How Safe Are Police Jobs?

How safe is it to be a police officer? [Update: the shorter version is here.]  I tried to answer this question based on the following charts--BLS Chart 1 and BLS Charts 2. I focused on injuries and fatalities.

Injuries: nationwide, there were 14,500 total recordable police injuries in 2008. Assuming the U.S. has between 435K and 800K police officers, officers have about a 3.3% chance of being injured each year. [Note: see end of post for updated stats on the number of local and state law enforcement personnel.] The BLS's injury stats are similar to the FBI's stats (about 15,000 injuries in 2008); however, I am skeptical about relying on injury stats because it is unclear exactly what qualifies as a recordable injury. Different police departments probably report different kinds of injuries. While I don't think police officers are filing reports on paper cuts, I also don't think every recordable injury is necessarily serious. For me to rely on injury rates, I would want to see only serious injuries recorded, such as those that drew blood, led to an ER visit or sprain/fracture/break, or required physical rehabilitation or cortisone shots. I would also prefer to see injuries that occurred while an officer was patrolling a beat listed separately from other stats (I personally feel patrol officers have dangerous jobs, and the data ought to differentiate between a desk job and a patrol job). Due to privacy rights, I don't think such detailed medical stats are available to the public.

Fatalities: as morbid as it sounds, dead bodies might be the best statistical evidence to determine a job's safety. In death, there is no middle ground, and no room for varied interpretation--you're either dead or you're not. The BLS has compiled fatality rates based on occupation, but my knowledge of statistics isn't good enough to tell you whether the method it uses to calculate fatality rates is reliable. As I explain below, I have concerns about some of the charts on the BLS's website.

According to one BLS chart, 111 police and sheriff's patrol officers died on the job in 2008. When total hours worked are factored in, the BLS comes up with a 15.6 fatality rate. There are 133 categories of different occupations listed in this particular BLS chart. If 66 of the occupational categories have fatality rates below 15.6, then you could contend that being a police officer would be one of the safer jobs. However, only 28 occupational categories had fatality rates higher than 15.6. When I accounted for a possible error rate of 1.7 (meaning I would include any fatality rate 14 or above), just 33 categories had higher fatality rates. See HERE for stats. Based on this single chart, it appears that being a police officer is not one of the safest jobs; in fact, it is only in the 25th percentile for non-fatal occupations.

At the same time, the BLS chart used above is hard to follow, because its categorization of various occupations seems subjective. For example, 3 of the 130 occupation categories are listed only as "Government" "Federal," and "State" occupations. It's impossible to tell what jobs/fatalities were included within those categories, or why the statistician didn't lump those occupational deaths into another more specific category. In short, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason in the categories chosen, and it's impossible in some cases to figure out why a particular job/fatality was placed in a particular category. Consequently, the cited fatality rates may be unreliable because they depend on a statistician's subjective assessment about where to include certain deaths. For instance, would a farmer's death go into "farmers and ranchers" or the "farming, fishing, and forestry" category? If we lump farmers/ranchers with "farming, fishing, and forestry," then the total hours might be reduced, and the number of deaths might increase. As a result, the fatality rate listed for "farming, fishing, and forestry" would be higher because of a statistician's decision, not the actual safety of jobs within the occupational category.

Furthermore, in that particular chart, only one category exists relating to police ("police and sheriff's patrol officers"). Meanwhile, the BLS chart splits professional service positions--which are generally safer--into several different categories. It's like having five separate categories for food services (tacos, hamburgers, etc.) and just one for police services--the fatality rate for the single occupation category is likely to be higher than comparative categories. In short, the previous BLS categories seem too broad and subjective to be particularly useful.

Not satisfied, I looked at another BLS chart. This particular chart listed 133 fatalities under "police protection," which is significantly different from the 111 figure cited in the more generalized chart. See HERE. Even with this discrepancy, the numbers in the chart seem more reliable because they are more specific, and the occupation categories are more detailed. However, these more detailed numbers are useless out of context, because a fair analysis must include the number of people employed in each particular job category. (Having one death out of a million employees is much less statistically significant than ten deaths out of fifteen total employees.) Unfortunately, the BLS does not include the total number of employees in the same chart as the number of workers annually injured within each occupation.

Below are the results of the more specific numbers, in order of most dangerous jobs to least dangerous jobs:

Construction (1,005)
Natural Resources and Mining (MSHA-regulated?) (836)
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (661)
Transportation and Warehousing (797)
Professional and Business Services (410)
Subcategory: Lawyers (11)
Manufacturing (406)
Admin and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (340)
Public Administration (includes police, firefighters, environment quality, economic programs, etc.) (315) Subcategory: Police Protection (133)
Subcategory: National Security and International Affairs (53)
Retail Trade (290)
Mining (non-MSHA regulated?) (175)
Wholesale Trade, i.e. Wholesalers (175)
Other Services (everything from nail salons to dry-cleaning) (173)
Accommodation and Food Services (146)
Health Care and Social Assistance (131)
Arts and Entertainment, and Rec, i.e., Sports, Resorts, and Gambling (99)
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing (81)
Educational Services (76)
Utilities (51)
Information, i.e. Media Services (48)
Finance and Insurance (24)

To conclude, police officers appear to have a 2% (FBI stats) to 3.3% (BLS stats) annual injury rate. I wonder: if different people get injured each year, then wouldn't a police officer's risk of injury after ten years of service (assuming the officer has never been injured) rise to at least 20%, and then after 20 years, to at least 40%? Or is it like flipping a quarter, where the pattern of the previous flips doesn't change the 50/50 likelihood of either heads or tails on the next coin flip?

[My sister explains that from a statistical perspective, the percentage would not go up. "It would be 2%/year no matter how many years you work. Think of it this way: if 2/100 people get injured in 1 year, in the next year, the other 98 people won't have a 4% chance of getting injured since they'll have the same 2% chance (this will include the 2 people already injured). The 2% is the injury rate/year. So if we worked for 50 years, the percentage wouldn't go up to 100% because there's no way of knowing if you'll get injured or if you won't get injured again."]

In any case, as I pointed out earlier, due to privacy rights and different police department procedures for reporting injuries, it is difficult to rely on the recordable injury stats. Days off post-injury isn't necessarily an accurate benchmark, either--I remember one parking meter officer took several weeks off after being slapped by someone who didn't appreciate being given a ticket. I wish we had more detailed injury stats for police officers, but I can't seem to find them anywhere. All we know is that officers have a 2 to 3% chance of being injured on the job. (For a reliable analysis of job safety, I agree I would need to analyze job injuries among all occupations, but I just don't have the time to do so, especially when I question the reliability of the injury data itself.)

Also, if we use the lower 435,000 total police employees number (I estimate that there are between 435,000 and 800,000 police protection employees), and assume 131 fatalities per year, then the annual fatality rate for police officers would be 0.3%. If we use the higher 800,000 number, then the rate goes down to just 0.016%. It's important to note that the majority of annual officer fatalities are caused by car accidents. (Jobs involving long periods of driving are more dangerous than jobs that don't require driving.) Thus, to the extent that we worry about violent felons or general people attacking and killing police officers, the stats seem to show that an officer is most in danger when driving his/her own car, not when interacting with the public. (Of course, I am assuming that the annual numbers for injuries and deaths remain somewhat constant, and a quick glance at previous year numbers indicates my assumption is not unreasonable.)

Until the BLS lists the number of people employed within each of its listed occupational fatality/injury categories and also categorizes "recordable" injuries in more detail, there is no easy way to fairly judge the relative safety of any particular occupation. Right now, though, I'd say a police officer working in a random location has a low chance of being killed on the job, especially if s/he isn't driving.

Overall, my impression is that people concerned about safety definitely want to avoid jobs in construction, mining, truck driving, logging, and animal production/husbandry jobs (ever get kicked by a horse?). Large furniture-making jobs (which probably require steel and hot liquids) don't seem safe, either.

Update: my sister points out that a) you must take into account injuries, not just deaths, in calculating safety; b) just because officers don't die at higher rates doesn't mean their job is safe--it probably means their technology and training allows them to avoid injury and death; and c) the statistics do not show the whole picture because officers have a wide variety of jobs--some work at a desk, some patrol the streets, some work in vice, etc. Therefore, a truly accurate assessment of risk requires even more detailed statistics, because a properly done "danger analysis" (my words, not hers) depends on the particular city (Santa Cruz or Detroit?), the kind of job (vice squad or filing reports?), etc. In the end, she says, it's hard to generalize. (I also realized that national numbers would not be as accurate or reliable as local numbers. An officer in Saratoga, CA is probably much safer than an officer in Detroit, MI, regardless of nationwide stats.)

My sister's argument can be summarized as follows:

1. To analyze a job's safety, you must analyze both injuries and deaths.

2. Absent reliable data on both injuries and deaths within a particular profession, you cannot use the word "safe" to describe any particular profession.

3. The data you cite--both FBI and BLS--is unreliable because the stats relating to injuries within the police profession are incomplete and/or not sufficiently detailed to be reliable.

4. Therefore, you cannot argue, using FBI or BLS stats, that any police job is safe or unsafe.

My sister advised me to be softer in my language and not use the word "safe" when discussing police officers' occupational hazards. She said it would be better for me to say, "Because of great technology and training, officer deaths are actually rare compared to what is commonly believed." She said on any sensitive topic, I have a better chance of engaging people and getting them to change their minds if I don't try to be controversial.

I've always known my sister was smarter than me. I'm glad I finally got to post an example that supports my belief.

My sister's arguments are different from other people's arguments, where people would say, "I've personally seen officers get injured," and/or "Based on my own experience, I know they have a dangerous job; therefore, your statistics are crap." When attacking statistics or data, you must allege the data is objectively unreliable or irrelevant or being applied improperly. Here, anecdotal evidence is particularly ineffective, because the statistics I cited presumably include injuries and/or deaths people have seen or heard about. My sister, in contrast, did not rely on anecdotal evidence--she alleged the data I was using was unreliable because it may under-report actual incidences of injury. (She was reversing my own argument--whereas I said the injury stats are unreliable because there could be no guarantee that recordable injuries included only serious injuries, my sister said the injury stats are unreliable because there is no way to guarantee that all officers would report all injuries. Moreover, just because an attack did not create a recordable injury does not mean an attack wasn't dangerous--it may mean that the only reason an injury did not occur is because of an officer's training and weapons.) [My response would be that the FBI statistics list all assaults against officers, including whether the assaults caused a recordable injury; therefore, there is no need to speculate about the total number of assaults against officers.]

Other people (not my sister) alleged that the mere fact that officers wore bulletproof vests and carried guns and tasers proved their job was dangerous. I really disliked this particular argument. If KPMG decided tomorrow that all of its accountants will be assigned bulletproof vests and given guns and tasers, does that necessarily make accounting jobs more dangerous or more safe? Of course not. What if the government's stimulus package allowed local police officers to buy machine guns and F-22s? Does that mean their job is extra-dangerous now?

I suppose what people meant is that the only rational reason officers would be required to wear vests and have guns and tasers is because rational people would not decide to wear or buy vests unless they believed the vests and guns would come in handy. I still don't think that argument passes muster. It's the old chicken-and-egg problem. What if officers and the public over-estimate the actual job-related danger and decide to go overboard just to be extra-safe? There's nothing wrong with supplying officers with vests and guns because we think these items will help them stay safer, but the act of giving them vests and guns doesn't mean there is a statistically higher chance that an officer is actually in danger.

So, in conclusion, most people should be able to agree with the following: one, patrol officers probably have a higher risk of getting injured than other professions, but we cannot know for certain until the injury stats begin to list officer injuries in more detail and by specific position; and two, because of great technology and training, officer deaths nationwide are thankfully rare compared to what is commonly believed.

Update: John Seiler has an interesting book review here, where he lists the most dangerous jobs, as complied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

1. Fishing-related workers.
2. Logging workers
3. Pilots and flight-related workers
4. Iron and steel workers
5. Taxi cab drivers
6. Construction workers
7. Farmers and ranchers
8. Roofers
9. Electrical power workers
10. Truck drivers and sales-related drivers
11. Garbage collectors
12. Law enforcement

Bonus: here is another link/article on police officer fatalities and risks.

Update on June 14, 2012: according to the United States Census, in 2010, there were 946,196 police protection jobs in local and state governments.  This figure does not include federal police jobs, such as the FBI.  More here: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/governments/cb11-146.html

Update on July 20, 2012: from Washington Times article, July 19, 2012: according to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, a "total of 53 officers across the country have been killed since January [2012]." According to the same article, "Among those killed, the leading cause of death came from traffic-related incidents; 18 officers died in crashes during pursuits or routine patrols, while three were struck by traffic during a stop." Also, "Approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers currently serve across the country, according to the Fund. In 2010, the FBI reported that about 53,000 officers were assaulted in some way, being threatened or injured in the course of their official duties."  

Another Debate on Officer Safety

Question: how safe is it to be an American law enforcement officer? Below are edited portions of a debate that took place recently on Facebook.

Erica: [on her Facebook wall] In honor of the four murdered Lakewood Police Officers in Washington, tag yourself in my profile pic and make it your own profile pic. The blue line represents all law enforcement who daily protect this nation. The black background was designed as a constant reminder of our fallen officers. Please change this to your profile pic until after their funerals which will be held on Tuesday.

Matt: Erica, we all feel terrible about the ambushing of the Washington police officers. It's important to note, however, that being a law enforcement officer is one of the safest [least deadly?] jobs in the country. In 2008, according to the FBI, only 41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in the entire country. When it comes to being killed on the job, police officers generally have one of the safest jobs in America. [Note: I should have said that officer deaths are extremely rare, not that police have "one of the safest jobs in America"--that would have been a more accurate statement.]

Marie: I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Just because more law enforcement officers are not killed on the job does not make it generally safer. There was the SJPD officer earlier this year who got into a wrestling match with a parolee who did not want to go back to prison. He ended up taking the officer's gun and shooting at the officer. The officer was able to escape, the parolee hid out in a gas station until the MERGE unit got there. The parolee took the easy way out and saved the taxpayers some money. And let's not forget the daily scuffles that occur with people who either don't want to go back to jail or prison, hate cops in general, or are high on drugs or drunk. The poor Lakewood officers were just sitting there report writing and enjoying some coffee...then there's the four Oakland police officers who stopped a parolee who was wanted for attempted rape, and looked what happened to them. I fear the day the police chaplain shows up at my door. I think that many in the law enforcement community, or those people who have loved ones in law enforcement would balk at your opinion that it is generally one of the safest jobs.

I'm sure the family of Jeff Fontana would also disagree with you.

Michael: Stating that Police have one of the safest jobs in America is one of the most ignorant and unsubstantiated statements I have heard in a long time. Given the current string of violence against officers, it is also incredibly insensitive.

Me: Marie, for every instance you cite, other ppl can cite a Phuong Ho or a Johannes Mehersle. [Note: for the record, there may be circumstances in both of these cases that indicate either an accident or the justified use of force. I'm not making any judgments until all the evidence is made public.] We tend to think of officers' jobs as dangerous because whenever an officer is killed, it becomes front page news. In reality, the FBI stats show that officers have a higher chance of being killed in auto accidents than by any perp. I do, however, agree with you in one respect: anyone with a job requiring random interaction with the general public--taxi drivers, gas station attendants, 7-Eleven owners, officers, etc.--has to deal with potentially dangerous people. Officers, b/c of their training and ability to use weapons (tasers, guns), usually end up alive and well.

Mike, I specifically cited the FBI stats, so I'm not sure where you get the "unsubstantiated" part. Here is a direct link to those stats, in case you're interested in actual numbers instead of speculation:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/feloniouslykilled.html

I'm also not sure how I'm being insensitive or ignorant when I'm basing my statement on objective evidence. The families of officers ought to feel much better knowing the truth--that the chances of an officer being killed or injured while working is thankfully small. If you want to believe in a myth based on what the media chooses to aggrandize, that's your choice. Personally, I don't see any benefit in making the families of officers feel more scared than justifiably necessary.

Denise: It's good to know that you can read. Unless you have worked as an officer then you have no idea that the true dangers we face on a daily basis. Typical lawyer...

Me: Denise, I've presented objective, reliable evidence supporting my position. You've responded with name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you see some benefit in unjustified fear-mongering, but I don't...

There have been many countries with strong police forces--1940's Germany, the USSR, Iran, etc.--but few countries where the majority of citizens have been intelligent enough to value lawyers as well as police officers.

May God bless the families of all Americans--especially Americans who have died while serving their country. [Note: I was trying to show appreciation for all Americans who risk their lives serving the public, not just police officers, but in retrospect this entire comment sounds preachy.]

Marie: Both cases you site have been tried in the media, not yet in the courts. But you bring up another interesting point. Criminals are innocent until proven guilty, yet law enforcement is always guilty until proven innocent, and even then, their professional life is basically over because of the trial by media.

Your stat about felonious slayings of officers, does not address the massive amounts of other causes of fatalities: electrocution, car crashes, poisonings, hazmat...There are very few occupations where so many hazards exist, ON A DAILY BASIS. [Therefore,] "One of the safest jobs" is a flawed statement!

I have had to go to the emergency room to see my husband because of on the job incidental exposure to PCP, I've had my husband call me in the morning and say "It's not me" when a young officer was killed in cold blood after a "routine" traffic stop. You can cite all the numbers you want, but until you a walk a mile in their shoes, please feel free to sleep safe at night knowing that there are people out there who would take bullets, get maimed, and leave families behind, working for strangers just like you to keep them safe. [Note: I never said there were no risks to being a police officer, just that we should examine the likelihood of the risk of injuries or deaths.]

Me: I want to give Marie some more info. The FBI also publishes the number of officers killed due to accidents (i.e., no malicious intent): in 2008, only 68 law enforcement officers were killed in accidents while performing their duties in the entire country. The majority of those officers (39/68) were killed as a result of automobile accidents.

You keep citing instances that are obviously emotional to you, but the FBI has already included those deaths and accidental deaths in their statistics. If the FBI stats leave out relevant info, please let me know. To prevail in a discussion, you have to attack the other person's data, not bring up anecdotal evidence that is already included in the data cited by the other side. Maybe we need better reporting of officer injuries. In other words, maybe the stats don't include PCP exposure and other harmful injuries. Under-reporting of injuries/deaths is one way of criticizing my position, but no one has actually attacked the FBI's data. Perhaps none of us thinks the FBI's data is unreliable.

Marie, I think what you are saying is that officers have to put up with things most people don't. In other words, a secretary at a law firm doesn't usually deal with incidental exposure to PCP. I get that. But determining whether a job is safe depends on how many people are actually injured or die, not by potentially dangerous incidents. For example, doctors and nurses deal with contagious and deadly diseases every single day. However, if the stats show that only 200 nurses out of 800,000 nationwide die and 15,000 are injured from contact with patients (only a 0.025% chance of death and less than a 2% chance of injury), wouldn't you agree their job is one of the safest ones in the country? [Note: I make the same mistake again--using the phrase, "one of the safest," without comparing the "danger" rates to another profession's.]

Denise: Sorry I couldn't respond quicker, I spent the evening out in the rain/snow protecting and serving the citizens of the city I work for...

Matt- I looked at the data from the FBI and based on the injuries portion, it states that 11.3 officers per 100 will be assaulted in some way. That means I work for a 90 person department. My chances of getting assaulted this year will be approximately 1 in 10. A 10% chance of being assaulted--that doesn't seem very safe to me. It should also be noted that approximately 75% of the nation's departments gave the FBI data for this study. I think your timing stinks about how safe my job is, considering it's in the wake of remembering my fallen brothers, but thanks for re-assuring me and my family. I am sure they will sleep better because of the FBI statistics say my job is safe. [Note: Denise makes a relevant point. Denise has attacked the completeness of the data I've cited, which is a legitimate way to criticize the other side's position.]

Jen: I'm sorry but the FBI doesn't know their head from their *ss. They are nothing but glorified accountants. I have the highest respect for my brothers and sisters that risk their lives every day so that we rest a little easier. How dare you disrespect the job or an officer but spouting off some statistic you got off the FBI website. As a current Criminal Justice student and future law enforcement officer, I read daily how officers are killed in the line of duty, commit suicide, or have alcohol/drug addictions just to deal with the evil things they have seen that we can't even imagine. Four officers lost their lives, while drinking coffee, because our justice system failed us. Maybe you should look up those statistics.

A total of 1,640 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 53 hours or 164 per year. There were 133 law enforcement officers killed in 2008, the lowest annual total since 1960. Click on the link for more accurate statistics.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/

Me: [Here, I let my inner snark out, but only a little bit.]

Marie, as admirable as your husband is, he doesn't create his own salary. He requires "desk jockeys" like me to produce something and generate taxes, which support you and your husband. It's interesting that you and Denise are so contemptuous towards someone who essentially helps pay your bills.

Jen, assuming 800,000 law enforcement officers nationwide, the stats show less than a 2% chance of actual injury from assault. Your own link cites numbers similar to the FBI's (133 officers killed in 2008 vs. 109 killed; and about 15,000 officers injured in 2008 from assaults). It's obvious all of you are emotionally invested in this issue, and it is clouding your judgment. That's fine. You have a right to be unreasonable, and you have a right to believe in something that isn't supported by the actual evidence. (Although I have a feeling you guys would have burned Galileo at the stake if you had the chance.) It's a shame good officers have so many supporters who use emotional pleas instead of reason, but I guess that's sort of like blaming Republicans because Glenn Beck is popular, i.e. you shouldn't judge anything by the unfounded passion of some of its supporters.

Dave: I'm not standing up for anyone here [referring to me], and I think that cops ARE under-appreciated, and I feel sorry for any cop injured or killed in the line of duty, but isn't being a police officer a "choice"? Denise- I know you had several jobs before being a cop but didn't you choose to be one? I'm pretty sure you and every cop out there knew what they were getting into and knew the risks before they became an officer. Officers sign a contract stating that they could be placed in harm's way DAILY. Maybe I'm mistaken but isn't that part of the job? Isn't that why police officers make $25-45 an hour? Officers continually make over 100k a year with overtime. I'd love a job where children love me, women flock over guys in "blue" and I get free coffee all the time, but instead I deal with the same cracked out nut cases the cops deal with but without the gun, badge and taser or my God-given right to protect myself like the police do, but that's my choice. I used to like the fact that the sides of the cop cars said "to protect and serve" now they don't say anything at all, go figure...

Jen: when you have the nerve to post some statistic that offends my friends that put their lives on the line to protect unappreciative people like you, yeah I get emotional. We can go back and forth all day on statistics but the truth is they are just numbers. Anyone that know about statistics knows they are not always accurate and there is always room for error. I'm sorry but an officer being killed in the line of duty every 53 hours is one officer too many. Why don't you stick to your pencil pushing duties and leave the real world stuff to us big people.

Me: [I couldn't resist publishing my inner dialogue when Jen continued to make illogical comments.]

Jen, you crack me up. You ignore statistics like they're some kind of dangerous flu (OMG, "numbers"), and then you cite statistics you like better :-) Pointing out the truth doesn't mean anyone is unappreciative. I happen to know a few police officers, and I appreciate any American who has a tough job and works hard. Saying a job isn't dangerous doesn't mean it isn't tough. (A job can be safe but still hard to do.) You guys just don't have the basic logic skills to make the distinction, so you resort to name-calling because you (unfairly) think I'm being unappreciative. Like I said, that's fine. It's a darn shame, though, that we don't teach logic in high school. An educated 14 year-old kid from ancient Greece would kick our butts on a symbolic logic test, and that should concern all of us. Without logic, all we have left is name-calling, speculation, and emotional pleas. That's not how great civilizations thrive or survive, especially in a democratic republic, which requires an informed, educated population.

Chantelle: I don’t know you, Matt, but I think you are an idiot. (Yes, I am a name caller, sue me). I don’t think you are an idiot because I don’t agree with your witty rhetoric or the data you’ve laid out for us. You’re an idiot because you took something that was close to someone’s heart and stomped on it. While it is clear you’ve offended many people, it isn’t really about the intellectual sewage you’ve spewed out. It’s the fact that you went there in the first place.

Police officers choose to be police officers. Lawyers choose to be lawyers, and electricians choose to take jobs as electricians. Do police officers know the risks when they make this choice? Of course they do, but it takes courage, dedication, and heart to make that choice. Somebody has to make the decision to be a sheepdog and keep the sheep, like me and you, safe from the wolves. Evil people exist in the world. We all take steps to protect ourselves from the dangers of the world and try to create a harmonious society based on rules, regulations, and laws. We need lawyers to write these laws and we need police to enforce them and keep order. Police officers get to deal with the people who decide not to respect these laws. What part of this isn’t dangerous? What part of the required uniform that includes bullet proof vests and carrying a gun isn’t dangerous? We can discuss statistics all day long, but it is all relative. What other jobs are we comparing this to? US Marines in war torn Baghdad, fishermen in Alaska, checkers at Safeway? I can name a handful of occupations that make police officers job look safe : Loggers, roofers, pilots. The reality is that being a police officer is inherently more dangerous than most jobs out there. While the statistics on how many officers were killed feloniously, died in accidents, or got punched in the face are true, the fact that there are statistics at all makes this job not safe. [Note: I think my brain froze when I read the last sentence.] One death, 10 deaths, 41 deaths, in 2007, 2008, 2055…it really doesn’t matter. Statistics alone are not a true measure of job safety. Statistics mean nothing when someone you love becomes one.

My intention is not to resort to “name calling”, but Matt, seriously….the fact you even responded the way you did to the first post and that you keep stroking yourself about it, makes you an idiot.

Me: Chantelle, I don't think I can change your mind, but I have to try. I responded to the original comment about the officers' deaths in a way that was really simple: "We all feel terrible about the ambushing of the Washington police officers," but let's not get carried away, thinking this kind of thing is common, b/c it's not. Let's make sure the families of officers understand that all evidence indicates that officers have an extremely high chance of returning home each night, physically safe and sound.

I have no idea how the above comments make me insensitive. In fact, if I wanted to talk like you, I would say, "You are an idiot. What moron likes scaring the crap out of officers and their families by exaggerating the dangers of their job? How insensitive!" As you can see, b/c my comment is subjective, I am just as right as you are when I call you "insensitive." That's why reasonable people don't rely on subjective evidence or name-calling to make a point--it's impossible to show who is right or wrong if people make comments that lack objective evidence.

I felt safe assuming that none of us knows the officers who were murdered, so it's not as if we're talking about friends or family members. Erica posted something to show her sympathy with people who were murdered. I posted something to remind people that such deaths are thankfully rare. We all deal with death differently.

What separates us from the animals is logic and our ability to reason. An animal can feel just like we can. An animal can claim insensitivity. An animal cannot, however, defend its positions or its actions using logic and evidence. It is precisely our ability to use logic that makes us uniquely human. When you disregard relevant, reliable statistics--i.e., objective evidence--in favor of unsupported, solipsistic rhetoric--i.e., subjective opinions--you eliminate what makes you uniquely human.

When you demand that others disregard evidence in favor your own unsupported, personal opinions, you are being supremely selfish. In effect, you are saying that "I, Chantelle, know more than you do about this, and b/c I believe I know more about this topic, I am right." What you fail to realize is that if we all think like you, we no longer have a reliable way of determining whether you actually speak the truth. Separated from logic, the truth becomes just what the majority of people think it is, which may be wrong. Socrates, St. Thomas More, Martin Luther King, etc.--these men suffered b/c of people like you--who believed, in their heart of hearts--that they were right b/c their friends thought the same way they did, and anyone who disagreed with them must be wrong (or, using your language, an "idiot").

150 years ago, educated Americans believed Africans were inferior. They enslaved Africans by force of law and continued to restrict their children through Jim Crow laws. Those same slave-owners disregarded evidence and logic in favor of your brand of "thinking"--that something is right not b/c it is grounded in objective evidence, but b/c the majority of people feel it is true, and therefore it must be true. I am certain American slaveowners also cited their own personal experiences as evidence. I am also sure the police officers who lynched African-Americans did so out of a desire to protect their women and citizens, just like the police who beat Phuong Ho did so b/c they believed they were protecting the public. (By the way, it astounds me that intelligent men like Thomas Jefferson were able to be logical and yet own and mistreat slaves. Jefferson shows that logic may not be enough to ward off evil, b/c a majority of people will always find ways to deem themselves superior to the minority. As a result, we must always be on guard against despotism, and the surest path to despotism is refusing to modify one's belief when objective evidence shows a flaw.)

The Taliban and other despotic groups think just like you. They believe that they risk their lives every single day to protect their people. They, too, are indignant that their citizens fail to understand the real threats against them. Like you, they also believe anyone disagrees with them is an idiot. If you ever think your personal beliefs are sufficient to gauge the truth, just remember the Taliban--they would love a society where personal beliefs continue to stand even when contrary evidence shows such beliefs are false. They would love such a society b/c they cannot be proven wrong with statistics or data. Without evidence and without data, the Taliban's opinion is just as good as yours.

This seems a good time to point out that the reason intelligent people do not inject name-calling into a discussion is b/c it destroys the point of discussion, i.e., to take someone's statement and to determine whether it is true. When I say someone's statement is wrong b/c reliable evidence clearly shows otherwise, it is not the same thing as name-calling. I am citing evidence that is either reliable or unreliable. When Denise talks about the lack of safety in her job, she fails to mention she works in Santa Cruz, CA--one of the safest cities in the entire world [Note: Santa Cruz had zero reported homicides in the past few years]. Obviously, the risks to her are lower than someone in a less affluent, high-violent-crime area--and the number of officer deaths in Santa Cruz over the last ten years supports my point. Even so, she believes--against the evidence--that she works a dangerous job b/c she feels that way. Like you, she has indicated that her own personal beliefs reign supreme over contrary data and logic. Like the Taliban, it is impossible to argue with her, b/c subjective beliefs cannot be proven wrong or right.

When you criticize me without offering a single shred of objective evidence, you do not attack me--you debase yourself. Millions of people have sacrificed their lives to get us here: a nation where people should never confuse unfounded personal opinions with the truth; where reasonable people realize they must use objective evidence to support their opinions; and where reasonable people do their best to avoid the morass of "groupthink."

Denise: Fact: I am a sworn officer for the city of Santa Cruz. Non-fact--that I "feel "unsafe doing so. The reality is I feel safe performing my duties; however, this does not make the job I do any safer. The reason I that I am safe is because if the training, experience, protective vest, and tools I carry including a gun. The fact that I wear a bullet proof vest and carry a gun to work would lead someone to believe that my job is dangerous than most.

You stated that "When Denise talks about the lack of safety in her job, she fails to mention she works in Santa Cruz--one of the safest cities in the entire world. Obviously, the risks to her are lower than someone in a less affluent, high-violent-crime area."

Fact: According to data provided from my department to the CA Department of Justice and then to the FBI, Santa Cruz is consistently above the national average for crime rates. While I do not work for the most violent city, I do not work for Mayberry or as you state "one of the safest cities in the entire world."

Here are two links to support my above statement:

http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/index.aspx?page=60

http://www.city-data.com/city/Santa-Cruz-California.html

You are correct that the odds of me being killed feloniously in the line of duty are very slim. But I do not know of another profession where more people have been killed "Feloniously" than law enforcement. The very fact that we have statistics for this would lead someone to believe that being a police officer is rather dangerous.

There are other factors that make a job dangerous than just the number of felonious deaths. I provided data from the FBI study in my second post about the number of officers than had been injured, roughly 10%. I do not claim that my job is the most dangerous, but I can cite actual events that have occurred at my department, that help support why this job is dangerous. While I have come home with only minor scrapes and bruises over the course of my career, other officers have not been as fortunate. About a month ago one of our officers was apprehending a fleeing suspect. During that foot pursuit, he was injured and was out of work for 3 weeks. He is currently on light duty. In April this year my department had it's first officer involved shooting in years, a SCPD detective located a stolen vehicle with two people inside of it. They decided to flee and hit the officer with the car. The officer suffered minor injuries. They were later apprehended and uninjured. Currently there are several more officers than are going to be out of work due to injuries suffered while working. I can cite several other examples if need be but I think you get my point.

[I sent her an email thanking her for the information and her commitment to public service.]

[Michael, in a message calling me "arrogant and agitating," said that I had to compare police fatality/injury stats with other occupations to prove that police services is "one of the safest jobs." He's right, even though he wrongly cited OSHA as the agency with the relevant stats (OSHA appears to list general categories of injuries, not injuries by occupation). The BLS publishes the relevant stats, and I'm just beginning to work my way through them.]

Update: I finally had a chance to research the BLS stats. My findings are HERE.

On India

Why India has a long way to go before I will believe in its long-term economic success:

We live in a democracy, but it is not for Muslims. We live in silent dictatorship.

-- an Indian Muslim lamenting the failure of inter-faith cooperation, in today's New York Times

There are 161 million Muslims in India.

Is Being a Cop a Safe Job? (More Than You Might Think)

File this under Counter-Intuition 101. In 2008, according to the FBI, only "41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty" in the entire country. Thankfully, it is rare for a police officer to become seriously injured or to die on the job. For more, see HERE. [Updated links here for 2010: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed and http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed]

The FBI also publishes the number of officers killed due to accidents (i.e., no malicious intent). In 2008, only 68 law enforcement officers were killed in accidents while performing their duties in the entire country. The majority of those officers (39/68) were killed as a result of automobile accidents.

Depending on what types of law enforcement officers are included (corrections? sheriffs? BART cops? city? fed?), there are between 430,000 and 800,000 law enforcement officers in the United States [I know I should have a citation for this, but I can't find a reliable source, so I included a range of numbers based on the various stats I viewed]. [Update on 7/20/12: see HERE: "Approximately 800,000 law enforcement officers currently serve across the country."]

109 fatalities (41 + 68) out of 800,000 means police officers have less than a 0.014% chance of dying on the job each year. Of course, this percentage does not include the number of times an officer is assaulted by a perp or random stranger. Even so, law enforcement families should sleep soundly--a 0.014% chance of dying while working means officers have safer jobs than most people commonly think. Of course, that doesn't mean the job isn't tough. Being a street cop is a stressful job, and I wish we'd lower public employees' long-term benefits so we could put the money towards hiring more officers and reducing the number of continuous hours that individual officers spend on duty.

This is no idle debate--the more people who (incorrectly) think officers' jobs are overly dangerous, the more likely the public will allow officers to use excessive force against citizens. Also, if officers overestimate the actual danger they are in, they will use less patient methods of interacting with citizens. That impatience may make you the next Phuong Ho (an unarmed SJSU student who was beaten by police officers because of their failure to properly assess the actual level of the threat against them while Mr. Ho attempted to look for his glasses).

If, however, the public understands that officers have a tough job because they work excessive hours and suffer from sleep deprivation, then we can fix the problem by hiring more police officers, reducing hours spent on patrol, etc.--steps that will increase an officer's chances of accurately assessing the true level of a threat before resorting to force. But without understanding the actual problems of the job, we will focus on the wrong item--danger--which will increase friction between the public and the police as police continue to use impatient, violent methods of subduing/controlling citizens.

Advancing the truth--that police jobs are tough, but safer than people commonly believe--will mean better safety for all citizens, and better mental health for all police officers. Also, the more people who understand that it is rare for an officer to be killed on the job due to their excellent training, the more qualified applicants we will receive. Speaking the truth about officer safety is a fight worth having, even if it's a controversial one.

WSJ Letter on Quran: Religion and Randomness

I've written about religion and randomness before, but I don't think I've published the following post. Here you go:

From the WSJ's letters section, A18, December 10, 2008:

One of the most important verses in the Quran reads, "Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with the Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (Surah 5, verse 69) ... I know of no other religion as inclusive as Islam. In Sura 2, verse 256, the Quran commands, "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." -- Donald A. Jordan, Doha, Qatar

Some people allege the Quran appears to be more inclusive than Christianity. See, for instance, Matthew 11:27:

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

There are, however, two ways of interpreting this verse. One interpretation equates it with the Quranic verses above, which require belief in the one Abrahamic God and therefore also Jesus and Judgment Day to achieve piety. Another interpretation is more restrictive and can be used to argue that only Christians are able to achieve God's good graces. Certainly, there are plenty of verses in the Torah, Bible, and Quran to lend support to any particular philosophy, but any competent analysis of religion must consider the following:

Religion is determined, most of the time, by the accident of birth. For example, if you are born in Israel, you are most likely to practice Judaism or secularism rather than Buddhism. You can cite similar examples ad infinitum--e.g., if you are born in Malaysia the year 2009, you are most likely to practice Islam rather than Judaism; if you are born in Poland, you are most likely to practice Christianity instead of Islam, etc.

But as far as a child is concerned, being born in a particular place is an accident. Therefore, a system that requires belief only in one particular religion to achieve piety is basing a child's fate primarily on chance and parental decision (or, in some cases, another "accident"). Yet, no reasonable philosophy can elevate chance or other people's random actions as primary factors in achieving piety. Therefore, unless God is unreasonable, either all religions or no religion is required to achieve piety or good graces.

In short, assuming God is just, no just God would allow the accidental factor of birth to play such a substantial (and almost determinative) part in a person's fate or opportunity to achieve piety.

In addition, if God predates religion, and religion is required to achieve piety, then all human beings prior to organized religion had no chance of achieving piety. But this conclusion is absurd. Some human beings prior to the introduction of religion must have acted in ways that we would now consider religious or that allowed them to fall into God's good graces.

Therefore, assuming God is just and reasonable, a person's behavior and actions--not his/her religion--must be the primary factors in determining his/her piety.

Movie Map?

Some movie fans might enjoy this graph. It reminds me of a D.C. Metro map. [Update: link no longer works, and I cannot find "bestmoviemaps." Main site is here: https://vodkaster.telerama.fr/moviequiz] 

Bonus: HERE is a hilarious article about Christmas from David Sedaris. 

Warren Buffett and Bill Gates

CNBC and Columbia University recently held a townhall meeting with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. I saw both of these men at a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting. I remember Buffett lighting up a room with his energy, while Gates seemed nondescript. Here is the transcript from the meeting. Below is a portion from the transcript where the men describe what they admire about each other:

BUFFETT: Well, I would say what I really most admire about Bill is the view he has about what he should do with the wealth he's accumulated. I mean, as he said, he was very lucky. He was born in the right country, at the right time, with the right wiring and all of that sort of thing. In the end, he knows he's a beneficiary of a terrific society, and not everybody gets the long straws like he and I did. So he is -- and he has this view that every human life worldwide is the equivalent of every other human life, and he's backing it up not only with money, but backing it up with his time. And his wife, Melinda, is backing it up with her time. And they are really going to spend, you know, the last half of their lives or so using both money, talent, energy, imagination, all improving the lives of 6.5 billion people around the world. That's what I admire the most.

GATES: With Warren, there are a lot of things you could pick, you know, his integrity as an example for the world. His sense of humor. But I think I'd pick his desire to teach, his desire to teach things that are complex and put them in a simple form so that people can understand and get the benefit of all his experience, all his models of how the world works. He loves to teach. And he does it meeting with students. He does it in his annual newsletter. He does it when he's talking to me on the phone. It's a real gift that I admire incredibly.

Accuray Annual Shareholder Meeting (2009)

I attended Accuray's (ARAY) annual shareholder meeting on November 20, 2009. The Palo Alto, California law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati hosted the meeting. The law firm provided coffee, orange juice, pastries, and fruit for shareholders.

Accuray sells "CyberKnife," which is used to remove tumors. CyberKnife allows doctors to remove tumors using non-invasive radiation instead of traditional surgery. According to the company, CyberKnife is a "robotic radiosurgical system [that uses] high doses of precisely delivered radiation to destroy tumors anywhere in the body where radiation is indicated."

Over 70,000 patients have been treated with the CyberKnife system, mostly for tumors outside the brain (although brain tumors account for approximately 40% of CyberKnife treatments). Because CyberKnife is a complex product, it requires a large upfront investment from hospitals and/or surgeons. As of September 30, 2009, there were 180 CyberKnife systems installed worldwide, with 117 in the Americas, 20 in Europe, 21 in Japan and 22 in the rest of Asia. A single CyberKnife system costs approximately 4 million dollars. During the meeting, the CEO indicated that in the future, the European Union would be the fastest growing market for Accuray's products.

Accuray's stock performance has been disappointing, and large individual shareholders may feel that the problem is management, not the product. One shareholder, Marilyn Adler, came spoiling for a fight. As the wife of one of the company's founders (Dr. John Adler, Jr.), she began criticizing Accuray's CEO Euan Thomson immediately. She demanded to know why the Board of Directors--absent from this meeting--includes financial experts rather than doctors familiar with cancer research. She accused management of not buying/holding shares because they themselves didn't have confidence in the company (CEO Thomson denied this particular allegation). As he was being subjected to Mrs. Adler's passionate verbal volleys, CEO Euan Thomson appeared as tense as a Buckingham Palace guard. Clutching his glass of water in one hand and a folder in the other hand, CEO Thomson actually got up from his chair during Mrs. Adler's comments, prompting her to say, "I'm not going to let you off so easily."

Afraid the meeting would be over and the CEO would immediately exit the room, I began asking some questions to keep CEO Euan Thomson, General Counsel Darren Milliken (a fellow SCU Law grad), and CFO Derek Bertocci present at the table.

I asked why CyberKnife is more effective than general surgery or other products. The CEO, relieved to get a neutral question, explained that CyberKnife is highly accurate and can better track the patient as s/he moves. Most surgeons use rudimentary tools allowing only a single rotation of radiation treatment, whereas CyberKnife uses a robotic arm with multiple and fluid rotations. Also, CyberKnife’s imaging capabilities do not require the patient to be subjected to an uncomfortable frame. In contrast, if a surgeon wants to use traditional methods to operate in a patient's brain, s/he would typically screw a rigid frame into the patient's skull. This frame would restrict the patient's movement during surgery. The patient would then remain in a fixed position, which limits the angles of treatment and tumor removal techniques. (After reading up on CyberKnife's technology, it struck me that it was something akin to Linux or RedHat--perhaps revolutionary from a technical standpoint, but lacking the broad-based acceptance required to actually cause a revolution in the marketplace.)

I asked the CEO how the amendments to the Stark Law (The Ethics in Patient Referral Act of 1989) would affect his business (see pages 42-44 of the 10K for more information). In a nutshell, the Stark law restricts a physician from referring patients to services or programs in which the physician holds a financial interest. The CEO looked surprised for a second, but General Counsel Milliken immediately jumped in. GC Milliken indicated he believed the Stark Law amendments would not impact sales.

I asked about an unusual line in the 10K, on page 31: "Since the software component is significant in our solution, we are bound by the software revenue recognition rules for our business." I asked what this sentence meant, and whether the company was engaging in accounting gimmicks to boost short-term revenue at the expense of long-term growth. CFO Bertocci said the sentence related to SEC rules on software sales. Basically, it sounds like Accuray must amortize its software sales over several years (spread out its revenue) instead of reporting an immediate lump sum profit when it sells a CyberKnife system. To use a simplistic example, if I buy a business software program for 100 dollars and I intend to use it for five years, I can't deduct the 100 dollars immediately--I have to deduct 20 dollars a year for 5 years, because I plan on using the software for 5 years. However, the CFO also said that sales under the post-2006 CyberKnife contracts allow Accuray to record revenue as soon as the product is "shipped, installed, and accepted" by the customer. I am not an accountant, so I didn't ask how the 2005 contracts differed from the 2006 contracts. As with any company that relies on software sales, I am now concerned Accuray seems able to record short term revenue using methods that might inflate quarterly results. (Note: see the very end of this article for the company's take on the SEC accounting rules.)

I asked why Accuray seemed focused on international markets. CEO Thomson said international markets were growing faster and it was easier to get reimbursed for sales. He said that in the States, hospitals and doctors must negotiate a price with insurance plans each time they use CyberKnife, because Medicare and other insurance plans do not have a pre-set price for a CyberKnife treatment. The CEO indicated the company spends lots of money lobbying Congress to resolve these issues. From my own research, it appears that hospitals may bill each CyberKnife treatment at between 40,000 and 90,000 dollars--obviously a wide range of reimbursement rates.

Ultimately, reimbursement prices and issues should be fixed with time. Medical groups and insurance companies don't want to advocate or reimburse a treatment method unless they are certain it is safe. To analyze whether a treatment is safe, they usually want at least five and sometimes up to fourteen years of data on post-op patients. Due to CyberKnife's relatively new technology and large upfront costs (around 4 million dollars per system), there just haven't been enough patients who've had CyberKnife surgeries to generate a large supply of post-op data. Over time, probably in about seven years, there will be plenty of data showing the effects and efficacy of the CyberKnife product, which should make reimbursement easier if the results are positive.

Based on other comments and questions at the meeting, Accuray is focused on marketing its products through hospitals and physician networks. When questioned about why Accuray didn't use more patient testimonials in advertising, CEO Thomson said he intended to build a "clinical case at hospitals" and didn't want to use patients in a way that would seem "tacky." When Mrs. Adler continued to question the Board of Directors' lack of medical experience, CEO Thomson responded that the Board "is not going to sell" the CyberKnife product.

Mark D., a former CyberKnife patient, made several comments during the meeting. He said he had a good experience with CyberKnife. He believes using CyberKnife instead of traditional cancer treatments caused "fewer secondary effects," such as less radiation-induced nausea. He also indicated CyberKnife treatments could be completed more quickly than traditional cancer treatments, which would save patients money. The fewer treatments needed, the cheaper it can be for the patient, because if s/he lives in a rural area and needs multiple cancer treatments, s/he would have to spend money commuting long distances or staying in a hotel.

Overall, I am conflicted about Accuray shares. On the one hand, I like the product, but I am concerned about reimbursement problems. Insurance companies will probably fight tooth and nail to deny a CyberKnife treatment if a patient can use a cheaper cancer treatment. It saddens me that patients may not be receiving the best treatment possible because of bureaucratic hurdles, but the realist in me understands the situation. I will keep a close eye on Accuray shares and hope to hear good news about the company.

Disclosure: I own an insignificant number of shares of Accuray (ARAY).

Note: prior to publication, I sent my article to Accuray. I have included some of their comments below:

On the SEC software revenue recognition rules: "This rather complex yet conservative accounting approach to revenue recognition applies to older contracts. Per the SEC, Accuray had to defer the recognition of revenue for these legacy agreements until all contractual elements were satisfied. At that point, revenue for the system and service could be ratably recognized over the remaining length of the contract. This is a accounting method used by software companies. While most of this legacy revenue has been recognized, the company will continue to recognize the remaining deferred revenue over the next two years. It is important to note that these contracts stopped being written in 2005, with subsequent contracts subjected to a more standard revenue recognition policy."

On CyberKnife's competitive advantages: "The CK has the ability to track the location of the tumor throughout treatment, with the robot automatically correcting for movement and thereby keeping the radiation beams directed at the tumor. The result is accuracy in the delivery of radiation to the tumor while minimizing the involvement of healthy tissue. Traditional radiation therapy systems are mounted on a gantry, which limits the number of beam angles. Since CK uses a robotic arm with almost unlimited beam angles, the tumor can be 'painted' with radiation beams more effectively. This also helps to spare healthy tissue."

On reimbursement issues: "Throughout most of the country, Medicare and most private insurance companies have set reimbursement rates for CK procedures. There are some exceptions and the company is providing assistance to address these issues."

Bonus: interview with Dr. John Adler, Accuray's founder, HERE.

Nidal Hasan: What's Religion Got to Do with It?

Quick thought of the day:

People who focus on the Fort Hood shooter's religion are doing themselves as well as future crime prevention a disservice. For instance, what would we learn if we focused on Bernie Madoff's religious background? Nothing. In fact, by focusing on his religious background, we would spend less time on relevant issues, such as how to best prevent fraud for all securities customers. In addition, since we can't change someone's religion or legally discriminate against someone on the basis of religion, we cannot implement effective defenses against criminal activity even if we did find a high correlation between a person's religious background and a particular criminal act.

For instance, continuing the Madoff example, even if we find that high-level financial advisors happen to be Jewish (something I highly doubt), what do we do with such information? If we subject Jewish financial advisors to more scrutiny, all we're doing is making it more expensive for them to serve their clients. We're not actually preventing fraud or helping the general consumer avoid fraud.

In fact, focusing on a perp's religion is a triple-loss--it injects irrelevant data into an analysis, skewering any results; castigates religious practitioners who are innocent of any wrongdoing; and causes us to spend less time focusing on relevant data, which we could then use to create new, effective regulations or new methods.

New York Vinnie on Haddadi/Clippers/Racism

New York Vinnie from Le Basketbawl emailed me his thoughts about the Clippers announcers comparing Iranian NBA player Hamed Haddadi to Borat:

Let me add this to your conversation. Borat is a negative stereotype just like Stepin Fetchit for African Americans, Charlie Chan for Asian Americans, and the Frito Bandito for Latino Americans.

We do not see those stereotypes any longer because each of those ethnic groups have large enough sway in this country to make sure it was eliminated. Native Americans for years have been still subject to this type of Crapolla because they do not have a large enough voice. Look at Chief Wahoo for the Cleveland Indians or the Tomahawk Chop for the Atlanta Braves. Now we have the Persian culture of Iran and the Arab cultures that we find okay to denigrate. New York Vinnie does not support the Govt. of Iran but Haddadi is a private citizen, it would be like a kid from the USA playing in Israel. They are not politicians or representatives of their governments.

New York Vinnie is half Italian and half Puerto Rican; I know what it is to be racially profiled. Those same racist PUDs would call "New York Vinnie" Guido or Jose, and call New York Hymietown! You can take that to the Frickin' Bank My Man!

I like New Yorkers, and I had a great time when I visited New York. In general, the people I met were more talkative and friendly than Californians. New Yorkers tend to say what they mean, and they're proud to say it to your face instead of behind your back. In case anyone is interested, my original post on the Haddadi situation is here.

Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays

Ken from Popehat.com has written yet another flawless post. I don't know any other website I regularly visit where I think, "It's like he's writing what I think, if only my IQ was 100 points higher, and I had a better sense of humor." Click HERE for Ken's post on political correctness, Jesus Christ, and the Christmas spirit.

Ken, I bow down to your superior wit.

California Spending

Imagine a place where everyone knows they have a spending problem, no one cares, and no one minds passing the financial consequences to their children. Welcome to California.

Fun facts: California paid out $2.1 billion in bonuses, overtime, and other extras in 2007. (See SF Chronicle, Erin McCormick, A1, June 30, 2008.)

A Superior Court Judge makes $178,789 a year; an Appellate Court Justice makes $204,599 a year; and a state Supreme Court Justice makes $218,237 a year. All state judges are eligible for generous pensions, dental benefits, health benefits, basic life and AD&D insurance, supplemental life insurance, vision service plans, long term care insurance, a voluntary tax savings program (FlexElect), and a savings plus program (a Thrift Plan, i.e., a 401K, and a Deferred Compensation Plan (IRC 457)).

Quotes re: the American Constitution

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but with tyrants, I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." See here for more quotes from great Americans.

Another Awesome Blog

Cute, funny blog here. I remember my 20's. They were fun.

Ralph Lawler and Michael Smith: Resign

You know why this story ticks me off? Because Los Angeles has between 500,000 and one million Iranian-American residents. If L.A. Clippers announcers felt comfortable denigrating Iranians in Los Angeles--as close to "Little Tehran" as you can get in America--what does it say about America and its willingness to respect the top performers who come here? What does it say about America's willingness to extend the American Dream to Middle Eastern immigrants?

Also, if you think this issue concerns only a mispronunciation, you are wrong. The announcers compared NBA player and consummate professional Haddadi to Borat. They did so only because of Hamed Haddadi's national origin. They would not have made such comments if Haddadi was from England, Japan, China, or Mexico. Is anyone seriously saying it's okay to make disparaging comments against someone because of where he was born?

Moreover, people who think the announcers made the comments only because Haddadi looks like Borat unwittingly raise a good question: if Lawler and Smith are completely blind, should they continue announcing games? In other words, are people seriously saying the announcers only compared a 7 foot 2 inches Iranian NBA player with olive skin to a much smaller, much lighter-skinned character because they thought the mustached Borat and soul patch Haddadi look so much alike? You know you have problems when your "argument" is just a variation of "All black people look alike, don't they?" (And imagine the consequences if a baseball announcer asked, "Doesn't Jackie Robinson look like Sambo's older brother?")

Some people say if Hamed Haddadi accepted the announcers' apologies, then we, too, should move on. This sentiment is wrongheaded and ignorant. It rewards the announcers who made the racist statements and ignores the victim's silent anguish. After all, what else could Haddadi do but be gracious in the face of overt racism and crassness? Let it be known, however, that had the announcers made similar remarks about Jews or African-Americans, they would have been fired. Or have we forgotten Howard Cossell's remark about "the little monkey" and his subsequent departure from Monday Night Football? And don't forget baseball analyst Steve Lyons' termination after he referenced Lou Piniella's Hispanic heritage.

Below is the transcript of the conversation between Ralph Lawler and Michael Smith, which occurred late in the Memphis Grizzlies game:

Smith: “Look who’s in.”

Lawler: “Hamed Haddadi. Where’s he from?”

Smith: “He’s the first Iranian to play in the NBA.” (Smith mispronounces "Iranian" as "Eye-ranian.")

Lawler: “There aren’t any Iranian players in the NBA,” repeating Smith’s mispronunciation.

Smith: “He’s the only one.”

Lawler: “He’s from Iran?”

Smith: “I guess so.”

Lawler: “That Iran?”

Smith: “Yes.”

Lawler: "The real Iran?"

Smith: “Yes.”

Lawler: “Wow. Haddadi that’s H-A-D-D-A-D-I.”

Smith: "You’re sure it’s not Borat’s older

brother?"

Smith: “If they ever make a movie about Haddadi, I’m going to get Sacha Baron Cohen to play the part.”

Lawler: “Here’s Haddadi. Nice little back-door pass. I guess those Iranians can pass the ball.”

Smith: “Especially the post players.

Lawler: “I don’t know about their guards.”

Lawler and Smith need to resign, not just apologize. Comparing a professional basketball player to a boorish caricature like Borat is unacceptable because the joke relates to Haddadi's national origin. The announcers would not have made their statements unless they believed Haddadi was from a country they perceive as backwards.

In addition, their statements demean not just Haddadi, but the American Dream itself. America's prosperity relies in part upon the sweat and toil of immigrants--like Haddadi--who have taken risks to come here, seeking the American Dream. The American Dream stands for the proposition that any immigrant from any country--not just countries that happen to be portrayed positively in the media--can come to America and become American. Had Haddadi been from a European country, the announcers would not have made such comments. The announcers made their comments only because Haddadi was from a country they viewed negatively. Their statements were based on Haddadi's national origin (Iranian) and race (perceived as non-white).

By the way, I was lucky enough to meet Haddadi at a local Golden State Warriors game. The Warriors held an Iranian Heritage night to attract Iranian-American fans. Hundreds of Iranian-Americans attended the game and boosted the Warriors' and the NBA's bottom line. If the NBA cares about its image, it will take further action. (Pictures from the Warriors' Iranian Heritage Night are here.)

By the way, the person who complained to the network was Arya Towfighi, vice president and assistant general counsel for Univision Communications Inc. in Los Angeles, California. He complained to "highlight the issue that a lot of folks wouldn't consider saying such things about African-Americans or Hispanics but because this was an Iranian player it just flowed more easily." According to journalist Diane Pucin, Mr. Towfighi said he shooed his 8-year-old son out of the room before replaying the exchange. "I didn't want my son to hear that," Mr. Towfighi said.

Update: some people have commented on this post. Feel free to leave your own comment.

Bonus: click here or here for one of the most awesome NBA pictures ever.

Update on December 21, 2009: I wanted to clarify something. If Haddadi had known Lawler and Smith reasonably well, or if they had a pre-existing congenial relationship, perhaps the analysis would be different. In this case, however, Lawler and Smith had no interactions with Haddadi prior to comparing him to a caricature and focusing on his national origin.

Bonus (added on January 31, 2012): here are two other links on controversial topics:

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2009/11/fort-hood-shootings.html (Fort Hood Shootings)

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-christianity-peaceful-religion.html (Is Christianity a Peaceful Religion?)

Weekend Movies Recap

1. I just saw Milk, about Harvey Milk. Absolutely a must-see, especially if you live in California. I also enjoyed George Clooney in Michael Clayton.

2. I am pleased to introduce my readers to The I.T. Crowd, a British television series that began in 2006. It's not often I see anything on DVD that makes me laugh out loud, and if you enjoy comedy, you must not miss The I.T. Crowd. I give Season One my highest recommendation and look forward to seeing more.

3. I finally saw Lust, Caution. I do not recommend it. It is a two-and-a-half hour film that should have been no more than an hour. Ang Lee can't decide if he wants to make a sexually explicit film or a plot-focused one; as a result, the audience suffers through symbolic but superfluous sexual escapades. While Ang Lee has made a great period piece of 1940's China/HK, he has also sucked the life out of it by adding too many extraneous, slow diversions. Just my two cents.

Wiser Words Were Ne'er Spoken

From Thomas J. Stanley, Ph.D.:

America is often referred to as the land of the free. But most people in this country are not really free. They are tied to debt and a treadmill existence in terms of earning a living. At this moment, our federal government has promised future social benefits in excess of $50 trillion. That figure is approximately the same amount of the total personal wealth held by Americans. In the future, it is very likely that the government will not be able to provide the promised social benefits to our seniors. The typical household in the United States has a net worth of just over $90,000.

Some people joke that by the time an average American man is 35 years old, he's a virtual slave. His bank owns his house; his employer owns his money and health insurance; his wife and kids own his time (which always reminds me that I should marry wisely); and the government owns the first three months of his work.

I am surprised that the typical household has a net worth of just over 90K. At the same time, these kinds of financial statistics are notoriously difficult to calculate. If I have 100K and I take out a mortgage to buy a 200K house, then doesn't my net worth go from 100K to negative 100K overnight?

Movie: Night of the Hunter

"Open the door, you spawn of the devil's own strumpet!" -- The Night of the Hunter (1955)

If you're looking for a good movie, and if you like suspense and drama, rent the Night of the Hunter. Robert Mitchum's character--a priest who's not really a priest--is incredibly memorable. Robert DeNiro in Cape Fear must have been inspired by Mitchum's performance. More movie recommendations here.

Quotes of the Day: Twain and a Terrorist

"Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, and over these ideals they dispute, but they all worship money." — Mark Twain

Osama bin Laden, 5/17/1998, ABC News interview with John Miller: "We are absolutely positive we will prevail, with the grace of God...We predict a black day for America and the end of the U.S. as we know it. They will be shattered and they will retreat from our land and collect the bodies of their sons back to America."

Worst Movie Ever?

In 2003, Laurence Fishburne, Orlando Jones, Kid Rock, Djimon Hounsou got together and made a movie called Biker Boyz. Basically, someone with too much money and time on his hands decided to do a motorcycle version of the Fast and the Furious. The result: a terrible movie that fails so badly, it doesn't even succeed in achieving unintentional comedy. When Fishburne says, "Burn rubber, not your soul," I didn't laugh, even though I should have. I was too stunned by the overall idiocy to appreciate the hilarity. Check out this review for more.

Oh, the 7Up commercial guy--Orlando Jones--spends the first half of the movie acting like a straight-up thug, and the second half of the movie as a straight-talking lawyer. No attempt at a reasonable segue is made. The movie goes from one scene where Orlando is in a leather jacket and too-large glasses yelling for his peeps to bow down to the motorcycle king, and then suddenly, we're in a hospital and Orlando is telling someone's mom, "You didn't know I was a lawyer, did you?" At least that's what I remember. (Speaking of which, know anyone who can help me erase my memory? Sigh.)

In case you're wondering, I saw this film on television to pass the time between NFL breaks. I did not willingly rent it.

KLA-Tencor Annual Shareholder Meeting (2009)

Walking into KLA-Tencor's (KLAC) annual shareholder meeting, I felt like I was entering a Mad Men set: everyone seemed crisp, professional, very white and very male. Out of the eleven upper management and/or board members seated in the first two rows, 100% were male, and only two were non-white. Having non-diverse upper management isn't as bad as having a city council member make misrepresentations to one of his own constituents (Hiya, Pete Constant!), but it's still undesirable. After all, a company that is global and non-diverse violates the Law of Diversity and hinders its own growth and reputation.

In a nutshell, KLAC provides highly specialized instruments that detect natural defects on man-made wafers and reticles. As semiconductor chips and wafers become smaller, they become more complex, and the manufacturing process requires increasingly specialized equipment to find defects. Put another way, KLAC engages in metrology--the science of measurement--for semiconductor companies like Intel (INTC) and fab owners.

KLA-Tencor offered shareholders water and coffee only. CEO Richard Wallace handled most of the meeting and did an excellent job bestowing confidence. He said KLAC was not interested in commoditizing its products, but this goal required high R&D expenditures. In short, KLAC must innovate at a rapid pace to continue its superior position in the marketplace and to beat competitors such as Applied Materials (AMAT) and Hitachi (HIT).

The CEO's Darwinistic attitude is good for KLAC because its "customers need to get [their products] to market quickly" in order to capitalize on high prices. Technology improves at such a rapid pace, consumer companies need to be able to rely on companies like KLAC to find chip defects quickly. When KLAC succeeds, companies can provide consumers with non-defective products and also effectively capitalize on the initial demand for highly-touted products.

CEO Wallace convincingly stated that KLAC doesn't believe its success is an entitlement. His intense yet dignified approach seems like an excellent fit for KLAC. Highlighting the sudden and severe depth of the recent recession, Wallace mentioned that he once felt he had "no visibility about when [demand] would come back." Now, however, he senses the worst is over.

I asked my usual question: what competitive advantage does KLAC have against its competitors? CEO Wallace said KLAC's products are more complex and therefore have "more capabilities" than competing products. At the same time, the high level of complexity makes KLAC's products "more expensive," so smaller companies might be able to target a specific area in KLAC's business and provide alternate low-cost solutions. I found the CEO's honesty refreshing. It's rare to see a CEO point out his company's advantages and disadvantages.

When I pointed out the company's lack of ethnic and gender diversity on its Board of Directors, the Chairman of the Board mentioned that KLAC had one South Asian male and one Asian male in upper management. (There are no women on KLAC's Board of Directors.) The CEO also pointed out that the Director of Communications was female. In an email sent to me after the meeting, the company stated that "KLA-Tencor has a geographically and ethnically diverse workforce--nearly 50% of our company is non-Caucasian...and 40% of our management team is non-Caucasian."

Other highlights: though KLAC has gone through some cost-cutting, "nothing significant was cut"; 80% of KLAC's sales are outside the United States; when the economy rebounds, KLAC believes it will be leaner and more profitable.

Disclosure: I own an insignificant number of shares of KLAC.

Andre Agassi: Open

Andre Agassi came to Palo Alto, California last week. The Commonwealth Club hosted an interview and book signing. Andre Agassi oozes charm, intelligence, and charisma. Although not formally educated, Agassi's intelligence is palpable, but so is his need for acceptance and his sensitivity to criticism. Joel Drucker, a reporter who recently reviewed Agassi's book, Open, was on the receiving end of a few barbs from Agassi. Few people can single out a reporter during an interview and still come out looking good, but Agassi's charisma allows him to say things almost no one else can say.

I look forward to reading Agassi's book. In the meantime, here are some snippets I remember from the interview:

On Michael Chang: Agassi found Chang's habit of crediting God for his wins "odd." He said if Chang had blamed God when he lost, he would have had more respect for him.

On His Father: if he had to do it all over again, he wouldn't have changed anything, except he would have pushed Agassi into baseball or golf. Apparently, Agassi's father believes that baseball and golf athletes play longer and make more money.

On Tennis: Agassi mentioned the loneliness of the sport and said no other sport is as lonely. As a result, Agassi joked that tennis players like to talk to themselves a lot, and also answer their own questions.

On Coach Brad Gilbert: he talks a lot, but in the middle of one particularly frustrating match, he was very quiet. When Agassi told him, "Now's the time you stay silent?" Gilbert, obviously incensed at Agassi's failure to perform up to his potential, responded, "What do you want me to say? Let me make this as simple as I can. See the ball; run to the ball; hit the ball. If you can't do that, then just do what the other guy is doing!" Agassi went on to win the match.

On His Dad's Iranian Connection: Agassi said his dad--ethnically Armenian, but born and raised in Iran--never taught him Farsi, so he doesn't feel a connection with Iran. He said his dad pursued the American dream by coming to America. At the same time, Agassi, ever the diplomat, said he was curious about Iranian culture.

I was disappointed, because growing up, Agassi was the closest thing to a cool Iranian celebrity. All the Iranian kids looked up to Agassi, just like all the Chinese kids looked up to Michael Chang. As my friend said, when Michael Chang, a Chinese tennis player, won the French Open, "all the Chinese kids (myself included) decided to pick up a racket."

On Roger Federer: Agassi called Federer a freak of nature and said he was the greatest of all time.

On His Son: after his son threw a tennis ball at Agassi's dad, his dad told Agassi if his son ever did that again, he'd kick his butt so hard, his son wouldn't sh*t for a week. Agassi's son responded with more curiosity than fear, asking, "Is that possible?"

On Charter Schools: Agassi has opened a charter school and said he favors the charter school system because charter schools are able to demand additional requirements (such as mandating parental involvement) and to terminate bad teachers. When someone asked if Agassi would send his own kids to the charter school, Agassi responded that the kids were chosen through a lottery system over which he had no control, but even if his kids were accepted, his school was for children who had no other options. Agassi said he didn't want one of his kids taking a spot from someone else with fewer options.

Father-in-Law: [from the book] the first time Andre's and Steffi's fathers met each other, they almost got into a fistfight.

Bonus: the NYT's book review is here (November 20, 2009, Sam Tanenhaus).

Omar Khayyam: 1,000th Post

From Omar Khayyam's Ruba'iyat:

If I'm drunk on forbidden wine, so I am! / And if I'm an unbeliever, a pagan, or idolater, so I am! / Every sect has its own suspicions of me, / I myself am just what I am.

My rule of life is to drink and be merry, / To be free from belief and unbelief is my religion: / I asked the Bride of Destiny her bride-price, / "Your joyous heart," she said.

Due to a high metabolism, I don't feel any positive effects from drinking, so Khayyam's "forbidden wine" gives me no succor. Even so, I appreciate good poetry, and I am using his words to commemorate my 1,000th post on this blog. (At least I think this is the 1,000th post.)

I'll buy myself an eggnog latte later as a reward. For my regular readers, I hope you continue to enjoy my blog. As always, thanks for reading.

Want to Learn More about Iran and Nuclear Weapons?

If you want to learn more about Iran and nuclear weapons, you have to listen to Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei. Charlie Rose interviewed him in 2007. See here.

Dodgeball and Evolution

Barry Petchesky cracks me up.

A kid got nailed in the face during a dodgeball game at his school, and now he might sue the city. Maybe he needs to sue evolution for not giving him the reflexes to survive in middle school gym class.

I think I understand what happened here. Kid gets hit in the face, incurs about 15 grand in dental work, and someone has to pay for it. Parents probably don't have 15 grand to pay a dentist or dental insurance, so they need to get the money from somewhere...and they sue. The city, which runs the school, offers to give the lawyer 5 grand and the kid 15 grand to avoid lawyers' fees and a sympathetic jury.

Who's ultimately on the hook? NYC taxpayers. And you know what? I'm okay with that.

Book Recommendation: The Assist

I recently finished a great book, Neil Swidey's The Assist. The author shadows a Boston high school basketball team and their driven coach. Along the way, the author examines busing, racial issues, the judicial system, and the code of the streets. Imagine Hoop Dreams crossed with Boyz in the Hood.

On white flight in Boston's neighborhoods: "The sad fact, she said, is most whites aren't comfortable being in the minority, and unless they can be guaranteed a school where they are in the majority, most of them won't return to the public schools." (page 107, paperback, Public Affairs, 2008)

On the origins of basketball: "In December 1891, James Naismith, a thirty-year-old phys-ed teacher at the School for Christian Workers, nailed two half-bushel peach baskets to the edge of an elevated indoor track, divided his eighteen stir-crazy students into two teams of nine, and taught them to bounce a fat ball and toss it at their side's basket. There were no holes at the bottom of the baskets, so Naismith kept a ladder nearby for use after each score." (page 87)

From an experienced school administrator: "Kids are no damn good!" [Headmaster Michael] Fung would tell all the wide-eyed recent college grads he hired to rejuvenate his faculty. "They leave the school a mess. They don't listen. They swear." Then he would pause for effect. "That's why we have to work hard to make them good." (page 168)

Fung advised the teacher[that] students must be taught to respect boundaries. No, the teacher replied, she wanted teach them that they are respected and trusted. Not long after that, her students stole her lunch. Then her credit card. Then her $300 jacket, which they set on fire. She no longer worked at Charlestown High. (page 171)

On Criminal Law: "Do we have a Bruton problem?" he asked, invoking a Supreme Court ruling that had become shorthand for trials of co-defendants that get stuck in a goulash of blame. (page 292)

Where Did the Stimulus Money Go?

Wondering how the stimulus money is being spent? You can look up various beneficiaries online. Here is the breakdown for Santa Clara County. Most of the money went to school districts. Teachers' unions have major pull nationwide, and California is no exception.

According to a recent Pew Center report, the ten most financially troubled states are: Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. Also, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, New York and Hawaii are suffering fiscal problems.

More Wisdom from Dick Armey

Republican Dick Armey:

Reagan went to Berlin and said, "Tear down this wall." We [Republicans] went to San Diego and said, "Build a fence." It was just stupid. You have Hispanics saying, "I’m not going to vote for those guys because they don’t like me."

More from Dick Armey here and here.