AMERICA'S ON GOING TRIBUTE TO IGNORANCE

It never ends. First we're treated to America's tribute to ignorance, Kentucky's Creation Museum. Well, hold on to your cowboy hats. We're seeing another attack on science and reason, only this time it's from Texas.

In the clip below (from Upworthy) we learn that if you live and go to school in Texas you might just learn that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. Check it out here ...

At least we can now take a guess at what happened to the unicorns. In all likelihood, the dinosaurs ate them.

And if the dinosaurs didn't eat them it's probably because the animals were sorted alphabetically and the tigers got them ("T" does come before "U"). Here's an artists depiction of the unicorns last moments on earth.

I know, I know, this is all pretty silly. But then again, maybe not. Ignorance and stupidity seems to have marbled its way throughout American society.

Consider the following examples, straight from the halls of Congress. It demonstrates that having a seat in Congress is no guarantee that you will understand basic rules of science. Let's start with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), who once asked whether the island of Guam might "tip over" (1:15 into the clip)...

Here's how Rep. Johnson's worst nightmare might actually play out ...

If you think this is bad, think about this. Rep. Todd Akins (R-Missouri) - who sits on the House Committee on Science and Technology - seems to believe that women can choose to reject a pregnancy naturally ("shut that thing down"). But only in cases of legitimate rape, of course. The Daily Show helps us understand this, and other nuances of "modern" science (and history) in America.

At the end of the day, even Japan's Godzilla thinks that this approach to science in America is absurd (hey, if dinosaurs can be on Noah's Ark Godzilla can Facepalm America's ongoing tribute to ignorance) ...

Sigh ...

- Mark

FACT CHECK, PLEASE ...

From Z-Facts we get another way to look at the real forces behind our budget deficits ...

The graph below (also from Z-Facts) also makes it clear that the size of our federal workforce is not growing.

A key observation here is that federal job growth under both President Reagan (200,000) and President Obama (38,000) held at about the same percentage relative to our general population growth.

So, you might ask after looking at these charts, why do we keep hearing about Obama's deficit problem and growing government?

In the case of our "growing government," as Z-Fact points out, it's "pretty simple." Because the Republicans want to cut government programs "so we can grow the economy" (cough, cough) they need Americans to believe that the federal government is too big. However, the size of the federal government in the 1950s and 1960s was much larger (as a proportion of the population) when economic growth was much stronger than it is today.

The reality is the financial titans behind the GOP want to reduce their tax burden, so they've gotten their political oompa loompas in Congress and the right wing noise machine to convince a large number of Americans that the government is out of control. The reality is, as the graphs above make clear, the real culprits behind our budget mess are: (1) tax cuts, (2) increased military spending, (3) and the economic fallout from the 2008 market crash.

Throw in the fact that our "growing government" is really a myth (actually, it's a lie) one needs to ask, Why do many Americans believe we need to cut government and enact more tax cuts?

Oh ...

 - Mark 

TRADE OF INNOCENTS ... A WAR THAT CANNOT BE WON?

The movie Trade of Innocents, which depicts the darker side of human trafficking, premiered in Bakersfield this weekend. Yesterdays Friday night showing was the opening of a larger Trade of Innocents Symposium, which was held at California State University Bakersfield today.

While there were numerous areas and topics covered the subject of human trafficking - a modern form of slavery - the symposium focused on the themes of child exploitation featured in the Trade of Innocents.

I was moderator for the first panel of the morning, which featured speakers from the FBI (Kurt Ormberg), the U.S. Attorneys Office (Elana Landau), and Specially Assigned Detective to the FBI from the Sacramento Police Department (Derek Stigerts, Violent Crimes Against Children Division).

   Law Enforcement Panel: L-R, Mark Martinez with panel discussants Kurt Ormberg, Derek Stigerts, and Elana Landau.

                          Trade of Innocents Producer, Jim Schmidt

While there is much I could say about the panels and the symposium, at this time I'm just going to say you need to watch this movie.

If you're in Bakersfield, Maya Cinemas has the film, which you can access here.

- Mark 

A QUICK GLIMPSE AT OIL AND GAS PRICES

With the price of gas at the pump rather high this week there's a bit more interest in what's happening in our petroleum markets. Those who are interested can find some key statistics on the major players and U.S. oil imports here (play around on the site).

One of the more interesting developments is that - contrary to what many might believe - U.S. oil production is actually growing (and has been since 2009) while U.S. oil imports are actually going down. Part of the reason for declining imports into the U.S. is because of increased production from shale fields in North Dakota and Texas. Production from these two areas has us on pace in 2012 to cut U.S. oil imports to the lowest levels in two decades.

So what's driving gasoline price hikes? A decline in exports from Iran (sanctions), the cost of shale extraction (it's not cheap), and a declining dollar (which causes remaining import prices to climb). There's more (Syrian-Turkey tensions), but I'll leave it at that for now.

- Mark

CORPORATE PSYCHOPATHS

In an interview Professor Robert Hare, the author of The Psychopath Test, explained that he drew his profiles on psychopaths from serial-killers housed in prison populations. But then Professor Hare offered this observation:

"I should have spent some time inside the Stock Exchange as well. Serial killer psychopaths ruin families. Corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies." 

I bring this up because, in an effort to help explain the 2008 market collapse, Clive R. Brody followed Hare's lead and wrote "The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis" (Journal of Business Ethics, 2011). This paper offers insight into the personalities that exist in large firms and suggests that the short term interests of Corporate Psychopaths lead companies to focus on short term rent collecting (profits) rather than long term performance and market stability.

Brody's theory on Corporate Psychopathy flies in the face of organizational theories which have convinced many in the general public that markets are always efficient, and that they operate magically to promote the public good. This is simply not the case.

The human condition is such that market players, in the pursuit of more power and profits, will engage in activities contrary to the interests of society.  Lord Acton (1834-1902) saw this clearly:

"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

Acton's "gangsters" are our modern psychopaths. But none of this is really new.

In Federalist #51 James Madison tells us that "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Madison understood that we've always had psychopaths, or gangsters, to disrupt society. It's why we have governments.  

To help us understand modern gangsters, or the Corporate Psychopath, Brody offers a theory that suggests the trail of evidence for the 2008 market collapse does not end with the bubble producing policies of Alan Greenspan. Policies are simply a tool of the modern gangster. Instead Brody suggests that we need to look at the perfect storm of market players sharing similar personality traits, which are described this way:

Psychopaths are the 1% of people who have no conscience or empathy and who do not care for anyone other than themselves. Some psychopaths are violent and end up in jail, others forge careers in corporations. The latter group who forge successful corporate careers is called Corporate Psychopaths.

After painting a picture of the corporate psychopath Brody draws from the literature in psychology to explain:

... [Corporate Psychopaths] lack a conscience, have few emotions and display an inability to have any feelings, sympathy or empathy for other people. The area of the brain known as the amygdala has been described as the seat of emotion and fear and is reported to be important in processing socially relevant information and it is therefore theorized that disruption of its functions could lead to cold and socially inappropriate behaviour ... This abnormal brain connectivity and chemistry of psychopaths makes them extraordinarily cold, much more calculating and ruthless towards others than most people are and therefore a menace to the companies they work for and to society ...

Brody points out that what keeps "Corporate Psychopaths" flowing through the business world is their ability to come off as "charming, sophisticated, and successful." This is dangerous because the charm of the Corporate Psychopath really masks their penchant to "lie, bully, and cheat" as they callously "disregard or cause harm to the welfare of others."

Worse is how the traits of the Corporate Psychopath lead them to ignore how their actions impact others.

Former chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan - an honorary Corporate Psychopath, if there ever was one - is a poster child for the condition. A follower (disciple?) of serial-killing groupie Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan made it clear that his policies didn't have anything to do with the market meltdown because - get this - the 2008 financial crisis was the type "that comes along only once in a century."

Serendipity caused the market meltdown? Where's the rational, calculating, market analyst we grew to know and love at the end of the 20th century?

There's more. Much more. But read the article. It's short and accessible, especially for an academic piece.

- Mark 

WHO WON THE FIRST DEBATE?

Lat nights debate was strange. While President Obama seemed off balance the host, Jim Lehrer, seemed overwhelmed and lost. With President Obama's long and meandering lectures, it also seemed that he had prepared for the functional equivalent of a Greco-Roman wrestling event that required real skills ...

But then was confronted with the functional equivalent of this ...

So what America actually saw was this ...

So, who won last nights debate? No one, really, which means the American public lost.

What a mess.

- Mark

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE ECONOMY ...

I've been told many times that my book is too thick for most casual readers. Fair enough. Explaining movements in history while producing data and other pesky details doesn't always lend itself to great story telling. This is especially the case when you're trying to explain how markets really work and what's wrong with our economy. 

Fortunately, there's more than one way to tell parts of a story.

Courtesy of Business Insider we are presented with a series of graphs that illustrate some of the more careful arguments that I make in my book. In "Here's What's Wrong With The Economy" Business Insider effectively lays out in graph form the impact of the economic policies and political developments that I discuss in chapters 1 and 9-11 of my book, The Myth of the Free Market: The Role of the State in a Capitalist Economy.

If, after going through the graphs, you want a detailed discussion on how we got where we're at today read my book ;-) .

- Mark 

UNIVERSITY FORUM TONIGHT

A rather late post, but for those of you not watching the presidential debate we have a forum on religion and politics at California State University Bakersfield tonight (I know, I know, but this was scheduled months ago). 

Featured speakers include myself, Pastor Chad Vega and Emad Meerza. We'll be in the Student Union at 5:30 pm.

- Mark 

JPMORGAN CHASE SUED AGAIN (yawn)

So JPMorgan is being sued by the state of New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. JPMorgan is being sued because a firm they acquired in the 2008 fire sale - Bear Stearns - is accused of deceiving investors in 2006 and 2007 about loans they turned over to JPMorgan, which they subsequently bundled up and turned into securities. JPMorgan then sold the securities to unsuspecting clients.

The lawsuit alleges that JP Morgan essentially abandoned underwriting standards and guidelines in order to make a sale. While Bear Stearns is at the heart of the complaint JPMorgan is being sued because (1) JPMorgan created securities out of the toxic loans that originated with Bear Stearns, and because (2) Bear Stearns is now owned by JP Morgan (after being acquired for $2 a share in March of 2008).

The suit alleges that JPMorgan didn't care if the purchaser of their securities got a lemon because JPMorgan just wanted to sell product and increase trading volume.

While losses related to the investments total more than $20 billion, it should be noted that the lawsuit effectively follows an earlier set of cases where JPMorgan was (1) fined over $155 million for shady security deals (they were later granted an exemption to continue trading security swaps), and (2) sued by the state of New York for filing illegal foreclosures with the aid of the byzantine and murky title recording system controlled by the homeowner hostile MERS corporation (which I discuss here), which allowed financial firms to push homeowners out of their homes (The People of the State of New York v. JPMorgan Chase Bank).

Expect another $100 million-plus settlement, and for things to continue as before. Carry on.

- Mark

MITT ROMNEY IS OUR NEXT PRESIDENT?

According to Fox News Mitt Romney stands a 50/50 chance of being our next president. His odds are better if you consider other factors. Huh? But don't the national polls say otherwise? Yes, they do. But Fox News (and friends) are playing games. Follow the story below to see what's happening.

It was 1936 and Literary Digest - one of the top polling sources in the country - had Republican Alf Landon beating Franklin D. Roosevelt in the presidential election. FDR, as history reminds us, walloped Landon by taking in over 62% of the vote in 1936. So what happened? Among the many polling issues Literary Digest failed to address was how their polling sample drew heavily from telephone directories and automobile owner lists.

It was the 1930s. We were in the middle of the Great Depression. Guess who had telephones and owned cars? So, yes, in spite of getting over two million responses to their presidential survey the Literary Digests polling sample was skewed.

I bring this up because of Fox News' (and friends) recent efforts to bang the drums about skewed polls. But unlike the Literary Digest 1936 poll that was skewed because the polling industry was in its infancy, and sampling was poorly understood, the Fox crowd is telling the world the polls are skewed because - get this - their guy is losing. Rather than acknowledge reality Fox and friends have decided to focus on a made up conspiracy of national pollsters.

The fact that Fox has unearthed this institutional conspiracy (which only they can see) is only icing on their "let them eat cake" style of news journalism.

This is why this Colbert clip (jump to 5:00) on the ginned up Fox News polling controversy is so important (and funny). The piece begins with Fox News saying you shouldn't believe national polls because the sampling is skewed, which means the polling results are wrong. But the real reason they don't want people paying attention to the polls is because Mitt Romney is behind. If conservatives believe Romney is in trouble they won't show up or spend money, meaning other conservatives might not do as well in their races.

So what does Fox News do? Rather than focusing on "likely" voters in their news narrative Fox says we need to look at "extremely interested" voters, which puts Romney and President Obama in a dead heat. Using Fox's logic Colbert takes it up a notch to point out that Romney is actually "up two points" if we only consider "the psychotically engaged."

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

But hold on to your tin foil hats, none of this sampling back and forth may matter because one Fox News analyst is suggesting that even if the numbers are right it's all "scientific gobbledygook."

If he doesn't believe it neither should you.

To remedy this conservative blogger, and polling illiterate, Dean Chambers has come up with his own numbers because national polls "just didn't look right." Seriously, you can check his math here at UnSkewed.com, where he reported that Mitt Romney was actually ahead by almost 8% last week (which jumped to 11% by 9/29/12).

It sure is nice when you can create your own world.

At the end of the day Fox's skewed polling meme has nothing to do with methodology, or science. Fox & friends are crying foul because their guy is losing. But more importantly it allows Fox to tell their audience that the world is against them and that Fox is the only group watching out for them.

It's interesting to note that after their great presidential prediction debacle in 1936 George Gallup became a polling heavy weight (he predicted FDR would win) and Literary Digest effectively went out of business (they were actually merged). In a normal world many might expect the same to happen to Fox News, especially since it's well known that they've spent almost two decades demonizing and building distrust of institutions, people, and groups that don't follow their world view.

But this isn't a normal world. It is possible to come up with predictions and theories that only your followers understand and buy into. History is full of people falling into the logic of false prophecy.

So if you're inclined to support Mitt Romney you may have nothing to worry about, as long as you watch Fox News. Mitt Romney stands a better than 50/50 chance of being our next president.

And if he's not elected president, well, Fox News has already provided you with the narrative to understand what happened ...

- Mark