Dantzing With Pollsters - Follow Up

Yesterday I did a  post about ways to respond to political pollsters that raises questions like what do you owe telephone survey folks?  The only things I said you owe them are some respect and friendliness, because it's not an easy job.  I just got a call from a local Anchorage number - 268 2121.  It's a bit late for calls, but I answered it.

Caller:  May I speak to Steve?
Me:  Whose calling?
Caller:  Tanya.  I'm from MRS.
Me:  [She sounded tired, and remembering my advice, I answered in a very friendly]     Hi Tanya, how are you doing tonight?  What is MRS and where are you?
Tanya:  McQuire Research Service, in Nevada.

Well she was clearly pleased to get a friendly response and, in her words, "not to be yelled at."  But I did tell her about yesterday's blog post and she asked if I wanted to do the survey.  Since she'd identified her company, which I'd said yesterday legit pollsters should do,  I said, 'Sure."

Tanya:  How likely are you to vote next month?
Steve:   Barring getting hit by a bus . . . you know Tanya, actually, I plan to vote next Monday when early voting starts.  So I'm definitely voting in October, not next month.
Tanya:   . . . .
Steve:  If I say I'm not voting next month, that ends the survey, doesn't it?
Tanya:  Yes . . .
Steve:  I guess they didn't write the question very well, because I'm sure they don't care when I vote, do they?  But since I'm not going to vote next month, and I answered honestly 'no,' you have to end this right?
Tanya:  Yes,

I thought I heard an unspoken, "but . ."

I hope she still gets paid, even though we only did the first question.  But she shouldn't be penalized if people don't plan to vote.  That's information too.  I should have asked her. 

[OK, this post is sort of a stall.  I'm working on several longer posts that aren't quite right yet, and this seemed like an easy filler.  But if you didn't see the original post Dantzing With Pollsters, that has a little more meat.

I don't generally watch television or listen to much AM radio, so I'm relatively spared a lot of the political advertising.  The mailed advertising doesn't make noises and is easy to put into the recycle bin.

But I noticed tonight, getting a Youtube clip for a post I'm working on, that I got a Dan Sullivan ad linking Mark Begich to Obama before the video.  But I had to play the video several times and then I got Begich ads with a women talking about how Sullivan would interfere between her and her doctor at her clinic. 

Complexity Talk Human-Environment Interactions - And Free Maps

I'm on the mailing list for the UAA complexity series.

I realize this is a specialized topic, but I've always found the complexity presentations particularly interesting.  The talks are designed for an interdisciplinary audience.  It's free and Fridays offer free parking on campus. 

Title: Spatially Explicit Modeling of Human-Environment Interactions.
Presented by: Dr. Frank Witmer. UAA. Computer Science and Engineering
When: Friday,  October 17th 2014 11:30-12:45
Where: CPISB 105A 

Abstract: Modeling complex human-environment interactions can take many forms.  Most of the data we use to inform our models has a spatial dimension to it, even if it is not recorded as an attribute in the dataset. This presentation discusses the importance of explicitly incorporating the spatial dimension when modeling human-environment relationships.  Some common modeling approaches using simulation and regression will be discussed before looking at an example from my research modeling climate variability and violence in sub-Saharan Africa.

Note:  The names of buildings at the university are difficult enough, but then when they become acronyms they are almost impossible.   This talk is in CPISB.  I figured the B was for building.   What mnemonic device can I use to remember this? I didn't have to think.  It jumped right out.   See Piss Building.  So I immediately thought of this famous Belgian statue. Mannekin Pis, which should be on top of the building.

Image (and there are many more) from Minube

I looked it up.  Probably this should be on top of the building:  Conoco-Philips Integrated Science Building.   It's back behind the library. 



And  Free Maps

I also got a link to the USGS site which announces:

Nearly Every USGS Topo Map Ever Made. For Free.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been producing detailed topographic maps for more than 125 years. Today they are nearly all digitized and free to download through the USGS Map Store, an incredible treasure trove for both map junkies and casual hikers alike.

Dantzing With Pollsters

I didn't answer, waiting for them to leave a message.  They called twice yesterday.  Once he must have been paying attention to something else and missed the message because he said, "Steve?"  six or seven times on voice mail.

But they left no messages.  I googled "Dantz 925 948 9469" and got 2012 stuff at 800Notes:

"R Squared

30 Sep 2012

Just got a call today from that number. This is research center conducting statistics for the upcoming elections. The agent asks: "are you going to vote during the upcoming elections?" And you answer yes or no. That was it.

Caller: Research Center

Call Type: Survey"

"Maria

1 Oct 2012

This number has called me several times in the past few days. I don't pick up and they don't leave a message. I tried calling back, but it said the number wasn't in service."

Why are they calling?

Well, basically, they are calling you to get information from you that they get paid to gather.

OK, pollsters call for different reasons.

1. On the top of the pecking order (for me)  are academic researchers who are trying gain understanding of some issue or human behavior and the results of their research will be available to all and might give us more insight into how the world works.
    
2.  Political pollsters whose data are available to anyone.  They are trying to get a handle on a coming election or some other issue.  And to improve their reputations so clients will pay them to do private polls. 
    
3.  Pollsters who get paid by a political candidate so that candidate can see how close the election is and to figure out the best way to reach voters with his message or get voters to actually vote.


4. Pollsters who get paid by PACs or other political operators who want to figure out how to get a particular candidate elected or a particular initiative to pass or be defeated.

It's not unreasonable during an election, to try to get a sense of how likely it is for one candidate or another to win, especially if you are one of the candidates.  Nor is it unreasonable for candidates to try to get a sense of which issues are most important to the voters.  But some candidates do this more honorably than others.

And nowadays, when outside PACS have tens of millions of dollars to spend to manipulate an election, things get less honorable and reasonable.


What Do You Owe The Pollsters?

They're making money off of your information.  You didn't invite them to call.  In fact you may even be on the "do not call registry."  While I think there can be a public benefit for answering the calls of academic pollsters, and there are honest politicians who are legitimately gathering information to better get their message out (rather than to pander to whatever the voters seem to want to hear),  it's hard to tell which pollster is which.

A good, legitimate pollster will tell you which organization they work for, but not necessarily who their client is, particularly if it's a political poll.  Knowing the client might bias the respondent's answers.

Basically, I've come to the conclusion that I don't owe them answers.  I don't owe them picking up the phone, answering their questions, or if I do answer, I don't have an obligation to tell the truth. 

I do owe them a modicum of respect and friendliness.  After all, these are people who are trying to earn a living in difficult economic times.  Of course, this goes with all transactions.  And if they are not respectful or friendly back, you don't even owe them this.  Though, staying polite, if uncooperative, shows them you are a nobler person.

Can You Have Fun With Pollsters?

Happiness is all about finding the positive in what you encounter in life.  Look toward these calls as an opportunity to be playful.  Some options.

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  No problem, I charge $120 per hour, with a 15 minute minimum.  Send me a $30 check and when you call back I'll be happy to answer for up to 15 minutes.

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  And I'd like to ask you some questions too.   Let me ask you some questions and depending on your answers, I'll then let you ask me.
1.  Who do you work for and where are you calling from?  [This one they should answer - at least the polling company, not the client]
2   And what client is paying you to do this poll?
3.  How much are you getting paid per hour?
4.  If your company is getting paid and you're getting paid for my information, don't you think it is reasonable that I get paid too?

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  Sure, no problem, but I don't promise to answer honestly.  [This has sometimes ended the call and other times not.]

Pollster:  Hello, I'd like to ask you some questions about the upcoming election.
Answer:  Hey, I'm sorry that the economy is so bad that you've had to stoop to making these kinds of calls.  What did you do before?  or What is your degree in?

If you get a particularly nasty push poll (where they give you leading questions and the poll isn't to get information, but to influence your vote by slandering a candidate) you can
1.  record the call (in Alaska it's legal to record a call if one party knows it's being recorded - for an overview of this one-party consent nationally see here) and then send the recording to the slandered candidate so they know what's going on.  If both parties must consent in your state, you can simply tell them "I hope you don't mind but I record all my calls" or you can just ask if they mind and if they do, say, "Sorry then. Goodbye."
2.  move to your computer and type up their scripts as they read them.  You can ask them to slow down and repeat questions because you can't hear them or because you need to think about it.  You can make a 30 second call take five minutes.  It will drive them crazy.  And you can send your transcript of the questions to the candidate they are trashing.

Another activity is to try to get the pollster off their script.  If it's a legitimate poll, they should be asking each person the exact same question and not give any extra information, except to repeat the question.  But these folks have been doing a lot of calling and they can get bored and might be susceptible to a little subterfuge of their polls.

Again, try to ascertain what kind of poll it is.  The most reputable will tell you who they are and possibly what the poll is about (if that doesn't bias the information.)  For instance:

Pollster:  Hi, I'm calling from the University of X and I'd like to ask you some questions about health care.  The information will be confidential, your name will not be on the response sheet I keep, though we will have a coded identifier. 

But remember, a lot of university polling is done, not really for academic research, but because the university is being paid by a client to gather the information.  Sometimes this might be for a state agency, other times it could be for a private company.  You can ask and if they won't tell, you can politely decline.

Make this into a little dance of wits.  A game you play with the pollsters.  With a little imagination you can change how you view pollsters, change them from a nuisance into   pollsterade.  Think of each new call as a challenging game.  Some of the callers will enjoy it too if you're polite and clever about it. 


One more catch - robot calls.  You can't play with them usually because they aren't programed to hear you.  The best I can think to do is just not respond and make them use up as much time as possible before they automatically hang up.  If they do respond to voice, tell them you only respond to real people. Or try "Operator" to get a real person.  But don't hold your breath. 

Speaking of Conspiracies - "I cannot be certain that they were all humans"

I got this email yesterday.  Generally these go straight to junk, but with the conspiracy theme in my head, I decided to look.  These people should either be getting psychiatric help and/or writing science fiction, except there's no science involved.  This is just an excerpt.

After I prayed today with a friend, our Blessed Saviour gave me several visions relative to the ebola plague, its spread in this nation and also its spread in some other nations. . .

After seeing this nation, which seemed to be covered in blood, I saw piles of dead people. The dead seemed to pile up so quickly! In great heaps, they were piled up! Then, I saw workers, who took the dead, who were stashed in plastic bags, and they began to toss the heaps of dead bodies into open box cars and onto long flat-bed trucks. Thereafter, I saw them unload masses of these dead bodies and throw them into empty houses and set afire those houses, which were stacked with dead bodies and they burned the bodies and the houses together! Then, I saw these workers take more bodies and throw them into square pits, which had concrete bottoms and concrete sides, but were otherwise open pits and on top of the bodies, they poured accelerants and set afire these bodies and burned them in this way.

After I received the above part of this vision, I then was taken into an underground base and there I saw the President of this nation. Along with him were a small group of people, though I cannot be certain that they were all humans; and I say this because of the high-reptile hybrids, who look like humans. However, they are not human, but can be up to 99% reptilian and they are very great enemies of all people.

I watched them there and I knew that they were in the midst of a plot, a very great plot, indeed; and that plot was to determine how to spread this virus among the people in this nation at a more alarming rate. I saw what they plotted, at least some of it, and firstly I saw that they were planning to put this virus into packaged meat in some of the grocery stores. Then, I saw that they were plotting to put some of this virus into open reservoirs of drinking water. Then, I saw that they were plotting to release terrorists into shopping centers, who would run quickly from one to another shopper and inject certain of these unsuspecting shoppers with the ebola virus, and thereafter flee! . . ." [emphasis added]

Yet people think the CIA raising money for Nicaraguan arms by selling drugs (see previous post)  is far-fetched and they belief this deluded fantasy.  The reptilian stuff is listed at Mother Jones' list of Obama conspiracies.  It's second from the end today as i write, but surely more will be added quickly.   The email did not ask for money or even have a link.  But I guess when I opened it they took all the information they needed from my computer.  Oh, yeah, another conspiracy. 

Kill The Messenger - Go See The Movie

A favorite relative of mine suggested I blog about conspiracy and how do you determine what's bullshit and what's real.    I reminded him of a post I did called Does Idaho Exist?  What Everyone Should Know About Philosophy  which touches on that, but it was a good idea to go further.

I got my first glimpse of real conspiracy when I lived in a small provincial capital in Northern Thailand and American military jets flew low over my town, headed north, to  bomb Laos and North Vietnam. Were those planes over my town doing the bombing?  I can't be sure, but they were flying very low and we were secretly bombing during those years.  From Encyclopedia.com

"Flying out of bases in Thailand, U.S. Air Force fighter‐bombers—primarily F‐105 Thunderchiefs and later F‐4 Phantoms—joined U.S. Navy Phantoms and A‐4 Skyhawks from a powerful carrier task force located at a point called Yankee Station, seventy‐five miles off the North Vietnamese coast in the Gulf of Tonkin. In 1965, U.S. aircraft flew 25,000 sorties against North Vietnam, and that number grew to 79,000 in 1966 and 108,000 in 1967. In 1967 annual bombing tonnage reached almost a quarter million. Targets expanded to include the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos and factories, farms, and railroads in North Vietnam. "

I wasn't looking for the story, but it was happening in plain sight and sound above me.  And since it was the middle of the Vietnam war  (or the American war as the Vietnamese call it) there were lots of reporters in Vietnam and in Thailand who had to know as well.  But no  officially it wasn't happening and no major media were writing about it.

So when I heard reports in the 1990s that the CIA had a scheme to fund the Contras in Nicaragua with drug money and that had led to the flood of crack into Southcentral LA,  I didn't dismiss it, even as the story was attacked and discredited, but I was busy doing other things and it was just one more story.  But it seemed to outrageous for a reporter to just make up the whole thing.

Tonight, watching the film Kill The Messenger I was drawn back into that story and reminded how important tenacious, fearless reporters are.  Gary Webb.  When you write good stuff, people reach out to you with more information.  He made his luck.

I haven't had time to do all the background checks, but I'd strongly encourage folks to go see the movie while it's in theaters.  I know, you can download movies these days, but there is something about watching it in a theater with other people.  For people in Anchorage, it's playing at the Wednesday and Thursday.

Kill The Messenger

Century 16 Anchorage and XD
301 East 36th Ave., Anchorage, AK
‎11:40am‎  ‎2:25‎  ‎5:10‎  ‎7:55‎  ‎10:40pm‎ 

Wednesday Oct. 15, Thursday Oct. 16

I'm not sure if it will play after that.  And after going to the movies in LA last week, let me tell you, the movies are a bargain in Anchorage. 



It tells stories that Americans need to know.  It's a feature based on a true story.  It's not a documentary.  It's well done, you won't go to sleep.  Reporter Gary Webb at the San Jose Mercury News gets one huge story and does the legwork to tease out the information and ignores the warnings to drop the story.  It gets out to the world, and then the rest of the media get the same sort of full-court press from the CIA they got about planes bombing Laos and Cambodia. National security.  Don't write about this. Webb's making it all up.  NPR, which seems to have done more background checking than I, writes about the attacks on Webb by the LA Times and the Washington Post:

"(One of the L.A. Times reporters who led the paper's attempts to discredit Webb's reporting later called his own efforts "overkill," and the Washington Post then-ombudsman Geneva Overholser accused that paper of "misdirected zeal" in its attack on Webb.)"

The movie focuses on the reporter getting the story.  How his small town newspaper wasn't quite prepared for such a story and later retracted much of it under an onslaught of criticism that the movie suggests was orchestrated by the CIA.  But it also, of course, gives the basics of the story of the CIA involvement with Central American drug traffickers to clandestinely get arms to the Contras in Nicaragua when Congress refused to fund help for the Contras.

And it raises the issues of conspiracy and how do we know whether one is happening or not.  I've concluded long ago that there can be a small groups of people who plot to get their way.  But there are also people who, through similar backgrounds, schooling, and values come to the same conclusions and take actions that are the equivalent of a conspiracy without having to actually meet and agree.  And as the movie shows, there are webs of mutual interests that can be cajoled or threatened that will back the official line.

As a blogger, I watched carefully how he asked questions and got people to talk.  I'm a different sort and don't think I can do it like he did.  (And we only know how the film makers portrayed what he did, not necessarily what he actually did.)  Jeremy Renner's Webb pulled me right in.  And while there were other actors, he dominates the movie.  I can't recall any scene that he wasn't in. 

White Geranium

When we got back the other day, this geranium out on the deck was in full bloom.  Here are a few views.  Getting close and using filters at Photoshop causes me to rethink what and how I see things.

Mirrors meeting in a corner offer a great spot to put flowers.

This poster filtered version using Photo Shop focuses on the shape in a different way. 

Everything Has A Price

These beautiful ficus trees that bring visual grace and welcome shade to this Santa Monica residential street aren't without a cost.

There's the water they need, the sidewalks and streets their roots buckle, and then there's the gunky fruit they drop.

Fortunately, I don't to clean the roof of this car.  Though, while I was in LA, I did manage to wash my mom's car with less than a gallon or water.  The car wasn't nearly this bad.  I found an old fuzzy mitt with which to give the car a wet rubdown and some old rags with which to dry when it was reasonably clean.  And the dirty water was gulped up by her thirsty garden.  Drought requires some modifications.  And lowering one's standards of a clean vehicle.   

Photoshop means seeing is no longer believing.  There are lots of good reasons to use PS, such as to join two pictures - as with the top one - or to make a picture more interesting, playful, and/or to make the background less distracting - as in the roof shot.  I always want readers to know whether pictures are straight from the card or doctored.  I never intend to deceive readers with PS.  I try not to assume they will all realize that I've played with the image a bit.  So, except for minor touchups - changing the exposure level a bit or cropping - I'll try somehow to alert readers.  It's also an attempt to raise the awareness of people who don't tend to notice these things, so they'll be more watchful at less forthright sites.

I've got a bunch of backed up blog posts - thoughts, photos, people that require a little (like this post) or a lot of time to get back up info and think through. (Actually, just before hitting the publish button I did double check to make sure this was a ficus and I found someone who took a bit more effort on her ficus report.)  I'll try to put up some more short ones like this while I work through the others.  And some will just fall off the list and vanish.

The first version of this post didn't get pinged to blogrolls on other blogs.  This happens now and then.  Sometimes I can manually ping it and it goes.  A few times it had to do with the coding in the html and I cleaned it up and it worked.  Sometimes I have to copy the post and post it again and it works.  And sometimes nothing seems to work and that feedburner is just slow in getting it out.  That seems to be the case now. 

Alaska Federal Judge Finds Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - 16 Years After Alaska Judge First Ruled For Same Sex Marriage

October 12, 2014:

"For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Court finds that Alaska’s ban on same - sex marriage and refusal to recognize same - sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

The whole decision is here.


I would remind folks that back in 1998, Alaska Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski ruled that not allowing same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.  Michalski ruled:

"It is the duty of the court to do more than merely assume that marriage is only, and must only be, what most are familiar with. In some parts of our nation mere acceptance of the familiar would have left segregation in place. In light of Brause and Dugan's challenge to the constitutionality of the relevant statutes, this court cannot defer to the legislature or familiar notions when addressing this issue." He ruled that "marriage, i.e., the recognition of one's choice of a life partner, is a fundamental right. The state must therefore have a compelling interest that supports its decision to refuse to recognize the exercise of this fundamental right by those who choose same-sex partners rather than opposite-sex partners."
 

That ruling led Alaskans to pass a state constitutional amendment saying that marriage meant one man and one woman.  It's that constitutional amendment that has now been found to violate the US constitution. 

It's people like Judge Michalski and plaintiffs Jay Brause and Gene Dugan who helped clear the path for the ruling today (and the rest of the rulings in the US in the last couple of years).

Sixteen and a half years to get back to the same place.  But that is the history of change in the world.  Many people's lives would have been much easier - many people might still be alive - if people had accepted Michalski's ruling back then.  And we all could have spent time on more productive activities.  But that wasn't to be.  

The ADN reports that the state vows to appeal the judge's decision.   In anticipation of the (last) Friday court hearing, the judge's inevitable decision given the US Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court's recent rulings, and the high probability that the state would appeal the decision, I've been working on a post exploring when it makes sense to fight battles you know you're going to lose.  I hope to get it up soon.

Steps To Happiness In Marriage - 1949 Advice From LA County To Newlyweds

I found this while sorting things in my mom's garage trying to make more room and less clutter. 


I sort of expected this to be really bizarre and sexist.  It was put together by a panel of 21 clergymen, 13 of whom have Dr. before their names, a couple of Rt. Rev's, a Most Rev, and a VeryRev. Msgr, plus two Rabbis.  All the names are male.  Though there are three with just initials.  I don't think there were many (or any) women clergy back then.   Imagine living in a world where no one thinks there's anything wrong with 21 men writing advice for a partnership of a man and a woman to be distributed by Los Angeles County.  And, reflecting that the establishment seems to have seen nothing wrong in males writing this, women are presumed to be in charge of the household.

  There's a section "Making a Beautiful Home" that is aimed at the women:

"...the wise bride will look for the chance to express, for the first time perhaps, her personality in the home.  This will not be an adventure to be experienced but once.  On the contrary, daily, by her flower and furniture arrangement, by her selection of books and magazines, by the change of colors in table covers, napkins and various bits of china, by artistic draperies and lamp shades, and by her personal neatness, the wife, will express her personality."

The other parts are much more egalitarian; the basic theme is togetherness.   It tends to stay general, though here and there - as in the budget section - there's actual practical advice.

The Table of Contents includes:

• Steps to Happiness in Marriage
• Off to a Good Start
• The Honeymoon
• How Love Grows
• The Fifty-Fifty Spirit
• Making a Beautiful Home
• Making Sense Out of the Family Dollar
• Important Legal Knowledge
• Preparing for Children
• The Family
• Why We Have Been Happy in Marriage
• Maturity or Childishness in the Home
• Daily Work and Family Happiness
• How to Meet the Usual Causes of Friction
• Our In-Laws
• Living Together in God's Universe

Some other excerpts from this eleven paged pamphlet:

The Honeymoon

It is better that a honeymoon should start in the early afternoon so that the pace of the first night may be reached by dinner time.  The place should be preferably within easy driving distance.  It is not well to spend the first night on the train.  No disturbing pranks should molest the couple after their journey."

How Love Grows

. . . The marriage experience does nothing to the bride and groom which eliminates the need for all the lovely expressions of concern and appreciation which were such a joy during courtship.  If married life is made a perpetually extended honeymoon in the sense that the little an big courtesies and marks of attention are continued day by day, then the love which made the days efore the wedding such an unceasing delight will grow in beauty and strength.

Making Sense Out Of the Family Dollar

". . . A budget is a tentative family agreement upon a plan by which we try to balane expenditure with income.  Budgets never succeed 100 per cent.  Each month they may need revision in the light of new needs.  budget books may be obtained at your bank or your book store, where you may also received counsel on its use.  In the budget there should be items for Food, Clothing, Shelter, Transportation, Dental and Medical care, Education, Recreation, Gifts, Insurance, and Savings."

Nothing for cable or internet.  Most people didn't have televisions in 1949 and radio, once you bought the set, was free.  I guess telephones and other utilities were cheap enough not to get a category. 

Important Legal Knowledge

"Through ignorance of the laws relating to communal or family property, many distressing cases arise.  Be sure that you hae arranged your property affaris, both through informal agreements and through the making of wills, so that in case of sudden death difficulties may not arise.

In one case a wife deserted without a divorce.  The husband worked and saved for his three children.  When he died without a will, the undivorced widow had a legal claim to the entire estate."

 Oops.  It would be interesting to have listened in to the conversation that decided to use that example of poor planning.  I wonder how many examples of abandoned husbands raising the kids there were back then compared to abandoned wives.

Preparing for Children

"Mutuality is the secret of happiness in marriage.  In the previous pages we have tried to picture the importance of mutual interests in work, recreation, money matters, homemaking friendship, and many of the small affairs of married life.  Mutuality in the se relationship is also most important.  This intimate aspect of married life, if always an expression of tender love, helps to keep alive and enrich the bond of afection.  With the coming of children, the character of husband and wife shold grow stronger, and the home should become more beautiful.  Marriage without children is a picture with only the two dimensions of length and width.  Children add the depth necessary for beauty, balance, and richness of experience."

While most of this is advice that they hope will lead to a happy home, they also, acknowledge marriage doesn't always (usually?) work that way.

Maturity or Childishness in the Home

The California state law sets certain requirements as to the age at which people are old enough to marry.  It is unfortunate that more attention is not paid to the fact that people must be grown up emotionally as well as chronologically, if they are to succeed in marriage.  Temper tantrums, sulking, moodiness, and other childish actions occur much more freqently between married people than they would care to admit.  Too often we go through the day building up reentment againt an employer or neighbor, and the explode emotionally at home in the evening.  this is a sure road to marital unhappiness and a path to discord and the divorce courts.  Emotions are the driving forces of life, but, if they are out of adjustment, the more we turn on the power, the greater the harm that can be done. . ."

 I can't imagine that a county today could pull together a group of major clergy in their community to write up as sober a guide to marriage.  Issues about the proper roles of the spouses would make it much more difficult.  These men, in the 1940s, saw the woman's role in the home.  This was after World War II when many women went into the workforce to support the war effort.  But when the men returned, women lost their jobs to them.  But many women didn't have a choice about working -  their incomes were critical to the family budget.  Yet, much of the advice in this book is surprisingly modern in their emphasis on mutuality, on both partners working together. 

Today's discussions of marriage seem much more influenced by the religious right's literal interpretation of the bible.  Their descriptions of marriage drip with biblical references as in this description from Focus on the Family's Divine Order of Marriage:

For what reason is man to marry a wife? Because woman was originally a constituent part of man, she must return to become one with him again, so that the full expression and design of God's image in human beings can be revealed.

 For those wondering what the last section of this pamphlet - Living Together in God's Universe - covers,  it's basically about togetherness and mutual interests.  There's a story about a couple walking hand in hand along a trickling rivulet that grows and grows until

"Presently, however, the brook because a stream that widens and deepns until the couple can no longer make each other understand."

The only mention of God, besides the heading, is in a long list of things families should do together.

"Successful marriages are those in which the husband and wife plan together, work together, play together, suffer together, sacrifice together, succeed together, raise their children together and worship God together."

Even though clergymen wrote it, it's pretty light on religion.  But I suspect that because clergyman advise people during crises, they learn a great deal more about marriage than most people.  And if they are wise, intelligent, and caring,  they can write a decent brief guide to marriage.  But it still seems, from a 2014 perspective, incredible that they could think that a panel of all men should do this.  

Which is Safer? Ten Foot Or Twelve Foot Lanes?

From CityLab:  

"When lanes are built too wide, many bad things happen. In a sentence: pedestrians are forced to walk further across streets on which cars are moving too fast and bikes don't fit."

. . . A number of studies have been completed that blame wider lanes for an epidemic of vehicular carnage. One of them, presented by Rutgers professor Robert Noland at the 80th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, determined that increased lane widths could be blamed for approximately 900 additional traffic fatalities per year."

This is a long article, that, among other things blames engineers' biases for not accepting this premise as well as state laws which mandate wider streets.  

I haven't had time to do more research on it.  I did find a few other sources that supported the basic premise including this 2007 DOT Study.

On high speed highways they argue for wider lanes which they say reduce lane departure crashes.  But . . .

In a reduced-speed urban environment, the effects of reduced lane width are different.  On such facilities, the risk of lane-departure crashes is less. The design objective is often how to best distribute limited cross-sectional width to maximize safety for a wide variety of roadway users.  Narrower lane widths may be chosen to manage or reduce speed and shorten crossing distances for pedestrians.  Lane widths may be adjusted to incorporate other cross-sectional elements, such as medians for access control, bike lanes, on-street parking, transit stops, and landscaping.  The adopted ranges for lane width in the urban, low-speed environment normally provide adequate flexibility to achieve a desirable urban cross section without a design exception."

Read it yourself.  The author is passionate about this subject and has done a lot of homework.  Then ask the next traffic engineers you meet what they think.

Thanks LL for the link.