Nein Nein Nein

A few weeks ago, an article about Herman Cain's "9-9-9" flat-tax plan, mentioned the following:

"In an interview, Mr. Cain, a math major in college, said he had asked Mr. [Rich] Lowrie [Cain's financial guru, whose day job is at a Wells Fargo in Pepper Pike, Ohio--I did not make that up] to do a 'regression analysis' that would allow the government to eliminate all existing taxes, including those on capital gains and estates, and collect the same revenue from just three streams. 'The number came up to be 9 percent,' Mr. Cain said. 'And that’s how we came up with 9-9-9.'"

Now, what I don't know about math could fill a book--specifically, a math book. But still, something bothered me about that passage.

A "regression analysis" is a statistical procedure that allows people to examine the effect of different independent variables on a given outcome.  If, for example, one wonders what factors affect a person's income, one might gather various pieces of data on a sufficiently large population.  This would include income data (the dependent variable), but one would also gather data on other independent variables that might have an impact on income (e.g., education level, parents' income, IQ, uh. . . .let's say height).  By plugging these various data points into an insanely complicated equation--or, far more preferably, a computer--one could generate a formula that would show the impact of different inputs on the dependent variable (holding other inputs constant).

So why did Herman Cain call for a "regression analysis" to determine an appropriate level of flat taxation that would generate, theoretically, the same level of revenue the government currently receives?  Wouldn't that simply require knowledge of the amounts generated by the three revenue streams Cain identified as "acceptable" (personal income, corporate income, and sales income), weighting them proportionately, and then figuring out what percentage of those three streams would equal the needed governmental revenue?  A regression analysis seems like far too much work.

Maybe that's the point, though.  Maybe Herman Cain is demonstrating his willingness to do the heavy lifting, to go the extra mile, to leave no stone unturned in his quest to improve life for the American people.

Either that, or he's just a pretentious blowhard.  Not sure which.

The Ticking Clock

In the premiere of Starz' new series "Boss," the opening scene features Chicago Mayor Tom Kane (Kelsey Grammer) sitting stone-faced while an offscreen voice gives him his medical report. The news is not good.  Kane is in the early stages of a degenerative neurological disease that will eventually, inevitably, kill him. The clock is ticking.

The doomed central character has become something of a television trend. In the first episode of "Breaking Bad," we learn that Walter White has an apparently fatal cancer; indeed, this revelation sets the whole plot in motion. And then, of course, there is "The Big C," starring Laura Linney as an even-more-doomed cancer patient. "Television protagonist" continues to climb the list of most potentially fatal occupations, recently passing "New York City taxi driver" and closing in on "grandmother of a college student around finals week."

Many have noted the resemblance of modern television dramas (and some comedies) to novels.  The dying hero convention provides modern television with yet another novelistic quality: the definitive ending.

Conventional television series used to continue from season to season, as long as the sponsors and networks considered them profitable.  When they went off the air, it was generally with little fanfare.  Only the most popular series merited large buildups to a finale, but the finale itself was often nothing more than a typical episode, perhaps extended to a profit-maximizing length.  Writer's attempts to imbue a finale with some sort of ontological significance would often result in, at best, treacly "warm fuzzies" ("Cheers," "Friends"); other times, the shows generated feelings of utter bewilderment ("Seinfeld") or outrage ("The X-Files").

Some shows did, indeed, have "natural" endings.  It didn't take a genius to imagine what the final episode of "MASH" would feature.  Similarly, "The West Wing" finale provided an unsurprising sense of completion, as Jed Bartlett jets off to his term-limited, post-presidential retirement and a presumably best-selling memoir.

Now, though, television writers and producers seem more inclined to plant the seeds of their shows' eventual denouements in their opening episodes.  A show like "Boss" promises its viewers a definitive finale, even though a show about a tough, big-city mayor could presumably continue indefinitely.  Other shows offer less explicit but no less real guarantees of their own, shall we say, finity: While "Dexter" can have as many seasons as its creative team chooses to make, we can see that, if circumstances demand, everyone's favorite serial killer can be caught.
The ticking clock provides a nice sense of urgency, and, perhaps more importantly, a sense of relief: Just as few of us would choose to read a novel that has no ending, we take comfort in the fact that, while we lose ourselves in our heroes' stories, these stories, too, will reach an end.

Thursday Trendwatch

Here are the top-trending topics on Yahoo! as of 6:52 PM:

10. STOCK-MARKET PRICES: Apparently, "It is the worst performing stock market in sub-Saharan Africa this year." And professional investors say, BUY, BUY, BUY!  Why not?  Now that they've destroyed every Western stock market, the plutocrats need something to wreck.  Of course, there's not nearly as much wealth to destroy in sub-Saharan Africa, so you better jump on these opportunities before they disappear.  Occupy the Sahel!

9. SUV OF THE YEAR: And the winner is, the Range Rover Evoque.  It's rather large, though, so good luck finding a parquing space.  Pretentious fuquers.

8. HEALTH CARE PLANS: The big news under this heading is that the premier of Alberta, Canada, has caused quite a stir among parliamentary back-benchers for an apparent softening of her position on one of her campaign pledges.  Rather than appointing a judge to head an inquiry into alleged queue-jumping in the national health system by well-connected Albertans, Premier Alison Redford has declared that she will await the findings of the government's Health Quality Council, members of which are looking into the controversy, and are expected to release a report in,. . .zzzzzzzzz.  Good lord!  What is WRONG with Canadians?!?!  Even their governmental scandals are boring and polite!

7.JOHN EDWARDS CHARGES: The former senator, former vice-president, former tribune of the working poor has failed in his bid to get federal campaign-finance abuse charges dropped.  Remember when John Edwards was reputable enough that, if he were trending on Yahoo!, it would just say, "John Edwards"?  How the well-coiffed have frizzed!

6. MAKSIM CHMERKOVSKIY. . .is trending topic number 6.  And only the SECOND-HIGHEST representative of "Dancing with the Washed-up and/or Freakish" on today's list.

5. CHELSEA CLINTON: Boy, remember when she was a funny-looking ugly duckling?

Anyway, she's putting the kibosh on rumors that she's planning a congressional campaign.  Too bad, really.  Anyone with Bill and Hillary's genes would seem to be a natural.  We'll wait and see.

4. KAITLIN OLSEN: Fills this week's mandatory celebrity-baby slot.  She's pregnant.  Woot.

3. SISTER WIVES BABY: Fills this week's mandatory creepy-as-hell celebrity baby slot. 

2. KATE MIDDLETON: Or, as we royal watchers like to call her, the Duchess of Cambridge, or "Weighty Katy" (look, Brits love the rhyming nicknames, what can I tell you?) filled in for Prince Charles at a charity event.  Unless the audience couldn't tell the difference between the two, this seems like a non-newsworthy story.

And the number one trendiest topic at this moment on the space-time continuum is. . . .

1. CARRIE-ANN INABA:

We told you Maksim Checkernosy was only one of the "Dancing with the Irrelevant" members on today's list. The dancing judge has revealed that she met her fiance on eHarmony.  Frankly, I find this depressing.  If even an attractive celebrity needs to use a dating service, what chance do mere mortals have?

Day Off

Today, I'm frustrated.  It's work-related and complicated--and it's even got me rhyming!  Nothing overly serious, just annoying and too involved to go into here.  Promise to return tomorrow in time for Trendwatch!  So, you've been warned!

All Homework and No Play

Generally, when the older generation comments on the circumstances of the younger, the elders lament how much easier the young whippersnappers have it.  "When I was your age, I had to walk five miles to and from school--uphill both ways--through three feet of snow, 13 months a year!"  Well, for all those weary of cliches, I happily report one area at least where we Gen X-ers had it easier than today's teens: Homework.

At many an elite private school, administrators have announced to great fanfare a desire to lighten their students' homework burden ("At Elite Schools, Easing Up a Bit on Homework").  This comes in response to psychologists' unsurprising findings that excessive homework--say, more than 3.5 hours a night--has little benefit and may actually prove detrimental, especially if it deprives teens of much-needed sleep.

Fair enough, but. . . . 3.5 hours of homework?  Per NIGHT?!?  I don't think I ever did much more than, like, 4-5 hours of homework per week in high school.  And I've done all right, if I do say so myself.

In college, a general rule of thumb is that you should spend two hours per week studying outside of class for every hour in class.  Thus, a full-time student--generally someone taking 12 units worth of classes--who spends approximately 12 hours per week in class should commit about 24 hours per week to homework.  This does, indeed, work out to about 3.5 hours per day.  But this is for college classes!  By defnition, they are more difficult than high-school classes.  Plus, these classes often offer less "instruction" in the classes than those in a secondary-school setting--the presumption being that college students need to learn to work independently.  When did the standard for high school become equal to that of most colleges--indeed, greater than most colleges, if the private schools are now reducing their requirements to approximately 3.5 hours per night?

As a teacher, I certainly believe students need homework.  Especially in a writing class, students cannot develop their skills in a mere three hours of in-class work per week.  But I would not expect any but the most ambitious, passionate, and/or insane students to spend something like five hours a week every week writing, especially if they must then spend the same amount of time on all their other classes.  Hell, I don't spend that much time writing--and I have my own BLOG.

There is something to be said for enjoying one's youth doing things other than studying.  Kudos, then, to private schools that see the need to scale back on their excessive demands. . . .

Unless, of course, the demands AREN'T excessive. . . .Hold on a minute--do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself.  Maybe schools actually assign the same amount of homework they always have.  Maybe it just takes students longer to complete it because their brains have been addled by years of video games.

Hmph!  Kids today!  They don't know how easy they've got it!

Monday Miscellany

In his new book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker

argues that people have become less and less violent over time.

Personally, I think that's just what his hair wants us to believe.  Then, after lulling us into a false sense of security, it will spring from Pinker's head and kill us all.

99% and Counting

Economists have suggested that an economic system can maximize either equity or efficiency, not both.  The free market, for example, is hailed (at least in its theoretical ideal) as a model of efficiency. But with its inevitable winners and losers--losers who may through no fault of their own find themselves homeless or starving--the market leaves much to be desired in terms of basic fairness.

Now, another economic dichotomy has become apparent: a split between equality and inclusivity.  As the United States has become ever-more inclusive--reducing or eliminating economic barriers to women, ethnic minorities, and gays--the country has at the same time become ever more unequal ("The Paradox of the New Elite").  Makes sense: As barriers to entry based on outmoded prejudices fall, the pool of prospective economic successes grows.  At the same time, there are only so many spaces at the top of the financial food chain, and more spaces don't appear simply because there are more and more qualified people to fill them.  Thus, those not in the top spots, comprising, let's say, 99% of the population, are an ever-more diverse lot.

Welcome news in its own way to be sure.  If the various "Occupy" movements around the country succeed in bringing about a bit more economic equality, though, we must make sure that such wealth-sharing does not come at the expense of this hard-won social inclusivity.