Do Violent Video Games Lead to Less Violent Crime?

November 26, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / 2 Comments

That was one of the questions asked on the Freakonomics Radio podcast.

Here is a description of the episode:

Our latest podcast is called “Who Runs the Internet?” (You can subscribe to the podcast at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or listen via the media player above. You can also read the transcript; it includes credits for the music you’ll hear in the episode.)

It begins with Stephen Dubner and Steve Levitt talking about whether virtual mayhem — from online ranting to videogame violence — may help reduce mayhem in the real world. There is no solid data on this, Levitt says, but he hypothesizes:

LEVITT: Maybe the biggest effect of all of having these violent video games is that they’re super fun for people to play, especially adolescent boys, maybe even adolescent boys who are prone to real violence. And so if you can make video games fun enough, then kids will stop doing everything else. They’ll stop watching TV, they’ll stop doing homework, and they’ll stop going out and creating mayhem on the street.

This episode then moves on to a bigger question about the Internet itself: who runs it? As Dubner asks: “Who’s in charge of the gazillions of conversations and transactions and character assassinations that happen online every day?”

Internet scholar Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, tells us that 60 percent of adults around the world are now connected to the same communications grid. (South Korea, he says, is the “most wired” country.) And this global connectivity is interesting, he says, because it’s not like there is an international body governing what’s online:

SHIRKY: Well, I mean, famously, the regulatory overhead on the Internet is permissive and minimal. In fact, the thing that freaked everyone out about it in the 90s when it was spreading on the wings of the web was that no one was in charge. … There are famous stories of bosses fretting that because all of their employees were suddenly sending international emails that they were suddenly going to be hit by the bill by the people who ran the Internet.

Cuts in Food Stamps Hurt Rural Areas

November 25, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / 2 Comments

Cuts in Food Stamps Hurt Rural Areas

Heading into the Thanksgiving holiday, All Things Considered a rather depressing story about how reductions in food stamp spending is expected to have a particularly deleterious effect on rural families.

Here is how the story (4 minutes) began:

One recent evening, some shoppers at the Countryside Market in Belvidere, Ill., were loading up on staples, like milk and eggs. Others, like Meghan Collins, were trying to plan Thanksgiving on a newly tightened budget.

“My work has been cut,” says Collins. “I’m working half the hours I used to work. So yeah, I’m making half of what I made last year.”

That could be bad news for stores like Countryside, which are already bracing for the ripple effect from the recent $5 billion reduction in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. It’s the first Thanksgiving since a temporary increase in those benefits expired on Nov. 1, affecting some 47 million Americans.

CRPD ratification arguments concerning education

November 25, 2013April 6, 2014 / Angel Baker / Leave a comment

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) requires States to “ensure an inclusive education system” in Article 24. The United States of America (U.S.) has signed, but has not yet ratified the Convention.

Why was the U.S. Senate reluctant to ratify the UNCRPD? On December 4, 2012, the U.S. Senate considered the ratification but fell short by five votes. One of the main points of contention concerned Article 24 on Education.
On July 12, 2012 Michael P. Farris, J.D., LL.M., arguing against ratification of the UNCRPD, noted that there were two core human rights treaties, which already provided guidelines for protection of persons with disabilities: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Both of these Covenants embrace the pro-parent view of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”). Article 26(3) of the UDHR proclaims: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” This is contrary to the views later expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Convention.

The UNCRPD adopted concepts from the CRC, which lead to the conclusion that parental rights in the education of disabled children are supplanted by a new theory of governmental oversight and superiority. Many of those who argued against ratification believed that government agents, not parents, are being given the authority to decide all educational and treatment issues for disabled children; that all of the rights parents have under current American law will be undermined by this treaty.

In Article 7 of the UNCRC, where the relevant provisions state:“In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age appropriate assistance to realize that right.” Under the UNCRPD, those that are anti-Convention state that this gives government officials the authority to substitute their views for the views of parents as well as the views of the child as to what is best in all situations. If parents think that private school or home school is best for their child, the UNCRPD gives the government the authority and the legal duty to override that judgment and keep the child in the government-approved program that the officials think is best for the child.

However, this may not be true. The UNCRPD protects “parental rights and highlights the important role of parents in raising children with disabilities.” It states that children with disabilities will not be separated from their parents on the basis of their disability. Furthermore, the two proposed reservations on federalism and private conduct provide additional protection to parental authorities. This ensures that the state and federal disability law and protections are preserved.
The question is which side is right?

For more information:
U.S. International Council on Disabilities,http://www.usicd.org/index.cfm/convention

Parental Rights http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B2A2E1C77-F0CF-4FE6-95A1-8624698ADF46%7D and (for) http://www.usicd.org/doc/CRPD%20MythsFacts%200719%202013.pdf

Sunday Funday: Homeboy Bakery

November 24, 2013April 6, 2014 / Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Sunday Funday: Homeboy Bakery

This edition of Sunday Funday is more heartwarming than humorous. It is about a bakery in Los Angeles, the Homeboy Bakery, which turns gang members into productive members of society by giving them jobs and teaching them marketable (legal) skills.

Here is a description of the story from The CBS Sunday Morning Show:

Twenty-five years ago Father Greg Boyle started working with gang members in the poorest parish of Los Angeles. Today, his program, Homeboy Industries – a bakery and cafe employing former gang members – has grown to become one of the largest and most successful gang intervention efforts in the nation. Carter Evans reports.

For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive.

Sunday Funday: Homeboy Bakery

November 24, 2013 / Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Sunday Funday: Homeboy Bakery

Here is a description of the story from The CBS Sunday Morning Show:

Twenty-five years ago Father Greg Boyle started working with gang members in the poorest parish of Los Angeles. Today, his program, Homeboy Industries – a bakery and cafe employing former gang members – has grown to become one of the largest and most successful gang intervention efforts in the nation. Carter Evans reports.