Public opinion …

I ran across a footnote this morning that referenced an out-of-print publication and an article published in 1954: Saturday Review, “Who Tells the Storytellers”, by Elmo Roper. I vaguely remember a thing called a”Roper Poll.” Elmo Roper was a leader in the field of market research and public opinion polling. The article is not available, and (maybe a comment on modern culture) the rights to it and all of the old Saturday Review articles is owned by Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione.

The footnote caught my eye because it was an observation about American society from 56 years ago:

Elmo Roper’s classification of influential groups in the United States is well known: about 90% of the population is “politically inert”; they become active only accidentally, when they are set into motion, but they are normally “inactive, inattentive, manipulable, and without critical faculty.”

In other words, only about ten percent of us are paying attention. Once every two years the 90% are shaken awake and inoculated with intense agitation propaganda otherwise known as the “political ad” – sound and image-bytes meant to appeal to prejudice and emotion, constructed to manipulate, carrying no substance, and made with the understanding that the viewer is clueless but will soon vote. We then head in masse to the polls and present our views to our leaders, and our media dutifully analyze what the public “thinks.”

Let’s be honest – we can talk freely here, as that 90% of public will not be found reading political blogs. I noticed this as I went door-to-door night after night in 1996 in my run for state legislature – the faces were vapid, the “issues” meaningless, and the arbiter of all that was going to happen on election day was the television, always in the background. That 90% is a whale on the beach, breathing but unable to move.

The “public mind” is a joke – it “thinks” in the same manner as a voice recorder. It plays back the opinions of leaders (with a great deal of background interference). The methods by which opinions spread are subtle and covert. Only rarely does a voice on television say something meant for the value of its content. Virtually all news and commentary is meant for subtle effect. (Thus we have the apparent contradiction wherein most of the American public, and virtually all of the Fox News viewership, thought that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks. It was no accident – that message was sent out in subterfuge and coded clues, very deliberately. That is how public opinion is formed. There is virtually no useful information dispersed by television.)

There is manipulation going on right now – agitprop and an angry segment of the voting public being activated – to what purpose I do not know. But the “Teabaggers” are about as spontaneous as a prom dance. They are interesting not for the content of their message, which is typically muddled and incoherent. They are interesting because some group, some moneyed interest, plans to use them for some nefarious purpose. Stay tuned.

The Citizens United decision tosses another spice into our stew. It is based on the premise that “advertising” and “speech” are synonymous. That is a ludicrous notion. Advertising is subversion of the individual, psychological manipulation. It has power because it is effective to the exact degree that we think it is not. If we think ourselves immune to advertising, we are its slaves.

Now given the power to spread their message with virtually unlimited funds on a population that is “politically inert, inactive, inattentive, manipulable, and without critical faculty,” we are pretty much screwed. Public opinion is now owned by corporate masters, and by extension, so are all virtually politicians (with the exception of odd and out-of-the-way places like Boulder, Missoula, and Vermont).

Citizens United is a master stroke, a calculated pandering to power masked as reasoned jurisprudence. It will plunge us into darkness.

Where is hope, oh gloomy one? Certainly it is not in that 90%. C/U merely formalized the ownership of them and electoral politics by the corporations.

But we are still left with the 10%.

But who are “we”? We are intellectually alive, diverse, and stuck in the mud. Assume that every living is ideology expressed to some degree within our numbers. What is the mainstream of thought among the thoughtful? Right now it is “free markets,” but that cannot last as it relies on the fictional man as its mainstay. We are not the simple economic beings they think us to be. Soon to return is the community man, the generous and caring citizen, the man willing to give of himself in return for the good of his family and friends and community. That is our better nature. These are indeed dark times, but that nature does not change. We have been sidetracked by free market economics, but will get back on track after another economic disaster or two. Takes time …

In the long run we are all dead, and yet, in the long run, there has always been progress towards a better society.

American marketing 101

A friend of my daughter’s has two W-2’s and some student loan interest. She went to H&R Block to get her tax return done, and they wanted $150. She shopped around a bit more and found that the tax preparation business is pretty much like the cell phone business or health insurance … there’s very little competition, and a whole lot of gouging going on.

We have a couple of cell phones … one of them is functional. When they were both working, I got lured into a Verizon store by their Internet promotion of their Druid device. As I read it, the phone would cost $150, and the monthly service fee would be $70. That’s what we were paying for two phones, and I thought it would be worth it to have one phone with Internet access. So I went there – maybe I misunderstood, but the price of the phone was $250, and monthly service $100. That monthly service fee just happens to be exactly, to the penny, what Apple/AT&T wants for an IPhone.

As long as I was there anyway, we dropped one of our phones, saving us $30 a month. That was the best deal Verizon offered that day.

There are basically three cell phone carriers now – Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T. Their price structures are virtually identical. We are crazy to pay full price for a phone, as we pay the same monthly service fee whether we are under contract or not, and there is no incentive to switch from one carrier to another. They all want two year contracts.

Their phones cannot be used with any competitor’s signal. There has been very little innovation in recent years, and they do not allow applications on most devices. Every little extra service – music, email – costs extra. Accessories are made in Switzerland by the same people who make Rolex’s -that’s all I can figure. Why else would a $1.95 wall charger cost $35? And nothing works with anything else – each phone has it’s own unique little plug-in hole, and they keep changing them.

But that’s basically the marketing game in a nutshell – they must teach it at Harvard and community colleges alike – segment the market into low and high end, never undercut a competitor’s price, annuitize, and never cut a customer a break – Apple works as hard at monopolizing their customers as it does at innovating. The only way they try to distinguish themselves from competition is by advertising. Each has its own pitch for the same product.

It’s really boring, this American consumer capitalism. If it really worked like they say it does, we would be able to buy a phone at Target, and we would be able to switch from one carrier to another and add apps and make them earn our business. This is not competition.

Anyway, I did my daughter’s friend’s return – it took about 15 minutes. She offered me $50, but I did it for $15 – the cost of an e-file. I try not to be in the tax preparation business, but cannot avoid it. If I were in it for serious, I’d be doing those W-2 returns for $50, and clearing $35. It’s tempting.

But it brought to mind one other thought – those W-2 returns are so easy that a child could do them – why do these kids not learn something about it in school?

PS: I keep hoping that this strange un-American company, Google, will break some china here soon, both in cell phones and Internet service. Is the Google phone a new concept, or are they just trying to enter the market without disrupting the price structure?

Imagine

I had an interesting exchange below which has nagged at me. In the post, I noted that American scientists had studied the possibilities for weaponizing the Ebola virus, but that doing so only meant that if such a weapon could be developed, it would be the U.S. using it. It could be no other way.

Further, I offfered the following hypothetical:

Imagine the following passage from a book written, say, in 1943:

“The splitting of an atom can release massive amounts of energy, and can be potentially deadly. American scientists at White Sands, New Mexico, have tried to see if there is a way Nazi scientists would be able to come up with a way to make a bomb capable of destroying entire cities.”

In the exchange that followed, a commenter said

To our great detriment, nuclear weapons _are_ feasible and therefor, inevitable. I’m very glad the Nazis did not succeed.

Evil exists. We can’t wish it away.

I suppose that we are all glad that the Nazis did not succeed. Who knows -might they have done something crazy, like incinerate two cities?

Rest assured …

Stella Liebeck was the winner in the infamous McDonald’s coffee case. She was awarded $2.86 million for serous burns and vaginal surgery she endured due to spilling 180-degree coffee in her lap. Coffee at that temperature can generate third-degree burns in two to seven seconds. (She only asked McDonald’s to pay the hospital bill, but they refused, ergo, the lawsuit.)

Few people understand why such an incident, even where there is negligence, should generate such a large award. The amount approximated the amount of money McDonald’s had made selling too-hot coffee over a two-day period. They wanted to punish the company, and so awarded “punitive” damages. It may be true that Liebeck did not endure damages anywhere near that amount- perhaps a civil penalty is a better route in these affairs. Nonetheless, the impulse is a good one – companies should not profit from antisocial behavior.

Jennifer Latham of LaFayette, Colorado, took out an individual health insurance policy from Assurant Health, also known as Time Insurance Company. Latham and her husband (uninsured) were subsequently seriously injured in an auto accident, not their fault, and she incurred $185,000 in medical bills. Saying that Latham had committed insurance fraud by not reporting an emergency room visit for shortness of breath and treatment for uterine prolapse on her insurance application, the company rescinded her policy and refused to pay the bills.

The jury awarded Latham $37 million in punitive damages. This is a crystal-clear case of insurance fraud by an insurer – the omissions on the application were clearly unrelated to the incident for which coverage was denied. But most rescission cases are a little bit grayer than this – people do commit insurance fraud, not that I much care. We don’t need health insurance companies, after all.

But the jury could have been a little more thorough – they could have estimated how much money Assurant has made from policy rescission over the last, say, 20 years, and awarded her that amount, which would have run into the hundreds of millions. After all, the company has employees who do nothing but rescission. Punishment in that amount would be appropriate, and might perhaps discourage Assurant from further antisocial behavior. As it is, they are chastened, but will likely carry on as before. Investors demand no less. Rescission is profitable.

Beyond that, they might have invoked the corporate death sentence. Since corporations are legal persons, they should do as all of us must do some day … die.

Latham and her four children are currently living on Social Security, and Assurant will appeal the decision. It will be years before they cut a check.

Footnote: Tort “reform”, or limiting of such damage awards, would further encourage the Assurants of this world to abuse the Lathmans of this world. Such an award, in a tort-reformed system, would not be allowed.

News from Democratville …

President Obama today makes a stop in Denver – this is unusual. He is doing a Big Foot in the Democratic primary on behalf of appointed Senator Michael Bennet over State Representative Andrew Romanoff.

Bennet is a former investment manager for the Anschutz Investment Corporation. (Philip Anschutz made his fortune in oil). He was a Rahm Emanuel-inspired appointment, and has distinguished himself in the senate with the speed at which he filled his campaign coffers with Wall Street and health insurance money. He replaced Senator Ken Salazar, who was elevated to Secretary of the Interior by Obama.

Romanoff is campaigning for a public option and elimination of the antitrust exemption for the health insurance industry. Bennet strongly supports some things, and is passionate about other things. But he is realistic about what can be accomplished, and doesn’t really expect to do much if elected except to be a really good senator. At a debate last night in Auroria, he expressed a wish that they not debate, telling Romanoff that he loved him.

It’s really odd for a Democratic president to weigh in heavy in a state primary, but given Romanoff’s seeming liberal credentials, I suppose it is to be expected.

In other news, Obama has appointed former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to head his new commission on the Deficit. Bowles is an investment banker by trade. This is the “left” side of this balanced bipartisan commission. The “right” side, as usual, will be occupied by a true right winger, Alan Simpson, former Wyoming Senator.

This is America, where the right is right, and the left is right too, and everyone else is marginalized. But Alan Simpson is a good man, an honest man, a smart man, a witty man – at least there will be some entertainment as the commission studiously concludes that the fiscal problems in our land are the result of Social Security and Medicare. This commission will report to the president after the 2010 election, and there will be thereafter yet another attack on Social Security.

It’s scary, however, as when Democrats attack Social Security, the chances of success are better. It’s called “triangulation.”

Serving two masters

Sebastian Jones has a piece in Nation Magazine – David Sirota interviewed him this morning on his Denver talk show. Essentially, Jones is talking about a little-understood concept, the conflict of interest.

Suppose, for example, this this was a website sponsored by General Motors, and I did not disclose that fact, and then did safety and performance reviews of automobiles. If I were exposed and asked about it, I would likely say that my judgment is not compromised, and that I am perfectly capable of making informed judgments regardless of my source of income. It might even be true.

But that has nothing to do with “conflict of interest”. That expression refers to something else, the idea of serving two masters. It is inevitable that there will be a situation where the interests of one master, GM, will be at odds with the other, the general public. I cannot help but do a disservice to one or the other.

Jones’s first example is Tom Ridge, in service of the nuclear power industry but not saying so, and recommending that the Obama Administration go nuclear. If we were to ask Ridge about it, he would say that he is putting forth honest beliefs, and is therefore not conflicted. That is the standard response when people are exposed.

Over at Electric City Weblog, Dave Budge put up a link to an Atlantic article that cited a study done of 600,000 cases where people had or did not have insurance. The conclusion of the study was that having insurance does not affect health outcomes. He did not cite the funding source for the study, but with 600,000 follow-ups, it was surely very expensive. Without even glancing at the study, I told him that I knew the results were misleading, for one simple reason: People who have access to health care have better outcomes than people who do not.

But he insisted the study was objective, that it was a null hypothesis, and that I should restrict any comments to the study itself. Kind of pointless. Surely, somewhere in all of that nonesense exists a conflict of interest, and further, I should not be the one to search for it. It is the objective guy, the guy putting forth the study. Who funded it? No word.

But there’s a bigger conflict of interest at work in Washington right now- the Democrats and health care. Too many of them took too much money from AHIP and PhRMA to be objective. But the conflict runs deeper than just the money behind them. It is the private health insurance model itself. The Democrat bill that is being pushed does not deal with the conflict. Rather, it subsidizes the negative outcomes of that conflict. Republicans could not have passed such a horrible bill – such insults are usually dealt upon us by Democrats.

The conflict of interest that the Democrats want to subsidize works like this: We turn our money over to private insurers, they keep a portion of it, and use the rest to ration out health care. Each dollar they pay out in benefits reduces their profit margin. They have the stockholders on one side, and the policy holders on the other. They cannot serve one without harming the other. It’s classic. There is no way around it.

The free-marketeers are resolute and ideologically frozen in cement. They cannot fathom a market solution not working, and hence are blind to this obvious conflict. They have a conflict of thier own – married as they are to an obtuse ideology, they are at odds with reality. Hence they go into their shells, discuss these issues among themselves, and when people like me bring the conflict to their attention, they do what Budge did in this particular debate:

Back on subject. That’s nonsense, Mark. What we can or cannot see you cannot know. And when someone makes a point about an argument being made, an open minded person will take that argument on its merits – not on his ideals.

We know your position on a whole host of matters. We we don’t see is any new thought defending those.

The point of the study, funding aside, was supposedly simply bring to our attention an odd phenomenon, the apparent ineffectiveness of health insurance. It needs examination, I suppose, but let’s be frank: Budge’s purpose in highlighting it was to discredit a Harvard Medical/Cambridge Health study (no outside funding) the that found that 45,000 people die each year for lack of health insurance. He wants to disarm opponents of private health insurance. He has an agenda.

First, first they must deal with an old thought – the conflict of interest. How is it possible for insurance companies to serve two masters? I await an answer, from any of them. I pointed this out. There is no answer other than to eliminate private health insurance. The model does not work.

How to read the news …

Two stories are being used to control perceptions today, one of them even somewhat spontaneous.

1. Capture of Taliban #2 man: If anyone reading this has ever heard of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar before today, do speak up. In television drama, this is known as “moving the story forward.” Afghanistan is a murky place, and we’ve never really given a good demon to focus our hatred on. But somehow we have to be ushered along, rooting for our team as they seek to defeat the villains.

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar is just some dude, and he cannot possibly lead to the capture of Osama, unless it is a fake Osama, as Osama probably died in 2003 shortly after he denied any involvement in 9/11.

There are military objectives in Afghanistan, and somehow it became an emergent situation in 2008 after it became apparent that patriotic resistance in Iraq had been beaten down. Whatever is going on over there, public opinion is being managed right now, and the occasional capture of the “number two” man is part it. Move that story forward.

Evan Bayh, presidential timbre, steps down. In case no one notices, Evan Bayh probably was facing a tough reelection battle, as he is a conservadem, a right winger, part of the cadre of Democrats who led the party down the conciliatory path that will lead to a well-earned disaster at the polls this year. A good thing.

His wife, Susan, has been politely called a “boardwalker”, serving on the board of numerous health care companies, including Wellpoint, since his election, and making boatloads of money. Bayh is compromised in total, useless now if ever of any use before.

So why is he being touted as a potential presidential candidate? Right wing democrats have automatic credentials.

So here’s how the read the story – he’s going down due to lack of popular support even though he has tons of money behind him. He’ll be resurrected at some point. Loser Republicans usually turn up at Heritage or American Enterprise. Bayh will most likely turn up at Wellpoint.

Susan Bayh may be out of work now, if she ever worked at all.

Footnote: According to John Amato, Bayh’s primary lead in Indiana was “insurmountable”, so he was not to be undone by a Democratic challenge. Perhaps it is the quandary that Harry Truman described, that given a choice between a Democrat who acts like a Republican, and a real Republican, voters will take the real thing every time.

Sticking it to the man …

In a nice little post over at Daily Kos, Angry Mouse says “Anthem to Screw Customers in May Instead of March.. He’s talking about Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of Wellpoint, and its plan to raise its rates in California by 39%. Strong and resolute Democrats are fighting now to delay implementation for two months.

Here’s the line that got me, from the article cited by Mouse:

“We have instructed the actuaries to review the rates with a fine tooth comb to ensure they comply with state law that requires that 70 cents of every dollar in premiums is spent on medical benefits.

That’s correct. California state law requires private insurers to hold their overhead down to 30% of each premium dollar.

Those damned nagging epistemological deficiencies

It is hard to know science and pseudo-science, or what is science done in service of power versus science in search of truth. Perhaps that’s why so many of us are drawn to astrophysics – there is no agenda. It’s pure science. People simply want to know stuff.

Generally, one has to look to funding of a scientific study to judge its merits. It’s not that people are dishonest – we are more complicated than that – we are like kitty cats, cold-hearted hunters but keyed to survival and smart enough to know that the when the owner is pleased, there is food in the bowl. So when someone who is not disinterested pays for an “objective” study, it ceases to be objective and we get bad science.

So some dude over at Electric City Weblog cited an article in Atlantic that cited a study that showed that not having health insurance has no consequences in terms of living, statistically speaking.

Megan McArdle has a great blah blah blah article in The Atlantic addressing blah blah blah the oft cited statistic that so many people blah blah blah die from lack of health insurance blah blah blah

Ah, go read it yourself. It’s flatulence. It seemed logical that health insurance itself is not a determinant of life expectancy so much as access to health care. Also, a study that basically says that we’re all going to die of something anyway and that our health care system kills as many as it saves is really taking an unkind swipe at the best health care system in the world, isn’t it? I suggested as much to The Dude, along with citing a Harvard Medical study, and here’s the response I got:

Mark, a couple of things. First, where is the study you cite. If you’re going to assert good statistics you need to offer a gateway to the data. Secondly, if you think you’re right you suffer from a lack of epistemological modesty. But we already knew that.

The Dude was right. I cited a Reuters article, and not the study itself, from the Journal of Public Health (subscription wall), and written about in Harvard Science. The Dude does not know about the Google. But I had never been accused before of suffering from “lack of epistemological modesty. I looked it up, and sure enough, it exists, and it is a serious accusation. I needed a smart and quick defense of my position, something grounded in science. Fortunately, I was with my son and daughter, who are well-versed in epistemology as well as spirituality. I asked them for help with an appropriate response. Here’s what they came up with:

You can lecture me on epistemological deficiencies after we rip off your head and shit down your neck. Also, your insult very much reminds me of what your mother once said to me after I got off her (case).

Scientifically sound, even if crudely expressed. Thanks to my lovely children for helping me correctly analyze a study of the scientific method as it relates to covering the bare ass of our lousy health insurance system.

Movies and stuff

I’m having a hard time with movies as I get older – it is hard to sit through them knowing that something is either CGI or that there is a camera in the room with the actors. A movie like No Country for Old Men is such a rarity – I walked out of the having totally bought in – the acting, the illusion, the acting, all superb.

My favorite movie of 2009 was well done, well thought out, well scripted, poignant and inspiring: It was animated. They called it, simply, “Up.”

Here are some off-the-wall observations about movies and stuff. Please add your own.

Sherlock Holmes How dare they take a cerebral drug addict (played, interestingly, by a decidedly non-cerebral drug addict), and action him all up, making him into a brawling 19th century James Bond. I deliberately avoided that movie. Sacrilege.

Nicole Kidman: Refers to herself as an “actor.” Takes on parts that stretch her limited abilities. Is abominable. She ruined Cold Mountain. She should take off her clothes and shut up.

Meryl Streep: A woman who is so good at her craft that I cannot get over the fact that it is Meryl Streep. Aging well, however, and stays busy. If only I could forget, for one second, that I am watching Meryl Street act.

Paul Newman: Wonderful, common, kind and ordinary man who did what all people who become wealthy by means of the genetic lottery should do: He used is fame to help other people. He seemed to understand that he wasn’t worthy, and treated his good fortune with humility, paying it out to others. What a nice man he was.

A Hard Day’s Night: The Beatles transcended the camera, their charm poured out of the screen – well … John, Ringo and George, anyway. It turns out that Paul was dating a professional actress at the time of shooting, and she was coaching him on how to act. Consequently, they had to cut most of his scenes, as he was stinking it up. But I urge anyone too young to remember the Beatles in their prime to rent this movie. It’s a timeless classic.

ET:I went for a long period of time when the kids were young without seeing any movies. I did not see Rocky and Star Wars until years after the fact. One day I took my oldest two daughters to see ET, just on a whim. It was really fun. Then I saw the name “Spielberg” on another movie, and thought it must be a good one for kids too, and took them to see …

Gremlins: They were hiding under the seats. I had to leave very early in the movie, and complained that it was not suitable for kids. It was rated “PG”- later, they came up with the rating “PG-13” in response to parents who found themselves with their kids watching movies not suitable for young children.

House: Not a movie, I know. I just throw it in here because I’m curious how long they can go on with bad writing, an impossibly unrealistic plot construct, and shallow characters. House himself was somewhat interesting at one time, but he is surrounded by two dimensions at best.

I have often thought that House (patterned after Sherlock Holmes) would be better suited for a “Fugitive” type series – not the excellent movie, but rather the old David Jansen TV series where Jansen’s Dr. Richard Kimble was always on the run, meeting a new cast of people every week. House should be called all over the country to consult on unusual cases, meeting different doctors, nurses and patients. That way he could get rid of that awful, boring cast.

The Wire: My daughter turned me on to this now-defunct series on HBO, and I’ll never forget the words of David Simon, former journalist and co-creator. He said in a Bill Moyers interview that as a journalist he would put up stories, and they might have some small impact, and then evaporate. He wanted to convey the reality of the phony “War on Drugs”, and found that journalism simply did not reach people. So he chose to write a TV series instead. The Wire is far too complex to describe here, but incredibly worth investing your Netflix account in for months to come.

Showtime, HBO: Showtime has a series called “Californication” with David Duchovny that has some good nudity from time to time. HBO is struggling with a series called “Hung”, which also offers up nice flesh now and then. The two series are really the same formula – a plot line that allows for a wide array of beautiful actresses to pass through the screen and disrobe for us. I got tired of Showtime and switched to HBO, and every time that I switch to the guide for that channel range, I think “please, HBO – give me a reason not to cancel you!” Bill Maher is not enough, and dammit it, if you show one more hairy 70 year old dick or one more set of sagging 70-year-old boobs on Real Sex, I’m outta there. (Bryant Gumbel does serious and credible journalism in his “Real Sports” series. Too bad that it is only in the realm of sports where journalists feel free to openly challenge powerful people and institutions.)

Anyway, I am visiting kids and the baby is asleep, hence the ramble. Please take a minute and add your own thoughts below.