the other end. I’ll tell you one thing I want, though: less of it. In this case, I think less is more.

Michelle Mumford summed up my feelings well:

[blackbirdpie url="https://twitter.com/#!/MichelleMumford/status/161649088226533376"]

That’s a goal we can all live with, right? We’d be ok with a break from new laws, new spending, and new regulation. Have we even figured out what to do with all the stuff from last year?

[cricket, cricket]

Anyways…onward and, well, upward, all the way to the state capital where it all goes down.

____________________________________

Ignore the session at your own peril.

The State Capitol at night, during a snow fall on January 23, 2012. Photo by Jeremy Nicoll.

If  you are intent on following what’s going on in the legislature, and I think its not a bad idea, there are a lot of ways to do it. This is the era of the internet, after all, and it’s easier than ever to get information fast, even when you can’t go hobnob at the State Capitol itself (especially if, like me, you’ve gotta keep your day job). Whether you follow the tweets and the stories from your favorite local reporter and/or legislator, read the paper, check into the Utah Senate and House web sites to research bills, or actually show up at the Capitol, here’s a short guide to some of the tools out there (with due credit, of course, to the reporting team over at the Salt Lake Tribune which suggested most of these sources):

  • TOP ISSUES: Check out this issue by issue break down of what’s likely to come up this year in the legislature. Topping the list? Funding education. Also of note is Howard Stephenson’s bill to create a tax credit to allow low income children to attend private schools.
  • WHO’S IN CHARGE: under the telling “herbert-elected-gov-governor“ URL  in part, the Salt Lake Tribune has also put a simple list of who’s who in the legislative leadership process, including their education and profession.
  • WHO’S NEW? With all the resignations as past lawmakers take aim at higher office, whether it’s Congress or the Governor’s mansion, there have been more than a couple mid-term appointments. Check out who is new…though I do find it ironic that the picture is of Craig Frank, who is not.
  • PAY & PERKS: even if the legislature is a part time job, it still comes with a meager income. Check out what the reimbursements are for working in the legislature.
  • LOBBYISTS: Don’t forget the parasites–er, I mean, lobbyists. There are over 400 of them representing more than 300 clients. All joking aside, I do recognize that they play an important roll in our system….I think.
  • CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR: Due to how insanely busy the session is, it’s actually probably a little late to do that, but if you really want to talk to someone, go for it using the following lists.
  • Follow my favorite reporters on Twitter: Two of my favorite reporters are Robert Gehrke and Billy Hesterman. Both are savvy and smart reporters.

Last, and not least, check out the infographic below for a fun little summary of how the legislature breaks down along political lines, among other details.

[Salt Lake Tribune]

Update your status later