“Our Politicized Thinking Explained” (…or “Half-Wit Will Travel”)

Most non-aligned political analysts—a rare commodity to be sure—will agree that the American public has become politicized more in its collective thinking than it ever has in recent memory. Everything from our foreign policy to our favorite flavor of ice cream seems to be divided between red and blue states. Take for example a recent news item…
I like I was astounded at the news of the young New York City man who fell 39 stories and survived after a failed suicide attempt. The 22 year-old had the mathematically-improbable luck to have landed on the trunk and rear window of a car parked on the street below…a happenstance which saved his life and angered the owner of the severely damaged auto. As I read the various online news accounts of this story,

I began reading the reader commentary section of one particular daily online newspaper. On USAToday’s site there were public comments posted blaming this episode on, of all things, President Obama’s economic policies…thus turning a not-so-simple human interest story into a battle of political ideologies. Personally, I have always wondered about the upbringings, if not the overall mental health of individuals who cannot see reality outside purely dichotomous perspectives…as if Conservatives and Liberals were the only two known life forms in the known universe.
But I was harkened yesterday when I read a very interesting article from the August 16th edition of Newsweek. In “The Limits of Reason,” author Sharon Begley argues that the often irrational thinking we apply to our political (and social) beliefs and understanding of those beliefs have a basis in science. According to Begley

“…psychologists have been documenting since the 1960s, humans are really, really bad at reasoning. Its not just that we follow our emotions so often, in contexts from voting to ethics (page 14).”



The upshot is that, according to modern philosophers and cognitive scientists, there is a purpose for the kind of confirmation bias (seeing and recalling only evidence that supports your beliefs) and willful blindness to sound opposing views which leads us to stick to our beliefs. Failures of logic are simply “ploys to win arguments.” Simply put, arguing is more about overcoming opposing views and using our biased beliefs to persuade others more than it is about seeking truth or finding a common ground. It also explains the idea of motivated thinking, another faulty reasoning attribute that people employ. Motivated thinking forces individuals with certain political/social beliefs to look harder for flaws in studies when they don’t agree with their conclusions, which forces them to become more critical of “evidence” that undermines their initially-held beliefs.


This is why the notions of impending One-World Governments, health reform “death panels,” 9/11 government-backed conspiracies, and issues surrounding President Obama’s fake birth certificate remain so entrenched in the political discussions of many Americans, despite their proven invalidity.
This particular approach to our thinking on political and social issues is ridiculously easy to remedy…don’t believe everything you think! As I have alluded to so often in past postings, we Americans emote way too much and reason way too little. It is simply not practical to “feel” our way through life, especially when it comes to concepts and issues that beg that we use reason, which according to Begley “is supposed to be the highest achievement of the human mind and the route to knowledge and wise decisions.” When it comes to thinking which may affect social, economic, and political policies in America, we should think rather than feel.

Read More

Change We Can Set Our Watches By (Or…”Let’s Do It Again Like We Did Last Election!)

The American electorate is a marvel to behold at times. It has just the right combination of (the) occasional public weariness with incumbent political officials, collective short-term memory/selective memory, and often misplaced optimism which leads it to every couple of election cycles, vote in political party representatives who seem to offer a better alternative to the party in power. This is especially true if the representatives if of the political party in power fall out of public favor due to corruption of some other type of malfeasance. It’s a sad cycle that has unfortunately become of how our democracy operates and governs.
During the 2006 election season, Democrats were swept into control of Congress in nearly unprecedented numbers due in part to the various scandals which plagued the Republican Party prior to those elections. Given the current growing—some say unfair—discontentment with the Obama Administration’s economic (and social) policies as well as events in Congress within the past couple of weeks, it looks as if the see-saw of Congressional representation will soon start to tilt in back in favor of the Republicans.
A couple of weeks ago, three Democrat members of Congress, Maxine Waters of California, and Charles Rangel of New York found themselves facing ethics charges by the Office of Congressional Ethics in Congress (on a side note, 2 Republican members of Congress are also under the ethics probe gun. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/08/congress-ethics-fundraising/1)

The fact that such alleged ethics violations/accusations occur with sad regularity among elected representatives such as Waters and Rangel should not be fully faulted with those facing the legal process of accountability or even Congress itself…the fault lies with us, the American people. Americans proudly—and rightfully—boast about the advantages and joys of having free and fair elections in a democracy. But what good is electing representatives at the federal (or even local) levels if we are forced to choose between the lesser of 2 evils every time voter disenchantment reaches critical mass every other election cycle? The cycle we tolerate—become “fed-up” with one party representative, vote in another party’s representative, vote back in the party which peed us off in the first place—only proves how much we should just sit back and take our lumps by representatives who violate the public’s trust.
Congressional perks that smack of entitlement, ethics charges on an annual basis, influence peddling (i.e., “lobbying”), and our own collective short-term memories are what we deserve. Why? Because we have forgotten that Congress works for us, and are not meant to be an autonomous political class.
If the conservative-leaning Tea Party and liberal-leaning organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union can mobilize and help crank out support and successfully put into public office candidates who support their ideological beliefs, then why can’t the rest of us follow their examples and shake off our apathetic fatalism and take more of an active role in a government which is supposed to represent us?
As someone who has spent inordinate amounts of hours volunteering in various political causes, I can find no viable excuse for any American not to become more involved in a process which affects us on a daily basis on a myriad of levels. So get off your collective butts and hold to the fire the feet of those who violate the trust of we who send them to represent us!

Read More

The Law, Lies, and Videotapes

A few weeks ago, USAToday ran an opinion piece about an American citizen’s right to videotape a police office performing his duty (ies), while being free from both persecution and prosecution for doing so (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-07-15-editorial15_ST_N.htm).
In an illustrating case, a Maryland man named Anthony Graber was pulled over on his motorcycle for speeding and pooping wheelies earlier this year. Either unknown or unnoticed by the intercepting plainclothes Maryland state trooper, Graber was wearing a helmet camera which recorded the resulting encounter; the trooper cut off Graber on an exit ramp in his unmarked vehicle, “and drew his gun before announcing that he was a law enforcement officer.” Graber posted (the) video of the encounter on YouTube a week later.



But among the throngs of those who viewed the video on the site were authorities from both the police and the Maryland State Attorney’s offices. The police obtained warrants to search Graber’s home and seized his computers. The state attorney general filed 4 felony charges against him for “violating Maryland’s wiretap law.” Graber, if convicted of the charges could be looking at up to 16 years in prison, as well as the loss of his security government clearance, and gaining all of the rights and privileges that go along with being a convicted felon.
While there is clearly enough absence of common sense to go around in this particular case, in other cases police and prosecutors sometimes abuse their authority by either misapplying, misinterpreting, or—in the most grievous of instances—maliciously prosecuting individuals who are well within their implied as well as Constitutional rights to monitor public servants.
We’ve all seen the television shows showcasing instances where police dashboard-mounted cameras have yielded exciting footage of harrowing police encounters with criminals, or news reports where the same camera setup reveals police misconduct—all are newsworthy episodes. In such instances, neither the producers of these television shows nor news directors have been known to have been threatened with such legal actions. What makes this instance any different? The only conclusion is that some government officials are potentially peed-off that any American citizen would have the presence of mind to post his police encounter online for the world to see, and in the process take away some of their power and/or discretion.
Make no mistake people…we are the ones who watch the watchers. Its every American citizen’s right to legally observe—and if necessary record—those who work for us, as we are the one who pay their salaries. It matters not if we use our cellphone cameras, a pen and pad, our blogs, or just our eyes while alerting would-be malefactors to our presence. Obvious scare and/or intimidation tactics by those threatened by the power of the people should not only be revealed on a routine basis, but challenged to the best of our ability.

Read More

Policy Vs. Facts -- The Economy in Perspective

In the last few days, an interesting article has been making the rounds on various news-oriented websites. Its a piece written by the Wall Street Journal 's Personal Finance columnist, Brett Arends revealing the biggest myths (read: lies/misconceptions) about the American market economy. As I read the article, I couldn't help but be reminded of two things: how much We The People and our elected representatives shape our political policies, beliefs, and actions based on misconceptions, and how much religion—which has managed to creep its way into our national politics—functions in similar ways.
Before I present my point, first read the article in question, reprinted below.


The three biggest lies about the economy
Commentary: The truth about jobs, the market and U.S. socialism

By Brett Arends, WSJ.com and MarketWatch

BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- The counter-revolution is underway.

The G-20 calls for members to slash their budget deficits. The U.S. Senate ices further aid for the unemployed. The head of the Business Roundtable slams President Obama for undermining American capitalism. Wall Street succeeds in watering down reform.

Depending on your politics, you'll love this or hate it.
But there's just one problem.
We're still living in a fantasyland. Most people have no idea what's really going on in the economy. They're living on spin, myths and downright lies. And if we don't know the facts, how can we make intelligent decisions?
Key updates on the economy this week
Economists worry that jobs, consumer confidence readings won't support hope for economic recovery, Barrons.com's Bob O'Brien reports.
Here are the three biggest economic myths -- the things everything thinks they know about the economy that just ain't so.

Myth 1: Unemployment is below 10%

What nonsense that is. The official jobless rate, at 9.7%, is a fiction and should be treated as such. It doesn't even count lots of unemployed people. The so-called "underemployment" or U-6 rate is an improvement: For example it counts discouraged job seekers, and those forced to work part-time because they can't get a full-time job.
That rate right now is 16.6%, just below its recent high and twice the level it was a few years ago
And even that may not tell the full story. Many people have simply dropped out of the labor force statistics.
Consider, for example, the situation among men of prime working age. An analysis of data at the U.S. Labor Department shows that there are 79 million men in America between the ages of 25 and 65. And nearly 18 million of them, or 22%, are out of work completely. (The rate in the 1950s was less than 10%.) And that doesn't even count those who are working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Add those to the mix and about one in four men of prime working age lacks a full-time job.
Dean Baker, economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., says the numbers may be even worse than that. His research suggests a growing number of men, especially in deprived, urban and minority neighborhoods, have vanished from the statistical rolls altogether.

Myth 2: The markets are panicking about the deficit

To hear the G-20 tell it, the U.S. and other top countries had better slash those budget deficits before the world comes to an end.
And maybe the markets should be panicking about the deficits.
But they're not. It's that simple.
If they were, the interest rate on government bonds would be skyrocketing. That's what happens with risky debt: Lenders demand higher and higher interest payments to compensate them for the dangers.
But the rates on U.S. bonds have been plummeting recently. The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond down to just 4%. By historic standards that's chickenfeed. Panicked? The bond markets are practically snoring.
They aren't seeing inflation either. On the contrary, they're saying it will average just 2.3% a year over the next three decades. That's the gap between the interest rates on inflation-protected Treasury bonds and the rates on the regular bonds. By any modern standard the forecast is low. Instead of worrying about inflation, some are starting to worry about something even more dangerous: deflation, or falling prices.
If that takes hold, cutting spending and raising taxes would be a bad move.
It's certainly possible the lenders buying these bonds are being foolish. And it's worth noting that the Treasury market is also subject to political distortions, because foreign are among the heavy buyers of bonds. So it's worth treating its apparent verdicts with some caution. Nonetheless, the burden of proof, as usual, is on those who argue the market is wrong.

Myth 3: The U.S. is sliding into "socialism"

For a system allegedly being strangled in its bed, U.S. capitalism seems to be in astonishingly robust shape.
Numbers published by the Federal Reserve a few weeks ago show that corporate profit margins have just hit record levels. Indeed. Andrew Smithers, the well-regarded financial consultant and author of "Wall Street Revalued," calculates from the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report that corporate profit margins rocketed to 36% in the first quarter. Since records began in 1947 they have never been this high. The highest they got under Ronald Reagan was 30%.
The picture is also similar when you exclude financials.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DOW:DJIA) is above 10,000. Small company stocks have rallied astonishingly since early last year: The Russell 2000 index is back to levels seen not long before Lehman imploded. Meanwhile Cap Gemini's latest Wealth Report notes that the North American rich saw an 18% jump in their wealth last year.
Meanwhile, federal spending, about 25% of the economy this year, is expected to fall to about 23% by 2013. In 1983, under Ronald Reagan, it hit 23.5%. In the early 1990s it was around 22%. Some socialism.
These days, three-fifths of the entire budget goes on just three things: Insurance for our old age (through Social Security and Medicare), defense, and debt interest.

Conservatives don't want to cut the $700 billion-plus we spend on defense. We can't cut debt interest payments. And while Social Security and Medicare certainly need reform, the main "problems" are simply rising life expectancy and health care demands. If we didn't provide for the insurance through our taxes we'd have to do it individually.
What about the rest of the budget? It's jumped from around 7% of GDP a few years ago to about 10% now. Out of control? It's been in the 6% to 9% range for decades. It's forecast to fall to about 8% again in a few years.
So much for a revolution. But here comes the counter-revolution just the same.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/story/print?guid=4CAD4B15-F472-4009-88AF-719A7CD7F5B4

If you're among the few socially and politically astute in America, you may have received an epiphany as you read this piece. If not, think about how liberals on one end and conservatives on the other base and shape their political beliefs on how their misconceptions and/or mis- interpretations of facts; issues like the death penalty, social spending, and gay rights are promoted and/or defended by both sides based religious interpretations of the Bible.
The Tea Party movement is active and engaged in national politics based on how it as a politically conservative organization interprets the economic picture. The Obama Administration, in the wake of its recently passed economic stimulus package, similarly interprets (or misinterprets) the facts about our economy in the realm of reported vs. real unemployment numbers (those of us who are experiencing the pain of being unemployed know all-too well that the monthly reported unemployment numbers don't tell the whole story)
The point is that the American people need to be more well-read and discriminating when it comes to what's real, and what's political spin. Sadly, most of us would rather listen to talking heads spouting and validating our political beliefs than pick up a book, newspaper, or log onto news websites to ascertain the facts for ourselves. We rally, vote, and—to our collective detriments—think based on beliefs rather than facts. And we should never believe everything we think...at least without individual (and objective) research. THINK, don't "feel!"

Read More

Muslim Group To Build a Mosque at Ground Zero

From the “What The **** ” Department, it was revealed during the last few days that a Muslim group are in the final stages of preparing to build a mosque in a building just a few hundred feet from Ground Zero, the site of the former World Trade Center attacks of September 11th.
News outlets including the New York Post and the Fox News Network (overlooking the ideological inclinations of the latter) have revealed that the mosque will be a part of a 13-story Muslim community center which has billed as a cultural center, and will house “not (only) a mosque but a community center for all faiths that will include recreational facilities.”



http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/mosque_madness_at_ground_zero_OQ34EB0MWS0lXuAnQau5uL
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/14/plan-build-mosque-near-ground-zero-riles-families-victims/

Needless to say many Americans are up in arms. The anger behind building a mosque, a shrine to the religious ideology—or rather a perversion of it—which provided the impetus for the 9/11 attacks so close to the site of the attacks themselves smacks intolerance all around.
On the one hand, Muslims are allowing their dedication and adherence to their religion to blind them to the sensitivities surrounding the issue…to the families of those who lost loved ones on that day, and Americans in general. While a spokesperson for the American Soeciety for Muslim Advancement defends the building of the center as a “need to take the 9/11 tragedy and turn it into something very positive” by “amplifying the silent voice of the majority of Muslims who have nothing to do with extremist ideologies,” the uproar by those against the project—most vocally the families of those lost that day—is being ignored in favor of what the Muslim group wants. Combine this with the intent by the center's sponsors/operators to open the center on September 11th 2011—the 10th anniversary of the attacks—only adds salt to the still festering wounds, and feeds the atmosphere of insensitivity surrounding this issue.
One the other hand, victims families in particular and Americans in general, still feeling wounded by the events of that day, are potentially painting all Muslims with a broad paintbrush. It is causing a failure to understand that not only were planes hijacked that day, but so was the Muslim ideology…by extremists.
As opposed to looking for possible solutions to the issue, more thought should have been put into the brainstorming and communications stages of this predicament. Groups with such potentially conflicting motivations and missions should take the time to communicate with one another whenever something of this magnitude of sensitivity, such as when a vendor wants to erect a liquor shop near a school.
In much the same way that a neo-Nazi organization (and no, I am not comparing Islam to Nazism as an ideology) would not be allowed to build a headquarters near Aushwitz, or a Japanese naval memorial near Pear Harbor, why would zoning officials in New York not consider the sensitive nature of permitting such a structure near such a site?
Local governmental departments such as those responsible for zoning should stop blindly engaging in the bureaucratic routine of simply approving or building , and actually put some consideration into the effects of proposed projects of this nature.

Read More

The Financial Crisis, Bankers, And What To Do (Or, “Go Directly To Jail, Do Not Collect Any Money!”)

When it comes to the economy in general, and the economic crisis of last year in particular—and the jury’s still out on whether or not the crisis over—there are two schools of thought, one favoring (and/or blaming) the lack of government regulation of the marketplace economy, and the other favoring (and yes, blaming) more government regulation. To be sure, ebbs and flows within the marketplace are a part of the cycle which gives it life, although it’s a little hard to appreciate this fact abstractly when one considers that real people, real families are often affected adversely by these cycles. But to the credit of each argument, common sense rather than economic ideology tells us that there are times when government regulation can increase the intensity of these ebbs and flows, to the greater detriment or benefit of the economy. Still, the loyalists to the government-need-to-interfere and the laissez-faire beliefs remain unwavering to their respective ideological beliefs.
So it should come as no surprise that there will still be some who disagree with one way the government of Iceland is dealing with the economic crisis within its banking community…a crisis whose effect has been infinitely worse in terms of profound damage to its overall economy. This week, it was reported in the news ("Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right … And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong" as an example) that the government of Iceland has begun to initiate both civil and criminal proceedings against banking executives related to the collapses of the country’s 3 largest banks, Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir. After the findings of a government inquiry concluded that the banks collapsed due mostly to former banking heads taking "inappropriate loans from the banks," the government of government agencies initiated a $2 billion lawsuit in a New York court against former shareholders and executives for alleged fraud. In addition to the lawsuit(s), Iceland has taken the further step of freezing the assets of other banking executives both in the US and in Europe (such as in the United Kingdom and Luxemburg) where many have fled and live lavish lifestyles. Finally, the police have begun rounding up still some other former bankers while issuing arrest warrants for others.
With respect to the outcomes of the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International criminal trials of earlier this decade, the Icelanders seem to have mastered not only certain Olympic sports, but how to properly deal with those most responsible for the economic crisis in its country. In America, the financial community makes no bones about justifying big bonuses to “retain the best and most talented” within the lending community, extravagant lifestyles that are were/are “earned,” and asking for and receiving government loans with no sense of shame…all despite the “best and brightest” causing the near-economic collapse of the American economy due to questionable lending practices. While many banking executives and leaders have made off like (pardon the pun) bandits, many Americans have seen the values of their retirement packages plummet to levels that will force many to work well past the age where age has reduce their physical limitations to do so. But as I have often said before, there is a great many things that Americans can learn from other countries about how to deal with socioeconomic problems. Instead of rewarding willful ineptitude, risk taking, and out-and-out greed with bonuses and an implied Its ok to engage in questionable lending practices…we’ll subsidize you both socially and economically, we should be taking a page out of the government of Iceland’s book and start a criminal (and civil) roundup and prosecution of those most responsible for nearly doing what terrorists couldn’t do…bring the country to its economic knees. The government of the United States should the seizure of assets, the initiation of lawsuits, and bringing of charges against those who put potential of personal advancement ahead of the welfare of their institutions, investors, and of the average American who has been invested in many aspects of the lending industry due to changing trends in funding potential retirements.
Stealing a line from the now-classic 1983 Eddie Murphy-Dan Aykroyd movie Trading Places, “The best way to hurt rich people is to turn them into poor people.”

Read More

What's Right & Wrong About The Tea Party, Conclusion

...Continued From Part 2

Perhaps one of the biggest paradoxes of the Tea Party is that many of the rank-and-file members who work in local communities probably believe that they are working in the best interests of the country by protesting what they feel to be exorbitant taxes and unchecked government spending. However, upon closer examination of the reality of the beliefs which they are protesting against, an almost exclusively cynical view of the movement tends to become the basis of doubt.
Take for instance the inference of their movement’s/organization’s acronym, Taxed Enough Already and their protestations that they pay too much in taxes. In a world where perception is often reality, the movement has convinced many Americans that taxes are exceedingly high. But according to the latest information, only 18% of Americans say that they support the Tea Party movement, and half of them have indicated that their taxes are fair (www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002487-503544.html). But it is only upon closer examination of the research that the picture starts to gain a new focus; only the most active within the Tea Party say that their taxes are too high, most often represented by Tea Partiers who attend public rallies and related functions such as the Tea Party Convention held last February in Nashville. Of them, 55% make no bones about their taxes being too high.
Not only do the numbers within the Party of actual adherents to its base claim misrepresent the validity of their protestations, but the validity of their claims simply does not gel with the reality of facts. According to most research, taxes are at an all-time low when measured against the historical trend, especially for those in the middle-class income brackets, which most Tea Partiers are if the statistics are accurate (According to a recent CNN poll, 32% of those identifying themselves as “Tea Party activists” reported earning between $50,000-$75,000, 18% reported earning $30,000-$50,000, and only 8% reported earning less than $30,000 (34% earn more than $75,000. As a group, those incomes are higher than nationwide averages, but not so much that their tax burden is even close to being equivalent to the highest wage earners, who have the highest tax burden. http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/04/taxes-at-lowest-level-in-60-years-so-why-are-tea-partiers-angry/). And this doesn’t even take into account the fact that those in the same income brackets benefited from the tax reductions that were a part of the Obama Administration’s 2009 stimulus package). Furthermore, capital gains taxes have had modest reductions in recent years. So to quote a famous line from the 1980s, “Where’s the beef?”


Click on image to enlarge shrinking income tax and capital gain burdens on various groups

Another point where such a movement loses it perception of populism is when it has professional talking heads representing the movement, who engage in spin instead of actually listing its grievances and allowing the public to judge for itself. A recent airing of Headline News’ Joy Behar Show (below) demonstrates this to the utmost degree.



What the video demonstrates is a tried and proven propaganda method for gaining credibility (and legitimacy) in American politics when it comes to individuals and organizations. The method involves either espousing populist ideas, and/or clothing oneself in patriotic beliefs; in this respect, the Tea party is unlike most other such movements in American history. Expert talking heads representing this movement (as others representing themselves in such a manner) can and do take the most straightforward of questions about their movement and twist the answers to where they come off as victims of or guardians against an imaginary threat. And while there is no doubt that many of the movement’s grassroots (i.e., community level) activists truly believe in the movement’s cause, it’s a little hard to understand why so many cannot think beyond their allegiance to their political ideologies to think independently. For example, why is spending such an issue now even after a record budget surplus built under the Clinton Administration (and a Republican-controlled Congress), and its subsequent erosion under the Bush Administration? This is what the Tea Party movement has managed to do to such a degree that many of its grassroots activists truly believe that they are working in the interests of the country as a whole.
So what the phenomenon of the Tea Party appears to be is an organization where the most active members are a minority among a minority, one that the majority of them will surely make an attempt to pass off their numbers as representative of a consensus of Americans. Do I believe that the Party has “tapped into an undercurrent of discontent” among the voting American electorate? No more so than they represent what is has always been a perpetual sense of disgust toward the sense that government is corrupt. But I am reminded of the quote by former Republican Maine Senator Bill Cohen, "Government is the enemy until…you need a friend.”

Read More