51% ...

I am obsessed these days with the juxtaposition of information. Take, for example, this week's "The Economist". The article on health care ("But don't ask how much it costs") is followed by the article on climate change ("The road to 60"), followed by the article on homosexuality in the Lutheran Church ("Brotherly Love"), followed by an article on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina's impact on New Orleans ("After the storm"). What would you follow those articles with? How about the war in Afghanistan ("To surge or not to surge").

These articles all have at least one thing in common: Numbers. It's all about numbers. And the numbers are always either dollars or people ... except the people are usually reduced to percentages.

Health care: The Senate Finance Committee voted 13 to 9 in favor of the Senate-sponsored bill. The hope is to increase the number of people with insurance from 85% (currently) to 94% in 10 years. The cost: $829 billion.

Climate change: cap and trade. Is that really what we need? Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham (Democrat and Republican respectively) recently co-wrote a NY Times article headlined: "Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)". More nuclear power (a nod to Republicans; a set-back for "Green Democrats"), renewed offshore drilling (a nod to conservatives; a set-back for environmentalists), and a proposed "border tax" on goods imported from countries with lax environmental standards (the language leaves room for plenty of "fudging") - All this to try to get the 60 filibuster-proof votes in the Senate for cap and trade.

Homosexuality: 1,200 Lutherans, upset about last summer's vote by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) to allow gays in committed relationships to serve in the clergy, gathered in Geist, Indiana to consider staying in or leaving the denomination. Here's where we start talking percentages and comparisons. 10.5% decline in membership over the past decade; a denomination more than twice the size of the Episcopalians. ("A majority of Americans oppose gay marriage ..." writes The Economist".)

New Orleans, Louisiana: Statewide unemployment percentages (lower than the national average).

Afghanistan: I had no idea it cost $250,000 a year to keep a single American soldier in Afghanistan! ("An Afghan soldier who speaks the language and can drink the water costs only a twentieth as much," says the article.) The Gallup organization tells us 48% of Americans want to send more troops to Afghanistan; 45% are opposed. Those percentages don't help the president make a popular decision.

My brain is reeling after reading these pieces. What do the numbers mean?

Here's something else I learned this week: 51% of the US population are women; but they hold only 3% of the decision-making jobs in the media. 65% of the graduates in journalism and mass communication are women. But in the past 15 years women hold 25% of the media jobs that have been created.

What percentage of any of this truly matters?

Well, one thing that might matter is this: Were there more women in the media we might be on the receiving end of an entirely different set of facts. I wonder ... would people be reduced to percentages? Would dollars give way to stories?

This is simply an observation ... the information we have been getting doesn't seem to be making a significant difference in terms of our behavior. With so few women in the decision-making media positions, I'm ready to sit at the feet of the 51%. Those of us in the "49" seem to be in a rut - in more ways than one. Or, as that old U2 song says - "We're stuck in a moment, and we can't get out of it!"

I'd be interested in hearing from folks your recommendations with regard to new streams of information from which I might drink! Any suggestions?