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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Racism is not a factor driving conservative opposition to President Barack Obama, according to the results of focus groups conducted by Democracy Corps, a Democratic organization, released on Friday….

It’s amazing they had to study that specifically as if studying the fact thirsty humans like water, but it’s a very good thing it was done and publicly reported.

Of course are this  is a political focus group, they continue:

…Nevertheless, members of the conservative base of the GOP said they believe the president is pursuing a “secret agenda” designed to push the country toward socialism.

“This is a pretty dominant view in the Republican Party,” said Democratic strategist James Carville, who worked on the report.

Rather than attributing their dislike of Obama to race, participants in the focus groups, which were a project of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said that their disaffection was borne out of a sense that the president was orchestrating an effort to steer the country away from its “founding principles.”…

Notice how they seemingly conflate “socialism” with moving away from “founding principles”, but overall they are stating what most knew – the opposition is honestly and truly focused on ideas.

But it can’t stop there.  It goes on to say things like the GOP wants Mr. Obama to fail, which differs from Independents in that the GOP seems to have an ethical imperative to prevent the move away from the founding principles.   Because of this, the report states:

…“On virtually every point of discussion around President Obama and the major issues facing our country, these two audiences simply saw the world in fundamentally different ways — underscoring the extreme disconnect of the conservative Republican base voters,” the report’s authors wrote….

The idea there is an extreme disconnect is an interesting conclusion, but it’s not presented by any facts in the report. This doesn’t mean this conclusion is false, but from the data they are allowing us to see, it doesn’t prove it true.  In fact, over 1/2 the country is against the current health care reforms being pushed by the White House which seems to contradict their conclusion on at least one topic.

Additionally the comparison they are using between GOP voters and Independents seems week.  Not only do I need to understand more about the the specifics in relationship to answers & questions to properly analyze, but also need to understand what they define as “Independent” as self-described Independent voters aren’t a monolithic organization which can be easily used to make an easy comparison.

Not only that, but my understanding from political insiders, there aren’t near as many independent voters as there are people who tell us they are independent.  Most independents vote like everyone else.  They follow a pretty tight party line vote on their representatives because one party is closer to their beliefs than the other.   They might be more likely to switch, but they are almost as consistent as party members.

& honestly, being consistent shouldn’t be a true issue.  A true “independent” would seem to be a description of a wishy-washy kind of way of dealing with politics in general.  I’ll grant for those truly in this category, it’s much easier to watch the winds blow and point yourself in that appropriate direction than to honestly question the philosophical underpinnings of any administration or policy and stick to your beliefs, but it shouldn’t be held up as some standard of centric thought.

When talking to some of these people one gets the idea that they are simply conflict avoidant.  That some have a strange belief that having a specific philosophy only ends with a close-minded person incapable of compromise.

It’s the opposite though – having a philosophy doesn’t mean you have to be dogmatic in every single thing.  It does mean you have to work for logically consistent beliefs which agree with your values.  It also means, that if new facts are shown to prove one of your beliefs incorrect, you have to honestly rethink that position. & most importantly it means, you hold not only your opposition to those standards, but also your leaders.

With our society today however, it’s seems many of us are more comfortable simply saying “I’m for X and against Y, regardless of inconsistencies” than they are in doing the work required to build a true foundation of beliefs from which to work from.

What they miss, is that they have a philosophy by their very actions.  Observers will view others’ actions & decisions over time and can make true statements as to their basic set of beliefs, consistent or not.

The question therefore isn’t, what philosophy will I have, but will that philosophy be contained within a consistent framework based upon my values and views on morality, or will that philosophy only be based upon prevailing thoughts?

But I digress – there is still great news in the report.  The fact the Democratic leadership is learning what most of us already understood can only help current public debates.

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.

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.

Questions for the unions:  Is it time to cut back?  Become more lean?  Follow the rest of private industry and cut back as revenue growth loses momentum?

Union’s answer:  Surely ye jest!  We’re the union & the time is ripe for a pay raise!

That’s correct.  As the entire state population spends less money to try to tread water in these tight times, the unions apparently believe they are in prime position to negotiate:

…The union has proposed a 6 percent annual pay raise for the next three years and a “fair share” fee for nonunion members who are covered by union-negotiated contracts. The negations are over a contract for patient care support workers that expired in June and one for craft and maintenance employees that expired in December.

But wait!  Ask them nicely and they’ll tell you that they only have the best of intentions:

Curt Ostrander, the union’s chief negotiator, told The Associated Press that the union’s priority is protect state workers, address staff shortages and help people do their jobs better. He described discussions with the state thus far as “cooperative,” and said the two sides are trying to find ways to be more efficient to save money and solve problems.

“Our top priorities are to provide a contract that gives workers the necessary protection in order for them to perform their jobs in a safe, effective manner and to provide state services,” Ostrander said….

For those MBA’s out there – please note the very sound logic incorporated in “address staff shortages and become more efficient to save money” while simultaneously asking for a 6% raise for the next 3 years during a recession.

The audacity it takes to ask the tax payers of this state to pony up 6% annual raises, while many in the state can’t or won’t get a raise at all this year, is pompous and arrogant.

This combined with them selling the money grab as something that will reduce costs, while increasing staff, is completely disingenuous.

To be fair, this is an opening gambit and it’s not likely they’ll get everything (though the governor is pro-union), but if we continue to allow our elected leaders and unelected leaders (read: special interests) to operate within side the quiet world of doublespeak without so much as a whimper of an objection, then we surely are going to get exactly what we deserve.

Read all about government wages versus free market wages in The Great Recession here