203. 40,000 hotdogs at an Indians Game

Twitter continues to be relevant, maybe more than Facebook, as we are mired in an environment of trending topics and hashtags. It is used in different ways, and as I have written on a prior occasion, I use it to follow a variety of interests—mostly newspapers, cable news sources, sport teams and social organizations. I like the timely quick bits of information, which I can follow up as I wish. When our house caught on fire in 2011, I took to Twitter and a local newspaper feed to get information on what had happened.

But Twitter information is selective, I follow that which interest me—such liberal news sources, lots of animal rescue and welfare groups, and vegetarian/vegan advocates.

One danger in my selectiveness, or anyone’s selectiveness, is perspective. Whether it is Twitter or the friends we choose, or the news channels we watch, we tend to gravitate to those who believe as we do. For advocates, it provides motivations and celebration; for the ideological, it reassures one’s philosophies.

Thus, as a follower of animal welfare and vegetarian organizations, I read about, on a daily basis, everything going on in that community. I am appalled at the military use of animals in their training exercises, university animal testing and the news that a greyhound was electrocuted. At the same time, I celebrate when a school goes vegetarian, a research lab is shut down, or news about the latest health benefit of following a plant-based diet. Every day, I have an emotional response to this information—often several of them (Chipotle is testing tofu!). It becomes a relationship.

While this information is extremely important to me, it’s easy to lose social perspective. Being active in a social movement, and engaging with others who share the same values, it’s easy to overestimate its relevance among others. And this is often noted when I read an article from a “neutral” news source, in which the comments, often harshly, criticize those who believe in animal welfare and vegetarianism. It’s easy to forget that vegetarians are only three percent of the population. Because I notice each vegetarian and am exposed to the issues on a daily basis, it seems like a lot more to me. In reality most people don’t care.

It’s the same with news organizations and talk radio, in which it selects issues to raise passions and reassure perspectives. Turn on a liberal radio show recently and you will be outraged at the five year-old boy that killed his sister and the gun company that markets to toddlers. Turn on a conservative radio show and you will hear how liberals want to take away your guns. In the same way, viewers and listeners overestimate perspective—it reassures how reasonable their beliefs are and how outrageous and extreme other perspectives are. It has, in part, created the polarization of this country.

I thought of this distortion the other day at the Indians game. My wife and I attended on “Dollar Dog Day.” As I preface, I begrudge the fact that this promotion did not exist when I ate meat—thankfully, I suppose, because I might have averaged a hot dog per inning. But more than I imagined, the promotion was very popular, as the concession lines were very long. My wife and I sat in amusement as hot dogs were consumed in considerable quantity. However, we were reassured when a young girl in front of us turned down a hot dog from a friend, “I am vegetarian,” she said.

We had a personal moment of celebration, and my wife said, “See, it’s catching on.” And while I think she is correct, because I do think there is a positive movement toward a plant-based diet—our perspective might be biased.

The unfortunate truth was that, according to the scoreboard count, they had sold over 36,000 hot dogs by about the seventh inning. Figuring that number easily topped 40,000 by game’s end, and calculating that there were about 20,000 fans, it averaged out to about two hot dogs per fan (and at least a few had more than two, since me, my wife and girl in front of us did not have any). We saw a couple of teens go through a near half dozen all by themselves.

The point, I suppose, is that despite our exposure to vegetarianism, and the importance it plays in our lives, and because we have a lot of vegetarian friends, it is still a movement that only represents three percent of the population. It’s popularity is exaggerated, in our minds, by our exposure, reassurance and advocacy with vegetarian organizations, news and events.

By selecting who we follow on Twitter, newspapers we read and news organizations we watch, we find our comfort zone with our beliefs and acceptance. Most people only care about what they care about—and there are enough issues, interest and causes to go around.  But it is easy to exaggerate our perspective and the importance of the things that matter to us based on the company we keep and the information we select.

40,000 hot dogs is a lot of hot dogs.

202. Accurate forecast? Sometimes

The changing weather can be both an endeavoring and depressing characteristic of Northeast Ohio. It can be 65 degrees and sunny one day, then snowing the next. Last year, March brought summer temperatures; this year, heading into May, it seems like we are still waiting for spring.

As I have gotten older, the weather seems to matter more to me. When I was young, and as a kid who loved baseball, I remember going to my room and crying when our little league games were rained out. On the flip side, like most kids, I loved snow days-a day home from school to sled or play football. But that was basically the extent that I cared about the weather.

There was no Internet or smart phones, for 24 hour radar updates and projections, or a cable channel dedicated to weather forecasting-there was a local news segment and the newspaper. I don't recall paying much attention to the weather forecasts, I watched the news for the sports segment, and I treated each day individually.

Today I pay more attention to the weather forecasts, and am surprised how depressed a few gloomy days in a row can make me. I even pay attention to sunrise and sunset times-and how long the days are.
With age and technology, I now regularly check the weather and the local radar-and like many people I speak with- I am amazed at how poorly the weather seems to be forecasted. We can locate the Higgs boson particle, but cannot figure out when it is going to rain? Locally, weather forecasts seem compromised as competing stations each try to out sensualize the other-with many extreme weather forecasts seeming to fall short.

I wanted to learn more about the weather and recently began watching a Teaching Company class on the subject. Coincidentally, I also began reading Nate Silver's book on predictions entitled, The signal and the noise: Why so many predictions fail-but some don't. In the book, I was pleasantly surprised to see a chapter on weather prediction.

Silver's book briefly describes the history of weather forecasts-the challenges, successes, and the difference between the government weather center (The National Weather Service), for-profit weather centers like the Weather Channel and local television forecasts.

Weather predictions are, of course, based on statistical models-in which very slight fluctuations, due to exponential functions, can have a distinct impact. Thus, when you see a weather forecast that has a 20 percent chance of rain, what it means is that when a similar forecast is made, based on the current weather module-it should rain two days out of ten. This is called "calibration" and its accuracy is easily tested.

The National Weather Service forecasts are well calibrated; however, the Weather Channel admits to "fudging a little under certain conditions." The reason, Silver surmised, "People notice one type of mistake-the failure to predict rain-more than another kind, false alarms. If it rains when it isn't supposed to, they curse the weatherman for ruining their picnic, whereas an unexpectedly sunny day is taken as a serendipitous bonus. "

Silver described this as a "wet bias" and it is worse in regards in to local forecasts, "The TV meteorologists weren't placing much emphasis on accuracy." In one study of a Kansas City meteorologist, when he predicted a 100 percent chance of rain, it failed to rain one-third of the time.

"The attitudes seems to be that this is all in good fun-who cares if there is a little wet bias, especially if it makes for great television," Silver concluded.

In making weather temperature forecasts, there are a couple of factors that must be considered as baseline statistics-that is predictions that will be tested against. There is "persistence," which is the basic "assumption that the weather today will be the same tomorrow (and the next day) as it was today," and there is "climatology," which is the "long-term historical average of conditions on a particular date in a particular area."

What Silver discovered was that commercial forecasts beat persistence and climatology up until nine days out. After day nine, climatology was actually better at making predictions than commercial forecasts-thus, the last couple days of those ten day forecast (or greater) ought to be ignored. I've noticed recently, that many local forecasts stop at about eight days, apparently aware of the meaninglessness of forecasts beyond that point.

Silver's book makes the convincing argument to weather forecasting as an overall success (despite the fudging and wet bias). He believes we have improved significantly over time-and particularly in comparison to other types of forecasting, like earthquakes and economic factors.

It's important to realize that forecasts are statistical projections, not certainty. That it rains on a day when there is only a 20 percent chance of rain is actually quite normal, actually expected, two out of ten times. It is easy to dismiss the accuracy of the forecast on many of those other eight days-days we probably fail to offer credit to the weather forecasters.

Seems I still have something to learn about weather forecasting. Maybe the forecasters are not a bad as I thought. Or maybe Northeast Ohio is really unpredictable.

201. Portman's selfish move helps US

I've often noticed when celebrities get involved in medical causes that it is because of a personal interest-usually themselves or one of the their children has been overcome by the disease or illness. Think of Michael J. Fox and his work for Parkinson's disease as one example. As a celebrity, they have an opportunity to bring tremendous awareness and funding to the cause--and it is great that they do.

However, it's obvious that there is a self-interest in the undertaking. Finding a cure would help them or someone they care about overcome the disease, and I guess nobody can be blamed for that. The fight also stems from personal awareness. In being inflicted with the disease, they have likely met many others who share the same struggle. Suddenly, it is an issue worth fighting for.

I thought of this sudden awareness when I heard that Senator Rob Portman had abruptly changed his position on gay marriage--because of his gay son. This perspective, of course, goes against the conservative mindset and the values that he embraced. His change of position is selfish and hypocritical.

And of course, Portman is not the first Republican to have this change of heart; former Vice-President Dick Cheney had the same revelation, for the exact same reason.

In writing "Consider this . . .," I have always worked to challenge perspectives. We should think about the issues, from many perspectives and come to a moral and ethical position. It should not be driven primarily based on self-interest, but rather what is right or wrong. Until sparked by a personal interest (and notably after he was no longer a possible Vice-Presidential candidate) Portman was willing to ruin the lives of gays who wanted to marry.

Matthew Yglesias, of Slate magazine, makes this distinct point:

"Remember when Sarah Palin was running for vice president on a platform of tax cuts and reduced spending? But there was one form of domestic social spending she liked to champion? Spending on disabled children? Because she had a disabled child personally? Yet somehow her personal experience with disability didn't lead her to any conclusions about the millions of mothers simply struggling to raise children in conditions of general poorness. Rob Portman doesn't have a son with a pre-existing medical condition who's locked out of the health insurance market. Rob Portman doesn't have a son engaged in peasant agriculture whose livelihood is likely to be wiped out by climate change. Rob Portman doesn't have a son who'll be malnourished if SNAP benefits are cut. So Rob Portman doesn't care."

Trying to find some sort of justification, Portman wrote in the Columbus Dispatch, "We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people's lives."

That is not entirely true. Many Conservatives believe that government should be based on the principles of Christianity--which is quite adept when it comes to telling people how they should live their lives. And they have no trouble limiting liberties when they want to tell woman what they can do with their bodies, who should be allowed to live in this country, what language we should speak-and who is allowed to marry.

Conservatives, like everyone else, pick and choose when they want regulation and when they want personal liberties. When people do not behave how they would like them to, they ask government to make them. Whether their arguments about a particular issue are right or wrong, Portman's assertion is ridiculous.

If that wasn't enough, Portman then said, "The overriding message of love and compassion that I take from the Bible, and certainly the Golden Rule, and the fact that I believe we are all created by our maker, that has all influenced me in terms of my change on this issue." Huh? That doesn't even make sense--it's just an attempt to use as many key words as possible in a sentence (Bible, Golden Rule, created by our maker, love and compassion). In fact, it's his interpretation of the Bible that shaped his view of gay marriage.

Conversely, by many counts, the Bible includes over 100 passages on serving the poor. Yet, Portman misses this message when he works to protect the interest of the wealthy. Where is his love and compassion when it comes to the poor?

The truth is I do not care how we get there, as long we move progressively forward. Having to choose between his son and his values, I will accept the public enlightenment of Portman as a positive revelation that will help move this country forward.

Admitting that you were wrong, especially on a moral issue, is something that many people-particularly public officials-are reluctant to do, so I give Portman credit for his public announcement.

Maybe he will take this opportunity to also revisit some of his other perspectives.

199. Soda's bad, but a ban is a bad idea

In New York, the debate rages on about the ban on soda. At the moment, it has been held up by a New York State judge and it is unlikely that an appeal will be successful.

I have long had a battle with soda, essentially addicted to the combination of carbonation, sugar and caffeine. When I was little, I used to volunteer to get soda for my parents. Bottles back then, I would load up the glass with ice-enabling a few more leftover sips for myself.

The fact is I love soda, regular more than diet, but either is better than neither, and I could easily drink a twelve pack every other day. Nothing is more refreshing after a long workout and I never shied away from drinking it first thing in the morning to get me going. I drank it like others drink coffee.

One of the best things about eating at restaurants was always the unlimited refills. I like almost all types of soda, I was not loyal to Coke or Pepsi, orange and root beer is good too, and I often just bought whichever was on sale. In the worst of my addiction or when I was studying for a law school exam, I would go out at 2:00 am and buy a two liter-and drink it all before I fell asleep.

Undoubtedly, even as a kid, soda contributed to my weight issues. The thousand or so extra calories each week is difficult to overcome as you get older. Many studies suggest that diet soda is actually more of a hindrance to losing weight than regular soda. With the nation's increasing obesity problem, it's not a surprise that soda has been identified as one of the causes.

The question is one of government responsibility and asks when should government be expected to step in to act in the best interest of its citizens-and when that obligation infringes on the rights of citizens to make their own decisions.

It is a difficult line to consider--balancing public safety and the freedom of choice. We have seen the same question in the past with alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. In fact, there is a national debate whether to legalize medical marijuana as the right to choose one's own method of treatment. Some businesses, ironically, find themselves on both sides of the perspective--selling soda, and paying for healthcare costs.

To be fair to soda, there are also many other unhealthy foods. At the hospital not too long ago, I was amused that they did not sell regular soda but offered single serving cheese trays-loaded with an unconsciousable amount of calories, sodium, cholesterol and saturated fats. As a measure of consistency, the infamous "slippery slope," and economic interest, where should government step in? People will almost always choose the right to make their own decisions.

From the beginning, I did not agree with the ban on soda-nor have I ever suggested that they should stop selling steaks, cheese or ice cream either. I think that health should be shaped through nutrition education-unbiased and without the pressure of special interest groups.

As a nation, we had better start getting our act together. Our healthcare system is unsustainable-and there needs to be a shift to prevention, rather than treatment. It is not easy and I do not mean to understate the challenge; many of us have habits that go back to our childhood.

Most of last year, I abstained from any soda, regular or diet, and drank more water than at any other time in my life. After a bit of a relapse around August, when I began drinking "a few here and there," I drank about six cans of soda at the Cleveland Air Show on Labor Day weekend. Realizing that I was back on the wrong track, I have not had one since.

I consider it my personal ban on soda.