Public lands are all around us, particularly in the west. Figure 1 below maps out the “public lands” available in the united states, and Figure 2 presents the uses of those lands by percentage.
Figure 1

Figure 2

Public lands is defined as “the public domain, unappropriated land belonging to the federal government that is subject to sale or other disposal under general laws and is not reserved for any particular governmental or public purpose.” from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com. Basically, it’s just the land that’s federally owned. These lands are often a subject of politics- for instance, the debate about Bears Ears National Monument boundaries being shrunk. Particularly for residents of Utah as well as other western states, public lands are a prominent topic because they make up so much of the place we call our home.

An interesting question about public lands is posed in the article “How 1,600 People Went Missing from Our Public Lands Without a Trace” by Jon Billman. Throughout, he tells the story of a young student named Joe Keller, and the story of his disappearance in a national park and the process of searching for him. In other chunks of the article, Billman speculates why people go missing and details how the process of searching for them desperately needs amended.

I think there are a few important questions to ponder about this information and about the data released by the BLM and National Park Services: why is nothing being done about all of these missing people? Why aren’t we hearing about this? What are the possible motives?

David Paulides—founder of the CanAm Missing Project and author of Missing 411 Hunters: Unexplained Disappearances— is quoted in the article. “He believes the Park Service in particular knows exactly how many people are missing but won’t release the information for fear that the sheer numbers—and the ways in which people went missing—would shock the public so badly that visitor numbers would go down.” The article accounts for 1600 “missing people” as a conservative figure- there’s hundreds if not thousands of people missing on public lands, often having their bodies only to be recovered months and years later, if ever recovered at all.

The article also details the legal aspects of missing persons, and what that entails. Billman writes “‘There are no federal standards for terrestrial search and rescue,’ Koester says. ‘Very few states have standards. A missing person is a local problem. It’s a historical institution from when the sheriff was the only organized government.’ And when it comes to the locals riding to your rescue, Koester says, ‘There’s a vast spectrum of capability.’” This would highlight another possible agenda for the federal government and NPS withholding information on the missing people within the realm of their areas- there’s no legal sanctions requiring that they report it. Therefore, if, as Paulides speculates, they withhold information for fear that the number of visitors would decrease, it would make sense. They’re not only federally funded lands, but receive financial resources from tourism for both the parks and communities. Search efforts are local, according to old-time law as noted in the previous quote.

There’s the economical argument for the withholding of information- the cost to benefit ratio seems to suggest that it makes more sense. However, that does not consider the ethics. Is it morally correct to withhold from millions of people the real risk of becoming a missing person while visiting national parks? Although still a very low number, the economic thinking behind not releasing this data seems to reflect the general attitude of America as whole. By looking at the motives behind why certain data is released and why some is not, we might be able to build a better idea of American people’s intentions with data and key reasoning behind their use of it.

References

1. Billman, Jon. “How 1,600 People Disappeared on Our Public Lands.” Outside Online, 21 Feb. 2019, http://www.outsideonline.com/2164446/leave-no-trace.
2. “Public Land.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land.
3. “Public Lands.” The Free Dictionary, Farlex, legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Public+Lands.

After a shooting, there seems to be a clear divide in sides about what the cause was and how to respond. In light of the recent shooting tragedy in Christchurch, New Zealand, it seems like this topic is evermore prevalent: how do we decrease gun violence, not only in America, but in the world?

New Zealand is a frequent example for the USA’s National Rifle Association (NRA) to use in explaining why gun laws don’t have an effect on gun violence. Guns are very prevalent to have in New Zealand- “In New Zealand, civilians hold about 1.5 million firearms, averaging out to about one gun per three people in a country of about 5 million” (Washington Post). Yet, in the aftermath of this massive shooting, their Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern declared that there’s going to be a change in gun laws: “Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern addressed the public Friday evening local time, calling it ‘one of New Zealand’s darkest days.’ Hours later, on Saturday morning, Ardern announced that New Zealand’s gun laws would be changed, as she confirmed that the attacker held a firearms license” (Washington Post) That said, she took a clear stance on the cause: lax gun laws. But are lax gun laws really the cause of gun deaths? Is media using data to give us an honest insight of whether or not gun laws are related to gun death?

As mentioned previously, there seems to be a very clear divide in the cause of frequent shootings and gun deaths, particularly in America. On one side, the argument is that gun laws have no impact on violent shooters; they are criminals, afterall. If they want a gun, they’ll be able to access that. In addition to that, it’s mental health that we should be focusing on. Then, on the other hand, there’s the argument that the problem is the availability of guns. Too much access means too many guns getting into the wrong hands. So… who’s right?

In looking for data, I analyzed several graphs and saw problems in nearly all of them. For instance, take this article from Vox.com, titled “America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts.” (Vox.com)

The article here seems to be heavily biased toward stricter gun laws, yet all of the graphs are using the data to indicate things that aren’t necessarily represented by the data. This is a graph that’s supposedly arguing that Australia’s gun buyback program helped to decrease suicide by firearm, and therefore the country benefited from the program: the title of this graph was “. However, the data indicated that suicide by firearm was already on a downward trend before the program even started. Furthermore, it makes logical sense that if there’s less guns, there would be less suicide by firearm, since the supply is less. Yet this sample of data and several others are still used as propaganda to sway people on one side of gun legislation or the other.

When data’s used and interpreted correctly, it can be useful for troubleshooting on many issues. Realistically, there’s probably a variety data to support either side of the argument. However, it seems to be the case that facts are often taken by the media and manipulated to serve as persuasion, and especially on this partisan of an issue, it’s hard to tell what’s reliable and what’s not. To look back at the initial question, is media using data to give us an honest insight about gun violence’s relationship to gun laws? No. But looking at and interpreting data in an honest way for ourselves might be a good place to start responding to this difficult relationship.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/15/one-day-more-people-were-murdered-new-zealand-than-are-usually-killed-an-entire-year/?utm_term=.727726f7804f

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

A headline that we’re constantly harassed with from news sources on all sides of the spectrum is this familiar phrase: “Millenials are ruining ______” Fill that in with just about anything, and there’s probably an article existing about it. Millenials are constantly criticized for being a generation of people who ruin things created by the baby boomers and traditionalists. When Google searching “millennials are ruining” and allowing a suggested search, these are the top suggested searches: divorce, the wine industry, brunch, Applebee’s, and even cheese. It’s interesting to inspect the data reflected in these sorts of articles, because although “ruining” reflects a deficit perspective, the data would suggest the things being ruined are probably for the better.

Take, for instance, “millenials are ruining divorce,” the number one suggested search. A Fortune.com article, just one of the first articles to pop up from the search, reads “Having ruined everything from home ownership to the mayonnaise industry, millennials are the process of spoiling yet another major American industry: Divorce. Darned kids. New data from the University of Maryland shows that the divorce rate has fallen 18% from 2008 to 2016, as Generation X and millennials are moving slower when it comes to marriage, Bloomberg reports” (fortune.com). The article goes on to talk about the amount of money that’s annually collected from marriage versus divorce. Another interesting thing to note about this article is that it refers to divorce as an industry. That perfectly represents what this article is really indicative of: rather than the fact that millennials are yet again “ruining” something, it’s more so about the fact that Boomers and the previous generations care more about the profitability of things, even something as emotionally difficult as divorce. The way this data is presented is to put a negative twist on divorce having lower rates, because although it would seemingly be beneficial for society to have a low divorce rate, it’s bad for you guessed it: capitalism and profit, which Boomers seem to care more about. 

Another interesting topic to look at is how millenials are ruining “breastraunts” like Hooters. This is actually supplemental to how they’re ruining other chains, like Applebees and Buffalo Wild Wings, but this one is particularly interesting because of the morality behind it. This is actually from an excerpt of an article from Business Insider called “Millennials are killing list,” where the author writes “People ages 18 to 24 are 19% less likely to search for breasts on the pornographic website Pornhub compared with all other age groups, according to an analysis conducted by the website. For “breastaurants” like Hooters and Twin Peaks, a loss of interest in breasts is bad for business. The number of Hooters locations in the US has dropped by more than 7% from 2012 to 2016, and sales have stagnated, according to industry reports” (businessinsider.com). As someone that trails right behind millennials, therefore is subjected to the byproduct of a lot of their decisions, it doesn’t take a lot of analyzation for me to conclude that the emphasis for them has been moved from “breasts” like the former generation, which is who Hooters was created for, and on to butts (reference: the Kardashians). This is very contrary to that of the generations before them, such as my mother who’s a boomer and frequently comments on how “unbelivable it is” that “your generation” (millennials) like butts so much. That said, it seems that the blame for millennials “ruining” something in this piece is put to blame on our cultural shift from one body part to another. Instead of relying on business to adapt as generations of people change and grow, millennials are left as responsible for ruining everything. Another time where the data is being used to negatively reflect millennials, when according to their economic philosophy, the market should be changing and adapting itself for the consumers if it wants to remain in existence.

So, what’s all of this got to do with data? Well, the data can be used in a few different perspectives. Here, and throughout most of media, it seems like this data about the millennials generation is used to indicate that they’re ruining everything that the boomer’s and previous generations had in place. However, what if there was a perspective shift on this data to think of it as the millennials are changing things for the better? What if instead of “Millennials are Ruining Divorce,” such titles read “Millennials are Crushing Divorce Rates?” From a larger perspective, this example demonstrates how we can manipulate media and use it to create entirely deficit perspectives, or not. The way that we present media matters.
Sources:

Taylor, Kate. “Millennials Are Killing List.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 31 Oct. 2017, http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-are-killing-list-2017-8.

“The Latest Thing Millennials Are Ruining? Divorce.” Fortune, Fortune, fortune.com/2018/09/25/millennials-ruin-divorce/.

Cannabis, marijuana, or its more informal name, “weed”, has an interesting history both globally and specifically in the United States. Upon analyzing actual data about the way that cannabis benefits the people that are treated, one might find it hard to rationalize why cannabis should be illegal in the first place. I pondered this question myself, and specifically thought about Utah and how this past midterm, we just passed a law that would legalize medical marijuana to some extent. The LDS church wasn’t shy to create a “compromise” with the state within weeks of the turnout. This was met with a lot of question regarding how Utah separates church and state- and if that distinction really exists at all.

The overarching question is what’s everybody’s problem with weed in the first place? A quote from History.com even makes a note of marijuana compared to alcohol: “It’s worth noting that research has shown alcohol to be more dangerous than marijuana. In addition, cannabis doesn’t really cause superhuman strength, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s fact sheet on the drug says that “No death from overdose of marijuana has been reported.” That said, marijuana’s legality- or non-legality, in this case- seems to have a lot to do with church influence, since multiple sources of data that would be too long to list in this post suggest that there’s no real science to support the danger of marijuana.

The LDS church sent the following email out to all of its members and potential voters shortly before midterms:

If there was actual data that demonstrated that marijuana is a threat to our youth, there may be a case for their call to action; however, once again, data seems to suggest otherwise. The National Insititute for Drug Abuse, a national goverment website, reports this, following the conclusion that there are few indications from research of cannabis as a gateway drug: “…the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, “harder” substances. Also, cross-sensitization is not unique to marijuana. Alcohol and nicotine also prime the brain for a heightened response to other drugs and are, like marijuana, also typically used before a person progresses to other, more harmful substances.” Based on this information, and the information earlier cited, it doesn’t seem like the church’s claim of the proposition being a “serious threat to health and public safety” is an actual, legitimate claim.

What happened following the eventual passing of Proposition 2 is the LDS church offering a compromise with the government about the proposition. Because, for whatever reason, the government needs to compromise with a religious body that supposedly is kept separate from the government. What this data appears to show is that the factual data doesn’t actually matter when it comes to decision making, in Utah in this case, but not limited to. It’s all about relationships between different structures of power, which doesn’t seem to discount religious institutes as the constitution would suggest. The LDS church has been a heavy influence on Utah politics for as long as Utah has existed, but it’s not the only example of religion having too big of an influence on politics. The United States’ and Trump’s own secretary of education Betsy Devos has insisted that christian schooling should be mandatory in the education system. As far as building a wall is concerned, perhaps Trump might be more concerned with creating stricter guidelines for how far the church can intervene in politics- especially in Utah.

Sources:

https://www.history.com/news/why-the-u-s-made-marijuana-illegal

https://unewswriting.wordpress.com/2018/11/28/the-aftermath-of-passing-proposition-2-in-utah/

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug

People doing something with their body/fingers while trying to concentrate on something has been investigated for a long time, particularly during a period of my childhood. This time period, which I’d consider to be around 2007-2012, many doctors/therapists seeing me were insistent on me exhibiting symptoms of ADHD because of my spacey-ness, so to speak. It’s not that I was doing poorly in school- in fact, my grades were more than satisfactory. I just had the tendency to draw on everything- my homework, my notebooks, my body, anything that a marker could reach. Rather than suspecting that I was an artistic prodigy, my parents sought answers to a possible attention deficit.

That said, why are we so fast to align compulsive doodling with an attention disorder, yet normalize other types of fidgeting, such as fidget spinners or cubes? And why are students often punished for doodling on themselves or assignments to (advertently or inadvertently) help them focus? The data I looked at actually supports that doodling increases attention capacity- however,  there might not be adequate or enough data in the media to support this claim because unlike fidget spinners, doodling can’t be significantly profited off of.

The first step in processing this would be establishing that doodling actually does increase attention capacity and thinking about the sources that suggest this. An article published by Harvard Medical School discussing doodling related to attention capacity writes about a particular experiment: “In 2009, psychologist Jackie Andrade asked 40 people to monitor a 2-½ minute dull and rambling voice mail message. Half of the group doodled while they did this (they shaded in a shape), and the other half did not. They were not aware that their memories would be tested after the call. Surprisingly, when both groups were asked to recall details from the call, those that doodled were better at paying attention to the message and recalling the details. They recalled 29% more information!” Does this data sufficiently conclude that doodling can demonstrate not only a correlation but causation of increased memory? Not only is this a pretty reputable source but the experiment seems to be reliable in having both a control and variable, where the only distinction between the two was whether or not they’d been instructed to doodle.

Say for the sake of this argument that doodling does increase focus/attention capacity. What about the second half of the claim: is doodling actually demonized because it’s inherently almost impossible for big business to profit off of? This nice graphic from The Economist represents how huge Fidget Spinners boomed within the “toy” industry:

Fidget spinners became over 20 percent of all toy sales at one point in 2017. Another source, Fox Business reports that fidget spinner sales could amass approximately half a billion dollars in revenue. It’s no wonder that these things are normalized opposed to doodling. Doodling doesn’t require anyone to feed into consumerism, only hardly if at all- so that would explain why big business would want you to believe that fidget spinners are more effective.

Following that, what kinds of data does big business have control over? After all, how likely are we to see many investigations on the impact of doodling on concentration (especially ones with a positive conclusion) when studies can be done for something that can be easily profited on? From the research presented thus far, it seems like we can conclude that doodling at least has been demonstrated to help improve attention capacity. Is it possible that the data isn’t all-covering due to the nature of its marketability? Yes.
Sources:

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-thinking-benefits-of-doodling-2016121510844

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/09/08/the-fidget-spinner-boom

https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-500000000-trend-spinning-the-toy-industry-upside-down

It’s generally a pretty well known fact to Utahn’s that the suicide rate isn’t great, and only continues to get worse. There’s been several theories about why this might be, from embarrassment to seek help, lack of friendship, to even juvenile court appearances. However, it’s also notable that even though there’s been several leads as to why Utah seems to have an ever increase rate of suicide, there’s been no significant results from any prevention programs. Something rarely implicated, if ever, is that Mormonism, it’s ideology, and the way that the church affects it’s members could be an underlying cause of Utah’s suicide rate. What does the data have to show for it? Where can we start looking at trends to see if there’s a correlation?

An interesting place to start is looking at trends pertaining to youth (ages 10-17), since in Utah suicide is actually the leading cause of death for this age group. This article by Hatch opens with “Utah suicide rates are skyrocketing and are now the leading cause of death for Utah youth. The youth suicide rate has tripled in Utah since 2007 — jumping from three out of every 100,000 youth to 8.5, an alarming increase not seen anywhere else in the country.” Utah in itself has one major feature that notably separates it from the majority of the other states- it’s population of Mormons, as mentioned formerly. As the LGBT movement increasingly surges for equality, is there a setback because of the conservative Mormon culture?

There’s definitely language on behalf of the faith that not only creates separation, but dehumanizes those in the LGBT community. An article by Lee Hale says “Often that role goes to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which calls homosexuality a serious sin. The Church even labels those in same-gender relationships as “apostates” whose children require special permission to be baptized.” With that attitude, added to the increasing LGBT agenda encouraging equality and LGBT people to be comfortable with who they are, it’s no wonder that Utah’s suicide rates aren’t fixing themselves. Maybe it’d be helpful to start including the LDS church in the possible culprits of the ever increasing and attention-demanding issue.