The Gun Issue: Try Using Logic, the Way an Analyst Would

In my job, the one that pays my rent, alimony and allows me to eat out or race triathlons, I am a technology research analyst. That basically means that I hear about cool ideas, products and services from providers located across the globe, and I assess them based both upon a set of parameters and how I believe they’ll be accepted by potential customers. I listen to providers, customers, other analysts and my own gut, and I reach conclusions after studying and/or thinking a lot about all of them.

Call me foolish, but I often attempt to use my job skills (which, truthfully, are heavily influenced by time hewn principles, thoughts and methods I’ve “perfected” throughout my career and life) to discuss and suggest solutions for the “gun issue” our country is and has been experiencing. I call it a “gun issue” because to call it a “gun control” problem would be leaning too far one way, and to call it a “gun addiction” problem would lean too far in the other. Indeed, there are those that say the only issue is that we don’t have enough guns. But this is exactly the problem: despite numbers that both sides can use to defend their views, we’re all working with opinions, and we all know the old saw about opinions. And unfortunately, my attempts to argue positions are based on my opinions and very little concrete, bipartisan evidence.

While analysts like myself certainly create and can defend opinions, we are far more believable – and sometimes more actionable – when we can provide data to back up those opinions. The most believable data comes from primary research that asks specific questions about the product or service in question. This is exactly what we are missing in the debate on gun issues, and our government, regardless to which side one leans, is doing a miserable job of creating the right information from which to make informed decisions.

This week, the Senate defeated a variety of measures intended to reduce risk or danger associated with firearms or their acquisition – at least one side would say that. Naturally, the other side suggests that guns aren’t the problem and that such propositions would violate the 2^nd Amendment, leaving people defenseless in the wake of criminals or a potentially tyrannical government that might invade our houses. Whether one thinks one side or the other is correct is at this point beside the point. The main problem is that we haven’t the data to make the informed, intelligent decisions such laws should be based upon.

The Senate overall errs in not focusing on or agreeing to attainable goals. Filibusters and sit ins make good video clips, but instead, let’s study the problem, let’s collect data, let’s explore in depth all the ways that guns are involved in deaths and see if there is proof that guns actually DO help “bad” owners – criminal, unstable, terroristic, or otherwise – to kill more people than they’d otherwise be able to with knives, hands, explosives or anything else. Let’s understand if certain types of guns are at issue so that we can focus intelligently there – taking away every gun is a ridiculous (and unconstitutional) proposal, but there is also no law that says everyone has to be able to have access to every gun that can be manufactured. The Senate should propose a method, a timeline, a set of research and a set of ensuing actions once that research is complete. This isn’t hard – the government spends untold amounts of money today on research through a variety of organizations, and I suspect many would step up pro bono at this point to take on this bit of research.

Unfortunately, we live in an entirely polarized society that not only is unwilling to compromise one iota on practically any principle, it is also largely attuned to sound bites that reflect prevailing opinions, not scientific data. Our government both reflects and is responsible for much of this. I suggest that our government do the job any good analyst would do: gather data, study it, and render objective conclusions that would be actionable – and also presentable and understandable to the public. While I suspect our Senators and Congressmen likely won’t agree even on how to proceed here, we’re not getting any further along by their arguing over opinions.

Where have I heard this before...?

Two people communicate by e-mail, exchanging pleasantries and creating a friendship based upon mutual interests and opinions, until that friendship blossoms into something deeper.  At that point, the two feel a strong kinship and desire to take their on-line relationship further.  Imagine the shock and surprise when one finds out who the other really is!!

Manti Te'o and Lennay Kekua? 

Nope.  Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in "You've Got Mail."

I'm not sure why Te'o is being looked at as either a dupe or a wacko for establishing and growing an on-line relationship.  Hasn't anyone heard of pen pals?  How many of us had pen pals with which a strong relationship was created?  How many of us have ongoing internet-based conversations that progress to the status of a relationship of sorts that we consider - sometimes wish - would be taken to the next step?  More to the point, how many of us put thoughts out there on-line that, perhaps, we would not be comfortable to share in person?

Te'o was wrong for transforming the hoax into a lie that he then propagated.  I suppose we can suspect whether he was innocent all along, but based upon what we know, I see no reason to indict him for the entire relationship.  If anything, one might say that he was being more careful than many other athletes like him, many of which end up in situations they should not because they engaged in the real/physical when they shouldn't have.

I think perhaps his performance in the BCS championship game and subsequent tryouts prior to the draft (assuming he partakes) should be a better indicator of his NFL future than the mess he fell into via Mr. Tuiasosopo.  As far as Manti Te'o the person...let time tell.

It's Not About the Dope

Unfortunately, I am going to insist on having a life tonight and thus will not be able to watch part two of what has been broadly termed (though I, of course, thought I was the originator) "Doprah" interview with Lance Armstrong.  I have to admit that I, along with pretty much everyone (based on the tweets directed at the interview and OWN which were flying fast and furiously), tuned in one way or another last night to hear what Lance could possibly say to (pick the one(s) you were anxious to hear)...
- exonerate himself
- apologize
- express remorse
- empathize
- ask forgiveness
- explain why he did it
- explain why he is talking NOW
...in light of the incontrovertible evidence that was amassed against him by the good folks at the USADA and many of his former friends and teammates.  I was puzzled why Lance would choose a venue such as an Oprah interview for what I thought might be his mea culpa, but whatever...I was anticipating a good cleanse and some insight into what was and what is making the man tick.

Unfortunately, I came away with an even worse impression than that with which I sat down at my laptop (BTW, I didn't get any commercials watching the interview on-line, which in a way was kind of sad; I'd have liked to have seen who would line up as sponsors for this). 

First, Oprah was certainly direct, asking specific questions and "yes" or "no" responses, and Lance complied. The only problem was that there was a weird, third person-ish element to it, like Lance was recounting something that happened and he observed rather than events in which he participated and which ultimately caused confusion, anguish, anger, and pain among so many former partners and friends.  By asking for the simplest of responses, Oprah denied us the chance to see her - perhaps - try to wring some emotion out of Lance, or at least try to get into some depth on WHY he did what he did, how he FELT after, how he FEELS now, etc.  I wonder if Oprah thought she was being smart in using this method or if Lance orchestrated this himself so he could appear to answer honestly but actually not even scrape the surface of his taught skin.  Why is this troubling?  Because WE ALL KNOW HE DID IT!!!

As staunch a supporter as I was a year ago, I absolutely came to the belief that he was guilty of doping.  However, much like in baseball's recent steroid era, EVERYONE was complicit, and the league didn't have the tools to dig deep enough nor the balls to make a strong attempt.  I'm not saying it was right...I'm just saying and accepting that it happened.  So for me, the only thing left to understand is what Lance wants out of a confession now and how he intends to move forward, whether he could possibly repair any of the relationships he had with people or organizations, and what he and all of us might learn from this.  And on this score, there was simply nothing.

Lance spoke arrogantly.  He was measured, for the most part, and even though one could observe some body language and perhaps SLIGHT discomfort, the guiding principle of Lance's discussion was as follows:  "I did whatever I had to do to win.  Doping was part of the cost of doing business, and just like doing repeats up the Cols in France during the spring, doping became a repetitive exercise in which Lance became expert in all facets.  He lined up a team, he created plans, and he executed flawlessly within the boundaries of what was possible to do and still not ever have a negative impact on his racing (medically or reputationally).  Lance pissed me off in that interview, not because of his doping, but because not only did he not show remorse to his teammates, partners, fans, etc., not only because he didn't apologize to them (much the opposite, in some instances), he didn't let us get inside.  And we like our apologists to really give it up before we re-accept them into society.

Lance was a bit vague on the timing of his doping with respect to its start date.  Here's a huge moral dilemma: what if the combinations of drugs that he now seems to have been taking (key discrepancy and issue between what Betsy Andreu et al heard in the hospital and what Lance is revealing) were responsible for his cancer?  Look, nothing changes what Lance has done to attempt to rid the world of cancer nor the benefits that that fight has accrued, but wouldn't this color his motives (there's a "yellow" joke in there somewhere)?  I recognize that Livestrong can absolutely succeed beyond this and beyond Lance, but I think this forces some questions back on the man himself.

Maybe tonight, Lance will open the bike kit a bit more and let us see inside the actual man and not the "win at all costs" cyclist that sat in the chair and responded to Oprah.  Maybe Oprah will ask questions in such a way as to force him to look inside and answer emotionally or personally before he answers factually.  I actually doubt that either of these will happen, but I'll check in the morning.  But assuming I am right, then the Lance Armstrong that can't see that the means did not justify the end, or at least can't deliver on even ONE of the bullet points above, no longer deserves my consideration.

It really IS about the dope...in the way that George Carlin once answered the question about whether there was a dope problem.  "Yes," he said, "I think we have too many dopes."

They can put a man on the moon, but we can't vote on-line

Excited about my role in our country's most important constituent responsibility, I made sure I was up early last Tuesday to be one of the first in line to vote at my local polling place.  Sure, I also had other things to accomplish, such as a couple of workouts and packing before an international trip, but I wanted to be sure and add my vote to the tally with as little issue as possible.

What transpired was an amazing display of late 1980s technology being run by a crew that clearly had neither been been trained adequately, nor had they invested a few extra minutes (or dollars) to make the voting experience something better than, say, what I'd find in a third world country.

I know, I'm spoiled by having worked in technology all my career since 1986, and even worse, having worked in and around the document imaging industry since the late 1980s.  This is the technology area that delivered OCR, or optical character recognition, and OMR, or optical mark sensing.  As anyone that has ever taken an SAT or standardized test can attest, you fill in the circles with your writing implement and the marks, which have a pretty high tolerance to coloring outside the lines, are recorded and counted to determine scores.  So, my expectations, as well as those of most people, would naturally be fairly high relative to the ability of a machine to record a vote signified by a colored dot on a page.

Expectations undelivered upon.

The first indication things were awry was the disorganization of the helpers right from the start.  Now, I understand these are volunteers giving their time for free (and maybe some doughnuts), but one would have thought they'd be ready for voters eager to make their mark (pun intended).  But unknown districts started panic; complicated addresses caused lengthy searches through the "books of addresses"; and then we had the finicky voting machines to contend with.

I filled out my ballot sheet, which had been torn out of a book by a volunteer that had to record which ballot (ordinally from the book) was mine.  I walked to the "cubbies" next to the voting machine, actually a table with little dividers on it, to fill out my ballot.  As I was doing so, some dude walked up, looked over my shoulder, and asked to borrow the other pen that was there.  Not very private.  Upon completing my ballot, I handed it to the volunteer whose job it was to have the ballot scanned in the "voting machine" (i.e., scanner and ballot collector).  He could see it as he put it into the scanner's opening.  TWO TIMES it failed to register my votes, and TWO TIMES he looked at my ballot, took it out, held it up, looked at it again, and tried to rescan.  Are you kidding me?  I really don't care who knows who I voted for (straight democratic this time), but I'm sure that others do, and beyond that, it isn't right! 

The things that bugged me were:
- total lack of privacy
- total lack of any serious technology applied to this process
- the inability of anyone to take what is a waste of time process wise and move it on-line.  Technically, there is NO REASON why this could not be done.  However, we seem to have made very little improvement over the lever-based system used just four years ago (ka-CHUNK), and we're still relying upon fallible humans to manage all of this.  I could operate a small factory from my smartphone -- but I can't vote with it.

 

 

My microwave dinner isn’t heating up quickly enough.

My mobile isn’t connecting to the internet quickly enough.

The order I placed on-line for the product I’m buying at a 30% discount takes a week to ship.  Ugh.

I want national change to happen...NOW.

I wanted my guy to win, and since he didn’t all you idiots will suffer as I fight tooth and nail to defeat anything YOUR guy wants to do.  Because.

I want my MTV.

I’ve now experienced the Facebook-based backlash of those whose candidate did not win on Tuesday night, with people predicting the downfall of the country, people “threatening” not to have children, and “friends” calling “friends” idiots for their voting choices.  Look, I get that you have certain beliefs, values, and desires, and I understand that those might not all agree with what others might think or live by, but last time I looked, other than a hurricane beating the shit out of my region, there didn’t seem to be a whole lot of abject suffering or misery.

Yes, we have a significant debt.  Yes, our re-elected president didn’t deliver on some items he promised, including the “sweeping change” to the way our government works.  But it takes two to tango.  No president will EVER fulfill every promised obligation in a society in which the parties are totally polarized and their constituents prefer simply to find ways to impede and destroy the party opposite them rather than to find ways to compromise and deliver actions that may not be 100% what either party wants, but moves the ball forward rather than being stuck in an infinite scrum.

However, it appears that most of us don’t want to do this.  We want what we want NOW, and we would rather stomp our feet and kick and scream and blame others rather than suck it up, acknowledge that you can’t win ‘em all, and pitch in to help arrive at solutions that everyone may not love but can certainly live with – and move us in the right direction.

Does Obama have all the answers right?  No.  Did Romney have all the answers right?  No.  But losing an election should not result in the losing party’s de-evolution to a threatening, doomsday proclaiming group bent on the destruction of everything the other party holds dear.  Don’t call your friends idiots because they had the “courage” to vote for what they believe in – when one party wins, it gets the chance to lead.  You had your chance and you – or rather your party leadership and anointed candidate – didn’t get it done.  Now, wait for four years and try again.  In the mean time, figure out where you can make a difference.  Turn some of that negative energy into plugging gaps in the winning party’s strategy by observing and identifying specific real areas of impact, writing about them, creating a groundswell in your communities (physical or virtual), and work on putting in place a candidate that can actually get the job done by winning over those that were alienated this time around.  Some very sane articles have been written and statements made about the shortcomings of the Romney campaign and candidate, all of which could easily be addressed before the next election by a candidate that is not only the best representative of his or her party, but also understands compromise and how to garner the respect and confidence of those NOT in his or her party.

I’m not gloating over an Obama win any more than I’d despair over an Obama loss.  Either way, we have some serious issues to address quickly in this country, and my fear with either candidate given the environment in which they are working is that the extreme polarization of parties will result in disaster rather than improvement.  In other words, BOTH parties need to come to the table and compromise to drive any progress, and BOTH parties are at fault when it doesn’t happen.  What makes this country great, in part, is its tolerance of ALL beliefs, NOT the total success of one system and the destruction of all others.  But until we as a nation can act this way, I don’t expect our elected officials to do so either, unfortunately.  I fear that we will still be encumbered by those demanding immediate gratification, even to the detriment of others.

I saw a funny comment on Facebook the other day.  It said, "Electing Obama is like backing up the Titanic and hitting the iceberg again.  Electing Romney is like hitting another iceberg."  Whether you agree or not, I don't want my presidential candidates to be so questionable that observers can only find negatives on either side.  I want candidates - and parties - that can provide sound reasoning behind the hard changes we all will need to make to turn this giant ship on the right course.   I want campaigns that explain the math, that explain the tactics and strategies, and that treat me as if I am actually a thinking adult that not only has some patience, but also the willingness to roll up my sleeves and get to work.

IMAZ: Race and Aftermath

Aside from the "minor" glitch of me forgetting my goggles and cap in my hotel room, my race went almost perfectly. I was prepared in all facets, and except perhaps for not taking enough salt on the run, all my preparation worked, from athletics to nutrition, and I had a very relaxed and pretty strong race.

10:09:05.

Under the ceiling goal of 10:15, short of the reach goal of 10:00, but good. I'm happy with it, which is saying a lot for me.

Swim: very relaxed, felt good, could have gone perhaps a bit faster and harder, but it was fine. Didn't feel cold or tired at all until perhaps 55 minutes in, but still finished strong. Was frozen on the way out, though, and onto the bike. T1 was a long 8:30 as I struggled to put on socks while frozen. 1:09:53

Bike: also relaxed and strong. Pushed a bit harder than planned because I thought my swim was actually slower than it was. Decent headwind on the way out, strong tailwind on the way back. Each of the three laps was pretty even. I didn't feel my legs until roughly 99 miles, though I did hit a bit of a mental rough patch around 60-70 and had to push through 100-110, but felt very good coming in to T2. T2 was a much better and easy 3:30. Took about 5 minutes in a porta potty 30 minutes into the bike that I wish I had back. 5:16

Run: told myself to go out slow, went out fast: 6:18, 19:30 for 3, 33:10 for 5, 77:12 for 11 and then it began to hurt. Halfway (13) was 1:34, and my thighs/quads started to cramp at about mile 15. By mile 18, however, I knew I'd finish. The 2nd lap was toughest, but after taking coke with other drinks, Gu and electrolytes (could have taken more salt as mentioned, though), I felt a bit better through the end. Getting to 22 was important and 25 was super; I picked it up a bit and finished the last 200M running hard. 3:30:20 for the run.

Finishing was great. I rolled as well. All in all, I was thrilled that my training plan got me through pretty much as expected and that I was able to come through the line in a bit of pain but feeling no pain as well.

IMAZ Days 89 and 90: GAME ON

Day 89: Test swim in Tempe Town Lake. Water temp of 64 degrees, we're told. I decided to go without the thermal cap and it turned out to be fine. The water wasn't too cold at all, at least not after the first 30 seconds, and I had a good swim. I'm psyched about the straight line swim and my optical goggles - woohoo! Except for really cold toes, the 15 minute swim was great.

A little later (early afternoon), I went for a short ride and run. The ride once again felt great; the run, after 5 minutes warming up, also was great! Ran at pace after that and felt strong and loose.

Eat, relax...and wait.

Day 90: Saturday, one day to go. Easy 14 minute run this morning, again good after a few minutes getting loose. Will check in bike and prepare all my nutrition a bit later. Ready to rock and roll...it's time.

IMAZ Day 88: It's nearly here

I'm in Arizona!

After a few days of feeling like a fat slug, a morning with no workout, 2 plane flights and great (not) airline food didn't help. Got to Arizona, though, easily and with all my gear intact! Took a while to get to the expo and build the bike, but it's done! I'm also checked in.

After all that, it was 4:45 and just enough time to get in a ride before dark. 31 minutes and I felt GREAT!!! Then a 10 minute swim and 5 minute jog just to keep (or get) everything loose.

This is starting to get exciting!