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.

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.

Showing that only civilized intellectuals are needed to really screw things up, food pantries in New York are actively throwing away food donations:

When a small church comes to the Bowery Mission bearing fried chicken with trans fat, unwittingly breaking the law, they’re told “thank you.” Then workers quietly chuck the food, mission director Tom Bastile said….

Some in good conscience are ignoring the law, but they know it applies to them:

…The city’s law banishing trans fat took effect in July 2008 and touched everyone with Health Department food licenses — including emergency food providers….

The whole irritatingly stupid, but so not surprising thing here.

That giant economic think-tank known as Google just announced their 3Q numbers.  Not only were the results good, but they had wonder news for all those worrying:  the recession has bottomed out:

SAN FRANCISCO, California — Google on Thursday declared the worst of the recession over and paved the way for a return to heavy spending on expansion as it reported a surprisingly strong 8 per cent jump in net revenues in its latest quarter….

Fear not friends – they aren’t basing this just on themselves, but all that economic data they have:

The optimism reflected what the company said was an across-the-board recovery in online advertising, with even the struggling financial services sector showing a return to growth….

Apparently though, Google forgot to tell Bank of America about its wonderful news (BoA 3Q):

CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (Reuters) – Bank of America Corp posted a $1 billion third-quarter loss as consumer credit woes eclipsed investment banking earnings, underlining why the bank remains on a government respirator….

I’m sure they just missed that… wonder what a really big blue chip company might be doing?  GE?:

General Electric’s third-quarter results showed just how fragile the U.S. economy remains, as its troubled financial unit dragged down earnings 44 percent, despite gains in divisions that make wind turbines, household appliances and broadcast television shows….

Not only are GE, BoA, and the 9.8% unemployed unaware of this great news, but even Google insiders don’t seem to know.  Looking at the public record, Google Insiders Sales, shows recent transactions for all senior officers dropping approximately 5% of their current Google holdings just last month.

Call me a raving skeptic if you will, but I’m thinking that you need to evaluate your decision making skills if you take your economic news directly from Google press releases.

Don’t get me wrong here, they make a great product and innovate better than almost anyone.   They are and will continue to be a force in computing for sometime to come because of their agile nature combined with some of the best minds in the world.  & I remember webcrawler… wow things are sooooo much better.

Regardless of their product however, it seems their investments into economic modeling & research in respect to business cycles is limited to zero.  I would add that if you’re an investor, that’s a good thing.  Better to let them do what they do best.

Why the press release then?  The only ones who know are those who drafted the press release and those with editing decisions prior to its release.  Without any information directly from one or more of these people, then reasoning is simply impossible to prove.

We can however ask some questions to try to find the likely answer.

(To be fair) The first possibility is simple honesty & stupidity.  Someone might have intended the “recession worst over” as a marketing technique to further enhance their aim to be seen as a very smart company.  All without realizing that overly simplistic analysis, based mainly upon very recent stock market activity and their profits do not make for effective proof.  Really, it’s just another anecdote that Google’s employees share.

Another, far more concerning possibility is their politics and desire to wish to see the President do well.  For years they have given most of their political donations to one particular party.  In 2008, Democratic candidates received 5 times more money than their Republican counterparts from Google.  Their employees, including top executives, gave 10 times more money to Democrats the Republicans.

Additionally, their search site has self-imposed constraints for arbitrary reasons.  For instance, Google refuses to allow gun dealers to advertise.   As a little experiment, slip over there real quick and run a quick search on swords or strippers.  Take note of the small advertisements to the right side of your search results.  Now do the same for guns and see what ads show up… I’ll wait.

They state their policy is to not allow advertising of weapons, but I think swords should qualify.

That could be an outlier, so let’s move forward assuming their ban on gun adverts is a true policy against weapons in general.

Then why did they also restrict advertising by Pro-life groups until forced by a judge to change their policy:

After a legal conflict between Google and The Christian Institute, filed when one the of religious foundation’s ads were rejected from the Google Adwords system, Google has changed their religious advertising policy to allow pro-life advertising to appear along with their secular and pro-choice advertising…

They did change their policy, but only after being sued.  Even giving them some credit for reversing their decision, their originally stated policy reeks of political and personal opinions:

The decision changes the former Google policy which excluded any ad containing a combination of “abortion and religion-related content“…. [emphasis added mine]

Putting all of this together, it’s hard not to reach the conclusion that Google is using its outstanding press relations due to their history as a vibrant and smart company to help those with which they agree.

Which is completely and totally their right.  It’s their right to put their money where they wish, to make internal policies as they see fit, and to accept contracts for advertising from those they want for any reason they want.  None of this freedom for me, but not for thee crap.  Let them do as they will I say.

Just make sure your informed and know who you’re doing business with as well.

PS:  If you’re not doing anything on a Saturday night and there’s positively nothing on TV including uninteresting infomercials about idiots unable to use blankets, then you can check out some pretty heavy economic think tanks.  First and foremost, the recognized economic powerhouse, generally recognized as the institution who makes the call on things like, when is it a recession?  When did it start?  When did it end?

NBER, or the National Bureau of Economic Research, has long been the a standard bearer in economic research in all kinds of aspects of life ranging from health care to labor studies.  They are the largest non-profit economic research organization in the US and boasts about the great minds working there.  In fact, 16 of the 31 American winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, have been associates NBER, including one of my heroes: Milton Friedman.

PSS:  They could turn out to be right.  The luck of life sometimes means you can do the wrong thing and end with the correct result and vice versa – you can do the right thing and end with the wrong result.  Therefore, to correctly analyze thought patterns over time, any one result isn’t necessarily a deterministic factor.

In what has to be a of the sign of the coming apocalypse, Juan Williams is now defending Rush Limbaugh (video).

While debating Warren Ballentine on the O’Reilly Factor, Juan Williams defended Rush Limbaugh against the constant attacks since the public caught wind of his potential investment in the St. Louis Rams.

Apparently a combination of the celebrity culture that is today’s professional sports and the proclaimed self-righteousness of the NFL, their players’ union and professional race “leaders” can actually lead to a temporary peace deal between  Rush & Juan.

That’s only part of the story – the rest of the story should be the blatant hypocrisy of an organization which demonstrates regularly that it could care less about real criminal acts, much less controversial statements from within their ranks.

The easiest example for analyzing the league’s value system based upon their actions is Michael Vick.  Giving this guy a job after he was convicted of torturing animals to death for their unwillingness or inability to fight very well was a calculated decision about money.  But that’s really just the start of the NFL’s long tradition of tolerating and enabling criminals.

It seems we can’t go more than a couple weeks without a players getting arrested for drinking and driving.  For example, the St. Louis Rams are still allowing Leonard Little to play football, even after killing someone in a drunk driving incident which he followed up with another DWI (here) arrest.

Even more recently the Rams have shown a complete disregard for the community by their willingness to take a firm stand on behalf of players killing innocent citizens.  Ignoring their past problems, they thought it might be a good idea to bring on a new player with prior DUIs.

No worries to the citizens of St. Louis though, according to the Ram’s GM, he passed the “character” test during background investigations.   I’m sure the friends and family of the deceased are glad to know this player received the all important, “I looked into his eye and saw his character” test.

Of course it’s not just the Rams.  Let’s not forget Dante Stallworth recently entered into the “NFL players who  killed innocent people” club as well.

& as NFL traditions go, drinking and driving is just one of the time honored ones.  Another tradition  is using their strength to assault others.   Domestic violence seems to be the most popular  form of this tradition (here, here, & here), including the amazing amount of courage it takes to beat your babys’ momma with an aluminum mop handle while the kids watch (here).

As bad as all that is by itself, this information truly is a very small percentage of the NFL’s actions as it relates to criminal behavior within their ranks.   The endless stream of examples includes all types of crime including assaulting cops, assaulting security guards, shootings, drug rings, weapon’s charges,  probation violations, coaches assaulting other coaches, and even just plain ole indecent exposure – which in some cases can result in a being forced to register as  sex offender.  There are literally so many available examples of NFL players’ crimes, it’s challenging to pick and choose enough examples to be convincing, while ensuring this post doesn’t end up longer than the health care bill.

Indeed, so much information exists that at least one website is dedicated to tracking it (NFL Crimes News Blog).   A while back they even promised to take down their entire site if they could go 60 days without seeing an arrest posted on ProFootballTalk police blotter.  The closest they’ve gotten is 29 days.

The basic point?  For an organization with such a demonstrable history of ignoring and enabling real crime, their attempt to come off as self-righteous based on someone’s past comments is another perfect example of style over substance.  It would almost be amusing if it didn’t show how shallow our celebrity obsessed culture can be.

Standard Libertarian Disclaimer:  As a private business the NFL can pick and chose its investors at will.  I really don’t care all that much that the NFL pulled Rush’s bid nor would I ever want to take away their rights to do so.

Of course as a corollary to their freedom to chose their investors, we all have the freedom to point out the hypocrisy of such a decision.  When the NFL, the players, and the players’ union collectively run around throwing matches at people while they know full well they are standing in a house full of gun powder & explosives, they deserve nothing more than ridicule.

Without apparent concern about the percentage of people who loudly proclaim their dislike of the DMV and use it as an analogy for all that is wrong with the government… the Senate version of the health care bill includes a portion that would allow citizens the pleasure of getting health care insurance through the DMV (Townhall.com):

The most revelatory passage in the so-called “plain English” version of the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved on Tuesday (without ever drafting the actual legislative language) says that in the future Americans will be offered the convenience of getting their health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is no joke. If this bill becomes law, it will be the duty of the U.S. secretary of health and human services or the state governments overseeing federally mandated health-insurance exchanges to ensure that you can get your health insurance at the DMV.  You will also be able to get it at Social Security offices, hospitals, schools and “other offices” the government will name later. …

I guess a Social Security office makes a little sense and even perhaps schools as a temporary sign-up location, but it seems to me signing up at a hospital or school isn’t a good idea over the long run.  I think the idea is that we will all live in the beautiful world with top of the line health care we got when  dropping our children off at school…  If so, it seems that getting insurance at the hospital or waiting until my child goes to school would  be a little late…

Even assuming all three of those are brilliant ideas – did they really mean to include the DMV?

I have this sinking feeling politicians everywhere laughing at us.  Either that or we need a new term other than “out of touch” that connotes the gap between everyday individuals and our leaders is so large as to make the Grand Canyon seem tiny by comparison.

Do they honestly think adding health care insurance to the duties of the the normal DMV clerk will help them pass the bill?

Who knows though?  Maybe I’m completely off base and this is setup behind the scenes by some mysterious genius who brainwashed unwitting politicians. <begin dream sequence>

In fact, it’s not stupidity that created this language.  Not at all; in fact, it’s a creative attempt at a self destruct device for the bill as is.  Where exactly in the world is Hank Scorpio?  <end dream sequence>

Of course the latter would assume a complex network of contacts and some people with super powerful persuasion skills while the former only requires a belief in the group ignorance of our current set of politicians.

In experience and recent history is any guide, the safe bet is on idiocy.  All day, every day, and twice on Sunday.

Social Service Verification for Helen   Kelly

America’s Leader in Employment & Income Verification

UNOFFICIAL COPY    For Demonstration Purposes Only This information is provided as historical information and cannot be used to verify employment or income. The following information is provided in response to your request on: 10/15/2009 . The employer provided this information to The Work Number to act as their official agent for employment and income verification. Any inconsistency between the most recent start date and the total time with the employer is due to a prior work period. If you have questions, please call our Client Service Center at 1-800-996-7566 (Voice) / 1-800-424-0253 (TTY/Deaf).Information not provided by the employer is shown as “Data not provided.”

Where can I go? Print This Verification Back to previous page Get another verification Exit/Logout

Social Service Verification Employment and Income Information current as of: 09/15/2009 Reference Number for this verification: 22578611 EMPLOYER Employer: 11472 – Johns Hopkins University Headquarters Address: 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore , MD 21218 US Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN): 52-0595110 Division: 52-0595110 EMPLOYEE Employee: Helen  Kelly Social Security Number: XXX-XX-0652 Address: 307 S Cornwall St Baltimore , MD 21224 US Employee Phone Number: Data not provided Date of Birth: Data not provided EMPLOYMENT Employment Status: Active Most Recent Start Date: 02/15/1999 Original Hire Date: 02/15/1999 Reason for Termination: Data not provided Total Time with Employer: Data not provided Job Title: Administrative Program Coordinator Union Affiliation: Data not provided Work Location (Job Site): Data not provided MEDICAL INSURANCE Medical Insurance Available: Data not provided Employee Eligible: Data not provided Reason for Ineligibility: Data not provided Employee Enrolled: Data not provided Eligibility Date: Data not provided Next Open Enrollment Date: Data not provided Coverage Start Date: Data not provided Coverage Termination Date: Data not provided Medical Carrier Name: Data not provided Medical Carrier Address: Data not provided Medical Carrier Phone Number: Data not provided Medical Insurance Policy Number: Data not provided Medical Insurance Group Number: Data not provided Coverage Level: Data not provided Annual Cost for Medical Insurance: Data not provided Dependent Coverage Available: Data not provided Per Pay Period Cost to Add Dependent: Data not provided Number of Dependents Covered: Data not provided Dependents SSN Birth Date Data not provided Participating in Medical COBRA: Data not provided DENTAL INSURANCE Dental Insurance Available: Data not provided Employee Eligible: Data not provided Employee Enrolled: Data not provided Dental Carrier Name: Data not provided Dental Carrier Phone Number: Data not provided Dental Insurance Policy Number: Data not provided VISION INSURANCE Vision Insurance Available: Data not provided Employee Eligible: Data not provided Employee Enrolled: Data not provided Vision Carrier Name: Data not provided Vision Carrier Phone Number: Data not provided Vision Insurance Policy Number: Data not provided WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Receiving Workers’ Compensation: Data not provided Carrier: Data not provided Date of Injury: Data not provided Date of Award: Data not provided Claim Number: Data not provided Claim Pending: Data not provided INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS Average Hours per Pay Period: 81 Rate of Pay: $2,237.25 / Semi-monthly Pay Cycle: Semi Monthly 2009 2008 2007 Total Gross: $37,989.39 $51,359.92 $48,890.04 Payroll Deduction for All Insurance Coverage: Data not provided PAY PERIOD DETAIL   9/15/2009 Income Withholding Total Gross Earnings $2,274.75 Pension Data not provided Other Income Data not provided Federal Tax $152.13 State Tax $52.03 Local Taxes $34.81 Social Security $141.03 Medicare $32.99 Retirement/401k $916.66 Cafeteria Plan $0.00 Garnishments $0.00 Other Withholding $0.00 HISTORICAL PAY PERIOD SUMMARY Pay Period End Date Pay Date Hours Worked Gross Earnings Net 09/15/2009 09/15/2009 $2,274.75 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 $2,274.75 08/15/2009 08/14/2009 $2,274.75 07/31/2009 07/31/2009 $2,274.75 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 $2,274.75 06/30/2009 06/30/2009 $2,274.75 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 $2,445.09 05/31/2009 05/29/2009 $2,189.58 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 $2,189.58 04/30/2009 04/30/2009 $2,189.58 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 $2,189.58 03/31/2009 03/31/2009 $2,189.58 03/15/2009 03/13/2009 $2,189.58 02/28/2009 02/27/2009 $2,189.58 02/15/2009 02/13/2009 $2,189.58 01/31/2009 01/30/2009 $2,189.58 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 $2,189.58 12/31/2008 12/30/2008 $2,189.58 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 $2,189.58 11/30/2008 11/26/2008 $2,189.58 11/15/2008 11/14/2008 $2,189.58 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 $2,189.58 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 $2,189.58 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 $2,189.58 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 $2,189.58 08/31/2008 08/29/2008 $2,189.58 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 $2,189.58 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 $2,189.58 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 $2,189.58 06/30/2008 06/30/2008 $2,189.58 06/15/2008 06/13/2008 $2,487.08 05/31/2008 05/30/2008 $2,040.83 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 $2,040.83 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 $2,040.83 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 $2,040.83 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 $2,040.83 03/15/2008 03/14/2008 $2,040.83 02/29/2008 02/29/2008 $2,040.83 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 $2,040.83 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 $2,040.83 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 $2,040.83 12/31/2007 12/28/2007 $2,040.83 12/15/2007 12/14/2007 $2,040.83 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 $2,040.83 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 $2,040.83 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 $2,040.83 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 $2,040.83 09/30/2007 09/28/2007 $2,040.83 09/15/2007 09/14/2007 $2,070.79 08/31/2007 08/31/2007 $2,033.34 08/15/2007 08/15/2007 $2,033.34 07/31/2007 07/31/2007 $2,033.34 07/15/2007 07/13/2007 $2,033.34 06/30/2007 06/29/2007 $2,033.34 06/15/2007 06/15/2007 $2,033.34 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 $2,033.34 05/15/2007 05/15/2007 $2,033.34 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 $2,033.34 04/15/2007 04/13/2007 $2,033.34 03/31/2007 03/30/2007 $2,033.34 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 $2,033.34 02/28/2007 02/28/2007 $2,033.34 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 $2,033.34 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 $2,033.34 01/15/2007 01/12/2007 $2,033.34

Over time I’ve come to the conclusion that where news entities fail miserably is in their analysis with international politics.  Most pundits, writers, journalists, etc, seem to be able to semi-grasp domestic policies, albeit still in the usual, overly simplistic, fits-to-the-narrative type of way, but lose all rationality with respect to international affairs.

Interestingly enough, I think their failures in both domestic & international analysis stem from the same basic cause, oversimplification.  But it would seem that the degree to which it effects each type of analysis differs due to the lack of incentives private interests have in resolving inaccurate reports on international issues.

Thinking about the counter thought to international policy, domestic policy, we see incentives existing to resolve press inaccuracies.  For instance, if the press pushes inaccurate opinions and analysis which oversimplifies a given topic, a special interest group or two, plus at least one political party, and finally non-profits everywhere will try to enlighten by showing the fallacy of the common narrative.

This is because people rightfully see domestic issues as more directly impacting their lives.  The corollary is that our politicians, our leaders, our special interests, and our non-profits tend to focus where we as a society focus.

The problem that can stem from this seems intuitive – inaccurate press on international issues should be held as highly suspect, but get printed without much serious disagreement.   Since very little counters popular wisdom, this gives the press a power to change opinions and as well as spread myths.

This leads to all kinds of odd conclusions, with large swaths of people all over the planet prone to believe in things without substantial proof nor any degree of rational logic.

For instance believing that western countries are somehow to blame for poor countries with constant internal strife and corrupt governments which inefficiencies and lack of resources.  Or said another way, people all over believe in a zero sum game.  This is true not only in the international sense, but also when dealing with immigration and free trade issues.

Mistaken assumptions such as zero-sum games also lead to beliefs about what one thinks a President can actually do, versus what reality tends to dictate what will actually be done.  This leads to politicians making believable, yet highly impossible claims about given international situations.  This has been done to all recent Presidents, including President Obama when pulling a missile defense shield out of Poland & Czechoslovakia was made to appear as a rash decision amounting to abandoning our allies, when in fact it wasn’t a bad decision when concluding what options were open and what were the greatest threats to our security and security in the region (wrote about it here, though Mr. Obama went and said it had nothing to do with Russia… which was just amazing… wrote about that here).

It leads to pundits everywhere snidely remarking how this action wasn’t “tough” or that action was going to anger others because it was “unilateral”.  With little recourse, journalists  print all sorts of things without taking into any account the actual framework through which any given action action was taken, under what circumstances, with what available options, or really they just leave out anything resembling actual analysis.

Unfortunately, it seems no organization is immune.  A recent piece published in the Economist titled  Even greater expectations discussing the idiotic Nobel Prize Committee decision, is a far cry from the analysis for which the Economist is known.

They rightfully begin with the question the world was asking, “Is it premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year into his presidency?”, but delve quickly into non-international events dressed up to seem as if change had already happened:

…Most broadly, he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too, Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer engagement.

Regarding Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia…

Continuing with this as reasoning:

…Yet Mr Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently possible.

Similarly, American policy towards small and repressive regimes, ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments demonstrate progress towards democracy…

Which to date has not only done absolutely nothing to help international cooperation, but has made our interests tougher to protect.  In nearly every UN Conference on whatever, for instance the G-20 dealing with the economic crisis, the US asks for a lot of cooperation and everyone goes their separate ways.

In some ways this is to be completely understood.  American solutions for economic issues will differ from that of Germany or the UK.  Even though the same basic problem afflicts most countries during the global recession,  their banking industries are setup with much different regulations, making the solutions for one country not necessarily compare to another country.  The separate policies might even be attempting the exact same “type” of solution, for instance increasing capital requirements, but under different systems any one specific solutions will affect different countries differently.

When it comes to reaching our hand out to those regimes, we see that North Korea, Russia, and Iran have been openly hostile to any US intents.  Iran’s deadline of October the 1st to fess up or face sanctions has come and gone, even while it was precipitated by Iran admitting to an additional enrichment facility.

And all this, including that all important warming of US-Russian relations, Russia has stated publicly the will continue to trade with Iran, meaning they will back them, if the UN, lead by the US impose stricter sanctions against Iran.

Now these situations are fluid to some extent, especially between cautious friends such as US-Russia and most of the controversial moves taken by Iran & North Korea would likely have happened to test any new US President’s resolve.

The issue is that by glossing over the realities we end up believing in myths.  Think about all that talk about “unilateral” action as if it’s a huge negative due to the controversy surrounding the last semi-unilateral decision to be made, without understanding that this is exactly as we should expect it.

No country should do something the US requests if they know in the end the analysis states otherwise.  On the international stage, Europeans, Cechs, Persians, Africians, indeed every person deserves the same representation we deserve – for their representatives to look out for their interests.

Now this can and does lead to all kinds of international policies from all different governments that appear wrong or unseemly when in truth it’s a playing field for which no one actor controls the rules which leads to countries making decisions that seem antithetical to their stated morals or goals.

It also allows one country to look at another as particularly egregious, regardless of their country’s current international policies.   It should be obvious that while beating up on your own politicians on domestic policy makes sense, doing so on the international stage is just beating yourself up.  Even if well-deserved, it’s easier to beat up on other country’s policies than it is to self reflect.

In some ways, national feeling probably affects this as well.  When most countries populations have enough information to dislike a number of other countries, going against that grain can be seen as being unpatriotic.  You certainly wouldn’t see a major political figure like Tony Blair coming to the US to air Britain’s dirty laundry or Putin to do the same in the US against Russia.

It also allows for journalists to paint country X with any brush they choose.  This helps some countries as the press will like some allies, but can obviously hurts or diminish countries for which popular sentiment doesn’t exist.

In the end, what it does is allow for a type of international superiority by enhancing nationalistic feelings.  When only reviewing other countries’ by hand picking policies, self-selecting cultural attributes, last recent controversy, crazy politicians, one can get the opinion of their general greatness over all those “other” people.

Lastly, and in my opinion, the most unfortunate consequence of this misinformation, is our inability to actually analyze international issues.  In between these simplistic news stories real trade-offs on the international stage are being made and constantly simplified.  From a high-level view the policy might appear to be utterly wrong, but in reality  might not be so.  It might simply be the least bad of all the bad options.  & it might really be the policy itself which is wrong.

For real analysis however, historical context, actions taken versus realistic options available, trends, and a number of other data points are required.  Without honest sourced information cost/benefit analysis simply isn’t possible.

Over at the Huffington Post, Keli Goff wrote an interesting, yet disturbingly short sighted piece about particular health care costs which exist in large part due to personal private choices.

She begins the piece titled Mad at Greedy Insurers for This Health Care Mess? Then Why Aren’t You Mad at Your Greedy Neighbors discussing the government’s bail out of private businesses:

Raise your hand if you are still filled with anger when you hear the name AIG and picture the more than $100 million of your tax dollars that were delegated–without your consent–for employee bonuses there.

Now raise your hand if you were angry when you learned that Citigroup (which has received so much bailout money that American taxpayers have been dubbed “its major stockholder”) was planning to spend $50 million of your money on a luxury jet….

Even though the numbers she sights are a far cry from the actual tax dollars given to private business, she uses the anger over the bail outs to compare with the lack of anger of health care costs related to personal choice:

…There is something inherently distasteful about being expected to foot the tax bill for someone else’s personal choices–particularly bad ones–and not being given any choice of your own in the matter. Which is why I am so surprised that there has been so little anger expressed by leaders on either side of the health care debate when it comes to the issue of personal choice and responsibility in health care…

…According to the Centers for Disease Control, “obesity costs our nation as much as $147 billion per year in direct health care costs and lost productivity.” And according to the nation’s oldest anti-smoking organization smoking costs taxpayers a whopping $300 billion dollars annually, or 1,000 times the amount of the AIG bonuses….

Utilizing this ratio of anger levels contrasted with actual dollars, she follows through by discussing the trait both costs have in common, personal responsibility:

…Some health care reform advocates will argue these costs would be lower if there were government subsidized health care, but my question is why should the government, specifically taxpayers, subsidize health care costs for conditions that are not only preventable but essentially chosen by the patient? With all of the anger surrounding the health care debate, at town halls, in the House and Senate, where is the anger about personal responsibility?…

Like many before her, she perfectly frames the clear distinction between individual actions which don’t harm others and societal responsibility.  She uses our innate disgust of having to foot the bill for the negative consequences of others and sees the fundamental issue of both problems.

If only she had stopped there.  If only she understood clearly that when I hurt myself, I should be the only one liable for the resolution, we’d be in total agreement.  Instead, she illogically assumes that individual responsibility is shared among all citizens:

…To be clear, personal responsibility is not only up to consumers.  Mayor Bloomberg’s success in curbing smoking in New York is due to a multi-pronged strategy of aggressively fining bars and restaurants that allow patrons to flout the anti-smoking ban and raising the cost of cigarettes, in essence targeting the dealer as much as the addict….

Not only is responsibility shared in her view, but government force is also the solution.  Therefore since targeting these “bad smoking” behaviors has coincided with a decrease in the number of smokers , why not continue these policies to control other “bad” behaviors?

…A similar strategy should be undertaken federally against fatty foods and drinks (including many of the ones I love).  But as long as groups like the AFL-CIO oppose efforts to hold Americans financially accountable for their personal health choices, so that the system can afford to treat those who do not choose to be sick…

Thinking more critically though, this turns out to be very short sighted thinking devoid of any historical context and antithetical to fundamental human behavior.  Indeed, I think most people agree with her that when people make bad decisions that affect only themselves, they should be solely responsible for the consequences.

Where she fails is in properly analyzing government as the solution.  If one fully analyzes her solution, the lack of follow through in her thinking becomes easily spotted.

First, we know that human behaviors are heavily influenced by incentives.  It’s natural and obvious; we do things that benefit us.  For those willing to see reality for what it is, examples are all around us.  We can see it in the use of commission programs for corporate sales force.  We see it in TV commercials and marketing campaigns.  We even see it in the tax code.   Through denial or lack of contemplation though, some fail to see that this same fundamental human behavior also affects our decisions as they relate to health care.

In fact, one of the reasons for rising health care costs and bad personal choices is individual consumers have been moved further and further away from the actual cost.   In the US, part of rise in health care costs can be attributed to  government incentives which pushed health care plans away from individuals and towards employers.  For the same reason, others countries with socialized medicine also see rapidly rising costs of health care.

Second, we also know that historically, when governments are given the power continue to assume more and more control over individual lives, it ends in tyranny.  As we allow government to assume more responsibility for individual actions, we necessitate their ability to control those actions.

Assuming we still believe in a free society, one of the prices we pay is having the responsibility for the negative consequences brought about by our choices.

For instance, if you smoke – society doesn’t owe you CHEMO.  If I you eat 30K calories a day – society doesn’t owe you gastric bypass surgery.  If you drink a bottle of whiskey a day – society doesn’t owe you a liver.

However, by not of following the logic of her solutions and ignoring historical contexts, she can safely and happily assume government control is the answer:

…So the next time you are reminded of how angry you are at AIG or any other institution that was “bailed out” with your money, just remember that AIG may have mugged you once, but McDonald’s and your neighbor keeping them in business (and whoever invented the doughnut, bacon cheeseburger), will be sucking your wallet dry for decades to come….

Which only leaves us in the end with nothing more than a false dichotomy as if we only have two choices:  either we pay for it or we control it.

Really, due to faulty logic, she has unwittingly made a very cogent argument against government provided health care.  IE – we don’t need to control that behavior if we are not paying for it.

But I don’t know if she understands that by continuing to promote societal responsibility for individual choices, she is also logically promoting less freedom and more government intrusion.  I don’t know if she even believes in the value and morality of freedom.  I also don’t know that she doesn’t fully understands all of this, but due to value differences only, still believes government control to be the answer to health care problems.  And I really don’t know which is worse – being wrong based upon ignorance or understanding the full ramifications of increased government control, but not caring.

The truly concerning part should be that it doesn’t matter which is worse as the results are always the same.   For as long as we have enough people with these types of beliefs, we will continue to lose more and more individual freedoms.

As Hayek stated:

“We must show that liberty is not merely one particular value but that it is the source and condition of most moral values. What a free society offers to the individual is much more than what he would be able to do if only he were free.”