Wednesday, March 31, 2004

A Response To: "Tax Credit Troubled By False Claims"

Read This First --------> Editorial Link

Do you have fact checkers on your staff?

In "Tax Credit Troubled By False Claims" the author makes several mistakes and is deliberately misleading in his editorial. Is it not the responsibility of the editorial staff to check on the facts purported in something posted on the website for which they are responsible?

The most egregious example of misleading is the following statement:

"The strongest criticism-focusing on low-income working families rather than corporate and high-income tax evaders-has emotional punch but unfortunately rests on a false dichotomy. This is not an either-or scenario. The IRS can and does actively pursue all types of tax fraud, spending more than $3.5 billion a year on tax law enforcement, 23 times the amount earmarked for EITC compliance."


Based on reports by the IRS and the GAO as reported in the book "Perfectly Legal", this statement is not only misleading but also close to being an outright lie.

"The extra money that Congress gave the IRS beginning in 1995 to audit the working poor came as it was reducing the ability of the IRS to audit corporations and the affluent. By 2002 the number of auditors had been slashed by a fourth, to fewer than 12,000, and many of the most experienced auditors resigned or retired. That year the IRS audited five of the working poor for every affluent American audited.

The year before, the disparity was even greater. In 2001, the IRS audited 397,000 of the nearly 20 million returns filed by the working poor who applied for the earned income tax credit. The IRS audited about 50,000 of the more than 7 million returns filed by people making $100,000 or more. That means that while there were close to three times as many working poor as affluent, the number of their tax returns chosen for audit was nearly eight times as many. Indeed, of all the 744,000 individual tax returns that the IRS audited in 2002, more than half were filed by the working poor, who account for less than one in six taxpayers.

Looked at another way, 1 in 47 of the working poor had their returns audited, compared to 1 in 145 of the affluent and 1 in 400 returns filed by partnerships..."

Now, even with this kind of scrutiny of the WORKING poor, the statistics stemming from the results of the audits stands in stark contrast to the audits of the wealthy and of partnerships. Furthermore, the WORKING poor, who rely on their income to survive, not just live well, get screwed out of their credit when audited, which causes further problems.

"The average delay in getting the credit once an audit is ordered is 265 days, about nine months. And in the end two thirds of those audited get a refund, the average check totaling $1,420, IRS Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson told Congress in her annual report in 2003.

That two thirds of audited returns filed by the working poor still result in a refund stands in sharp contrast to the audit statistics, which show that two thirds of [all] audits result in more tax being owed."

The IRS freely admits that what few problems there are with the program stem mostly from MISTAKES, not fraud. In fact, most fraud comes from wealthy people trying to shelter their income by using a combination of rules, to include EITC. Examples like the recipient of a tycoon's fortune that lived on Fifth Avenue in New York, but worked just enough to qualify for the credit and the subsequent tax cut that comes from not working enough to be taxed, even though she had enough money to live in the Olympic Towers and not work everyday. Or, how about Real Estate business owners who claim wages low enough to qualify, but then pay themselves "dividends" that give them a total compensation of $100,000 or more? I guess it's much easier to audit those who can't afford lawyers.

"In 2002 the IRS assessed just 22 negligence penalties against 2.5 million corporations, a decline of more than 99 percent from 1993 when nearly 2,400 penalties were imposed. Even when it catches corporations cheating, the IRS is not so harsh with them as with the working poor. Beginning in 2002 the IRS offered to settle cases with companies that had cheated on their taxes under terms that excused them from any penalties. In come cases it let the companies keep a fifth of their ill-gotten tax savings."

I guess the corporate and wealthy people don't need to worry about cheating carrying forward into schools, work and other areas of life as they have already incorporated it into their daily life and work routines.

Let's be straight. Despite the author’s platitudes about the good of the EITC, the implications of the editorial are that the poor are screwing the average taxpayer. The dogmatic approach and use of statistics out of context is a glaring example of intellectual slight-of-hand. Basically, the author is a propagandist and the editors are willing accomplices. I wonder how you can look in the mirror everyday and go to church every Sunday. I ask that you at least try to use relevant fact in your essay and editorials so that readers can at least try to make an informed opinion. If readers are going to rely on people like Mr. Jones and the Hoover Institution to package and sum up their opinions for them, then let's try to at least give them opinion based on empirical evidence and not ideological propaganda.

Friday, March 26, 2004

A Response To: "Junk Science - Global Warming: The Movie"

Read This First -------> Editorial Link

Where to start? Actually, it would be harder to end a response to this absolute garbage, but I will try to keep it short as such baseless garbage is hardly worth the time it takes to respond. The fact that you state categorically that your essays "prove" their is no evidence supporting the hypothesis that we are affecting the environment is ludicrous on its face. Virtually EVERY reputable scientific community agrees that we are indeed affecting the climate, not to mention general health of the humans who inhabit this planet, with our industrial, vehicle and other emissions. Because they cannot pinpoint the extent or cannot produce a confidence level that satisfies ideological dogmatist like yourself does not mean there isn't significant evidence that we are indeed creating change in the global climate. To state otherwise is to be disingenuous to your readers and hardly falls into the category of "fair and balanced".

Furthermore, your supposition that their agenda, implying all green organizations, is to control the world's energy resources is nothing more than personal paranoia used to scare your target demographic without providing any kind of empirical evidence to support your position. There is a word for this, it's propaganda. What is it with the people who write editorials for FOX? Seriously, it is almost always and all or nothing, black or white, position. You spew propaganda that adds nothing to the rational debates about the issue on which you write. Are there ideologues in the "Green" camp, for sure. But, to hold them up as the mainstream and to readily dismiss the real concerns about the environment is simply irresponsible for someone of your education level. I'm beginning to see why someone with your education spends time writing propaganda, what you call essays or editorials, instead of engaging in scientific research.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

A Response To: "Property Rights Form the Foundation of Freedom"

Read This First -------> Editorial Link

Radley,

I agree that it is an interesting issue as to whether the CHOICE to be a customer at a place of business translates to a responsibility of the owner to provide a safe environment in which to exercise that choice. Public vs. Private rights are a very contentious and very complex debate. While one of the keys to America's success is certainly the right to privacy and private property, it cannot be thought of as something that exists in a vacuum. It's certainly acceptable to own land, but is it acceptable to dump poisons in a creek that PASSES through your land and is shared by many AND may be a tributary to drinking water supplies? I think the answer is clear in this case. However, the less clear the case the harder it is to come up with a reasonable solution that straddles the line between personal and public rights.

Your premise that the right to private property is an absolute is a bad place to start. In the realm of human law and politics very little, if anything, is absolute. The Constitution is an evolving document for this very reason. Our system of government is set up in such a way to handle the vagaries and "gray areas" of the body politic. This is also a reason why America is so successful. So, while choice in the market place allows one to be able to choose between establishments that are deemed safe as opposed to unsafe, for whatever reason, it then begs the question, how do you ensure that CHOICE exists? In order to do this there must be regulations that ensure that one is not obligated to choose from only one or a few choices – all of which may be in cahoots to fix prices or shirk ethical duties. Hence, we have laws governing competition and monopolies.

Furthermore, there are rules and regulations that govern the use of private property used for a business that provide for the safety of patrons and these laws exist for a good reason. They exist because consumers and people in general have a right to expect a certain amount of standard safety when committing to a transaction. This safety includes the enforcement of contracts and other similar ideals as well as physical safety and well-being. Often patrons will not know of dangers until it's too late, as may be the case when eating food improperly prepared or in the case of fraud. Reacting to safety issues that come to fruition usually ends up costing the taxpayer money in the end, be it through police involvement or medical care. Therefore, it's in the best interest of the public to pass laws governing the conduct of privately owned businesses in hopes of proactively preventing such harm. This logic also applies to homes and private property as in the example given above. One need only look at the improvements to consumer and worker safety over the years and the history of abuses by corporations and the like to see the good that such regulation can accomplish.

Now, as to what level of regulation constitutes reasonable is certainly up for debate. However, it is NOT an "either/or" debate. It is a debate of degree or level of regulation. Employing a WIN/LOSE or ALL/NOTHING mentality does not assist this debate. The world simply does not work that way. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Game Theory understands that by engaging in this type of approach one engenders a "Tit for Tat" cycle of give and take that ends up becoming a war of attrition and results in polarization. This polarization then leads to a lack of rational debate that further fuels the fire and perpetuates a downward spiral of resentment on all sides. It should be clear that the level or degree to which regulation is created is in great measure attributable to the feelings of those who elect the officials responsible for creating law. If the majority of the public feels it’s in the best interest of all to enact such regulation and if this feeling is strong enough, i.e. louder than special interest lobbies, then the pendulum will swing in that direction. If feelings change, then it will move again. But, to suggest that it's a clear cut choice is an oversimplification of the human condition and an ideological fantasy. Perhaps a better understanding of the legal system and common law in general would be a more appropriate subject to write about. If you want to change the system, you need to know how to work within it first.

Lastly, your intellectual slight of hand that allows you to take a shot at tax revenues and how we get them is a little suspect. If your argument is that the tax code as it stands today is unfair, you'll get no argument from me. But, if you are arguing that income or corporate tax as an institution should be abolished, then I disagree unless you can come up with a source of income for the governing of 360 million plus people. We walk through life everyday oblivious to the things for which tax money pays. Your ability to have your website and to write essays for Fox are all supported by the government and the tax dollars needed to pay for the services provided. Just some of the examples are:

- The Internet: Developed by DARPA using your tax dollars and supported by a myriad of governments sponsored boards that set standards for use, communications and development;
- The safety of your site via laws governing malicious conduct on the Internet;
- Assuming you get paid for your essays, the trust that your contract with Fox is enforceable by laws developed and enforced via your tax dollars;
- Your ability to drive to work, have electricity, phone service and a safe building to work in are all results of the government spending tax dollars;
- Your education is or was probably subsidized along the way by government programs and tax money;
- Your ability to sleep safe at home and function while oblivious to the government is a function of tax money;
- Your ability to speak freely via the Internet is a function of government supported by tax money.

So, unless you have a viable, economically sound alternative to revenue for these services and the thousands of others provided by the government, I wouldn’t get too fired up about the 16th amendment. If you want to tell me that the code is extremely biased towards the rich and wealthy and a more equitable sharing of the burden of government should be enacted, I'm all for it. But argue that case instead of trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

A Response To: "Reading Between The Numbers"

Read This First --------> Editorial Link

Wendy,

Come on, what are you trying to do here? I wholeheartedly agree that one should be educated on the efficacy of statistical analysis, but the other issue on which they need to be educated is scientific method. Yes, how one forms their hypothesis can have a large effect on the outcome of their research. Furthermore, how one conducts their research and the sample size will also have an effect on results. All these things and more can introduce bias and error into a study. But, that is why there is peer review. If a study is not sound, the scientific or related community will point it out using more facts or a better study. To dismiss a study because it runs contrary to your common sense, which is HEAVILY influenced by your ideological beliefs, is a ridiculous and, frankly, dangerous suggestion. You say that ideology can influence scientific research, but I dare say that ideology will have a much larger effect on one's "common sense". What you are essentially asking readers to do is to dismiss findings that run contrary to their ideology unless it has a confidence level so high that is equivalent to a very large baseball bat to the head.

The reality is that social science studies are rarely going to be completely clear or overwhelmingly convincing. They involve humans and they are notoriously fuzzy to begin with. However, when statistical relevance suggests a pattern or trend that may be detrimental the health of many, why not float it? If it's bogus, someone or some organization will prove it. But to ask people to dismiss something contrary to their ideologically influenced common sense based on their feelings and simplified math is simply disingenuous and smacks of faith over rational thought and debate, i.e. "purveyor of truth". Furthermore, your overt implication that there is a larger conspiracy behind biased research that will somehow result in more money for studies (less overtly implying the use of tax money) or expensive therapy (which means more healthcare costs) speaks loudly to YOUR ideology and what you are trying to do. Let's be clear that this is a message that you and many others (Junk Science guy for one) who write editorials for this website try to repeat as often as possible in hopes of distracting your readers from evidence contrary to an ideological belief, i.e. studies that purport to counter our ideologies are only trying to get funding at taxpayer's expense or are trying to build business for bogus services at consumer's expense.

Do you think all your readers cannot read between the lines?

Don't you think it's a little insulting to your readers as a whole to think that propaganda will not be seen for what it is?

How about a little more informed opinion and a little less ideological dogma wrapped up in editorial commentary.

Monday, March 22, 2004

A Response To: The Will to Win

Read This First -------> Editorial Link

Bill,

The problem with your statement in regards to the "will to fight" is that your premise that Iraq and terrorism are connected is false. No connection has been found, at all, by anyone. Yes, there are terrorist there now, but that's because we have opened up Pandora's Box. And, we did it without adequately planning to cope with the results of our actions. We alienated the UN, NATO, Europe and the world with our arrogance and now that we cannot find WMD, they are even more angry that we TRIED to cajole them into helping using a false pretense. Now that we are caught with our hand in the cookie jar, we are trying to spin it as another step in the war on terrorism. We make the leap of logic that other countries are now cooperating because of our actions. Well, while there might be some truth in that statement, it stems from the fact that they are acquiescing because they are being bullied into doing so. What do you think the unintended consequences of that are going to be? One I can think of is that the extremists can use it as a recruiting tool because we are doing exactly what they said we would do. So, in the end, we are feeding the very fire we are trying to put out.

Your other premise that Europe is soft on terrorism is unfounded as they have been dealing with it directly for a LOT longer than we have. Consequently, the single most successful attack ever carried out by terrorists was done on OUR soil, not there's. Subtlety is not the same thing as apathy. Just because they don't beat their chest doesn't mean they aren't working the issue in a less obvious way. I would think that discretion would be advantageous when the propaganda used against us speaks to behavior in which we continually engage. By drawing a line in the sand, we make more enemies than friends. Strike hard, but only when necessary. Otherwise, the doors you kick in in your attempt to root out your enemy may very well be the doors of people who didn't take sides before, but will now.

Finally, as far as displaying the will to fight, I will believe that all Americans will be displaying the will to fight when a family member of a Senator, a Representative or Senior White House Staff Member is serving in combat. I will believe that we are geared up for war when the rich no longer work to abdicate their responsibilities to pay a higher share of taxes in order to fund our efforts, because God knows that they won't be sending THEIR sons and daughters to war.



Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Believers Are Scary: Why The Bush Administration Scares Me

I have been pondering for a long time trying to figure out exactly what my issues are with the current administration. There are many emotional issues that strike me immediately, but I find them to be of little value when trying to evaluate the effectiveness and direction of this administration. For sure, they are arrogant and self-righteous and secretive and pompous and most of all they act like schoolyard bullies. But, truth be told, there is a little of that in every leader or politician with significant power. I was born and raised in the Washington, D.C. area, so I’m no stranger to the personalities of those who work in the White House and on Capitol Hill. I have also worked in the government sector for over 10 years as a consultant and have served a tour in Afghanistan as an Army soldier, so I know that there is little validity or meaningful purpose behind large conspiracy theories or the like. For the most part their behavior makes them hypocrites as they regularly stand on their “moral high ground” and berate their opponents and ideological opposites while bemoaning the loss of civil discourse and debate. However, being a bit of a hypocrite has never really been a showstopper for any politician either.

I think this behavior and all its consequences are merely the symptoms of related, deep seeded issues that makes up the disease that is at the root of my concern about this administration. What bother me the most are their policies and their reasoning behind their policies. It’s the logic, or lack there of, that I think is truly disturbing. However, the question is still in the air, why? Why do men and women who are by no means stupid develop and promote policies that, beyond their shiny surfaces, are so illogical and counterproductive, especially in the long term?

It’s with the rest of this rant that I attempt to reconcile this question.

On the way into work today I was close to solidifying my theory in my head when it was quickly made whole while I was listening to an interview with Hans Blix on NPR. When asked why the Bush Administration went into Iraq when all signs were pointing against the existence of WMD and some of their own intelligence was shown to be false, he answered (I’m paraphrasing here), “Because they are believers. They believed that WMD existed and the believed that Saddam was evil.” Pop! Bing! Bam! Boom! The light bulb went off in my head and I had the epiphany that has spurred me to write this rant. What struck me so clearly in his statement was the use, and I think intentional use, of the word “BELIEVE”. That’s exactly it! They, the Bush Administration, neo-conservatives and all their minions et al, are BELIEVERS! BELIEVERS don’t need empirical evidence; they don’t need facts; they don’t need logic; they only need their vision and their BELIEFS. In a nutshell this explained what makes them both shortsighted and illogical, and in the long run, detrimental to the long-term future of this country.

First, do not think this rant is meant to denigrate one’s religious belief system. I am not talking about being Christian, Muslim or Jewish or of any other religious “faith”. What I’m writing about is applying the same system of faith and belief to the human political system. When one is discussing “God” or “Religion” or “Faith” they are essentially talking about something that cannot be proved or supported via empirical evidence – regardless of how hard some seem to try. It requires FAITH to BELIEVE in God or a higher power because by definition, God and these higher powers are beyond the realm of empirical evidence. Your FAITH and BELIEF are part of what proves your worthiness to God or the higher power. However, the body politic of man is not of the Godly realm and is wholly defined by empirical evidence and the perceptions of those within its system. Therefore, when one must explain their actions within the scope of politics, they must be able to answer the populace with empirical evidence or at least logic in order to adequately explain their actions. If one cannot do this, then they will eventually be exposed and will be removed from office – at least that is the hope.

With this in mind, let’s take a look at the current administration.

The Bush Administration has scored very high with respect to its reactions to 9/11. This comes from the inherent decisiveness that is part and parcel with BELIEVERS. War, combat and the defense of a nation require decisive action when this action is a response to a direct assault on our people and land. “He who hesitates is lost.” We can easily concede that the actions in Afghanistan were both warranted and conducted in excellent fashion – even if it would be harder to argue that any other President would have acted differently. Even the peacekeeping is going fairly well. Afghanistan was the epicenter for radical Muslim extremists and was a logical and proper choice for direct action. The funny thing is the world agreed. Strange how that works, you make a logical decision and most of the world agrees. Interesting.

Let’s also concede that the campaign in Iraq was also executed with efficiency and audacity that speaks to the excellence of our armed forces. The problems of keeping the peace not withstanding, it’s not our military that’s the problem in Iraq, it is the reasoning behind our being there and the lack of forethought by this administration that is now causing problems and is causing the populace to refocus on the abilities of this administration.

Mr. Bush has enjoyed a hiatus with respect to his domestic policies as well his foreign policies not related to the war on terrorism. In essence, our attention has been diverted. However, the public has lost most of its fear of terrorism at home, the world is none too pleased with our foray into Iraq, and the war itself and the economy aren’t going so well anymore. Our unemployment rate is high, our entitlement programs are going bankrupt, the rich are abdicating their responsibilities towards taxes at the expense of the middle and lower classes, and our environment is being ignored in order to provide short-term economic gains.

On the war front specifically, more men and women are coming home in body bags now than during the invasion and we have no WMD to show for it, no evidence of a terrorist link of any significance in Iraq, and we are now faced with years of support and peacekeeping if we don’t want to see a bloody civil war for which we will be blamed and rightly so. We are hemorrhaging are domestic financial resources to pay for this war and reconstruction and the benefit of even the most remote possibilities of success are starting to seem incongruent with the costs. We may establish a democracy in Iraq, but what if they choose a fundamentalist government? What then? Do we declare the election null and void because we don’t like the outcome? How democratic. And, what if they choose a secular government? How much money and time will we have to spend providing security to ensure it survives? The sad thing is, we are stuck paying for and supporting this effort because if we pull out now, it will be a bloodbath of epic proportions. Sadder still is the fact that in our approach we alienated the only countries that could provide viable peacekeeping support.

So, how did we get here?

We got here because from the very beginning of this administration, there was a “BELIEF” that Saddam was evil and that he had WMD and therefore he had to go. After 9/11, the BELIEF became even more ensconced. Because this administration is filled with like-minded BELIEVERS (they wouldn’t be in the administration if they weren’t like-minded), they need little supporting empirical evidence to convince them of their righteousness. Conversely, once they were convinced of their righteousness, it would have taken a great deal of contrary empirical evidence to dissuade them and, additionally, if you set the standard of evidence high enough, you can rest assured, no one will be able to meet the threshold. The problem is that with a BELIEVER it is easy to overlook the inherent inaccuracies and “gray” areas of intelligence when said intelligence supports your beliefs, but it is a different story when the intelligence is in opposition. In science or in logical discussions, when one’s theories are challenged, peers evaluate the evidence or argument presented and the worthiness of the challenge is determined. If the challenge can be repeated or has enough evidence to support its suppositions, then it is accepted and implemented in lieu of the original theory. However, in a faith based system you must virtually hit one over their head with the facts before they acquiesce. The difference is that BELIEF is based on emotion, not logic or critical thought. Therefore, your evidence, or in this case, intelligence, must be so strong as to overcome what the person believes “with all their heart” is correct. Come on, how can the President be wrong if he is surrounded by all those smart people and he BELIEVES with ALL HIS HEART that he is RIGHT?

Again you ask, how did we get here?

We got here because investors and consumers lost confidence in corporations and because the BELIEVERS, mostly congress in this case, have worked to deregulate industry as a whole, not because there is evidence that looser regulations spur ethical businesses that creates jobs, but because they BELIEVE that it does those things. The evidence, however, is usually quite to the contrary. But, because the evidence is based on social science and statistics, things quite fuzzy to begin with, those on the pulpit of BELIEF label it “Junk Science”. It’s that need for the baseball bat to the head. “If it doesn’t have a .05 confidence level then I’m not buying it.” This is a sentiment shared by many even though they know that very little in social science, or even hard science, can achieve such confidence levels. So, instead of erring on the side of caution and admitting that there even is a “gray area” to begin with, they turn to their BELIEFS and say, well, if you can’t prove it, then I will trust my BELIEFS. And, as is par for the course, they have no problems sighting social science statistics, with the same issues of confidence, when those findings support their BELIEFS. If you’re lucky they may admit that it’s not clear from the evidence presented, but they will then always fall back on their BELIEFS. What’s even worse is when they find some obscure study or statistic that muddies the water just enough to allow them to fall back on their BELIEFS and dismiss or ignore other facts or logical arguments.

More you ask?

We got here because those in charge of protecting our environment and the consumer BELIEVE that the free market and businesses are capable of policing themselves. Furthermore, they BELIEVE that the cost of doing business and keeping the economy running means it’s ok to lose a few trees, cause a little disease, poison a little water, or cut a few accounting corners. After all, it’s for the greater economic good of all people, right? So, if you’re against deregulation you must be against the economic betterment of the people, right? (You can’t have it both ways in the BELIEF world.) And, come on, those scientists and economists don’t really KNOW without a doubt what the effects of our policies are anyway. Ok, so why not err on the side of safety and fairness? All of the current administration’s environmental and business policies and laws come from their BELIEFS even though time and time again science and legal proceedings have shown that their BELIEFS are usually on the opposite side of fact and logic.

These are just some examples of how the role of BELIEF determines the path of this administration and those in Congress also on a similar BELIEF bandwagon. There are many others out there, but I will leave it to the reader to find them and see for themselves. However, don’t think that this approach is limited to just those people and organizations which we call the “Right”. There are many BELIEF ideologues on the “Left” as well. They are the ones responsible for political correctness run wild and for ridiculous regulations that overprotect and stifle economic expansion. Regardless of one’s political stripe, it’s their approach that makes them dangerous. The “Right” seems to have more of the BELIEVER type because, for the most part, they encompass more of the religious fundamentalists within their sphere of influence and understanding. (Something I find ironic as Jesus sat firmly on the left side of the equation) Consequently, the same strong belief system that accompanies their religious faith is translated into politics. This isn’t a judgment, but an observation. The same observation I think the founding fathers made when they ensured that the separation of church and state was such an important concept within the constitution.

You may now be asking, why is this an issue? Well, I think it’s an issue, in fact THE issue, because this sort of approach to decision taking and leadership can lead to several problems.

The first problem is that BELIEVERS, on both sides, tend to frame issues and problems in very simplistic terms, black and white if you will. They do this because any BELIEF system cannot easily deal with complexity. Complex systems are filled with contradictory information and require a great deal of insight, study and effort to understand and to manage. Many ideologically driven decisive people don’t have the time for such things and any fervent BELIEF system certainly has no time for skeptics and details. Therefore, everything and everyone must fit neatly into little boxes of black and white, right and wrong, or left and right. Those messy little details that cannot easily fit into one of the many diametrically opposed categories are swept away as irrelevant or are attacked as inaccurate or misleading. Rarely are such messy little details dealt with by facts because that would involve questioning their FAITH and once one does that, they open up a Pandora’s Box of questions and messy little details. And, once one begins to question one piece of a BELIEF-based system, then it brings into question the entire system, and the BELIEVERS can’t have that either.

This inability to question one’s own BELIEFS and the propensity to label and categorize everything into opposing boxes also instigates and promotes divisiveness and an US vs. THEM mentality. Consequently one is either with me or against me and if they are with me, then they cannot question the BELIEFS upon which we are based. So, instead of having enlightened debate about a subject, we end up with partisan posturing and the marketing of information that defends an ideological position but does not help solve the problem. The end result is polarization based on ideology instead of useful debate about the approach to a solution or the related facts.

Another problem with BELIEVERS is their unwillingness to question their own system of BELIEF. As was touched on above, if one begins to question their belief system, then everything they BELIEVE they know comes into question and worse still, the world is no longer a simplistic equation capable of being categorized into tidy boxes. “If I can’t categorize then I have to analyze and that requires effort, and God forbid I may have to change my mind should the data suggest that my viewpoint is wrong. And change? We cannot change, for that would require…effort.” And, should one challenge their strategy of simplification, then they have a label for them too: "elitist", "technocrat", and "intellectual snob". Notice they never say a person thusly labeled is wrong based on the facts, just that they are an "elitist" and OBVIOUSLY out of touch with this SIMPLE problem. See, BELIEVING is easy. It’s only challenging when one finally gets hit over the head with a messy little detail that can’t be neatly categorized or easily dismissed. It’s much easier to say “In Shalah”, “It’s God’s Will”, than to accept the fact that A) we don’t control everything and B) maybe there is something I am missing or I’m wrong about. And, once one begins to question their simplistic model, then all of their resultant BELIEFS and decisions and positions based on that belief are now brought into question. Furthermore, they now must actually work to develop an informed opinion on each issue or concern instead of easily drawing conclusions based on their BELIEFS or from the trough of like-minded ideologues.

And, if one does change their mind, then they have set themselves up for the worst of all labels in the BELIEVER world, “waffler”, “flip-flopper”, “opportunist”. The critical thinking mind does not fear change and does not fear changing one’s mind when faced with clear evidence that’s in contrast to earlier held positions. This is so because the mind that’s not stuck in a particular BELIEF system understands that nothing in the human world, much less the political, is set in stone and most things don’t fit neatly into black and white boxes. Therefore, the critical thinker attempts to make decisions on the best information available at any one time. Does this mean that the right decision will always be taken, no. But, what it does mean is that the critical thinker has justifiable reasons for the decision taken and clear reasons for instigating change based on the new data or information. Best of all, they can do it with a clear conscience. However, if one takes a position on BELIEF and only considers information in line with their agenda, then they have no room for a change of “heart” and therefore will be subject to throwing themselves upon their own sword before instigating rightful change.

So, which kind of person do YOU want taking decisions that affect your life?

There are many other issues that come with those who chose FAITH over critical thinking, but again, I leave that to the reader to explore. However, we need to also ask ourselves how we have been sold on those that lead from the pulpit of BELIEF as opposed to critical thought. We, and I mean collectively as we have elected many that fit into this category, have allowed ourselves to be led by such people because they have appealed to our emotions. Like all good BELIEVERS they know that facts alone will not incite the type of action for which they are looking. They must appeal to our emotions.

From the Right: We have been attacked and we are vulnerable! You deserve your money more than the Government! Regulations stifle economic growth! Illegal immigrants take your jobs! Saddam kills his own people and is making weapons of mass destruction that could kill YOU! Environmentalists are tree-hugging wackos who care more about whales then people! Public schools promote premarital sex and teach a theory that borders on religion and discounts God! Democrats are liberal wimps!

From the LEFT: All corporations are evil and want to rip you off! All corporations that make money from natural resources are evil and will destroy the world! The IMF is the route of all evil! All Pro-Lifers are Terrorists! Good security means loss of all our freedoms! Republicans are religious zealot warmongers!

Where the BELIEVERS excel in the marketing and promotion of their message they lack context and critical thought. If you were to ask any politician or leader what are the major problems in this country, you would most likely get similar answers from all of them, although in a slightly different order of priority. Where the large differences would become apparent between the critical thinker and the BELIEVER is in the framing of the problem and the approach to the solution.

First, we should acknowledge that most of the problems in today’s America are NOT that big a deal. Trust me when I tell you, after spending 9 months in Afghanistan, that other than defending ourselves from major attack, our problems are one of detail that most other countries wish they had time or need to discuss. Many other countries deal with whether or not they will even have schools, or roads on which to drive to school, as opposed to whether schools should teach the use of condoms. They worry about disease and food and basic infrastructure instead of obesity, violence on TV, and smoking. They worry whether their kid is going to step on a land mine, be forced into labor, or die of dysentery instead of whether they are playing too many video games and watching Janet Jackson expose a breast during the Super Bowl. What we worry about amounts to fine-tuning. Because of this, most of the clear-cut, simple issues that face many other countries have already been covered and dealt with in America. This means that the “problems” we are dealing with today are complex. It’s this complexity that causes problems and creates those messy “gray areas”. Its how one deals with said complexity that draws the distinction between BELIEVERS and critical thinkers.

BELIEVERS frame the problem by first trying to stuff it into a nice, neat box that can have a convenient label placed on it and can be effectively marketed on a bumper sticker to a populace more interested in watching brain-numbing “reality” entertainment and buying their next cell phone than engaging in the reality of politics and the finer points of tax policy and environmental regulation. BELIEVERS know that they don’t need facts to sell their point of view to the uninformed, they just need enough “information” to frame the problem so that it fits neatly into a box to which like-minded constituents can identify. Then it’s only a matter of saying, “Because this issue fits into Box A, the solution is in line with all issues that fall into Box A”. The solution that fits depends on whose “Box” you’re currently buying. If you’re a BELIEVER on the right, than solution “Right” fits. If you’re a BELIEVER on the left, than solution “Left” fits.

If you are unsure or your friends are questioning your particular BELIEF, no worries, each BELIEF system will feed you enough information and opinion to help you form an opinion inline with the BELIEF without the waste of personal time necessary to read a little and form your own opinion. What could be easier? The rub is that the BELIEVERS know that most people, especially those who are already BELIEVERS, but even some who are just uninterested or lazy, will be happy to have their opinions spoon fed to them if it means they don’t have to work for it themselves. And, gee, these people sure are smart, so they must know what they are talking about, right?

BELIEVERS rely on the laziness and apathy or those unwilling to apply critical thinking skills or, more importantly, personal time to a problem because that would constitute work. On the flip side, critical thinkers are hamstrung because the only way to get their message out effectively is to present the facts and facts are dry and boring and often inconclusive. To compound the problem this inconclusiveness plays right into the BELIEVER’S hands. “Confused by this inconclusive mumbo jumbo? No problem, we'll cut right through that confusion and spoon-feed you your opinion.” BELIEVERS have a whole host of organizations, think tanks and research centers that are happy to condense, massage, spin and market the appropriate information necessary to sell their respective agendas. The facts they do present are almost always out of context to the larger issue and are presented in a way to ensure that they promote a message consistent with the respective BELIEF systems they’re supporting. In short, they act as the information middlemen. The problem is they are NOT unbiased middlemen. And, if that’s where people are getting their “facts” from, then that's the BELIEF system they are consciously or unconsciously buying into. Worse yet, one can easily shop around until they find the information that fits their BELIEF system, as long as factual content isn't a prerequisite.

In contrast to this, critical thinkers look at all the evidence, and not just that which is produced by think tanks and the like that inevitably have their own agendas. Critical thinkers seek out independent sources whose independence can be verified and supported by the rigor of their research and not the strength or loudness or emotional appeal of their presentation.

BELIEVERS simplify while critical thinkers muddy the water with details and messy little facts, but as the saying goes, “The devil is in the details.” By simplifying issues, BELIEVERS create a framework that affords them the ability to present solutions that address only a simplified, dumb-downed issue. The real problem is that the issue is actually very complex and the “simple” solution only addresses the cosmetic surface and not the underlying root cause of the problem. Too many criminals? Build more jails – but at what cost to manage and what happens when they get out? Schools not performing? Raise the standards and test, test, test – but, who foots the bill and where are all the qualified teachers going to come from and who decides what should go on the test? Need to pay for a war? Raid social security and deficit spend – but who is going to pay for the retirements of those already in the program and what spending will we cut in the future to balance the budget? What these “simple” solutions amount to are short-term solutions that usually end up causing a whole host of unintended and detrimental consequences, i.e. seat-of-the-pants management. But, these simple solutions have the attractive qualities of the impression of decisiveness and simplicity that one can easily understand. Therefore, they sell and they sell well.

The problem then becomes one of dealing with all the unintended consequences of simple-minded, short-term thinking. A problem exacerbated by the fact that no one from the BELIEF camp did any risk management or mitigation to deal with the possibility of unforeseen or unintended problems (see Iraq). So, more seat of the pants management. And, if anyone were to have the audacity to complain, then they are merely “Monday Morning Quarterbacks” (see former Chairman or the JCS, Treasury Secretary and now former Counter-Terrorism Czar).

Complex problems need to be investigated from every angle and the solution will most likely have to be equally complex. Often, the solution will have to promote the implementation of programs that will not lend themselves to cost benefit analysis over the short period. This is an anathema to BELIEVERS of all stripes - ironic considering the fact that most BELIEF systems deal in deferred rewards. This deferred result further complicates matters, as politicians need results in order to be reelected. This short-term thinking then leads to finger pointing and backbiting as each BELIEF system blames the other for the unintended consequences. This results in very little civil discourse and even less critical thinking.

With all this said, this does not mean that ideology is always bad or that we cannot draw great ideas from BELIEF systems. What it does mean is that managing, investigating and making decisions is NOT something that should be done by BELIEVERS. Our “problems” require a deep understanding of the context, scope and issues behind them – they require CRITICAL THINKING. They cannot be packaged neatly into ideological boxes and solved with equally simple solutions. If we allow ourselves to be ruled by BELIEVERS and their middlemen, then we are destined to be polarized and angry. Angry because we will never be solving problems, we will only be putting our finger in the next hole in the dyke, and polarized because we will spend our time arguing about whose finger should be used and which hole should be next.

So, after all of this, why does the Bush Administration bother me? They bother me because they are an administration of BELIEVERS. They are not evil men and women. They are not out to purposely screw the little guy. They are not out to reward any one company or organization - well, not any more than any other politician. They are not out to rule the world. They are simply applying their simple-minded solutions to the problems they have artificially simplified via their BELIEF system. Trickle down economic theory, peace through superior firepower, preemptive foreign policy, unregulated free markets, organizational self-policing, these are all BELIEFS. They aren’t the results of critical thinking or thorough investigation. They aren’t implemented to screw you or unduly reward anyone else, although that may be the unintended consequences of their actions. But, that is not why they implement their policies. They implement their policies because they BELIEVE that they are right. And, unless they are hit over the head with the proverbial bat, then they will not be dissuaded in their pursuit of their BELIEF.

The problem with this particular set of BELIEVERS is that they have an Army of middlemen that are there to ensure that the bat is never big enough. This army spends its time attacking the message, and more often the messenger, by impugning anything that doesn’t have a .05 or better confidence level or by attacking the messenger on a personal level. This is a very nifty trick that looks to use science against itself and looks to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger.

As is part and parcel of their ilk, they apply the science out of context. Very little in science has such high confidence levels, mostly because the scientists simply lack the time or resources to collect more data to make more accurate predictions of future behavior. The truly despicable nuance to this type of attack is that it kills two birds with one stone. By attacking the science behind an issue, using this dubious approach, they not only defend their position but also promote the position that further research would be useless, as they already know the answer. In this way they ensure that the prerequisite confidence level is never reached because resources to do further research will not be made available and they can continue on with their BELIEF system unimpeached and unchallenged. The problem with their approach with respect to the public is that many people don’t understand scientific methods or statistical mathematics well enough to understand which findings and conclusions are truly significant; hence the BELIEVERS using the confidence level of a study out of context to discredit the conclusions of the report. Therefore, people rely on these middlemen to interpret the “facts” and all the while these middlemen are using an intellectual slight-of-hand to present their biased side of the story in a way that is consistent with their BELIEF system. Odious is the word I would use.

If the message cannot be effectively attacked in this way, then this administration, and their minions – both official and unofficial – attack the messenger. Hey, if what they’re saying can’t be spun, then spin the messenger. The fear mongerer Senator Joe McCarthy was a master at this type of character assassination, especially when it came to those who rightly came after him. Give a reasoned rebuttal about why we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq and you are labeled a pacifist or unpatriotiotic. Show how tax breaks screw the American public and you are a liberal “tax & spender” who wants to socialize the free market by redistributing the wealth. Ask who was sitting on the energy policy board and how policy was developed and you are a nosey busybody environmentalist who wants to fight deregulation that will help the economy. It’s a very effective tool to muzzle criticism. And, with the right network in place, you have the capability to repeat an unfounded accusation enough to ensure those who are too lazy to check will be convinced that any accusation is fact. Once they are convinced that the messenger is a , then his or her message is irrelevant, regardless of how factual it is.

Another tool from this tool box is the, “if you can’t answer the question about a policy or activity, then repeat the relevant policy and appeal to their emotions” tool. This is how it works: You ask, “Is the President concerned that the coalition is weakening in Iraq because of Spain’s intention to pull out.” The answer, “The President is committed to working with coalition to ensure that the free people of Iraq will be afforded every opportunity to pursue their new found freedom. We will stay as long as it takes to fight terrorism in Iraq and the world. The coalition is made up of many European countries and we are all committed to a safer world free of terrorism. Next question.” The next person asks, “So, does that mean the President is concerned about Spain intention to pull out of Iraq” The answer, “The President is committed to working with coalition to ensure that the free people of Iraq …” You get the idea. This is a very effective use of the non-answer answer tool or its cousin, the “speak a lot, but say a little” tool. This way, BELIEVERS can never be pinned down to an answer that would provide an opportunity to question their basic BELIEFS behind their policies or assertions. Listen to ANY White House press briefing and you will be schooled in the arts of Orwellian double-speak. I wonder if the Press Secretary feels the need to take a shower after each press conference?

What has been presented above represents the double-down defense of the ideologue, the BELIEVER, the Bush Administration. Protect the BELIEF at all costs, because it will all come tumbling down otherwise. “Do NOT look at the man behind the curtain!” The BELIEVERS currently in charge have mastered this game. Again, its not that they aren’t trying to fix the same problems, it’s their approach and the consequences of their approach that to me are the most damning. They aren’t evil and for the most part are probably intelligent and personable people. They WANT to do the right thing. But, the problem is that they frame and approach the problems as BELIEVERS and not critical thinkers.

The Bush Administration is shortsighted, self-righteous and arrogant. Their FAITH in their BELIEF system allows them to dismiss contrary evidence and to ignore the perceptions of the world and their detractors because they KNOW they are right. They KNOW they are right because they have insulated themselves within a system dedicated to keeping their particular BELIEF system intact as opposed to solving the actual problems they face. All of this is done despite growing evidence that runs contrary to their BELIEFS. They scoff at criticisms because no one has “proved” them wrong yet. Well, hard to provide proof when you must fight an army of BELIEF henchmen. Henchmen dedicated to preserving a system that limits access to those who pose challenges or questions too hard to dismiss or ignore using the standard tools of double speak and intellectual slights-of-hand.

This is why the Bush Administration bothers me. This is why they scare me. It’s the close-minded, single-mindedness and self-righteous approach that concerns me. There are times for decisiveness and single-minded determination, but in the world of politics, especially in a country of many complex problems and few simple ones like America, those times are few and far between. Most of our problems, and certainly the problems of the world, require much greater research, forethought and critical thinking than has been the hallmark of this administration. They have run roughshod over the American people and the people of the world using the tactics of a bully who BELIEVES he is right no matter what. Sometimes they have shown great leadership, but more often than not they have only demonstrated arrogance and a lack of intellectual depth.

I have finally put my finger on why this administration bothers me and it’s because they are BELIEVERS who want to shape the world in the image of their BELIEF system, excluding those who don’t prescribe to their BELIEFS, instead of shaping it into the best possible image it can be, within the constraints of the modern world, while including as many people as possible in the process. If you do not understand the difference, then I am afraid that this essay is probably lost on you.

Monday, March 15, 2004

A Response To: "Light at the End of the Telecom Tunnel"

Read This First ---------> Editorial Link

James,

Having worked as a Telecom consultant I have mixed feelings about the editorial "Light at the End of the Telecom Tunnel". I do agree that in order for their to be incentives to move forward with technology, other companies must build their own networks and put forth new technologies. The problem is that NONE of these companies, save Cable and the Bells, own the copper to the home. That has ALWAYS been the problem; the so-called "last mile". Because the copper, in either twisted pair or cable form, is owned by what amounts to regulated monopolies, although less so now, they can sit back on their assets that were accumulated via tax money and income that was received when they were the only game in town. The other companies are left to find private capital for their own ideas and technologies. While switching gear is readily available, it doesn't come cheap and it's technology and approach dependent. This means that if one chooses to go with a new company they will be a slave to their technology with no guarantees as to the long-term worthiness of the technology. Furthermore, because most cannot understand the difference, they will have a hard time making an informed decision.

In the end this means that if we are lucky and capital is made available to the competitors of the Bells, Comcast's and the like, we will have a flourish of competing technologies that the consumer will have to choose from. The reality is, that no matter what, the consumer will have to pay for new equipment and will have to choose the type of service (VoIP, Cable Digital, DSL, Wireless, etc) they want. Basically, costs of startup and competition will be passed onto the consumer with little or no guarantee that the technology chosen will make it through the inevitable shakeout that will follow. This can have a dubious effect on those who do not have the disposable income to move forward and must rely on the old systems that will become more costly to maintain and consequently more costly to use and those costs will most assuredly be passed on to the consumer.

So, the outlook is muddled at best and is hardly as clear-cut as the "Free Market Always Wins" outlook of your editorial and the Cato Institute et al. The free market is probably the best thing going, but it can be painful. But, the pain is different when you are talking about a product or service that has grown to be essential in everyday life. We aren't talking microwaves or televisions here. I think it's one of the government's jobs, on all levels, to protect the average consumer from excessive pain caused by free market forces. It's essential that governments do this or we will end up with a populace that is angry and wants more regulation than is probably necessary or good. So, I think a little forethought will save us from a lot of future knee-jerking. The question isn't one of either regulation or no regulation, it's about what regulations or amount of regulation can we implement that will protect the consumer from the enormous potential costs and technology fluctuations of future telecommunications while allowing competition to flourish and provide a better product.

Friday, March 12, 2004

A Response To: "Obesity Obsession"

Read This First --------> Editorial Link

Steven,

What are you getting at? I don't understand. Maybe I'm just dense. If your point is that the method of statistical analysis is flawed or overstated, then simply say that. But, somehow you rant on about a wider conspiracy to manipulate the people of this country. Are you paranoid or just an ideologue? Seriously. Are you trying to say that obesity and being overweight is not a risk factor in shortening one's life or at the very least it causes medical problems which then have to be treated? Adult onset diabetes, heart disease, stroke, joint and muscle issues, and all the other ailments which have been shown to have DIRECT correlations to being overweight and obese and you choose to attack their methods of statistical analysis? So, again, what is it your trying to prove or say? You say that their findings don't PROVE anything. Well, most of science hardly ever proves beyond some doubt simply because it's based on repeatable experiments that use statistical analysis to make reasonable conclusions. You are using the same ridiculous argument that fundamentalist use to denigrate the theory of evolution in favor of creationism, which makes me wonder about your leanings.

Perhaps the CDC is overstating their case, but so what? Do you think it's good to be overweight? Do you NOT believe that obesity and weight problems can lead to a shortened life? And how do you make the leap of logic that by using an analytical approach that might be a bit less accurate then many, resulting in a bit of an overstatement, is somehow dangerous to the American public? You remind me of those high-school know-it-alls that pick apart someone's statement or story to show everyone how smart they are when, in the end, it bares no relevance to the point or the conclusion of the story or statement. Being obese and overweight will cause most people medical problems that can easily lead to a shortened life. Statistics, no matter what method of analysis you use, points to an increasing trend of deaths that can, at least in some part, be attributable to one's weight condition. And, that trend, if it continues, could cause it to be a bigger killer than smoking. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT STATEMENT!!!????!!!! How, again, HOW does this translate into a giant "military industrial complex", big government (let's be honest, that's what you're really saying) conspiracy? I would think someone who doesn't want their money wasted would be thrilled to see the government and others take steps to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. But no, you would rather try to show everyone how smart you are and cut your nose off to spite your face.

With all your education and experience, this is the best you can do? Pretty sad.

Thursday, March 04, 2004

A Response To: "No to Jesus, Yes to Gangster Rap"

Read This First --------> Editorial Link

Bill,

Equating an inability to find negative commentary on "Gansta Rap" is not the same thing as condoning it. If their message is what you have an issue with, than comment on the message and not the people who write it. But, as is the trick and trade of many, you engage in an intellectual slight-of-hand that frees you to attack the messenger instead of the message. Furthermore, you use your personal attacks as a foil to expound on your own indignation with a particular rap star.

You use the extremely tired label of "left wing liberal media" to heap pejorative, personal attacks on other editorialist without actually engaging in a debate (that doesn't mean you talk and they listen) about their message. You lump in the current popularity of "The Passion" in order to hook your target demographic and to ensure that they side with you and then you display your "show card" about the editorials in question. Then, while your audience is waiting for a response to the editorials you switch the "show card" and when they look again you're now talking about "Gangsta Rap" and one particular artist with whom you apparently have personal issues.

What?

Somehow, you make the leap of logic that by NOT writing about a particular subject, in this case rap music, and BY writing about another subject, "The Passion", two subjects of complete opposite context, these "left-wing-liberal-elite-editorialist" are somehow supporting the subject they don't comment on or have not commented on in a negative fashion and they are "bashing" a subject that is blatently above criticism. Then, for good measure, you get a few licks in on a rap star you apparently don't personally like. So, in your mind at least, you succeed in somehow comparing ganster rap with the movie "The Passion" and then lead everyone to the "obvious" conclusion that the editorialist MUST be nuts not to see the black and white of right and wrong or good and bad. I mean, come on, a movie about Jesus is obviously better than rap music...right?

Wow, is that a debate technique they teach these days? Sounds more like ideologue propaganda school to me.

Come on Bill, we're not all that stupid.