Here we go - The Business of Government, a good site for studying and measuring government programs' efficiency and effectiveness.
Here is my favorite report there - the Behn Report on 11 Better Practices.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Public School Laundry Plan
A fourth sketch of mine. These were performed on KXL AM-750 in Portland on Sundays.
[JEFF SAYS: WE HAVE A LIVE REPORT FROM TOM COX. TOM?]
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from the headquarters of the Portland Public Schools, where the school board has just unveiled their latest new plan to better serve "the children".
As you know, Jeff, many school systems have been criticized for offering free breakfasts and lunches during the summer, even as schools complain they have no money.
Well, Jeff, those same kill joys who complained about the free food, are going to complain about this too: bunk beds and laundry facilities are being added to Portland schools.
The problem is this -- sometimes, kids show up for school without clean clothes or without having had a proper night's sleep. The answer to this should be obvious to anyone. This schools need to step up and fill the gap, just as they have with breakfast and lunch.
By the way, Jeff, I should added that the schools will be adding free dinners to their menus.
[JEFF ASKS: ISN'T THIS GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY?]
Jeff, why do you hate children?
[JEFF SAYS: TOM, I DON'T HATE CHILDREN.]
Oh really? Well, if you don't hate children, then why are you questioning this plan? The only people who question spending whatever money it takes, is people like you, who hate children.
[JEFF SAYS: NO, ACTUALLY, I...]
Jeff, I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just the law.
[JEFF SAYS: EXCUSE ME?]
Yes, Jeff, last year the unions got a law passed. It says that anyone who questions school spending, hates children. Face it, Jeff, nobody wants kids to show a school in dirty clothes with no sleep.
[JEFF ASKS: WHY DON'T THEIR PARENTS TAKE CARE OF THAT?]
I'm sorry, their what?
[JEFF SAYS: THEY PARENTS. WHY DON'T THE PARENTS OF THESE KIDS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM COMING TO SCHOOL IN CLEAN CLOTHES, AND WITH ADEQUATE SLEEP?]
I'm sorry, Jeff, you're using a word that I'm not familiar with. Are you referring to the quaint 20th-century notion that every child would have one or two adults, dedicated solely to their welfare and upbringing, slavishly following them around and making sure they were clothed and fed, and giving them love and moral instruction?
[JEFF SAYS: ...YES.]
[spluttering] Well then, what are the schools supposed to do? [laughs] Teach? Get serious. The public schools haven't been in the business of teaching in years.
No, Jeff, the modern public school system exists to perform social experiments on our society's children, for example, to teach them to feel guilty about being American, and to brainwash them into being semi-literate drones who will believe people like Michael Moore and Howard Dean.
By taking over such tasks as feeding the kids all their meals, doing their laundry and giving them a place to sleep, our public schools will be much more able to perform new and more ambitious social experiments.
Eventually, the entire concept of "parent" will wither away, and children will be taken from hospital maternity wards directly to the nearest pre-preschool, to be masticated into a formless pap, that can then be shaped by the brave leaders of the Teachers' Union, into a robotic army that they can use to control the nation, and making every year 1984. Truly a progressive vision.
[JEFF SAYS: THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE.]
You only say that because you... hate children. Jeff?
[JEFF SAYS: THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT, TOM.]
[JEFF SAYS: WE HAVE A LIVE REPORT FROM TOM COX. TOM?]
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from the headquarters of the Portland Public Schools, where the school board has just unveiled their latest new plan to better serve "the children".
As you know, Jeff, many school systems have been criticized for offering free breakfasts and lunches during the summer, even as schools complain they have no money.
Well, Jeff, those same kill joys who complained about the free food, are going to complain about this too: bunk beds and laundry facilities are being added to Portland schools.
The problem is this -- sometimes, kids show up for school without clean clothes or without having had a proper night's sleep. The answer to this should be obvious to anyone. This schools need to step up and fill the gap, just as they have with breakfast and lunch.
By the way, Jeff, I should added that the schools will be adding free dinners to their menus.
[JEFF ASKS: ISN'T THIS GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY?]
Jeff, why do you hate children?
[JEFF SAYS: TOM, I DON'T HATE CHILDREN.]
Oh really? Well, if you don't hate children, then why are you questioning this plan? The only people who question spending whatever money it takes, is people like you, who hate children.
[JEFF SAYS: NO, ACTUALLY, I...]
Jeff, I'm not trying to pick on you. It's just the law.
[JEFF SAYS: EXCUSE ME?]
Yes, Jeff, last year the unions got a law passed. It says that anyone who questions school spending, hates children. Face it, Jeff, nobody wants kids to show a school in dirty clothes with no sleep.
[JEFF ASKS: WHY DON'T THEIR PARENTS TAKE CARE OF THAT?]
I'm sorry, their what?
[JEFF SAYS: THEY PARENTS. WHY DON'T THE PARENTS OF THESE KIDS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM COMING TO SCHOOL IN CLEAN CLOTHES, AND WITH ADEQUATE SLEEP?]
I'm sorry, Jeff, you're using a word that I'm not familiar with. Are you referring to the quaint 20th-century notion that every child would have one or two adults, dedicated solely to their welfare and upbringing, slavishly following them around and making sure they were clothed and fed, and giving them love and moral instruction?
[JEFF SAYS: ...YES.]
[spluttering] Well then, what are the schools supposed to do? [laughs] Teach? Get serious. The public schools haven't been in the business of teaching in years.
No, Jeff, the modern public school system exists to perform social experiments on our society's children, for example, to teach them to feel guilty about being American, and to brainwash them into being semi-literate drones who will believe people like Michael Moore and Howard Dean.
By taking over such tasks as feeding the kids all their meals, doing their laundry and giving them a place to sleep, our public schools will be much more able to perform new and more ambitious social experiments.
Eventually, the entire concept of "parent" will wither away, and children will be taken from hospital maternity wards directly to the nearest pre-preschool, to be masticated into a formless pap, that can then be shaped by the brave leaders of the Teachers' Union, into a robotic army that they can use to control the nation, and making every year 1984. Truly a progressive vision.
[JEFF SAYS: THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE.]
You only say that because you... hate children. Jeff?
[JEFF SAYS: THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT, TOM.]
Democrats Obstruct
A third radio comedy sketch of mine. As always, the "Jeff" mentioned is the program host, Jeff Kropf.
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Portland.
Now that the session is over in Salem, Democrats are reveling in the series of stunning victories that they have won this year in Oregon.
Jeff, as you know, the Democrats nationally are a minority party, and that has left them unable to do much in Congress except obstruct. They're the party of no, nix, nothing, no way, nada, not happening, too bad. The national Democratic platform appear to have collapsed into nothing more than petty obstructionism, and a desire to figure out whatever it is President Bush wants to do, and stop it.
Sadly, the once proud party of JFK and FDR has degenerated into nothing more than a faint, negative echo.
And that is what makes the contrast with Oregon so stark. Here in Oregon, Democrats are the majority party -- they control the governorship, all the major statewide offices, the state Supreme Court, and the state Senate.
This has allowed Oregon Democrats to raise obstructionism to an entirely new level. On health-care reform Democrats brought us... nothing. On major reform for K-12 education: nothing. Economic development: nothing. PERS reform: nothing. The governor's outcome based budgeting approach: failed.
Nationwide, Democrats are looking to Oregon for a new model of how a political party can use their majority status to really make things... Not Happen.
[ JEFF SAYS - Tom, political parties are supposed to enact policy changes that they believe are good for the state. ]
Jeff, that is so 2004. Maybe back when you were a kid, politics was about enacting policies, or instituting reform, or heck, even funding the schools. Not anymore.
The Democratic Party used to be a party of ideas -- in 1965. Face it just, the last a new idea to come from the Democrat was when Mike Dukakis rode around in a tank. They haven't gotten over that one.
And so, this year they've come up with a new, better approach. Instead of developing new ideas -- which is an enormous amount of work -- they're just going to criticize other people's ideas. Instead of coming up with a political agenda or a set of policies to pursue, they're going to wait for somebody else to do that... and then stop them.
[ JEFF SAYS - that sounds irresponsible. ]
EXACTLY! That is the whole point, Jeff, is to embrace irresponsibility. It's the perfect Democratic strategy for the 21st-century. If your party is not responsible, then your party isn't at fault.
So the next question is, how will the Politics of Obstruction play out in the governor's race next year?
[ JEFF SAYS - that *is* a good question, Tom - how will the public respond to Governor Kulongoski's relative ineffectiveness? ]
Well, Jeff, the Democrats believe Kulongoski's ineffectiveness will give him a big advantage. Normally, a governor running for a second term has to run on his record. He has to explain to voters all the things he did during his first term. But Ted Kulongoski has brilliantly immunized himself from any such criticism. There is nothing for anybody to criticize, because Ted didn't do anything. His record is, that he has no record.
[ JEFF SAYS - How does that help him? ]
It's easy. Ted positions himself as an outsider, ready to sweep in and clean up Salem. Because his party stands for irresponsibility, he himself is not responsible for anything that's happened. Ted will appeal to the angry voters who feel the government has failed to do its job.
[ JEFF ASKS - But Tom, if voters are angry at inactivity in Salem, won't they blame Ted? Won't that hurt him? ]
Jeff, why would the voters blame Ted Kulongoski for anything? [laughs] It's not like he's been governor or anything. [pause] Jeff?
[ JEFF SAYS - Thank you, Tom. ]
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Portland.
Now that the session is over in Salem, Democrats are reveling in the series of stunning victories that they have won this year in Oregon.
Jeff, as you know, the Democrats nationally are a minority party, and that has left them unable to do much in Congress except obstruct. They're the party of no, nix, nothing, no way, nada, not happening, too bad. The national Democratic platform appear to have collapsed into nothing more than petty obstructionism, and a desire to figure out whatever it is President Bush wants to do, and stop it.
Sadly, the once proud party of JFK and FDR has degenerated into nothing more than a faint, negative echo.
And that is what makes the contrast with Oregon so stark. Here in Oregon, Democrats are the majority party -- they control the governorship, all the major statewide offices, the state Supreme Court, and the state Senate.
This has allowed Oregon Democrats to raise obstructionism to an entirely new level. On health-care reform Democrats brought us... nothing. On major reform for K-12 education: nothing. Economic development: nothing. PERS reform: nothing. The governor's outcome based budgeting approach: failed.
Nationwide, Democrats are looking to Oregon for a new model of how a political party can use their majority status to really make things... Not Happen.
[ JEFF SAYS - Tom, political parties are supposed to enact policy changes that they believe are good for the state. ]
Jeff, that is so 2004. Maybe back when you were a kid, politics was about enacting policies, or instituting reform, or heck, even funding the schools. Not anymore.
The Democratic Party used to be a party of ideas -- in 1965. Face it just, the last a new idea to come from the Democrat was when Mike Dukakis rode around in a tank. They haven't gotten over that one.
And so, this year they've come up with a new, better approach. Instead of developing new ideas -- which is an enormous amount of work -- they're just going to criticize other people's ideas. Instead of coming up with a political agenda or a set of policies to pursue, they're going to wait for somebody else to do that... and then stop them.
[ JEFF SAYS - that sounds irresponsible. ]
EXACTLY! That is the whole point, Jeff, is to embrace irresponsibility. It's the perfect Democratic strategy for the 21st-century. If your party is not responsible, then your party isn't at fault.
So the next question is, how will the Politics of Obstruction play out in the governor's race next year?
[ JEFF SAYS - that *is* a good question, Tom - how will the public respond to Governor Kulongoski's relative ineffectiveness? ]
Well, Jeff, the Democrats believe Kulongoski's ineffectiveness will give him a big advantage. Normally, a governor running for a second term has to run on his record. He has to explain to voters all the things he did during his first term. But Ted Kulongoski has brilliantly immunized himself from any such criticism. There is nothing for anybody to criticize, because Ted didn't do anything. His record is, that he has no record.
[ JEFF SAYS - How does that help him? ]
It's easy. Ted positions himself as an outsider, ready to sweep in and clean up Salem. Because his party stands for irresponsibility, he himself is not responsible for anything that's happened. Ted will appeal to the angry voters who feel the government has failed to do its job.
[ JEFF ASKS - But Tom, if voters are angry at inactivity in Salem, won't they blame Ted? Won't that hurt him? ]
Jeff, why would the voters blame Ted Kulongoski for anything? [laughs] It's not like he's been governor or anything. [pause] Jeff?
[ JEFF SAYS - Thank you, Tom. ]
PETA and the Endangered Tapeworm
Here is another radio commentary I wrote and performed.
[Jeff says](We have a special Northwest Nonsense News report from Tom Cox.
Tom?)
Jeff, the group PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is seeking a restraining order to prevent a 14 year old North Portland girl from being treated for an infestation of intestinal parasites. The girl apparently became exposed during a family trip overseas. The parasites, a strain of rare albino tapeworm originating in Bangladesh, was previously believed extinct. PETA is applying for an Endangered Species Act listing for the rare animal, and has asked the court to bar the girl, whose name was not released, from [quote] "Any medical treatment that might harm this rare and precious creature." [unquote]
PETA believes that humans and animals are of equal moral value.
[Jeff asks] (Isn't there something we can do for this girl?)
The girl? The girl isn't the problem, Jeff. We have plenty of those. Fourteen year old girls aren't exactly in short supply. Frankly, there are too many of them - that's why Democrats occasionally toss one to Neil Goldschmidt, it keeps him happy and reduces the excess population.
No Jeff, the problem here is, how can we best protect this precious tapeworm? The court injunction to stop medical treatment is only a first step - we need to find new hosts who can provide suitable, loving homes for these rare, cuddly creatures, and help bring up their dwindling numbers. One thought is to use the power of eminent domain to condemn and seize people's bodies and use them as hosts against their will. Another is to just slip the tapeworm's eggs into the Portland water system. Eric Sten will never notice, and Portland's liberal elite won't mind because they only drink bottled water and frappucinos.
[Jeff says](Why doesn't PETA do something?)
Jeff, PETA isn't going to do anything constructive because it's not their *job* to do anything constructive. It's their job to complain, and to point out other people's moral failings. There was one suggestion, that PETA members should volunteer themselves as hosts, but that's just not going to work.
[Jeff asks](Why not?)
Nobody trusts PETA with actual animals any more. PETA ran an animal shelter on the East Coast, and it turns out they mostly just killed the animals and threw the bodies illegally into dumpsters.
[Jeff says](That's horrible. How is that ethical treatment of animals?)
Jeff, PETA doesn't actually *like* animals. [scoffs] No, PETA just hates *people*. Oh, hey, Jeff, did you get that special bottle of iced tea I left for you at the station?
[Jeff says](Yes, it was very tasty, that was very thoughtful of you.)
Well Jeff, let me just say, now you're more than just a *radio* host. Jeff?
[Jeff says](Thank you for that report, Tom.)
[Jeff says](We have a special Northwest Nonsense News report from Tom Cox.
Tom?)
Jeff, the group PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is seeking a restraining order to prevent a 14 year old North Portland girl from being treated for an infestation of intestinal parasites. The girl apparently became exposed during a family trip overseas. The parasites, a strain of rare albino tapeworm originating in Bangladesh, was previously believed extinct. PETA is applying for an Endangered Species Act listing for the rare animal, and has asked the court to bar the girl, whose name was not released, from [quote] "Any medical treatment that might harm this rare and precious creature." [unquote]
PETA believes that humans and animals are of equal moral value.
[Jeff asks] (Isn't there something we can do for this girl?)
The girl? The girl isn't the problem, Jeff. We have plenty of those. Fourteen year old girls aren't exactly in short supply. Frankly, there are too many of them - that's why Democrats occasionally toss one to Neil Goldschmidt, it keeps him happy and reduces the excess population.
No Jeff, the problem here is, how can we best protect this precious tapeworm? The court injunction to stop medical treatment is only a first step - we need to find new hosts who can provide suitable, loving homes for these rare, cuddly creatures, and help bring up their dwindling numbers. One thought is to use the power of eminent domain to condemn and seize people's bodies and use them as hosts against their will. Another is to just slip the tapeworm's eggs into the Portland water system. Eric Sten will never notice, and Portland's liberal elite won't mind because they only drink bottled water and frappucinos.
[Jeff says](Why doesn't PETA do something?)
Jeff, PETA isn't going to do anything constructive because it's not their *job* to do anything constructive. It's their job to complain, and to point out other people's moral failings. There was one suggestion, that PETA members should volunteer themselves as hosts, but that's just not going to work.
[Jeff asks](Why not?)
Nobody trusts PETA with actual animals any more. PETA ran an animal shelter on the East Coast, and it turns out they mostly just killed the animals and threw the bodies illegally into dumpsters.
[Jeff says](That's horrible. How is that ethical treatment of animals?)
Jeff, PETA doesn't actually *like* animals. [scoffs] No, PETA just hates *people*. Oh, hey, Jeff, did you get that special bottle of iced tea I left for you at the station?
[Jeff says](Yes, it was very tasty, that was very thoughtful of you.)
Well Jeff, let me just say, now you're more than just a *radio* host. Jeff?
[Jeff says](Thank you for that report, Tom.)
Monday, September 19, 2005
Helping Katrina Victims
This is the text of a comedy radio sketch I wrote and performed recently:
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from the shoulder of Interstate I-10 between Baton Rouge and New Orleans in the storm-damaged state of Louisiana. Zooming past me are relief convoys bringing needed solace to the inhabitants of this - and neighboring - states.
Now you've been hearing for many days about the usual relief supplies being brought in - the water, the food, the hygiene kits, and so forth. You've also heard about the struggles of authorities to maintain order, and the volunteer efforts to bring help in and move refugees out, and to get them resettled.
But nobody has yet chronicled what I am about to chronicle for you now - the vital role played by the Political Left in rushing their own unique assistance to this troubled region. The trucks behind me are loaded down with blame.
[JEFF: DID YOU SAY BLAME?]
Yes Jeff, blame. Even before the first Red Cross trucks were being denied entry into New Orleans by Governor Blanco, the Political Left knew that these distressed people didn't need water, power, or a unified country committed to helping them - these people needed someone to blame - and the Left mobilized their armies of bloggers, whiners and Deaniacs to give it to them.
Think about it Jeff - suppose you had lost your life's savings, your home, your job, maybe a family member. Suppose you hadn't eaten in two days or had a drink of water in 24 hours. What would you want?
[JEFF: I THINK I'D WANT FOOD, WATER, AND A SAFE PLACE TO REST.]
Well, Jeff, that just shows how ignorant YOU are. America's Angry Left are a whole lot smarter than you - they know what's really needed is to pour sand into the gears of the relief effort by demanding the apportionment of blame while the disaster is still unfolding.
Nobody has done more to rush big, steaming piles of blame into the stricken region. Nobody has done more to distract all levels of political leadership from coordinating the relief effort. Nobody has done more to split the nation along racial and ethnic lines. It's really time for the rest of us to take a moment, especially on a day like today, to reflect on the great contributions the Angry Left have made to our nation, and to express our gratitude.
Four years ago, our nation was attacked and we briefly rallied together under the mistaken notion that our nation needed unity. But it was the Angry Left who revealed that - well, we were attacked because America is evil and deserved to be attacked. It was the Angry Left who explained that, any time America is attacked, the attack itself is proof that we deserved it.
Now, in the aftermath of Katrina, it's the Angry Left who have revealed that this hurricane was under the direct control of the Bush Administration, who steered it towards black people, because Bush hates black people. If it weren't for the Angry Left, I wouldn't have known that.
Jeff, this Republican storm has all but destroyed one of the great success stories of Leftist policy - a city mired in poverty, riddled with corruption, and racked by a crime rate ten times above the national average - the crown jewel of Leftist social planning.
[JEFF: WHY IS THAT A SUCCESS STORY?]
Because everybody voted Democrat, Jeff.Why do you think the Left embraces these policies that drive up crime and mire people in intergenerational poverty?
But never fear, Jeff - the Left is on the job. You can be sure that, while others waste time bringing in water and food, or cleaning up, or maintaining order, the Angry Left is hard at work making sure America knows that we are a racist society and everything is George Bush's fault.
Can you hear those trucks rushing by? Stand by, grief stricken survivors! Blame is on the way!
Jeff?
[JEFF: THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT, TOM.]
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
More on Portland city council metrics
I am still thinking about the comments made by Portland city Council members at a recent City Club of Portland Friday Forum.
Sam Adams seemed to have the most mature presentation of metrics for his bureaus. Among other things, he seems to know what a metric is.
Dan Saltzman gave answers that were more activity or process based.
Randy Leonard, with whom I'm developing a deep love-scorn relationship, was the most intuitive and immature -- he will judge the performance of his bureau's by what people tell him at cocktail parties. The problem will be, getting him to attend the correct parties so that he can get well-rounded input and not the typical lefty liberal echo chamber.
On the one hand, Management by Walking Around can be very effective. On the other hand, must be augmented by meaningful metrics.
Sam Adams seemed to have the most mature presentation of metrics for his bureaus. Among other things, he seems to know what a metric is.
Dan Saltzman gave answers that were more activity or process based.
Randy Leonard, with whom I'm developing a deep love-scorn relationship, was the most intuitive and immature -- he will judge the performance of his bureau's by what people tell him at cocktail parties. The problem will be, getting him to attend the correct parties so that he can get well-rounded input and not the typical lefty liberal echo chamber.
On the one hand, Management by Walking Around can be very effective. On the other hand, must be augmented by meaningful metrics.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Benchmarking your Industry
Here's one way to benchmark yourself: get a third party to assemble an anonymous survey of your industry.
The Utility of Vengeance
I think this explains my campaign against Mary Gallegos in 2004.
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY
Vengeance Is Mine,
Sayeth the Lord --
But Scientists Differ
WSJ, October 15, 2004; Page B1
To a cynic, the good people of Florida who helped out their worse-off neighbors after last month's hurricanes were actually acting selfishly.
According to a leading theory of human behavior, they were merely polishing their reputations and collecting IOUs in case they themselves needed help one day. Altruism had nothing to do with it.
But this jaded view of human behavior hits a brick wall every time a Good Samaritan helps a stranger, waving off questions about his identity.
Such pure altruism has long defied scientific logic and puzzled evolutionary biologists, who seek explanations for how behaviors arose and persist. From a purely rational, cold-hearted, survival-of-the-fittest perspective, it makes no sense to do a good deed if it costs you time, money or your own safety, unless it enhances your reputation or helps a close relative survive and prosper. (In evolutionary theory, helping relatives is just as good as helping yourself, and the only reason that other animals do good deeds.)
"Human altruism is unique in the animal world," says Ernst Fehr, a behavioral economist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. "None of our current theories can explain altruism when there is anonymity and therefore no chance of reciprocity or enhancing your reputation."
But scientists think they have discovered a plausible explanation. There are just enough people in society who are willing to punish anyone who does not contribute to the common good, even when it costs them to do so. Scientists call it "altruistic punishment." But you can think of it as righteous vengeance.
To probe the prevalence of and motivation for keeping others in line even at a cost to themselves, behavioral economists have volunteers play a little game. Each player starts with $20, and each decides, without knowing the others' moves, how much to contribute to a common kitty. The kitty will be doubled and distributed among all four regardless of what -- or even whether -- each contributes. If everyone kicks in $20, for instance, the resulting $80 will be doubled to $160 and split four ways, $40 each. These cooperators will have doubled their stake.
But if only three players kick in $20 each, then the $120 distributed among all four players will give everyone $30. Those who contributed their entire $20 will be a little better off, but the person who kicked in nothing will make out best of all, keeping her $20 and getting $30 from the kitty.
The temptation to freeload while others contribute to the common good is therefore strong. But if everyone followed this selfish strategy, no one would contribute anything and no one would improve on their $20 stake. In experiments, people seem to grasp this, and contribute about half their stake. But after a while, people decrease their contribution, learning that selfishness pays.
Prof. Fehr and his colleagues then introduced a twist: They let players exact punishment. At the end of each round, if Player A thinks Player B has been freeloading, A can fine B, but only at a cost. If A wishes to fine B $1, say, A must also pay 30 cents to the person running the game.
From a purely selfish and even logical point of view, A would be an idiot to do this. A loses money and gains nothing tangible in return. Yet most players are eager to exact punishment anyway. In fact, they exact revenge even when they have no chance of reaping any rewards personally: Players are quite willing to engage in such altruistic punishment even if the game is arranged so that A never again plays in the same group as B and therefore has no chance of benefiting from more public-spirited behavior by a chastened B.
"The punishment pattern does not change," says Prof. Fehr. "It's astonishing. Even though B makes a larger public contribution in later rounds with other players, A never benefits from imposing the fine. People do not act simply to maximize their economic self-interest. They are ruled not only by cold economic logic but by emotion and a sense of fair play."
Lucky thing, too. Groups that include a number of altruistic punishers are better able to survive disasters such as war and famine. As a result, this strategy spreads, anthropologist Robert Boyd of the University of California, Los Angeles, reported in a paper earlier this year.
"Even when naturally selfish individuals are a majority, the presence of people willing to punish freeloaders can enforce social cooperation in much larger groups," says Prof. Fehr. Would-be freeloaders get the message that, if they fail to contribute to the common good, someone out there may nail them for it.
It isn't clear why some people are prone to playing avenging angel, but altruistic punishment seems to have deep neurological roots. A brain-imaging study led by Prof. Fehr this past summer found that people who have the highest activity in the cortex's reward circuit, which fires on all cylinders when we achieve something enjoyable, are also the most likely to punish freeloaders even at a high cost to themselves. Apparently, the economic cost is more than offset by the psychological reward: It feels good.
The Lord may sayeth that vengeance is His, but when it comes to keeping our fellow members of society in line, gleeful vengeance seems to be civilization's glue. [/quote]
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY
Vengeance Is Mine,
Sayeth the Lord --
But Scientists Differ
WSJ, October 15, 2004; Page B1
To a cynic, the good people of Florida who helped out their worse-off neighbors after last month's hurricanes were actually acting selfishly.
According to a leading theory of human behavior, they were merely polishing their reputations and collecting IOUs in case they themselves needed help one day. Altruism had nothing to do with it.
But this jaded view of human behavior hits a brick wall every time a Good Samaritan helps a stranger, waving off questions about his identity.
Such pure altruism has long defied scientific logic and puzzled evolutionary biologists, who seek explanations for how behaviors arose and persist. From a purely rational, cold-hearted, survival-of-the-fittest perspective, it makes no sense to do a good deed if it costs you time, money or your own safety, unless it enhances your reputation or helps a close relative survive and prosper. (In evolutionary theory, helping relatives is just as good as helping yourself, and the only reason that other animals do good deeds.)
"Human altruism is unique in the animal world," says Ernst Fehr, a behavioral economist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland. "None of our current theories can explain altruism when there is anonymity and therefore no chance of reciprocity or enhancing your reputation."
But scientists think they have discovered a plausible explanation. There are just enough people in society who are willing to punish anyone who does not contribute to the common good, even when it costs them to do so. Scientists call it "altruistic punishment." But you can think of it as righteous vengeance.
To probe the prevalence of and motivation for keeping others in line even at a cost to themselves, behavioral economists have volunteers play a little game. Each player starts with $20, and each decides, without knowing the others' moves, how much to contribute to a common kitty. The kitty will be doubled and distributed among all four regardless of what -- or even whether -- each contributes. If everyone kicks in $20, for instance, the resulting $80 will be doubled to $160 and split four ways, $40 each. These cooperators will have doubled their stake.
But if only three players kick in $20 each, then the $120 distributed among all four players will give everyone $30. Those who contributed their entire $20 will be a little better off, but the person who kicked in nothing will make out best of all, keeping her $20 and getting $30 from the kitty.
The temptation to freeload while others contribute to the common good is therefore strong. But if everyone followed this selfish strategy, no one would contribute anything and no one would improve on their $20 stake. In experiments, people seem to grasp this, and contribute about half their stake. But after a while, people decrease their contribution, learning that selfishness pays.
Prof. Fehr and his colleagues then introduced a twist: They let players exact punishment. At the end of each round, if Player A thinks Player B has been freeloading, A can fine B, but only at a cost. If A wishes to fine B $1, say, A must also pay 30 cents to the person running the game.
From a purely selfish and even logical point of view, A would be an idiot to do this. A loses money and gains nothing tangible in return. Yet most players are eager to exact punishment anyway. In fact, they exact revenge even when they have no chance of reaping any rewards personally: Players are quite willing to engage in such altruistic punishment even if the game is arranged so that A never again plays in the same group as B and therefore has no chance of benefiting from more public-spirited behavior by a chastened B.
"The punishment pattern does not change," says Prof. Fehr. "It's astonishing. Even though B makes a larger public contribution in later rounds with other players, A never benefits from imposing the fine. People do not act simply to maximize their economic self-interest. They are ruled not only by cold economic logic but by emotion and a sense of fair play."
Lucky thing, too. Groups that include a number of altruistic punishers are better able to survive disasters such as war and famine. As a result, this strategy spreads, anthropologist Robert Boyd of the University of California, Los Angeles, reported in a paper earlier this year.
"Even when naturally selfish individuals are a majority, the presence of people willing to punish freeloaders can enforce social cooperation in much larger groups," says Prof. Fehr. Would-be freeloaders get the message that, if they fail to contribute to the common good, someone out there may nail them for it.
It isn't clear why some people are prone to playing avenging angel, but altruistic punishment seems to have deep neurological roots. A brain-imaging study led by Prof. Fehr this past summer found that people who have the highest activity in the cortex's reward circuit, which fires on all cylinders when we achieve something enjoyable, are also the most likely to punish freeloaders even at a high cost to themselves. Apparently, the economic cost is more than offset by the psychological reward: It feels good.
The Lord may sayeth that vengeance is His, but when it comes to keeping our fellow members of society in line, gleeful vengeance seems to be civilization's glue. [/quote]
Democrats Ascendant
(Text of a radio segment from Jeff Kropf's show on KXL today around 12:20 p.m.)
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Portland.
Now that the session is over in Salem, Democrats are reveling in the series of stunning victories that they have won this year in Oregon.
Jeff, as you know, the Democrats nationally are a minority party, and that has left them unable to do much in Congress except obstruct. They're the party of no, nix, nothing, no way, nada, not happening, too bad. The national Democratic platform appear to have collapsed into nothing more than petty obstructionism, and a desire to figure out whatever it is President Bush wants to do, and stop it.
Sadly, the once proud party of JFK and FDR has degenerated into nothing more than a faint, negative echo.
And that is what makes the contrast with Oregon so stark. Here in Oregon, Democrats are the majority party -- they control the governorship, all the major statewide offices, the state Supreme Court, and the state Senate.
This has allowed Oregon Democrats to raise obstructionism to an entirely new level. On health-care reform Democrats brought us... nothing. On major reform for K-12 education: nothing. Economic development: nothing. PERS reform: nothing. The governor's outcome based budgeting approach: failed.
Nationwide, Democrats are looking to Oregon for a new model of how a political party can use their majority status to really make things... Not Happen.
<>
Jeff, that is so 2004. Maybe back when you were a kid, politics was about enacting policies, or instituting reform, or heck, even funding the schools. Not anymore.
The Democratic Party used to be a party of ideas -- in 1965. Face it just, the last a new idea to come from the Democrat was when Mike Dukakis rode around in a tank. They haven't gotten over that one.
And so, this year they've come up with a new, better approach. Instead of developing new ideas -- which is an enormous amount of work -- they're just going to criticize other people's ideas. Instead of coming up with a political agenda or a set of policies to pursue, they're going to wait for somebody else to do that... and then stop them.
<>
EXACTLY! That is the whole point, Jeff, is to embrace irresponsibility. It's the perfect Democratic strategy for the 21st-century. If your party is not responsible, then your party isn't at fault.
So the next question is, how will the Politics of Obstruction play out in the governor's race next year?
<>
Well, Jeff, the Democrats believe Kulongoski's ineffectiveness will give him a big advantage. Normally, a governor running for a second term has to run on his record. He has to explain to voters all the things he did during his first term. But Ted Kulongoski has brilliantly immunized himself from any such criticism. There is nothing for anybody to criticize, because Ted didn't do anything. His record is, that he has no record.
<>
It's easy. Ted positions himself as an outsider, ready to sweep in and clean up Salem. Because his party stands for irresponsibility, he himself is not responsible for anything that's happened. Ted will appeal to the angry voters who feel the government has failed to do its job.
<>
Jeff, why would the voters blame Ted Kulongoski for anything? It's not like he's been governor or anything. Jeff?
<>
Jeff, I'm coming to you live from Democratic Party headquarters in downtown Portland.
Now that the session is over in Salem, Democrats are reveling in the series of stunning victories that they have won this year in Oregon.
Jeff, as you know, the Democrats nationally are a minority party, and that has left them unable to do much in Congress except obstruct. They're the party of no, nix, nothing, no way, nada, not happening, too bad. The national Democratic platform appear to have collapsed into nothing more than petty obstructionism, and a desire to figure out whatever it is President Bush wants to do, and stop it.
Sadly, the once proud party of JFK and FDR has degenerated into nothing more than a faint, negative echo.
And that is what makes the contrast with Oregon so stark. Here in Oregon, Democrats are the majority party -- they control the governorship, all the major statewide offices, the state Supreme Court, and the state Senate.
This has allowed Oregon Democrats to raise obstructionism to an entirely new level. On health-care reform Democrats brought us... nothing. On major reform for K-12 education: nothing. Economic development: nothing. PERS reform: nothing. The governor's outcome based budgeting approach: failed.
Nationwide, Democrats are looking to Oregon for a new model of how a political party can use their majority status to really make things... Not Happen.
<>
Jeff, that is so 2004. Maybe back when you were a kid, politics was about enacting policies, or instituting reform, or heck, even funding the schools. Not anymore.
The Democratic Party used to be a party of ideas -- in 1965. Face it just, the last a new idea to come from the Democrat was when Mike Dukakis rode around in a tank. They haven't gotten over that one.
And so, this year they've come up with a new, better approach. Instead of developing new ideas -- which is an enormous amount of work -- they're just going to criticize other people's ideas. Instead of coming up with a political agenda or a set of policies to pursue, they're going to wait for somebody else to do that... and then stop them.
<>
EXACTLY! That is the whole point, Jeff, is to embrace irresponsibility. It's the perfect Democratic strategy for the 21st-century. If your party is not responsible, then your party isn't at fault.
So the next question is, how will the Politics of Obstruction play out in the governor's race next year?
<>
Well, Jeff, the Democrats believe Kulongoski's ineffectiveness will give him a big advantage. Normally, a governor running for a second term has to run on his record. He has to explain to voters all the things he did during his first term. But Ted Kulongoski has brilliantly immunized himself from any such criticism. There is nothing for anybody to criticize, because Ted didn't do anything. His record is, that he has no record.
<>
It's easy. Ted positions himself as an outsider, ready to sweep in and clean up Salem. Because his party stands for irresponsibility, he himself is not responsible for anything that's happened. Ted will appeal to the angry voters who feel the government has failed to do its job.
<>
Jeff, why would the voters blame Ted Kulongoski for anything?
<>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
