Prescription to heal the US Postal Service

As far as I can tell, Congress infected the USPS with a fatal disease when they agreed to allow delivery competition.  It's clear that FEDEX and UPS have siphoned off most of the high value service from the USPS.  There is no doubt that if the US had one, single, mail and package delivery system, it would be able to operate more efficiently at lower cost to all.  However that would require the USPS to have continually pushed to modernize it's system, streamline its distribution, and keep it's labor cost down.  It probably would have been possible for enlightened USPS  management to work with Government and labor to make those necessary investments.  However it appears that the only way to achieve those improvements was to allow competition.  UPS and FEDEX have shown how package delivery can be done and their examples have shown USPS that they can improve service also.  Those UPS and FEDEX examples have prodded USPS to make significant modernization.  However the USPS is still having trouble keeping it's head above water from a financial standpoint.  With the continued increase in internet as a replacement for normal mail functions, It appears to me that USPS is in a death spiral that needs to be stopped.

First of all, the US Government (Congress) needs to decide if USPS is a private corporation that needs to be able to operate freely and compete.  Or are they a Government service like National Parks, that is operated by the Government, but is allowed to collect use fees?  It looks like right now, USPS is a hybrid of the two concepts that is unable to compete, and is also restricted from full support of taxpayers.  If they were able to fully compete, they wouldn't have to get Government approval to close a post office, raise postage rates, or stop Saturday delivery.

What can be done?

1. Adjust rates to reflect the costs of the service provided. It's clear that delivery to a PO Box is a lot cheaper than delivering to a home.  But customers get "free" delivery to homes, but have to pay for a PO Box.  This is a "perverse" incentive that wastes everyone's money.  Yes, PO boxes shouldn't be "free" -- but home delivery  should be more expensive.  Solution:  Require customers to "subscribe" to mail delivery service with a weekly, monthly or annual fee -- similar to internet.   This will insure that only people who want to receive mail get it.  Everyone else will not get service.
2. For 30 years, all new housing developments have been required to install "cluster" boxes, which are much more efficient for carrier delivery.  However the homes built prior to the cluster box rule are all "grandfathered" and receive their mail door-to-door.  This is very unfair to people with cluster boxes, because they are, in effect, subsidizing those who get it door-to-door.  The USPS needs to establish standards and require all mail recipients to receive it at cluster boxes.  If required to deliver to a door, there should be an additional service charge -- like express mail, FEDEX or UPS would charge.
3. Charge for "special services" --Vacation held mail, mail forwarding and other similar services are all done for "free."  These are services that only some people benefit from and are subsidized by everyone else.  The USPS should charge to "hold" mail -- either by a daily fee, or a fee for the amount of mail held (per item, or per pound).  All forwarded mail should also be paid for by the recipient.  If I know the USPS will forward my mail for free, why should I exercise any discipline in notifying all of my correspondents of my new address?   That ends up creating much more work for the USPS delivery
4. Reduce mail delivery frequency.  I see nothing in the mail I receive on a daily basis that couldn't be delivered "tomorrow."  -- Anything that needs to be delivered urgently goes overnight mail, FEDEX, Express Mail, or UPS.  I believe mail could be reduced to only two or 3 days per week with no impact on commerce.  Yes, it might push a little more onto the internet or FEDEX -- but the trend is that anyway -- this would just accelerate that trend a little.  
5. USPS delivery needs to link in with the internet.  We should be able to pay for our deliver service on line.  We should be able to set up mail forwarding, vacation holds, and other similar services from online website. When large packages arrive at the PO, I should be notified to pick them up.  When I return from a trip, I should be able to request delivery of the held mail. 
6. The USPS customer data base is actually a national asset that the USPS owns and gets very little return on that investment.  I think they can easily make money from that database.  For example: We should also be able to select what junk mail  (in internet called "spam") we want to receive from the USPS.  Do we want Pennysaver every week? Do we want grocery store ads?  I know the bulk mail helps subsidize a lot of the service.  However it is a terrible waste to print all of that junk mail and deliver it only to go into the trash.  If the USPS knows that some residents want that delivered, those deliveries should be much more valuable to the senders.  Also, the USPS database of resident preferences will become very valuable, similar to Google &Yahoo's database on individual demographics.  That allows senders to tailor their advertising much better.  For example, if USPS knows that I want mail and advertising related to sailboats, they can sell that information to companies who want to market sailboat stuff to me.  This would be an extremely valuable database, and should be able to make money for USPS.
7. USPS should provide an address service to all publishers and subscribers that would handle addresses for them.  If publishers and subscribers use the service they would receive a discount on the mail service -- or, conversely if they don't use the service, they will pay a surcharge.  That service would keep a database of all publications that are delivered to an address.  Publishers would be delivered an updated address list on the date they need it to print mail labels on the publications (just in time delivery).  Subscribers could then go to one location (USPS) and execute an address change for mail publication forwarding.   USPS  could also operate a subscription service for publications and allow customers to subscribe.
8. A lot of mail I receive is unsolicited mail requesting donations for various charities or political  causes.  USPS could provide much better targeted mail lists to solicitors if they had more demographic data about each resident.  Yes, it starts appearing like "big brother" --but the USPS internet competition is already doing it.  The problem with USPS doing it is that it could appear that the Government is doing it.  That gets us back to the recommendation at the top of this post--is USPS a Government service?  Or a private business?  

I think that if the USPS would implement some or most of these recommendations, the Nation's mail service will remain strong and solvent.  A lot of "waste" will be removed from the process.  

How the Freaky Octopus Can Help us Understand the Human Brain - Wired Science

I enjoyed this article in Wired about the Octopus.  They are very clever animals!
How the Freaky Octopus Can Help us Understand the Human Brain - Wired Science:
It appears to me that if we can learn more about this, we may be able to improve design of computers and robots.

Database Mining and Dystopian Future -- We can control it!

Steven Greenhut wrote this column in Sunday's Union Tribune: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/oct/18/data-mining-dystopian-future-government/ about how we are moving towards a future where all privacy will be eliminated.  The Government will be monitoring all of us all of the time using powerful software mining government and private corporation's databases.

With the revelations by Eric Snowden, Americans are now realizing that the Government has been exploiting databases of corporations that we all thought were kept private.  It is possible that there were some serious breaches of basic rules of privacy by those agencies.  However it is also possible that employees of those companies or agencies who own the databases may have also violated reasonable rules of privacy.  To prevent the possibility of a terrible "dystopian" future.I believe the US needs to establish some sort of controls over these databases.  If the US takes the lead at doing this, I believe that other countries will also follow our example and establish similar systems.  
A control system for managing all "personal" databases that might need to be another "branch" of the Government, like the Federal Reserve, or it could be part of National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).  For the purposes of this Blog, I'll assume it is NARA.  Federal legislation will be required to establish the NARA authority over all databases.  .

All databases that are over a certain size (say 10,000 humans, cars, boats, planes, photos, phone calls etc) or that contain people or images that cross state lines will be controlled. I believe this would be determined as constitutional and there are legal precedents established in other interstate commerce cases.

Databases can include:  Google and other search engine's collection of an individual's searches, email of individuals and organizations, photo collections, surveillance photos, and videos,  airline customer databases, telephone call metadata, property tax roles, vehicle registrations for cars, boats, aircraft, contractor licenses, school records of students, arrest records, medical records, insurance claims, face recognition files etc. ,

Data bases will be registered with the agency to include description of data, purpose, owner, and how long it is kept., Registration acceptance by NARA will serve as a "license" to maintain the database

Owner of database will identify security and privacy controls on the database and will be subject to minimum standards established by the agency.  Those controls will most likely differ depending upon the sensitivity of the database. Owner will define the number of copies of the database, and how it is protected for disaster, as well as how it is protected from attack or theft.

Owner of the database will maintain a price list for access and establish a process for approving access or for provide data when requested.  The price list and process to be used will require some sort of review or approval by NARA.

Legitimate users of these databases will also be required to register with NARA and renew their registration on a periodic basis -- such as annually.  Businesses and agencies who wish to use those databases will register, but also the individuals within those organizations will be required to be trained, licensed and required to take continuing education to be eligible for renewal of their license.  Users of some databases may be required to take an "oath of office"

Citizens using FOIA process should be able to obtain information about the databases, and about the licensed users of the database.  However average citizens will not have access to those private databases unless there is a crime, a judge's order, etc.

Some data may be "bought and sold" freely and accessed by anyone able to pay for the data.  Other, more sensitive data may require a subpoena and a judge to approve the request.  The NARA function will be to codify the requirements for each type of data and the processes to be used.

NARA may require some data to be kept longer than the owner of the database plans to keep it.  NARA may also require some types of data to be deleted sooner than an owner may want to -- depending upon the sensitivity of the data and the possible future need of people to access the data.  NARA may also desire to capture certain databases for "historical record" purposes.  In that situation, NARA would be required to pay or contract to obtain or save those data.

We Must Never Forget the Lessons of Orwell’s ‘1984’

I've thought about George Orwell and 1984 frequently.  His  book described a continuous war with two regions of the world, which allowed the Government to take over many of the citizen's rights.  That is very similar to the current situation where the Government has created two continuous wars: The war on Drugs, and The War on Terrorism.as excuses for usurping our civil rights.  Of course, it is pretty obvious that the Drug and Terrorism problem is one created, and sustained by the Government in order to maintain power.
Now, in addition to the war on two fronts, we also have the technology of the video screen and continuous tracking that Orwell described.  Government is now able to track everything we do.  Every book we read, movie we watch, phone call we make,  mail we send and receive (email) can be monitored continuously.  Our car license plates can be almost continuously tracked.
Now Richard Lederer who writes weekly column in Union Tribune has pointed out that the changes in our language are also moving towards a 1984 sort of scenario.
We Must Never Forget the Lessons of Orwell’s ‘1984’ | Richard Lederer's Verbivore:
Most science-fiction writers seemed to have missed the concept of pervasive video, location tracking, and, of course the use of the internet.  However, it is amazing how good Orwell's predictions were --except he was 30 year off on his date.  Instead of 1984, hos book should have been 2014.

Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war?

Even back in 1973, I didn't understand why Israel went to war with Egypt.  Now Yigal Kipnis in this article (and his book: 1973: The Road to War) explain that the Yom Kippur war was, in fact, unnecessary, and that peace could have been maintained. Apparently Henry Kissinger was making progress with Anwar Sadat and had a reasonable peace proposal for Golda Meir, who rejected it due to political concerns.
Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war? - latimes.com:
If, in fact, a treaty at that time could have been negotiated, how would history have unfolded in the many decades since?  Would the Palestine problem have been resolved?  Syria been more democratic?  Lebanon would have never self destructed?  Golda Meir's single political decision destroyed immense amounts of infrastructure in Egypt and Israel and resulted in the death of thousands of people.
My question is: why was this fact kept secret for so long?  The answer may be that if the American citizens knew that Israel had an opportunity for peace, but chose, instead to attack Egypt, that it would weaken the US support for the immense amount of foreign aid the US provided (and still provides) to Israel.  Instead, Israel's 6-day war was touted as being a masterful stroke of genius and military skill, when in fact, it was simply won by overwhelming force with the most modern technology.   My guess is that Israel and Israel's supporters will continue to try to downplay this revelation, and most news outlets will either not mention it, or keep it on the back page.
Israel continues to masquerade as a "victim" in the Middle East, while they continue to maintain the most modern of weapons, including nuclear weapons.  Israel argues against any of their neighbors having "weapons of mass destruction" when they probably have more than all of their neighbors combined!
I believe the same sort of thing happened when George W Bush attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Afghanistan was reported to be willing to negotiate a turnover of Al Qaeda operatives to the US, if we would provide some "financial assistance." -- but Bush wanted to start a war to make it look like he was doing something in response to 9/11.  His attack on Iraq also was clearly an impatient response to rumors that Saddam had WMD.   So far, I think the way Obama has handled the Syrian situation makes perfect sense -- if we can extract the chemical weapons without starting a war, we are way ahead.  Yeah, the right-wingers accused him of being "wishy-washy" and indecisive by not attacking Syria, as he threatened to do.  He had to take that heat.  I wish Golda Meir and George W Bush had used better judgment--similar to Obama's. They may have faced criticism from political foes at the time, but waiting to attack was the right thing to do.

The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously. - NYTimes.com

This was a very interesting article about psychology and philosophy.
The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously. - NYTimes.com:

Mother Nature and the Middle Class - NYTimes.com

I'm a fan of Thomas Friedman, and have enjoyed his books and columns.  He points out in this editorial that Iran and Egypt have a Population and Resource "bomb" that is about to explode and contribute to disaster's throughout the Middle East
Mother Nature and the Middle Class - NYTimes.com:

I think those countries are only precursors for the situation that much of the world will be in if we don't do something to slow the population growth in the world.

The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice - NYTimes.com

The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice - NYTimes.com

It is a shame that Charlie Rose didn't ask Assad if his regime would condone torture of children .  Absolutely absurd!  Evil!

Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was generally a good idea at the time in the 1970s.  I believed at the time that it was necessary, but it went a little too far.  However it was better to have the act as it was passed than to not have it.  The Coastal Protection Act was another similar measure that was needed but was written a little too broadly.
Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA - Conservative News:

Now that we have 30 years of experience with these laws, I do agree it is time to "tune them" to make a little more sense.  Both of these laws have caused our State to be considered "business unfriendly."  They provide opponents of any sort of progress to have an almost unlimited set of tools to delay, stall or stop projects.  Anyone who wants to invest and start something new can be stopped by a very small minority using these laws.  In addition, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that the laws have actually had the unintended consequence of having the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve.  For example environmentalists want to keep things natural and pristine --so they generally prefer no development.  However by not developing some areas, non-native plants and animals take over, erosion can fill streams etc.  By doing nothing, we may be damaging the environment.  Housing studies have shown that by making it very difficult to build in the coastal zone, the Commission has contributed to the "gentrification" of the coast.  If developers were free to build high-rise condos and apartments along the beach, more middle-class citizens could be enjoying the beach areas.

The problem is that  the various special or "vested" interests scream when any minor change is made to these laws.

The Real Right to Bear Arms by Joseph J. Ellis

I read this editorial in the Los Angeles Times last week.  I think he makes a very good point and I'm now interested in reading his books!

• Article rank 
• 8 Sep 2013
• Los Angeles Times
• By Joseph J. Ellis Joseph J. Ellis is the author of “Founding Brothers” and, most recently, “Revolutionary Summer.”

The real right to bear arms

ZoomBookmarkSharePrintListenTranslate

There is an opinion abroad in the land that the right to bear arms is unlimited, an absolute right, like the right to vote or the right to a fair trial.

This heartfelt conviction has surfaced lately in state legislation that attempts to nullify federal gun regulations. For the nullifiers, and many others, the broadest possible right to bear arms is purportedly enshrined in the 2nd Amendment and recognized in the Supreme Court case Heller vs. District of Columbia.

And yet, no matter how prevalent or fervently held, the opinion that the Bill of Rights supports and the high court acknowledges an absolute right to gun ownership is just plain wrong.

The language of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” As the minority in the Heller decision argued, and more than a century of judicial precedent at the federal level established, the right to bear arms was not an inherent right of citizenship but rather a right that derived from service in the militia.

The historical context in which these words were crafted clarifies what was in James Madison’s mind when he wrote them. In 1787-88, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, none of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army.

When Madison sat down to write what became the Bill of Rights in the summer of 1789, those 124 proposed amendments served as the basis for his deliberations. He distilled from them an essence of 12 amendments, subsequently reduced by the states to 10. The 2nd Amendment represented Madison’s attempt to respond to the fears of a standing army by assuring that national defense would reside in the states and in militias, not at the federal level in a professional army. The right to bear arms derived from the need to assure that state militia could perform its essential mission.

All this was what constitutional scholars call “settled law” until Heller, in which the high court ruled that the right to bear arms, despite the language of the 2nd Amendment and the historical context of its creation, existed independent of service in the militia. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is a tour de force of legalistic legerdemain, a lengthy journey through English common law, colonial charters, state constitutions and obscure 19th century court cases. Given Scalia’s judicial philosophy as an “originalist” — meaning he believes his opinions should be guided by the original intent of the framers — his failure to assess Madison’s motives in drafting the 2nd Amendment is strange, much like a devout Christian explaining his faith without mentioning Jesus.

But even Scalia, fully aware of the legal precedents he was overturning, saw fit to insert the following caveats near the end of his opinion:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

These caveats create a crack through which significant gun control legislation might flow. Indeed, expanded background checks and limits on automatic weapons, the key provisions in the post-Sandy Hook gun legislation debated (and defeated) by Congress earlier this year, fit comfortably within this space.

But gun control advocates need to be realistic. The Heller decision, no matter how misguided, is itself “settled law,” and the current composition of the Supreme Court will defeat any challenge to its sweeping, if limited, mandate. In addition, Congress is demonstrably hogtied by the National Rif le Assn., and even though many states (Colorado, Connecticut and New York among them) have tightened gun ownership laws since the massacres in Newtown, Aurora and Tucson, another half a dozen are trying the nullification gambit.

Given all this, the only alternative is to go back to “the people” themselves, where there remains good reason to believe a clear majority wants sensible reform at odds with the agenda of the NRA and the nullifiers. Remember: As 2013 began, an astonishing 89% of voters, including 75% of NRA members, were in favor of expanded background checks, and sizable majorities favored a ban on sales of semiautomatic weapons. Months later, polls still find most Americans are in favor of checks, “assault rif le” bans and restrictions on who is allowed to purchase guns.

The terms of a national discussion would no doubt include the gun violence tragedies we’ve faced, but it should also focus on the legal core of the gun rights issue: the 2nd Amendment and the Heller decision. These two tools, so often used to fight gun control, can and should be used to affect reasonable reform.

The intent of the founders needs to be heard and understood. The men who hammered out the Constitution, argued for its ratification and underlined our liberties with the Bill of Rights, would urge us to think about the issue this way: How do we balance the right to bear arms against the collective security of the American people?

Framed in this fashion, we can all come together as fellow citizens to discuss in a sensible rather than strident tone where the line needs to be drawn between our rights and our responsibilities.

All that’s required is that we channel our inner James Madisons, and even our inner Scalias. There is no unlimited right to bear arms — on that these two men agree, and so should we.

8 College Degrees with the Worst Return on Investment - Salary.com

I've always wondered about the supply & demand balance between demand for college graduates and the various degrees offered by colleges and universities.  When I went to college in the 1960s we were told that the country needed more engineers and scientists.  However it appeared that all of the colleges made it more difficult to get into those degree programs, by requiring higher test scores and GPAs.  They also seemed to make it more difficult to "stay in" those programs, by requiring heavier course loads, more homework and had more difficult tests.  When I started my third year of college in engineering the number of engineering students in my class had dropped to one tenth of the number who had started their freshman year.  Some students dropped out, but most moved to much "easier" majors, such as liberal arts, communications, accounting, or other arts-type programs.
Twenty-five years later, when our oldest son applied to colleges, the situation didn't seem to have gotten better.  In fact, it seemed to have gotten worse.  UC San Diego, for example, required a MUCH higher GPA and SAT score to be able to be accepted into an engineering program than any other program on campus.  They said that the engineering programs were "impacted" --which I learned meant they had many more applicants for engineering programs than they had "slots" for.  So they could raise the standards higher for those applicants.  I'm not sure if the engineering drop-out rate was higher. I have not seen any statistics on that.
This recent article on "Salary.com" 8 College Degrees with the Worst Return on Investment - Salary.com: points out that many college degrees have a very low return on investment.  Note that there are no mention of positions in science, math, engineering, law, business, or medicine on this low return list.
If we lived in a dictatorship, the Government could easily solve this problem by decreeing that universities would offer fewer programs in sociology, psychology, communications, liberal arts, fine arts, etc --and expand their departments in science, engineering, law, business & medicine.  That would make it more difficult to get into (and stay in) universities in the fields we don't need, and easier to get into the ones we do need.  It appears that China has been able to do this, for example.  Now they are cranking out many engineers, and apparently have a overabundance of scientists and engineers --so their supply & demand curve is out of balance the other way.
We can't do that in the United States, of course.  We have to use some sort of economic incentives to channel students into the fields we need, and encourage universities to balance their degree offerings with the needs of the country and the demands of the students applying to their schools.  We do have some "perverse incentives" that somewhat distort the economics.  For example, universities are "graded" on the number of students they can get through to graduation.  They don't get a higher score for graduating more students in math, science, engineering, or medicine.  So the leaders and decision-makers don't have any reason for expanding those departments.  Also, universities seem to work on a fixed cost per student.  Everyone pays the same tuition per credit-hour.  It's pretty clear that it costs more to teach classes in science, engineering or medicine.  For those classes, the university needs more laboratories, more computers, and generally higher paid professors.  Of course the reason those professors can command higher salaries is because they are in shorter supply in the first place.  So, the university chancellors have to make rational decisions using these costs.  If it costs 50% more to educate an engineer than a communication major, it is much easier to produce more communication majors.  So those departments are expanded, of course.
I think articles like this in magazines, newspapers and websites is a help in that it can inform students of the value of the various types of degrees.  It may help students demand for courses that will give them a better return on the investment they are making in higher education.  However, it appears that universities are not very sensitive to the demand from students.  I think we also need help from national and state policy.  State university systems should consider adjusting their degree offerings to meet the requirements of their states in the various fields --even if the total number of graduates are less.  Possibly some sort of weighting could be used in determining university performance where degrees in higher demand fields are scored higher than those in lower demand fields.  I think that ultimately, the solution will have to be financial and from the Federal level.  The US Department of Education needs to determine the nation's needs in various educational fields and then tailor their student loan and grant programs to provide incentives to get more students in the needed fields.  Higher loan amounts or lower interest rates could be offered for students in degree fields we need, while lower amounts or higher interest rates could be attached to student loans for degrees in less-needed fields.
The universities also need to do something about keeping students in the degree programs we need, and discourage transfers into the perceived "easier" programs.  There is no reason that the science, engineering & medical programs need to be "harder" than the liberal arts programs.  Part of the problem, I believe, is that those courses are taught by practitioners of those fields -- the experts.  An professor with a PhD in engineering may be a very good engineer, but is not necessarily a good "teacher."   -- Even looking at the textbooks used for the various programs shows that.  Engineering texts are typically very dry with lots of equations, while liberal arts books are much more interesting.  Hopefully, the internet will help change that.  

Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security | World news | Guardian Weekly

I'm afraid that this news will be a "bombshell" for our intelligence system.
Revealed: how US and UK spy agencies defeat internet privacy and security | World news | Guardian Weekly:
I was always suspicious that Government agencies, and in particular NSA, may have been able to break even the most complex encryption algorithms, given enough time and computer processor power.  However, this news report, if correct, implies that NSA had powers far beyond what I envisioned them having.  The "outing" of this information concerning "sources and methods" used will certainly destroy the sources of intelligence that the US has been depending upon.  In one news article, billions of dollars in investment has been wiped out.

I've always thought that NSA should be continually working on cracking the most difficult encryption, as well as developing the most difficult-to-crack codes.  This is critical to be able to defeat enemies and protect our national secrets.  I think almost all Americans would agree with that.    Development of those capabilities is one thing -- but actually deploying them against citizens is something else.  By putting "backdoors" into encryption systems used by banks, and other industrial uses, the agency has weakened the security of those systems. Even if the agency didn't listen to my conversation, browse through my bank's records, or snoop through my files, they have weakened the limited amount of protection that I thought I had.   If the "agency" has this capability to use as an enterprise, what is there to stop a "rogue"  individual within the agency from using this power for political purposes (like Watergate?).  What is to stop them from using it for financial gain?  What checks and balances are levied on those capabilities?   I doubt if any agency employee will "go to jail" for doing what they've been doing.  I know that all of the employees felt they were working to defend our country against "adversaries." --Even though some of them thought of their fellow Americans as adversaries.  On the other hand, it may be time for a change of their "culture."

If NSA and GCHQ has this capability, it is likely that other US and British agencies also have similar capabilities. Treasury Department, FBI, CIA, DIA, DEA and similar law enforcement agencies may also have capabilities that are similar, or are targeted against specific groups of citizens. What checks & balances are on those agencies?  The US Government used the threat of terrorism and the 9/11 attack as justification for increasing the amount of spying and communication intercepts.  However, I'm very suspicious that those same resources are also being used to help with illegal drug interdiction.  It's a slippery slope!  Once they're using it for stopping heroin and cocain, why can't they also use the tools to stop me from buying toenail fungus medicine from England that I'm unable to buy in the US?    If the US and Britain have been spending resources to develop these eavesdropping capabilities, it would make sense that other countries are also developing algorithms, computer systems, and permanent "wire taps"on major communication trunks.  Wouldn't it make sense that autocratic governments such as Russia and China which have large amounts of high technology and trained scientists would be doing the same thing?  Maybe they are already further along! Germany, France, Austria and Sweden may have the capability too. .

I've often wondered why GMAIL, HOTMAIL, AOL, YAHOO and other web-based mail systems did not incorporate any encryption or digital signature system.  Now I understand!  The US Government restricted them from doing it.  When the few small encrypted mail services began shutting down a month or so ago, it was probably because the Government insisted on a back door to their encryption systems.  This is another example of how the Government activity has made me more vulnerable, and denied my rights to privacy.  I'm probably much more vulnerable to hackers because of it. The NY Times Editorial Board in Oct 2013 now agrees  Steven Levy wrote an excellent article in Wired Magazine entitled "How the U.S. Almost Killed the Internet and Why it Still Could" which explains very well the dilemma that Microsoft, Google, Yahoo etc were in, and how they were lied to by the Government and were very surprised when they figured out what NSA was doing

The damage has been done.   The cat is out of the bag.  We now need the Government to step up and repair the damage.New York Times has called for the US to close NSA's "back door" but didn't really suggest how it could be done.   We now need an independent agency or private corporation (whom we can trust) to inspect all of the various algorithms used for encryption and be able to certify that they do NOT have backdoors in them.  We need to have confidence that our communications will not be monitored.  We need the Government to encourage mail services to employ the latest, state-of-art, encryption systems on their mail and cloud storage systems to allow us to protect our communications and data from snoops -- whether within our Government, by hackers, or by foreign governments.

Update in Mid-October 2013.  I read an article by Martha Mendoza in "The Desert Sun" --but could only find a link to the same article in the Denver Post:  Now internet users are making NSA's job more difficult by inserting words in their e-mail that could trigger a look.  Words like "pressure cooker" and "blow up" are being added into normal email and web sites which will "spam" the NSA systems that are supposed to be looking for those words to help find terrorists.  Also, more and more people are starting to encrypt their e-mail using codes that they think will be more difficult for NSA to crack.  I think this will now encourage terrorists.  I feel bad for NSA.  I know those people are hard working and conscientious.  They were really trying to do the most they could with the budget they had.  Yeah, they could be accused of being "lazy" -- instead of spending the money and effort to break all of the encryption systems, they forced all ISPs to use "dumbed down" encryption algorithms with "back doors." -- It worked!  But only for a while.  Now the cats are out of the bag -- will be tough to get them back in! .

In November 2013, LA Times Op Ed had a good argument that it is unlikely that the NSA would make any changes. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-1123-mcmanus-nsa-20131124,0,3775747.column#axzz2ldFRNHVr  In Feb 2014, the Guardian published a Rand Paul commentary that accused Clapper of lying to congress.  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/20/nsa-violating-american-rights-rand-paul?CMP=ema_565 .  

Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy | Assembly Internet

I recently learned that there is a committee in our California Assembly called:
Select Committee on Sea Level Rise and the California Economy | Assembly Internet:--all members are listed on this page. It interested me that both Rocky Chavez from our District and Toni Atkins from San Diego serve on that committee.

It appears that the committee members are looking long term, which is a good idea.  They recently heard from a Stanford University Professor Rosemary Knight concerning measurements of the effects of rising ocean on ground water: https://pangea.stanford.edu/researchgroups/enviro/news/features/rosemary-knight-stanford-professor-geophysics-testifies-california-assembly-select-com
In May, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute gave a presentation to the committee:
  Here is a transcript of his testimony.   I was surprised to learn that the ocean water level along the California coast has risen 8 inches over the past 100 years, and the rate is increasing.

I think that the findings of this committee are in conflict with some of the activities of our California Coastal Commission.  The Commission fights any homeowner who wants to protect their property from rising oceans by making it difficult to get a permit to build or maintain sea wall protection.  It seems to me that the State should be encouraging owners to build sea walls and maybe integrate those walls into large regional protection systems that will protect large areas of our coast.


'

U.S.-Russia feud over Snowden cuts both ways - latimes.com

I found this article to be very enlightening!  I wondered why Russia agreed to allow Snowden to stay there.  Now I completely understand!

U.S.-Russia feud over Snowden cuts both ways - latimes.com:

Why would Russia send Snowden back to us, when we don't do the same thing for them!  In addition we grab their citizens from other countries and try them for offenses.  I wonder if those Russian citizens actually received a fair trial in the US?  Will require some additional research, I suppose.

Many people say Snowden was a hero --but I think most Americans believe he was a traitor.  He did expose some questionable practices within NSA.  I think if he wanted to take his concern through the proper channels, he probably would have been thrown in jail for a long time --even if the information didn't make it to the public.

I hate seeing classified information be released without careful thought.  Snowden's release was disastrous!  There really needs to be an agency where citizens can take such complaints and know that they would be handled fairly.  Would he take it to Congress?  A Judge?  The Attorney General?  Where would a person with a concern like that go?  Certainly not to his company management, and not to his "customer" at NSA.

Tom McClintock: Yosemite National Park: Closed for Preservation

California Assemblyman Tom McClintock wrote an excellent editorial in the August 24th  Wall Street Journal  about plans that the National Park Service is making to reduce the "amenities" in Yosemite Valley.
Tom McClintock: Yosemite National Park: Closed for Preservation -    The NPS has been working on this plan for quite a while, and it now over 2500 pages. Here is a link to it.   It is called the Merced River Plan, and it is obviously too much for one person to read and fully comprehend. Here is a link to a "summary fact sheet."   It appears to me that the issue is that the River was added to the list of "wild and scenic rivers" that require protection.  This created a conflict between the goals of a National Park, and the goals of maintaining a wilderness-type of river.  Apparently the goal of the NPS plan is to do more to "preserve" the natural state of Yosemite Valley, and reduce the impact and "footprint" of the millions of visitors each year.  By eliminating swimming pools and ice skating rinks, they think they can reduce the number of people and the length of the stay of the visitors there.  Of course Tom McClintock's district includes Yosemite National Park and the "gateway communities" that service the park, so the economies of those communities will be severely affected by any downturn in tourism to that area. Brian H. Ouzounian is the co-founder of the Yosemite Valley Campers Coalition. on August 1st, wrote an editorial in the New York Times that complains that the NPS Merced River Plan will destroy the Affordable Family Vacation.    I agree with him!  We want to make our National Parks as accessible as possible to families.  It appears that fewer American families are visiting the National Parks.  They are spending more time "online" and less out doors.  I think it is important that children learn up close and personal about the natural history of our country.  Being able to actually touch rocks, antlers, streams and trees is very important to children's understanding of the world.  

After 20 years, my family returned to Yosemite Valley this past summer.  I did notice some changes!  However I thought most of them were for the better.  The traffic and parking throughout the park made a lot more sense!   One thing I did notice was that it seemed that most visitors were from foreign countries.  I saw very few typical American families in the park -- that clearly demonstrates that Yosemite is a HUGE international tourist draw. People may come and visit San Francisco or LA --but they can visit cities anywhere.  There is only one Yosemite Valley --and it could never be duplicated!  It is not just a National Treasure, but is an INTERNATIONAL treasure!  If foreign visitors are willing to take those long bus rides into Yosemite at a fairly high expense, it is clear that Yosemite is bringing in lots of foreign travel dollars, and that it would bring in even more if we could manage it properly.

I concur completely with the concept of preservation.  I agree we should preserve these National Park treasures for "all time" Yosemite National Park is HUGE -- and much or most of that land can and should be preserved from damage.  However does this small area of the Valley is unique.  I'm not sure it needs to be restored to a wilderness-type of environment.  Yes any development or improvements need to be carefully planned to minimize the impact on the environment.  But I believe it could be done in such a way that more people from all over the world could enjoy a visit to the park.

One of the problems of Yosemite Valley is too many vehicles, and the long, twisty drive to get into the valley.  I believe that all cars (and trucks) could be banned from all of the entrance roads into the valley, and all cars be banned from the actual valley floor.  Instead, a very large "Incline" cable car could connect the top to the bottom for moving freight and people in and out of the valley.  The ride on the car would itself be an adventure.  While on the valley floor, a series of people movers following the current roadways would afford visitors a way to get around the park.   Yes such a system of incline cable cars and people movers would require a lot of planning, and would be a huge undertaking to construct.  However it doesn't seem that it would be all that much more complicated than the construction of the current roads and tunnels.

One of the recommendations of the Merced River Plan is to eliminate the swimming pools -- which will force more families, and children to swim in the Merced river.  This will likely result in more pollution to the river from people, and injuries or drownings in the river.  Another one is to eliminate bike rentals in the park.  That would mean that the many tourists that come on busses would not have access to bikes, and would need to use shuttle busses?  People who want to use bikes would need to bring them (on trailers) or rent them outside the park (a long drive).  How does that improve the environment?

I also think we need to "follow the money" and find out who is going to gain from the changes proposed in the Merced River Plan.  By eliminating camping, bicycles, swimming pools and other amenities in Yosemite Valley, will that "scarcity" make the prices of the remaining services all that much higher?  Who will profit?  It's is clear that the vendors who have NPS franchises in the park are gouging the visitors with extremely high prices. We camped outside the park.  We didn't spend any money there--everything was too expensive!   It seemed to me when we visited that there was probably need for more "competition" -- more bike rental companies, more, competing lodging alternatives, not less.  If the NPS does issue these franchises, they should exercise control over the fees charged.  Otherwise we may find out that there are some franchise holders are making unfair profit at the expense of US Citizens.

Apple, Samsung, IBM, World's Universities in Graphene Gold Rush - WSJ.com

Wow,
This gold rush for Graphene patents is really something!  It seems like a much bigger frenzy than lasers were after they were invented --and now they are used almost everywhere!    If just a few of these patents are turned into products, it will possibly change the world.  This Wall Street Journal article says it all!

Apple, Samsung, IBM, World's Universities in Graphene Gold Rush - WSJ.com:

Wonder Material Ignites Scientific Gold Rush

Atom-Thin Graphene Beats Steel, Silicon; A Patent "Land Rush"

By 

GAUTAM NAIK

CONNECT

Graphene is an extremely thin, strong and flexible material derived from the graphite found in everyday pencils. Scientists are racing to exploit those attributes for an array of new applications. WSJ's Gautam Naik reports. Photo: Daniella Zalcman.

CAMBRIDGE, England—A substance 200 times stronger than steel yet as thin as an atom has ignited a global scientific gold rush, sending companies and universities racing to understand, patent and profit from the skinnier, more glamorous cousin of ordinary pencil lead.

The material is graphene, and to demonstrate its potential, Andrea Ferrari recently picked up a sheet of clear plastic, flexed it and then tapped invisible keys, triggering tinkly musical notes.

The keyboard made at Dr. Ferrari's University of Cambridge lab was printed with a circuit of graphene, which is so pliable that scientists predict it will fulfill dreams of flexible phones and electronic newspapers that can fold into a pocket.

Enlarge Image

Daniella Zalcman for The Wall Street Journal

Dr. Andrea Ferrari, head of graphene research at the University of Cambridge, inspects equipment used for experiments on the atom-thick material.

It is the thinnest material known. But it is exceedingly strong, light and flexible. It is exceptional at conducting electricity and heat, and at absorbing and emitting light.

Scientists isolated graphene just a decade ago, but some companies are already building it into products: Head NVHEDYY 0.00% introduced a graphene-infused tennis racket this year. AppleInc., AAPL +0.47% Saab ABSAAB-B.SK -0.80% and Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT +0.13% have recently sought or received patents to use graphene.

"Graphene is the same sort of material, like steel or plastic or silicon that can really change society," says Dr. Ferrari, who leads a band of about 40 graphene researchers at Cambridge.

Graphene faces hurdles. It is still far too expensive for mass markets, it doesn't lend itself to use in some computer-chip circuitry and scientists are still trying to find better ways to turn it into usable form. "Graphene is a complicated technology to deliver," says Quentin Tannock, chairman of Cambridge Intellectual Property, a U.K. research firm. "The race to find value is more of a marathon than a sprint."

Interest in graphene has exploded since 2010, when two researchers won a Nobel Prize for isolating it. Corporate and academic scientists are now rushing to patent a broad range of potential uses.

"As soon as I find something, boom! I file a patent for it," says James Tour, a graphene expert at Rice University in Houston.

Apple has filed to patent graphene "heat dissipators" for mobile devices. Saab has filed to patent graphene heating circuits for deicing airplane wings. Lockheed Martin this year was granted a U.S. patent on a graphene membrane that filters salt from seawater using microscopic pores.

Others have applied for patents on graphene used in computer chips, batteries, flexible touch screens, anti-rust coatings, DNA-sequencing devices and tires. A group of scientists in Britain has used a graphene membrane to distill vodka.

There were 9,218 published graphene patents and patent applications filed cumulatively as of May around the world, up 19% from a year earlier, says Cambridge Intellectual. Over the past five years, it says, the cumulative number of graphene patent filings has more than quintupled.

"It's a land grab," says Mr. Tannock of Cambridge Intellectual. By trying to patent just about every finding, "you have the option for suing your competitors later and stopping them." Many graphene patent filings appear legitimate, but some seem speculative and others may be decoys to mislead rivals, he says.

Enlarge Image

Daniella Zalcman for The Wall Street Journal

'As soon as I find something, boom! I file a patent,' says an expert in graphene, which coats the disc, pictured.

Graphene's biggest short-term promise is in high-speed electronics and in flexible circuitry such as that in Dr. Ferrari's keyboard, because of expected demand for use in pliant electronic displays. Companies such as South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co.005930.SE +0.38% and Finland's NokiaCorp. NOK1V.HE -1.00% have filed for patents covering various graphene uses in mobile devices.

One of the hottest areas is graphene ink used to lay down circuitry, which a few companies have begun to sell. Dr. Ferrari's lab last year filed for a patent on a graphene ink that can be deposited by inkjet printers.BASF SE BAS.XE -1.85% is experimenting with graphene ink to print flexible circuits into upholstery that can heat car seats, a technology it says could be in the market in a few years.

"Graphene combines various effects" that make it distinctive, says Matthias Schwab, a lab team leader in BASF's graphene-research operation. "I am seeing no other materials that can do it."

In effect, graphene has only two dimensions, in a microscopic structure that resembles chicken wire. In a study published five years ago, Columbia University researchers concluded it was the strongest material measured. They calculated it would take an elephant balanced on a pencil to puncture a graphene sheet the thickness of Saran Wrap.

It absorbs and emits light over the widest range of wavelengths known for any material. It conducts electricity far better than silicon. Unlike silicon, which is brittle, graphene is flexible and stretchable.

View Graphics

Graphene circuitry promises to eventually be cheaper than conductive materials such as copper and silver because it can be made from graphite—the plentiful stuff of an ordinary pencil lead—and can also be created by combining certain gases and metals, or synthesized from solid carbon sources.

Rice University's Dr. Tour demonstrated in 2011 that graphene can be synthesized using carbon from sources as diverse as grass, Girl Scout cookies and cockroach legs.

Dr. Tour's lab has filed for multiple graphene patents, including for ribbons to reinforce composites that he says are strong enough to use in high-pressure natural-gas tanks that can be molded into cars. Patenting quickly, he says, "gives us a foothold on the technology."

One factor holding graphene back is cost. Some U.S. vendors are selling a layer of graphene on copper foil for about $60 a square inch. "It needs to be around one dollar per square inch for high-end electronic applications such as fast transistors, and for less than 10 cents per square inch for touch-screen displays," estimates Kenneth Teo, a director at the Cambridge unit of Germany's Aixtron SE AIXA.XE -1.92% that makes machines to produce graphene.

Graphene must often be combined with other materials to exploit its properties, and scientists are still trying to figure out how to do that effectively.

It also has a significant shortcoming: It can't easily be made into a switch. International Business Machines Corp. IBM -0.32% was initially optimistic about using graphene in computer chips but found electrons travel too fast in it to switch off easily, making it hard to turn current into the "ones" and "zeros" of digital code.

Labs around the world are trying to solve the problem. But for now, "we don't see graphene replacing silicon in microprocessors," says Supratik Guha, director of physical sciences at IBM's research unit, who says he remains a big proponent of graphene. IBM is a major graphene-patent filer.

Graphene could still meet the fate of other touted materials that failed to live up to their promise. The discovery of high-temperature superconductors garnered a Nobel Prize in 1987 and led to a flood of patents and predictions of technologies such as superfast magnetically-levitated trains. The world is still waiting.

That still leaves plenty of scientific enthusiasm. In 2012, scientists published 45% more papers on graphene than in 2011, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of journals.

It's a global race: Chinese entities had filed for the most graphene-patent applications cumulatively as of May, followed by U.S. and South Korean filers, says Cambridge Intellectual. Samsung accounted for the most filings, followed by IBM and South Korea's Sungkyunkwan University.

While labs work out graphene's kinks, some of the patents have found their way into products. Vorbeck Materials Corp., of Jessup, Md., makes a graphene ink it says is being used to print circuits in antitheft packaging in a few U.S. stores, which it declined to name.

Head's racket is reflected in an application it filed for a patent on graphene in a wide range of sports gear, from golf clubs to ski bindings. A Head representative referred inquiries to its website, which says graphene's strength lets it use less material in the racket, allowing the designer to redistribute the weight for more power.

Bluestone Global Tech Ltd., a Wappingers Falls, N.Y., startup, makes graphene sheets it says it ships to customers in the U.S., Singapore and China. "Within half a year, graphene will be used for touch screens in commercially available cellphones," predicts Chung-Ping Lai, its chief executive officer.

The graphene frenzy was unimaginable before 2003, when many scientists believed an atom-thick layer of anything couldn't keep from falling apart.

That year, Andre Geim stumbled upon graphene's wonders. A Russian-born scientist at the University of Manchester in Britain, he wanted thin graphite to study its electrical properties. A doctoral student suggested using cellophane tape.

Dr. Geim and his colleagues used the tape to peel off layers of graphite until they got to a layer so thin it was transparent. When they could peel no further, they had graphene. Not only did it not fall apart, it was strong, flexible and possessed astonishing electrical properties.

Other scientists were initially skeptical. "Not many people believed us," says Dr. Geim. But by March 2006, when he presented at a Baltimore conference, his session was packed, recalls Cambridge's Dr. Ferrari. "Finally, I understood how significant the material was going to be," he says.

In 2010, Dr. Geim and a colleague, Konstantin Novoselov, won the Nobel Prize in physics for their graphene work. By that time, corporate labs, universities like Rice and Harvard University, and academic institutions in China had begun to increase graphene research. In 2010, Japanese and South Korean scientists unveiled prototype graphene touch screens.

Labs at Samsung and Sungkyunkwan University, in particular, began to stand out for the volume of their research. "Although the basic research on graphene started in Europe and the U.S., the early research for commercial applications started in Korea," says Changgu Lee, a Sungkyunkwan graphene researcher. "We want to keep the lead."

A Samsung spokeswoman declined to comment on the company's graphene work.

Among those expressing enthusiasm for graphene is the U.S. military. In late 2011, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Md., signed an agreement to study graphene's properties with Northeastern University in Boston. The agreement is mainly funded by a $300,000 grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa.

The university plans to use graphene to design better night-vision goggles and other such detectors, says Srinivas Sridhar, a Northeastern physics professor. A Darpa representative, in an email, confirmed the project.

A walk through Dr. Ferrari's labs this summer gave a window into the research. One of his associates, Felice Torrisi, showed how tape could peel graphene from a graphite clump. "This is obviously not scalable" for industrial purposes, said Dr. Torrisi.

That speaks to a big goal in the graphene race: finding the best ways to manufacture it. A large number of patent filings describe methods of manufacturing graphene.

Dr. Torrisi next held up a vial of ink consisting of graphene in water. A nearby inkjet printer whizzed away, depositing the ink on a plastic sheet to form a near-invisible circuit. Ink printed on plastic was the trick behind the keyboard Dr. Ferrari tapped to trigger music from attached electronics.

In other Cambridge lab rooms, researchers showed off an early prototype of a graphene-based laser that can shoot out ultrafast pulses of light and graphene sensors that can detect any wavelength of light.

Graphene's heat-conducting properties appear to be at the heart of Apple's patent application, which includes drawings of a graphene "heat dissipator" behind components in a "portable electronic device." An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.

Saab wants to take advantage of graphene's lightness and conductivity by embedding it in wings for deicing. The research is still in early stages, "but it is certainly part of our plan for introducing flying applications," says Mats Palmberg, who oversees future products at Saab's aeronautics unit.

Lockheed expects its graphene membrane to be "more effective at seawater desalination at a fraction of the cost" of current technologies, it says in a news release.

The discovery of graphene has also led scientists to hunt down scores of other two-dimensional materials with unusual properties, says Dr. Geim, the Nobel laureate. "Graphene opened up a material world we didn't even know existed."