By the numbers

I heard some disturbing statistics about the state of Nevada the other day on NPR. I decided to do some further research and then compare the quality of life in Massachusetts to that in Nevada. My conclusion: eat it raw Nevada.

Trust for America's Health Report ranked Massachusetts #1 in the nation for its quality of life. That might have something to do with Massachusetts' stupid new health care law (the state fines you several hundred dollars for not having health care), but what works, works. Massachusetts (represented here --> by Patriots' cheerleaders) has the 5th lowest infant mortality rate in the nation, the divorce rate is the second lowest, the number of live births to mothers under 20 is the lowest in the nation, it has the highest literacy rate in the US (according to the Daily Show), it's 48th in the nation in per capita poverty (also according to the Daily Show), it's 3rd in the nation in per capita income ($43,702 average), and 29th most dangerous. I don't know why Massachusetts is so dangerous given the other positive numbers. I guess we just like to occasionally stab people. But then again, who doesn't?

Now let's take a look at Nevada. According to the May 19, 2001 issue of the New York Times:

"Pick almost any index of social well-being, and Nevada ranks at or near the very bottom of the 50 states, though it ranks near the top in personal wealth. Besides having the highest suicide rate (almost twice the national average), Nevada has the highest adult smoking rate and the highest death rate from smoking, the highest percentage of teenagers who are high-school dropouts, the highest teenage pregnancy rate and the highest rate of firearm deaths."

Wow! Holy shit! Really? Really. Or how about these numbers: Men's Fitness magazine ranked Las Vegas as the fattest city in the nation for the second consecutive year (the magazine's criteria includes sports participation rates, time spent working out, number of parks, average commute time, television viewing rates and legislative health initiatives). The CQ Press ranks Nevada the most dangerous state in the union (the numbers are based on violent crime statistics) and the 47th healthiest state (on the same criteria that it ranked Massachusetts #1). All this despite having a lower unemployment rate than Massachusetts (4.1% to 4.8%), and relative to the rest of the nation, a high level of personal wealth (average income is $35,780). That $35,780 number is actually higher than it looks because the cost of living in Nevada (represented here <-- by some drunk idiot who probably caught hepatitis from a prostitute) is so much lower than Massachusetts. Using CNN Money's cost-of-living calculator, you would need to make $48,000 in Massachusetts to have the same standard of living as in Nevada with $40,000. So, things are 20% more expensive in Massachusetts, but average incomes are 25% higher.

So, how can we explain these numbers? Las Vegas being the fattest city in America makes sense to me. It's too hot here to sit outside, let alone run. The Strip is the only place in the city you can walk around and food here is much cheaper than in Massachusetts. All that adds up to large asses and saggy man boobs. Although for the heat excuse to make sense, we would have to look at obesity rates for Arizona, which is just as hot. I know that 6 of the 10 fattest cities in America, according to Men's Fitness, are in Texas. So the it's-too-hot-to-do-anything-but-eat-Doritos excuse might be valid. However, I also thought that maybe Las Vegas was so dangerous because so much of it is urban. After all, isn't the state of Nevada just Las Vegas and a giant desert? After looking into that, I found that 68% of the state of Nevada lives in the Las Vegas metro area, which is the exact same percent of Massachusetts that lives in the Boston metro area. So, no help to Las Vegas there. Lastly, Boston, according to this article on the Boston Globe's website, is the highest city in America. The state with the best quality of life is also the nation's pot-smoking capital. I'm not claiming that pot-smoking is causing the high quality of life, but clearly it's not hurting it either. Neither is gay marriage. Just for the record.

I kind of got off topic at the end there, but I think I made my point.

終! ついに!

I took the Foreign Service Officer's Exam today at the College of Southern Nevada. I scheduled my test for 9:30am and the email that I received from the State Department was adamant about getting there on time and having all of the proper things: a valid ID, a print-out of its email, and no programmable electronic devices. The woman who proctored the exam was really laid back and told me she had no idea why I printed out the email. I got there at 9:05am and she let me sign in and take it right away.

The test was alright. There were four sections and it took me about 3 hours to finish. I was allotted 40 minutes for the 50 Job Knowledge questions, 50 minutes for the 65 English Expression questions, 50 minutes for the 77 personality questions, and 30 minutes to complete one essay. I had used the Arco Study Guide to prepare for this test, and it was beyond shit. It didn't resemble the test at all. The Arco guide's practice tests gave me different numbers of questions to be answered in different amounts of time from the actual test. The Arco guide also divided the English Expression questions into four sections, only one of which was on the actual exam. Maybe the FSOE has been changed since Arco published its guide. If it hasn't, Arco has no excuse for how awful and unhelpful its guide is.

The English questions were much easier than I had anticipated but I'm sure I still got a bunch wrong. The Job Knowledge questions were either easy to answer because I knew the information, or impossible because I didn't. There were questions about the nations that border Afghanistan, areas of national policy where the US and Canada depart the most, and which president opened up relations with China.

If I could study for it all over again, I would have read a book on organizational behavior because it seemed like there were a lot of "which is the most important reason for a loss in productivity" type of questions. I think my score could go either way because I was so unsure of the majority of my answers. I don't think they were terrible answers, I'm just not that confident.

The essay had to do with intelligent use of natural resources and forming public policy. I said rainbows are magical and I wish I was playing Grand Theft Auto IV.

I can't believe I learned the capitals of all the Pacific island nations. New Caledonia? Noumea. Kiribati? South Tarawa.

Bitch.

Brucie requested it...

I just finished former prime minister Benazir Bhutto's book Reconciliation. It was a project she began while living in exile in Dubai and finished shortly after her return to Pakistan on October 18th, 2007. Mrs. Bhutto had many enemies in Pakistan and on the very day of her arrival there was an assassination attempt along her parade route in Karachi. Mrs. Bhutto survived the attack, but not the one that followed on December 27th in Rawalpindi. She was the head of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the largest pro-democracy political party in her country (and according to Mrs. Bhutto, the only one with nation-wide support).

The book is divided into several sections including a personal account of the events of the 18th, her own moderate interpretation of Islam (in which she quotes from the Quran to support her views on democracy, women's rights, and peace), a history of democracy in the Muslim world (and how the West has undermined democratic movements), a political history of Pakistan, and her recommendations for the future.

As Fareed Zakaria said in his review for the New York Times:

Washington should arrange to have the portions of the book about Islam republished as a separate volume and translated into several languages. It would do more to win the battle of ideas within Islam than anything an American president could ever say.

I found myself wondering why Muslim countries haven't had democracy since the days of the Prophet if her interpretation of the Quran is accurate. If Islam encourages Muslims to think, read, and interpret (ijtihad) the Quran for themselves; tolerate the religious views of others; treat women as equals (the Prophet's wife, Islam's first convert, worked outside of the home) then how did the Muslim world get into its current state of repressive governments, radical Islamist movements, and religious intolerance? The West has played a role by undermining democratic movements (especially during the Cold War), but an equally destructive force comes from the war that Muslims wage against each other. Mrs. Bhutto sees this as the more dangerous trend because Muslims do not often acknowledge it.

Benazir remarks that the US has given much more money to the dictatorships of Pakistan than it has to its civilian governments. This is because dictatorships like Zia's and Musharraf's have convinced the US that they stand between the US and an Islamist Pakistan. Only by supporting them can the US hope to keep terrorist elements down in Pakistan. Mrs. Bhutto doesn't agree with this assessment and states that Pakistan's dictators have always exaggerated the threat from the FATA and Northwest Frontier tribal areas. What these men are actually after is power, and with American support they can suppress opposition parties and strengthen the military (which is also legitimizing since Pakistan fears India first and foremost). Since Benazir Bhutto's death, the PPP has formed a coalition government in Pakistan and, like usual, the US is making more mistakes in its aid decisions (the US has given $5.4 billion to Pakistan since 2001 and only millions have gone to strengthening civil society).

I think Reconciliation is better than the sort of book you would expect a politician running for office to write. Sure, she sort of ignores all the corruption charges against her and her husband, and that the Bhutto family treats the PPP like their personal property, but she does criticize current Muslim governments in her book, and I imagine this was more substantive than say, Hillary Clinton's "autobiography." However, I never assumed this book was unbiased and maybe after I finish the FSOE, I'll read Musharraf's book to get a more complete picture.