[detbuch]

Not only are articles like the one Spence cited from Huff post misleading because so many variables are left out, but most bare statistics are merely a part of a much larger mix of factors, many of which are not even known. Bare statistics can be part of, usually a small part, of the explanation for a larger picture. But they can also mislead if not applied correctly. And "correct" is, in the end, often not so correct. Too often, probably usually in political persuasion, the statistics are intentionally used to mislead.

For instance, "income inequality" is a mantra talking point in liberal/progressive speak. It is, supposedly, by wonks from the left, one of those unfair inequities imposed on society by "conservative" capitalistic doctrine. Yet, how explain that the top three states with the highest income inequality, New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut (plus D.C. to make four) are among the most liberal/progressive ones. But the least unequal, that is the most equal in distribution, Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming, are "conservative"? Are we to attribute greater income equality to conservative policies, and less equality to progressive policies?

And, to another liberal/progressive talking point--racial equality. In general, states with the highest percent of blacks, are among the lowest in per capita income, and score lower on other "measures" of success. As well, in those states where blacks are less of a percentage of population they still measure lower than other races. Are we to attribute a racial inferiority to blacks because of such statistics?

We might look to other raw statistics, such as the comparison of financial success of "gays" which compares very well to other sexual demographics. Does that, in itself, put a lie to their supposedly oppressed status?

How about the oppression of women in this country? Does the statistic that over 50% of the wealth here is in the hands of women give a lie to that liberal nostrum?

The point, for me, is not about arguments framed by questions and supported by partial statistics, but what is the "end game"? Is the goal top-down authoritarian government, or bottom up self-government? Is the goal government micromanagement of a one size fits all monolithic and uniform society tending toward static stagnation, or a diverse mix of individuals contributing to a dynamic evolution? Is the goal, ultimately, freedom or tyranny?

When we hunker down to arguments about this statistic over that one, and someone persuades us of a "proof" that the statistic has a powerful bearing on our life, and that we must bend the direction and power of government to rectify some inequity that the statistic is supposed to represent, we are reduced, like death by a thousand cuts, to insignificance by a thousand stats.

How important is your individual life? Are you just a meaningless cog meshing into some grand movement guided by masterminds who profess to know what is best for you? Or is there at least the seed of a desire to be left to your own devices?

Do you want some basic freedom, which government cannot touch, to live your own life? Or would you rather the comfort of a professed benevolent government deciding, in your own best interest, what you are allowed?

If you live in a state with supposedly worse "statistics" than Minnesota, would you prefer to transform your state into one with the abundance of variables, including ethnic, religious, climatic, agronomic, technical, and other miniscule and unknowable factors which produce those statistics and define that state? Don't most people carry their own internal baggage and acclimate to a place in relation to how that baggage weighs them down or gives them freedom? Would any two of us perceive life in Minnesota in exactly the same way? Or would we all react uniformly in relation to the state's "statistics"?

God bless Minnesota. Or, universal accident bless it. And bless Utah as well. Amazing how we have supposedly evolved from pure accident toward efforts at total design. But I prefer to live somewhere in the middle of the accident and the ultimate pictograph. It seems that in that middle lies the possibility of escape from chaos at one end and the tyranny of total regulation on the other.

Perhaps we have reached a point in the continuum of history where freedom is an anachronistic and overrated idea. One which stands in the way of our eventual destination of a designed existence. Maybe statistics are more real and relevant than "freedom," and we are on the verge of loading the massive compendium of statistics into super computers programmed to concoct the perfect design for sustaining life and controlling the environment, even beyond earth. And any divergence by anyone from that design would have to be eliminated.

Then we won't have to compare Minnesota's to Wisconsin's statistics.