I found this article on Quartz --
Hacked emails reveal China’s elaborate and absurd internet propaganda machine - Quartz
It describes the process in China as "absurd" and derides it as unsophisticated. However I'm sure it works! It has some effect on public opinion, for sure. I would imagine that it will evolve into a more elegant and sophisticated system or process as citizens also get more hardened to reading obvious propaganda.
I'm convinced that the US right-wing effort is using immense amounts of money to do something very similar in trying to mold public opinion. Yes, they fund and support the right-wing news stations, talk shows, newspapers and magazines. However they also produce immense amounts of false or misleading twitter, facebook or email postings that get broad circulation. The amount of that stuff dramatically increases around election time. Much of it appears to be "humor" of a sort that makes liberal positions look stupid by not presenting the whole story. I'm sure it has an effect on the less educated in the US...which is exactly what they want!
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
$5.4B PLEDGED TO GAZA, HALF FOR REBUILDING | UTSanDiego.com
The Union Tribune says that a lot of countries have pledged an immense amount of money to help rebuild the Gasa strip:
$5.4B PLEDGED TO GAZA, HALF FOR REBUILDING | UTSanDiego.com
However, today's Union Tribune reported that none of the "pledged" money is being "funded" by those donors yet. The report was made by Tia Goldenberg, who apparently is a reporter/writer for Israeli news organization (so probably can't be trusted to be impartial). See this link: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/81a7db32e60b4b7b89da5af38f6c02ce/palestinian-man-arrested-after-foiled-attack-soldier
However it is believable. Why would anyone put up money to rebuild something that will likely get blown up again by the aggressive Israeli's? In response to the launch of a series of unreliable, inaccurate and somewhat impotent missiles launched by radical factions in Gaza, Israel blew up much of the Palestinian infrastructure (thousands of buildings) and killed a large number (2100) of men, women and children whom they keep trapped in what appears to be a prison camp called the Gaza strip. Very little damage was done to Israeli property and very few deaths or injuries to its citizens (66 soldiers and 7 deaths according to Tia Goldenberg).
The correct response, in my mind, would have been for Israel to go into Gaza, capture the individuals involved, give them fair and open trials and impose fair and reasonable punishment when found guilty. Why must Israel blow up all of the Palestinian's buildings, power plants etc? That is just crazy! Why should the Palestinians have to depend upon the charity of other, uninvolved, Arab countries to rebuild? When the US goes in to a country and blows up everything (which I also think is sometimes too much), we end up paying for the repairs, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq most recently. We even helped Germany and Japan rebuild after WWII! Why shouldn't Israel pay and manage the reconstruction of the Gaza strip? The US has fully funded Israel's state-sponsored terrorism against their neighbors. If Israel won't pay for the rebuilding, we should stop sending our money to Israel, and divert it to help the people of Gaza. Israel and their allies have been paying for advertising on billboards, radio and television to try to convince US citizens that what they have been doing is correct. I think that is just another example of why we shouldn't be supporting them.
If I were asked to contribute to help Gaza rebuild, I would insist that every building be designed to withstand bombs, and have anti aircraft and anti missile equipment mounted to help defend them from Israel before I would lend them a dime!
$5.4B PLEDGED TO GAZA, HALF FOR REBUILDING | UTSanDiego.com
However, today's Union Tribune reported that none of the "pledged" money is being "funded" by those donors yet. The report was made by Tia Goldenberg, who apparently is a reporter/writer for Israeli news organization (so probably can't be trusted to be impartial). See this link: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/81a7db32e60b4b7b89da5af38f6c02ce/palestinian-man-arrested-after-foiled-attack-soldier
However it is believable. Why would anyone put up money to rebuild something that will likely get blown up again by the aggressive Israeli's? In response to the launch of a series of unreliable, inaccurate and somewhat impotent missiles launched by radical factions in Gaza, Israel blew up much of the Palestinian infrastructure (thousands of buildings) and killed a large number (2100) of men, women and children whom they keep trapped in what appears to be a prison camp called the Gaza strip. Very little damage was done to Israeli property and very few deaths or injuries to its citizens (66 soldiers and 7 deaths according to Tia Goldenberg).
The correct response, in my mind, would have been for Israel to go into Gaza, capture the individuals involved, give them fair and open trials and impose fair and reasonable punishment when found guilty. Why must Israel blow up all of the Palestinian's buildings, power plants etc? That is just crazy! Why should the Palestinians have to depend upon the charity of other, uninvolved, Arab countries to rebuild? When the US goes in to a country and blows up everything (which I also think is sometimes too much), we end up paying for the repairs, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq most recently. We even helped Germany and Japan rebuild after WWII! Why shouldn't Israel pay and manage the reconstruction of the Gaza strip? The US has fully funded Israel's state-sponsored terrorism against their neighbors. If Israel won't pay for the rebuilding, we should stop sending our money to Israel, and divert it to help the people of Gaza. Israel and their allies have been paying for advertising on billboards, radio and television to try to convince US citizens that what they have been doing is correct. I think that is just another example of why we shouldn't be supporting them.
If I were asked to contribute to help Gaza rebuild, I would insist that every building be designed to withstand bombs, and have anti aircraft and anti missile equipment mounted to help defend them from Israel before I would lend them a dime!
Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - NYTimes.com
I have been critical of the United States use of rendition and "enhanced interrogation techniques" ever since it was first leaked to the press a year or so after 9/11. For many years, I supported Amnesty International and read their newsletters describing torture done in other countries. I had always thought that the US was much more ethical, "Christian," and moral than those "other" countries who condoned the practice. I was ashamed of our country for resorting to torture, and was appalled that the US legal system would allow it. It appeared that the Republican Party clearly supported (and still supports) the torture, which is in line with their strong support of the gun lobby, and the death penalty. I was surprised that Peggy Noonan of Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial titled "a flawed report" but it's premise was that torture was wrong.
The New York Times editorial board wrote on December 21st that they believe that all involved in the torture done to detainees under the Bush administration should be prosecuted, including Dick Cheney. See this article:
Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - NYTimes.com The article also has links to support their case.
Clearly what CIA and it's contractors did was illegal under US and international law. Clearly they knew it was illegal, and they even made great efforts to destroy evidence (destruction of video tapes). Apparently they even tortured citizens of other allied countries without their knowledge, and ended up torturing people who were, in fact innocent. I believe something should be done to prevent this type of action from happening again in the future. Individual prosecution of the perpetrators and "their bosses" doesn't sound like something we want to have publicly presented, however some sort of discipline should be issued. While a member of the Air Force, we were taught many times that we were to refuse any order that we thought was illegal, and that the law would protect us. I doubt if military members were involved in torture, but if they were, they could be prosecuted. The civilians, and civilian contractors involved, however, could possibly plead "ignorance of the law" etc.
I can understand and I believe the US public can also understand some situations where torture might be necessary. The TV series "24" presented situations in almost every season, where torture was necessary, and possibly justifiable, to prevent an immediate imminent disaster, such as a nuclear weapon detonation in the center of a city within hours. Of course, the TV-scripted results of those sessions often saved tens of thousands of lives and made the ends justify the means. However, the situations that the CIA was in after 9/11 was way beyond that. What could they possibly expect to get out of individuals undergoing torture months or years after the individuals were captured? The only thing I can think of is information that could lead to the arrest of other co-conspirators. However, any rational individual, or well operated organization, would recognize that the individual was captured and would have covered their tracks very quickly by changing names, addresses, passwords, strategies, tactics, and changing locations for storage of materials, weapons or the locations of targets. Any information obtained would have been close to useless. I believe it was primarily done to achieve some sort of "revenge" for 9/11 more than really to obtain critical information for protecting the nation.
The New York Times editorial board wrote on December 21st that they believe that all involved in the torture done to detainees under the Bush administration should be prosecuted, including Dick Cheney. See this article:
Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses - NYTimes.com The article also has links to support their case.
Clearly what CIA and it's contractors did was illegal under US and international law. Clearly they knew it was illegal, and they even made great efforts to destroy evidence (destruction of video tapes). Apparently they even tortured citizens of other allied countries without their knowledge, and ended up torturing people who were, in fact innocent. I believe something should be done to prevent this type of action from happening again in the future. Individual prosecution of the perpetrators and "their bosses" doesn't sound like something we want to have publicly presented, however some sort of discipline should be issued. While a member of the Air Force, we were taught many times that we were to refuse any order that we thought was illegal, and that the law would protect us. I doubt if military members were involved in torture, but if they were, they could be prosecuted. The civilians, and civilian contractors involved, however, could possibly plead "ignorance of the law" etc.
I can understand and I believe the US public can also understand some situations where torture might be necessary. The TV series "24" presented situations in almost every season, where torture was necessary, and possibly justifiable, to prevent an immediate imminent disaster, such as a nuclear weapon detonation in the center of a city within hours. Of course, the TV-scripted results of those sessions often saved tens of thousands of lives and made the ends justify the means. However, the situations that the CIA was in after 9/11 was way beyond that. What could they possibly expect to get out of individuals undergoing torture months or years after the individuals were captured? The only thing I can think of is information that could lead to the arrest of other co-conspirators. However, any rational individual, or well operated organization, would recognize that the individual was captured and would have covered their tracks very quickly by changing names, addresses, passwords, strategies, tactics, and changing locations for storage of materials, weapons or the locations of targets. Any information obtained would have been close to useless. I believe it was primarily done to achieve some sort of "revenge" for 9/11 more than really to obtain critical information for protecting the nation.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Amid Conflicting Accounts, Trusting the Officer - NYTimes.com
I'm disappointed in the Fergeson Grand Jury decision. It is hard to believe that they took over 3 months to review the evidence. Most grand juries are much quicker. This NY Times article attempted to summarize the proceedings. Amid Conflicting Accounts, Trusting the Officer - NYTimes.com. Yes, it is possible that the NY Times took a "liberal" side on this situation. However now the public has the testimony and we can read it ourselves and make our own decisions. There seems to be a lot that wasn't questioned in Wilson's testimony, however.
Yes, there is a LOT of evidence: See this link -- but I think there wasn't enough for 3-1/2 months of delay. In most cases the "Prosecutor" prosecutes in a Grand Jury proceeding. This one was unique in that the prosecutor apparently wanted to not push the jury towards indictment. I think the public needed Wilson to be tried by a jury of his peers.
Somehow, I have the feeling that a prosecutor in this type of situation has a built-in conflict of interest. If a prosecutor doesn't "go easy" on a police officer, the other officers may not support that prosecutor in other trials. It seems that the overall process of handling a situation like this needs to be changed. Maybe an outside Federal prosecutor should be involved when a grand jury is considering charges against a police officer.
Yes, there is a LOT of evidence: See this link -- but I think there wasn't enough for 3-1/2 months of delay. In most cases the "Prosecutor" prosecutes in a Grand Jury proceeding. This one was unique in that the prosecutor apparently wanted to not push the jury towards indictment. I think the public needed Wilson to be tried by a jury of his peers.
Somehow, I have the feeling that a prosecutor in this type of situation has a built-in conflict of interest. If a prosecutor doesn't "go easy" on a police officer, the other officers may not support that prosecutor in other trials. It seems that the overall process of handling a situation like this needs to be changed. Maybe an outside Federal prosecutor should be involved when a grand jury is considering charges against a police officer.
The Tech Worker Shortage Doesn't Really Exist - Businessweek
Bloomberg Business Week had a good article about the "tech worker shortage" --The Tech Worker Shortage Doesn't Really Exist - Businessweek by Josh Eidelson.
As a retired "tech worker" electrical engineer with a son and son-in-law working as software engineers, I have not been a fan of H1B visas. Clearly the visas have reduced the salaries of engineers in the USA, which affects the pocketbooks of engineers. It also discourages people from enrolling in engineering degree programs because the perceived return on investment in education time and money doesn't appear to have the same "payback" as other fields. Another problem of the H1B visas occurs when the visas expire and the workers return to their native country. They return, and take back expertise, skills, corporate secrets and business acumen that can be used to compete directly with US firms. Those workers also may have children born in the US who become citizens, and a lien on USA welfare roles
See text of article below:
As a retired "tech worker" electrical engineer with a son and son-in-law working as software engineers, I have not been a fan of H1B visas. Clearly the visas have reduced the salaries of engineers in the USA, which affects the pocketbooks of engineers. It also discourages people from enrolling in engineering degree programs because the perceived return on investment in education time and money doesn't appear to have the same "payback" as other fields. Another problem of the H1B visas occurs when the visas expire and the workers return to their native country. They return, and take back expertise, skills, corporate secrets and business acumen that can be used to compete directly with US firms. Those workers also may have children born in the US who become citizens, and a lien on USA welfare roles
See text of article below:
Along with temporary deportation relief for millions, President Obama’s executive action will increase the number of U.S. college graduates from abroad who can temporarily be hired by U.S. corporations. That hasn’t satisfied tech companies and trade groups, which contend more green cards or guest worker visas are needed to keep tech industries growing because of a shortage of qualified American workers. But scholars say there’s a problem with that argument: The tech worker shortage doesn’t actually exist.
“There’s no evidence of any way, shape, or form that there’s a shortage in the conventional sense,” says Hal Salzman, a professor of planning and public policy at Rutgers University. “They may not be able to find them at the price they want. But I’m not sure that qualifies as a shortage, any more than my not being able to find a half-priced TV.”
For a real-life example of an actual worker shortage, Salzman points to the case of petroleum engineers, where the supply of workers has failed to keep up with the growth in oil exploration. The result, says Salzman, was just what economists would have predicted: Employers started offering more money, more people started becoming petroleum engineers, and the shortage was solved. In contrast, Salzman concluded in a paper released last year by the liberal Economic Policy Institute, real IT wages are about the same as they were in 1999. Further, he and his co-authors found, only half of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) college graduates each year get hired into STEM jobs. “We don’t dispute the fact at all that Facebook (FB) and Microsoft (MSFT) would like to have more, cheaper workers,” says Salzman’s co-author Daniel Kuehn, now a research associate at the Urban Institute. “But that doesn’t constitute a shortage.”
The real issue, say Salzman and others, is the industry’s desire for lower-wage,more-exploitable guest workers, not a lack of available American staff. “It seems pretty clear that the industry just wants lower-cost labor,” Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote in an e-mail. A 2011review by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the H-1B visa program, which is what industry groups are lobbying to expand, had “fragmented and restricted” oversight that weakened its ostensible labor standards. “Many in the tech industry are using it for cheaper, indentured labor,” says Rochester Institute of Technology public policy associate professor Ron Hira, an EPI research associate and co-author of the book Outsourcing America.
Asked what evidence existed of a labor shortage, a spokesperson for Facebook e-mailed a one-sentence statement: “We look forward to hearing more specifics about the President’s plan and how it will impact the skills gap that threatens the competitiveness of the tech sector.”
Thursday, October 30, 2014
The American Studies Association (ASA) says its academic boycott is not discriminating against Israelis. | UTSanDiego.com
It amazes me how "thin skinned" the Israelis are. Whenever an organization says they aren't going to buy stock in Israeli companies they scream discrimination. When an organization initiates an "academic boycott" they scream The American Studies Association (ASA) says its academic boycott is not discriminating against Israelis. | UTSanDiego.com. When members of the US Government complain about Israel's continuing to build settlements on Palestinian land, they complain loudly and act insulted. However, on the other side, they have continued to defy the US by building settlements, they have just blown up many Palestinian homes and slaughtered thousands of people calling it "defense". They say they are a "friend and ally" of the US -- but have not supported the US in any war with troops or weapons, even though the US has bought most of their weapons for them. I haven't heard of Israel supporting any of our efforts to stop ISIS, even though ISIS is a threat to Israel as well as Iraq. Also, they are the only Middle East government that has directly attacked US ships, and the only one from whom the US routinely arrests spies. .
How to save the planet? Stop having children | Frankie Mullin | Society | The Guardian
The Guardian had this article that points out that the root of the world's problems are overpopulation.
How to save the planet? Stop having children | Frankie Mullin | Society | The Guardian
There have always been concerns about the world's population and predictions that humans would run out of food for the teeming masses. So this isn't all that new. Maybe we aren't in danger of running out of food or space to live. But it is clear now that we are affecting the global environment and we are squeezing out other species of plants and animals who live in the world. When humans run out of land to live on and grow food, we will probably begin to inhabit and farm the oceans. By doing that, humans can continue to survive, but the cost may be the loss of most of the other "non-useful" species of life.
The overpopulation problem has been delayed by the many plagues and wars that have destroyed massive amounts of population and slowed down the growth. However, now with modern medicine, we have conquered most of those diseases, and there will not likely be any plagues that will make a large dent in the population. I had always expected a World War III to occur during the cold war, and envisioned a post-nuclear war world that could take centuries to get back to today's population. It appears, at least for the present, that we may not have a nuclear holocaust.
Small changes can have huge effects on the world over time. Reducing the birthrate would have a tremendous effect on the world's environment in 50 to 100 years from now. I agree that medical practitioners in the US should help families make intelligent decisions on family size and assist their patients reach those goals using modern medical techniques.
However, the world also needs to put pressure on the religions of the world who are trying to grow and spread their religions by having more babies. Muslims, Catholics, Hasidic Jews, and Mormons, for example seem to want to have as many babies as possible to promote their religion. More babies means more people paying to support the church, and more people to proselytize and spread the religion. The Catholic Church, carefully developed a theology several hundred years after Christ that started the restrictions on birth control See this article on Slate It wasn't until the 1930s that the Catholic Church made birth control "a sin" . Other religions later seemed to adopt the same belief in order to try to maintain their "population" in competition with the Catholics. Somehow, world opinion needs to be changed to discourage this sort of destructive behavior and families who do have more than a few children need to be financially penalized for that decision. Should the world pay for those very large families health care? Free education? Reduced income taxes?
How to save the planet? Stop having children | Frankie Mullin | Society | The Guardian
There have always been concerns about the world's population and predictions that humans would run out of food for the teeming masses. So this isn't all that new. Maybe we aren't in danger of running out of food or space to live. But it is clear now that we are affecting the global environment and we are squeezing out other species of plants and animals who live in the world. When humans run out of land to live on and grow food, we will probably begin to inhabit and farm the oceans. By doing that, humans can continue to survive, but the cost may be the loss of most of the other "non-useful" species of life.
The overpopulation problem has been delayed by the many plagues and wars that have destroyed massive amounts of population and slowed down the growth. However, now with modern medicine, we have conquered most of those diseases, and there will not likely be any plagues that will make a large dent in the population. I had always expected a World War III to occur during the cold war, and envisioned a post-nuclear war world that could take centuries to get back to today's population. It appears, at least for the present, that we may not have a nuclear holocaust.
Small changes can have huge effects on the world over time. Reducing the birthrate would have a tremendous effect on the world's environment in 50 to 100 years from now. I agree that medical practitioners in the US should help families make intelligent decisions on family size and assist their patients reach those goals using modern medical techniques.
However, the world also needs to put pressure on the religions of the world who are trying to grow and spread their religions by having more babies. Muslims, Catholics, Hasidic Jews, and Mormons, for example seem to want to have as many babies as possible to promote their religion. More babies means more people paying to support the church, and more people to proselytize and spread the religion. The Catholic Church, carefully developed a theology several hundred years after Christ that started the restrictions on birth control See this article on Slate It wasn't until the 1930s that the Catholic Church made birth control "a sin" . Other religions later seemed to adopt the same belief in order to try to maintain their "population" in competition with the Catholics. Somehow, world opinion needs to be changed to discourage this sort of destructive behavior and families who do have more than a few children need to be financially penalized for that decision. Should the world pay for those very large families health care? Free education? Reduced income taxes?
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Border Patrol dragging their feet investigating Mexican Civilian killing
The LA times had a front page article (by Brian Bennett and Joseph Tanfani) about the border patrol killing a Mexican man who was having a picnic with his family. See this link: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-shooting-20141019-story.html#page=1
The article reported that the border patrol officer shot into a crowd of civilians on the Mexican side of the border because they were throwing rocks at their boat. It would seem to me that any country shooting a civilian across the border would be an international incident. I can't imagine what would have happened if a US civilian were killed by a mexican law enforcement officer by shooting across the border.
This shooting happened two years ago and is still "under investigation" by the FBI. Video of the situation may be available from border cameras, but the Border Patrol has refused to release it.
This seems crazy to me! The evidence should be presented ASAP both to the Mexicans and to the US "Court of Public Opinion". If the officer was guilty of murder, he should be prosecuted as soon as possible too. Two years is much too long!
We clearly need a Federal law that sets up a Federal register of all law enforcement shootings. I don't think the country knows if law enforcement agencies are abusing deadly force. If we don't have statistics we will never know.
The article reported that the border patrol officer shot into a crowd of civilians on the Mexican side of the border because they were throwing rocks at their boat. It would seem to me that any country shooting a civilian across the border would be an international incident. I can't imagine what would have happened if a US civilian were killed by a mexican law enforcement officer by shooting across the border.
This shooting happened two years ago and is still "under investigation" by the FBI. Video of the situation may be available from border cameras, but the Border Patrol has refused to release it.
This seems crazy to me! The evidence should be presented ASAP both to the Mexicans and to the US "Court of Public Opinion". If the officer was guilty of murder, he should be prosecuted as soon as possible too. Two years is much too long!
We clearly need a Federal law that sets up a Federal register of all law enforcement shootings. I don't think the country knows if law enforcement agencies are abusing deadly force. If we don't have statistics we will never know.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
St Louis police officer shoots dead black teenager while off duty | US news | theguardian.com
Here we go again! Another unexplained police shooting of an unarmed black man. You would think that the police departments in that region would have gone through some additional training after the Ferguson incident.
St Louis police officer shoots dead black teenager while off duty | US news | theguardian.com
It appears to me that this police department is making some of the same mistakes that the Ferguson police made. They are hiding the details, refusing to provide the name of the police officer etc. There are some items that should be made public ASAP.
1. The Police say they have recovered ballistic evidence that the 18 yr old had fired three bullets -- Why not release that information to the press? Or is the evidence "shaky at best"...
2. Why is the Police department supporting the officer? This was an off-duty employment for the officer. His employer should be involved, not the City Police department.
3. Why was the officer chasing the men? Did they do anything wrong other than run away from him? Were they committing a crime when he encountered them?
4. As an off-duty officer working as a security guard, why would he chase down a suspect -- particularly if he thought the suspect was armed?
5. I'm sure the officer had a phone or radio. Did he call for backup? Or call the police if he thought a crime was in progress?
6. Why on earth would he shoot the man 17 times? That is crazy? Why not fire warning shots? Wound the man? Call for additional police backup and try to capture him?
'
St Louis police officer shoots dead black teenager while off duty | US news | theguardian.com
It appears to me that this police department is making some of the same mistakes that the Ferguson police made. They are hiding the details, refusing to provide the name of the police officer etc. There are some items that should be made public ASAP.
1. The Police say they have recovered ballistic evidence that the 18 yr old had fired three bullets -- Why not release that information to the press? Or is the evidence "shaky at best"...
2. Why is the Police department supporting the officer? This was an off-duty employment for the officer. His employer should be involved, not the City Police department.
3. Why was the officer chasing the men? Did they do anything wrong other than run away from him? Were they committing a crime when he encountered them?
4. As an off-duty officer working as a security guard, why would he chase down a suspect -- particularly if he thought the suspect was armed?
5. I'm sure the officer had a phone or radio. Did he call for backup? Or call the police if he thought a crime was in progress?
6. Why on earth would he shoot the man 17 times? That is crazy? Why not fire warning shots? Wound the man? Call for additional police backup and try to capture him?
'
Sunday, October 5, 2014
60 Minutes: High Cost of Cancer Drugs
60 Minutes reported this evening on the absurd high prices of cancer drugs that extend the life of cancer patients, but often drive them and their families into bankruptcy --even when only paying the copays. Here is a link to the text of the interviews and the video: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-cost-of-cancer-drugs/
As an investor in several "big pharma" companies, I do understand how expensive it is to develop, test and get approval of a new drug. The time a company has to recover those costs is often limited by the life of the patent, the chance of complications, and the likely chance of obsolescence as new drugs are developed. The companies do take huge risks, spend immense amounts of money on development and have teams of smart, inspired professionals.
On the other hand, I'm appalled that these same drug companies are able to negotiate with other countries and sell those same drugs at much lower prices than to American citizens. US R&D is generally subsidized at US universities. Our FDA spends a lot of money to support the approval process etc. Why should US Citizens pay more for the drugs than Canada, EU, Australia or Japan?
I think either the US should either allow Government agencies to negotiate drug company prices, or pass a simple law that says that drug companies can't sell drugs in other countries at prices lower than used within the US. That will "spread" the costs over more of the world.
As an investor in several "big pharma" companies, I do understand how expensive it is to develop, test and get approval of a new drug. The time a company has to recover those costs is often limited by the life of the patent, the chance of complications, and the likely chance of obsolescence as new drugs are developed. The companies do take huge risks, spend immense amounts of money on development and have teams of smart, inspired professionals.
On the other hand, I'm appalled that these same drug companies are able to negotiate with other countries and sell those same drugs at much lower prices than to American citizens. US R&D is generally subsidized at US universities. Our FDA spends a lot of money to support the approval process etc. Why should US Citizens pay more for the drugs than Canada, EU, Australia or Japan?
I think either the US should either allow Government agencies to negotiate drug company prices, or pass a simple law that says that drug companies can't sell drugs in other countries at prices lower than used within the US. That will "spread" the costs over more of the world.
Friday, September 26, 2014
USA Today - FAA OKs drones for moviemaking
USA Today had an article by Bart Jansen that said that the FAA is now permitting six movie companies to legally use drones. Rules for drone use won't be released for another 18 months.
Eighteen more months is far too long, when the FAA has already been working on the problem for years. Approving companies on a case-by-case basis will result in unfair competition, favoritism for friends, and use too much of the FAA's time. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx seems to be dragging his agencies feet. He is quoted as saying: "These companies are blazing a trail that others are already following offering the promise of new advances"..This statement seems to imply that the agency is going to "learn" from the movie companies, and seems to admit that many other users are out there--but are operating illegally. The FAA says they will learn by taking each application on a case-by-case basis and use that information for helping them craft new rules and regulations. Meanwhile thousands of drone users will be using their drones "illegally" for years, and will have no reasonable guidelines for operation. Farmers, Realtors & Wedding photographers meanwhile will be using drones for their job, but will be subject to arbitrary and capricious enforcement which will be unfair to everyone including enforcement agencies, operators, and nearby citizens.
Interim standards need to be issued ASAP, and then the agency can amend them, as necessary, over the next few years. Interim standards are pretty obvious:
In addition, an FAA website needs to be developed ASAP for registering operators, equipment, and flight plans. The FAA needs to start development now, so it can be "live" within 2 years. As a minimum the web site should allow for:
Eighteen more months is far too long, when the FAA has already been working on the problem for years. Approving companies on a case-by-case basis will result in unfair competition, favoritism for friends, and use too much of the FAA's time. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx seems to be dragging his agencies feet. He is quoted as saying: "These companies are blazing a trail that others are already following offering the promise of new advances"..This statement seems to imply that the agency is going to "learn" from the movie companies, and seems to admit that many other users are out there--but are operating illegally. The FAA says they will learn by taking each application on a case-by-case basis and use that information for helping them craft new rules and regulations. Meanwhile thousands of drone users will be using their drones "illegally" for years, and will have no reasonable guidelines for operation. Farmers, Realtors & Wedding photographers meanwhile will be using drones for their job, but will be subject to arbitrary and capricious enforcement which will be unfair to everyone including enforcement agencies, operators, and nearby citizens.
Interim standards need to be issued ASAP, and then the agency can amend them, as necessary, over the next few years. Interim standards are pretty obvious:
- 400 ft altitude limit,
- line of site to operator,
- permission of property owners,
- notification to residents,
- establish a minimum distance from any airport etc.
- All drones must have a beacon that squawks a unique ID,
- Drones must broadcast their GPS location and altitude.
- Drones must have encrypted/authenticated command & control system to protect from cross-talk, or high-jacking by nearby hackers.
- Drones must have unencrypted payload downlink to allow neighbors to see what is being collected.
In addition, an FAA website needs to be developed ASAP for registering operators, equipment, and flight plans. The FAA needs to start development now, so it can be "live" within 2 years. As a minimum the web site should allow for:
- All drone operators can file and close out all flight plans which include a GPS-coordinate flight track. Flight plan filing should be as simple as drawing a box on a Google Earth map. Flight plans must be filed at least 24 hours prior to a flight. Close out of flight plan within 24 hours of flight completion.
- Website should be public, and should allow citizens to register so they can be notified if a drone flight path is filed within an area defined by the user using GPS coordinates.
- The FAA website should allow operators to register their drone including the unique ID number which the beacon squawks. Registration should include the manufacturer, model number, serial number, RF channel to be used.
- Operators should be able to take an online training course which defines the rules under which the drone is to be operated.
- Following the completion of the short on-line course, the operator should be allowed to register for a license which would include an on-line exam that would result in a license good for a couple of years. Renewal time initially should be relatively short, since the rule-making process will change and operators would need to be updated on the changes. Operators should be able to provide a photo of their driver's license as an identification as part of the registration/licensing process.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
60 Minutes Report 21 Sep 2014 on Income Tax Refund Scam
Last night on 60 minutes Steve Kroft report on the rapid growth of an Identity Theft/Income Tax Refund Scam. Here is a link to the video of the report and the text of the report. I found it outrageous! The IRS has NO excuse for allowing this to happen. Now that 60 minutes has provided the world with a step-by-step instruction on how to perform the scam, I suspect rate of increase in the number of fraudulent income tax forms filed will increase far beyond the current projected rate. We need to do something to stop it right notw!
There are some simple things that the IRS and Congress can do to put the brakes on this fraud:
1. Do not allow a refund to be paid until the W-2 has been filed (and paid) by the employer.
2. If a refund is to be sent to an address that is different from the one used during the previous filing period, a change of address must be processed in advance, which will prompt a letter to be sent to the previous address for verification.
3. Prepaid debit cards receiving refunds must be registered with valid ID at the bank issuing the card
Longer term solutions:
1.The IRS should enlist the USPS to assist in spotting suspected criminals participating in this sort of scam. Yes, the USPS is a "private" business --but the Service and the Carriers could be offered some sort of reward for identifying criminals involved in this sort of activity..
2. Additional FBI resources need to be applied to arresting and convicting these criminals, and the Government should attempt to obtain restitution.
3. The IRS needs to make much larger investment in IT systems that will allow all of us to file electronically but have all the necessary check & balances to prevent all sorts of income tax fraud.
There are some simple things that the IRS and Congress can do to put the brakes on this fraud:
1. Do not allow a refund to be paid until the W-2 has been filed (and paid) by the employer.
2. If a refund is to be sent to an address that is different from the one used during the previous filing period, a change of address must be processed in advance, which will prompt a letter to be sent to the previous address for verification.
3. Prepaid debit cards receiving refunds must be registered with valid ID at the bank issuing the card
Longer term solutions:
1.The IRS should enlist the USPS to assist in spotting suspected criminals participating in this sort of scam. Yes, the USPS is a "private" business --but the Service and the Carriers could be offered some sort of reward for identifying criminals involved in this sort of activity..
2. Additional FBI resources need to be applied to arresting and convicting these criminals, and the Government should attempt to obtain restitution.
3. The IRS needs to make much larger investment in IT systems that will allow all of us to file electronically but have all the necessary check & balances to prevent all sorts of income tax fraud.
New York Times 2-page ad by John D. Haywood
A two page ad appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, September 21, paid for by a John Haywood who apparently was a candidate for President in 2012. See this link: http://www.haywoodforpresident.com/. There is also a web site that summarizes his biography and stands on issues: http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/134878/john-haywood#.VCWVqvndWSo
I found very little other information about him. While I like most of his very outspoken positions, it appears to me that he would have difficulty running for any office after expressing these opinions in print. Other on-line pundits believe this one advertisement may have cost him around $100,000. If I had to guess his mindset, I would say that he is a loyal American, who has serious concerns about how our country is being run. He probably realizes that he will never get a chance again to implement any of these policies and is "hanging up his spurs."... However, he wants to use some of his savings to get some of these issues out on the table to get people thinking about them as we approach another election. I applaud him for sticking his neck out!
I found very little other information about him. While I like most of his very outspoken positions, it appears to me that he would have difficulty running for any office after expressing these opinions in print. Other on-line pundits believe this one advertisement may have cost him around $100,000. If I had to guess his mindset, I would say that he is a loyal American, who has serious concerns about how our country is being run. He probably realizes that he will never get a chance again to implement any of these policies and is "hanging up his spurs."... However, he wants to use some of his savings to get some of these issues out on the table to get people thinking about them as we approach another election. I applaud him for sticking his neck out!
He took firm positions on health care, global warming, income tax reform, US policy on Israel and anti-semitism, recreational drugs, judicial reform, and others.
I was very surprised to see that I agree with many of the points he presented. About the only one I completely disagree with is his proposal for a "Hefty Tax on Craig's List." I get the idea that he is concerned that Craig's List's free advertising has killed the want-ad sections of newspapers, which, in turn is damaging the free press. The problem is that Craig's list isn't the only place where free or very cheap advertising can be done on the internet. VRBO, for example has killed off all of the vacation rental advertising in the newspapers. I was surprised to see his very last proposal was to replace our uranium/plutonium nuclear power reactors with thorium ones. For decades, I've wondered why the US DOE has not been working on the development of a thorium-based nuclear reactor system. It would produce much less toxic waste, be safer, not produce weapons-grade materials, and could be lower cost in the long run.
I also agree with his positions on Israel and calling anyone who disagrees with Israel's policies an anti-semite. Our country needs to separate opposition to the policies of the Israeli Government, from those of the Jewish religion or people.
I was surprised that the New York Times didn't seem to allow me to read the advertisement on line without subscribing to the newspaper. I can see them protecting copyrighted news articles, but I would think their advertisers would want their ads made public. I was able to copy/paste some of the article from another web site: Campaign Outsider -- I also copy/pasted a blurry photo that was posted on the site of the full two page ad. Below is the text of the ad:
COMMON SENSE II
BY JOHN HAYWOOD
Efficient Health Care
In a July 13, 2012 interview with Betty Liu of Bloomberg Television, billionaire financier Warren Buffet was asked: “A few weeks ago we heard from the Supreme Court, they upheld the health care reform act, the Affordable Care Act. Was that the right decision?”
Buffet: “Well I think it’s the right decision, but think that the health care problem is the number-one problem of America and of American business. If we have 17 or 18 percent of our GDP going to health care and we’re competing with countries that have 10 percent. That’s seven or eight points. There’s only 100 points in the dollar. And to have a seven- or eight-point disadvantage is huge. And a lot of businessmen complain about corporate taxes….Corporate taxes are less than two percent of GDP. So if you eliminated all the corporate taxes you’ve got seven points against you in health care.”
If the United States adopted Britain’s infinitely more efficient National Health Service (while retaining, as the British have, for-profit care for the 10% that want and can afford it), America’s bill for health care would drop from 17.5% GDP to 9% GDP.
If Helen Thomas Wasn’t Safe, Who Is?
She was the 90-year-old dean of the White House Press Corps. She was also the daughter of Lebanese immigrants. Soon after Mr. Obama’s inauguration Thomas had the audacity to ask him whether any Mideast Country had nuclear weapons. His evasive reply made clear there would be no change in American policy toward Israel.
The following year Thomas was recorded saying the following about the Israelis: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine; Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?” Thomas’s hell was about to begin.
The White House Correspondents’s Assn. publicly called her remarks “Indefensible;” her speaker agency publicly dropped her; her book project publicly terminated; a journalism group’s award named for Thomas publicly “retired;” and a planned commencement speech publicly canceled. Former White House Press secretaries publicly condemned her.
President Obama also went on record, calling her remarks “Offensive.” Her effectiveness as a reporter having come to an end, she resigned her job. On her death in 2012 newspapers across the land reported that she, a Semitic woman, had been an anti-Semite!
Legalize All Drugs, Place Them Under FDA Regulation, Tax Their Sale Moderately, and Treat the Addicts
One hundred years ago, before the first war on drugs began, 3% of Americans were addicted to drugs.
Beginning in 1914 the federal government engaged in a continuing and escalating war on drugs. Each escalation brought more violent crime committed by desperate addicts, more incarcerations, incredible expenditures of taxpayer money, more gang wars, violence in nations producing/transporting the drugs, and monumental profits for criminals.
Yet, today, 100 years later, 3% of Americans remain addicted to drugs. Almost all of them wind up in the clink. Only 11% get treatment even though treatment methods have advanced.
Haywood ran almost a dozen ads in the New Hampshire Sunday News during the 2012 Granite State presidential primary. Which got us to wondering: Is the Times spread a trial balloon for the 2016 race?
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Religious Conflict and Personal Freedoms -- example Malaysia
I believe in freedom of religion. Everyone should be entitled to believe what they want to believe, and worship as they want to. I can also understand why members of religious groups might want to display symbols to show their faith, such as wearing certain garb (yamakas, shadors), markings on their body etc(ashes on foreheads). However when one religion tries to force their beliefs on others, that is where it should stop. That destroys the "freedom" part of freedom of religion.
The problem is that so many religions also believe theirs is the only true one and that everyone else needs to be converted (or "saved") by believing the same way. I think that this inclination of so many religions to want to proselytize others is driven by their leader's desire to expand to be able to get more money and power. A larger church with more members allows the leaders to exert more influence on the community and live better. Even Catholic leaders who took an oath of poverty seem to want to grow to be able to gain power and trappings of wealth, if not personal wealth.
In strict Moslem countries, drinking of alcohol is forbidden, women are treated as property, and must wear outfits that cover all of most of their body. That might be OK if the laws only applied to believers. However they enforce those laws against "non believers" as well. In the US, the so-called Christians believe that their prayers should be done in public such as schools, city council meetings and football games to help convert people to their way of thinking. They say they want prayer in schools -- but they really mean their prayers -- they wouldn't want Buddhist, Confucian, Moslem, or even Roman Catholic prayers in the schools. If I don't want my child exposed to their prayers, they say "tough" --it will make your children better to say the prayers ("save" them?). Many of those so-called Christian religions also want to impose restrictions on Gays, eliminate birth control, and stop abortions. I'd have not problem if a religion refused to marry gay people, but why must they prevent gay members of other religions from marrying? I would think it appropriate if a religion told their members to not practice birth control or have an abortion. However, why must they impose those restrictions on others?
Early Christians had ceremonies to marry gays, and birth control/abortion wasn't an issue in the Catholic Church until Thomas Aquinas in 1250AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Goal_of_human_life
Aquinas dramatically changed Christianity from a role of passivity and love to a much more aggressive form. He put a high value on human life, including the fetus, but at the same time believed that all heretics should be killed. He also introduced the concept of a "just war" which then allowed Christians to make war on other religions to purge the world of heretics. None of this, of course, was part of Christ's teachings, but through complex forms of reasoning, Aquinas was able to justify his conclusions. The leaders of the Catholic church at the time wanted to hear this sort of reasoning. They wanted to spread the religion further, they wanted more babies, and also wanted to kill or make war on opposing religions, so Aquinas was honored and made into a saint.
This article in Malaysia describes some of the complications involved in that country where the Moslem's have a majority and want to impose their beliefs on others: http://m.thestar.com.my/Story.aspx?fls={FDD6D886-5EC0-4D71-9486-813819AB0DB3}
It sounds terrible --but I think it is just a case of one religion trying to compete with others.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Conservative hostility to Dodd-Frank continues unabated - LA Times
Michael Hiltzik described the battle to block or change the Dodd-Frank law which attempts to prevent another bank meltdown (too big to fail) and need for resulting governmental bail out.
Conservative hostility to Dodd-Frank continues unabated - LA Times:
The reason we had the financial melt-down in 2007 was because the financial industry and their many well taken care of politicians in congress and senate refused to put the type of mortgage-backed securities under some sort of regulation. The Dodd Frank bill was an attempt to close some of the many loopholes in banking regulation. It passed mostly along party lines, and now the Republicans would like to gut the law any way they can. I'm not sure the bill does everything that is needed. Also, I'm sure that the industry will come up with some new, creative way of sidestepping the law and will create some new "bubble." However this is the best we have now--and sadly, the Republicans have not come up with anything better.
As an investor, I want confidence that the investments I make are property represented and the executives involved are ethical. I think most investors are still on the sidelines because of the fear that another meltdown might occur. Passing some tighter rules for financial controls and disclosure seems to be a very minimal step toward improving the confidence of the investing public.
Conservative hostility to Dodd-Frank continues unabated - LA Times:
The reason we had the financial melt-down in 2007 was because the financial industry and their many well taken care of politicians in congress and senate refused to put the type of mortgage-backed securities under some sort of regulation. The Dodd Frank bill was an attempt to close some of the many loopholes in banking regulation. It passed mostly along party lines, and now the Republicans would like to gut the law any way they can. I'm not sure the bill does everything that is needed. Also, I'm sure that the industry will come up with some new, creative way of sidestepping the law and will create some new "bubble." However this is the best we have now--and sadly, the Republicans have not come up with anything better.
As an investor, I want confidence that the investments I make are property represented and the executives involved are ethical. I think most investors are still on the sidelines because of the fear that another meltdown might occur. Passing some tighter rules for financial controls and disclosure seems to be a very minimal step toward improving the confidence of the investing public.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
'Black sites' ruling a rebuke to Poland, the CIA and torture
The Sunday LA Times had an Op-Ed by Joseph Margulies about the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights against Poland for participating in the "rendition" of Abu Zubaydah done by the US CIA. This case, of course, is just one of many renditions done in many different countries, however it is one that has now had a very thorough review by a court.
'Black sites' ruling a rebuke to Poland, the CIA and torture - LA Times:
When it was going on, I thought George Bush and Cheney were wrong for allowing or causing it to be done. It is clear that they, and the CIA knew it was wrong. They went through extensive processes to hide what they were doing. This sets a terrible example. Now we are thumbing our noses at an international court, that Americans might need in the future if atrocities are committed against us. US enemies are now justified in torturing US soldiers because they can say with certainty that the US tortures their enemies.
Was Poland really "guilty?" in this case? -- or did the US bribe Poland in some way to get permission to do the torture on Polish land? It is clear to me, the US was the guilty party. The US citizens involved with it would have also known that what they were doing was against US and international law, and that they are permitted, under US law to refuse to perform an act they thought was illegal. So therefore, they, as individuals are also guilty of a crime.
I can sort of see a situation like depicted on the TV series "24" where a bomb is about to be detonated in hours and we need information to defuse the bomb and save millions of lives. However torturing people weeks, months or years after capture seems like nothing but revenge, or the product of a sick mind! Apparently there was very little useful information obtained from any of the torture performed. I do believe it is time to expose the CIA's "dark side". The participants need to be brought to some sort of justice. Maybe they don't deserve prison, but they should be rebuked, fired, or at least not promoted! Although I'd suspect that a lot of them are already in higher grades of public service.
I think I'd like to read the US Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the rendition if it is released by the administration. However I think it might be very tedious reading, since it is 6200 words, and it may have so much redaction that it might make it impossible to make sense of. I can understand why the Republicans might want to keep the document under wraps, because it certainly puts them in a bad light. The Bush administration did it on its own, and didn't get approval of Congress. In a time of war, a Government might be given some leeway --but this was far in excess of what I think was necessary in the situation.
'Black sites' ruling a rebuke to Poland, the CIA and torture - LA Times:
When it was going on, I thought George Bush and Cheney were wrong for allowing or causing it to be done. It is clear that they, and the CIA knew it was wrong. They went through extensive processes to hide what they were doing. This sets a terrible example. Now we are thumbing our noses at an international court, that Americans might need in the future if atrocities are committed against us. US enemies are now justified in torturing US soldiers because they can say with certainty that the US tortures their enemies.
Was Poland really "guilty?" in this case? -- or did the US bribe Poland in some way to get permission to do the torture on Polish land? It is clear to me, the US was the guilty party. The US citizens involved with it would have also known that what they were doing was against US and international law, and that they are permitted, under US law to refuse to perform an act they thought was illegal. So therefore, they, as individuals are also guilty of a crime.
I can sort of see a situation like depicted on the TV series "24" where a bomb is about to be detonated in hours and we need information to defuse the bomb and save millions of lives. However torturing people weeks, months or years after capture seems like nothing but revenge, or the product of a sick mind! Apparently there was very little useful information obtained from any of the torture performed. I do believe it is time to expose the CIA's "dark side". The participants need to be brought to some sort of justice. Maybe they don't deserve prison, but they should be rebuked, fired, or at least not promoted! Although I'd suspect that a lot of them are already in higher grades of public service.
I think I'd like to read the US Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the rendition if it is released by the administration. However I think it might be very tedious reading, since it is 6200 words, and it may have so much redaction that it might make it impossible to make sense of. I can understand why the Republicans might want to keep the document under wraps, because it certainly puts them in a bad light. The Bush administration did it on its own, and didn't get approval of Congress. In a time of war, a Government might be given some leeway --but this was far in excess of what I think was necessary in the situation.
Optimizing Social Security Benefits
The Wall Street Journal had an article by Anne Turgeson that was published in this Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune Free Tools for Optimizing Social Security Benefits - WSJ:
It is basically a review of various online tools that people can use to help them make the all-important, once-in-a-lifetime decision of when to start collecting social security. The decision to start social security is not only complex, it is also complicated selecting a tool to assist in making the decision. Anne Turgeson's article helps! There are a lot of other online advice columns to help people make the decision:
On top of all of this, there are many arcane rules that complicate filing for social security, many of which are not clearly documented. For example, if your birthday is on the first day of the month, you have to file two months prior to the date you want to start. Some of the rules are in contention--in that either the President or Congress would like to change the rules (generally to save money, or "close a loophole") What happens if we make our decision, or plan, and then the rules change?
Why does it need to be so complicated? I believe the decision is too complicated for most Americans to make a good decision to optimize their return from Social Security. The difference can be amazing! This article points out that even the experts who create these online tools don't do as good of a job as many of us might need to make the best decision. It is also very difficult to get the best answer from the SSA staff at local offices. It is hard to get an appointment, and the tools they currently use have some limitations. Divorces and remarriage also severely complicates determination of how much can be earned based upon a spouses earnings under the various options.
I have a Master's degree that focused on good financial decision-making, and I now think maybe my wife and I didn't make the optimum decision. I have subscribed to the American Association of Individual Investors bulletin (AAII) for many years, and it has had expert explanations of various alternatives, but we still missed at least one opportunity to improve upon our total social security benefit. If I couldn't make the best decision, I have the feeling that a LOT of Americans will make the incorrect decision. How many read AAII publications, the Wall Street Journal, or look for online calculators when making the decision.
One of my well educated close relatives who had been in questionable health made her decision to start social security too late, and only collected for a little more than a year before she died While another well educated one in excellent health decided to start collecting significantly reduced amount at age 62, even though she didn't need the money. Her rationale was simply: "I may drop dead tomorrow, and who knows if social security will still be paying in a few years!"
When we receive our social security statements, they are personalized for our own benefits. The SSA system knows we are married, and it knows our spouses earnings and SSA benefits. It seems to me that SSA could provide both spouses with the various options for when to start based upon our ages, our lifetime earnings and when we decide to start. The complicated options of "file and suspend" and "collect and then payback" probably don't need to be included. In fact, it seems that those types of options should only be permitted in very special cases, such as several medical situations. Even if the SSA statements don't include that information, it seems that the SSA website could have a way of handling "joint" situations.
It is basically a review of various online tools that people can use to help them make the all-important, once-in-a-lifetime decision of when to start collecting social security. The decision to start social security is not only complex, it is also complicated selecting a tool to assist in making the decision. Anne Turgeson's article helps! There are a lot of other online advice columns to help people make the decision:
- Forbes Magazine: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1112/092.html
- 2012 article by Morningstar: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=343180
- 2012 article by "Market Watch" http://www.marketwatch.com/story/social-security-claiming-tricks-to-maximize-payout-2012-10-18 It includes options such as "file and suspend" etc.
On top of all of this, there are many arcane rules that complicate filing for social security, many of which are not clearly documented. For example, if your birthday is on the first day of the month, you have to file two months prior to the date you want to start. Some of the rules are in contention--in that either the President or Congress would like to change the rules (generally to save money, or "close a loophole") What happens if we make our decision, or plan, and then the rules change?
Why does it need to be so complicated? I believe the decision is too complicated for most Americans to make a good decision to optimize their return from Social Security. The difference can be amazing! This article points out that even the experts who create these online tools don't do as good of a job as many of us might need to make the best decision. It is also very difficult to get the best answer from the SSA staff at local offices. It is hard to get an appointment, and the tools they currently use have some limitations. Divorces and remarriage also severely complicates determination of how much can be earned based upon a spouses earnings under the various options.
I have a Master's degree that focused on good financial decision-making, and I now think maybe my wife and I didn't make the optimum decision. I have subscribed to the American Association of Individual Investors bulletin (AAII) for many years, and it has had expert explanations of various alternatives, but we still missed at least one opportunity to improve upon our total social security benefit. If I couldn't make the best decision, I have the feeling that a LOT of Americans will make the incorrect decision. How many read AAII publications, the Wall Street Journal, or look for online calculators when making the decision.
One of my well educated close relatives who had been in questionable health made her decision to start social security too late, and only collected for a little more than a year before she died While another well educated one in excellent health decided to start collecting significantly reduced amount at age 62, even though she didn't need the money. Her rationale was simply: "I may drop dead tomorrow, and who knows if social security will still be paying in a few years!"
When we receive our social security statements, they are personalized for our own benefits. The SSA system knows we are married, and it knows our spouses earnings and SSA benefits. It seems to me that SSA could provide both spouses with the various options for when to start based upon our ages, our lifetime earnings and when we decide to start. The complicated options of "file and suspend" and "collect and then payback" probably don't need to be included. In fact, it seems that those types of options should only be permitted in very special cases, such as several medical situations. Even if the SSA statements don't include that information, it seems that the SSA website could have a way of handling "joint" situations.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
If the FCC is going to kill net neutrality, it'll have to get through you and me first | Dan Gillmor | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Dan Gillmore of "The Guardian" posted a good article today.
If the FCC is going to kill net neutrality, it'll have to get through you and me first | Dan Gillmor ||
There appears to be a LOT of opposition to the Cable Company proposal to have "fast lanes" for some internet providers. However the FCC has a bias toward industry.
Dan point out that we all need to question our representatives to make sure we know where they stand on this very important issue.
The problem with "fast lanes" --is that everyone else goes into the "slow lane"
I would agree to a concept of fast vs slow lanes as long as the internet providers were required to divest from all other businesses, and make all arrangements for fast lanes be public -- sort of like a public utility. There was an error made in the past that excludes internet from being considered a utility. It isn't clear why internet wouldn't be a utility, when phone is a utility. Most people are getting away from wired phones, so the phone "utility" is dying at the same time that internet usage continues to grow.
If the FCC is going to kill net neutrality, it'll have to get through you and me first | Dan Gillmor ||
There appears to be a LOT of opposition to the Cable Company proposal to have "fast lanes" for some internet providers. However the FCC has a bias toward industry.
Dan point out that we all need to question our representatives to make sure we know where they stand on this very important issue.
The problem with "fast lanes" --is that everyone else goes into the "slow lane"
I would agree to a concept of fast vs slow lanes as long as the internet providers were required to divest from all other businesses, and make all arrangements for fast lanes be public -- sort of like a public utility. There was an error made in the past that excludes internet from being considered a utility. It isn't clear why internet wouldn't be a utility, when phone is a utility. Most people are getting away from wired phones, so the phone "utility" is dying at the same time that internet usage continues to grow.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile
The California Coastal Commission is trying to prevent Encinitas oceanfront homeowners from protecting their home by building a sea wall. They also want to prevent those owners from being able to access the beach with their staircase. Even if they issue a permit to allow coastal owners to rebuild their seawalls or staircases, they try to limit the "permit" to 20 years. That way, after 20 years, the Commission can try again to extract additional concessions from the owners. There are many individual homeowners along the coastline. There are also many condominium complexes with homeowner associations who are also struggling to protect their properties from rising seas and find they have to fight the Coastal Commission to do so.
This Encinitas court case (Lynch vs. California Coastal Commission) has gone on for many years and now is being appealed by Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation--as described by Teri Figueroa in today's Union Tribune:. Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile: Here is more from the LA Times. The Commission lost in a lower court and is taking a seawall case to the 4th District Court of Appeals. A victory for the homeowners in this appeal could help set some precedent for future situations like this. It seems to me that there have been several US Supreme court rulings as well as California State Supreme Court decisions that should contribute to this appeals court decision in defense of the homeowners.
I'm not sure where the Coastal Commission got the idea that their mission is to prevent people from building sea walls or staircases. I don't believe that was the intent of the California citizens. My understanding of Proposition 20 that we California voters approved in 1972 was to establish a commission that would improve access to the beaches and coastline for all Californians. I think Peter Douglas wrote in some general-type words into both the Proposition and the Coastal Act of 1976 that then allowed him to stretch the original intent of the law to include such things as low income housing, protection of endangered species, and defining the aesthetic appearance of the coastline. Since he ruled the Commission from the 1972s until November 2011 when he retired, he was able to set an agenda for the staff that will be difficult for the part-time commissioners to change.
It is interesting that the Commission tries to block staircases as access to the beach -- when their job is to improve access. The obvious solution to the staircase issue is for the Commission to establish some engineering standards for staircase construction that would be safe, easy to maintain and attractive. Then, the Commission should encourage staircases to be built --but all of them must be open to the public during a reasonable amount of hours during the day. Of course, the Commission would then need to indemnify the homeowner for liability against lawsuits from users of the staircase. To do that, the Commission would need to insure that the staircases were, in fact, built to their standards, and perform inspections of the staircase from time-to-time.
The commission's budget and staff has been cut, but the commission continues to try to expand their authority and "power" beyond the original intent of the public. It seems to me that the Commission could do a lot of good if they would focus on their main mission and cut back on issues that are beyond their original mission, or out on the "fringes" of their mission.
This Encinitas court case (Lynch vs. California Coastal Commission) has gone on for many years and now is being appealed by Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation--as described by Teri Figueroa in today's Union Tribune:. Seawall battle lands in appeals court | UTSanDiego.com Mobile: Here is more from the LA Times. The Commission lost in a lower court and is taking a seawall case to the 4th District Court of Appeals. A victory for the homeowners in this appeal could help set some precedent for future situations like this. It seems to me that there have been several US Supreme court rulings as well as California State Supreme Court decisions that should contribute to this appeals court decision in defense of the homeowners.
I'm not sure where the Coastal Commission got the idea that their mission is to prevent people from building sea walls or staircases. I don't believe that was the intent of the California citizens. My understanding of Proposition 20 that we California voters approved in 1972 was to establish a commission that would improve access to the beaches and coastline for all Californians. I think Peter Douglas wrote in some general-type words into both the Proposition and the Coastal Act of 1976 that then allowed him to stretch the original intent of the law to include such things as low income housing, protection of endangered species, and defining the aesthetic appearance of the coastline. Since he ruled the Commission from the 1972s until November 2011 when he retired, he was able to set an agenda for the staff that will be difficult for the part-time commissioners to change.
It is interesting that the Commission tries to block staircases as access to the beach -- when their job is to improve access. The obvious solution to the staircase issue is for the Commission to establish some engineering standards for staircase construction that would be safe, easy to maintain and attractive. Then, the Commission should encourage staircases to be built --but all of them must be open to the public during a reasonable amount of hours during the day. Of course, the Commission would then need to indemnify the homeowner for liability against lawsuits from users of the staircase. To do that, the Commission would need to insure that the staircases were, in fact, built to their standards, and perform inspections of the staircase from time-to-time.
The commission's budget and staff has been cut, but the commission continues to try to expand their authority and "power" beyond the original intent of the public. It seems to me that the Commission could do a lot of good if they would focus on their main mission and cut back on issues that are beyond their original mission, or out on the "fringes" of their mission.
Monday, July 14, 2014
If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney - Los Angeles Times
This op-ed by Matthew Mitchell and Michael Farren in the Sunday Los Angeles Times shows that maybe history does repeat itself. If you like Uber, you would've loved the jitney - Los Angeles Times: It sounds like the resistance that ride-sharing services Uber, Lyft and Sidecar apps are getting is very similar to the resistance that the Jitney services received 100 years ago that killed off those services. --They were regulated out of existence!
Like the Jitney services, these ride-sharing services are popular with the users. However the competition for those businesses used the government and regulation to kill off the competition so they could continue to have a monopoly.
The main opposition to Uber, Lyft and Sidecar is obviously coming from the cab companies who have a very tight relationship with most of the governing bodies. They make huge donations to politicians who support them and spend heavy on lobbying. They also arrange to pay extra taxes to the City, so eventually the cities depend upon that revenue. Regulation of cab companies is also somewhat corrupt. For example it appears that cabs get higher rates for pick-ups at airports, even though airport pickups are probably the easiest for them to do, since they have lots of drop-offs and pickups at the same spot. The enlightened regulators also go out of their way to restrict competition at the airport to allow the cab companies to gouge even more. It seems to me that regulators would try to force the companies to discount rates at airports so cab companies would work harder to provide service to less popular areas --but political graft and city profit generally cloud their judgment.
I sympathize with cab drivers situation. Their job is difficult, lonely and frustrating. However, because of monopoly pricing, their companies have not adopted the latest technology. Because of that, in general cabs and drivers are not employed in an optimally efficient manner. Some cabbies can wait in cab lines for hours for a fare. A terrible waste of labor and equipment! It appears that in just a few years, we may have "driverless cabs" so the issue may be moot. Cab driver jobs may be phased out and allow that large section of the labor force to be redeployed to jobs that are more productive for society. Of course that may require more education, training and opportunities.
Like the Jitney services, these ride-sharing services are popular with the users. However the competition for those businesses used the government and regulation to kill off the competition so they could continue to have a monopoly.
The main opposition to Uber, Lyft and Sidecar is obviously coming from the cab companies who have a very tight relationship with most of the governing bodies. They make huge donations to politicians who support them and spend heavy on lobbying. They also arrange to pay extra taxes to the City, so eventually the cities depend upon that revenue. Regulation of cab companies is also somewhat corrupt. For example it appears that cabs get higher rates for pick-ups at airports, even though airport pickups are probably the easiest for them to do, since they have lots of drop-offs and pickups at the same spot. The enlightened regulators also go out of their way to restrict competition at the airport to allow the cab companies to gouge even more. It seems to me that regulators would try to force the companies to discount rates at airports so cab companies would work harder to provide service to less popular areas --but political graft and city profit generally cloud their judgment.
I sympathize with cab drivers situation. Their job is difficult, lonely and frustrating. However, because of monopoly pricing, their companies have not adopted the latest technology. Because of that, in general cabs and drivers are not employed in an optimally efficient manner. Some cabbies can wait in cab lines for hours for a fare. A terrible waste of labor and equipment! It appears that in just a few years, we may have "driverless cabs" so the issue may be moot. Cab driver jobs may be phased out and allow that large section of the labor force to be redeployed to jobs that are more productive for society. Of course that may require more education, training and opportunities.
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Corporations, 'artificial people' and the unintended risks of Hobby Lobby | Money | theguardian.com
I think the SCOTUS decisions on Hobby Lobby and Citizens United cases are very bad precedent. This article in the Guardian makes a good argument against it.
Corporations, 'artificial people' and the unintended risks of Hobby Lobby | Money | theguardian.com:
I'm afraid that this new "loophole" that the court has opened will become a larger "tear" in the fabric of our legal framework. We might have had a different result from the Supreme Court if the so-called religious 'freedom" they were protecting was a Muslim freedom rather than a supposed Christian principle. For example, will this decision now allow a corporation to require their employees to follow Sharia law?
Throughout history every time religion and politics get mixed together there have been problems such as Genocide, torture,or massive ignorance (Middle ages).The founders of the United States understood that, and tried very hard to keep religion separate from government.
Al Lewis (Al's Emporium Column) wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that was also published in the San Diego Union Tribune.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/al-lewis-questions-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-1404606315
Al also believes that this latest ruling is a "slippery slope" and that corporations provide a shield behind which bad businessmen can hide. Yes corporations can be fined, but, as he says, it is pretty hard to execute a corporation, or put one in jail.
It is also not clear to me how either the Hobby Lobby or Citizen's United rulings affect international corporations or foreign corporations. Can a foreign "closely held" corporation opt out of certain medical provisions? Can an international corporation contribute funds to political campaigns?
Corporations, 'artificial people' and the unintended risks of Hobby Lobby | Money | theguardian.com:
I'm afraid that this new "loophole" that the court has opened will become a larger "tear" in the fabric of our legal framework. We might have had a different result from the Supreme Court if the so-called religious 'freedom" they were protecting was a Muslim freedom rather than a supposed Christian principle. For example, will this decision now allow a corporation to require their employees to follow Sharia law?
Throughout history every time religion and politics get mixed together there have been problems such as Genocide, torture,or massive ignorance (Middle ages).The founders of the United States understood that, and tried very hard to keep religion separate from government.
Al Lewis (Al's Emporium Column) wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that was also published in the San Diego Union Tribune.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/al-lewis-questions-the-hobby-lobby-ruling-1404606315
Al also believes that this latest ruling is a "slippery slope" and that corporations provide a shield behind which bad businessmen can hide. Yes corporations can be fined, but, as he says, it is pretty hard to execute a corporation, or put one in jail.
It is also not clear to me how either the Hobby Lobby or Citizen's United rulings affect international corporations or foreign corporations. Can a foreign "closely held" corporation opt out of certain medical provisions? Can an international corporation contribute funds to political campaigns?
Monday, June 30, 2014
PINs, passwords and a feeling of high-tech disconnect - Los Angeles Times
Steve Lopez wrote a good column on Sunday complaining about the requirements for passwords.
PINs, passwords and a feeling of high-tech disconnect - Los Angeles Times:
I concur with Steve. It does seem that there are far too many things now that require passwords. There are some technological solutions when surfing the internet, such as using Roboform, keepass, last pass etc so you only need one password. However that doesn't seem to solve all of the other password-protected situations, such as pins at banks, computer log-ons, voicemail services etc. Because hackers can break simple codes, we are instructed to use very long complex passwords with upper/lower case, numbers, and symbols. We're also told to use a different password for each occasion so that if one gets compromised all of our other accounts will still be protected. All of that makes it extremely difficult to keep track of. The experts also suggest that we not write down the passwords because if someone finds the note, everything will be compromised. To add insult to injury, many sites also require the passwords to be changed every 60 to 90 days. Nobody has ever been able to explain the value of frequent password changes to me.
It seems to me that one of the best techniques is the "token" device (typically made by RSA) that generates a 6-digit code that is added (concatenated) to a fixed PIN when loggin on. Several companies now use apps that run on smartphones that also generate 6-digit codes. Google has their "authenticator" app, for example.
I would like to see ONE system become somewhat standard for all log-ons using some sort of a token or smartphone app. I had hoped that RSA would have made their token technology free to all other applications, so that if someone had a token (such as from their company, or E-Trade), that they could then use that token when signing on to many other websites. I even bought stock in RSA (which got bought out by another company). However RSA refused to share tokens issued by one company with other companies -- so many users ended up having to carry multiple tokens on their keychain -- what a mess! RSA also seemed to get "greedy" and began to gouge users on the price for their tokens. They tried to emulate Gillette who famously: "Gave away razors and sold the blades." --They wanted to make a lot of money by charging high prices for a couple dollar token that needed to be replaced for new batteries every couple of years.
Because of RSA's marketing tactics, the token industry fragmented and there appears to be no really easy solution.
'
PINs, passwords and a feeling of high-tech disconnect - Los Angeles Times:
I concur with Steve. It does seem that there are far too many things now that require passwords. There are some technological solutions when surfing the internet, such as using Roboform, keepass, last pass etc so you only need one password. However that doesn't seem to solve all of the other password-protected situations, such as pins at banks, computer log-ons, voicemail services etc. Because hackers can break simple codes, we are instructed to use very long complex passwords with upper/lower case, numbers, and symbols. We're also told to use a different password for each occasion so that if one gets compromised all of our other accounts will still be protected. All of that makes it extremely difficult to keep track of. The experts also suggest that we not write down the passwords because if someone finds the note, everything will be compromised. To add insult to injury, many sites also require the passwords to be changed every 60 to 90 days. Nobody has ever been able to explain the value of frequent password changes to me.
It seems to me that one of the best techniques is the "token" device (typically made by RSA) that generates a 6-digit code that is added (concatenated) to a fixed PIN when loggin on. Several companies now use apps that run on smartphones that also generate 6-digit codes. Google has their "authenticator" app, for example.
I would like to see ONE system become somewhat standard for all log-ons using some sort of a token or smartphone app. I had hoped that RSA would have made their token technology free to all other applications, so that if someone had a token (such as from their company, or E-Trade), that they could then use that token when signing on to many other websites. I even bought stock in RSA (which got bought out by another company). However RSA refused to share tokens issued by one company with other companies -- so many users ended up having to carry multiple tokens on their keychain -- what a mess! RSA also seemed to get "greedy" and began to gouge users on the price for their tokens. They tried to emulate Gillette who famously: "Gave away razors and sold the blades." --They wanted to make a lot of money by charging high prices for a couple dollar token that needed to be replaced for new batteries every couple of years.
Because of RSA's marketing tactics, the token industry fragmented and there appears to be no really easy solution.
'
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments against Obamacare
Michael Hiltzik had an excellent column in Sunday June 29th LA Times Business section.
Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments against Obamacare - Los Angeles Times:
He points out how ridiculous it is that so many people seem to have a "knee jerk" negative reaction to the mention of Obamacare. When people are asked for opinions about the various provisions of the act, they have positive responses, but when addressing the whole affordable care act they are negative. From the statistics so far, it appears that the act has been successful. We now have many of the people who previously were "freeloaders" now signed up and paying, at least a little bit, towards their own health care insurance.
It appears that Fox News and the other Rupert Murdoch publications as well as Conservative talk radio has been able to brainwash people into not looking at the facts in the situation. That same group still believes in the "death panel" rumors that the right-wingers started years ago --even though there is no truth to them.
The problem with communicating the success of the program to the public is that the statistics are difficult to assemble, complicated to understand and require some serious thought. It doesn't fit into the "sound bite" way that most Americans seem to absorb their news.
Thank you Michael Hiltzik for pointing out this problem!
Healthcare debate lacks factual arguments against Obamacare - Los Angeles Times:
He points out how ridiculous it is that so many people seem to have a "knee jerk" negative reaction to the mention of Obamacare. When people are asked for opinions about the various provisions of the act, they have positive responses, but when addressing the whole affordable care act they are negative. From the statistics so far, it appears that the act has been successful. We now have many of the people who previously were "freeloaders" now signed up and paying, at least a little bit, towards their own health care insurance.
It appears that Fox News and the other Rupert Murdoch publications as well as Conservative talk radio has been able to brainwash people into not looking at the facts in the situation. That same group still believes in the "death panel" rumors that the right-wingers started years ago --even though there is no truth to them.
The problem with communicating the success of the program to the public is that the statistics are difficult to assemble, complicated to understand and require some serious thought. It doesn't fit into the "sound bite" way that most Americans seem to absorb their news.
Thank you Michael Hiltzik for pointing out this problem!
Sunday, June 15, 2014
$40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable - Los Angeles Times
David Willman (Pulitzer Prize winning journalist) wrote an excellent article about the problems with the US Missile Defense System.
$40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable - Los Angeles Times:
It was interesting because just the day before, I read an editorial in a few month-old copy of the MOAA magazine that complained that the Government needed to make an even stronger commitment to fully funding the Missile Defense.
I understand that missile defense is a VERY difficult engineering job. However the efforts to develop a system has been going on for decades with only limited success. It seems crazy to start production of a system before the R&D effort can demonstrate that they have a system that will work. However, most of the "long poles" in the typical development are site preparation, and production of the actual launch vehicles. The complex and risky part of the development is in the hardware and software that sits on top of the missile. That hardware and software can often be developed quickly once the problems are solved. So from that sense, maybe the strategy makes sense.
However, my experience in dealing with engineers in that MDA organization is that they have a very strange "culture" I've worked with Navy, the NRO, and Air Force space programs for almost 40 years, but MDA is very different! I think their management and risk-management system may have evolved from the Army, which has less experience with space. -- Even when dealing with fully cleared, need-to-know associates, they tend to play their cards close to their chest, and are not open to discussion or alternatives. I've often wondered if their management style and "culture" is what has kept them from achieving success.
$40-billion missile defense system proves unreliable - Los Angeles Times:
It was interesting because just the day before, I read an editorial in a few month-old copy of the MOAA magazine that complained that the Government needed to make an even stronger commitment to fully funding the Missile Defense.
I understand that missile defense is a VERY difficult engineering job. However the efforts to develop a system has been going on for decades with only limited success. It seems crazy to start production of a system before the R&D effort can demonstrate that they have a system that will work. However, most of the "long poles" in the typical development are site preparation, and production of the actual launch vehicles. The complex and risky part of the development is in the hardware and software that sits on top of the missile. That hardware and software can often be developed quickly once the problems are solved. So from that sense, maybe the strategy makes sense.
However, my experience in dealing with engineers in that MDA organization is that they have a very strange "culture" I've worked with Navy, the NRO, and Air Force space programs for almost 40 years, but MDA is very different! I think their management and risk-management system may have evolved from the Army, which has less experience with space. -- Even when dealing with fully cleared, need-to-know associates, they tend to play their cards close to their chest, and are not open to discussion or alternatives. I've often wondered if their management style and "culture" is what has kept them from achieving success.
Private Data Brokers Know Too Much About You - WSJ
Al Lewis, columnist for Wall Street Journal, pointed out in this article that we should not trust owners of these huge databases.
Private Data Brokers Know Too Much About You - WSJ:
The Federal Trade commission just released their report on data brokers. I agree with the recommendations completely -- they are a good first step.
I think that the law should be expanded to cover more than just data brokers like Axiom. It should also include every company that maintains a database that holds personally identified data. That data includes magazine subscriptions, loyalty cards, tolling data, credit card sales, library book borrowing etc.
Private Data Brokers Know Too Much About You - WSJ:
The Federal Trade commission just released their report on data brokers. I agree with the recommendations completely -- they are a good first step.
I think that the law should be expanded to cover more than just data brokers like Axiom. It should also include every company that maintains a database that holds personally identified data. That data includes magazine subscriptions, loyalty cards, tolling data, credit card sales, library book borrowing etc.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
More on 'Dad, Rush Limbaugh and Me' - Los Angeles Times
Madeline Janis wrote an op-ed article in August 18, 2013 LA Times that described how her father became a fan of Rush Limbaugh and how that created strife in her relationship with her father. There were many postings and a follow on set of editorials that showed that others also had a similar experience with their older parents:
More on 'Dad, Rush Limbaugh and Me' - Los Angeles Times:
My wife's father, Henry, also had the same thing happen to him. He was always an outdoorsman, and an environmentalist. However, after listening to Rush, he was gradually won over. Listening to Rush was almost like an obsession. His conversations always seemed to move to political subjects and positions that Rush took. He suddenly became bigoted against women, other races, and gays. In fact, he wrote an editorial that was published in his local newspaper that condemned gays. That article offended his wife's son and daughter-in-law who have a gay son, and they no longer spoke to Henry for his final 10 years of life.
I always wondered how the well-educated and informed citizens of Japan or Germany could have fallen for the right-wing positions taken by their politicians prior to World War II. It seems impossible for me to comprehend how both countries which were based upon peace-loving religions could become blood-thirsty killing machines. But it happened. Now I can see! With very careful control of media, a radical right-wing ideology can spread, and blind people to reason. I worry that Rush Limbaugh and his types, combined with the enormous power of Rupert Murdoch's media empire could push the US into a similar situation.
More on 'Dad, Rush Limbaugh and Me' - Los Angeles Times:
My wife's father, Henry, also had the same thing happen to him. He was always an outdoorsman, and an environmentalist. However, after listening to Rush, he was gradually won over. Listening to Rush was almost like an obsession. His conversations always seemed to move to political subjects and positions that Rush took. He suddenly became bigoted against women, other races, and gays. In fact, he wrote an editorial that was published in his local newspaper that condemned gays. That article offended his wife's son and daughter-in-law who have a gay son, and they no longer spoke to Henry for his final 10 years of life.
I always wondered how the well-educated and informed citizens of Japan or Germany could have fallen for the right-wing positions taken by their politicians prior to World War II. It seems impossible for me to comprehend how both countries which were based upon peace-loving religions could become blood-thirsty killing machines. But it happened. Now I can see! With very careful control of media, a radical right-wing ideology can spread, and blind people to reason. I worry that Rush Limbaugh and his types, combined with the enormous power of Rupert Murdoch's media empire could push the US into a similar situation.
Richard Branson and James Cameron want to save the high seas - Los Angeles Times
Richard Branson and James Cameron wrote an editorial that was published in the LA Times in August 2013
Richard Branson and James Cameron want to save the high seas - Los Angeles Times: (also on Virgin's web site here)
I'm convinced that we need international laws for controlling the seas, along with power to enforce those laws. The UN is the place to do it!
The US has continually been the main opposition to a new high seas agreement for the UN. Apparently the US Republican groups are opposed to giving the UN any authority over the global oceans, and those groups, along with pharmaceutical and plastic companies are big contributors to influential congressmen and senators who have fought against any new ocean protection treaties.
Somehow, I would think there has to be some common ground to protect the ocean --and the planet. I'm glad that Branson and Cameron have taken a stand. However, it will take many more leaders to also step forward to get the action the world needs!
Richard Branson and James Cameron want to save the high seas - Los Angeles Times: (also on Virgin's web site here)
I'm convinced that we need international laws for controlling the seas, along with power to enforce those laws. The UN is the place to do it!
The US has continually been the main opposition to a new high seas agreement for the UN. Apparently the US Republican groups are opposed to giving the UN any authority over the global oceans, and those groups, along with pharmaceutical and plastic companies are big contributors to influential congressmen and senators who have fought against any new ocean protection treaties.
Somehow, I would think there has to be some common ground to protect the ocean --and the planet. I'm glad that Branson and Cameron have taken a stand. However, it will take many more leaders to also step forward to get the action the world needs!
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times
In today's LA Times, Saree Makdisi presents a good case why Israel should be described as an apartheid country. Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times: I thought his argument was reasonable, and was based upon the international legal definitions.
Michael Oren, a previous Israeli ambassador to the US wrote a response to the argument, ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html ) which quibbled about the terms involved in the definition of Apartheid. The overarching argument he presented was that Israel still feels that they are "at war" with the Arabs, and that absolves their treatment of all non-Jews. During Apartheid, the South African government also felt that they were "at war" with the black majority. They were trying to defend "their way of life" from the masses of their country. It isn't clear what the difference is.
During Apartheid in South Africa, the US could have done a lot to stop it. However our government generally sided with the South African Government. Israel, and the US helped the Government of South Africa and refused for a long time to support the anti-apartheid movement. Israel and the US helped provide weapons to South Africa, and the US refused to sign UN documents which defined and condemned Apartheid.
Many people describe Israel as a friend of the US. But while they accept our billions of dollars in foreign aid, they are the only country in that region who has continually spied on our government, stolen our corporate trade secrets, and has attacked our military ships. We ask them to quit building "settlements" and they snub their nose at us. I wouldn't call that a "friendship" --more like a parasite. They seem to want to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons, while they maintain their own -- which is one of the reasons that everyone else in the region feels they need them. I think we need some "tough love" in dealing with Israel. I wish the US Jews would see it that way too. They have made it illegal for US citizens to donate money to any cause but their own.
Michael Oren, a previous Israeli ambassador to the US wrote a response to the argument, ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html ) which quibbled about the terms involved in the definition of Apartheid. The overarching argument he presented was that Israel still feels that they are "at war" with the Arabs, and that absolves their treatment of all non-Jews. During Apartheid, the South African government also felt that they were "at war" with the black majority. They were trying to defend "their way of life" from the masses of their country. It isn't clear what the difference is.
During Apartheid in South Africa, the US could have done a lot to stop it. However our government generally sided with the South African Government. Israel, and the US helped the Government of South Africa and refused for a long time to support the anti-apartheid movement. Israel and the US helped provide weapons to South Africa, and the US refused to sign UN documents which defined and condemned Apartheid.
Many people describe Israel as a friend of the US. But while they accept our billions of dollars in foreign aid, they are the only country in that region who has continually spied on our government, stolen our corporate trade secrets, and has attacked our military ships. We ask them to quit building "settlements" and they snub their nose at us. I wouldn't call that a "friendship" --more like a parasite. They seem to want to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons, while they maintain their own -- which is one of the reasons that everyone else in the region feels they need them. I think we need some "tough love" in dealing with Israel. I wish the US Jews would see it that way too. They have made it illegal for US citizens to donate money to any cause but their own.
Use of license plate photo databases is raising privacy concerns - Los Angeles Times
I knew that Government police agencies were tracking license plates. But I didn't realize there were so many private businesses doing the same thing.
Use of license plate photo databases is raising privacy concerns - Los Angeles Times:
Again, I think that these database collections are a valuable tool for police and businesses. I also don't think this sort of data collection necessarily violates our Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers pretty much knew where everyone was in their community, and recognized everyone on sight, or by the horse they rode.
However there should be some sort of registration to maintain such a data base, requiring a license, inspection, and controls on them to protect everyone.
Use of license plate photo databases is raising privacy concerns - Los Angeles Times:
Again, I think that these database collections are a valuable tool for police and businesses. I also don't think this sort of data collection necessarily violates our Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers pretty much knew where everyone was in their community, and recognized everyone on sight, or by the horse they rode.
However there should be some sort of registration to maintain such a data base, requiring a license, inspection, and controls on them to protect everyone.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Truth in Media Reporting or Advertising
Do advertisers have to tell the truth? Do newspapers, radio and television have to tell the truth? Does our constitutionally-protected right to free speech permit us to lie when using public media? Who can we trust?
I find it interesting that we have such a large variety of rules concerning "free speech" in the US.
The US Supreme court is hearing a case which could end up allowing political advertisements to lie as much as they want. However, there are already rules that require media to publish "opposing viewpoints" when not a paid ad. There is a bill in congress to allow travel companies to lie about their prices: See this article by Christopher Elliott for USA Today I hate the way the airlines are now pricing their fares, with so many add-ons --sometimes with surprises at the airport! Clearly not a fair system of competition!
However drug and medical device manufacturers must tell the truth about their products, and must provide all of the contraindications and side effects as part of their advertising. Most consumer products must also tell the truth about their products.
It seems to me that when someone uses a Government-regulated medium for communication with the public that there should be some sort of regulation concerning reasonable truth. Broadcast radio & TV are obviously candidates for that rule, but what about cable TV & internet? What about newspapers? There are many newspapers and magazines which continually lie or clearly "stretch" the truth far beyond a reasonable amount.
Google recently removed misleading ads by anti-abortion groups which tried to hook women who were looking for abortion providers into counseling. Should it be legal to post misleading ads? Or should it be legal for a media (internet, newspapers, TV & radio) to refuse to publish misleading ads? Craigslist and Google were forced to remove ads and links to advertisers of illegal drugs and prostitution. Why doesn't that violate free speech?
If the US puts restrictions on lying in the media, what is to stop those companies from lying in their advertisements on international web sites and media? Do we need international regulation and policing of media for truth? Or do we remove all regulation and let the reader, viewer or listener decide for themselves?
I find it interesting that we have such a large variety of rules concerning "free speech" in the US.
The US Supreme court is hearing a case which could end up allowing political advertisements to lie as much as they want. However, there are already rules that require media to publish "opposing viewpoints" when not a paid ad. There is a bill in congress to allow travel companies to lie about their prices: See this article by Christopher Elliott for USA Today I hate the way the airlines are now pricing their fares, with so many add-ons --sometimes with surprises at the airport! Clearly not a fair system of competition!
However drug and medical device manufacturers must tell the truth about their products, and must provide all of the contraindications and side effects as part of their advertising. Most consumer products must also tell the truth about their products.
It seems to me that when someone uses a Government-regulated medium for communication with the public that there should be some sort of regulation concerning reasonable truth. Broadcast radio & TV are obviously candidates for that rule, but what about cable TV & internet? What about newspapers? There are many newspapers and magazines which continually lie or clearly "stretch" the truth far beyond a reasonable amount.
Google recently removed misleading ads by anti-abortion groups which tried to hook women who were looking for abortion providers into counseling. Should it be legal to post misleading ads? Or should it be legal for a media (internet, newspapers, TV & radio) to refuse to publish misleading ads? Craigslist and Google were forced to remove ads and links to advertisers of illegal drugs and prostitution. Why doesn't that violate free speech?
If the US puts restrictions on lying in the media, what is to stop those companies from lying in their advertisements on international web sites and media? Do we need international regulation and policing of media for truth? Or do we remove all regulation and let the reader, viewer or listener decide for themselves?
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Brazilian president signs internet 'Bill of Rights' into law - SC Magazine
It appears that Brazil is taking a leadership role in internet privacy and freedoms.
Brazilian president signs internet 'Bill of Rights' into law - SC Magazine:
It is so sad that the US is abdicating leadership role on the internet. We invented it, and then attempted to destroy it.
Brazilian president signs internet 'Bill of Rights' into law - SC Magazine:
It is so sad that the US is abdicating leadership role on the internet. We invented it, and then attempted to destroy it.
Friday, April 18, 2014
Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com
It is interesting that now there will be another large database collected by car companies, that will be almost as interesting as the highway intersection camera data, security camera data, internet data, telephone data etc, and also as much of an invasion of our privacy.
This article by Johnathan Horn in today's Union Tribune describes a bill in the California State Senate to force auto companies to share the data they collect with car owners and car repair shops. The bill was introduced by Sen Bill Monning, a Democrat from Marin County.
Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com: The issue is extremely interesting because it involves so many aspects of law, privacy, security, and engineering. Also it is interesting to see the crazy mix of groups in the coalitions for, and against the bill. The AAA is in favor of it, but the NAACP is against it, along with the car companies.
This bill in the State legislature could set some precedents for other states. Eventually it probably will need to be addressed by Federal legislation
This article by Johnathan Horn in today's Union Tribune describes a bill in the California State Senate to force auto companies to share the data they collect with car owners and car repair shops. The bill was introduced by Sen Bill Monning, a Democrat from Marin County.
Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com: The issue is extremely interesting because it involves so many aspects of law, privacy, security, and engineering. Also it is interesting to see the crazy mix of groups in the coalitions for, and against the bill. The AAA is in favor of it, but the NAACP is against it, along with the car companies.
This bill in the State legislature could set some precedents for other states. Eventually it probably will need to be addressed by Federal legislation
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Old Bold Pilots in Oceanside
My Friend, Rich Wendt, just sent me an article from Air & Space Magazine about the Old, Bold Pilot's association that meets at a local Oceanside Dennys each Wednesday. There are a lot of real heroes in that bunch! From the article I learned that Dick Lyons is part of the group--Not only a great pilot, a Seal, but also served as our City of Oceanside Mayor for years.
I also found out that the group has their own web site: http://www.oldboldpilots.org/
and there is an Old Bold Pilot group in Palm Springs area with their website: http://oldboldpilots.
Also, there was an article int he SAn Diego Union Tribune on Thursday about the Old Bold Pilots: see this link
I also found out that the group has their own web site: http://www.oldboldpilots.org/
and there is an Old Bold Pilot group in Palm Springs area with their website: http://oldboldpilots.
Also, there was an article int he SAn Diego Union Tribune on Thursday about the Old Bold Pilots: see this link
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Uber faces backlash from new Luddites | UTSanDiego.com
I've never been a big fan of Cab companies or City regulation of cab companies. I do believe there were efficiencies in having large cab companies, because they could position cabs at optimum locations for customers, and could install and operate good, modern centralized dispatch centers. Times and technology have changed that. Yes, some regulation is necessary to protect the public from unsafe cabs and fare gouging. Current City regulation seems to go further, however and involves granting a monopoly to cab companies, and allowing them to exercise monopoly pricing. With no competition, they can always argue for higher prices. The City usually profits from the arrangement by collecting significant "franchise fees" from the cab company operators. This franchise fee is just another form of tax on the public, since the public must pay the fee as it is passed on to them in the fares.
What has been the result of this arrangement? It appears that there are far too many cabs and cab drivers on the street -- at least in some locations. Drivers can spend hours waiting in line for an opportunity to get a fare. It has also gone the other way --with "medallions" selling for a million dollars or more in NY City. Both of these situations are signs of extreme inefficiency. In other cases, the Cab Companies are so powerful that they are able to restrict all competition. Some cities (such as in Mexico) restrict buses from stopping at airports to force travelers to use cabs. City planners have been strong-armed by cab companies to restrict having light rail traffic going to airports (SFO for years, LAX still doesn't have light rail, SDO only has busses). We were impressed that on Langkawi Malaysia that the cab companies have fought to prevent any buses from operating on the island, even thought it appears that a bus system would be much more efficient.
Now technology breakthroughs are starting to make the traditional cab company partially obsolete. Handheld smartphone technology from Uber, Lyft & Sidecar have eliminated the need for the large cab company and heavy-handed City regulation. The technology avoids the need for central dispatch, and uses supply & demand to optimize locations of "cab stands" However the cab companies (and drivers) are trying to fight back to maintain status quo Greenhut wrote a good article this morning that points out some of the futile attempts in the US and France: Uber faces backlash from new Luddites | UTSanDiego.com:
I sympathize with the cab drivers. It isn't a "fun" job, and it is somewhat dangerous. Yes, they also deserve to earn a "living wage" for the long hours of work they put in. Some of them are in danger of losing their jobs due to this new technology. However Uber, Lyft and Sidecar use drivers, so total number of jobs aren't being eliminated. Only the jobs working for the large cab companies are being affected. Those companies are using every financial and political trick possible to try and maintain the current system. As described in Greenhuts' editorial, they try to use safety as an argument. Of course the tax revenue they produce and the favors they provide to politicians are also part of their toolbox. They will also try to take advantage of organized labor, when necessary to help them maintain their monopoly.
Eventually, there probably won't be any cab drivers, and we will be going to computer driven cars.
In recent history there have been other "revolutions" like this. When the barcode came out on grocery store products, the grocery unions fought against it because it required fewer employees in a store to keep prices on products, operate the check out registers, and perform inventories. In some Cities and states, they were successful at passing laws against it. However now that the technology is firmly entrenched, all consumers benefit through lower costs, and more selection in stores. Self-serve gas stations were a threat to service station employees, and some states passed laws to prevent self-service stations. Last time I went through Oregon, they still had that law on the books. Now it seems like such a waste for an employee to be standing around waiting for a customer, and then the customer to be standing around doing nothing while the attendant pumps the gas. The Video and Music Recording Industry did everything in their power to stop electronic distribution of their products. Now, in less than 10 years, almost all music and video is distributed electronically. Yes possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs have been eliminated. No need to manufacture video tapes, CDs or DVDs, package, ship, inventory or sell them. However, now the consumer has an almost unlimited inventory of music and videos to choose from at significantly lower cost. Why not allow the cab industry to also evolve in a similar fashion to a more efficient and convenient system?
What has been the result of this arrangement? It appears that there are far too many cabs and cab drivers on the street -- at least in some locations. Drivers can spend hours waiting in line for an opportunity to get a fare. It has also gone the other way --with "medallions" selling for a million dollars or more in NY City. Both of these situations are signs of extreme inefficiency. In other cases, the Cab Companies are so powerful that they are able to restrict all competition. Some cities (such as in Mexico) restrict buses from stopping at airports to force travelers to use cabs. City planners have been strong-armed by cab companies to restrict having light rail traffic going to airports (SFO for years, LAX still doesn't have light rail, SDO only has busses). We were impressed that on Langkawi Malaysia that the cab companies have fought to prevent any buses from operating on the island, even thought it appears that a bus system would be much more efficient.
Now technology breakthroughs are starting to make the traditional cab company partially obsolete. Handheld smartphone technology from Uber, Lyft & Sidecar have eliminated the need for the large cab company and heavy-handed City regulation. The technology avoids the need for central dispatch, and uses supply & demand to optimize locations of "cab stands" However the cab companies (and drivers) are trying to fight back to maintain status quo Greenhut wrote a good article this morning that points out some of the futile attempts in the US and France: Uber faces backlash from new Luddites | UTSanDiego.com:
I sympathize with the cab drivers. It isn't a "fun" job, and it is somewhat dangerous. Yes, they also deserve to earn a "living wage" for the long hours of work they put in. Some of them are in danger of losing their jobs due to this new technology. However Uber, Lyft and Sidecar use drivers, so total number of jobs aren't being eliminated. Only the jobs working for the large cab companies are being affected. Those companies are using every financial and political trick possible to try and maintain the current system. As described in Greenhuts' editorial, they try to use safety as an argument. Of course the tax revenue they produce and the favors they provide to politicians are also part of their toolbox. They will also try to take advantage of organized labor, when necessary to help them maintain their monopoly.
Eventually, there probably won't be any cab drivers, and we will be going to computer driven cars.
In recent history there have been other "revolutions" like this. When the barcode came out on grocery store products, the grocery unions fought against it because it required fewer employees in a store to keep prices on products, operate the check out registers, and perform inventories. In some Cities and states, they were successful at passing laws against it. However now that the technology is firmly entrenched, all consumers benefit through lower costs, and more selection in stores. Self-serve gas stations were a threat to service station employees, and some states passed laws to prevent self-service stations. Last time I went through Oregon, they still had that law on the books. Now it seems like such a waste for an employee to be standing around waiting for a customer, and then the customer to be standing around doing nothing while the attendant pumps the gas. The Video and Music Recording Industry did everything in their power to stop electronic distribution of their products. Now, in less than 10 years, almost all music and video is distributed electronically. Yes possibly hundreds of thousands of jobs have been eliminated. No need to manufacture video tapes, CDs or DVDs, package, ship, inventory or sell them. However, now the consumer has an almost unlimited inventory of music and videos to choose from at significantly lower cost. Why not allow the cab industry to also evolve in a similar fashion to a more efficient and convenient system?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)