“Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”
– Michael Rivero
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Funny: Maz Jobrani
Maz Jobrani is one of the best standup comedians working today. Check him out at the link below:
http://www.ted.com/talks/maz_jobrani_make_jokes_not_bombs.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/maz_jobrani_make_jokes_not_bombs.html
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
On the Tea Party
I recently read Glenn Beck's book, Common Sense. He trashes Bush, McCain, Clinton, Pelosi, T.R, and Progressives. I agree with many of Beck's ideas re: fiscal responsibility, but he delivers almost all of his ideas in sound bites, using extreme examples. He's the flip side of Al Sharpton, so I'm not surprised that Sharpton and Beck had competing rallies in D.C. on the same day.
At the same time, I get very disappointed when people try to discredit the Tea Party using irrelevant information, such as their alleged funding sources. Below are excerpts from an online discussion I had re: the Tea Party's alleged connection with the libertarian Koch family:
Lawyer: It is really necessary to look behind Beck to see where the money for Beck and the Tea Party is coming from.
Me: I don't approve of ad hominem attacks. I prefer to look at ideas and the people involved in a movement. If you want to discredit the Tea Party, you should refer to polls showing that 50+% of the Tea Party approves of George Bush II. One can't be pro-fiscal responsibility and pro-Bush II.
Also, arguing that the Tea Party movement is bad because of its association with pro-business billionaires is like saying Obama is bad because Goldman Sachs was the second largest contributor to his campaign, or that Obama is anti-American because of his association with Jeremiah Wright. Lawyers ought to eschew "associational arguments," which divert attention from substantive issues.
Lawyer: I am not sure what you mean by "ad hominem"--I use it to mean an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with the discussion. Clearly the Tea Party discredits themselves as you point out; just as clearly they are disorganized and we cannot always impute the beliefs of some of them to all of them. BUT we can look at the source of their funding (which goes to all of them) from Fox News to Dick Army to right-wing businessmen. This is the same group that spent millions attacking Clinton and funded the "Whitewater Investigation," as well as the various sexual allegations and the impeachment.
Me: absent an employee or contractor relationship, what direct bearing does someone's funding source have on his/her ideas? For example, I have a blog. If Glenn Beck started paying me 1000 bucks a month to advertise on my blog and diverted traffic to my blog, how does that change the legitimacy or integrity of my ideas? At most, you could argue that my funding sources make it more difficult to criticize my financial backers, but when you also say the Tea Party is "disorganized," you cannot reasonably rely on the "conflict of interest" argument.
Lawyer: Well yes and no. But you did not START your blog with a grant from Glen Beck and yes IF you want to keep getting the money you would have to compromise your principles. And I only say (correctly) that the Tea Party is disorganized because I don't want to say that they are all racist dogs because some of their gun-loving redneck wackos are in fact racists and proud of it. BUT, clearly there is a struggle on the right for control of the Tea Party types. Look at what has happened in Nevada and in Kentucky where the GOP is now controlling the Tea Party and moving it into the mainstream. That is why I look to the money, because money is all about control. The Tea Party gets about 500% more publicity than they deserve. The Media is all hyped up on "change" and anti-incumbent feeling, when in fact reality does not bear that out. The money (and help from Fox in particular) keeps them in the spotlight when an objective analysis would tell they they have very little political power but do have a lot of media and money power. I predict they will die out and/or be irrelevant by this time next year, because the money people will be moving away from the radical right and back into the traditional GOP.
Me: I guess we'll see in a year if you're right about the Tea Party. For the record, I think the Tea Party will eventually become a viable political third party. I, for one, would be happy to see someone break the monopoly of the Republicrats.
Lawyer: You know I hope you are right. I would love to see the U.S with at least three real political parties as in the UK and Canada. I would even more love it see the U.S. with 5 or 6 real parties. The French talk about voting with your heart in the first round and with your head in the second round. I would like that.
Corporate Attorney: I think I agree with "Lawyer" about revealing the source of funding (which, from my understanding, has come in significant amounts from the Koch brothers, two oil billionaires). I don't see this as an ad hominem attack; instead, it is an examination of these ideological leaders.
Entities with large sources of funding their agenda's interests have proven their ability to shape the political discussion in this country. We saw it with the healthcare debate, where many of these people didn't even know why they opposed it, and those who did were factually misinformed about specifics of the bill (recall "death panels", "jailtime for lack of insurance", "it's socialism!", "keep government hands off my Medicare!", etc etc.). To me, the fact that this opposition grew so large is not because of the factual nature of the claims, its because of the big money behind the claims. This impacts our democracy. I don't mean that we should criminally go after these financial backers, but they should be exposed.
Another example is the ability to get such large numbers of the lower 95% of income earners to advocate the interests of the upper 5% of earners when it comes to taxation. I don't believe this is coincidence, I believe that it comes from the scripts handed down by the financial backers of this movement.
I think exposing the influence behind the Tea Party message is important to exposing the lies and insincerity as well. Just my opinion.
Me: any argument that relies on showing your opponent lacks free will and is being led on by the nose will fail to convince the other side and will harden your opponent's stance. The only thing such an "argument" will accomplish is to make the proponent of the "argument" feel better and self-satisfied about his own position. The inefficacy and counter-productiveness of charging someone with special interest bias instead of arguing the merits of his position is why lawyers (and gentlemen) should avoid making subtle ad hominem attacks.
Corporate Attorney: I don't propose that this financing is a negation of arguments that have merit. I propose that it is an exposure of the sources of misinformation and lies. Also, I don't believe that many of the Tea Party movement is actually going to be convinced by a discussion that is founded upon logic and facts. I personally don't believe that many of them (not all, of course) are sincerely expressing their motives. I believe many of these people are the same people who were chanting "TERRORIST!" "KILL HIM!" "N-WORD!", etc at the McCain rallies. They simply found a home, and continue this type of attack under the guise of "issues".
I don't say this as an ad hominem attack, I say this because I am unable to debate such claims as "death panels", the "bill pays for illegals", "there will be jailtime for those who don't buy insurance", "Obama is a Muslim", the birther movement, etc. I strongly believe all of these movements are connected by their sources of funding. Its not cheap to make a substantial part of America believe that a man who sat in a Christian church for 20 years, whose "spiritual mentor" was a Christian, married a Christian woman, baptized his children Christians and eats swine is a Muslim (I guess the larger question is "so what if he is? Is it a crime?"). This takes a lot of money.
Again, to me the source of money is more about finding the source of misinformation, which cannot be debated beyond demonstrating those facts to be false (although the message is usually lost by that time, see ACORN and Sherrod videos), it's more about finding the source of propaganda and misinformation.
Me: stupid people exist in every movement and in every large group. You cannot discredit an entire movement or large group by pointing to the idiots in the group. To do so is like arguing that Islam and all Muslims are evil because of the 9/11 hijackers, or all Jews are dishonest because of Madoff, i.e., specious and irrational.
Most reasonable people understand that it is unfair to ascribe the idiocy of some members of a group to the entire group. Thus, until you can prove that a majority of Tea Party members believe that Obama is a Muslim, etc. you are merely speculating, and speculation has no place in an honest, fair discussion.
The Philosopher: Nonetheless, there is no more valid directive in politics than to "follow the money." Following the money leads to the conclusion that the "Tea Party" is far from a spontaneous uprising of grassroots citizens; in fact, It is as clear as an example of Astroturfing as you'll find.
Koch-financed "Americans for Prosperity" delivered 40 busloads of "independent protesters" to Washington, D.C. for a march. Note especially the signs the paid staffers made for their passengers to carry, bearing AFP slogans, made with a media producer's knowledge of how colors and letters will appear on camera and (better yet) handprinted so as to lend to the illusion that an angry citizen made it rather than a PR flack. Best line is the AFP PR rep to his "protestors": "We've got donuts and everything for you guys!" (Note also that this is only AFP buses; this doesn't include all of the crowds that were bused in by Dick Armey's "FreedomWorks," also originally funded by the Koch brothers.
Of course, this is nothing new. During the Clinton era, billionaire industrialist Richard Mellon Scaife spent hundreds of millions in his efforts to destroy the Clintons, with such allegations as Hillary murdered Vince Foster after a liaison at their secret love nest, then had his body dumped in a park and framing it as a suicide because Foster "knew too much;" that the Clintons' Christmas tree was decorated with cocaine spoons, that Clinton personally oversaw cocaine smuggling from Nicaragua to a small airport in Arkansas, and of course let's not forget the Whitewater investigation, etc.
There is no doubt many Americans are sympathetic to the "Tea Party" cause, but they must realize that there really *is* no "Tea Party." It's Astroturf, and it's brilliantly evil Astroturf at that: it convinces a certain type of poor and middle class Archie Bunker/Joe Sixpack American to rage in the streets for fear that the Republic will be destroyed and America crumble into a pre-1989 Eastern European Communists concrete wasteland, should the multimillionaires and multibillionaires funding the "Tea Party" be subject to a 2% tax increase (which is *still* less than the rate the ultrawealthy paid under Ronald Reagan.)
Me: all you've done is portray the Tea Party's arguments in the least nuanced, least flattering light possible in order to knock them down. This is called "making strawmen." Anyone can do it.
As for the idea that Tea Party members are willing to accept the support of PR people, what does that have to do with the substance of their beliefs or opinions? Are you saying that if I let a rich woman tell me what to wear to a party, the opinions I share at the party are somehow automatically invalid? Aren't you being just as bad as Glenn Beck by not evaluating the Tea Party's arguments on their merits and by painting the other side in the worst possible light?
The Philosopher: The invective has grown so fierce (...and I'm as guilty as anyone!) that it's rare to find room for reasonable discussion of politics and policy. And it is all too easy to scream at the TV and extrapolate the beliefs of those we've never met, be they hippie or redneck or centrist; that hurts us all.
I know what you mean about ad homs and strawmen. I wish we could conduct the nation's business in the manner of Atticus Finch, but I fear we're doomed now to live in a Karl Rove world, where anger, volume, and specious/falsified data rule the day.
It's so hard to rely on reason, especially when there is so much rage. If we are to survive, ultimately, then reason must again supplant that rage. We all have souls, we all hunger, and we all thirst; what unites us is greater than that which divides us...
I don't like using absolutes, but there really *are* no merits to Tea Party arguments. It's just a yet more populist redo of Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz' "Contract with America" of 1994. It's a new veneer on Reaganite trickle-down economics, now newly repackaged as tri-cornered hat/puffy shirt/Gadsden flag cosplay for those who really know absolutely no history of the Founders beyond out-of-context quotes trumpeted on FreeRepublic, Drudge, FOX, e-mail chain letters, et. al. Beck is the single worst offender. He fetishizes the Founders, so much so that he appropriates the "Common Sense" title from Thomas Paine, then devotes over half of "his" book to a reprinting of it. This pads his book out like a high school kid looking to stretch out a term paper while simultaneously wrapping himself in the cloak of the Founders. And hey, it doesn't hurt profits that Paine's work is in the public domain.
Another example: consider healthcare. 17 years ago we were told by a massive, extremely well-funded alliance of insurance corporations and Gingrich Republicans that Clinton's "pay or play" health plan was the dark, wicked heart of socialism that would cause America to crumble into ash; the Republican alternative at that time was the "Individual Mandate," or requiring every American to purchase private health insurance.
So, now in 2010 we've passed the 1993 Republican plan, but now the right has redefined it as the road to serfdom.
A professor of mine once played us Country Joe McDonald's "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag" from Woodstock. After the song, the professor told us in his calm and measured manner, "The Vietnam protestors were right. It was a pointless and unwinnable war. But you don't win people to your cause by telling them they are a bunch of schmucks." That was a moment of great clarity for me.
And yet, it's hard to see the vast majority of the Tea Party crowd as anything but [schmucks]. They believe their income taxes have gone up under "that socialist Obama," when in fact they've gotten a tax cut. They decry spending a few hundred million repairing American roads and bridges that have been been neglected for decades, but multiple trillions of dollars spent on fabricated, counterproductive wars in which thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqs/Afghans are killed don't even cause them to bat an eyelash. They blame Obama for TARP, when it was a Bush initiative, and the root of the problem was Sen. Phil Gramm's 1998 repeal of New Deal banking laws (signed by Clinton) which had prevented such a crash for over 60 years. Less than ten years after the deregulation, the financial system suffered its 2008 crash and the American taxpayer was put on the hook for $2 trillion; and yet Obama, who would not take office for another 4 months, is blamed.
How can you employ reason with people who not only lack it, but are scornful of it as an academic affectation? The Tea Party has nothing but anger. It's no different than the 10-15% that backed George Wallace in 1968, or (even more accurately) that 20% Ross Perot garnered in 1992 and 12% in 1996. Remember how Perot pledged that "restoring America" was now his life's calling, and though (of course) it had nothing to do with him as an individual, he would now fund his dream, the "U-nited We Stand, America" 3rd party, in perpetuity? He's been MIA for 14 years now.
Nonetheless, I hope you're right about the Tea Party becoming a valid 3rd party. This will cause a crucial portion (10%-15%?) of the Conservative base to slip away from the Republicans, thus ensuring that more reasoned voices will direct the debate. I know it's rude and wrong to paint this subset of the electorate as dimwits, but frankly they've done nothing to convince us otherwise. Being purely pragmatic about it, I wish them well, because the Republicans who have exploited their allegiance for the past 30+ years cannot win on a national level without them.
Insofar as knocking over strawmen, many strawmen need to be knocked over! A better description might be "knocking over scarecrows," scarecrows erected at great expense by self-interested Titans of Finance in order to scare people into voting in direct opposition to their own best interests. If they are kept in a constant state of fear ("socialism!" "czars!" "illegal Mexicans!" "anchor babies!" "terror babies!" "they hate us for our freedom!" "terrorists!" "Social Security is bankrupt!" "liberals!" "taxes!" "mushroom clouds over Washington and DC!" "yellowcake uranium!" "flag-burning!" "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we know exactly where!", et cetera, ad nausea) they won't notice they've been screwed ten ways to Sunday, and then vote for the very people who whipped them into the paranoiac frenzy in the first place under the guise of "we'll keep you safe."
Public Defender: Bush, McCain, Clinton, Pelosi, T.R. (seriously, he trashed Teddy Roosevelt, the president who gave us the national parks?), the Progressives. So everyone is wrong except for Beck. I'm sure that's accurate.
Me: if Beck believes that Congress is inefficient and corrupt, it's not unreasonable for him to blame everyone there.
The Techie: a public figure's funding is not entirely an ad hominem argument. If the argument is that someone is receiving money because it is good for those giving the money, that is not a logically flawed argument.
"Follow the money" is valid for politicians as no one gives them money for nothing. There is always a trade or expectation of support for any sufficiently large expenditure.
For instance, if several senators are supporting an "environmental" bill but are being payed large sums by big oil, it is not logically flawed to assume you need to dig deeper into the real effects of said legislation, and that it might not be what it seems, despite their arguments being sound.
The same logic applies to those who make their money off being a public personality such as Beck and Limbaugh. For instance Beck makes a lot of arguments which on the surface seem non secular but are very much aimed at promoting specific religious ideals.
Me: I agree Glenn Beck doesn't respect separation of church and state, but why not discuss his ideas directly? Examining someone's funding sources may reveal conflicts of interest, but alleging a conflict of interest is not an argument. At most, it's like character evidence, i.e., making a personal attack, which draws attention away from the content of his ideas.
The Philosopher: The larger question is "how do you employ reason, measure, and balance with those who would seem to lack all three?"
If they are not willing to return mutual civility and insist on clinging to obvious fabrications (birth certificate conspiracy theories,) what is their due in public discourse?
Obama has to his infinite credit remained Lincolnian.
At the same time, I get very disappointed when people try to discredit the Tea Party using irrelevant information, such as their alleged funding sources. Below are excerpts from an online discussion I had re: the Tea Party's alleged connection with the libertarian Koch family:
Lawyer: It is really necessary to look behind Beck to see where the money for Beck and the Tea Party is coming from.
Me: I don't approve of ad hominem attacks. I prefer to look at ideas and the people involved in a movement. If you want to discredit the Tea Party, you should refer to polls showing that 50+% of the Tea Party approves of George Bush II. One can't be pro-fiscal responsibility and pro-Bush II.
Also, arguing that the Tea Party movement is bad because of its association with pro-business billionaires is like saying Obama is bad because Goldman Sachs was the second largest contributor to his campaign, or that Obama is anti-American because of his association with Jeremiah Wright. Lawyers ought to eschew "associational arguments," which divert attention from substantive issues.
Lawyer: I am not sure what you mean by "ad hominem"--I use it to mean an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with the discussion. Clearly the Tea Party discredits themselves as you point out; just as clearly they are disorganized and we cannot always impute the beliefs of some of them to all of them. BUT we can look at the source of their funding (which goes to all of them) from Fox News to Dick Army to right-wing businessmen. This is the same group that spent millions attacking Clinton and funded the "Whitewater Investigation," as well as the various sexual allegations and the impeachment.
Me: absent an employee or contractor relationship, what direct bearing does someone's funding source have on his/her ideas? For example, I have a blog. If Glenn Beck started paying me 1000 bucks a month to advertise on my blog and diverted traffic to my blog, how does that change the legitimacy or integrity of my ideas? At most, you could argue that my funding sources make it more difficult to criticize my financial backers, but when you also say the Tea Party is "disorganized," you cannot reasonably rely on the "conflict of interest" argument.
Lawyer: Well yes and no. But you did not START your blog with a grant from Glen Beck and yes IF you want to keep getting the money you would have to compromise your principles. And I only say (correctly) that the Tea Party is disorganized because I don't want to say that they are all racist dogs because some of their gun-loving redneck wackos are in fact racists and proud of it. BUT, clearly there is a struggle on the right for control of the Tea Party types. Look at what has happened in Nevada and in Kentucky where the GOP is now controlling the Tea Party and moving it into the mainstream. That is why I look to the money, because money is all about control. The Tea Party gets about 500% more publicity than they deserve. The Media is all hyped up on "change" and anti-incumbent feeling, when in fact reality does not bear that out. The money (and help from Fox in particular) keeps them in the spotlight when an objective analysis would tell they they have very little political power but do have a lot of media and money power. I predict they will die out and/or be irrelevant by this time next year, because the money people will be moving away from the radical right and back into the traditional GOP.
Me: I guess we'll see in a year if you're right about the Tea Party. For the record, I think the Tea Party will eventually become a viable political third party. I, for one, would be happy to see someone break the monopoly of the Republicrats.
Lawyer: You know I hope you are right. I would love to see the U.S with at least three real political parties as in the UK and Canada. I would even more love it see the U.S. with 5 or 6 real parties. The French talk about voting with your heart in the first round and with your head in the second round. I would like that.
Corporate Attorney: I think I agree with "Lawyer" about revealing the source of funding (which, from my understanding, has come in significant amounts from the Koch brothers, two oil billionaires). I don't see this as an ad hominem attack; instead, it is an examination of these ideological leaders.
Entities with large sources of funding their agenda's interests have proven their ability to shape the political discussion in this country. We saw it with the healthcare debate, where many of these people didn't even know why they opposed it, and those who did were factually misinformed about specifics of the bill (recall "death panels", "jailtime for lack of insurance", "it's socialism!", "keep government hands off my Medicare!", etc etc.). To me, the fact that this opposition grew so large is not because of the factual nature of the claims, its because of the big money behind the claims. This impacts our democracy. I don't mean that we should criminally go after these financial backers, but they should be exposed.
Another example is the ability to get such large numbers of the lower 95% of income earners to advocate the interests of the upper 5% of earners when it comes to taxation. I don't believe this is coincidence, I believe that it comes from the scripts handed down by the financial backers of this movement.
I think exposing the influence behind the Tea Party message is important to exposing the lies and insincerity as well. Just my opinion.
Me: any argument that relies on showing your opponent lacks free will and is being led on by the nose will fail to convince the other side and will harden your opponent's stance. The only thing such an "argument" will accomplish is to make the proponent of the "argument" feel better and self-satisfied about his own position. The inefficacy and counter-productiveness of charging someone with special interest bias instead of arguing the merits of his position is why lawyers (and gentlemen) should avoid making subtle ad hominem attacks.
Corporate Attorney: I don't propose that this financing is a negation of arguments that have merit. I propose that it is an exposure of the sources of misinformation and lies. Also, I don't believe that many of the Tea Party movement is actually going to be convinced by a discussion that is founded upon logic and facts. I personally don't believe that many of them (not all, of course) are sincerely expressing their motives. I believe many of these people are the same people who were chanting "TERRORIST!" "KILL HIM!" "N-WORD!", etc at the McCain rallies. They simply found a home, and continue this type of attack under the guise of "issues".
I don't say this as an ad hominem attack, I say this because I am unable to debate such claims as "death panels", the "bill pays for illegals", "there will be jailtime for those who don't buy insurance", "Obama is a Muslim", the birther movement, etc. I strongly believe all of these movements are connected by their sources of funding. Its not cheap to make a substantial part of America believe that a man who sat in a Christian church for 20 years, whose "spiritual mentor" was a Christian, married a Christian woman, baptized his children Christians and eats swine is a Muslim (I guess the larger question is "so what if he is? Is it a crime?"). This takes a lot of money.
Again, to me the source of money is more about finding the source of misinformation, which cannot be debated beyond demonstrating those facts to be false (although the message is usually lost by that time, see ACORN and Sherrod videos), it's more about finding the source of propaganda and misinformation.
Me: stupid people exist in every movement and in every large group. You cannot discredit an entire movement or large group by pointing to the idiots in the group. To do so is like arguing that Islam and all Muslims are evil because of the 9/11 hijackers, or all Jews are dishonest because of Madoff, i.e., specious and irrational.
Most reasonable people understand that it is unfair to ascribe the idiocy of some members of a group to the entire group. Thus, until you can prove that a majority of Tea Party members believe that Obama is a Muslim, etc. you are merely speculating, and speculation has no place in an honest, fair discussion.
The Philosopher: Nonetheless, there is no more valid directive in politics than to "follow the money." Following the money leads to the conclusion that the "Tea Party" is far from a spontaneous uprising of grassroots citizens; in fact, It is as clear as an example of Astroturfing as you'll find.
Koch-financed "Americans for Prosperity" delivered 40 busloads of "independent protesters" to Washington, D.C. for a march. Note especially the signs the paid staffers made for their passengers to carry, bearing AFP slogans, made with a media producer's knowledge of how colors and letters will appear on camera and (better yet) handprinted so as to lend to the illusion that an angry citizen made it rather than a PR flack. Best line is the AFP PR rep to his "protestors": "We've got donuts and everything for you guys!" (Note also that this is only AFP buses; this doesn't include all of the crowds that were bused in by Dick Armey's "FreedomWorks," also originally funded by the Koch brothers.
Of course, this is nothing new. During the Clinton era, billionaire industrialist Richard Mellon Scaife spent hundreds of millions in his efforts to destroy the Clintons, with such allegations as Hillary murdered Vince Foster after a liaison at their secret love nest, then had his body dumped in a park and framing it as a suicide because Foster "knew too much;" that the Clintons' Christmas tree was decorated with cocaine spoons, that Clinton personally oversaw cocaine smuggling from Nicaragua to a small airport in Arkansas, and of course let's not forget the Whitewater investigation, etc.
There is no doubt many Americans are sympathetic to the "Tea Party" cause, but they must realize that there really *is* no "Tea Party." It's Astroturf, and it's brilliantly evil Astroturf at that: it convinces a certain type of poor and middle class Archie Bunker/Joe Sixpack American to rage in the streets for fear that the Republic will be destroyed and America crumble into a pre-1989 Eastern European Communists concrete wasteland, should the multimillionaires and multibillionaires funding the "Tea Party" be subject to a 2% tax increase (which is *still* less than the rate the ultrawealthy paid under Ronald Reagan.)
Me: all you've done is portray the Tea Party's arguments in the least nuanced, least flattering light possible in order to knock them down. This is called "making strawmen." Anyone can do it.
As for the idea that Tea Party members are willing to accept the support of PR people, what does that have to do with the substance of their beliefs or opinions? Are you saying that if I let a rich woman tell me what to wear to a party, the opinions I share at the party are somehow automatically invalid? Aren't you being just as bad as Glenn Beck by not evaluating the Tea Party's arguments on their merits and by painting the other side in the worst possible light?
The Philosopher: The invective has grown so fierce (...and I'm as guilty as anyone!) that it's rare to find room for reasonable discussion of politics and policy. And it is all too easy to scream at the TV and extrapolate the beliefs of those we've never met, be they hippie or redneck or centrist; that hurts us all.
I know what you mean about ad homs and strawmen. I wish we could conduct the nation's business in the manner of Atticus Finch, but I fear we're doomed now to live in a Karl Rove world, where anger, volume, and specious/falsified data rule the day.
It's so hard to rely on reason, especially when there is so much rage. If we are to survive, ultimately, then reason must again supplant that rage. We all have souls, we all hunger, and we all thirst; what unites us is greater than that which divides us...
I don't like using absolutes, but there really *are* no merits to Tea Party arguments. It's just a yet more populist redo of Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz' "Contract with America" of 1994. It's a new veneer on Reaganite trickle-down economics, now newly repackaged as tri-cornered hat/puffy shirt/Gadsden flag cosplay for those who really know absolutely no history of the Founders beyond out-of-context quotes trumpeted on FreeRepublic, Drudge, FOX, e-mail chain letters, et. al. Beck is the single worst offender. He fetishizes the Founders, so much so that he appropriates the "Common Sense" title from Thomas Paine, then devotes over half of "his" book to a reprinting of it. This pads his book out like a high school kid looking to stretch out a term paper while simultaneously wrapping himself in the cloak of the Founders. And hey, it doesn't hurt profits that Paine's work is in the public domain.
Another example: consider healthcare. 17 years ago we were told by a massive, extremely well-funded alliance of insurance corporations and Gingrich Republicans that Clinton's "pay or play" health plan was the dark, wicked heart of socialism that would cause America to crumble into ash; the Republican alternative at that time was the "Individual Mandate," or requiring every American to purchase private health insurance.
So, now in 2010 we've passed the 1993 Republican plan, but now the right has redefined it as the road to serfdom.
A professor of mine once played us Country Joe McDonald's "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag" from Woodstock. After the song, the professor told us in his calm and measured manner, "The Vietnam protestors were right. It was a pointless and unwinnable war. But you don't win people to your cause by telling them they are a bunch of schmucks." That was a moment of great clarity for me.
And yet, it's hard to see the vast majority of the Tea Party crowd as anything but [schmucks]. They believe their income taxes have gone up under "that socialist Obama," when in fact they've gotten a tax cut. They decry spending a few hundred million repairing American roads and bridges that have been been neglected for decades, but multiple trillions of dollars spent on fabricated, counterproductive wars in which thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqs/Afghans are killed don't even cause them to bat an eyelash. They blame Obama for TARP, when it was a Bush initiative, and the root of the problem was Sen. Phil Gramm's 1998 repeal of New Deal banking laws (signed by Clinton) which had prevented such a crash for over 60 years. Less than ten years after the deregulation, the financial system suffered its 2008 crash and the American taxpayer was put on the hook for $2 trillion; and yet Obama, who would not take office for another 4 months, is blamed.
How can you employ reason with people who not only lack it, but are scornful of it as an academic affectation? The Tea Party has nothing but anger. It's no different than the 10-15% that backed George Wallace in 1968, or (even more accurately) that 20% Ross Perot garnered in 1992 and 12% in 1996. Remember how Perot pledged that "restoring America" was now his life's calling, and though (of course) it had nothing to do with him as an individual, he would now fund his dream, the "U-nited We Stand, America" 3rd party, in perpetuity? He's been MIA for 14 years now.
Nonetheless, I hope you're right about the Tea Party becoming a valid 3rd party. This will cause a crucial portion (10%-15%?) of the Conservative base to slip away from the Republicans, thus ensuring that more reasoned voices will direct the debate. I know it's rude and wrong to paint this subset of the electorate as dimwits, but frankly they've done nothing to convince us otherwise. Being purely pragmatic about it, I wish them well, because the Republicans who have exploited their allegiance for the past 30+ years cannot win on a national level without them.
Insofar as knocking over strawmen, many strawmen need to be knocked over! A better description might be "knocking over scarecrows," scarecrows erected at great expense by self-interested Titans of Finance in order to scare people into voting in direct opposition to their own best interests. If they are kept in a constant state of fear ("socialism!" "czars!" "illegal Mexicans!" "anchor babies!" "terror babies!" "they hate us for our freedom!" "terrorists!" "Social Security is bankrupt!" "liberals!" "taxes!" "mushroom clouds over Washington and DC!" "yellowcake uranium!" "flag-burning!" "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we know exactly where!", et cetera, ad nausea) they won't notice they've been screwed ten ways to Sunday, and then vote for the very people who whipped them into the paranoiac frenzy in the first place under the guise of "we'll keep you safe."
Public Defender: Bush, McCain, Clinton, Pelosi, T.R. (seriously, he trashed Teddy Roosevelt, the president who gave us the national parks?), the Progressives. So everyone is wrong except for Beck. I'm sure that's accurate.
Me: if Beck believes that Congress is inefficient and corrupt, it's not unreasonable for him to blame everyone there.
The Techie: a public figure's funding is not entirely an ad hominem argument. If the argument is that someone is receiving money because it is good for those giving the money, that is not a logically flawed argument.
"Follow the money" is valid for politicians as no one gives them money for nothing. There is always a trade or expectation of support for any sufficiently large expenditure.
For instance, if several senators are supporting an "environmental" bill but are being payed large sums by big oil, it is not logically flawed to assume you need to dig deeper into the real effects of said legislation, and that it might not be what it seems, despite their arguments being sound.
The same logic applies to those who make their money off being a public personality such as Beck and Limbaugh. For instance Beck makes a lot of arguments which on the surface seem non secular but are very much aimed at promoting specific religious ideals.
Me: I agree Glenn Beck doesn't respect separation of church and state, but why not discuss his ideas directly? Examining someone's funding sources may reveal conflicts of interest, but alleging a conflict of interest is not an argument. At most, it's like character evidence, i.e., making a personal attack, which draws attention away from the content of his ideas.
The Philosopher: The larger question is "how do you employ reason, measure, and balance with those who would seem to lack all three?"
If they are not willing to return mutual civility and insist on clinging to obvious fabrications (birth certificate conspiracy theories,) what is their due in public discourse?
Obama has to his infinite credit remained Lincolnian.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Ryan Dawkins on Park51
Ryan Dawkins writes a very interesting piece about the Park51 project (aka Muslim Community Center near Ground Zero):
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I especially liked the quotes from George W. Bush.
Note: the following is a list of prominent people and entities opposing the Park51 project. I call them "Americans for Selective Constitutional Application": Carly Fiorina, Investors' Business Daily (IBD), Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Anti-Defamation League, the WSJ's James Taranto, Rep. Peter T. King, Rep. Rick Lazio, John Bolton, Howard Dean, Rudy Giuliani, Geert Wilders, Gary Berntsen, Jordan Sekulow, Michael Grimm, Andrew Breitbart, Ilario Pantano, Gov. David Paterson, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Michelle Malkin, and more...
I am most disappointed in McCain and Gingrich.
At least I can rely on Ron Paul's consistent brilliance:
At least I can rely on Ron Paul's consistent brilliance:
It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don’t want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society-—protecting liberty...This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
Thank you, Mr. Paul. Props also to Roger Ebert.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Seeking Alpha's Editor-in-Chief
SeekingAlpha's Editor-in-Chief Eli Hoffmann and myself at a S.F. event. If I had just two words to describe him, I'd go with "driven" and "professorial"--the perfect combo for an editor-in-chief.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Megan McArdle on Government Pensions
Megan McArdle, on public pensions:
For decades, politicians have promised lavish pension benefits in return for the support of the public sector unions—-promises that they, unlike their counterparts in the private sector, did not have to cover by setting aside a reasonably large asset base. Now the bills are coming due, and many funds are disastrously underfunded. The California state pension system, for example, has only 60 percent of the assets needed to pay its obligations through 2042.
For decades, politicians have promised lavish pension benefits in return for the support of the public sector unions—-promises that they, unlike their counterparts in the private sector, did not have to cover by setting aside a reasonably large asset base. Now the bills are coming due, and many funds are disastrously underfunded. The California state pension system, for example, has only 60 percent of the assets needed to pay its obligations through 2042.
(from The Atlantic, August 2010)
Politicians have sold out the next generation of workers. Unfortunately, many of the workers on the hook for public pensions have had no say in the process--they were either too young or too uneducated to understand what their parents and politicians were doing.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Alice in Wonderland: the Gov's Hiring Process (Special Union Edition)
I knew California's public sector unions had major influence, but I didn't realize just how much until recently. I wrote this post after I had an interview with the courthouse for a courtroom clerk job--not a law clerk, but a courtroom clerk--which is akin to a court's office manager.
The courtroom clerk job requires scheduling dates, taking phone calls from the public, marking some forms, filing documents, and running interference for the judge. Also, if there is a jury trial, the courtroom clerk marks the exhibits, swears in witnesses, handles the lawyers' requests, and reads the verdict. It's not known as an overly challenging job, but it is honest work, and it comes with the usual California government employee gold-plated benefits, i.e., dental insurance, medical, pension, union protection. Also, the salary for the clerk position--which requires three years of admin work in a law firm or courthouse and no college degree--pays about as much as a non-profit attorney position in the Bay Area. So I applied, thinking if I wanted to start a family someday, the benefits would come in handy. (And God knows dental work for growing children isn't cheap.) Plus, why not see the glory that is the Santa Clara County Superior Court hiring system?
The first step was a test, but the test's instructions indicated that I would be disqualified if I discussed the content of the exam. Therefore, I am not going to discuss the questions. Instead, I am going to tell you about completely unrelated tests that I remember taking in elementary school and elsewhere. To the extent you, my dear reader, somehow associate anything about my elementary school or other academic tests with the Santa Clara County Superior Court's courtroom clerk test, you are speculating and are going down a path I do not recommend.
In any case, one of my elementary school tests, as I remember, had questions like, "64 divided by 8." Oh, and I could not use a calculator in elementary school. Also, it wasn't multiple choice. But that was back in elementary school. Some questions were slightly harder--in elementary school--such as, "120,000 + 85,405 + 7,443." Again, back in the day, they didn't let us bring calculators to the test.
I also remember taking grammar tests in elementary school. I remember questions like, "Identify the problem with the following sentence: 'Each of the idiots who crafted this exam are to be fired.'" (Did you catch it? "Each" is singular, so "are" should be replaced with "is.") Other questions related to the difference between "affect" and "effect" or involved other common mistakes. Now, can you imagine if 40% of a test contained these kinds of questions? Well, back in elementary school, I wouldn't mind one bit.
Going to another unrelated topic, as an adult, sometimes I'd apply for a job and would have to take a personality test. I loved those questions, especially when the corporation would ask me something like, "In your capacity as a police officer, how should you treat members of the public?" a) punch them in the face every chance you get; b) if asked a question, act self-important and flash the badge two inches from the person's face; c) make sure you let unsupervised children play with your loaded gun whenever they ask; or d) remember that your job is to serve the public. I had a good time taking those tests, but can you imagine if those kinds of questions constituted 20% of an employment test?
I also remember taking some tests that were insanely hard, to the point where the questions had no relation to the job itself. For example, I had a very difficult biology class at UC Davis with a new professor. So many people did poorly on his final exam, if you scored something like 35/100, you got an "A-." I've never understood why anyone would put arcane questions on a multiple choice exam. They don't seem to measure anything except luck.
Can you imagine a test that asked you questions like, "President Calvin Coolidge was President Number a) 28; b) 29; or c) 30"? I mean, let's assume you want to hire a secretary or office manager for a history professor. How would someone knowing this obscure fact have any relevance to the job? Wouldn't most people just guess and take their 33.3% chances? In any case, I am good with obscure as well as general questions, so I usually do well on written tests. In fact, if I had a test with 50 questions, I'd probably get 46 or 47 out of 50 most of the time.
So I passed the court's initial exam. Regardless of an exam's difficulty level, if it's the only objective part of the hiring process, it makes sense to use the results to narrow the field considerably. (I would also hope the questions would get harder at some point if too many people were receiving high scores.) Otherwise, the objective part of the exam serves only to eliminate complete morons, causing the hiring process to be based primarily on subjective criteria. (Can you imagine hiring a civil engineer based mainly on how he or she interviews? Drive over those California bridges carefully, okay?)
After the initial exam came an interview (at only 20 minutes an interview, I am guessing 25+ out of 60 applicants passed the written test). During my interview, I was never told that anything was confidential, so I am going to tell you all about it.
First, four people interviewed me. All very nice ladies, one African-American, two Latinas, and one Caucasian (Tracy or Tracey H.). The Caucasian was the head of Human Resources and appeared to be in charge. At least two of the other three ladies were associated with unions, such as the court reporters' union. I thought it was fascinating that union members got to decide which courtroom personnel make it to the final stages of the hiring process. Isn't California government wonderful?
The interview had four questions. The first one was your basic, "Tell us about your experience, education, etc." So I explained I'd been to law school and have always worked in law firms where, in addition to the complex legal work, I either did all the administrative work or had no dedicated admin staff. I explained that I wasn't your typical lawyer--I work directly with very diverse groups of people and usually handle cases for the (disappearing) middle class and the poor. I was concerned about being deemed overqualified, so I made sure to mention that I hoped to meet someone and start a family one day, and I wanted to be able to offer stability, consistent working hours, and benefits--none of which was possible if I kept doing 30 to 40 hours/week of admin work and another 30 to 40 hours/week of legal work. In essence, I'd be doing similar work as a courtroom clerk, but my future kids would get braces and the chance to see me before 11:00PM. So far, so good.
The next item asked what I would do if I disagreed with a judge's order. I explained that 1) as a courtroom clerk, it wasn't my place to do anything; 2) I would file the order and mail it to the parties, unless instructed otherwise; and 3) if one of the parties disagreed with the order, s/he could file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal. (I realize the court is trying to eliminate morons, but wasn't that the point of the first test?)
The third question was a little strange, but at least it was more difficult. It asked me what I would do if the phone was ringing, an attorney had come up to me and wanted to ask me a question, and I had just missed the judge's order. It didn't provide any background information, i.e., is this a CMC or law and motion? (A CMC usually requires the courtroom clerk to fill in a form with the next court date, while a law and motion matter usually has a written order prepared by a law clerk or a judge.) Also, in practice, the deputy would stop an attorney interfering in the middle of a hearing, so unless a lawyer managed to get past the deputy, the above scenario would never happen in an open session.
I was a little stumped on this one, because the question required some background information about the judge's preferences, type of hearing, etc. I answered that I would pick up the phone (if it's ringing, it might be distracting, so I thought I should pick it up), tell the caller court was in session, and s/he should leave me a voicemail or call back later, and then ask the lawyer to give the deputy a note with his or her issues (usually, the deputy passes notes between counsel and the clerk). But I still have a problem--I've missed the judge's order, and it's the clerk's job to make sure the judge's order is recorded properly.
I should have answered that I would check with the court reporter when the open session finished, but that answer didn't come to me, and not all hearings have court reporters. So I answered that I would make a note about the line number of the case and check the file later to see what happened. If the file was unhelpful, I would ask the judge about the case. It wasn't a great answer, but the question was unduly vague. In practice, the courtroom clerk would know whether he or she could interrupt the session and ask the judge a quick question, or use some other method blessed by the judge.
The last item asked me if I had any questions or comments. I said that while I wouldn't actively volunteer any information, I would be in a position to assist the court when it came to diversity because of my experience dealing with so many different groups of people. I've heard judges grossly mispronounce names and have seen other judges lack basic understanding about particular cultures, and it's embarrassing to everyone involved. (Well, at least it would be embarrassing if the judge had the empathy or knowledge to know that s/he had made a mistake, but some judges don't have the highest emotional IQs. Remember: they used to be lawyers--a generally prickly lot--and now they're lawyers with political connections and pensions--meaning they've upgraded to satisfied, powerful, and prickly.)
I also indicated I had a Westlaw contract up for renewal in two days, and asked whether I would hear back before then. This question created a tizzy. One of the interviewers smiled ominously. Tracey H. seemed put off. I'm not sure if any of them knew that Westlaw legal research contracts usually have to be renewed for one or two year periods and have much different pricing based on the contract length. Basically, unless I could figure out if I had been eliminated or hired prior to Friday, I ran the risk of spending several thousand dollars on a contract I might not need to use. In a normal interview, a company would probably say, "Well, we have other candidates to evaluate and other steps to go through, and we weren't planning on deciding the finalists so soon, but we'll try to get back to you as soon as possible." That's what a normal private employer would do, but this is the government. They don't have to give a damn.
On the way up, I asked Tracey H. about the number of positions available. She said it depended, which seemed sort of vague, especially because she'd been so chatty previously. (I am speculating, but I don't think the court knows the expected start/hire date for the job, or she would have been more specific.) She also said the next step would be to narrow the field to seven candidates, and then there would also be a hands-on test. On the way to the interview, she shook my hand, but on the way out, she did not shake my hand. My last question had definitely changed the tenor of the interview, and I don't expect to make the final cut--even though my initial test score was most likely in the top five, and no one else applying probably has a law degree. Now, is it possible my last question gave off a presumptive vibe? Absolutely, but nothing up to that point indicated that it would take four to five months (or more) to choose someone for an admin position. Besides, this is the government, not a private company--if they're spending taxpayer funds (some of which I've contributed), should they really be acting as if I'm being presumptuous by asking a simple question?
After the interview, I left the HR specialist a message thanking her for her time and telling her I appreciated her professionalism and her colleagues' professionalism. I also asked when applicants would need to be available if they made the next cut, and when the expected start date would be for the eventual hiree. I said I wanted to make sure I would be available if I managed to make the next step. Over 48 hours later, I've received no return phone call.
Oh, I almost forgot--aside from my experience with diverse groups, I am a "four-fer"--a minority based on religious, ethnic, immigration, and other status. While the court loves talking about diversity, at the end of the day, it's still a breath of fresh Orange County, California when it comes to visible positions. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having a slice of country club O.C. in the middle of San Jose, California, but why persist with the disingenuous diversity talk? Why not be honest and tell people that the government isn't looking to hire based on merit, but other qualities, like social agreeableness? God forbid if an employee might rock the boat and offer new ways of doing things. I used to wonder why Santa Clara County Superior Court has been behind the curve on multiple issues. It adopted online tentative rulings very late (much later than Placer County), still doesn't have its orders and pleadings online like Alameda County, and recently incorporated a new judicial mediation program that Santa Cruz County had at least five years ago.
At the end of the day, if I don't get the job, I will be fine; however, I'm worried about the unemployed person who applied for the clerk job, is almost at the end of his or her benefit period, and is waiting for a decision. The court closed applications for the clerk position back in mid-June 2010. It doesn't take much time to grade a scannable multiple choice test, so why would it take four months or more to hire a clerk?
And that's when it hit me. Government jobs are not based on need, but on budgetary considerations. The unions demand money for votes, the state provides money, the money has to go somewhere, and if someone isn't hired right away, there are no real consequences to the government entity. Perhaps some work takes a little longer to complete, but the government can take its sweet time because it generally provides non-essential services.
In contrast, a private business usually won't hire someone unless it has a specific need, so when it wants someone, it usually completes the process as soon as possible. That's because a private business can terminate the employee if s/he isn't a good fit before the usual three months probationary period and hire someone else. As for job protection, in the real world, almost no one fires a person who can produce. That's why so many managers get away with murder--the company may have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in settlements, but as long as the manager produces, you don't want him leaving to your competitor.
The fact remains that most government workers do not produce or sell anything, which allows them to avoid accountability. If you don't make or sell anything, how can someone judge your performance? (Other than talking to a manager, who has no power to discipline anyone outside of complex union rules, there isn't really a way to effectively complain about a government employee's performance.) Why, then, should I be surprised if the courtroom clerk position doesn't seem to have a definite hire or start date, and the hiring process seems based more on subjective qualities than my test score, education, and experience?
While I realize every job requires people who can fit into the organization, government union jobs tend not to have clearly measurable performance metrics, so unions can prioritize subjective factors over merit. Another way to analyze the union hiring problem is to think of a world where jobs are determined primarily on subjective criteria. In that world, Mike Huckabee has just as much of a chance of getting the science job as Stephen Hawking, because if the objective test is too easy, Hawking has no real advantage over Huckabee when it comes to proving his superior scientific knowledge. In fact, Hawking is actually disadvantaged by the entire process, which weighs the subsequent interview more heavily than the earlier objective test. (By the way, I'm sure we all know that California teachers' unions love the current system, where there is no way to judge their teaching abilities. Recently, because of the teachers unions' desire to maintain the current non-accountability system, California kids lost millions of federal dollars--again. See Race to the Top article.)
You see, union jobs are like gifts, and the hiring committees view them as such. They know they won't get props for hiring the most talented person, because there isn't a way to measure performance accurately. So they focus on hiring someone agreeable, who may have few other options, and who isn't necessarily the most qualified.
Also, since public sector unions deal with OPM all the time, why should they bother getting the most bang for the buck? After all, it's not their money, and if they hire someone with new ideas or an exceptional work ethic, s/he might show up everyone else. In short, government hiring committees have no incentive to act quickly or to hire the most talented person. For taxpayers, that means if they're lucky, they get an above average employee, and the most talented applicants go elsewhere.
Why should we care? First, there's the basic fairness issue. When a recession hits, a terrible public sector worker has more job protection than an excellent private sector worker--even though the private sector pays for public employees' salaries and benefits.
Second, when a new government employee is hired, taxpayers are really paying for two people--the person and his/her pension. Stated another way, the money paid for the person's pension could be used to hire a new person thirty years down the road, so assuming finite resources, each new government employee takes a job away from someone else in the future. Even if we reform the current system, at least one generation will suffer the trillion-dollar consequences of past pension promises. See Bloomberg article, here: "The effects of altering the [pension] system are limited because most costs arise from benefits promised to workers who are already retired, and wouldn’t be affected by changes to benefits for current employees." In short, promises already made to public sector unions are so large, the government unions have irrevocably harmed at least one generation of Americans.
In an era of declining American birthrates, it's not feasible to have a system where a taxpaying adult is on the hook for someone else's pension even as s/he suffers the loss of a potential job because of the diverted tax revenue used to pay for that pension. If we continue to rely on immigration to maintain a replacement population rate (which helps support future pension obligations), we must ensure our public schools are the best in the world--and that is clearly not the case in California. (In the distant past, America was able to put new immigrants in the coal mines or other manual labor jobs and then their kids would take over their manufacturing jobs, but that system no longer exists. Today, formal education is necessary to move immigrants into upwardly-mobile status.)
Most developed societies become victims of their own success. In Europe, where unionization is heavier than in the States, we can already see major problems. Young people have difficulty finding jobs, even in skilled professions like medicine. At the same time, most native-born European citizens don't want to do menial jobs, so they import persons from poorer countries to maintain their way of life (or, if you're Japan, you stick your head in the sand and continue to oppose immigration...and build human-looking robots). While I support immigration, new immigrants tend to bring new ways of doing things, which upsets the "natural" order and creates tensions--unless a country has the resources and the flexibility to take a long-term view, i.e., to judge immigrants by whether their children assimilate.
To summarize, the natural progression of modern successful societies is as follows: industrialization; women receive equal rights; birthrates decline; unions are eventually formed; taxes are increased to support government union jobs [and tax or other benefits primarily accruing to natives]; native-born citizens refuse to do certain work, requiring the importation of poor people; the new immigrants create cultural tensions; and either society adapts and is able to welcome the new immigrants like the United States has done, or it fails to assimilate the new immigrants and begins a slow, steady decline, like Europe. One common theme in the collapse of a country is public sector unions. See Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, page 104:
"The Weimar tax system [which led to massive inflation, making the German mark basically worthless] was feeble, not least because the new regime lacked legitimacy among higher income groups who declined to pay the taxes imposed on them. At the same time, public money was spent recklessly, particularly on generous wage settlements for public sector unions."
[Bonus: "As its economy stagnated in the early 2000s, Germany increased competitiveness by working with unions to keep wage increases below productivity growth. Greece, its economy fueled by the cheap government loans that came with eurozone membership, saw labor costs soar [as Greek unions negotiated wage and benefit increases above actual economic growth]." (National Geographic, March 2015 pp. 109)]
Public sector unions bring with them a culture of no merit, no production, no accountability, and OPM. The larger they get, the more society is forced to rely on higher taxes and immigrants to move the country forward. California has been very lucky to receive many hard-working, smart immigrants in the past thirty years. Without recent immigrants and their children, Yahoo (YHOO), Google (GOOG), eBay (EBAY), Sun Microsystems, and Apple (Steve Jobs is biologically half-Syrian or half-Lebanese) would not exist.
I don't know whether I've been rejected for the court job. When I get the next letter, I'll probably just throw it away. I have no interest in working for an entity that places significant decisions in the hands of four people who don't seem to understand the issues facing a small business with annual contracts and who don't seem intent on moving the hiring process forward in a timely manner.
I'm happy to note, however, that there was a silver lining to the interview. It reminded me that I spend each day trying to help people resolve problems, and I am accountable to my clients every single moment. Even if my future kids have crooked teeth because Daddy doesn't have dental benefits, at least I can tell them that I did my best. Plus, if I had received the clerk position, who knows whether I would have been able to fit into the courthouse's union culture. At least as the owner of a small business, I can strive to make sure that every person who comes into my office is treated honestly, openly, and respectfully--just like I've been doing for the past six years. Now if only the courthouse could meet my standards.
The courtroom clerk job requires scheduling dates, taking phone calls from the public, marking some forms, filing documents, and running interference for the judge. Also, if there is a jury trial, the courtroom clerk marks the exhibits, swears in witnesses, handles the lawyers' requests, and reads the verdict. It's not known as an overly challenging job, but it is honest work, and it comes with the usual California government employee gold-plated benefits, i.e., dental insurance, medical, pension, union protection. Also, the salary for the clerk position--which requires three years of admin work in a law firm or courthouse and no college degree--pays about as much as a non-profit attorney position in the Bay Area. So I applied, thinking if I wanted to start a family someday, the benefits would come in handy. (And God knows dental work for growing children isn't cheap.) Plus, why not see the glory that is the Santa Clara County Superior Court hiring system?
The first step was a test, but the test's instructions indicated that I would be disqualified if I discussed the content of the exam. Therefore, I am not going to discuss the questions. Instead, I am going to tell you about completely unrelated tests that I remember taking in elementary school and elsewhere. To the extent you, my dear reader, somehow associate anything about my elementary school or other academic tests with the Santa Clara County Superior Court's courtroom clerk test, you are speculating and are going down a path I do not recommend.
In any case, one of my elementary school tests, as I remember, had questions like, "64 divided by 8." Oh, and I could not use a calculator in elementary school. Also, it wasn't multiple choice. But that was back in elementary school. Some questions were slightly harder--in elementary school--such as, "120,000 + 85,405 + 7,443." Again, back in the day, they didn't let us bring calculators to the test.
I also remember taking grammar tests in elementary school. I remember questions like, "Identify the problem with the following sentence: 'Each of the idiots who crafted this exam are to be fired.'" (Did you catch it? "Each" is singular, so "are" should be replaced with "is.") Other questions related to the difference between "affect" and "effect" or involved other common mistakes. Now, can you imagine if 40% of a test contained these kinds of questions? Well, back in elementary school, I wouldn't mind one bit.
Going to another unrelated topic, as an adult, sometimes I'd apply for a job and would have to take a personality test. I loved those questions, especially when the corporation would ask me something like, "In your capacity as a police officer, how should you treat members of the public?" a) punch them in the face every chance you get; b) if asked a question, act self-important and flash the badge two inches from the person's face; c) make sure you let unsupervised children play with your loaded gun whenever they ask; or d) remember that your job is to serve the public. I had a good time taking those tests, but can you imagine if those kinds of questions constituted 20% of an employment test?
I also remember taking some tests that were insanely hard, to the point where the questions had no relation to the job itself. For example, I had a very difficult biology class at UC Davis with a new professor. So many people did poorly on his final exam, if you scored something like 35/100, you got an "A-." I've never understood why anyone would put arcane questions on a multiple choice exam. They don't seem to measure anything except luck.
Can you imagine a test that asked you questions like, "President Calvin Coolidge was President Number a) 28; b) 29; or c) 30"? I mean, let's assume you want to hire a secretary or office manager for a history professor. How would someone knowing this obscure fact have any relevance to the job? Wouldn't most people just guess and take their 33.3% chances? In any case, I am good with obscure as well as general questions, so I usually do well on written tests. In fact, if I had a test with 50 questions, I'd probably get 46 or 47 out of 50 most of the time.
So I passed the court's initial exam. Regardless of an exam's difficulty level, if it's the only objective part of the hiring process, it makes sense to use the results to narrow the field considerably. (I would also hope the questions would get harder at some point if too many people were receiving high scores.) Otherwise, the objective part of the exam serves only to eliminate complete morons, causing the hiring process to be based primarily on subjective criteria. (Can you imagine hiring a civil engineer based mainly on how he or she interviews? Drive over those California bridges carefully, okay?)
After the initial exam came an interview (at only 20 minutes an interview, I am guessing 25+ out of 60 applicants passed the written test). During my interview, I was never told that anything was confidential, so I am going to tell you all about it.
First, four people interviewed me. All very nice ladies, one African-American, two Latinas, and one Caucasian (Tracy or Tracey H.). The Caucasian was the head of Human Resources and appeared to be in charge. At least two of the other three ladies were associated with unions, such as the court reporters' union. I thought it was fascinating that union members got to decide which courtroom personnel make it to the final stages of the hiring process. Isn't California government wonderful?
The interview had four questions. The first one was your basic, "Tell us about your experience, education, etc." So I explained I'd been to law school and have always worked in law firms where, in addition to the complex legal work, I either did all the administrative work or had no dedicated admin staff. I explained that I wasn't your typical lawyer--I work directly with very diverse groups of people and usually handle cases for the (disappearing) middle class and the poor. I was concerned about being deemed overqualified, so I made sure to mention that I hoped to meet someone and start a family one day, and I wanted to be able to offer stability, consistent working hours, and benefits--none of which was possible if I kept doing 30 to 40 hours/week of admin work and another 30 to 40 hours/week of legal work. In essence, I'd be doing similar work as a courtroom clerk, but my future kids would get braces and the chance to see me before 11:00PM. So far, so good.
The next item asked what I would do if I disagreed with a judge's order. I explained that 1) as a courtroom clerk, it wasn't my place to do anything; 2) I would file the order and mail it to the parties, unless instructed otherwise; and 3) if one of the parties disagreed with the order, s/he could file a motion for reconsideration or an appeal. (I realize the court is trying to eliminate morons, but wasn't that the point of the first test?)
The third question was a little strange, but at least it was more difficult. It asked me what I would do if the phone was ringing, an attorney had come up to me and wanted to ask me a question, and I had just missed the judge's order. It didn't provide any background information, i.e., is this a CMC or law and motion? (A CMC usually requires the courtroom clerk to fill in a form with the next court date, while a law and motion matter usually has a written order prepared by a law clerk or a judge.) Also, in practice, the deputy would stop an attorney interfering in the middle of a hearing, so unless a lawyer managed to get past the deputy, the above scenario would never happen in an open session.
I was a little stumped on this one, because the question required some background information about the judge's preferences, type of hearing, etc. I answered that I would pick up the phone (if it's ringing, it might be distracting, so I thought I should pick it up), tell the caller court was in session, and s/he should leave me a voicemail or call back later, and then ask the lawyer to give the deputy a note with his or her issues (usually, the deputy passes notes between counsel and the clerk). But I still have a problem--I've missed the judge's order, and it's the clerk's job to make sure the judge's order is recorded properly.
I should have answered that I would check with the court reporter when the open session finished, but that answer didn't come to me, and not all hearings have court reporters. So I answered that I would make a note about the line number of the case and check the file later to see what happened. If the file was unhelpful, I would ask the judge about the case. It wasn't a great answer, but the question was unduly vague. In practice, the courtroom clerk would know whether he or she could interrupt the session and ask the judge a quick question, or use some other method blessed by the judge.
The last item asked me if I had any questions or comments. I said that while I wouldn't actively volunteer any information, I would be in a position to assist the court when it came to diversity because of my experience dealing with so many different groups of people. I've heard judges grossly mispronounce names and have seen other judges lack basic understanding about particular cultures, and it's embarrassing to everyone involved. (Well, at least it would be embarrassing if the judge had the empathy or knowledge to know that s/he had made a mistake, but some judges don't have the highest emotional IQs. Remember: they used to be lawyers--a generally prickly lot--and now they're lawyers with political connections and pensions--meaning they've upgraded to satisfied, powerful, and prickly.)
I also indicated I had a Westlaw contract up for renewal in two days, and asked whether I would hear back before then. This question created a tizzy. One of the interviewers smiled ominously. Tracey H. seemed put off. I'm not sure if any of them knew that Westlaw legal research contracts usually have to be renewed for one or two year periods and have much different pricing based on the contract length. Basically, unless I could figure out if I had been eliminated or hired prior to Friday, I ran the risk of spending several thousand dollars on a contract I might not need to use. In a normal interview, a company would probably say, "Well, we have other candidates to evaluate and other steps to go through, and we weren't planning on deciding the finalists so soon, but we'll try to get back to you as soon as possible." That's what a normal private employer would do, but this is the government. They don't have to give a damn.
On the way up, I asked Tracey H. about the number of positions available. She said it depended, which seemed sort of vague, especially because she'd been so chatty previously. (I am speculating, but I don't think the court knows the expected start/hire date for the job, or she would have been more specific.) She also said the next step would be to narrow the field to seven candidates, and then there would also be a hands-on test. On the way to the interview, she shook my hand, but on the way out, she did not shake my hand. My last question had definitely changed the tenor of the interview, and I don't expect to make the final cut--even though my initial test score was most likely in the top five, and no one else applying probably has a law degree. Now, is it possible my last question gave off a presumptive vibe? Absolutely, but nothing up to that point indicated that it would take four to five months (or more) to choose someone for an admin position. Besides, this is the government, not a private company--if they're spending taxpayer funds (some of which I've contributed), should they really be acting as if I'm being presumptuous by asking a simple question?
After the interview, I left the HR specialist a message thanking her for her time and telling her I appreciated her professionalism and her colleagues' professionalism. I also asked when applicants would need to be available if they made the next cut, and when the expected start date would be for the eventual hiree. I said I wanted to make sure I would be available if I managed to make the next step. Over 48 hours later, I've received no return phone call.
Oh, I almost forgot--aside from my experience with diverse groups, I am a "four-fer"--a minority based on religious, ethnic, immigration, and other status. While the court loves talking about diversity, at the end of the day, it's still a breath of fresh Orange County, California when it comes to visible positions. There's nothing necessarily wrong with having a slice of country club O.C. in the middle of San Jose, California, but why persist with the disingenuous diversity talk? Why not be honest and tell people that the government isn't looking to hire based on merit, but other qualities, like social agreeableness? God forbid if an employee might rock the boat and offer new ways of doing things. I used to wonder why Santa Clara County Superior Court has been behind the curve on multiple issues. It adopted online tentative rulings very late (much later than Placer County), still doesn't have its orders and pleadings online like Alameda County, and recently incorporated a new judicial mediation program that Santa Cruz County had at least five years ago.
At the end of the day, if I don't get the job, I will be fine; however, I'm worried about the unemployed person who applied for the clerk job, is almost at the end of his or her benefit period, and is waiting for a decision. The court closed applications for the clerk position back in mid-June 2010. It doesn't take much time to grade a scannable multiple choice test, so why would it take four months or more to hire a clerk?
And that's when it hit me. Government jobs are not based on need, but on budgetary considerations. The unions demand money for votes, the state provides money, the money has to go somewhere, and if someone isn't hired right away, there are no real consequences to the government entity. Perhaps some work takes a little longer to complete, but the government can take its sweet time because it generally provides non-essential services.
In contrast, a private business usually won't hire someone unless it has a specific need, so when it wants someone, it usually completes the process as soon as possible. That's because a private business can terminate the employee if s/he isn't a good fit before the usual three months probationary period and hire someone else. As for job protection, in the real world, almost no one fires a person who can produce. That's why so many managers get away with murder--the company may have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in settlements, but as long as the manager produces, you don't want him leaving to your competitor.
The fact remains that most government workers do not produce or sell anything, which allows them to avoid accountability. If you don't make or sell anything, how can someone judge your performance? (Other than talking to a manager, who has no power to discipline anyone outside of complex union rules, there isn't really a way to effectively complain about a government employee's performance.) Why, then, should I be surprised if the courtroom clerk position doesn't seem to have a definite hire or start date, and the hiring process seems based more on subjective qualities than my test score, education, and experience?
While I realize every job requires people who can fit into the organization, government union jobs tend not to have clearly measurable performance metrics, so unions can prioritize subjective factors over merit. Another way to analyze the union hiring problem is to think of a world where jobs are determined primarily on subjective criteria. In that world, Mike Huckabee has just as much of a chance of getting the science job as Stephen Hawking, because if the objective test is too easy, Hawking has no real advantage over Huckabee when it comes to proving his superior scientific knowledge. In fact, Hawking is actually disadvantaged by the entire process, which weighs the subsequent interview more heavily than the earlier objective test. (By the way, I'm sure we all know that California teachers' unions love the current system, where there is no way to judge their teaching abilities. Recently, because of the teachers unions' desire to maintain the current non-accountability system, California kids lost millions of federal dollars--again. See Race to the Top article.)
You see, union jobs are like gifts, and the hiring committees view them as such. They know they won't get props for hiring the most talented person, because there isn't a way to measure performance accurately. So they focus on hiring someone agreeable, who may have few other options, and who isn't necessarily the most qualified.
Also, since public sector unions deal with OPM all the time, why should they bother getting the most bang for the buck? After all, it's not their money, and if they hire someone with new ideas or an exceptional work ethic, s/he might show up everyone else. In short, government hiring committees have no incentive to act quickly or to hire the most talented person. For taxpayers, that means if they're lucky, they get an above average employee, and the most talented applicants go elsewhere.
Why should we care? First, there's the basic fairness issue. When a recession hits, a terrible public sector worker has more job protection than an excellent private sector worker--even though the private sector pays for public employees' salaries and benefits.
Second, when a new government employee is hired, taxpayers are really paying for two people--the person and his/her pension. Stated another way, the money paid for the person's pension could be used to hire a new person thirty years down the road, so assuming finite resources, each new government employee takes a job away from someone else in the future. Even if we reform the current system, at least one generation will suffer the trillion-dollar consequences of past pension promises. See Bloomberg article, here: "The effects of altering the [pension] system are limited because most costs arise from benefits promised to workers who are already retired, and wouldn’t be affected by changes to benefits for current employees." In short, promises already made to public sector unions are so large, the government unions have irrevocably harmed at least one generation of Americans.
In an era of declining American birthrates, it's not feasible to have a system where a taxpaying adult is on the hook for someone else's pension even as s/he suffers the loss of a potential job because of the diverted tax revenue used to pay for that pension. If we continue to rely on immigration to maintain a replacement population rate (which helps support future pension obligations), we must ensure our public schools are the best in the world--and that is clearly not the case in California. (In the distant past, America was able to put new immigrants in the coal mines or other manual labor jobs and then their kids would take over their manufacturing jobs, but that system no longer exists. Today, formal education is necessary to move immigrants into upwardly-mobile status.)
Most developed societies become victims of their own success. In Europe, where unionization is heavier than in the States, we can already see major problems. Young people have difficulty finding jobs, even in skilled professions like medicine. At the same time, most native-born European citizens don't want to do menial jobs, so they import persons from poorer countries to maintain their way of life (or, if you're Japan, you stick your head in the sand and continue to oppose immigration...and build human-looking robots). While I support immigration, new immigrants tend to bring new ways of doing things, which upsets the "natural" order and creates tensions--unless a country has the resources and the flexibility to take a long-term view, i.e., to judge immigrants by whether their children assimilate.
To summarize, the natural progression of modern successful societies is as follows: industrialization; women receive equal rights; birthrates decline; unions are eventually formed; taxes are increased to support government union jobs [and tax or other benefits primarily accruing to natives]; native-born citizens refuse to do certain work, requiring the importation of poor people; the new immigrants create cultural tensions; and either society adapts and is able to welcome the new immigrants like the United States has done, or it fails to assimilate the new immigrants and begins a slow, steady decline, like Europe. One common theme in the collapse of a country is public sector unions. See Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, page 104:
"The Weimar tax system [which led to massive inflation, making the German mark basically worthless] was feeble, not least because the new regime lacked legitimacy among higher income groups who declined to pay the taxes imposed on them. At the same time, public money was spent recklessly, particularly on generous wage settlements for public sector unions."
[Bonus: "As its economy stagnated in the early 2000s, Germany increased competitiveness by working with unions to keep wage increases below productivity growth. Greece, its economy fueled by the cheap government loans that came with eurozone membership, saw labor costs soar [as Greek unions negotiated wage and benefit increases above actual economic growth]." (National Geographic, March 2015 pp. 109)]
Public sector unions bring with them a culture of no merit, no production, no accountability, and OPM. The larger they get, the more society is forced to rely on higher taxes and immigrants to move the country forward. California has been very lucky to receive many hard-working, smart immigrants in the past thirty years. Without recent immigrants and their children, Yahoo (YHOO), Google (GOOG), eBay (EBAY), Sun Microsystems, and Apple (Steve Jobs is biologically half-Syrian or half-Lebanese) would not exist.
I don't know whether I've been rejected for the court job. When I get the next letter, I'll probably just throw it away. I have no interest in working for an entity that places significant decisions in the hands of four people who don't seem to understand the issues facing a small business with annual contracts and who don't seem intent on moving the hiring process forward in a timely manner.
I'm happy to note, however, that there was a silver lining to the interview. It reminded me that I spend each day trying to help people resolve problems, and I am accountable to my clients every single moment. Even if my future kids have crooked teeth because Daddy doesn't have dental benefits, at least I can tell them that I did my best. Plus, if I had received the clerk position, who knows whether I would have been able to fit into the courthouse's union culture. At least as the owner of a small business, I can strive to make sure that every person who comes into my office is treated honestly, openly, and respectfully--just like I've been doing for the past six years. Now if only the courthouse could meet my standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)