Anyone remember when Halloween was about running around the neighborhood, staying up late, and eating too much candy?  Remember when selling lemonade was easy?

Well, thanks to how enlightened we’ve become, things like that are no longer allowed… by law in some places.

In Bellvile, IL the law encompasses ages of those allowed to trick-or-treat, whether children over 12 should be allowed to wear masks at all, and of course the all important curfew.

I don’t know about you, but it’s odd to me that this many ordinances are required for a fake holiday.  Even the explanation shows how little the mayor grasps what a police state this is becoming (@Fox2News):

…Mayor Eckert said “We had listened for many years to our residents, particularly seniors and single moms who said it was kind of scary many times when high school aged kids, people who are as tall as you and me, 6-feet tall, coming to their door late at night.”

“We firmly believe that trick or treating is for children, and when they get to be an age, if their parents aren’t sensible enough to tell them they’re getting too old, you’re getting too big, then we feel that the ordinance is in tact for our police officers to not have to tap them on the shoulder telling them to knock it off,” explained Eckert….

With all due respect to the mayor, I don’t honestly care what you “firmly” believe about Halloween.

Honestly, I tend to agree that 16 year olds running around for candy is stupid.  But I’m not sure that if parents allow their kids to do things I “firmly believe” are stupid equates to a government attempt to micromanage behavior on Halloween.

It’s instructive that the mayor doesn’t even seem to grasp the long term consequences of these actions.  Maybe someone should ask, “What if you firmly believed Halloween was evil?  Would you ban it altogether?”

Of course since they’re all busy dealing with youth crime, maybe they don’t have the time to answer.

It’s not kids and Halloween messing things up, but kids & unlicensed businesses.  It’s so bad in some places, that neighbor’s are calling the cops  (whole thing here):

…Juveniles, seven of them, on a quiet residential street, selling an uncontrolled substance: lemonade. A neighbor had dimed them out, and a Haverford Township police officer responded in a hurry. When he arrived at the two-story brick house on Maryland Avenue, he dutifully informed Dana Kleinschmidt, mother of four of the reputed offenders, who included 5-year-old triplets, that they were violating the law. They were selling lemonade without a permit….

Which in and of itself is dumb enough, but wait… after scaring little kids, it turns out what they were doing actually wasn’t against the law at all.  Enter John Viola, Deputy Chief of Police, to explain things:

…The responding officer – who was unavailable, whom Viola would not identify, and whose name and badge number were blacked out of the police report – invoked a township ordinance against vending without a permit. What the officer didn’t realize, Viola said, is that the law doesn’t apply to anyone younger than 16…

So there you have it – the War on Kids just had an innocent casualty due to a simple misunderstanding.  It’s just another  training opportunity really.

Or at least that’s as it appears.  In a stunning admission by the Deputy, he explains how they will continue to harass anyone they want, even if it’s not really illegal.  Seriously – how are they supposed to know the law?

…“The police officer would have no way of knowing this on the street,” Viola said. “He acts on information he has available.”…

It seems obvious to me, that if cops aren’t required to know the laws they are enforcing, we might have a problem, but I admit I’m not a cop.  I do recall something from school about ignorance being no defense, but I guess that’s only if you are charged with a crime, not if you’re being harassed for breaking a non-law.

Welcome to (NEW) America:  Home of the criminal, land of the state.

What are the odds that a government agency tasked with identifying research priorities, research performance management, and reviewing the impact of completed research will come up with a solution that doesn’t involve the government?

Today & tomorrow the EPA are meeting for just this reason (@eScienceNews):

…The goal of the meeting is to develop a collaborative framework to ensure future research and development dollars are spent wisely and in a coordinated manner….

Of course it doesn’t really matter what the answer is, because “spent wisely in a coordinated manner” is almost mutually exclusive to good R&D.  As should be expected by now, the EPA is wasting money on answering a question for which recent literature already exists.

Back in 2001, a Jack Welch underling, W. James (Jim) McNerney, Jr was hired as 3M’s CEO.  In the fanfare associated with being a protege of Mr. Welch, when Mr. McNerney joined 3M, investors had high expectations of pushing some of the GE magic onto the 3M culture.

One of the first and most prominent of these culture changes Mr. Mcnerney instituted was a heavy does of SixSigma.  From the beginning, leading business thinkers were asking whether pushing a very creative culture into the narrow focus of SixSigma might not work.  Or at least, it should not include the whole company.  Sure, use SixSigma for accounting procedures, but leave out R&D.

Of course proponents of SixSigma disagreed.  If it can help manufacturing and then be translated to service related products, why not R&D?

Regardless of the writing public, 3M went forward with implementing a SixSigma policy that included training all workers to a Green-belt level and use SixSigma methodology for every department, including R&D.  How’d it fare?

As you’d expect, the results are mixed.  But asking former 3M scientists, engineers, and the like?  Overwhelmingly they tend to agree it wen too far (@DesignNews):

…While 3M emerged financially stronger from the McNerney era, many long-time 3M researchers, engineers and scientists chafed under the strictures of Six Sigma. Critics argue that excessive metrics, steps, measurements and Six Sigma’s intense focus on reducing variability water down the discovery process. Under Six Sigma, the free-wheeling nature of brainstorming and the serendipitous side of discovery is stifled. Proponents contend such methodologies’ rules keep researchers on track and accountable for producing. Striking the right balance between the application of Six Sigma and unencumbered research is often seen as key….

In fact, a then board member and the former 3M scientist who developed Post-It Notes stated that he believes that in the SixSigma environment, Post-It Notes would simply never have been developed.

History is also rife with examples.  In the book, Sex, Science and Profits: How People Evolved to Make Money,  written by Terence Kealey (review @ Reason.com):

…Kealey shows in nearly every case the crucial inventions of the past two and half centuries were called forth by markets, not invented by scientists working from ivory towers. These include the steam engine, cotton gin, textile mills, railroad engines, the revolver, the electric motor, telegraph, telephone, incandescent light bulb, radio, the airplane—the list is nearly endless…

In fact, a government-funded research paper showed public money can hurt innovation.  Mr Kealey writing about it(@AllBusiness.Com):

…n fact, the evidence shows otherwise. In 2003, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries, reporting on a comprehensive regression analysis of the factors that might explain the different growth rates of the world’s 21 leading economies between 1971 and 1998. This indicated that only privately funded R&D led to economic growth, and that publicly funded R&D did not. Worse, the public funding of R&D crowded out private funding, and thus slowed economic growth…

No worries though, I’m sure the government will tell you, that this time is different.   Just ask them.  They completely understand it’s failed many times before, but what you (read: citizens) are too ignorant to understand, is that those failures were under other people and not the worldly, brilliant, omniscient, and yes, even death-defying leaders of today.

& if that doesn’t work for you, remember that it’s “Green”, which we all know are now established unqualified goods.  As such, regardless of how much money taxpayers have to spend to subsidize “green” stuff, the end results are worth it.

Last, but certainly not least, if both of these arguments don’t work to mitigate your concerns, welcome to the club: Disgruntled Americans Against Government Stupidity (DAAG)

To read the full analysis, you will likely need to register and possibly pay, but Stratfor just announced A Possible Bin Laden Sighting:

A blurry image of a person resembling Osama bin Laden appeared in Abu Yahya al-Libi’s video sermon commemorating the end of Ramadan.

This week – good libertarian-ish quotes:

The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can’t tolerate a libertarian community. – David D. Boaz (1997)

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. – Winston Churchill (1903)

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. – Thomas Sowell (1992)

Whoever prefers life to death, happiness to suffering, well-being to misery must defend without compromise private ownership in the means of production. – Ludwig von Mises (1920)

As the state grows, one’s sense of self-ownership is destroyed, liberty is traded for “security,” the human spirit diminishes, and the citizenry increasingly thinks and behaves like dependent children. –  Eric Englund in  Income Taxes, Obesity, and Other Maladies of Nanny Statism

I was on my way in this morning and one of our more aggressive STL drivers didn’t seem to know the lane was going to end.  She ended up next to me as the lane closed and based upon the face grimacing and middle finger, this was my fault.

As I usually do with insanely angry people, I smiled real big, like I hadn’t seen her in a very long time, and waved.

Generally this would end the story and my memory of her would’ve faded about 30 milliseconds later, but there was something written on her rear window.   I could make out the words, “Do you follow Jesus…”, but couldn’t see the rest.  Try as I might, the small-ish font in some sort of script-type font, I was unable to read the end portion.

I watched her weave in an out of traffic the entire way North on 270 and as usual in a traffic jam, it did her little good.  At my exit, I see her just in front of me on the exit ramp.  So I moved closer and closer to see if the girl who had just made such as outburst was religious.

To my surprise and some delight, the entire sentence read, “Do you follow Jesus this close?”

Admittedly, it was only my surprise to find out she’s likely intolerant of religions versus a practicing member because of my assumptions.  It was delightful because for once, all quick information led to the same conclusion.  This person has anger issues… and now, thanks to her statement for the world, we know it’s not just traffic that makes her want to kill, but also the idea that I might follow Jesus & drive like crap.

The odd thing is that her distaste of religion is shared by many of her fellow citizens, based up presumptions which do not meet reality.

Of the truly devout people I know, they are not tempted by road rage nor have I ever met even one devout Christian who emulates the behavior as described by the anti-religious among us.

Even the curmudgeon Christopher Hitchens wrote recently about the religious people he’s met and how it’s changed his opinions from the mythical dogmatic idiots he once saw (here):

…Ever since I invited any champion of faith to debate with me in the spring of 2007, I have been very impressed by the willingness of the other side to take me, and my allies…

…I have been all over the South, in front of capacity and overflow crowds, exchanging views with Protestants most of the time, but also with Catholics and, in New York and the West Coast and Canada, with—mostly Reform—Jews in large and well-attended synagogues….

…I haven’t yet run into an argument that has made me want to change my mind. After all, a believing religious person, however brilliant or however good in debate, is compelled to stick fairly closely to a “script” that is known in advance, and known to me, too. However, I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe….

Maybe our young driver will learn that lesson some day as well.

Most people have heard of the saying, “attitude determines altitude”, I while I’m in general agreement, I’d like to expand on it.  Not only does attitude matter in much or what we do and how we perceive the world, ensuring you are always focused towards the appropriate goals is another important part of this.

This point is proven in many daily examples, but summed up well in the axiom “the customer is never wrong.”  On it’s face, we know this to be a fallacy.  Customers can clearly be wrong depending upon the circumstances and in many cases, the customer might be wrong through ignorance, but it’s ok as it’s your job to know more.

What the axiom does say in a subtle way, is that arguing won’t help.  That even if you, the subject matter expert, are completely right, going too far to prove that can be counterproductive and potentially costly.

If however, your goal is customer education or customer service, instead of wanting to be right, you will instinctively not go too far.  This simple process of ensuring a focus on those base goals, instead of adding unnecessary complexities into those base goals, allows your actions to perceived in the correct light.  We humans just have those times where we think we’re being very smart by paying attention to all these high level ideals and complex strategies, when all we’ve truly done is lose sight of the basics.

In a wonderful example of how missing the base goal causes problems in not just decision making, but also in how people perceive you, we go to the Freakanomics Blog.  Steve Levitt and others worked on research that demonstrated that our current understanding of child-safety seats versus seat belts might be wrong (here).

This new research was quickly dismissed by Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood.  In Mr. Levitt’s recent blog post in reference to the dismissal, he wondered why such a defensive reply is child safety is paramount (blog post here):

…My favorite quote from the secretary:

“Now, if you want to slice up the data to be provocative, have at it. As a grandfather and as secretary of an agency whose number one mission is safety, I don’t have that luxury.”

Reading the Secretary’s blog post, it strikes me just how differently he is reacting to a challenge than Arne Duncan (now the Secretary of Education) did when I first told him about my work on teacher cheating when Duncan was in charge of the Chicago Public Schools. I expected Duncan to do what LaHood did: dismiss the findings, circle the wagons, etc. But Duncan surprised me. He said that all he cared about was making sure the children were learning as much as possible, and teacher cheating was getting in the way of that. He invited me into a dialogue, and we ultimately made a difference.

In all fairness, I know very little about Mr. LaHood.  This might not be his normal reaction.  It might have been a bad day or bad week or bad year in the Dept or Transportation.

Having said that, I submit that Mr. LaHood’s move into a defensive posture such as this can be further reduced by simply reminding himself of the goal.  In his case, child safety.

Late last week, Michael F. Cannon @ Cato released a study entitled, Yes, Mr. President A Free Market Can Fix Health Care in response to a challenge made by President Obama in March 2009:

“If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.”

This is very much a presumption based question, like “When did you stop beating your wife?”  It holds within an assumption the only plausible answer is one which uses the power of the government to control the market, and by extension individual citizens, with complete skepticism about any power of the free market.

While this seems to be the default assumption of many of my fellow citizens these days, I don’t know that I’ll ever understand how an objective look at market success versus an objective look at governmental success would lead one to believe the government is capable of much more than simple, repetitive tasks.

Having said that and even knowing the Democratic leadership and the White House is likely to ignore the answer, Mr. Cannon presents a pretty convincing case about a market solution (@Cato).  He explains:

how Congress can remove the impediments that currently prevent markets from doing so:

Whole thing here.

If you’re anything like me, you too are getting nauseous about the “public option” in the health care debate.  One day it exists, the next day it will never exist.  The day after, it’s required…

Well, apparently legislators might have a compromise to pass a bill including an “opt-out public option” (@theHill.com):

Democratic senators continued to remain bullish on the chances of creating a government-run public option as part of health reform….

…Schumer echoed the calls of several senators who this week said that Democratic negotiators has garned the 60 votes necessary to invoke closure on the measure. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week put it in even stronger terms, saying that Reid had 60 votes for a “robust” public option.

…According to Schumer, Reid “is leaning strongly” toward including a provision that would allow states to opt out of public health insurance if they want to keep private insurers.

Schumer added that the liberal senators are “able to live with” an opt-out public option under which states could decline to participate in a public program….

So there we are;  in a compromise between moderate and liberal Democrats only, a public option seems likely.  Not only has the White House and Democratic leadership dropped any pretense of working across the isle, but people at large seem unwilling to question the claims of their leaders.

One suc spurious claim, is that this option will result in increasing competition:

…”We need some competition for the insurance companies,” Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” A government-run insurance plan would “have to play by the same rules as the insurance companies and it would negotiate rates with the providers,” Schumer said. Having a public option would bring competition to states that only have one or two insurance providers, Schumer said….

Proponents everywhere continue to take this stance, even though a public option is logically inconsistent with their stated goal of increase competition.

If Mr. Schumer and others truly wanted to add some competition for insurance companies, adding a new company would not be necessary.  In deed, removing the laws the disallow selling of insurance over state lines doesn’t cost the tax payers one single dime, yet increases competition dramatically, both in the total number of competitors and the speed at which they can begin competing.    Additionally, given the benefits a public option will have over its private competitors, this isn’t really competition.

As Michael Tanner wrote over @ Cato, this support for a public option isn’t likely what it seems (@Cato):

Cognitive dissonance is defined as holding two completely contradictory ideas at the same time.

That seems to be the case with the American public, with a new poll showing rising support for a so-called public option in health care, even as the public continues to oppose greater government control over the health care system….

All in all though, the Democrats hands seem to be very strong hand right now with recent polls showing 57% of the country expressing approval of a public option.   With uninformed voters, an uninformed and uninformative press, and politicians more worried about winning than engaging in honest debates, this compromise might soon become law.

That’s freedom for you – as unfortunate as it seems, whether most people truly understand what the public option entails is irrelevant.  So long as they are willing to approve things they know little about and skip any hard work necessary to critically analyze the problem and various solutions, this new government boondoggle will just continue going forward.