Detailed Abstractions

In news that shouldn’t be necessary, but probably is, a Democratic group ran a focus group to see if racism was involved in the conservative opposition to President Obama’s policies (@Politico.com):

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.

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

For more than 20 years now, with legislation leading back almost 40 years, the United States government has been pushing the idea that every citizen should have a home.

Based upon several studies showing high correlations with positive societal behavior for homeowners, politicians, leaders, non-profits, lots of people pushed for easier access to affordable housing.  In a Federal Reserve report published in 1999, they state:

A number of recent studies attempt to measure whether there are nontraditional benefits to homeownership, such as increases in the success of children (Green and White [5]), citizenship (DiPasquale and Glaeser [3]), and a variety of family outcomes and attitudes (Rossi and Weber [11])….

This is only 1/2 the story of course.  What these studies, our politicians, our leaders, & the rest of them  can’t conclude from this data is whether home ownership actually affects any of these additional traits.  The study itself hints at this:

…Because of the preferential tax treatment accorded homeowners, particularly low-income homeowners, and the large degree of wealth accumulated in housing, these authors argue that it is important to know the full range of homeownership benefits and costs. However, given the difficulty of credibly assigning causality to housing externalities, it is not surprising that such factors have been previously ignored.

In one such paper, Green and White [5] find a strong statistical correlation between homeownership and the likelihood of dropping out of school or becoming pregnant. Yet a reasonable interpretation of their result is that of omitted variable bias. Clearly, homeowners are different from renters along a variety of dimensions. As a result, those factors that are latent in their work, such as parental skills, interest in the educational process, wealth, and family stability, potentially bias upward any homeownership effect….

In other studies, they show correlations between home ownership & wealth accumulation, to help give more force to the “everyone needs a home” meme (study dated 2004):

For many years the federal government has promoted homeownership as an important goal for low-income families. A primary motivation of this policy goal is the concept that owner-occupied housing can be an important means of wealth accumulation, particularly for those lower-income and minority families that are able to purchase homes….

They as well admit the difficulty with this assessment:

…However, very little has been done in the housing literature to determine the importance of housing and non-housing sources of wealth accumulation. This determination has been difficult to address for three reasons. First, detailed wealth information on families is seldom available on a consistent basis. Second, such information on wealth is even less likely to be available over time so that changes in wealth can be observed. Third, the process of housing wealth accumulation is dynamic. Housing wealth accumulation depends critically on how soon a family that is renting becomes a homeowner, whether or not the family graduates to more highly valued owned units over time, or becomes a renter again and never regains homeownership….

With the current practice of press & political standards however, you might be hard pressed to find any evidence that assigning non-traditional benefits to home ownership is anything but an unqualified good.  The majority of reports dealing with low income housing stimulus are positive  (here & here).

In some cases, overly emotional logic is used (here):

After business dried up in May, Jodi Morris’ employer, an insurance agent, stopped sending paychecks.

Since then, the 43-year-old single mother has had to sell almost all of her furniture – her kitchen table and chairs, bed frames, dresser and armoire, and living room set – to pay the bills.  Morris and her 7-year-old daughter, Karly, now sleep on mattresses on the floor of their two-bedroom Ahwatukee apartment. And with no table, the two eat dinner on their cream-colored couch.

An eviction notice that arrived this month threatened to put Morris and Karly out on the street.  But Morris could be the first Phoenix resident to receive a lifeline from the federal government that seeks to rescue those on the verge of homelessness….

& without exception, our government is not immune.  The US government is right now, before the housing crisis even fully contracts (I wrote about it here), spending money to help low income families purchase homes.

Even before the housing crisis though, economists, experts, non-profits, were asking whether home ownership should be considered an unqualified good.  Unfortunately, reports questioning these basic assumptions are a very low percentage compared to the constant noise.

In some cases, even questioning the wisdom of subsidizing low income home ownership has resulted in kill the messenger attacks from non-profit groups, community leads, and even Democratic leadership, by leveling charges of racism.  With a simple misdirection trick, questioning the basic assumptions is anti-low income & since low-income households are generally minorities, questioning these assumptions must be due to institutional racism.   Politicians and leaders everywhere have a grand ole time setting up straw men in a fields of hay while standing by with gasoline and matches, but we should expect more.  We should expect to be able to ask all relevant questions we can and to get answers to as many questions as possible.  Lastly, we should let the data lead to its natural conclusion.

Assuming we truly want the best answers we can get and the best progress we can have, we must be willing to ask tough questions and live with the answers reality presents.

Anything less is little better than just allowing random superficial rhetoric to control policy.  It’s almost like we never moved away from the world Richard Feynman spoke about in 1974:

…But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.

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.”

From Mother Jones:

Michael Moore is at it again. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he took on US foreign policy as brought to us by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In Sicko, he dissected the health insurance industry. And in his new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, he challenges the fundamental organizing principle of American society: private enterprise….

Yes, it’s yet another propaganda film  from Michael Moore (as if he’s capable of much else).  As with his previous films, it will probably be entertaining and no doubt some parts of society will use it as proof that capitalism is evil.  All the while, they will ignore the irony that the system the are despising is responsible for the very freedom they use to speak against it.  That capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than Hugo Chavez, Che, Trotsky, and all the other “revolutionaries” combined.  History has proven this to be true time and time again.

I know what they’ll say though, “All we need is the right leaders this time and all will be well.”  So they might as well use their idol to sum up the film:

…The film climaxes with never-before-seen footage Moore’s researchers uncovered of FDR telling the American public in 1944 on the radio that the nation needed a second Bill of Rights that would guarantee Americans the right to a job, to a home, to an education, and to medical care. “Unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world,” Roosevelt says….

Ah, the fabled FDR… fabled that is so long as you ignore history; like the fact he made the Great Depression 7 years longer through his “New Deal” policies:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt….

…”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”…

Or the fact he tried to use court stacking tactics to bypass that pesky, out of date, worthless document formerly known as the US Constitution, basically making the point that “If it’s unConstitutional, find new judges”:

…Since the U.S. Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt, having won an expanded electoral mandate in his reelection, sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.  Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court leading to the name “Court-packing Plan”….

Or the fact he ran for his fourth term when he was too ill to govern.  Yes, let’s ignore the fact he was so self-absorbed and arrogant, that he demonstrated through his actions, he was willing to stay President of the US, with all its power, even though it was obvious he was no longer up to the task (here):

…Roosevelt, who turned 62 in 1944, had been in declining health since at least 1940. The strain of his paralysis and the physical exertion needed to compensate for it for over 20 years had taken their toll, as had many years of stress and a lifetime of chain-smoking. By this time, Roosevelt had numerous ailments including chronic high blood pressure, emphysema, systemic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, and myopathic hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. Dr. Emanuel Libman, then an assistant pathologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, reacting to Roosevelt’s appearance in newsreels, remarked in 1944 that “It doesn’t matter whether Roosevelt is re-elected or not, he’ll die of a cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months” (which he did, five months later)….

Yes, after all those reasons to re-think the glory that is the Presidency of FDR, we know have, thanks to Michael Moore, proof that FDR was a true socialist.  Like many socialists, he was more than willing to spend your money in furtherance of his goals, even though it’s failed ever single time it was tried…

But when defeating evil, the goal is righteous:

…”Capitalism is an evil,” Moore narrates, as the film concludes, “and you cannot regulate an evil. You have to eliminate it.” …

It’s an odd position to take that allowing people the freedom to enter into contracts for work or to barter or for any other economic reason they choose is evil, but he knows what’s best and that’s just the way it is.  After all, if you disagree, you’re probably “evil”.

Irregardless of Michael Moore’s lack of understanding as it relates to gun rights, health care, 9/11, and now… his complete lack of critical thought on capitalism, there is a silver lining:

…After a screening in Washington on Tuesday night, Moore told the audience that if people don’t rise up and take action after watching this film, that’s it—he’s done making movies. I can do other things, he remarked….

One can hope those other things include spending his own money to provide health care and housing for the poor, instead of using the government as his weapon to force everyone else to do what he thinks is right.