The Harris Index of Confidence is not the place to go these days for good news. The American people are not feeling very confident…in anyone.

In the front of the line is the military. And for good reason. After shooting Somali pirates on a moving boat from a moving boat, killing Osama bin Laden, and fighting two wars (at the time of the poll), 57 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in our military. Although its probably worth noting that we don’t know the answer to the obvious follow up.  Confidence to do what?

At the other end of the spectrum, we have Congress (6%), the press (11%), and Wall Street (7%). Wall Street took a precipitous dive in 2008. But Congress has been averaging a 12 percent since 1991 and is now at its lowest since polling began in 1966.  The press hasn’t been doing much better with an average of 13 percent.

Last year, Americans lost confidence in every major institution from the previous year. [Except one: organized labor went from 14 to 15 points...hardly a shining achievement.] We have more information about these institutions than ever before. Perhaps we are just proving that familiarity really does breed contempt.

And we wonder why the Hunger Games broke box office records and why sales of Atlas Shrugged tripled in 2009?

By all accounts, the Supreme Court will be striking down Obamacare by a 5-4 vote along so-called political lines. Armageddon should be handed down in the form of this opinion in late June. Like obituaries, I’m sure many a news outlet already have a good chunk of their script written for that day.  If one were to make a tag cloud for the news coverage, I’m guessing you’ll see the word “conservative” in 64 point font.

The current administration has already signaled its willingness to use this moment for political expediency to score points for the next election. I get it. And I even have a fairly non-cynical explanation. If you truly believe that the country needs you to be President, then it doesn’t matter how you do it…you must win. If running against the Supreme Court is how you win, then you must do that too.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court will face political controversy. But with the increasing concentration of power in the executive branch and the saturation of news coverage thanks to cable news, talk radio, and the internet, are we prepared for the consequences of a more politicized court system?

Think back to Bush v. Gore. Regardless of your preferred outcome, it was a meaningful statement about America’s system of government. Most other countries in the world would have seen rising armies and faced an existential crisis on the highest order of magnitude. Yet here, the Court spoke and the country moved on in every meaningful way.

I don’t mean to suggest that the President’s action will bring about a civil war. Not at all. But the bully pulpit is a powerful thing. And a call for less public confidence in this institution–egged on by another branch of government for short term political gains–will have effect down the line. My question is are we prepared for the consequences?

Or to ask this in the reverse way…why would anyone want to elect a president who hadn’t been successful in his professional life to take on the job of running the country?

Running for President takes money. The current campaign finance system all but requires that the candidate be able to self-fund at some point.  So if you have to be a millionaire to be President these days, why shouldn’t we pick a successful one?

President Obama made his money from writing several books, a laudable feat but hardly a qualification for the presidency on its own.  John Kerry became wealthy through marriage.  Again, not really a resume builder.  Same with John McCain to some extent. And then there’s a whole litany of politicians who never really held jobs that weren’t elected office: Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Dan Quayle, etc.

Mitt Romney made his fortune through industry, and yet, we are deeply uncomfortable with that. Uncomfortable, despite the fact that he gives a greater percentage of his money to charity than any president in recent memory and has somehow raised five boys who don’t have a hint of privileged child syndrome.

It all seems to come down to the “he doesn’t understand me and my world” perspective. And I have a very simple answer to that: if you think that any politician shares a lot in common with your life, you are deluding yourself.

President Obama doesn’t go to the grocery store or the movie theater or get stuck in traffic commuting to work or deal with the hassle of airport security. He doesn’t fill his tank with gas and he doesn’t worry about making the mortgage this month. He is the President. Does this make him out of touch? Maybe. Does anyone seem to think that being President somehow disqualifies that person from a second term? Nope. Nor should they.

And for good reason. The President can’t be from all places and can’t have held all jobs and can’t experience what its like to be in the lower, middle and upper class at all times. We aren’t hiring someone to be us in demographic ways or socioeconomic ways.  We are hiring someone to protect the country from enemies foreign and domestic, uphold the Constitution, and faithfully execute the laws. So we should elect someone who agrees with us on what those things mean and why they are important. Whether you ate at a Waffle House recently shouldn’t make a bit of difference.

Which brings us back to our point. If Mitt Romney represents the most successful, self-made candidate in the race–something we all hope our kids can be some day–why are we simultaneously upset that he is wealthy?

Maybe its the hair…

In 2003, Prof. Michael Hertz at Cardozo School of Law wrote a short but thought-provoking article on the incorrect but increasingly frequent use of the term ‘General’ to refer to sitting Attorneys or Solicitors General.  Interestingly, Attorney General Mukasey, who came into the office after it was published, was and is often referred to as Judge.

It is, therefore, only fitting that we now have a battle over the use of incorrect honorifics in the private sector.  It comes as a particular shock that Newt Gingrich, expert in matters vegetable, animal, and mineral, hasn’t noted this glaring error of etiquette himself.  Indeed, all three candidates are correctly referred to as Mister rather than Governor, Senator, and Speaker.

Why do we feel the need to maintain unnecessary titles? Do we long for our very own Downton Abbey world of order amidst the chaos?  Or does it make us feel more important to use the terms even when referring to others? Or are reporters simply too lazy to realize they are wrong when following the crowd?

Taken from a magazine published in 1900:

But though we may escape suffocation, there is yet the chance that some day there will be no air for poor humanity to breathe. Mr. Nikola Tesla, of world-wide fame, announces that if we are not cautious we may set light to the atmosphere with our electric discharges of a “few million volts.”

He suggests that “periodical cessations of organic life on the globe ” might have been caused through the ignition of the air by flashes of lightning. Electricity is, indeed, a mysterious force, and Mr. Tesla’s warning certainly appeals to the imagination. It would be interesting to know if the distinguished American electrician has a remedy to propose.”

It seems only fitting given what day it is.

This movie was originally based on a play called Farragut North after the metro stop that shuttles Washingtonians to the infamous K Street lobby and consulting shops.  Of course, that is if any of those people every took the metro.  (Full disclosure: I was asked to give a lecture to the cast of Farragut North when it came to Houston in 2011.)

Regardless, the play was loosely based off the 2004 Howard Dean campaign, Joe Trippi, and their intrepid press secretary, Jay Carson (who is now CEO of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and Senior Advisor to Bloomberg Philanthropies). It was written by Carson’s friend who also worked/interned on the campaign. Let’s just say that creative license was used and it didn’t reflect the deepest understanding of how the campaign world ticks, but it certainly had its moments.

I waited quite a while to see the movie because its hard to know when one is in the mood to see one of the most cynical takes on the American political system since the Manchurian Candidate.  To its credit, the movie fixes a number of the flaws in the plot from the play. It is also exceptionally well cast.

Ok, those were the good things. All of them.

To the extent that the West Wing was uplifting, optimistic, patriotic, witty, and fun…Ides of March is exactly the opposite.  The characters are craven, shallow, and back biting. The plot is everything there is to hate about meta-politics (stories about the story).  And the takeaway seems to be that everyone in politics from the candidate to the staffers to the reporters down to the interns are hateful people who are all good at blackmail and palace intrigue.  I’m unclear who the intended audience for this movie would be other 18 year olds in an attempt to persuade them to skip that hill internship and go straight to Goldman where the people are nicer.

Perhaps Americans are seeking an explanation for why the system appears to broken and why people like John Edwards are able to mask their duplicity for so long.  And, if that’s the case, I suppose this movie gives some answers in the form of a Hobbesian outlook: politics is nasty, brutish, and short.

Either way, you’ll need a good dose of President Bartlet before you try to go vote.

Movies like Limitless make us believe that we are close to unlocking the potential of the human brain–although the history of AI has shamed us for thinking that the billions of neurons in the brain could be so easily understood, let alone replicated.

And, yet, sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle. It appears that transcranial direct current stimulation does provide some benefit to increasing concentration and quicker learning of new material.  And some grad students here (who clearly don’t have many law student friends to tell them how much liability they have opened themselves up to) are going to sell you the technology to “be awesome” on the cheap.

Given that I graduated from a program where Adderall was consumed with as much voracity as my dog with a steak, one can’t help but wonder whether we will all be strapping ourselves with battery packs in the next few years.

So here‘s DIY transcranial direct current stimulation…for those who are willing to risk serious injury to pass the bar.

Would be fascinating to see a psych work up of these guys: Christian card counters.  Or, a probably more apt title: Card counters…some of whom claim to also be Christians and justify their card counting as part of their faith. My thoughts on their thoughts below:

“Group members believed what they were doing was consistent with their faith because they felt they were taking money away from an evil enterprise.”

Huh.  Interesting justification.  Of course, even if the form of cheating comes as math, it is still cheating as defined by the game itself.  For example, would it be morally wrong to cheat on the SATs because you thought that college admissions were biased against white men? 

“Crawford and Jones are trying to parlay their experiences from running the Christian card-counting group for five years into Blackjack Apprenticeship, a business that includes workshops, instructive videos and an iPhone app. Crawford also wrote a 60-page illustrated manifesto titled: “How I Went From Waiting Tables to Being a Professional Blackjack Player (on Accident).”

Now the justification is looking even less impressive. You aren’t taking money away from the casinos anymore.  You are teaching other people how to gamble and making money off them.  Where is the philosophical/moral teaching there?

“Now he is selling his tactics to others. On March 24, 10 people from across the country will arrive in Las Vegas and pay $1,500 each for Jones to teach them how to count cards.”

I rest my case.

Thank you Letters of Note.  You are too cool for words today.

Transcript

THE Jim Henson COMPANY

TO: MARS ROVER MISSION TEAM
FR: Dr. Bunsen Honeydew & Beaker, MUPPET LABS

RE: CONGRATULATIONS!

Dear colleagues,

It is with mixed emotions that Muppet Labs offers you a hearty “congratulations” on the recent success of your Mars Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity. While we realize that your remarkable accomplishment is a really nifty thing for the entire scientific community, we at Muppet Labs Mars Exploration Team (MULMET) wanted to get there first! We were so close: a mere three weeks–give or take a 20 year margin of error–from launching our own Mars explorers.

Nonetheless, in the spirit of scientific camaraderie and with a promise that we’ll-beat-you-next-time, Muppet Labs sends you and your team an enthusiastic “Well done, bucko!”

Scientifically yours,

(Signed, ‘DR. BUNSEN HONEYDEW PHD ESQ.’)

DR. BUNSEN HONEYDEW

PS: If you continue to have difficulties with the Spirit Rover, my assistant Beaker is happy to offer free roadside assistance on Mars, utilizing our new, thoroughly untested Interplanetary Coil-Powered Catapult…or as we at MULMET like to call it “The Spring Fling”.

PPS: Meep-meep-meep-meep-MEEP-MEEP-MEEP-MEEP!!!!!! NOT!

(Signed, ‘BEAKER’)

The L Prize was finally announced.  Don’t get too excited, though.  This wasn’t about getting to Mars or creating a space elevator.  This was about the lightbulb.  Our government offered $10 million to any company that could create an energy efficient, affordable lightbulb.  But, wait, you say? There already are several LED lightbulbs at your local Home Deport? Well, yes. But those run on 12.5 watts. $10 million of your tax dollars later and we have a bulb that runs on 10 watts. Go tell the polar bears their ice caps will be back any day now!

Even if we accept that this 2.5 watt difference is worth $10 million, I don’t think you are going to see a lot of these in homes anytime soon.  The term “affordable” in the initial challenge has a different meaning that I’m accustomed to in this context. My non-LED bulbs cost about $2. The LED lights currently on the market are around $25. This bulb, on the other hand, is $50.

Oddly enough, two other companies tried to enter the competition as well, but the Department of Energy quickly awarded the prize to Phillips before their bulbs were in and moved on.  Looking forward to future FOIA requests on that little decision.

So what is the take away? First, your government doesn’t seem to know that $50 is a lot for a lightbulb. Second, it also doesn’t seem to know that $10 million is a lot for a product that was already on the market. Bureaucracy at its best.

As for the Polar Bears? Keep on swimming…I think its going to be a while.