FIFA and Technology

As I watched the President of FIFA reacting to the uproar about bad decisions by referee's I was struck by how typical the response was for a bigwig in a position of control in any big organization - from Government Agencies, to Oil Companies, to Banks to Sports organizations.

FIFA has jumped on every new technology when it comes to promoting the World Cup and making more money. The constant barrage of advertising from FIFA licensed companies pushing apps for your phone, websites or other new technology businesses is inescapable. So evidently new technology is great when it comes to making money, it just more trouble than it is worth when the only benefit is the integrity of the game.

FIFA, AIG, Lehman Brothers, BP. They are all the same. Don't bother me with details, I'm to busy making money.

Logically you don't have to think about it much to see FIFA's position is a wrong decision on so many levels. Far from taking the game out of the hands of referee's, it would be giving them a tool to protect them (and their families) from harassment from irate fans. Using technology can further protect the game from the possibility of gamblers influencing the outcome. And most importantly for fans and players, the outcome of the game wouldn't hang so regularly on a referee's bad decision.

Why have there have been so many really bad game changing decisions? These are supposed to be the best of the best referee's but it seems like really bad goal mouth decisions occur more frequently than in any league I have ever followed. These aren't judgment call decisions, these are basic factual decisions. Players obviously offside or obviously not offside. Did the ball cross the goal line. Why aren't the referee's (assuming they truly care about making the right decisions) lobbying for technology to help them with their job. Could it be we have the Peter Principal at work - the most important criteria for being a top referee isn't competence - it's ambition and willingness to toe the FIFA line and tolerate abuse?

I note that when a referee makes a bad decision that brings a lot of bad publicity FIFA typically defends the decision then quietly sends the Referee home. They punish the ref, but deny the underlying problem. It's not working FIFA, get your eyes up off the bottom line and fix the game.

Problems with democracy - Corporations are not people

The Supreme Court's recent decision holding that corporations have the same free speech rights as persons under the Constitution is the latest in a long line of nonsensical decisions that go back to the 1890's.

Corporations exist because the law gives them the right to exist. Years ago to encourage people to invest in new economic ventures governments created laws allowing people to band together, throw their money in a pot, and be protected from liability for anything stupid they did in that enterprise. Their liability was limited to the amount of money they threw in the pot. Originally there were often requirements on how Corporations conducted their business, in particular requirements that the have a limited and specific corporate purpose.

Corporations have turned out to be wonderful vehicles for generating wealth, and protecting wealth, so wealthy and powerful people have over the years managed to remove most of the restrictions on Corporations by using the economic benefits they confer by their presence as a bargaining chip to reward whatever State or Country gives them the best deal.

As a result Corporations have become a dominant force in politics, able to use their financial muscle and marketing expertise to shape public policy to their will. Wall Street undermines regulation by Government, then gets bailed out when their bad decisions blow up in their face. Corporations suck up billions of dollars in Government subsidies each year, even in the face of evidence the subsidy is counterproductive.

Corporations are not people, they are fictitious entities created for convenience by Government - Congress could abolish them tomorrow. It is nonsense for the Supreme Court to say that even though Congress could abolish them, Congress can't regulate them.

Problems with democracy - 2/3 vote requirements

One of the abuses of the democratic process that has become increasingly popular here in California is imposing 2/3 vote requirements to protect some vested interest. The abusive part of 2/3 vote requirements stems from the fact that typically a bare majority are imposing at 2/3 vote requirement on future voters. So if you have a particular viewpoint and can convince 51 voters out of a 100 current voters to vote your way in the future votes for your point of view equal 2 of the other sides votes. So if tomorrow 65 out of 100 want to vote the other way, they lose.

Now big business has recognized the extraordinary power of imposing 2/3 vote requirements. Proposition 16 on the June 2010 California ballot was an attempt by a private for profit energy company to protect their monopolies by imposing a 2/3 vote requirement on any public entity that wants to try to provide cheaper or greener energy to their citizen/voters. It was barely defeated.

Every government entity should have a rule that no law can impose a higher vote requirement on future voters than is achieved in enacting the law. So if 51% of the voters approve a particular law today, the law cannot impose any requirement higher than 51% approval on future voters.

Update:  Prop 26 on the November 2010 Ballot sought to impose a 2/3 vote requirement to make it harder to impose state or local fees and taxes.  It was approved by 52.5% v. 47.5%.   That was 52.5% of the 43.7% of the eligible voters who actually voted.

California Constitution Article II Section 2.5 provides that a voter who casts a vote...shall have that vote counted.  Doesn't that imply one group of voters cannot devalue the vote of other voters?

Putting 2 and 2 together

Observation #1 - I fill up my trash can in a few days with all the junk mail I get every week. Much of it is catalogs directed to people that haven't lived here for years, even though I have done everything I can to let the senders know their mail is being wasted. It seems clear that it costs more money for a business to update their mailing list than it does to just keep mailing - for year after year.

Observation #2 - it now costs me somewhere over $.40 to send a couple of sheets of paper by mail. From what I could determine at the post office web site it costs as little as $.11 for a business using bulk mail.

Observation #3 - The post office is in financial crises.

Fervent hope #1 - The post office will price bulk mail more realistically so that businesses won't be filling up my mailbox with forests full of paper I don't want.

Reality check #1 - Won't happen. After all, business runs the country.

Private enterprise isn't always the best solution

Ever since the the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 the political discourse in the United States has been skewed by a presumption private enterprise does everything better than government. History says otherwise of course, but history has been ignored in favor of ideology that people thought would help them become rich and powerful.

The lessons of history have had some revenge over the intervening 20 years. Think Enron, AIG or Bernie Madoff. On a lesser scale think of dealing with your cable or phone company, getting bumped off your flight, or having it cancelled, or paying for taking luggage on a trip with you - all the joys of deregulation.

Now the ability of the ideologues to convince people over the last 20 years that private business is always better than government has reached its logical conclusion. Business is trying to prevent Government from doing something even in the face of irrefutable evidence Government is clearly doing a better job at than business.

In California Proposition 16 is sponsored by private energy companies to protect the monopoly position they have enjoyed in many areas California for decades. Most areas of California get their gas and electricity from one of three big energy Corporations. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in Northern and Central California, Southern California Edison (SCE) in the Los Angeles area and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) in San Diego. But some local governments have formed their own entities for providing electricity and power through local public agencies. The Los Angeles Water and Power Agency has been in existence over 100 years. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) was formed in 1923.

When it comes to cost and reliability the public entities kick the private businesses collective butts. As of March 1, 2010 a comparison of three publc power companies, SMUD, Roseville Electric and LA Department of Water and Power found the average per month residential rate was about $94 per customer ($88 for SMUD, $95.58 for Roseville, $96.18 for LA). The private for profit corporations, PG&E, SDG&E and SCE average monthly residential rate was about $125 per customer (PG&E $119.97, SDG&E $128.43 and SCE $128.85).

Other local governments are noting the difference, particularly in Northern California. PG&E has been losing battles to stop local governments from forming power agencies to better serve their local populations, so they are now seeking to use the California's (infamous) initiative process to insert a provision in the California Constitution that would require a 2/3 vote for a local government to join or form a public power company. They evidently believe they can use ideology and misleading advertising to get enough votes from voters who are not paying attention to their own energy bills to pass the proposition.

You question that they are relying on misleading advertising? One of the primary sponsors of Prop 16 is the "Common Sense Coalition" which is simply a lobbying effort funded entirely by PG&E. The title of Prop 16 is "The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act" - this for a proposition whose goal is to limit the ability of local voters to create local power companies.

You would think that the voters in California would be smart enough to not strengthen the monopoly of the people who they buy power from. But the battle plan is diabolically clever. PG&E only serves northern and central California. 2/3 of the voters in the State live in Southern California, which is served by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE). SDG&E and SCE will also be in a stronger monopolistic position from this proposition, but they are keeping a low profile. PG&E may lose in Northern California where people know them. But by being the front man while SDG&E and SCE keep a low profile PG&E can use their misleading feel good ads to garner votes from voters in Southern California (where more voters live) who are not paying attention because PG&E means nothing to them.

Prop 16 could easily pass.

In 2006 Yolo County, a small county just west of Sacramento County, put a measure on the ballot to try to become part of SMUD. Voters of Sacramento also had to approve the merger. PG&E spent $12,600,000 on misleading ads and convinced the voters of Sacramento County adding Yolo County to their system would raise their rates, thereby scuttling the merger. The combined population of Sacramento and Yolo County is about 1,500,000, so assuming about 1/4 of those are voters PG&E spent about $30 per voter to win that battle.

PG&E has reportedly budgeted about $35,000,000 to promote Proposition 16. They are going to be relying on subtle references to the notion that Government is inherently corrupt and incompetent and business is inherently honest and competent. They are going to be throwing around lots of allegations and inuendo's about incompetent bureaucrats and terrible budget consequences. This from a company that was in bankruptcy in 2002 because of bad decisions in the energy market. PG&E was a big supporter of the 1997 derugulation of utilities in California - you could almost see the dollar signs blinding their vision. In the resulting chaos in the deregulated market PG&E got hammered and ended up getting bailed out by to the tune of an $8 billion dollar surcharge on the rates we Northern Californians pay for power.

Oh, and by the way, that $35,000,000 they are willing to spend to try to solidify their local monopolies is just a few million more than what the CEO of PG&E has taken home over the last 5 years or so. That might explain part of the reason why the public agencies have lower rates. Do you think?

Conservatives are not Conservative

To me calling someone a conservative person suggests a person who is cautious and careful. They avoid unnecessary risks, choosing the safe, low risk path over the the path of higher gain but more risk of loss.

The oil spill in the gulf is a reminder of how in politics, where money is involved, the term conservative consistently gets stood on it's head. More off shore oil drilling has been a big "Conservative" goal for years. Now the nation faces billions of dollars in economic losses, and huge impacts on the natural environment because we downplay the risks of drilling for short term energy gains.

Nuclear power is regaining steam as a "Conservative" issue now that memories of three mile island and Chernoble are dimming.

Deregulating business is a always a big "Conservative" political goal, despite a long history of market folly leading to economic collapse.

Global warning doesn't exist say many "Conservatives". So lets keep on doing what we are doing and ignore the hints of possible future disaster in the science.

People with the instincts of riverboat gamblers have managed to co-opt the label "Conservative".

The perils of certainty

A basic rule all trial lawyers learn early is that you need to coach your witnesses to say things like they are absolutely certain they are right. People are more likely to believe statements that sound like the person is sure of themselves. A person who is dead wrong, but states things with certainty will be believed over a person who is absolutely right but is by nature inclined to qualify everything they say.

In life probably the opposite is true. People who are always dead certain they are right are often wrong because they don't critically examine their thoughts before expressing them. And people who qualify their statements are more often right because they do critically exam their thoughts before expressing them.

Like the courtroom, politics rewards certainty despite its probable inverse relationship to being right. The politician who speaks their thoughts with certainty is perceived by people with similar thoughts as "genuine" - not to mention right, even in the face of objective evidence they are wrong.

Our government will be better if more voters learn what trial lawyers already know. Being certain isn't the same as being correct.