What's harder to cover: politics or sports?

/

Nate Silver is a sensible guy, and his analysis of political polls is now pretty much legendary. His 538 blog is now part of the New York Times, and focusing mostly on political polls and trends. But Silver knows a lot about gambling and sports betting in general, having made lots of money in poker tournaments and also having been a Baseball Sabermetrics aficionado.

In a recent Reddit interview (by anyone who logged in and asked him questions) the following wonderful Q&A occurred.

Q.  Which do you find more frustrating to analyze, politics or sports?

A.  Politics. I don't think its close. Between the pundits and the partisans, you're dealing with a lot of very delusional people. And sports provides for much more frequent reality checks. If you were touting how awesome Notre Dame was, for example*, you got very much slapped back into reality last night. In politics, you can go on being delusional for years at a time.

Full disclosure: I said in a NYT video yesterday that I'd bet Notre Dame against the spread.

Yeah, that is pretty much how I feel too. It's sad when you have to confront the basic limitations of humans operating in a so-called "civilized world."

Are you suffering from too much information? Here's a quick, simple cure

/

Everyone talks about "information overload" as though it's an unavoidable problem of our modern society. Too much information is out there and it's coming at us faster than we can digest it. Few people ask: how much of that information is meaningful to me, and how can I filter out the stuff I don't find useful?

Clay Shirky astutely points out that what have have isn't "information overload," but rather "filter failure." We've had more information being produced than any one human could consume in a lifetime for centuries. So, the question isn't "how much information is out there?" but instead: how much of it do we want (or need) to consume?

If you don't want meaningless information to cloud your life then learn how to filter. Start by examining all of the information sources you access (e.g. TV, radio, print media, Internet etc.). Which programs and information sources are you accessing out of mindless habit? Which ones are delivering interesting and useful information that you tend to act on?

Next time you watch a local TV news broadcast and they're blabbering about some misfortune that happened to someone who lives across town that you don't know, ask yourself: is this information actionable? That is, how will it help you in a specific way?

The answer is it probably won't. Most news is really just mindless gossip. And the weird thing is many of us pay attention to this gossip even though we don't know the people involved. It's like that experiment where they put soap operas on a TV in a cage full of monkeys and guess what? Yeah, the monkeys started watching the soap operas.

Do monkeys need to watch soap operas about another species? Is this relevant to their lives? Will it help them forage for food? No, but if you are stuck in a cage and bored you'll watch anything.

You're probably not stuck in a cage, and yet you might be letting a lot of useless information into your life. If so, then don't complain that you are suffering from information overload. Filter out the useless junk. You'd be surprised how much of it there is.

Does Mass Media Inhibit Critical Thinking Skills?

/

On TV the other day there was a story about whether doctors in the United States over diagnose ADD and ADHD in children. The number of kids who are on Ritalin and Adderall has climbed in the past decade or so, and so the question is whether that's because more kids have ADD these days, or because it's being more readily prescribed.

The story began by profiling a doctor (I forget his name) who said there definitely is over diagnosis of ADD and ADHD. He was quoted as saying "I'm not saying that there are no valid cases of ADD, but just that some of the kids receiving this diagnosis aren't truly in need of medication." I was paying close attention to how he phrased his statement because I knew what was going to happen next.

Then the story shifted to B-roll footage of a small kid playing peacefully with some blocks. The voiceover was from his mom who described how her son used to be incapable of concentrating, but now that he was taking Ritalin he was fine. Then the dad came in and confirmed this. Finally, the mom was shown on camera emphasizing that, for her son, medication was the only solution.

The segment then cut over to the network anchor and the chief medical correspondent, who confirmed that some kids truly need medication. There was no attempt to address the issue of whether some kids might be taking medication unncessarily.

If you weren't paying close attention (and most people don't when they watch TV), you'd come away with the impression that the question about over diagnosis had been answered, and the answer was that ADD is not over diagnosed.

The mainstream media is not purposefully trying to retard our critical thinking skills, but that's the outcome. Creating video stories is time-consuming. And they want to "tell both sides of the story." Maybe if they had more time they'd find a case of a child that arguably didn't need ADD medication, but then that would imply the parents weren't doing their job. Even if they did spotlight a child with marginal ADD, they'd still need to establish that maybe some doctors don't think that ADD is over diagnosed.

It follows the classic TV story formula: make the story easy to tell, and easy to understand, and don't sweat small disconnect that inhibits critical reasoning skills.

Law school, and 20 plus years as an attorney, have made me hyper-vigilant about information I receive from other people. If someone is making a point I automatically start assessing the way they make the point, and the data that they use to back it up. It's too bad that more people aren't subjected to the training that law students receive.

Here's a test of reasoning that comes from the excellent book by Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow:

Consider this: A study of the incidence of kidney cancer in the 3,141 counties of the United States reveals a remarkable pattern. The counties in which the incidence of kidney cancer are the lowest are mostly rural, sparsely populated, and located in traditional Republican states in the Midwest, the South and the West. Now, what do you make of this information?

Most people (but sadly, I would argue, not all) quickly figure out that the fact the counties in question are "traditional Republican" has nothing to do with the incidence of kidney cancer. The thing that people tend not to focus on is that the incidence of kidney cancer will be lower in sparsely populated areas.

Kahneman argues that we have two modes of thinking: fast and slow. The fast mode gets fooled easily by "merely statistical facts," that is, "facts, which change the probability of outcomes but do not cause them to happen." And which mode of thinking would you guess that television tends to engage?

One final thought: I was watching the Charlie Rose show the other night and he had a roundtable panel of political analysts talking about Newt Gingrich's recent fall in South Carolina and the likley implications going forward. The panel was pretty diverse, and a few of the members were folks you'd see on Meet The Press or CNN. What was interesting was that the level of discourse on Charlie Rose's show was very civil and moved towards a strong consensus: i.e. Newt Gingrich was not likely to get the nomination for various reasons.

If this question were posed on CNN or MSNBC there would be no consensus, and the level of discourse would be contentious. Watching the Charlie Rose panel I was struck by the realization that, even when there is a consensus among rational people of differing views, it rarely gets revealed on mainstream TV shows. Again, I'm not saying that CNN deliberately misleads its viewers. Maybe they don't understand how their approach degrades critical thinking skills.

You'd think that being in the business of "investigating news and important social topics" that they'd move toward understanding their influence on poor reasoning skills. But, as Upton Sinclair once said, "it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

So the last question for analysis is this: does the media make more money from letting people argue about things that don't need as much debate if they could be explained better?

When their mouths are moving they're lying, when they're quiet they're stealing...

/

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry is desperate to regain some positive attention after last week's debate gaffe. His poll numbers were declining before that, so now it's time to rearrange the deck chairs.

Now he's proposing legislation to ban congressfolk from insider stock trading on information they receive as part of their congressional duties. This is a great idea, and no doubt Perry could have proposed it before he started his uncontrolled descent, so why now?

Well, first of all Perry is aware that 60 Minutes just did a stinging piece on shameful congressional perks (one of which is the freedom to trade on non-public information that affects stocks). Watch the 60 Minutes clip, but be prepared to get mad.

Rick Perry may have trouble remembering things in a debate, but he's not politically naive. His proposal is a simple calculated ploy, one basd on the assumption that voters in our country are easily manipulated and poorly informed.

Congress isn't going to pass a bill like the one Rick Perry is now proposing. Other people have proposed such a bill and it's never even gotten to committee. But, once again, a similar bill is being proposed by Massachussetts Senator (Rep.) Scott Brown. Let's see how that goes...

[FLASH FORWARD TO 2014]

What happened to that bill on Congressional stock trading?

[SOUND OF CRICKETS]

If you want to brush up on how far those in power will go to manipulate the poorly informed public just revisit the whole Pentagon Papers fiasco. Almost everyone has heard of "the Pentagon Papers." But hearing about it and "being informed about it" are not the same things.

I didn't know as much I thought and then I watched the documentary called The Most Dangerous Man in America. You can watch it instantly on Netflix.

I highly recommend you get up to speed on political manipulation

So here's what you should do. First, watch Most Dangerous Man. Then watch the 60 Minutes episode. At that point you'll fully appreciate how unlikely it is for members of Congress to voluntarily give up their excessive power.

Closely study Nancy Pelosi's reaction when 60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft asks her a very sensible question about whether the perks she receives are reasonable. She is so taken aback that she's almost spitting with rage. This is exactly what powerful people who have been doing something shameful do when they're first discovered. (Go back and see how Nixon reacted as his misdeeds were uncovered).

Do you think most Americans would perceive the reporter's question to Pelosi as deeply unfair? Is the question character assassination? Or is it a fair question?

Most people would probably perceive it as fair. Unless they have some financial stake in the matter.

There's a huge disconnect between what's reasonable, as percieved by ordinary citizens, and what congressmembers are doing. That disconnect is one reason for the many serious problems we are experiencing now in this country. How did we let the housing crisis get so out of control, for example?

The answer, as always, is a lot simpler when you follow the money. Most of it leads back to Washington, but not enough people are paying attention to this. And so they're easily manipulated.

Politicians call those people "voters."

Immigrant engineering students are valuable, so why send them away after school?

/

“I would staple a green card to the diploma of anyone that graduates with a degree in the physical sciences or engineering in the U.S.” – John Doerr (Silicon Valley VC who funded Google, Amazon and Netscape etc.) BTW, according to the Wall St. Journal (Oct 31, 2011 edition) the U.S. issues 140,000 green cards a year.

Politicians are marquee stars in a tedious disaster movie

/

Our politicians can’t fix our economic problem, because few of them understand even the most basic economic principles. And the little they do understand is distorted by greed. Let’s review the effects of their ignorance.

The cause of the somewhat recent housing bubble was, at one level, ridiclously complex. But even a moron could see it was being fueled by reckless greed. Unless the moron was a member of Congress, and also fueled by reckless greed.

Each political party is desperate to blame the other side, and we’re left with no chance of doing anything meaningful to address the problems. I presume that Scott Adams is somewhat conservative, and that’s why he often writes for the Wall St. Journal. Here’s an excerpt from his recent blog post:

“Our economy is circling the drain and all we have is a plan to make a plan - one that we know in advance will either be ridiculous or, if sensible, rejected by Congress….”

“[D]onating to a politician or political party in this environment is as close as an ordinary citizen can come to treason. Political contributions broke the government, and a government that stays broken will doom the country.”

Mark Cuban, the businessman owner of the Dallas Mavericks, says pretty much the same thing on his blog:

“Why do we  allow our elected officials to do the same things over and over again. You know the definition of insanity ? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.  We as a country are absolutely insane for thinking that another committee of politicians is going to be able to do anything different from what they have done before.”

Meanwhile, the next wave of greedy ignoramuses is lining up to compete for an extended stay in the Oval Office.

Rick Perry, the former governer of Texas said recently that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is basically a traitor if he “prints more money.” Conservative humorist Ben Stein couldn’t take it, and went on TV to explain how ludicrous Perry’s statement was.

When will he go on TV to explain to Michelle Bachmann how ridiculous it is for her to claim she has the power, if elected (of course), to make gas prices in this country go down to $2/gallon?

The money that flows in our political system is a cancer, and the cancer has spread everywhere. Watching the current crop of political wannabes babble and shriek reminds me of the Planet of the Apes.

And the mainstream media is busy selling popcorn at their conveniently located concession stand.

Who gives you the really important information?

/

I love this quote by George Bernard Shaw:

“Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization.”

By which he means: small events will be reported as more important and potentially catastrophic than they probably are. Unless, of course, it’s something that’s catastrophic but requires a lot of work to investigate and explain (e.g. the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, or excessive government budget deficits).

Don’t blame the newspapers for giving readers what most of them want. Tantalizing gossip and simplistic explanations are in high demand. If you want to avoid this kind of noise you have to do the heavy lifting yourself. Your mind can be a filter if you train it to be. Or you can just open the windows and let a torrent of ignorance waft in.

Read More

Iceland, what made you think you were so special?

/

Michael Lewis' recent article in Vanity Fair is a must read on so many levels.  First, it's fascinating account of how Iceland, a quaint little country that has been isolated from the world of International finance for more than a millennium, suddenly became a careening high roller.  And then promptly became bankrupt. As in: 'the whole country became bankrupt.'

But there's another level (as their always is when Lewis looks at a situation) that I find more Interesting. How did a bunch of people who made their money for hundreds of years by fishing come to believe that they had an aptitude for high finance?  This short blurb, in which Lewis talks with an Icelandic fellow, kind of sums it up:

It took years of training for him to become a captain, and even then it happened only by a stroke of luck. When he was 23 and a first mate, the captain of his fishing boat up and quit. The boat owner went looking for a replacement and found an older fellow, retired, who was something of an Icelandic fishing legend, the wonderfully named Snorri Snorrasson. “I took two trips with this guy,” Stefan says. “I have never in my life slept so little, because I was so eager to learn. I slept two or three hours a night because I was sitting beside him, talking to him. I gave him all the respect in the world—it’s difficult to describe all he taught me. The reach of the trawler. The most efficient angle of the net. How do you act on the sea. If you have a bad day, what do you do? If you’re fishing at this depth, what do you do? If it’s not working, do you move in depth or space? In the end it’s just so much feel. In this time I learned infinitely more than I learned in school. Because how do you learn to fish in school?”

This marvelous training was as fresh in his mind as if he’d received it yesterday, and the thought of it makes his eyes mist.

“You spent seven years learning every little nuance of the fishing trade before you were granted the gift of learning from this great captain?” I ask.

“Yes.”

“And even then you had to sit at the feet of this great master for many months before you felt as if you knew what you were doing?”

“Yes.”

“Then why did you think you could become a banker and speculate in financial markets, without a day of training?”

“That’s a very good question,” he says. He thinks for a minute. “For the first time this evening I lack a word.” As I often think I know exactly what I am doing even when I don’t, I find myself oddly sympathetic.

Funny how easy it is for us to believe that we suddenly understand something that common sense should tell us is not that easily known.  I suggest that this a human (as opposed to an Icelandic) phenomenon by the way.  But of course we already knew that, didn't we?
Read More

Be impeccable with your word

/

I'm reading a great book right now called The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz. It's a little book with a simple message: namely, that there are four things you should focus on if you want to change your life in a powerful way.

  1. Be impeccable with your word
  2. Don't take anything personally  
  3. Don't make assumptions
  4. Always do your best  
The first Agreement is the hardest. To "be impeccable with your word" means, obviously, you should be honest and straightforward. But it's actually more than that. You should also avoid engaging in pettiness, especially gossip. The author points out that gossiping has become the main form of communication in our society. Speaking ill of people in a casual way is a form of gossip.

I mention this because today I read this blurb about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's comment about Bush as he departed the inauguration. This kind of statement is completely unnecessary, unless your point is to perpetuate pettiness.  But that seems to be a staple of most of our politicians.

Yesterday I saw a news clip of Joe Biden joking about needing notes when he was swearing and some administration officials, the point of which was to subtly criticize Chief Justice John Roberts' mishap in delivering the presidential oath. Next to Biden was President Obama, who was stone-faced—clearly not interested in joining in Biden's off-the-cuff pettiness.

I don't know if Obama has read The Four Agreements, but he seems to understand very well the principle of 'being impeccable with one's word.'  Unfortunately, many others do not understand this. Those who do, however, have a powerful edge.  One that, in Obama's case, will be very useful in meeting some major political challenges.
Read More

Good writing isn't always what we imagine

/

Bryan Garner, the famed legal writing guru, asked people at the ABA Franchise meeting in Austin last month if they were willing to try something for 6 months that would dramatically improve their writing. A chorus of grudging yays echoed forth. The reluctance stemmed from the assumption that he was about to suggest some sort of daily writing regimen.

"Subscribe to The Economist," was one of his suggestions. Fortunately, I'd already completed this assignment. Before I read The Economist I'd assumed that it was a highbrow financial magazine filled with dense prose and weighty proclamations. Once again, my fast assumptions proved to be flat wrong.

The Economist is one of the most interesting magazines I've ever come across. First, all of the articles are written anonymously. And yet they all have the same tone and style—that of a well informed person who isn't afraid to make (clever) off the cuff comments. But, of course, none of the comments are 'off the cuff.' All of the language is heavily edited.

And therein lies the rub. The writing style conveys a breezy manner, but the arguments are well-thought out. Oh, and that's another difference: the writers don't shy away from taking strong positions. They make arguments.

But, aside from the arguments, it's really the style of writing that deserves careful attention. The jaunty manner is evident in the recent article about Obama's victory and transition to power entitled 'Change.gov.' Read the whole article to get a sense of this, but here are examples of sentences that I doubt you'd ever see in a mainstream U.S. publication:

"There are also plenty of fissures in Obamaworld."

And in discussing the laborious process of confirming the 7,000 administration appointees, this sentence:

"Nominees endure an absurdly long nomination process, filling in 60 pages of forms and submitting themselves to extensive FBI vetting, during which plods from the bureau inquire about their taste for intoxicants and the legal status of their nannies."
Words like 'Obamaworld' and 'plods' are too colorful for journals like Time or Newsweek, which seem to believe that credibility is created through the illusion of neutrality. The Economist shows us that it's okay to argue points and to use everyday words. Well, it shows us that only if we read it.

So does Mr. Garner suggest that we look only to foreign publications for examples of good writing? No, he also suggests that we subscribe to the New Yorker.

Read More

Obama on religion

/

From an interview given by Barack Obama four years ago, shortly after he'd be elected to the U.S. Senate:

"I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others."

Amen, brother.

Read More

History now

/

Picture_2Last night was something I never thought I'd see, something I'd hoped for for so long. A political candidate who is thoughtful, smart, and tuned into the modern world. My good friend Rick Klau, whom I came to know through blogging, spotted Barack Obama as a presidential candidate over four years ago. As soon as I started learning about Obama I realized he was something special, but neither Rick nor I knew that he would become president so quickly, even though we wanted it desperately.

We have done an amazing thing, and I really believe that Obama will go on to be one of our great Presidents. He will certainly face the kind of challenges that one has to face and conquer in order to achieve greatness. Of course, he will not conquer the epic challenges by himself; he will have to win support from many people who up til now have not been inclined to offer it. John McCain gave a great concession speech last night, one of the best I've ever seen. It wasn't a concession speech, really. I believe McCain was sincere in offering to help Obama, which is good because he's someone whose help Obama will need.

We need a President who can work with everyone, who knows how to listen and govern from the middle. Fear-mongering and extremism must be put behind us. I hope we can use the positive energy of this historic moment to go on and do great things. There isn't much time to celebrate. We have a lot of work left to do.

I'm fired up and ready to go.

Read More

Getting the voters fired up...

/

If you're an Obama supporter you'll appreciate this. But, even if you're not you might still admire Obama's ability to build up an audience. Either way, I hope you enjoyed exercising your right to vote today.

Not every one on this planet is blessed with an orderly democratic process. Many people face armed opposition if they deign to challenge the status quo. So let's enjoy our wonderful freedom, and try to respect the views of those we disagree with.

Read More

Who is the real John McCain? Undecided voters should want to know.

/

If you want to know who a political candidate really is then you need to dig a little deeper than the traditional fare served up by the most mainstream of The Mainstream Media. As a lawyer, I know not to believe everything I hear or read. But I also know that if you want to find out what's really going on you have to read a lot and then judiciously parse what you read. This article on John McCain is no doubt written by someone who doesn't like McCain, but it cites a number of incidents with specific names. If you wanted to know the real John McCain you'd check out all of these incidents and see which ones are true but not widely discussed by the mainstream media. There is a long and disturbing list of improprieties here, and some of them have been reported and are undeniably true. Some of them are vaguely sourced.

It is undeniably true that McCain is a hothead, to the point that some respected GOP colleagues have questioned whether he's too dangerous to be President. If I was undecided I'd take some time to probe these reports and see if they are true. If you really want to know what's going on you're going to have to do more than just watch debates. And, frankly, the same is true for Obama. He has less of a record to work with, but from what I can tell the worst stuff has come out. Is he too liberal? I don't know. But I don't think that there is any indication that he has a personality disorder. Some of the stuff about McCain, if true, raises that question.

Read More

Leadership vacuum

/

The majority of our politicians are devoid of leadership skills. These politicians are guided by stubbornness or polls, sometimes both. Rarely are they guided sound judgment, the kind that takes in account broad forces and discounts petty parochialism. David Brooks writes about it. And this cartoon from the New Yorker captures it. Electing new leaders would help, but I'm not banking on the common man to get us out of this mess.

Who elected the current crop of leaders? I have to assume that most of them will be voting in the next election. It will be interesting to see how much more damage they can do.

Read More

Music homework

/

Okay in today's assignment, you are (using any available computer) to log on to the Internets. Then see if you can locate the song called Barack Obama by Reggae artist Cocoa Tea. Hint: you might want to check for it on Apple's iTunes.

For extra points (and great enjoyment) you should download it and listen to it in its funkified entirety.

That is all.

Read More

Just who is Barack Obama?

/

That's the thing Ed Rollins, a political strategist (read: "inside the beltway box thinker"), says no one has figured out yet. I have this weird suggestion: read this book called Dreams of my Father. In it Obama explains a lot about himself; he even answers Ed's concern about being a "community organizer in Chicago, whatever that means." Hmmm, sounds suspicious. I wondered what it meant too.

SPOILER ALERT

At first Obama didn't know what it meant either; he was told to go into impoverished communities and engage some pastors to help raise awareness about loss of manufacturing jobs. And at the first visit, guess what happened? The pastors didn't welcome him. He was an outsider and they didn't trust people who came in with fancy titles like 'community organizer.' So what happened next?

I'm not going to tell you. Ask Ed Rollins and see if he knows. Or, here's that crazy idea again: read Obama's book.

Read More

Building unity is hard; building it quickly is usually impossible

/

I recently finished reading Team of Rivals, a book about the improbable political rise of Abraham Lincoln. People forget (or in my case, never knew) that Lincoln was the 4th place contender for the Republican nomination in the election of 1860. It's also often forgotten (or never known) that when Lincoln took office he appointed each of his 3 rivals to cabinet positions. Salmon Chase, who was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, was constantly conspiring against Lincoln. When you read about Chase's brash efforts to undermine Lincoln you can't help wonder how Lincoln couldn't see what was going on.

Lincoln was undermined as well by General McClellan, one of the top Union Generals who was well-regarded until it became evident that he was incompetent. People wanted Lincoln to fire him immediately, but Lincoln put them off. McClellan was finally done in by his own machinations. And Chase rashly offered his resignation thinking Lincoln wouldn't accept it but instead would appease him by giving him greater reign. To his surprise, Lincoln accepted the resignation. Lincoln came away from both problems with his stature enhanced, and Chase and McClellan's stature's were diminished—more so because of Lincoln's patience.

Most presidential scholars agree that Lincoln was the best president that we ever had. Team of Rivals demonstrates why he was such an amazing statesman and politician. Of course, when he was president many people didn't trust him, or didn't appreciate him. Building unity out of deep division is never easy, and the conditions for him were—to say the least—highly unfavorable.

I thought about Team of Rivals when I read today about Obama's strong denunciation of his pastor. It reminded me of Lincoln (to some extent) in dealing with his disloyal rivals. Even though people wanted him to, Obama didn't quickly denounce Reverend Wright. Wright was given lots of leeway. But instead of acting prudently he sought the limelight and embarrassed himself. That made it easy for Obama to denounce him.

The 'patient approach' doesn't always work. Sometimes you have to act swiftly and decisively. People criticized Lincoln for not getting rid of Chase and McClellan more quickly. Only in hindsight is it clear to most people that there was great cleverness behind Lincoln's cautiousness. When tensions are high and people are in a state of extreme distrust, it's hard to build unity. Building it quickly is almost always impossible. Lincoln understood that better than most people in his era.

Hopefully, the same will turn out to be true of Obama in this era.

Read More