Infinite Monkey Theorems 20100330
March 30, 2010
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
Obamacare - was the final push an act of noble means or just hubris? (via Reason.com here)
…At a time when America’s economy is still in bad shape and when we face numerous problems abroad, Obama has put the country through a shattering political battle—and, with legal challenges and promises of repeal, the fight may be just beginning.
This seems, at the moment, less a monument to idealism than to hubris.
Rep. Mike Honda, D-CA seems to think Fannie Mae knows their stuff (via Politico here). In asking for more money to prevent legal foreclosures, he gives us this:
…In addition, Fannie Mae estimates that as many as 50 percent of the minority homeowners who received a subprime loan should have qualified for a prime loan. This clearly indicates the need for housing counseling services….
With all due respect to Mr. Honda, I think all this clearly indicates is poor critical thinking skills. When a GSE which apparently knew nothing about the impending crisis and was proactively laying down on the job when it came to auditing loan standards gives you estimates on who might or might not have qualified for what kind of loan – laughter is the appropriate response. Not regurgitation.
Cato on telephony deregulation, cell phone innovation, & ingratitude (here). Discussing his memories as a child where phone line were costly and long distance was only slightly less expensive than actual driving as compared to today’s age:
Then came the breakup of the AT&T monopoly in 1984. Phone technology and competitive service provision exploded. In 1982, Motorola produced the first portable mobile phone. It weighed about 2 pounds and cost $3995.
Within a very few years they were much smaller, much cheaper, and selling like hotcakes. Today there are some 4.6 billion mobile phones in the world, and counting, or about 67 per every 100 people in the world.
Then he moves forward to the ingratitude:
And to celebrate this incredible achievement, Slate and the New America Foundation are holding a forum titled “Can You Hear Me Now? Why Your Cell Phone is So Terrible.”
From the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute), we learn the EPA is about to expand its powers (here):
Washington, D.C., March 30, 2010 – The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are expected this week to finalize their joint greenhouse gas (GHG)/fuel economy standards rule. This will make carbon dioxide an “air pollutant subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act for the first time. The rulemaking, and the endangerment finding that is its prerequisite, will allow EPA to immediately exercise and continue to amass powers never delegated to the agency by Congress….
I suppose those supporting the decision know nothing about the EPA’s massive failure in just the Energy Star program.
Lastly, as a reminder, most places and people in the US did NOT buy homes they couldn’t afford (via WSJ here):
The U.S. still is feeling the effects of widespread housing bust, but a new report serves as a reminder that large swaths of the nation didn’t experience a boom in home prices and hasn’t suffered from the bust….
In fact, most of the insane double digit growth in real estate prices were in 5 main areas – NY corridor, Florida, Arizona, California, Nevada. Make of it what you will that almost all flyover states never experienced the irrational boom, to be inevitably followed by the burst.
Categories: Business, Critical Thinking, Economics, Environmentalism, Legislation, Regulation/Deregulation
| 
Tags: Cato, CEI, Deregulation, Economics, EPA, Health Care Reform, Housing Crisis, Politico, Reason.com, WSJ
|
Leave a reply
Did you create your own blog or did a program do it? Could you please respond? 87
Currently I use word press, though I’ve considered a future where I might pay for a custom solution. But for functionality and ease of use, for now – wordpress rocks.
I accept it is hubris for those who do not want HCR but it is an issue Obama, if elected, promised to tackled. The constitutional challenges will be enlightening (interesting to learn on the process as I am woefully ignorant due to my education outside the US) but prevailing educated opinion leans toward challenges resulting in a futile exercise. I wondered that for those who voted for Obama had not had this promised fulfilled, would they be blogging about his meekness and servility?
Mary –
Without question his supporters have been and will continue to discuss Obama’s “lack” of conviction (GITMO, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel). So not passing health care would have been more a failure in the minds of moderate democrats and independents, & a small percentage of moderate republicans, because hardcore versions on either side always believe it’s too much or not enough. This would have most definitely hurt his re-election chances, but won’t change bloggers all that much.
As for the Constitutional challenge, there is a decent hurdle in that the government has no precedence to force a citizen, by mere virtue of birth to purchase insurance against potential medical problems. State governments have done so with respect to car insurance, but I don’t have to drive – & the federal government has never asserted a similar right, nor again has a specific insurance policy been mandated due to birth only.
I would think there are several avenues of attack based upon this fact alone, but I have not read that much about it just yet. I’ll see what I can find and write some stuff up – but know, the prevailing wisdom on McCain-Feingold was opposite of what most logical readings of the Constitution said and what SCOTUS recently said (here).
One of the things that can be said most easily about prevailing wisdom historically, is that it’s usually wrong. But either way, I think it’s easy to see in today’s society that commitment to the value of freedom, combined with objective analysis of any given solution, is severely lacking. I can’t say much as to whether this is better or worse than in other times in history, but the media that most people seek out is highly partisan, prejudicial, with legions of writers willing to twist any logic into any way they wish, so long as it helps them prove their point and make the other guy lose. & again, whether it’s worse today than 20 or 50 or 150 years ago I’m not sure, but I’m honestly concerned not by the number of writers writing stuff, but by the number of PhD’s – IE people with credentials giving them some authority – ignoring basic logic or economic realities to push their political agenda. To list a few things seen recently – pulling facts from known partisan sources and passing them off as factual research, easily change from one logical concept to another as administrations change, active denial of competing views, and on and on.
Just to note – This isn’t a one party problem, but a human problem that can be fixed through simple reason, though through the tough process of objective introspection.
I guess my entire point about my short novel here is to say that prevailing wisdom, even prevailing educated wisdom, might have at one time demonstrated in the aggregate to have been something to take at face value, but not today.
It’s sad I suppose, but I think an honest reflection of American society should reveal that taking educated wisdom at face value is likely to lead to more wrong conclusions than correct ones. Even science is failing, with “doctors” pushing non-proven herbal remedies over proven, life saving, double-blind tested, with integrity of the results in each step, because…. (Junk science here).
I do agree completely with you though – it will be educational and I look forward to the ongoing public debate.
“One of the things that can be said most easily about prevailing wisdom historically, is that it’s usually wrong.” That is one definitive statement, Does it apply to the constitution? I’m just jesting but I read your article on the McCain-Feingold SCOTUS decision and to be honest, both sides have valid arguments. I completely agree that the print and television (including entertainment) media is highly partisan towards the liberal POV but radio has a monopoly on conservative thought. I cede to your point of prevailing wisdom and I agree it is a human problem. I want to reflect on “but a human problem that can be fixed through simple reason, though through the tough process of objective introspection.” I found the article CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman to be very interesting but the conclusion of the rat /corridor experiment is puzzling. I presumed I don’t have enough data to understand why he drew the conclusion that Mr. Young’s “finally found that they could tell by the way the floor sounded when they ran over it. And he could only fix that by putting his corridor in sand.” Thank you for the post, like a short novel, you have given me something to ponder over.
I enjoy the debate more than any monologue, so it’s really my pleasure to reply. & Nice jab on the Constitution, please don’t worry about offending me – it’s not that easy
Couple quick thoughts – others see McCain-Feingold as necessary for the reasons prevailing wisdom has given us, but their points (& mine) are made with certain value statements in mind.
So from a philosophical stand point, I disagree with their basic premise as I value freedom more highly than any other goal. This doesn’t mean people should be free to murder others of course, just in the calculus of policy analysis, for me anyway: the act of removing any freedom is an extraordinary event, which therefore requires extraordinary justification.
Now logically, their points are easily assailable because they do have an underlying idea that people aren’t smart enough to deal with the information themselves and therefore need to be “protected”. This is arrogance and tyrannical thought (all tyrannies claim their methods are for the better of the whole) that can be countered with simple reason.
The issue is, I think the vast majority of people believe this – other people are stupid, that’s why traffic sucks, government sucks… blah, blah, blah – it’s always others.
Like a lot of things people agree with, they agree with it quietly because they understand our politically tactful world doesn’t allow admissions such as this. Therefore they write circles around what they truly mean and instead of dealing with the basic threat: an uninformed populace; they instead use scenarios with their assumption built in to try to prove their point. All without ever mentioning the assumptions, because after all, calling people stupid is impolite.
On Cargo Cult Science – that was a graduation speech which is why it’s not completely grammatically correct, nor as precise as you’d expect to see in a science publication. You do ask a good question about Mr. Young, just letting you know why it’s not in there. & sorry, I don’t know the answer either.
I assumed you had a sense of humor because I observed your blogroll choices. I am still conflicted with respect to McCain-Feingold. I understand the free speech argument and that people are intelligent enough to seek information. As such, I don’t object to the concept of advocacy ads. Then again, I am not convinced that corporations will not play dirty pool with politicians and our tax dollars. Is it ever a good idea to encourage that relationship?
The subject of Richard Feynman’s speech interested me too and I am sure spell-check sucked in 1974. Did it exists? I am ashamed to say, I had to wikipedia his name. I loved that it said “He was regarded as an eccentric and free spirit. He studied Maya hieroglyphs, was a prankster, juggler, safecracker, bongo player, and a proud amateur painter.” Who knew Matthew McConaughey could have anything in common with the guy who thought of the concept of nanotechnology? I will attempt to read his semi-autobiographical books over the summer. Thanks for the link.
No need to be ashamed – there are honestly too many historically impactful (this might not be a word
) & interesting people for anyone to ever know them all.
Feynman if very interesting and not only contributed to science education of an entire generation, but as you note – was as eclectic as we like to see from our brilliant minds
Thanks for reading – I appreciate you taking the time to reply as well. I apologize it has taken me this long to reply.
Nonetheless – I think I could say a few things here and there about the Constitution that I believe even some of the founding fathers would agree were “mistakes”, but only in hindsight of course. & conversely, some things in the Constitution were the result of straight forward compromise just to get votes and some turned out to be brilliant in hind sight, even though the reason for existing wasn’t thoughtful debate, but political reality.
To McCain-Feingold & this is true of politics or any value based question – both sides will appear to most reasonable people to have valid points. I’ve written about this in other posts, but I think this is mainly true as we (humans) are (by in large) a people who prefer to avoid unpleasant situations. There’s ample logic to say this can be understood from an evolutionary perspective. In small groups of hunter/gathers, going against the grain could well me the end of life.
However, I digress – my point is, that while value based questions appear to have valid answers from several different viewpoints, an individual should be using their value to determine what the best answer is for them. Therefore in general, there should be only one right answer for you per question. These answers might adjust over time as you learn more and grow, but for me, the main reason so many varying issues appear to have several different answers is due more to peoples’ unwillingness to work at defining their personal values.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that if you have worked hard contemplating the person you are, the person you want to be, and the values that will get you there – that is personal. You are under no obligation to share with me or anyone else for that matter those things you hold most dearly.
But I firmly believe that the act of sitting down and understanding through reason and contemplation what you believe your values should be and then honestly sticking to them, is a requirement for a happy life. As that one guy said, an unexamined life is not worth living.
So for me – I hold freedom as the highest possible value. Just as I believe I don’t wish for you to interfere with my abilities to succeed – I also believe that I shouldn’t be able to interfere with your goals either (assuming of course your goal isn’t to end someone’s freedom).
Therefore, for me personally, it follows that any restriction on freedom should require a very high hurdle to cross before its allowed. & so far, out of dozens of articles, mostly against this SCOTUS decision, I have yet to find one single critique that doesn’t hold at its core the belief that people aren’t bright enough to think for themselves.
& that may be perfectly true – maybe I’m naive and people really can’t think for themselves. But in my moral calculus that is meaningless. When freedom trumps all, restricting it for such simplistic arguments has an easy answer for me.
Disclaimer: I don’t mean to imply any of the “people need values” statements to be directed towards you or to be insulting. I only used you as an example and have no belief that my critiques on what I see as a failure of society necessarily means I believe you fail for the same reasons. Hopefully I didn’t offend.
& besides – I can, have, and could be wrong
Thanks again.
Michael, did you find something familiar with the comment from Simon says? I always knew imitation was the sincerest form of flattery but this one takes the cake!
Yeah, I’m not sure what is going on… I’m sill working to completely understand the wonderful world of automated spam. Additionally, I tried to add a new function, which messed up a few things as well.
I’ve deleted, what I think are mos of the duplicates, though there might be more…
Thanks again for reading.
Don’t! I had bookmarked it to read it. I had noticed the reply was unique to the last response. I noticed you agreed to having your blog on a feeder site that just looked a little fishy to me but I am not an expert at all. I have never seen this problem before but googling is likely to solve your dilemma.
Well…. while I’m new to this type of computer work, I’m generally pretty good about things. So my guess is… the very last change, which was just removed should fix it.
Let’s hope.
On the feeder site…. unsure what you’re referring to… I understand feeder site, but am unaware of giving permission necessarily – any elaboration you can share is appreciated.
Deja Hartje says:
2010/04/15 at 13:22
Hello! I found your site quite by mistake and it worked out great. This is very interesting an dI will be back for more. Thanks.
Alix Irestone says:
2010/04/25 at 15:15
Am I ok if I direct to your website, from my web page? I’m in need of help to gather as many pieces of useful information as I am able.
Reply
Michael S. Langston says:
2010/04/26 at 15:25
Feel free, just please credit & link
I think the above reply was consent but I am way out of my league here.
I have seen this type of spam marketing on other sites and wondered if this comment preceded your technical problem. I’m just guessing !
Who knows? I think an obvious spam-msg for blogs is “I’d love to quote you….” or whatever. Theoretically, though I’m not a lawyer, copyright exists by virtue of creation. IE – so long as you can prove you created it prior, you own it…. which is unlike a patent.
For me, my goal, honestly I only want the links for the traffic and I don’t even want the traffic for money. I’m not charging nor do I have advertisers, but I guess I wouldn’t write what I write if I didn’t think it might value others in some way. So getting the message out for me is better than whether I get credit…. though I love additional traffic
I can only reduce my ego so much
I do want to go one step further… again, no lawyer, and only a non-paid writer… but in some cases I’ve seen – “s/he stole that” when the paragraph or sentence stolen is almost the only way to say it directly.
IE – how do you say, “Terrorist tried to do major damage with a car bomb that failed in Times Squares after reports noticed an SUV seemingly on fire” much differently from what it is?
So news plagiarism I think is more difficult from opinion plagiarism, though all I write is opinion…. hopefully with some analysis
Honestly, I thought it was funny that they (whomever they are) copied my post word for word. I would love to have traffic at my site but I know, I don’t have a voice, yet. It is fairly easy to add on blog advertisement but I really don’t care for the money. You can be damn sure it comes with a string attached, called paperwork! Journalist are lazy and you can tell that they essentially reword existing stories. I don’t think research is practiced anymore but partially because of the demand for immediate electronic news. I love reading papers in Europe. It is bizarrely an old-fashioned experience. IIRC, you are correct with your copyright assessment. This article is helpful in terms of understanding ‘fair use’. http://www.piercelaw.edu/thomasfield/ipbasics/copyright-on-the-internet.php
lol – to start, I think of the term journalist as a pejorative these days. There are certainly still less noble occupations, but taking a look around as what is sold as journalism is the indictment itself, not my few words.
However…. journalists, news papers, tv news, radio news, etc, etc, etc – are only giving people what they want. It’s not like they are a monolithic group who all attend the same weekly meeting to decide how best to dumb down the news.
It’s that the very few voices of true analysis which still exist in the world are largely ignored by the public. IE – the public doesn’t spend time or money on news organizations which really do research and report true analysis.
Obviously my beliefs don’t allow me to look to the government to solve this issue, so I think it’s incumbent on us to teach our children that the easiest way is not the best way. That the lowest common denominator works to simply fractions, by lowering yourself to it in every case only seeks to hurt you.
It’s incumbent on leaders, writers (not saying I’m in these categories), educators, and the rest of us to understand that philosophy, morals, ethics, has and will always be far more important than the ability to make money by creating crap just because someone else wants it.
Like Jerry Springer – I understand most, if not all by now, of that crap is fake… though his continued attachment to the democratic party is little frightening…. either way, let’s assume at least some percentage of his shows in the past were “true”.
I think the question we miss in all this – Is it ok to exploit the least among us in the most public of ways simply because they are willing to sign a contract?
Or as once heard, in complete jest, on the radio,
I would argue that most of our "ills", journalism included, is due to our societies (world included) complete lack of understanding of morals or philosophy. They just don't think nor consider that most of what they watch on tv is equivalent to answering this question in the affirmative.
Additionally, there's inertia in general. Even explaining this to someone, simply makes them defensive as any agreement with the logic could be easily followed up with the next question, "So.... do you watch these shows and thereby contribute to this?"
But for almost everyone - based upon the people I've met - people most consider very good people, intelligent, good family people, good citizens, good workers, and the rest - they'd rather ignore this conversation also.
It's not "them" who are the problem - you see, they understand the shows they watch, reality tv for instance, where people with no other knack in life than having lots of kids, or you're just really rich and kind of b1tchy... well, they understand it’s stupid and fake. It’s those other people who don’t get it.
As I tell them – nope, it’s honestly they who don’t get it. They continue to look at society disapprovingly and see what they believe is a consistent declination in our morals, basic civility, & the rest, yet think do nothing, not one thing.
Not even stop supporting those things they know aren’t good for others. They don’t change the channel…. they don’t stop shopping at places that rip them off…. they just move through life seeking the least path of resistance the entire way.
Which oddly enough is another reason so many people call for government intervention. If parents are too stupid to not let young kids watch…. say, the Real World, then they want to pass a law.
I still disagree there should be a law, I think these things are better handled through reason and societal mechanisms, but I understand the frustration when it appears that even the supposed “good” people among us are really just another part of the problem.
One of these days I’ll start remembering names with the people I constantly quote, but whomever said it, said it well when they said, “The only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”
BTW – I really appreciate your reading. I’ve been very lax lately for a few reasons… I’m working on getting back and appreciate the fact that anyone anywhere is interested in anything I write.
Thank you.
Wow, another plagiarism. I wonder if you have an unusual ‘blog virus’?