JOHN BUTRUS

TEBOW MIRACULOUS? PROBABLY NOT

To understand the Tim Tebow Phenomenon you must first understand the difference between a miracle and a statistically improbable event.   A miracle requires an event that violates scientific laws.  As such, the occurrence of an improbable event is not a miracle because science (i.e., probability) guarantees such events will eventually occur. Paradoxically, it would be a miracle if highly improbable events never occurred.

For example, I was once standing at a craps table when a woman rolled the number 12 on three (3) consecutive rolls.  This was a highly improbable event (46,656 to 1 to be exact). Although probability can tell us the odds this event will occur, it tells us nothing about when it will occur.  Thus, rolling 12 on three (3) consecutive rolls of the dice is a statistically improbable event, but not a miracle.  In contrast, had the dice hovered 10 feet above the table when the woman threw them, I might have witnessed a miracle (i.e., a violation of the laws of gravity).

A quick look at the Denver Bronco season statistics clearly reveals that their current winning streak has the characteristics of a statistically improbable event as opposed to a miracle.  Specifically, the Broncos have middling statistics in EVERY category except yards rushing (1^st) and punting (5^th).  (Thus, theories that the Broncos are winning with defense (22^nd overall), kicking (30^th in field goals and PAT), and/or protecting the football (-4 takeaway/giveaway) are unfounded.)

The question becomes what is the probability that a mediocre NFL team will win seven (7) games in a row.  Since football is a zero sum game (i.e., every game has exactly one winner and one loser), on average teams have a 50-50 chance to win a game.  Let’s assume the Broncos are a below average team and, on average, have a 40% chance to win any given game.  What are the odds that the Broncos will win seven (7) straight games?  Without doing any math, we know winning seven (7) straight games is improbable for any team.  In this example, the odds are exactly 16.384 in 10,000.  That is to say, this event is highly improbable, but given enough games, inevitable.  Obviously, inevitable events are not miracles.

Can the Broncos win the Super Bowl?  Yes, but the odds are against them. People should enjoy the Tim Tebow story without attributing his success to providence.

© 2011, by John Butrus, All Rights Reserved

John,

This is the most important election in generations. Whether we are able to fix our economy and get our country on the right track will have ramifications for decades. We cannot afford to continue on our current path.

Mitt Romney has a life history of coming into struggling organizations and turning them around. Right now, we need someone like him in the White House to fundamentally change our economy and reverse three years of failed policies. Unlike our current President, Mitt Romney understands the economy from the inside out.

Fixing the economy will not be easy, but Mitt has shown throughout his life that he has the leadership ability and expertise to lead our country toward a recovery. Republicans should recognize the importance of this election and realize that if they are serious about regaining the White House, Mitt Romney is the only candidate to back.

I hope you’ll join me and stand with Mitt today http://mittromney.com/donate

Best,
Chris Christie

Federal government spending invokes astronomical numbers that range into the trillions. Except for astronomers, few of us analyze such large numbers regularly. As such, it can be difficult to accurately assess proposed government spending without doing some math. Such is the case with the president’s proposed jobs bill.

The current unemployment rate is 9.1%, which equates to 14 million Americans out of work. Independent experts expect the president’s $450 billion jobs bill to reduce unemployment 1% (i.e., from 9.1% to 8.1%). This means that under the president’s jobs bill approximately 1.538 million Americans will find jobs. This sounds like a favorable outcome, at least until we do the math.

In short, the president’s jobs bill will cost $321,428.57 for each net job it hopes to create. In this light, the jobs bill is incredibly expensive. Of course, in the long run increased business activity (i.e., economic growth) not government stimulus is the only way to reduce unemployment. As such, the president and congress should look for ways to promote American business and commerce as a means to combat unemployment.

It would seem some combination of tax code simplification, reduced corporate income tax rates, approval of pending free trade agreements, reduced government regulation, and tax incentives for companies that hire additional workers would be a good start. With the president and congress at loggerheads and the 2012 campaign in full swing, however, congress and the president seem unlikely to enact any major legislation. Moreover, unless one party or the other wins the presidential election, a majority in the house, and a filibuster proof majority in the senate, gridlock may continue beyond the 2012 election.

“For all the outrage, the real scandal is not that students are getting illegally paid or recruited, it’s that two of the noble principles on which the NCAA justifies its existence—“amateurism” and the “student-athlete”—are cynical hoaxes, legalistic confections propagated by the universities so they can exploit the skills and fame of young athletes. The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athletes are getting paid, but that more of them are not.”

Taylor Branch’s The Shame of College Sports is a must read for any college athletics fan.

Much of the recent public discourse over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts has centered on whether the tax cuts should be extended for all Americans or only for those with an annual income below $250,000. On a daily basis President Obama, who does not support extending the Bush tax cuts for those who make more than $250,000 (i.e., the “rich”), characterizes the rich as, among other things, greedy, evil, and responsible for the recession.

Americans would be better served were this issue framed as an economic issue as opposed to one related to class warfare and amorphous notions of fairness. The public debate related to the tax cuts should focus on whether the extending the Bush tax cuts will give employers incentive to hire new employees and to otherwise stimulate economic activity. Nevertheless, with mid-term elections close at hand, the president finds it expedient to fan the flames of class warfare. Read more…

The media, politicians, and advocacy groups frequently promote the misconception that the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause mandates that the law must treat everyone equally in all circumstances.

This misconception causes unnecessary angst and undermines citizens’ faith in their government. Most social legislation (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, and much of the Tax Code) divides people into separate classifications that are treated differently under the law. Social Security, for example, provides benefits only to certain classes of people (e.g., people over age 62) while denying benefits to most citizens. Nevertheless, Social Security legislation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, a law’s disparate treatment of a given classification of people does not in most instances violate the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

The Arizona immigration law classifies for unequal treatment “persons unlawfully present in the United States.” Contrary to what many people believe, there is no classification in the statute related to people with brown skin, or people who look Mexican, Hispanic, or Latino. Read more…

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports on Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s comments on the Arizona immigration legislation (see below). Justice O’Connor’s comments imply she sees at least two potential constitutional problems with the statute.

First, she notes that it is the federal government’s job to secure our national borders. This indicates Justice O’Connor may believe there is a valid argument that federal immigration law preempts the Arizona statute pursuant to the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Her comments also indicate that even if the Arizona statute is not unconstitutional as written (i.e. on its face), it may be unconstitutional as applied. This would be the case if Arizona law enforcement officers were to enforce the law in a manner that improperly targets Hispanics. Perhaps most important is her comment that court cases related to the statute may takes years to resolve.

Although it is the federal government’s job to secure the border, for political and other reasons, politicians refuse to do so. Any rational immigration plan must begin with securing the border. Since it will take years for the courts to decide the constitutionality of the Arizona statute (and similar laws other states may enact), President Obama must act now to secure the border, and the President and Congress must immediately begin work on legislation that provides the majority of illegal aliens a path to become U.S. citizens. Read more…

While comedy requires only an element of truth, professional journalism in theory requires, accurate information, intellectual integrity, and intellect.  Comedians, regardless of their political views, typically lack these skills and have no place at the “This Week” Roundtable.  Predictably, Bill Maher’s appearance yesterday on the This Week Roundtable was a disaster.

I once asked a journalist what qualifies a person as  an expert commentator.  He said, “It depends what time it is.”  I wonder how far down their booking wish list ABC had to go before they booked Bill Maher and Rev. Sharpton for “The Roundtable.”

I wish someone would inform Katrina vanden Heuvel, Rev. Sharpton, and Bill Maher that equal protection does NOT require all people to be treated equally. This misconception causes people unnecessary angst and undermines citizens’ faith in their government.  Most social legislation (e.g. Social Security, Medicare, Help for Homeowners, COBRA, and most of the Tax Code) divides people into separate classifications that are treated differently under the law.  Thus, disparate treatment of a given classification of people automatically a violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.

Contrary to what Rev. Sharpton would have us believe, there is no classification in the Arizona immigration statute related to people with brown skin, Hispanics, or Latinos.  The classification in question relates to illegal aliens.  Even if Rev. Sharpton understands this important distinction, it is unlikely he will share it with the contingent of protesters he will speak to in Arizona this week.  Equal protection cases are intellectually challenging to say the least, and their outcome in court is difficult to predict.  Nevertheless, politicians, entertainers, and journalists opine with certainty on the constitutionality of the Arizona Statute.

I wonder who at ABC thought Bill Maher and Rev. Sharpton would have anything insightful to say about equal protection.  The only insight Bill Maher provided was his “I Pass” response when given the opportunity to have “the final word” on how to address our country’s immigration issues.

The “This Week Roundtable” is a great brand.  Sunday’s program provides a great example of what happens when a show deviates from its brand.

© 2010, by John Butrus, All Rights Reserved

Today, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) issued a report that professes to estimate Cap-and-Trade costs per household.  In the words of former Wimbledon champion John McEnroe, “You can’t be serious!”

The report distributes Cap-and-Trade costs among three (3) groups: Businesses, Government, and Households.  In truth, with some minor exceptions, taxpayers pay the Cap-and-Trade costs for all three (3) groups.  Consider the following:

Taxpayers fund the costs allocated to the government (i.e. taxpayers fund the government);

Taxpayers pay the cost to households; and

Taxpayers pay the costs attributed to businesses.  (American taxpayers, as shareholders, sole proprietors, or partners, own American businesses.  As such, any Cap-and-Trade cost a business incurs, reduces business profits, and thereby trickles down to the taxpayers who own the business.)

The CBO report estimates the Gross Cost per household at $890, and the net cost (the number Cap-and-Trade proponents will quote) at $175.  The report is extremely deceptive however.  For example, it counts government rebates and tax credits to low-income households as reducing the Cap-and-Trade cost per household. The CBO apparently failed to take into account that “We The People” are the government; and, taxpayers will pay for these credits and rebates.

In sum, the CBO report purports to provide important information related to Cap-and-Trade; instead, however, it provides convoluted and misleading information that politicians will use to mislead the public.

© 2009, by John Butrus, All Rights Reserved