One of the main reasons people tend to fail at analysis, is that they hold certain beliefs which are nothing more than myths.  When myths are readily believed however, evidence that seems to back that myth up is actively sought out and usually exaggerated.

What’s interesting in this case – is that we have two writers, from Naked Capitalism Blog & Alternet somewhat describing confirmation bias, but almost ironically show that their thinking fails from the same biases they wish to highlight.

What did they proffer (whole thing here via Naked Capitalism and here via Alternet)?

They state they are attempting to find out why people’s opinions don’t change even in the face of competing facts.  To do this, they use a study of selected people who believe Saddam was behind 9/11.  Since GWB, the 9/11 commission, and all other sources state this isn’t the case, then trying to understand why someone believes it is a noble goal and the research could potentially help understand human thinking.

Of course both pieces weren’t honestly seeking the answer, so in this case little can be gathered.  The good news however is that studies like this have been done before and we already understand to some degree why people don’t seem rational on certain topics.

First, they start off by implying that investors are not rational and do so by linking to a simple Google search.  Lazy sure, but most studies I’ve seen dealing with rationality of the individual begin with the false assumption there is some common answer to begin which every rational individual would chose.  Humans however define rationality by their values and desires;  therefore, their actions will also be very unique based upon those individual factors.

Leaving that aside, their point was to say, not only are investors irrational, but so are these people for these reasons (Naked Capitalism):

• [1] Many Americans felt an urgent need to seek justification for a war already in progress

• [2] Rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

• [3] “For the most part people completely ignore contrary information.”

• [4] “The study demonstrates voters’ ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information”

• [5] People get deeply attached to their beliefs, and form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.

• [6] “We refer to this as ‘inferred justification, because for these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war.

• [7] “People were basically making up justifications for the fact that we were at war”

• [8] “They wanted to believe in the link [between 9/11 and Iraq] because it helped them make sense of a current reality. So voters’ ability to develop elaborate rationalizations based on faulty information, whether we think that is good or bad for democratic practice, does at least demonstrate an impressive form of creativity.

Their premises basically fall into two types:

1. Those premises that have been proven true about the vast majority of the population in thousands of experiments….
2. & those premises which aren’t necessarily false, but reflect the authors’ thinking as the study and information provided do not lead to the conclusion they readily accept.

Looking at them in this light, we see that 2, 3, & 5 are all easily proven through prior studies and simple observations of current society.  If people didn’t seek out confirming information, Daily Kos, Free Republic, Huffington Post, and many, many other websites would be empty and failing.

For the remaining 5, the study does not bear out their premises.  The study (@ Alternet) demonstrates that even when giving people contrary factual information, many will continue to believe as they do.

However, they only used 49 people and are inferring their reason from justification based upon comments which don’t support their thesis.  The first participant quote they begin with is(via Alternet):

“Well, I bet they say that the commission didn’t have any proof of it,” one subject responded, “but I guess we still can have our opinions and feel that way even though they say that.”

This is a simple reflection of reality, to which the researchers find disturbing.  Why it isn’t disturbing to sane people is that I have yet to know anyone who doesn’t believe somethings which simply aren’t provable or for which factual information to the contrary exists.

To site to easy examples, the number of people who believe the CIA killed Kennedy & those who believe strongly in ancient herbal remedies for which no proof other than anecdotal is ever given.

The second quote the article uses:

Reasoned another: “Saddam, I can’t judge if he did what he’s being accused of, but if Bush thinks he did it, then he did it.”

Is an odd statement to use as it’s semi-meaningless.  When told President Bush stated publicly on a number of occasions that Saddam did not play a role in 9/11 & then that person continues to use that information has other issues than just confirmation bias.   They might honestly be trying to get justification for the war post-war, but I’m not sure by this information.

The third quote they use actually represents their best opportunity for demonstrating that people were rationalizing after the fact:

Others declined to engage the information at all. Most curious to the researchers were the respondents who reasoned that Saddam must have been connected to Sept. 11, because why else would the Bush Administration have gone to war in Iraq?

However, other reasons exist for this as well which have nothing to do with post-justification.   For instance, I might think Saddam is just worthless and any attempt to liberate the people who suffer through his tyranny is a good idea, but still think that GWB must believe it as that’s the only justification I can see.

In that case, it proves my analytical thinking skills as poor because other justifications certainly exist outside of both 9/11 & WMDs, but it necessarily doesn’t prove post-justification.

Additionally, I could think we went to war with Iraq and believe it’s because GWB believed there to be a link, and still disagree with the war itself.

That might seem like an odd statement, but there are in fact people, a small minority to be sure, but people who firmly believed the Taliban support Bin Laden and Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.  But even with that information, they don’t believe we should’ve gone to war.

Again, that’s a minority view to be sure, but when using it’s existence to disprove the study of 49 people, I believe the weight of my evidence of realistic & feasible alternative theories to the data provided is stronger than theirs.

Regardless of the individual reasons anyone might use to rationalize beliefs for which counter-factual information exists, their data doesn’t support their conclusions that fear & post-justification are major issues.

& with statements like this (via Alternet):

“I do think there’s something to be said about people like Sarah Palin, and even more so Chuck Grassley, supporting this idea of death panels in a national forum,” Hoffman said.

Their biases are easily shown (DA post here sort-of-on death panels).

The simple truth is, the researchers and both articles are failing to reason correctly for the same reason the people they pointed out are failing to reason correctly:  they are seeing evidence which already proves their current world views and beliefs true.

& for whatever this data might show – it certainly isn’t proof of post-justification.  It is only evidence that we all seek out comfort by mitigating the cognitive dissonance (IE – anxiety) which comes from seeing factual information which disagrees with our world view & beliefs.

DA has written about this tendency on Junk Science, Anecdotal evidence in the health care debate & the President & Race.  Additionally, DA has written on echo chambers as they reinforce our thoughts.

• Proving once again that fascism isn’t just a word, Italy (here via Economist) gave three Google executives six-month suspended sentences for “allowing a clip of an autistic boy being bullied to be viewed on Google Video, which the judge said broke Italy’s privacy laws. “

Just to clarify, I’m not pro-autistic-bullying and would think a civil trial isn’t out of the question, but jail?

• Fannie Mae needs more cash, but just 15 billion… from the taxpayer of course (here via RTTN News).   Seems like people might not agree with this (here via WSJ):

The Obama administration’s decision to cover an unlimited amount of losses at the mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the next three years stirred controversy over the holiday….

Probably why the decision was made over the holidays.

• Crazy fundamentalists blame the Golden Girls for homosexuality (here via ChristWire).

• Democrats & President Obama, all firmly against the Patriot Act after signing it, vote to  prevent all measures from lapsing (here via Wired) for the next full year.

• Harvard intellectual tells us why allowing corporations to spend money on politics is bad (here):

…To understand why, it is important to focus on the individuals who make decisions for companies. When corporations decide which politicians to support, what kind of messages to send, and which political outcomes to seek, their general investors are not consulted. Rather, such decisions are likely to reflect the preferences and objectives of the insiders who manage the companies, ostensibly on shareholders’ behalf….

A little interlude for a thought experiment.  Change which politicians to support and which political outcomes to seek to which charities to support and which cultural outcomes to seek.  Or try reality and change it to, which lobbyists to support and which regulatory outcomes to seek.  But of course, he defines the problem for us:

…And politicians that benefit from corporate spending and access to corporate resources will have an interest in serving the insiders’ preferences and objectives….

Which presupposes politicians already don’t have this interest, presumes it will get much worse, and last, but not least; for spending to have any affect at all, voters have to be swayed to vote against their interests.

It seems the default assumption of every perceived risk these days is simply this:  there can never be too many laws when trying to protect people from themselves.

• CalTech researchers say the brain is wired for equality (here):

…Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person’s head, rather than the poor person’s….

Oddly enough, the Freakanomics blog posted this with little comment (here) proving environmental factors such as working for the NY Times can affect even innovative economists.  I’ll admit there might be more, but from what they’ve shown, the results do not necessarily say anything about equality at all.  A perfectly reasonable answer is one of need: a rich person doesn’t need a windfall as much as a poor person.

CalTech’s reasoning:

…It’s long been known that we humans don’t like inequality, especially when it comes to money. Tell two people working the same job that their salaries are different, and there’s going to be trouble…

Conflating the thinking that comes with social status and worth when compared to colleagues and equality of results.  It could be in a lot of cases, the person making less might think they work harder and deserve more, not equal.

• & finally, via the Hill.  Did Nanci Pelosi really say that

…”They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”…

In an email discussion with a very interesting new friend, an idea I’ve heard before came up:  Libertarianism is sort-of childish; a Utopian dream that’s nice in theory, but not practical in reality.

It might be trivial to write at this point, but I of course disagreed.  To be fair, I believe this is completely true on foreign policy.  Libertarianism seems like a domestic political philosophy only, but more on that in the future.

On the childish part – in some ways I can see why that perception exists as well.  I’ve jokingly said before the reason libertarianism has a bad name, is because of libertarians.  The cultural norm in libertarian thinkers who draw large numbers of readers seems to be to take one basic principle and stretch it to infinity.

For instance – it’s your property, you can do with as you please.  So you can put a brothel next door to an elementary school and the only recourse should be neighbors buying the lot to out price the brothel.

To many, including me, this is stupid.  The point in giving as many freedom to others as possible, simply can not include a dissolution of society itself by subjecting populations to things they don’t want.  Also, I think they already have this type of vision in local government using SOME zoning laws.

Additionally though, libertarians do believe in contracts.  So if a bunch of people bought tons of land, they could sell those plots with any caveat they want – even religious requirement.  By buying the lot, you are signing the contract and therefore willingly entering into that agreement with those constraints.

While I firmly believe this is possible, legal, and potentially preferable, it seems like that’s a community/town.  Their issue however with government control is one of the use of force, but I think that’s due to too much centralization.  Studies have shown, more decentralization, IE – more local control, leads to better outcomes (here).  What this would mean, if we were to ever take it seriously, is that while New York might maintain 18 million people for the economic possibilities that provides, government spending and programs should be on a much smaller level.

Please note – this doesn’t mean that no federal government should exist or that taxes should only exist on a very local level, just to say that smaller communities providing for their own fire, police, education, etc, etc, etc works better than 3 million people trying the same thing.  The idea is a state tax or federal tax would be required for things such as national defense, but the majority of expenditures should be directed more locally by a mayor or city manager at a much smaller level.

So it’s not that I believe the community should completely dissipate, it’s that I firmly believe that when the government gets involved, it actually distorts the system to the point where people simply don’t take care of themselves…. or their neighbors.   I think this is backed up by basic human behaviors and thinking as well as all of our uniquely “urban” problems.

One of the human conditions which helps this continue is that of group think.  By safely removing yourself far away from the negative results the government produces with its Wars on poverty, terrorism, obesity…. kids?  People can insulate themselves in larger communities due to increased anonymity by blaming society at large, instead of assuming any direct responsibility.

Listen carefully when people argue about police abuse, or crappy government inefficiencies with social spending, or politician’s lack of values…. they place blame it lots of places, but never on themselves and usually, oddly enough, never on the voters either.

Going further, the government exploits our fears with the media willing accomplices (Politics of Fear) into giving up more control to the government and thereby reinforcing the notion that the government is the answer, when it fact it’s people.

For instance.. violent crime is down a great deal since 1990 (uptick recently, but very small and declining again), but the reporting of crime has increased on average around 500%.  Thanks to multiple 24 hour news shows, combined with a finite amount of news, sensational stories about very rare events influences people’s fears about those events.

We humans aren’t that good at evaluating risk as it is, without doing so in a very methodical way, but with the government’s various wars on everything: AIDs, H1N1, Poverty, Terrorism, Obesity, Smoking, Drugs, Cancer…. kids?  All with the media willingly pushing these sensationalized news stories, people have exaggerated fears towards rare events and minimal fears towards much more likely catastrophic events (great video here ~20 minutes).

Add to this, a general lack of skepticism and critical thinking, most people never take the time to see if their fears, concerns, or core set of understanding of the world is accurate.  I believe this is due to a lack of appropriate priorities for most people, but more on that later.*

Looking at society, you can see the fear we have in our neighbors.  For example, in lots of neighborhoods in lots of places, people will more quickly call the cops on a loud neighbor than just walk over and ask politely.  We go to court when cutting down a tree that crosses property lines, we call the cops when we think the neighbor has too many dogs, we…. we just call the cops because people are scared of their neighbors.  & not because they know about the bunker with a year’s worth of rations and ammunition, but because we continue to allow our human frailty in risk assessment to be exploited by those only seeking more power.

Additionally, we willingly take away rights from others.  The most consistent comment from friends, colleagues, strangers who accidentally started a conversation with me…. but for those I did talk to around carry conceal laws during a vote in MO had, by definition of a binary question, one of two answers. Yes or No

The interesting part of the nos was almost all used the same basic reasoning when talking to me:  “You’re fine. It wouldn’t bother me a bit if you carried a gun, you were in the military and trained.  I just don’t know about everyone else.”  Other than showing a lack of knowledge of how little an electronic technician trains on weapons, I think it shows our general distrust of others.

Not surprisingly, even when confronted with the stats that prove FL, TX, and other states did not turn into the Wild West (not that the West was truly all that “wild”) where horn honks during rush hour turned into shootouts between soccer moms & insurance salesmen, were all safely ignored.

I guess the cognitive dissonance was too much to handle because stats like those in FL & TX demonstrate that our 99.9% of our neighbors who might get a carry conceal permit are not planning to emulate Rambo on the morning commute did nothing to waver the opponents.

With all that being said – I’m proffering the idea that in an odd, perverse, but easily understandable way, government involvement, even in very charitable actions, can actually reduce our incentive to live together peacefully and take responsibility for our communities.

*On the lack of priorities, I don’t believe all people should run out and research everything I know because I think everyone should read what I read.  I think the very first rule in critical thinking that all trying to be honest analysts have to understand is that like all other humans, even those trained and educated in analysis, will still have the same frailties in their thinking process.  Potentially less pronounced, but never completely mitigated.

Therefore, when writing that peoples’ priorities seem to be off, I think our failure isn’t with not reading what I read – but in being a well rounded person by honestly reflecting and actively deciding their core values.

As a corollary to that – I believe society is teaching people right now that this is a good thing. Valueless employees ask fewer questions and do more as their told without contemplating reality and what the decision’s effects most likely are. & Even if they do contemplate and know it’s wrong, they do it anyway. Therefore people who don’t make waves, get promoted. Those who ask pertinent questions, even if necessary and correct, get ostracized.

This is not only true of our business leaders, Bernie Madoff, Enron, MCI, but our politicians as well.  Unethical leaders leading secret lives, even the corrupt politicians among us, seem to get a reprieve from the voters… so long as you’re on their side and they’re not mean.

Additionally the leadership selection process seems perverted for the same reasons the leaders aren’t what we should expect.  Someone who is arbitrary, but polite and educated, is someone a lot of people like.   In a deep seeded wish to reduce not only any discomfort we might experience, but for civility’s sake try to prevent others’ discomfort, society has conflated the ideas of social skills with leadership to the detriment of society as a whole.

On the whole, it seems our desire for civility has the unintended consequence of making us less civil and more prone to failure.

For  a little over a week now, political writers everywhere are telling us how the WH is going to aggressively work to change the narrative over health care & the stimulus.  This all began with a mea culpa from John Podesta last week when he admitted they [Democrats] have lost the narrative (here @ Politico):

John Podesta, the president of the Center for American Progress who led Barack Obama’s presidential transition, acknowledges the White House has been unable to successfully drive the debate on health care reform.

“They lost the narrative,” Podesta told the Financial Times. “They lost the perspective of how all of the activity they were engaged in was knit together.”…

This was followed up by pundits everywhere showing the signs of the WH’s pursuit of changing the current narrative (here @ WaPo):

…White House officials are retooling the administration’s communications strategy to produce faster responses to political adversaries, a more disciplined focus on President Obama’s call for “change” in Washington and an increasingly selective use of the president’s time…

[Dan Pfieffer Communications Director] “In 2010, the president will constantly be doing high-profile things to be the person driving the narrative.”

Continuing the Post reports something I think should be more controversial:

Senior White House aides described the changes as an aggressive response, aimed at producing fresh momentum for the president’s faltering agenda and regaining the advantage ahead of the congressional midterm elections in November.

I believe that’s an admission that the main reason they plan to change the topic at large and how that topic is described is for the mid-term-elections.  You’d think they could feign some empathy and argue that the policies are for the people, but instead they only discuss power.

But I digress… the main thing I think is important to see in all this discussion about narratives is two-fold.  They are coming out and honestly saying, the only reason we lost “the conversation” is because we didn’t sell it well enough.

& to be fair – it might well be true.  There are seemingly many more citizens willing to vote based on the narrative than they are willing to critically analyze the facts, therefore changing the way something is being sold will have some success.

But seriously – just because you have the opportunity to take candy from a baby, doesn’t mean that you should.  Meaning, if you can honestly argue that changing the narrative will push people to change their minds, you’re honestly arguing that winning is more about propaganda than ideas & facts.  & just like taking candy from a baby, just because you might be able to exploit people through emotional appeals, doesn’t mean you should do so.

What is more worrisome however, is the lack of reaction by people.  They read these things and mostly argue based on their political beliefs more than anything else.  & they do so, all without asking: what’s the difference between a narrative and the right policy?

Yes, what is worrisome is not only that people are ignoring this question, and thereby agree through silence, but that many of them may not even understand the difference.

In a very interesting post @ The Decision Science News, notes that:

There are those who consider the field of Judgment and Decision Making to be much like the field of Social Psychology, and others who find them as similar as vodka and water.

How can we, as the French say, préciser la différence?…

Using word analysis from two recent conferences, one from the SJDM (Scientific Journal of Decision Making) & the other done at the conference of SPSP (Society for Personality & Social Psychology) and noted the differences.

Now many should be able to logically recognize there are likely significant differences as well as assess some of the differences, all just with the names only.   These appear to be vastly different undertakings, but I think one can see in society behavior that seems to agree with the premise that many believe this to be closely related fields.

As one might suspect, the most used SPSP words were emotional and included using these words fairly often ups and downs, positives and negatives, attitudes, personalities & the SJDM words?  Choice, risk, future, uncertainty.

The full analysis easily digested and well worth the look.  After showing the most used words, using the scale of how many times each word was used per 1000 words, they plot both conferences words against each other.  IE – they show SJDM’s most used words and how many times those words were used by SPSP and vice versa.

The two commentators add weight to DSN’s premise that many are confused as both asked, “Why can’t it be both?”  Which might certainly be a noble thought, but ultimately wrong and dangerous when making critical decisions.

To begin, a disclaimer:  my intention is not to prove that emotions are evil.  Emotions are very important to our humanity, our culture, and our life.  Additionally, some decisions should include emotions, and not just in the mate selection process, but also just when buying a car or an engagement ring.  Money constraints might limit your choices, but you still don’t want to buy something you believe isn’t you.

What I see however in society is the desire of the posters, to make the best decisions possible, while still maintaining some nebulous idea of positivity, no matter what.

& again to be fair, this is itself a necessary goal if you are making group decisions consistently interacting with the same people.  However, it can never be an end in itself, and that seems to be where we are today.

You can see this in our leadership, both in business management as well as local, state, and federal government.  Their constant flip-flops belie any notion that a core set of beliefs is needed.  At times, these people seem to almost be arbitrarily making decisions.  For business, you can see this in constantly changing priorities as public winds shift.

All of this – is an anathema to critical thinking and analysis.  In a completely theoretical sense, using a specific slice of time, there is always a “best” decision.  This decision sometimes happens, but many times not only do groups fail to get the best decision, but seem to do just the opposite.   And this is true for many consistent reasons such as dealing with group dynamics and personalities.

Two recent examples @ Reason.com’s Blog by Tim Cavanaugh demonstrate not only shockingly bad decisions, but that those decisions have defenders.

Read here about a kid whose parents are suing the school district, because as owner of one of the 1900 laptops given to students, they didn’t seem to be aware that the school can at anytime remotely activate the built-in webcam and mic and secretly watch whatever it sees.  As the FBI investigates, the District Superintendent is still defending the policy as they cancel it.

& here as well, about a man named Terry Hoskins, who took a bunch of money from banks for a business which ultimately failed, used his private home as collateral, then when the bank went to foreclosure as freely agreed upon by Mr. Hoskins; he balked, then destroyed the home.  This is an event that should and will likely land Mr. Hoskins in jail on fraud.  He promised the bank the property, didn’t like the terms, the removed their ability to recoup.  The oddest thing isn’t a common thief in existence, it’s the fact he has supporters including local media.

From here all I can do is speculate as to why anyone would defend allowing the school district to spy on kids at home or hail as a hero a deadbeat who destroys property just to spite those who have ultimate rights to it because he didn’t pay his debt.

I say speculate, because more local analysis of the debates and media spots would be needed to know, but I think the school district is likely an extreme case of group think.  Likely exacerbated by administration pressures of some sort.  The debtor’s defenders however are more likely not only falling into group think, but projecting their anger on the current economic situation to this criminal’s seemingly anti-authoritarian behavior.

But regardless what the reasons for their failure in thinking, I think objectively we can say that those defending either action are wrong.  For the school – while states everywhere are sending kids to jail for child pornography because one 17 year old sends photos to another 17 year old – how would they ever believe that having the ability of spying into kids rooms wouldn’t increase the potential of breaking those laws themselves?  Do they not know that unreasonable search and seizure?

It’s really hard to believe that someone didn’t know about these things, just more likely the objections were either dismissed or never heard, due to emotionally imposed, nonexistent constraints.  While worrying about all these complex social issues, they failed to focus on exactly what they were doing through critical thought.

& this is where I think the idea of narratives working, the inability of people to understand true critical thinking requires removal of emotion, and people hailing bad decisions all stem from the same basic idea:  we so fear being uncomfortable or making others uncomfortable that we have weakened as a society in making the right decisions.

I’m not exactly sure when this cultural shift happened, but if we want to move forward in the best possible way we can; we must understand that sometimes people will be upset when they are challenged on beliefs for which there lies no logical foundation.  Additionally, sometimes telling people “negative” things, is in fact the best help you can give.  Your best friend might not like to hear if they are failing to meet up with their responsibilities, but they might need it.

I can dream though, right?  Dream that maybe, just maybe at a time in the future…. when the next administration is working to adjust the narrative and effecting elections through White House communication, the majority of people will simply ask, “Why the hell do I care about your narrative?  How about giving me the details of your proposals and I’ll decide on that?”

One day….

Sometimes a more interesting way to find out how people truly view the world, is not to have them tell you where they stand on certain issues.  Another informative way to analyze someone’s critical thinking skills is how reflexive they are to disbelieve facts that counter their world view or agree with facts which confirms their world view.

Seeing their reactions to overly simplified answers which not only confirms their world view, but also their ego, you can use it to analyze that person’s tendency towards confirmation bias.

Before going further, a general disclaimer:  we all, every human falls for confirmation bias.  We want an ordered world and want to understand things and want to be right.  So patterns of random events become, after the fact of course, a series of events who destiny is their present state.

However, for those claiming to know more, claiming to impart important information to the masses, the truth as they see it – for those people, confirmation bias shouldn’t be as obvious.

For our example of people who lack critical thinking skills this time, we have Marcella Mroczkowski, a self described lawyer, activist, and Huffington Post Citizen Journalist.

Now I know – looking for critical thinking on a site like the Huffington Post is much more difficult than finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, but I still thinks it’s useful to remind us all of the tendency.

In her February 9th piece titled Why Americans Must Defeat the Right’s Culture of Hate: Understanding the Science And History of Demonizing Hate gives you a pretty good idea of her logical consistency, but for some reason, I read further.   To save you the trouble, I’ll summarize:

Using one poll, which she claims proves a large, but minority, percentage of Republicans are prone to believe things like Obama isn’t a natural citizen.  From there, she lumps the birther movement in with those who believe Barack is a socialist.  Tie that to the freedom-increasing destruction of the Fairness Doctrine, or in her parlance, the end of untainted free press and equality and an increase in corporate slavery.

Tie that to talk radio, through it, use nominal facts like people tend to get more fanatic during recessions and hate is a primal emotion.

Jump from there to leaders who can exploit man’s primal tendency to hate others through dehumanzing, such as Hitler!

& viola – people who don’t believe like Marcella are not just Republicans, but hate filled Republicans who are being exploited by Hitler’s reincarnation.

So with that said, I think objectively we can say that if this sample is her normal standards, then Ms. Mroczkowski’s skills in critical thinking are demonstrably lacking. We can also say, again, assuming this piece of hers is representative of her other writing & analysis, but with that assumption, she’s also a little full of herself.  Narcissistic even.

I mean even I try to assume the role of her – try to think, a liberal would agree – what do they see worth agreeing to?  Her non-familiarity with logic becomes apparent, as even if I agree with all her logical leaps, to believe the underlying assumption that her beliefs are perfectly right and her opponents are evil and full of hate is just too perfect to be believed by any nominally objective person.

I mean seriously – when the snake oil is packaged and marketed that it will grow your hair while shrinking your waistline and increasing your cognitive abilities – critical adults are naturally and rightfully and forcefully skeptical.

Or as others have said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence… or at least should for those pretending to provide “truthful” claims.

The interesting thing however is the polling data itself.  The data she uses to springboard her attempts to conflate Republicans and their mouth pieces with evil hate speech, is completely flawed.   First, it comes from Daily Kos, which should be an obvious sign to anyone approaching or attempting to approach objectivity.  They have an obvious bias and a quick check on their facts demonstrates it.

With simple math, we can take DailyKos’s own figures, 2008 voting records, and see if the percentages of respondents coincide with the actual percentages in the last election.

So in those states they label the NE, in the 2008 Presidential election, a total of 28,836,059 were cast for President, roughly 40% for McCain, or 11,458,616.

Those 11 million votes for McCain in that region, were out of the 59,948,240 votes cast for him nationally.  So the 11 million represents 19% of the total republican vote.  Not exactly a perfect measure of the percentage of Republicans living in the NorthEast, but likely more accurate than DailyKos’s attempts to minimize that part of country’s respondents to only 11%.  & my numbers were also two years ago – I think one can objectively say the Democrats aren’t doing as well as they could be and are in less favor now that prior to the election.

Regardless, they not only undervalue the opinions of those Republicans in the NE, but they also exaggerate the weight of the south, giving them 42% of the weight of the poll questions, whereas using the same basic analysis, those same states only made up 36% of the total Republican vote cast for McCain.

There are other signs in there as well, but ones I didn’t feel like researching… but to the eye, I’m not sure if 89% should be white or that 56% should be men, though I’ll admit both might be possible.  Using a full 70% of respondents aged 45 and up however, defies logic.  A cursory glance shows voter registration for that age group making up a little less than 50% of all registered voters and while I’ll be more than happy to concede the idea that the makeup of the Republican party isn’t a complete demographic mirror of the national population, I’m pretty sure we can safely say the 70% is exaggerated as well.

With all the inconsistencies, it’s hard to even subscribe to a benign notion such as incompetence.  It appears much more likely that they moved the numbers around until they could get results which showed what they wanted.

Of course to normal people, hearing or reading “A poll from the Daily Kos showed….” could be followed by “the Earth is round” and be right to be skeptical.

Using that poll as evidence of something however is another story entirely.  Here again, I’d like to think this is an innocent mistake, but I think hiding the poll through another link (she linked to Huffington Post site which discuss the poll, which linked to the poll), picking only two questions out of the litany asked and acted as if the rest of it was overwhelmingly convincing of her basic point, then logically stumbling about to equate Republicans with hateful, primitive thinkers who are just following Hitler’s rise to power…. well, that might say more about her motives than even her reflexive belief.

The problem is that only slightly off people like me will dig around for all those numbers to prove or disprove our assumptions.  & that percentage of people currently testing their assumptions versus those voting… well, let’s just say it’s probably pretty small.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that mind you – our marketplace of ideas is full of different people with different opinions and tripe like this will always be seen by objective people for the hollow and shallow self-confirmation it truly is.

The only real sad part is some people, probably more than I want to admit to, will read and blindingly believe.  Not because they don’t have an extra hour to research voting numbers and compare then to polling – they will believe it for the same reason it was written – it will confirm something for which they already believe.  Republicans are primitive & evil.

Yep, using a big dose of self-delusion for courage, they will believe completely in such a hateful point, without even noticing the hateful point is being stated in an article decrying hate.

On Thursday January 21st, the Supreme Court of the United States dramatically departed from past court decisions, by declaring McCain/Feingold’s restrictions on corporate speech prior to elections as unConstitutional.

In doing so, the court not only overturned parts of  McCain/Feingold, but went further in overruling prior courts which held that even with respect to speech, corporations can be seen as uniquely different from individuals and therefore while individual speech could not be regulated, corporate speech could be.

In a close, 5-4 decision, the court returned to its Constitutional roots, by removing an arbitrary distinction prior courts added to the Constitution years ago.  I’m not positive how prior courts held “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech….” actually meant:

Congress shall make no some laws abridging the freedom of speech, based on the arbitrary notion that corporations spending money towards speech is different from individuals spending money towards speech.

Readings from around the web would have you believe however that this is a travesty of justice.   From the Baltimore Sun, an op ed entitled Supreme Court tramples the little guy giving you a heads up to what they believe:

The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court allowing corporations to pour millions into federal elections is frightening and dangerous (“And now, the deluge,” Jan. 25). Even more alarming is that many of us never saw it coming….

The NY Times holding up Justice Stevens dissent (here) to make their point:

…But there was no mistaking his basic message. “The rule announced today — that Congress must treat corporations exactly like human speakers in the political realm — represents a radical change in the law,” he said from the bench. “The court’s decision is at war with the views of generations of Americans.”….

Indeed, allowing corporations to speak is equivalent to putting the mentally retarded to death:

That was the plainspoken style of the last years of Justice Stevens’s tenure. In cases involving prisoners held without charge at Guantánamo Bay and the mentally retarded on death row, his version of American justice was propelled by common sense and moral clarity, and it commanded a majority….

The Huffington Post (of course…. here):

…With the Supreme Court ruling by the “Fabulous Five,” Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a single corporation will be able tap into its deep pockets and disfranchise a million citizens. A group calling itself “Citizens United” has just won a fight to give huge corporations more control over our politics….

& a little more thought out, but the same basic premises @ NewsWeek (here):

…The Supreme Court’s five conservatives are properly protective of American citizens’ First Amendment rights to spend as much of their money as they wish on political speech, both individually and by funding nonprofit advocacy groups. But this was no justification for the court’s blockbuster, precedent-smashing Jan. 21 decision unleashing corporate executives to pour unlimited amounts of stockholders’ money—without their consent—into ads supporting or attacking federal candidates….

From just these few examples, you can see most of the talking points against the decision.

#1 is the “conservative” court has radically departed and conservatives are against activism.

First, the attempt to make “conservative” somehow interchangeable with radical change is transparent and childish.  Either the evidence stands by itself or it does not.

But… for the radical departure… let’s look at the majority opinion written my Justice Kennedy:

…In this case we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell. It has been noted that “Austin was a significant departure from ancient First Amendment principles,” Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 490 (2007) (WRTL) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). We agree with that conclusion and hold that stare decisis does not compel the continued acceptance of Austin. The Government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether. We turn to the case now before us….

Indeed it’s idiotic to think that stare decisis, the principle of following court precedent, should compel them to vote in any particular way and I think most people would agree.   I think it intuitive that the opponents of this decision don’t believes that relying on stare decisis would have been a good argument for continuing separate but equal, but they do act here as if all the sudden, stare decisis is as immutable as the law of gravity.

#2 Corporations will now poor billions into campaigns, distorting politics, and overall damage our way of life.

To begin with, this basic idea has so many non-proven assumptions built in, it can be easily dismissed with logic alone.  The theory has to hold these things to be true:

a)  Corporations will automatically jump into advocacy of political ideas through spending.

This fails because as we all know, you don’t talk about politics in polite company.  Businesses are not stupid enough to advocate for candidate X, when they know 50% of the country is for candidate Y.  There is simply not enough pay off they can get from candidate X that would suffice for the loss of revenue for those supporters of candidate Y.

b)  Even if corporations do spend millions to influence elections…

It does not follow that corporate money would somehow be more nefarious than individually spent.  Is it not possible that a corporation’s political interest might also be the interest of the people?

It also does not follow that this money would automatically influence any specific election.  This assumes  a sizable  percentage of people, enough to effect the outcome of a vote, can be swayed by ads to vote against their own self interests.

It might be unwitting or without malice, but the thought that you’ll be ok, but the masses will be swayed into some corporate slavery is insulting and arrogant.

But that’s just me – what say Justice Kennedy?

…The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate. See Buckley, supra, at 46. The fact that a corporation, or any other speaker, is willing to spend money to try to persuade voters presupposes that the people have the ultimate influence over elected officials. This is inconsistent with any suggestion that the electorate will refuse “‘to take part in democratic governance’” because of additional political speech made by a corporation or any other speaker. McConnell, supra, at 144 (quoting Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U. S. 377, 390 (2000))….

…The McConnell record was “over 100,000 pages” long, McConnell I, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 209, yet it “does not have any direct examples of votes being exchanged for . . . expenditures,” id., at 560 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.). This confirms Buckley’s reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate.  Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption….

Furthermore, Congress can’t fix a supposed problem by removing rights:

…When Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy. If elected officials succumb to improper influences from independent expenditures; if they surrender their best judgment; and if they put expediency before principle, then surely there is cause for concern. We must give weight to attempts by Congress to seek to dispel either the appearance or the reality of these influences. The remedies enacted by law, however, must comply with the First Amendment; and, it is our law and our tradition that more speech, not less, is the governing rule. An outright ban on corporate political speech during the critical preelection period is not a permissible remedy. Here Congress has created categorical bans on speech that are asymmetrical to preventing quid pro quo corruption….

#3 Corporations are not humans and therefore are not afforded rights.

This fails the basic test with the rest of the bill of rights, as while it’s true that a corporation is nothing more than a legal entity and not a human, removing a corporations’ rights results in real human damage.

For instance, because corporations are not human and therefore don’t have rights, then it would follow corporations also don’t have rights to a speedy trial or protection from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

I’m not positive, but I don’t believe these opponents honestly want the government to be able to seize financial records or phone records simply because they belong to a corporation which has no rights.

& lastly #4 Shareholder money should not be spent on political campaigns for which shareholders’ disagree.

This is actually an idea that I’m semi-sympathetic to… as a libertarian, ethical capitalism standards as spelled out by Milton Friedman, and even in a legal sense, I believe that corporate profits of public companies should either be reinvested into the business or paid out to the owners or shareholders.

But I can also view reality for what it is and notice the obvious:  corporations are routinely spending a portion of their profits on their pet charities, often at the behest of liberal groups proclaiming loudly that corporations have a responsibility for being good social citizens.  I’m not sure why PETA should be able to get corporate dollars, but a specific candidate…. but here we are.

Having said that, so long as shareholders aren’t being forced to buy stock and so long as they are able to freely sell when they want, then forced to invest in political speech with which they disagree, is an abuse of the word force.

Additionally, the same logic which holds true with consumers holds true with investors.  If a corporation went out of their way to play into specific political campaigns, investors just as consumers, can look elsewhere.

Justice Kennedy?

…The Government contends further that corporate independent expenditures can be limited because of its interest in protecting dissenting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate political speech. This asserted interest, like Austin’s antidistortion rationale, would allow the Government to ban the political speech even of media corporations. See supra, at 35–37. Assume, for example, that a shareholder of a corporation that owns a newspaper disagrees with the political views the newspaper expresses. See Austin, 494 U. S., at 687 (SCALIA, J., dissenting). Under the Government’s view, that potential disagreement could give the Government the authority to restrict the media corporation’s political speech. The First Amendment does not allow that power. There is, furthermore, little evidence of abuse that cannot be corrected by shareholders “through the procedures of corporate democracy.” Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 794; see id., at 794, n. 34….

Going further, he points out how the law doesn’t fix what they claim to disagree with here:

…Those reasons are sufficient to reject this shareholder protection interest; and, moreover, the statute is both underinclusive and overinclusive. As to the first, if Congress had been seeking to protect dissenting shareholders, it would not have banned corporate speech in only certain media within 30 or 60 days before an election. A dissenting shareholder’s interests would be implicated by speech in any media at any time. As to the second, the statute is overinclusive because it covers all corporations, including nonprofit corporations and for-profit corporations with only single shareholders. As to other corporations, the remedy is not to restrict speech but to consider and explore other regulatory mechanisms. The regulatory mechanism here, based on speech, contravenes the First Amendment….

In fact is appears as if all opposition to this decision is based upon a fear that by allowing normal people to be subjected to political speech paid for by corporations, freedom as we know it is ending.

Just like religious fundamentalists who want to ban books because the mere availability of fictional smut can lead to the downfall of man, without a hint of irony these people demonstrate their religious-type devotion to the exact same thought:  you are neither  strong nor smart enough to handle a free and unfettered marketplace of ideas.

Justice Kennedy concludes:

…Speech would be suppressed in the realm where its necessity is most evident: in the public dialogue preceding a real election. Governments are often hostile to speech, but under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than fiction for our Government to make thi political speech a crime. Yet this is the statute’s purpose and design.

Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amendment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression of ideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.” McConnell, supra, at 341…

Read entire opinion here.

It’s almost embarrassingly easy to pinpoint the talking points or narratives that will prevail with any story, but if fish in a barrel don’t want to be shot… they should get out of the barrel.

Starting sometime last week, you could see the narratives shaping up in anticipation of a Brown victory based upon the trends of the poll data.  On January 9th, people still believe in Coakley (here):

…Buoyed by a huge advantage with independents and relative disinterest from Democratic voters in the state, Republican Scott Brown leads Martha Coakley 48-47….

…All that said Coakley can certainly still win this race, perhaps even by a comfortable margin….

Indeed, Real Clear Politics shows polling from various sources starting in September (here), showing a 30+ lead for Coakely being worn down to a tie in early January, then to a 9+ lead leading into the election.

However, the expected Brown win, was still an upset.  Both the fact that MA is a Democratic state that Barak won by 28 points and the fact the vacant seat was a Democratic torch bearer who is recently deceased… any way you wish to view this, it is a failure on the part of the Democratic party to have lost.

The narratives of course focus on “who” to blame – for the Republicans, this is sure sign that Barak’s agenda is being pushed to the side by the American people (here):

…Seeing President Barack Obama reverse course and make a last minute/last ditch effort to save the Coakley campaign brings back memories of November, when Obama put his prestige and political capital on the line in an unsuccessful attempt to save the gubernatorial campaigns of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Virginia’s Creigh Deeds.

Combined, those two elections were a stinging rebuke of the Obama Agenda–higher taxes, government control of health care and out of control spending….

While for the Democrats, Barak isn’t hurt in the least by the pathetic showing from Coakley (here):

…The usual blame Obama faction in this community were quick to criticize the President for being the reason Martha Coakley lost her bid to replace Ted Kennedy in his long held Senate seat….

…If anything, the media spin had a lot more to do with the ascendency of Scott Brown than anything Barack Obama or Democrats had done….

Even going so far as to blame the media:

…The first year of the Obama Presidency has been a year of spin.  He has been scrutinized more than any other President in history. In some respect, this extreme coverage has created an anxiety about this President that, at times, has verged upon negative fanaticism, where daily hurdles are created and expectations have become increasingly unrealistic. For some on the fringe, Obama seems to have become the cause of all that ills America….

As usual, the truth is somewhere in the muddled middle… though I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out the faulty logic associated with the Daily Kos (I know, I know… fish in a barrel…).  The idea that the media pushed a fringe blame Obama group to result in 52% of the population voting for Brown is almost too stupid to analyze.

On the other hand of course, the idea that this was a direct and total Obama failure is less certain than it appears as well.  Even the President has his thoughts about a “mood” (here):

…The president suggested the same forces that elected Brown “swept me into office” in 2008. People are frustrated “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”…

With more to come:

…White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters at his daily briefing, “That anger is now pointed at us because we’re in charge. And rightly so.”

Gibbs said Obama would address the Massachusetts results “and what they mean” in his State of the Union address next Wednesday….

Odd that the President plans to use the State of the Union speech to discuss one senate race in MA, but I digress.

The truth is, given the numbers, the percentage of independent voters who voted for Brown, the state, the Senate seat itself, basic voter demographic information… this is surely a failure which can be place @ the President’s door.

However… this doesn’t mean that Brown’s election is necessarily a referendum to oppose health care reform or a mandate to filibuster everything.   All politics is local is still true for the most part in that anybody other than a Democrat was not guaranteed a victory based solely on Obama’s agenda.

In fact, I think the President is correct when he “suggested” the country is just angry… not only at the current administration, but also the last 8 years.  Unwittingly he might have pinpointed the main issue people are having trouble dealing with, and that’s the continuous growth of government regardless of the idiot in charge.

So just like the ‘08 election which swept Obama to office on the anger of Bush – it wasn’t a mandate for Obama’s policies so much as a punishment for Republicans, though a lesser politician would have still lost to McCain… just as a crappy GOP candidate would’ve likely lost to Coakley, even with a high level of anger towards the current administration.

& last but not least, let’s not forget that since 1862, there have been 36 midterm elections held during the first or second terms of an administration. In 33 of those 36 elections, the opposition party gained seats in the House.

All in all, it’s really no consequence to most of us as to “why” this or that person was elected in a state/district in which you don’t vote.   Your vote should be based upon your preferences and your candidates & hopefully the person you want to win does (assuming that person is pro-individual freedom of course, I’ll join in on your wish).

All the rest of this crap is just a narrative… IE – the standard tit-for-tat spin-game politicians play with the media as willing participants.

To me, and indeed historically, that a fear society & freed society are mutually exclusive.

& like all consistent lessons from history, we haven’t seemed to have learned this lesson and seem to be determined to repeat it.

Towards that end, the Wall Street Journal online published two articles on Friday, under the shared title, Undressing the Terror Threat. The first article by Paul Campos & Nate Silver explains correctly:

…The world’s greatest nation seems bent on subjecting itself to a similarly humiliating defeat, by playing a game that could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts as long as there are terrorists who want to harm Americans; and

(2) If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any of us, they win.

These rules help explain the otherwise inexplicable wave of hysteria that has swept over our government in the wake of the failed attempt by a rather pathetic aspiring terrorist to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. For two weeks now, this mildly troubling but essentially minor incident has dominated headlines and airwaves, and sent politicians from the president on down scurrying to outdo each other with statements that such incidents are “unacceptable,” and that all sorts of new and better procedures will be implemented to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

Meanwhile, millions of travelers are being subjected to increasingly pointless and invasive searches and the resultant delays, such as the one that practically shut down Newark Liberty International Airport last week, after a man accidentally walked through the wrong gate, or Tuesday’s incident at a California airport, which closed for hours after a “potentially explosive substance” was found in a traveler’s luggage. (It turned out to be honey.)…

The authors make a very good point here, though I do object to the term “rather pathetic aspiring terrorist”… as I saw on a blog somewhere in retort “What you really need are suicide bombers with experience!”.

Beyond that, they then try to take some statistics too far.  Using murder & suicide rates to show how are fears aren’t lined up with a real assessment of risks, they write:

…The country’s homicide rate is approximately six times higher than that of most other developed nations; we have 15,000 more murders per year than we would if the rate were comparable to that of otherwise similar countries. Americans own around 200 million firearms, which is to say there are nearly as many privately owned guns as there are adults in the country. In addition, there are about 200,000 convicted murderers walking free in America today (there have been more than 600,000 murders in America over the past 30 years, and the average time served for the crime is about 12 years)….

Taking those numbers, they conclude that which doesn’t follow:

…Given these statistics, there is little doubt that banning private gun ownership and making life without parole mandatory for anyone convicted of murder would reduce the homicide rate in America significantly….

& Even though they aren’t advocating such a policy, they basically state that the number of guns in private hands necessarily affects either homicide or suicide rates.

I think this ignores the historical evidence that governments typically ban weapons prior to mass murdering their own citizens, but it also isn’t proven by the numbers they give.  Because regardless of how people kill themselves or others, removing the primary instrument doesn’t necessarily means those actions will halt.  Lastly of course, even that assumes the government has the ability to remove the primary instrument in question, which is highly unlikely.

Either way, overall they use the example that is hysteria over terrorism to show parallels to the war on drugs, traffic accidents, and other risks to conclude:

…What then is to be done? A little intelligence and a few drops of courage remind us that life is full of risk, and that of all the risks we confront in America every day, terrorism is a very minor one. Taking prudent steps to reasonably minimize the tiny threat we face from a few fanatic criminals need not grant them the attention they crave….

The thing is that I agree with the authors’ basic premise, or what seems to be their basic premise, that fear based policies are wrong, even though I disagree with the facts they’ve lined up and think that using terrorism as too narrow an example has severely undermined their case.

First, while it’s certainly true that the gap between objective terrorism threats and hysterical policies seems large, there are valid reasons for that.  They discuss one, which is we need to focus money on preventing mass catastrophes such as a nuclear detonation, but they fail to mention the organizations themselves and how they differ from murder in general.

It’s true, that in any free society, a lone nut, bent on killing others, will have the opportunity to do so and there’s little we can do, while maintaining a free society to prevent that from happening.

However, were terrorism and even gangs, the mob, and other criminal organizations differ is that we have to attack those organizations directly.  Dealing with each instance of terrorism as non-related criminal events is exactly what allows their organizations to gain grounds on operational abilities.  Ignoring the organization therefore, seems to dictate a increase in the likelihood of a major incident.

Outside these specific critiques however, I think our society has become very easily motivated by fears instead of reason and logic.  When we allow victims of drunk driving incidents dictate the driving laws, or say a murdered victim’s family members to seek emotional healing through a policy of revenge, or use those in the most destitute of scenarios to control medical policy… whatever it is, if  we allow fear to take a hold of our government policy, new legislation, or even on a personal level, allowing fear to control our own lives… if we allow this, we should at least be doing so with the knowledge that it’s not conducive to freedom.

Detailed Abstractions has more articles about fear based policies here, here, & here.