One of the things I remember fondly was a little show on ABC called as Politically Incorrect.  It came on late night, but had a insightful host and always entertaining and thought provoking guests.

But what seems to be a general rule of celebrity status in this country, is that once you get large enough to have thousands of individual “yes” men running around claiming you’re a genius, it seems inevitable that for you to begin to believe it and slowly, but surely, remove rational thought.

Enter Bill Maher as a perfect example of just such a person.  Just less than a decade ago, he went from a thoughtful individual, to a guy who not only believes the absurd, but is completely certain that his beliefs are truly righteous.  For someone who supposedly disdains religious folks for believing in such nonsense, he certainly has a lot of faith in ideas with no basis in reality.

To demonstrate this, look no further than his numerous writing on Huffington Post. He uses such flawless logic as guilt by association.  Since Sarah Palin & Karl Rove are very polarizing figures, might as well lump them in with Mitt Romney.  Since Bill doesn’t like their politics, they must all be the same:

New Rule: Just because a country elects a smart president doesn’t make it a smart country. A few weeks ago I was asked by Wolf Blitzer if I thought Sarah Palin could get elected president, and I said I hope not, but I wouldn’t put anything past this stupid country. It was amazing – in the minute or so between my calling America stupid and the end of the Cialis commercial, CNN was flooded with furious emails and the twits hit the fan. And you could tell that these people were really mad because they wrote entirely in CAPITAL LETTERS!!!

Apparently he’s just too busy to understand that if the President is this great genius and wonderful communicator, he might be doing a whole lot better in this health care thing… but that might cause cognitive dissonance.  So instead of having to contemplate the opposition, it’s just easier to think of all of them as stupid.

Further showing his stupidity, he decides to bash the freest economic system mankind has ever seen:

How about this for a New Rule: Not everything in America has to make a profit. It used to be that there were some services and institutions so vital to our nation that they were exempt from market pressures. Some things we just didn’t do for money. The United States always defined capitalism, but it didn’t used to define us. But now it’s becoming all that we are.

Did you know, for example, that there was a time when being called a “war profiteer” was a bad thing?

Yeah, there was a time when that happened and the eminent Milton Friedman proved how stupid this thinking was.  Recounting the debate in his book titled Two Lucky People:

“In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, ‘General, would you rather command an army of slaves?’ He drew himself up and said, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.’ I replied, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.’ But I went on to say, ‘If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.’ That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries.”

On Bill’s list of priorities however, rational thought and actual logic don’t seem that high.  Dissing anyone more interested than he is with one of the greatest advancements to human kind, he opines:

New Rule: if you’re excited about a new search engine, then the thing you should be searching for is a life…

It seems as if Bill just can’t understand why people might be interested in the easy distribution of knowledge throughout the world.  Yep, the internet, the greatest advancement to human knowledge since Gutenberg would be about as useful as all of Bill’s knowledge combined if the search results return junk, but discussing that makes you a nerd.

But why would he stop there?  As with most self absorbed and arrogant people, not only is he right, but his dissenters must be wrong for nefarious reasons.  In an attempt to marginalize those who disagree with King Maher:

New Rule: The Republican Party needs to just get it over with and tell the entire Hispanic community to go f*&$k themselves…

The point?  Well, it’s not really to bash Bill.  First, it’s really not worth it to continue to concern yourself with the rantings from the insane.  Even allowing anger at his arrogance gives him power over you he doesn’t deserve.  Additionally, it’s really too easy pointing flaws into Bill rantings… it’s about as difficult to do this as it is do simple addition with the help of a calculator.

No, he is just another crackpot, but he can serve an excellent example of what arrogance and self built echo chambers inevitably achieve.

& It’s truly sad to contemplate… In a world with the internet with all it’s free content, differing view points, ability to look at multiple sources instantly (thanks to search engines), and really, the ability for people to truly become informed, it appears that most of us, like Bill, only seek out people who agree with us and help us prove our own presumptions.

According to recent research:

We show that the demand for news varies with the perceived affinity of the news organization to the consumer’s political preferences. In an experimental setting, conservatives and Republicans preferred to read news reports attributed to Fox News and to avoid news from CNN and NPR. Democrats and liberals exhibited exactly the opposite syndrome – dividing their attention equally between CNN and NPR, but avoiding Fox News.

Just as a reporter from the NY Times once candidly said “I don’t know anyone who voted for Reagan”, we seem to be a world population motivated only to prove ourselves correct.

If we continue down the Road to Serfdom, I can see a future where historians will write about this time as one of squandered opportunities and deliberate ignorance.

Let’s hope some day soon, facts become required for evidence and emotional appeals using faulty logic are rightfully laughed at.

Let’s hope before we make too many very large mistakes, we start learning how to think, instead of just working on how to score political points.

Yeah… let’s hope.

As has been known to happen in estranged sibling relationships when parents pass, the passing of former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung might have sparked a revival of talks between North & South Korea.

The current President Mr. Lee has taken a much harder line with North Korea than Mr. Kim (here):

…In the months before his death, the Nobel Peace laureate accused Seoul’s conservative government of backsliding into the traits of the military dictatorship he helped topple in the late 1980s. These scathing attacks were deeply embarrassing to the government because of Mr Kim’s stature as a leading architect of South Korea’s vibrant democracy…

But the differences between the two Presidents might be decreasing (here):

…his widely criticised policy of promoting political and economic exchanges with North Korea may be about to be revived, albeit in limited fashion, by one of its fiercest critics, the current president, Lee Myung-bak. Partly as a consequence, a new sense of tentative optimism is lightening the gloom on the Korean peninsula.

The South’s Mr Kim was the foremost proponent of engagement with North Korea as a means to bring lasting peace to the peninsula—what became known as his “sunshine” policy….

While (here):

…His government has voted in favour of a United Nations resolution condemning North Korea’s human-rights record and lent strong support to international efforts to impose comprehensive economic sanctions against the regime in Pyongyang. Mr Lee insists there will be no big dollops of aid until North Korea starts disarming, as it promised under a 2005 deal. Yet he has welcomed news that a delegation from North Korea will attend Mr Kim’s funeral.

That delegation appears to be part of a new approach by North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Il. After provoking the world’s wrath and economic sanctions by conducting a nuclear test in May, he is suddenly exuding friendliness…

It’s certainly natural to be skeptical of North Korea’s moves and intentions, but this is something to watch.  If in the coming months real overtures or changes are made in the current relationship on the Korean Peninsula, it could be a sign that North Korea is trying to reach out to normalize relations with the international community which has always been North Korea’s main goal.

As we continue to watch the health care debate go around you might have noticed many politicians perplexed at the idea that the public might not want a public option.

I submit, that it has nothing to do with President Obama, the current Congress, the Current House, nor the prior President, Congress & House.

The reasoning is analogous to the Sorites Paradox.  The paradox states it’s impossible to know exactly how many grains of sand it takes to become a heap, or once a heap, how many grains of sand must be removed to become a non-heap.  I submit we have finally built a heap.

With the bailouts, stimulus packages, rampant spending of the prior President and continued fiscal irresponsibility of this administration, combined with fiscal irresponsibility at state & local levels, people are rightfully frustrated.

& thanks to Cato, within a week, they have two brilliant demonstrations as to why:

Federal Pay Continues Rapid Ascent:

…Figure 1 looks at average wages. In 2008, the average wage for 1.9 million federal civilian workers was $79,197, which compared to an average $49,935 for the nation’s 108 million private sector workers (measured in full-time equivalents). The figure shows that the federal pay advantage (the gap between the lines) is steadily increasing….

Figure 2 shows that the federal advantage is even more pronounced when worker benefits are included. In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909….

& this, State and Local Government Employment Up Since Recession’s Start:

…With a prolonged recession now forcing state and local governments to actually cut or furlough some employees, it’s important to remember that they were adding government jobs at a time when it was clear to the rest of the country that the air was out of the economic bubble. ..

It seems the age old question about what business is truly recession proof finally has an answer.

This just seems to be a lie that won’t quit.  At the very beginning of the Obama administration we were told, by economists, business leaders, the WH, congressional leaders, and really most people that more stimulus was needed in order to avert a major depression of the economy.  We were told, incorrectly, that this bill would keep unemployment below 8%.  Indeed, the referred to the Great Depression as hyperbole on a number of occasions to push their point.

A minority of people continued to say that we didn’t need this or want it and most Americans weren’t for spending more money, but we know the fear tactic worked.  President Obama signed on February 17th a $787 billion dollar appropriation bill to further stimulate the economy.

Since it’s signing, we also been told it’s worked well.  According to the WH it will create or save 3.5 million jobs between now & 2010 (here):

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration’s fiscal stimulus plan will meet previous estimates to save 3.5 million U.S. jobs by the end of 2010, but the unemployment rate at that time may be higher due to further deterioration in the economy, a senior administration official said on Monday.

Vice President Biden also got into the discussion very recently (here):

He touted the administration’s accomplishments with regards to the stimulus packages. Biden said 500,000 to one million jobs have been created from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He noted that when the Obama administration took over in January, the country was losing 700,000 jobs a month thanks to the worst “bagel” in decades (yes, I’m newly addicted to the West Wing). That has slowed to 274,000 jobs.

Mr. Obama as well (here):

July 11 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama said his $787 billion stimulus bill “has worked as intended” as he pushed back against Republican criticism that his recovery program has failed to rescue the economy.

& of course, we couldn’t have this debate without a Nobel Prize winning Economist weighing in.  Proving the Nobel Prize isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, Paul Krugam weighs in (here):

Aug. 9 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. economy is stabilizing and may have bottomed out, as the government’s stimulus plan probably saved a million jobs, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman said today.

Mr. Krugman wasn’t satisfied with just praising of the administration.  Lone ago giving up up using true economic theory as it refutes his political agenda, he went further:

A second stimulus package for the economy is still needed, and should be directed at state and local governments as well as infrastructure spending, he said in an interview in Kuala Lumpur. The world economy may face several years of weak growth without falling into a “double-dip” recession, he said.

What’s the issue with all these pronouncements?  Simply said, they have no proof in reality.

Currently only 15% of the money has been spent.  That deserves repeating, only 15% of the stimulus has been spent.  According to everything we’re hearing though, this prevented a depression by creating/saving jobs (here):

The $787 billion economic stimulus bill signed into law by President Obama nearly six months ago contained $288 billion in tax cuts and $499 billion in new spending. So far, the administration has spent $76.3 billion — 15% of the total available.

However, even taking the 15% amount isn’t necessarily a true reflection of the spending.  One must then ask, what was the money spent on and can those expenditures be tied to jobs?

Even the answer to that is a resounding no.  Almost all of that $76.3 billion wasn’t spent on anything one would typically associate with creating wealth.  $57.3 billion being was spent on safety net, food stamps, medicare, unemployment benefits and other social programs.

Please note, this is not a refutation on social spending, that would be a completely different discussion.  Having said that, it seems obvious that paying people to stay at home is not going to create or save jobs.

The analysis can’t stop here though.  With a very small percentage of the stimulus itself being spent, the total spent also represents a very tiny fraction of the economic activity in the United States.  According to current estimates, we expect the US economy this year to produce about 14 trillion dollars in GDP.  This is lower than previous years of course, but still a staggering amount of money.

Using all the numbers we have, we can inject some very simple math.

If we assume that the in the last 6 months, economic activity is around 7 trillion dollars, 76.3 billion dollars a only a little over 1% of total economic activity.  Which means it will be about 1/2% of the economy at the end of the year, unless of course the government actually starts spending the money.

Even as small as that is, if you remove the  $57.3 billion spent on social spending, then you have a total of $19 billion, which is less than 1/2 or 1% of the economic activity generated over the past 6 months.   & that is being very nice, by assuming that all $19 billion actually went to job creation.

Luckily, most Americans already know this (here):

A USAToday/Gallup poll released Monday found that 41 percent of Americans think the spending has made the US economy better, but 57 percent believe it has either made no difference or worsened the recession that began in 2007.

But the idea is still worth repeating since administration officials continue pushing the economic changes as a success for their policies.

Simply stated, the idea that by adding 1% to the current level of economic activity to the US economy would effect it in such a way as to prevent a Great Depression is a fallacy.  A fallacy which needs to be defeated.

Well, the debate is heating up and President Obama has come out swinging.  As usual in politics though, he’s using faulty appeals to emotion and logical fallacies to push his views.  Even though it is normal, I still believe it’s wroth noting as we all deserve better from our representatives in DC when they are asking the people to trust them with the magnitude of health care reform.

He starts with his new call to health care by arguing morality.  A few nights ago in an interview when discussing opponents of the current health care reform Mr. Obama stated (here):

These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. That is that we look out for one other, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. And in the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.

Whether you believe this or no in really inconsequential to the health care reform as it is currently taking place.  I will say that if the President truly believes this, then that is a good thing.  We need empathetic leaders, however it’s a false appeal to emotion.  Because whether you believe this or not, has nothing to do with whether the government should or should not be pushing a public option in the current health care bill.

Of course he didn’t stop there, he’s now threatening to go it alone, meaning without Republican support (here):

While continuing to argue he wants a bipartisan bill, President Obama today for first time publicly blamed Congressional Republican leaders for seeing health care reform in only political terms. And for the first time he acknowledged Democrats might go it alone….

…
“I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, ‘Look, let’s not give them a victory. maybe we can have a replay of 1993-94 when Clinton came in. He failed on health care and the we won on the midterm elections. and we got the majority.’ And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out of that playbook.”…

Giving us a very nice example of a logical fallacy known as the false dichotomy.  By framing the debate in this way, the President is basically stating, “Those who don’t want a public option and against reform” as if only two options existed.

In effect, Mr. Obama has paraphrased the former President when Mr. Bush said, “You’re either with us or against us.”

Mr. President – I humbly submit that wanting to kill the current health care bill is not the same thing as wanting to kill health care reform.

In another installment of serious people doing serious research for the betterment of society without government intervention at all, I present to you Michael Pritchard and his recent video describing his wonderful invention on Ted.com (see the whole thing here).

What has he done?  He’s taken a very basic problem that affects billions or people and through his own ingenuity, is working to solve that problem.

As most know, for the last ten years or so, we’ve seen article after article in science magazines,  news weeklies, TV news reports, political pundits, and environmentalists tell us that all future wars will be fought over water.

I personally didn’t believe their line of reasoning in the least, but they are generally correct on their facts.  The just take those facts and they push their internal beliefs into the results without even hinting that other possibilities might exist.

The basic argument goes like this: the world is running out of clean water.  Trends show that we seem to be using more water per capita each year.  Meaning that if every person on the earth used roughly 1 gallon of water a day, going forward it will be 2 gallons for each.

Combine this trend with the population trend that our world population continues to increase and we can see there is something on the horizon which will need to be mitigated.  We need to be able to increase drinkable water supplies across the world and try to conserve water better than we do today.

According to the UN (via Wired), “2.8 billion people won’t have enough water to meet their basic needs by 2025.”

Where their predictions fail, is that they seem to assume that the problems can’t be mitigated through normal human innovations.  Besides this displaying the fact the writers don’t think much of their fellow man’s abilities, this idea also shows a stunning lack of historical perspective.

If we take a look at something relatively analogous, like agriculture, we can see that humans are more than capable of resolving problems on their own.  Through the last few centuries, technology has increased to the point that we make more food for more people using less water and less land than we ever thought possible.

For water, we can get there the same way.  Enter Michael Pritchard, a man working to solve one piece of the puzzle (from Ted.com):

With cutting-edge nanotech, Michael Pritchard’s Lifesaver water-purification bottle could revolutionize water-delivery systems in disaster-stricken areas around the globe.

He in fact demonstrates the water purification system he has designed (I urge you to watch the video – short & sweet).  The system itself is very small and very portable.  Though he does make the mistake of assuming governments need to be the distributors, but if his product were provided to those in need, it would allow billions in poverty stricken areas around the globe to be able to cheaply purify the water they currently pull from rivers and streams. This would save countless lives now, and for the fear mongers among us, potentially prevent wars.

To be fair, this isn’t the only issue which needs solving.  We also need to be able to desalinate water through a much cheaper and resource intensive process, but that is being worked on as well and we should be confident that it will happen.

Maybe it’s just more fun for the writer’s to imagine a desolate world with people killing each other over water like some Mad Max fantasy world, but clear thinkers should see these predictions for what they are.  They are a simple reflection on the writers of this propaganda (examples here and here) and it’s being used as a scare tactic to drum up support for their ideas.  So they can fix them for us…. because it’s for your own good.

Either way – necessity is always the mother of invention and there’s no reason to believe this is a problem which isn’t solvable.

It seems recently that both sides of the current main stream American political system has completely reversed itself overnight allowing the American people, pundits, tv personalities, comedians, and anyone who feels like doing so, laugh at the oh so hypocritical nature of all politicians.

Surely at this point though, poking fun at both parties for doing 180s when it comes to spending wildly and the usefulness of American dissent in tough political questions, is like… well, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel…

Trying a different perspective however, I wonder if this "hypocrisy" could be considered a feature and not a bug?

For instance, it seems to me the flagrant spending spree the prior administration was on is as bad as the current spending spree this administration seems bent on. 

We know the change in administrations caused a semi-reversal on behalf of both parties.  The Democrats went from claiming the mantle of the fiscal responsibility to spending like drunken sailors and the Republicans went from quiet acquiescence of the last spending spree, to outright opposition of this one.

& while hypocritical as this certainly is, it seems to mirror what we view as a required good and feature of our current legal system: the adversary nature of the system itself.

Only when each side in a debate, or court, has zealous advocates fighting for their behalf, can we approach something close to an ideal.

Obviously we know that our court system and political system can and do result in wrongful judgments and failed policies, but any system with human actors will have failures.  Alas, as much as we may want it, perfection is not within our grasp, making humility the better part of leadership.

But talks about perfection and humility aside, and leaving aside the discussion that the US is not a "democracy", I think the debates may demonstrate hypocrisy, but they also demonstrate strength.

As Winston Churchill said when asked about the problems with Democratic systems,  "it is the worse system except as compared to all the others."

Indeed.

As with any debate, negotiation, discussion, training… pretty much anything were one person or group is attempting to signal to other people or groups what they are looking for, it’s always important to ensure that any promises given verbally are also written.

Of course with legislation, the written part will be completed.  The important part then becomes – does the rhetoric match the bill?  IE – do the claims being given by leaders of both parties and the WH themselves match what is currently happening?

First, with current reports, I think it’s fairly safe to say that the bill as is will not be signed into law.  I’m not saying this because I believe the overall opposition to be effectively strong at this point, I say this because of the myriad of reports coming from current Congressional leadership and POTUS.

Through the President’s recent town hall meeting in Grand Junction Colorado, we heard great answers to difficult questions (read whole thing here).  When answering a question about the fact this debate seems to be dividing the country, Mr. Obama responded:

Well, look, let me — let me just — let me address this.  You know, health care is really hard.  I mean, this is not easy.  I’m a reasonably dedicated student to this issue….

…there is no perfect, painless silver bullet out there that solves every problem, gives everybody perfect health care for free. …

…What I can do is try to sort through what are all the options available, be realistic about where we’re going on health care, say to myself, if we keep on doing what we’re doing, we are in a world of hurt.  We can’t afford what we’re doing right now….

Which sounds great, so long as it’s not juxtaposed against the facts.  Republicans, and therefore bipartisanship, it not how the bill it progressing forward.  Indeed, in the House, Republicans were simply locked out of the debate itself.

Even with the President recently backing down from the public  health care option to attempt to work with the current opponents of his plan, his party is refusing to play nicely with others (here):

“I wonder if the White House truly understands the depth of anger they’ll face from the progressive side if they fail to pass health care reform with a strong public option,” Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal Web site, DailyKos.

“We haven’t [worked] the last four years to pass bank bailouts and give insurance companies everything they ever wanted,” he added. “If we wanted that, we’d be Republicans.”

With Howard Dean leading the charge (here):

Former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean fired one of the clearest warning shots at hesitant Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, insisting that if the party was unable to produce a health care bill with a public plan, there would be electoral consequences.

“I do think there will be primaries as the result of all this, if the bill doesn’t pass with a public option,” Dean said, in a phone interview with the Huffington Post….

& others… here & here…

The problem of course with the whole argument, whether we end with a public option or a co-op type option which is run by the government (anyone know the difference?), is that they seem to presume only two options: public or no reform.

But even if their false dichotomy were true, I’m convinced there isn’t a politician alive, including those I agree with, who understand whether the bill will do what they think it will do.

Reporting from USA Today, they make mention of the 1200 page bill with all it’s quaint little additions like this:

“SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION. (a) Medicare. — (1) IN GENERAL. — Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended — (A) in subsection (s)(2) — (i) by striking ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (DD); (ii) by adding ‘and’ at the end of subparagraph (EE); and (iii) adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ‘(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1) … “

Of course not all of the bill itself is as convoluted as this particular section,  but I think before continuing to argue about a public option, a co-op option, no reform, market reform, whatever…  it might be interesting if the press would just recite certain pieces of the current legislation and the ask all politicians, including POTUS – how does this section relate to your goals for health care reform and what exactly does it do?

Or when President Obama and other leaders claim that opponents are lying or being disingenuous (here):

What you can’t do — or you can, but you shouldn’t do — is start saying things like, we want to set up death panels to pull the plug on grandma.  I mean, come on.

We should ask him and his opponents the same basic question – please prove, through rational logic and a good reading of the current legislation, why you think this will or will not happen.

Of course, we can continue fighting amongst ourselves over the definition of socialistic health care or whether a co-op is indeed different from a public option, but if people are truly interested in reforming health care, it might be time to rethink that strategy.  Maybe instead, we should start by asking them to explain the legislation they are currently pushing.

Who knows – actually focusing on the issue at hand might actually help us start getting legislation written by our elected representatives instead of the current system where all bills are being written by lobbyists.