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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One day….

Typically I’m not in favor of pointing out hypocrisy to serve as proof of any specific individual fault.  Two main reasons, most people are hypocritical on some level; meaning they do things they would advise others against.  Secondly, sometimes those things labeled as hypocrisy are nothing more than changing opinions with changes in time, facts, or understanding.

But sometimes… it’s just too easy.

Senator Harkin writing about the need to change filibuster procedures in the Senate in order to make it easier to stop one.  At the Huffinton post (whole thing here):

…the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans is no joke.

…The problem is not only that Republicans are using the filibuster to kill good bills that would help working Americans. The larger problem is that the Republicans’ indiscriminate use of the filibuster has made it all but impossible to conduct everyday business in the Senate. On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority — just 41 Senators — stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment.

…The Senate cannot continue down this path of obstruction, paralysis, and de facto minority rule. That is why I have introduced a bill to change the Standing Rules of the Senate to reform the cloture procedure in the United States Senate…

& the almost perfect statement from Mr. Harkin, his insistence on his consistency:

….I want to emphasize that I am offering this bill with clean hands. I introduced the exact same bill in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. So this legislation is not about one party or the other gaining advantage. It is about the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively, and small-d democratically….

As I read this I thought…. it seems the parties have changed sides once again as I recall Republicans trying to do this during the Bush years.  & after about an entire 30 second search (more than either the Huffington Post or Mr. Harkin can do) I found this great quote when the Republicans were attempting similar things (NY Times, 2005):

…Democrats asserted one after another today that the Republican leadership’s attempt to bypass the filibuster – a procedural obstacle that requires 60 of the Senate’s 100 votes to overcome – is an attempt to change two centuries of Senate tradition. To do so, said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, would be “the end of the Senate as we know it” because it would dash the protections that the Senate has always afforded lawmakers in the minority and, by extension, their constituents….

So apparently, we have, according him, he was for filibuster reform in 1995, against it in 2005, and for it in 2010.

& for consistency sake, there is very likely a Republican doing similar flips.  President Obama spoke about the anger the public had at, not just individual parties or individual politicians, but at politics in general.  Back room deals, lying for political expediency, et, etc, etc.

Of course he went on in his State of the Union speech to claim another reason people are angry: that the government doesn’t work for the people.  It should be faster, more efficient, and more responsive to the people’s needs.

Funny thing though, this is exactly why the filibuster is needed, exactly what it is intended for, and exactly why Mr. Harkin & Mr. Obama are both wrong.

Among other reasons, historically the most “efficient” governments, are among the most oppressive.  We no longer seem to understand this as a society, but those governments able to move quickly are more apt to make bad decisions.  Since government is composed of humans, it has the same tendencies which humans have.  One of those tendencies is that our first, quick answer, on complex questions is usually wrong.

Which is perfectly ok – when only become successful, through our failures.  Due to the government’s power however, even short term failures can result in very long term negative consequences.

Therefore, we have a government designed to be deliberative versus efficient.  One way through separation of powers – where each branch has the power to prevent the other to act.  This by itself prevents too much impetuousness.

The filibuster, is not specifically Constitutional, as the Constitution only provided that each body could set their own rules through a majority vote.   However, filibuster rules were adopted  in the House near the very founding of that body and then adopted by Senate some years later.

& for me – they seem to follow a very logical understanding of both governments and human tendencies.  Not only that, but the filibuster also reinforces the fact that we are not and never have been a direct democracy.  Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny and if, hypothetically, lots of Senators or Congressmen wish to take away my rights, I’ll be grateful for just one to stand up and try to obstruct as much as possible.  If nothing else, draw attention to it and delay it long enough to get citizens engaged.

For me though – two times in my life the government has supposedly “shut down” & I was always happy.  The things they said would happen, mass chaos because no social security checks or military pay (I was in the military during one shut down) never happened.   The only thing I was sure of, was the government wasn’t making more laws and overall that’s likely to be a good thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In January’s edition of Wired Magazine, they detail an article about rail systems and advocate high speed rail as a solution for congestion.  The problem is identified correctly (here):

…Getting California’s train up and running will be expensive. But doing nothing would cost two to three times more. Why? Currently, gridlocked lanes waste $20 billion in fuel and productivity annually. And it’s only going to get worse. The Golden State is growing — quickly. By 2030, another 12 million people could be calling it home. Without an infrastructure overhaul, drivers can expect a 10 percent congestion increase every year. To accommodate the billion trips between cities that residents and visitors will make annually, the state would need to build 3,000 more miles of freeway lanes, five more commercial airport runways, and 90 more airline departure gates. The price: at least $100 billion. Oh, and all that construction wouldn’t alleviate traffic; it would simply keep pace with it….

The article goes on to detail rail as a solution, showing a brief history of rail in the US, including the really cool technological advancements in rail systems.  The main problem with the idea however, isn’t that new rail systems aren’t cool or that rail couldn’t become much faster and more efficient, the main problem, which they slightly acknowledge, is getting people to use it:

…To be cost-efficient, any high-speed rail system needs an ample supply of riders. San Francisco hopes to deliver them through a new million-square-foot terminal. Dubbed the Transbay Transit Center, it will connect the new rail line with nine regional transportation systems…

And

…No city epitomizes the insane appeal of driving like Los Angeles, whose citizens cling to their steering wheels even as they face the worst congestion in the nation. Will high-speed rail persuade them to give up their autos? Maybe. Ridership on the local rail system has increased to 306,000 on weekdays, up from 265,000 in 2007. A faster, cheaper trip — the high-speed ride between Ontario and LA will save the average commuter at least 85 hours and as much as $6,400 a year in gas, parking, and lost productivity — might pry even the most dedicated motorist out of the driver’s seat….

Looking historically though, they’ve made this argument over and over again and it’s always failed.  Due to constant regulation of the transportation industry, we’ve wasted billions and continue to poor billions more into this mess (from 2007):

Rail transit is a huge waste of money that harms transit riders and mainly benefits a few politically powerful interest groups, such as rail contractors, at the expense of ordinary taxpayers….

Thanks in part to the high cost of rails, transit systems in Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and the San Francisco Bay Area carried fewer riders in 2005 than two decades before….

…Due to financial stresses caused by the high cost of rail transit, San Jose cut its transit service by 20 percent and lost a third of its transit riders.

The mass transit system in Portland, Ore., carries only 7.6 percent of the region’s commuters, down from 9.8 percent before rail construction began.

The subway in Washington, D.C., is wonderful for tourists, but not commuters: Though the region gained more than 100,000 jobs between 1990 and 2000, the transit system lost more than 20,000 daily commuters….

& it fails for the very same reason most centralized planning fails – there is no one-size fits all solution which can magically come from government that will ever be better than what the market can provide.  Over thinking the obvious, that if rail lines could honestly save the average individual 6400 dollar a year, they should be willing to pay 4000 dollars a year to help fund it.

The simple truth is that government inefficiency will only increase the costs of rail overtime, increasing the subsidies and making a large portion of the population fund what a small portion of the population will use.  As Cato notes (here):

….Second [problem with highs peed rail], highway users paid for interstate highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will rarely use it….

Why do “smart” people seem to espouse imposed solutions by default?  Well, as with a lot of scientific minded individuals and magazines, the search for solutions to problems becomes an end by itself.   This certainly helps when it comes to innovation – always looking for that next step or next increase in efficiency is extremely valuable ideal which helps many be successful.

Conversely, we also try to decrease known defects, a valuable skill in a fairly closed system, but I think a detriment to larger scale thinking.

Engineers, computer programmers, process engineers, CFOs, IE those in the industries where daily critical thinking tasks ask not only what we can do better, but also attempting to steam line, standardize, and reduce defects through control mechanisms, seem to be more prone than others to view imposed solutions as a solution default.

Indeed, in their lines of work, lots of systems are routinely imposed on clients, employees, and others with typically, minimal involvement from the end user. & often for good reason.  Allowing untrained users to have open access to say a client database would be too risky.  Allowing any employee to spend the company’s money on what they thought was a good idea, would be a huge preventable risk as well.

The difference however between these critical thinking endeavors is that they have somewhat of a closed system.  Sure, market dynamics affects the controls companies can exert on their clients, but the cost benefit analysis for decisions in these closed system will be much more accurate than a similar analysis for the market as a whole.

The idea of imposing these new systems through tax payer funds has a further assumption as well: if the market is currently in state A and many experts believe it should be in state B, that’s because the market has failed.  Inside of that assumption holds that we have the requisite knowledge to take literally billions of individual transactions which led to the creation of the current transportation system and with a few nifty math tricks and a good sales pitch from the experts -  impart a better solution than all those transactions managed to build.

& lastly, but not an inconsequential difference, is a company’s ability to control the results.   One of the keys to any systems update success, will always be in checking the results.

For instance, if I changed process X, hopefully to make the time spent on X lower on average or hoping to reduce defects in products for which process X can affect – I should be able to look back in time after making the changes and ask the question – did my solution work for the problem we attempted to solve?

This doesn’t seem all that radical and certainly seems like something our government could be doing now, but the historic reality is always the same.  Governments seek to grow by expanding power.  Governments by nature move slowly.  Good government is stable and therefore moves more slowly.

This means when the government proposes changes in X process to solve problem Y, they have a known tendency to exaggerate the benefits and obfuscate any attempts to prove that changes in X didn’t affect Y, by constantly shifting goal posts (example of just one, tiny government program employing this strategy  here – 2002):

…This is essentially the strategy that DARE, the country’s leading drug education program, has successfully used to stay in business for nearly two decades. One study after another has found that students who complete DARE (a.k.a. Drug Abuse Resistance Education) are just as likely to use drugs as students who don’t. Yet DARE claims it is constantly revising its curriculum, so any research indicating that it doesn’t work is immediately outdated….

In a classic example of not being able to see the forest for the trees, this default condition of believing in solutions which will be imposed for benefit of others might be well meaning, but still one of the largest logical & philosophical impediments to true freedom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Huffington Post (of course…. here):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Kennedy?

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Kennedy concludes:

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

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

Read entire opinion here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even going so far as to blame the media:

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

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

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

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

With more to come:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brown & Coakley election in MA:

Exit polling with race showing high turnout @ Boston.com

Does a loss affect Obama or is it just Coakley’s problem? @ LA Times

Or is “all politics local” still true? @ US News

Healthcare Reform:

Reason Foundation: Beware Of The ObamaCare Revolution

TCS Daily: Medicare Rationing Begins in 2011

Taliban Attacks in Afghanistan – what does the coordinated attack show?

Rueters via Yahoo News: Taliban attack shows tactical skill, military limits

Stratfor: The Kabul Attack: A Postmortem

AFL-CIO & Democrats – a revolving door of money – Unions give to Dems, Dems give to Unions:

Detailed Abstractions: Unions – Unionized Against Freedom

Cato:  No Taxes, Please, We’re Democrats

Will we continue to try to fix government caused crises with more government (re: Finance Reform)?

Reuters: Watchdog’s fate in Senate key to financial reform

Cato: Reforming Previous Reforms, ad Infinitum

Via Buzz.Yahoo.com (because I refuse to send people to the Huffington Post), the Huffington Post reports (here):

President Obama will unveil on Thursday a proposed levy on the nation’s biggest financial firms structured not just to repay taxpayers for the bank bailout, but to recoup some of the public subsidy that “too big to fail” banks have enjoyed on account of their implicit government backstop, a senior administration official tells the Huffington Post….

First, I honestly have a problem with senior administration officials lending their knowledge to such a highly partisan propaganda site as the Huffington Post.   They long ago stop pretending to care about being news or even being accurate and moved straight into MoveOn.org territory.

Now, I’m not saying the President or his staff must chose the outlets I would prefer, but they could definitely send out press statements or use seemingly “real” and more honest news organizations.  It’s not like the NY Times isn’t on the President’s side – why go to Huffington?

Either way – regardless of the merits (or lack thereof0) for this specific  marketing strategy – it seems quite obvious that Mr. Obama and his team lacks a fundamental understanding of economics.  Their continued reliance on government solutions to all economic problems, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the dynamics needed to keep this economic engine and society moving forward.

It seems they have an idea that they can model the economic behavior of institutions they define as “Too big to fail” as if this equilibrium is: A) possible to spot & B) static enough to allow the slow moving government the ability to legislate in a helpful way.

Indeed the current economic crisis itself lends credibility to the idea that the government is in no position to grasp the complexities that exist when dealing with so many interconnected businesses (here):

…”We are here to examine what happened in the public sector, what happened in regulatory agencies, what happened in enforcement agencies,” said Phil Angelides, the chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission….

While investigating the public portion of the failure:

…Questions focused on failures around regulatory decisions to loosen bank leverage and capital limits, faulty credit rating agencies, a warning about epidemic of mortgage fraud and a decision by Congress and the FDIC to stop collecting vital insurance fees from ‘well capitalized” banks between 1996 and 2006….

They grilled DOJ:

…Panel members asked Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct an investigation into what, if anything the agency did after the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2004 warned that mortgage fraud was so rampant that it was a potential “epidemic.”…

& the SEC:

…SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro was inundated with questions about the agency’s failure to oversee credit rating agencies, which provided overly rosy debt ratings for problematic mortgage securities….

The FDIC & Congress:

…Meanwhile, the FDIC and Congress were criticized for its decision not to collect deposit insurance premiums from well capitalized banks for roughly a decade between 1996 and 2006….

But it’s ok, because the FDIC agrees with them:

…Both Schapiro and FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair agreed that an SEC decision in 2004, under its chairman at the time, William Donaldson, to allow banks to identify how much capital and leverage they must have on hand, based on their own model-based formula, was a mistake that allowed banks to expand their leverage to problematic levels….

Where the lead to the obvious conclusion they were searching for the entire time – government help:

…Bair said. “I think the only place to tackle that on a system-wide basis for both banks and non-banks was through consumer protection rules that gave the Fed the authority to apply rules against abusive lending across the board to both banks and non-banks.”…

Now it might just be me, but thinking federal regulators with new powers over banks and abusive lending standards will get it right next time seems a tad optimistic…. you know, especially considering their massive failure with the current crisis.

Which is of course only a portion of the story.  The government, through various GSE’s, exacerbated the problems with global capital flows, by giving banks incentives to make riskier and riskier loans (here):

…The actual causes of our financial troubles were unusual monetary policy moves and novel federal regulatory interventions. Regulatory distortions intensified in the 1990s. Poorly chosen public policies distorted interest rates and asset prices, diverted loanable funds into the wrong investments, and twisted normally robust financial institutions into unsustainable positions.

We can group most of the unfortunate policies under two main headings: (1) Federal Reserve credit expansion that provided the means for unsustainable mortgage financing, and (2) mandates and subsidies to write riskier mortgages….

Please don’t misunderstand me – just because someone leaves their keys in their car doesn’t mean you should take it – so immoral actions on behalf of lenders, home buyers, and an inaccurate understanding of the true risks were also present in the prelude to this tragedy:

…There is no doubt that private miscalculation and imprudence made matters worse for more than a few lending institutions and individual borrowers….

& therein lies the true rub.  This imprudence is something for which the market should bear the price of their mistakes.  Only through bearing the true cost will their incentives ever line up with true moral behavior.  If you think a local bank or lender wasn’t able to sell every single loan to a GSE, they would’ve continued to allow bad loans to be made which they knew would sink themselves… well, that’s just not very likely and not very rational.

But don’t worry – I’m sure with these new and smarter people, this time they’ll figure out which banks are too big to fail, do it right, and only tax them in the amount they need to insure against the risk.