Sunday, December 6, 2015
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Who owns & controls crime scene video?
From USA Today
Chicago shooting video tampered with, Burger King manager says
http://usat.ly/1jqdBy2
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Maybe the loss of religion isn't really the cause of our modern problems?
I've often been irritated when some of the religious right-wingers complain that many of our problems are due to the loss of religious beliefs. Some say that if we had more prayer in schools, the kids would be better students, or have less violence. They never seem to have any evidence for their assertions.
There was an opinion piece in the November 1, 2015 Los Angeles Times by Phil Zuckerman titled "Don't blame secularism for modern society's ills" that refuted those right wing statements. He pointed out that the countries of the world with the highest "secularism" also have the highest rates of violence. Likewise the US states that have the highest amounts of religious followers also have higher rates of violent crime and other indicators of "helping our neighbors"..
Throughout world history, it seems that more people have been killed or tortured due in some part to belief in some religion. It is hard to imagine how different sects of Christianity could kill each other as they did during the battles between Catholics and Protestants. Even more difficult to comprehend the violent hatred between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. It only points out to me that as a nation, and as a member of the world society we need to do everything we can to keep religion and government politics separate with a clear "firewall" between them. Religious organizations should be prohibited from participating or advocating politicians or governmental positions. Governments should be restricted from allowing any vestige of a religion as part of doing their business. That should certainly include restrictions on any form of prayer in their meetings, and from displaying any religious saying, symbol, or icon as part of their operation.
Note at bottom of Article in LA Times: Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociobiology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont and the author of "Living the Secular Life"
There was an opinion piece in the November 1, 2015 Los Angeles Times by Phil Zuckerman titled "Don't blame secularism for modern society's ills" that refuted those right wing statements. He pointed out that the countries of the world with the highest "secularism" also have the highest rates of violence. Likewise the US states that have the highest amounts of religious followers also have higher rates of violent crime and other indicators of "helping our neighbors"..
Throughout world history, it seems that more people have been killed or tortured due in some part to belief in some religion. It is hard to imagine how different sects of Christianity could kill each other as they did during the battles between Catholics and Protestants. Even more difficult to comprehend the violent hatred between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. It only points out to me that as a nation, and as a member of the world society we need to do everything we can to keep religion and government politics separate with a clear "firewall" between them. Religious organizations should be prohibited from participating or advocating politicians or governmental positions. Governments should be restricted from allowing any vestige of a religion as part of doing their business. That should certainly include restrictions on any form of prayer in their meetings, and from displaying any religious saying, symbol, or icon as part of their operation.
Note at bottom of Article in LA Times: Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociobiology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont and the author of "Living the Secular Life"
Friday, October 16, 2015
CIA Used Waterboarding on more people than originally admitted
There was an article in Guardian Today (16 Oct 2015) by Spencer Ackerman that said that the CIA now admits they used "enhanced techniques" on prisoners called "Water Dousing" that is different than "Waterboarding" -- so yes, they did it to more people than they originally admitted. The description in this article does make it sound a little different -- but maybe even more severe!
It amazes me that the CIA can be permitted to lie and withhold information from their supervisors in Congress. I think any of those activities were clearly considered against the law. The fact that the US practiced "Rendition" by taking prisoners to other countries actually made it worse. First of all the fact that the US was in charge, made it a US crime wherever it was done -- spare the "technical details" of what might have been legal in the other country. Secondly, we exposed those other countries to being accused of participating in the crime of torture. Finally, as US citizens the perpetrators had to know that what they were doing was illegal by US and international law. Yes, they had some lawyer in the administration write up some CYA document that had findings that it was not torture. But just because a lawyer writes a document doesn't "make it so."
As far as I know, no US citizen who participated in the torture or rendition has been prosecuted for a crime.
I realize they could argue it was a means to an end. They were forced to torture these prisoners in order to "save the world" or at least "save the US from imminent acts of terrorism. Maybe they did extract information that actually stopped a plan to inflict serious damage or injury upon a large number of people. But we have not heard anything about that. It appears more likely that the torture was done as a form of punishment to set an example to other terrorists that they might be tortured also if they attacked the US. If so, it is just another form of terrorism conducted by the US -- inflicting injury to a few to frighten many into conforming. That is not the American way!
The other things I can't understand include the length of time they spent torturing the prisoners --over periods of many years! What kind of information were they trying to extract? Confessions? If so why? In Majid Kahn's case did they want him to admit that as a gas station attendant for his father, that he was planning to blow up the US petroleum industry? Even more absurd, they wouldn't allow him to say how he was tortured, because it was a "state secret?" --
It amazes me that the CIA can be permitted to lie and withhold information from their supervisors in Congress. I think any of those activities were clearly considered against the law. The fact that the US practiced "Rendition" by taking prisoners to other countries actually made it worse. First of all the fact that the US was in charge, made it a US crime wherever it was done -- spare the "technical details" of what might have been legal in the other country. Secondly, we exposed those other countries to being accused of participating in the crime of torture. Finally, as US citizens the perpetrators had to know that what they were doing was illegal by US and international law. Yes, they had some lawyer in the administration write up some CYA document that had findings that it was not torture. But just because a lawyer writes a document doesn't "make it so."
As far as I know, no US citizen who participated in the torture or rendition has been prosecuted for a crime.
I realize they could argue it was a means to an end. They were forced to torture these prisoners in order to "save the world" or at least "save the US from imminent acts of terrorism. Maybe they did extract information that actually stopped a plan to inflict serious damage or injury upon a large number of people. But we have not heard anything about that. It appears more likely that the torture was done as a form of punishment to set an example to other terrorists that they might be tortured also if they attacked the US. If so, it is just another form of terrorism conducted by the US -- inflicting injury to a few to frighten many into conforming. That is not the American way!
The other things I can't understand include the length of time they spent torturing the prisoners --over periods of many years! What kind of information were they trying to extract? Confessions? If so why? In Majid Kahn's case did they want him to admit that as a gas station attendant for his father, that he was planning to blow up the US petroleum industry? Even more absurd, they wouldn't allow him to say how he was tortured, because it was a "state secret?" --
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Toddlers and Guns
Christopher Ingram wrote a news report in the San Diego Union Tribune on 15 Oct 2015 that said that on an average of one time per week a toddler shoots someone. See this article I didn't find any information about any punishment for the gun owners when a child got their hands on a gun. Apparently there are no laws requiring people to keep guns out of children's hands?
There were several other commentaries about this situation -- all were interesting. See below:
http://gawker.com/report-american-toddlers-responsible-for-one-shooting-1736636148
http://wonkette.com/594880/good-toddlers-with-guns-protecting-america-from-tyranny-on-weekly-basis-now
https://www.rt.com/usa/318713-toddler-shooting-every-week/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/
It seems to me that the gun lobby should consider reasonable laws to protect people and children from such situations. They always talk about "responsible gun owners" -- but apparently all gun owners are not, necessarily responsible!
Update on October 18 2015 -- a six year old boy shot his 3 yr old brother: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/us/chicago-boy-accidentally-shoots-brother/
There were several other commentaries about this situation -- all were interesting. See below:
http://gawker.com/report-american-toddlers-responsible-for-one-shooting-1736636148
http://wonkette.com/594880/good-toddlers-with-guns-protecting-america-from-tyranny-on-weekly-basis-now
https://www.rt.com/usa/318713-toddler-shooting-every-week/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/
It seems to me that the gun lobby should consider reasonable laws to protect people and children from such situations. They always talk about "responsible gun owners" -- but apparently all gun owners are not, necessarily responsible!
Update on October 18 2015 -- a six year old boy shot his 3 yr old brother: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/19/us/chicago-boy-accidentally-shoots-brother/
Pair Beaten in Church to Confess
The October 15 Union Tribune had a report written by John Kekis about a New Hartford, NY family who beat their teenage sons at church until one died to supposedly extract some sort of confession out of them. See this article The members of the Word of Life Christian Church read the bible regularly and supposedly believed in the teachings of Christ. This is clearly an example of one of the reasons we need to make sure religion and government are totally separated. Throughout history, many religions have practiced different forms of torture including Catholics in many countries. Most recently the Bush/Cheney regime promoted torture and rendition to different countries in the futile hope of getting useful information. Of course, these same "pro-lifers" promoted the death penalty and liberalization of gun laws.
Anti Abortion clinics file suit against abortion info law
The governor signed AB775 that goes into effect in California on January 1, 2016 which requires anti-abortion clinics to also provide patients information about abortions. This article in the 15 October 2015 Union Tribune by Christopher Ingram says that the anti-abortion groups have filed a lawsuit complaining that it infringes on their religious freedom to have to tell pregnant women about abortion options. Those same groups all over the US have worked hard to force pro-choice organizations to provide counseling to patients concerning carrying their baby to term. Now that the law has tried to make it fair for both sides, they are claiming "religious freedom infringement" by being forced to explain the abortion option.
Maybe the pro-choice group needs to form a religion that advocates for abortion. That way they also can claim 'religious freedom" when the anti-abortionists try to force them to provide counseling.
The right-wingers claim their anti-abortion and anti-birth control position is based upon teachings of Christ. That connection is very weak. Most of the "theology" was created by monks who were most interested in increasing the population of Catholics to help spread the religion. At the time, people were an asset to the family, the community and the church. Now the rapidly increasing population of the world is a threat and liability to everyone. Of course, the "In God We Trust" group are probably trusting God to solve the problem with a dramatic "act of god" such as a worldwide cataclysm, a severe global plague, or maybe a nuclear holocaust? If not, meanwhile we are on our own. God has given us brains and ability to work together to solve problems. We should do it!
,
Maybe the pro-choice group needs to form a religion that advocates for abortion. That way they also can claim 'religious freedom" when the anti-abortionists try to force them to provide counseling.
The right-wingers claim their anti-abortion and anti-birth control position is based upon teachings of Christ. That connection is very weak. Most of the "theology" was created by monks who were most interested in increasing the population of Catholics to help spread the religion. At the time, people were an asset to the family, the community and the church. Now the rapidly increasing population of the world is a threat and liability to everyone. Of course, the "In God We Trust" group are probably trusting God to solve the problem with a dramatic "act of god" such as a worldwide cataclysm, a severe global plague, or maybe a nuclear holocaust? If not, meanwhile we are on our own. God has given us brains and ability to work together to solve problems. We should do it!
,
Thursday, October 1, 2015
Jeb Bush and "Slashing the Regulation Tax"
Jeb Bush had an Opinion article published in September 23rd Wall Street Journal entitled" How I'll Slash the Regulation Tax." His premise is that Federal Government regulations cost too much and destroy initiative to start new businesses. He states that he wants to help small businesses. Then later on in the article he says" As president, I'll repeal the coal ash rule, the clean water rule, net neutrality and much more." It isn't clear to me how any of those "repeals" will help small business. Repealing the coal ash rule, will certainly help "big coal" companies such as that of the Koch Brothers. Repealing the clean water rule, will probably kill off a lot of small businesses who sell and install equipment to clean water before it goes into the environment, it will also help big mines who have huge settling ponds of harmful chemicals. How does that help small businesses? He also wants to kill the "net neutrality rule" of the FCC which was designed to help small business start up on equal footing with the large telecoms. How can that possibly help small businesses.
Jeb also didn't mention the fact that the reason we had the huge downturn in the economy in 2008 was because we had no regulations concerning Credit Default Swap Derivatives. These securities "fell through a crack" in the regulation environment among the various agencies: SEC, HUD, etc, so when the large "too big to fail" banks got stuck with immense loses, it caused the whole economy to stall, and required the Government to bail them all out. We needed better, smarter regulation, but CEOs of some of the large institutions, such as Jamie Dimon of J.P.Morgan lobbied hard to keep it deregulated, and the Bush administration agreed. Now, Jeb Bush is complaining of the over regulation, just at the time that a former owner of a peanut farm went to prison for knowingly shipping peanuts contaminated with salmonella, and VW admitted that they had cheated on the tests of their diesel powered cars. Darrell Delamaide of USA Today also notes in an October 1st editorial that Bush picked a bad time to take this position, and it doesn't seem to be a position that most of the voters would understand or rally around
Regulations are a necessary evil. I like to think of regulations as "rules of the game." If the game of monopoly had no rules, everyone playing the game could dip into the money in the bank and buy as many hotels they wanted and collect from anyone. The game would no longer be fun, or fair! On the other hand, it is the Governments task to make sure the rules they pass are necessary, easy to follow, not conflicting, enforceable, and not impose burdensome costs. Regulations should not impact schedules too much either. It is ridiculous to have to wait 8 to 10 years for approval of a project. When a regulation is put in place, funding should be allocated to ensure that the regulators will be able to approve projects within reasonable time. In fact, the law should establish timelines under which the agency in charge of the regulation must meet or face some sort of sanction. I do agree with Jeb, that it is time to streamline some of the regulations, and it might be useful to form a commission to work through some of them. One of the biggest "regulations" is our tax law which does involve many conflicting regulations, immense amounts of written laws and instructions, and huge amounts of paperwork required by individuals and corporations. Streamlining our individual and corporate income taxes would be one of the best first steps of any administration interested in reducing the "regulation tax."
Jeb also didn't mention the fact that the reason we had the huge downturn in the economy in 2008 was because we had no regulations concerning Credit Default Swap Derivatives. These securities "fell through a crack" in the regulation environment among the various agencies: SEC, HUD, etc, so when the large "too big to fail" banks got stuck with immense loses, it caused the whole economy to stall, and required the Government to bail them all out. We needed better, smarter regulation, but CEOs of some of the large institutions, such as Jamie Dimon of J.P.Morgan lobbied hard to keep it deregulated, and the Bush administration agreed. Now, Jeb Bush is complaining of the over regulation, just at the time that a former owner of a peanut farm went to prison for knowingly shipping peanuts contaminated with salmonella, and VW admitted that they had cheated on the tests of their diesel powered cars. Darrell Delamaide of USA Today also notes in an October 1st editorial that Bush picked a bad time to take this position, and it doesn't seem to be a position that most of the voters would understand or rally around
Regulations are a necessary evil. I like to think of regulations as "rules of the game." If the game of monopoly had no rules, everyone playing the game could dip into the money in the bank and buy as many hotels they wanted and collect from anyone. The game would no longer be fun, or fair! On the other hand, it is the Governments task to make sure the rules they pass are necessary, easy to follow, not conflicting, enforceable, and not impose burdensome costs. Regulations should not impact schedules too much either. It is ridiculous to have to wait 8 to 10 years for approval of a project. When a regulation is put in place, funding should be allocated to ensure that the regulators will be able to approve projects within reasonable time. In fact, the law should establish timelines under which the agency in charge of the regulation must meet or face some sort of sanction. I do agree with Jeb, that it is time to streamline some of the regulations, and it might be useful to form a commission to work through some of them. One of the biggest "regulations" is our tax law which does involve many conflicting regulations, immense amounts of written laws and instructions, and huge amounts of paperwork required by individuals and corporations. Streamlining our individual and corporate income taxes would be one of the best first steps of any administration interested in reducing the "regulation tax."
Abortion and the Bible
Interesting article on Huffington Post by Dr. Joel Hoffman that explains that the bible really doesn't say anything about abortion. I had never seen, read, heard of any direct references against abortion in the bible, and always wondered where the right-wingers came up with their arguments that the bible (or Christ) advocated against abortion. Apparently it doesn't exist! I think it comes down to the "Thou Shalt not Kill" argument, and the belief that a fetus is a person. That argument is not presented anywhere in the bible. However, early theologians in the year 138 began to make the interpretation that abortion is killing. (see this link). The Church continued to evolve that theology throughout the years, and then later St. Thomas Aquinas took that a step further with his interpretation that birth control was also "killing" a baby, and thus a mortal sin. All of that theology, of course, was made with the thought that the church wanted their followers to have as many babies as possible to help spread their religion. More children represented more wealth for families at the time, so these theologies fit right in with the desires of the Pope and the church leaders to expand.
I don't have anything against people who believe that abortion is murder, and then not getting an abortion because of it. However I do object to people who want to force their beliefs on everyone else. If a Moslem woman believes she should cover her body with a chador, that is fine. However if her husband forces her to do it, that should be illegal. If a Muslim majority in a city, state, or country believe women should wear chadors, and forces all women, Muslim or not,to do so, it violates a woman's individual right. Similarly, if someone wants an abortion, they should be able to get one, and not be stopped by a minority or majority of people professing their religion, and forcing their beliefs on everyone else.
Yes, I have heard the argument that anti-abortionists give that they don't want "their money" to pay for someone else's abortion. They argue that if "their money" were used, it would be the same thing as performing the abortion themselves. The anti-abortionists then say that if any taxpayer money is involved, it ends up being some of "their money" being used, so no taxpayer money should be used. Having money "used" is a very "gray area" --if the taxpayer money pays the doctor who performs the abortion? Or if taxpayer money paid for the facility where the abortion is performed? Or if taxpayer money developed medications used for the abortion procedure? I may not want "my money" provided to churches that I don't believe in through tax exemptions and deductions. Is that "my money?"
I don't have anything against people who believe that abortion is murder, and then not getting an abortion because of it. However I do object to people who want to force their beliefs on everyone else. If a Moslem woman believes she should cover her body with a chador, that is fine. However if her husband forces her to do it, that should be illegal. If a Muslim majority in a city, state, or country believe women should wear chadors, and forces all women, Muslim or not,to do so, it violates a woman's individual right. Similarly, if someone wants an abortion, they should be able to get one, and not be stopped by a minority or majority of people professing their religion, and forcing their beliefs on everyone else.
Yes, I have heard the argument that anti-abortionists give that they don't want "their money" to pay for someone else's abortion. They argue that if "their money" were used, it would be the same thing as performing the abortion themselves. The anti-abortionists then say that if any taxpayer money is involved, it ends up being some of "their money" being used, so no taxpayer money should be used. Having money "used" is a very "gray area" --if the taxpayer money pays the doctor who performs the abortion? Or if taxpayer money paid for the facility where the abortion is performed? Or if taxpayer money developed medications used for the abortion procedure? I may not want "my money" provided to churches that I don't believe in through tax exemptions and deductions. Is that "my money?"
Sunday, August 30, 2015
200 Retired Generals Write President and Congress urging NO vote on treaty with Iran
I saw in the news that 200 retired generals are urging congress to vote NO on the treaty with Iran: -- see this link Here is a link to the content of their letter. This sounds like "Big News" -- but there are now about 4700 retired generals (see this link) so that only represents a little more than 4% of the retired US generals, so, from that standpoint, it isn't all that significant. It is interesting that the Iranians aren't advertising "in favor" of the agreement. Does our "free press" inhibit those advertisements from appearing? I'd also like to hear the opinions of the other 4500 retired generals, wouldn't you?
The letter sounded like the Israeli propaganda and paid advertising that Israel and various associated organizations have been pushing, so it is likely that the actual text of the letter was written by a few "pro-Israeli" organizations, or a retired general or two, and then they "arm twisted" the others to become signatories to the letter.
The Los Angeles Times editors this morning had a more reasonable, and well thought out argument in favor of the treaty: See this link I think I agree with their position, in this case.
I believe the Iran treaty could have put even more constraints on Iran, if we had insisted that Israel undergo the same sort of inspection and controls on their Nuclear and other WMD. Israel has threatened attacks on Iran many times, and has assassinated Iran's citizens and scientists when out of the country. Israel has shown aggressive and "first strike" military maneuvers many times throughout their history, so Iran has good reason to feel threatened. I think if I were an Iranian citizen, that I would certainly want my country to be armed to defend, in some way, against Israel. If I were in Iran's government, I believe I would try to make sure that my citizens were fully aware of the threats. I remember the "duck and cover" exercises we did in school during the 1950's and 60s in case of a nuclear attack. Do Iranian citizens do that now? In hindsight, I doubt if that exercise would have done much to save the lives of children in schools. However, I'm sure it did a lot to help form public opinion against the Soviet Union, and help justify expenditures of immense amounts of resources in defense.
The letter sounded like the Israeli propaganda and paid advertising that Israel and various associated organizations have been pushing, so it is likely that the actual text of the letter was written by a few "pro-Israeli" organizations, or a retired general or two, and then they "arm twisted" the others to become signatories to the letter.
The Los Angeles Times editors this morning had a more reasonable, and well thought out argument in favor of the treaty: See this link I think I agree with their position, in this case.
I believe the Iran treaty could have put even more constraints on Iran, if we had insisted that Israel undergo the same sort of inspection and controls on their Nuclear and other WMD. Israel has threatened attacks on Iran many times, and has assassinated Iran's citizens and scientists when out of the country. Israel has shown aggressive and "first strike" military maneuvers many times throughout their history, so Iran has good reason to feel threatened. I think if I were an Iranian citizen, that I would certainly want my country to be armed to defend, in some way, against Israel. If I were in Iran's government, I believe I would try to make sure that my citizens were fully aware of the threats. I remember the "duck and cover" exercises we did in school during the 1950's and 60s in case of a nuclear attack. Do Iranian citizens do that now? In hindsight, I doubt if that exercise would have done much to save the lives of children in schools. However, I'm sure it did a lot to help form public opinion against the Soviet Union, and help justify expenditures of immense amounts of resources in defense.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
What Happens if Senate Rejects the Iran Nuclear Treaty?
I saw this Op-Ed by Joseph Cirincione in today's LA Times, and I think I agree with his convincing arguments. What do you think? I believe the world needs this treaty. My feeling is reinforced when I see that the "big money" right-wingers are spending millions of dollars on paid advertising against the treaty and distorting the facts. (see this link or this one). I suspect that Israel or their supporters are behind the paid advertising, using, in some way, some of the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have "donated" to their country. Meanwhile, Israel maintains their own WMD including nuclear, chemical and possibly biological weapons, and is the only Middle East country who has attacked US naval ships (see this link) and routinely spies on the US (John Pollard, for example). Israel likes to say they are our friend and ally, but never provided any serious support when we needed help in Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Why should the US demand inspection of Iran's nuclear processing and weapons, when we don't do the same for Israel's?
Of course Iran should be angry with the US, we have severly mistreated Iran throughout history. Of course Iran should want nuclear weapons. All of their neighbors (Pakistan, India, Russia) as well as Israel have them. Also Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and their family when traveling outside of Iran (I don't know of any case when Iran has done the same to any Israeli scientists), and Israel launched an unprovoked cyber attack against Iran's nuclear processing industry. I don't know of any case where Iran has launched any attack of any sort against Israel. Those were clearly terrorist acts done by Israel, but Israel claims that Iran sponsors "state terrorism"...
Of course Iran should be angry with the US, we have severly mistreated Iran throughout history. Of course Iran should want nuclear weapons. All of their neighbors (Pakistan, India, Russia) as well as Israel have them. Also Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and their family when traveling outside of Iran (I don't know of any case when Iran has done the same to any Israeli scientists), and Israel launched an unprovoked cyber attack against Iran's nuclear processing industry. I don't know of any case where Iran has launched any attack of any sort against Israel. Those were clearly terrorist acts done by Israel, but Israel claims that Iran sponsors "state terrorism"...
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Release of John Pollard -- Shame for Israel or for American Jews?
There was a column in today's San Diego Union Tribune, by Noah Feldman (see this link) that was originally published by Bloomberg. Feldman's main point was that he was glad that Pollard was being released, because it was somewhat embarrassing for American Jews, who support Israel when Israel's government continually tries to get Pollard released. Feldman hopes that after Pollard is released the embarrassing complaints from Israel will stop. I hope that Israel, however won't stop "being embarrassed" by the fact that they were caught "red handed" spying on the US. It is one thing to spy on the US, but I think it is much worse to think that Israel then sold the US secrets to Russia. Do they really need more money when the US has continued to send money to Israel every year?
For some reason, Israel is often cited as a "US Ally." I don't believe that is exactly true. Alliances are supposed to work both ways: We help you; You help us. Israel has not provided significant material support in any of the US military initiatives. Did they have any military in Vietnam fighting alongside US troops? Did they help us significantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Bosnia? It seems like a "one way" friendship: We send Israel money, they steal our industrial secrets, spy on our Government, sink our ships, flaunt our requests for them to stop building settlements, etc. One of the most "evil" of Israel's aggression was when they sunk the USS Liberty, and tried to kill all of the US survivors in lifeboats. (see this link). As far as I know, Israel has NEVER apologized for attacking a US ship, and has claimed they thought the ship might have been Egyptian. Even if it was an Egyptian ship, would any nation ever attack survivors in a lifeboat? That appears to be standard Israel policy -- take no prisoners! Kill first, ask questions later! For the past decade or longer, Israel has had blockades against any aid getting to the residents of the Gaza strip, and has attacked or blockaded ships, aircraft and trucks attempting to take aid to them. Many more lives of dedicated NGO volunteers have been destroyed by their aggression. I suppose Israel-supporting American Jews aren't embarrassed by that?
For some reason, Israel is often cited as a "US Ally." I don't believe that is exactly true. Alliances are supposed to work both ways: We help you; You help us. Israel has not provided significant material support in any of the US military initiatives. Did they have any military in Vietnam fighting alongside US troops? Did they help us significantly in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Bosnia? It seems like a "one way" friendship: We send Israel money, they steal our industrial secrets, spy on our Government, sink our ships, flaunt our requests for them to stop building settlements, etc. One of the most "evil" of Israel's aggression was when they sunk the USS Liberty, and tried to kill all of the US survivors in lifeboats. (see this link). As far as I know, Israel has NEVER apologized for attacking a US ship, and has claimed they thought the ship might have been Egyptian. Even if it was an Egyptian ship, would any nation ever attack survivors in a lifeboat? That appears to be standard Israel policy -- take no prisoners! Kill first, ask questions later! For the past decade or longer, Israel has had blockades against any aid getting to the residents of the Gaza strip, and has attacked or blockaded ships, aircraft and trucks attempting to take aid to them. Many more lives of dedicated NGO volunteers have been destroyed by their aggression. I suppose Israel-supporting American Jews aren't embarrassed by that?
Israeli officer shoots Palestinian youth in the back, and lies about it!
An article by Peter Beaumont in today's "The Guardian" (see this link) describes how video at the scene of a shooting of Mohammed Kasbeh, a 17 yr old Palestinian boy by an Israeli Army Colonel, Yisrael Shomer, contradicts what the Colonel said. Colonel Shomer said he thought his life was endangered by the rock-throwing youth, but apparently the youth was running away, and the Colonel shot him in the back. He then kicked the body and drove off, offering no medical help. It is clear that video recording is starting to bring out the truth in many police and military actions, and hopefully will help bring about a new era of civility among everyone. Police, Military and Civilians should be always thinking that whatever we say or do, our actions and words are probably being recorded by someone. If we do something wrong, the video evidence will make it difficult to deny.
Israel's military and police have continually been unjust towards the Palestinians, whether living within Israel, or in the neighboring territories. The actions and words of Israel's high ranking leaders and the high-ranking military officers set the tone for all of the civilians and military. This action by an Israeli Colonel clearly demonstrates that Israelis have little regard for the lives of Palestinians. Israel also been somewhat bad neighbors to adjoining countries. Many times, Israel has attacked neighboring countries before being attacked, or attacked other countries based upon some very minor incursion from the other side. When Israel does attack their neighbors, they seem to always try to extract 10 times the amount of damages and deaths as they have lost. I feel certain that Israel's "Ten eyes for an eye" policy is an attempt to "terrorize" their neighbors into not attacking them, rather than just stopping a war and bringing peace. Israel's bad behaviour throughout most of my lifetime, has been the main cause for the continuous unrest in the region, If Israel had acted better, would Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or ISIS been able to recruit and mobilize so many people? Would the neighboring countries want nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, if they didn't know that Israel already has them and would use them if threatened?
When the US attacked Iraq or Afghanistan, we then helped them rebuild infrastructure and establish a government. When Israel attacked neighbors, they have seemed to abandon them afterward. They don't help their neighbors rebuild, they don't provide medical care or other aid. In fact, they try to set up severe restrictions to inhibit help. Even though they are one of the wealthiest and best educated countries in the region, they expect other countries to help their neighbors. Then they complain when Saudi Arabia, or Iran donates food, clothing, housing, money or weapons to help the neighbors.
American news media seems to be very "pro-Israel" and does not seem to do a very good job of reporting on the Palestinian side of news. Conversely, it appears that Israel's government and "friendly organizations" spend tens of millions of dollars on billboard, television, radio, and internet advertising to try and convince Americans and the rest of the world that Israel is truly threatened by their neighbors and deserves the billions of dollars we send to Israel to subsidize them.
Israel's military and police have continually been unjust towards the Palestinians, whether living within Israel, or in the neighboring territories. The actions and words of Israel's high ranking leaders and the high-ranking military officers set the tone for all of the civilians and military. This action by an Israeli Colonel clearly demonstrates that Israelis have little regard for the lives of Palestinians. Israel also been somewhat bad neighbors to adjoining countries. Many times, Israel has attacked neighboring countries before being attacked, or attacked other countries based upon some very minor incursion from the other side. When Israel does attack their neighbors, they seem to always try to extract 10 times the amount of damages and deaths as they have lost. I feel certain that Israel's "Ten eyes for an eye" policy is an attempt to "terrorize" their neighbors into not attacking them, rather than just stopping a war and bringing peace. Israel's bad behaviour throughout most of my lifetime, has been the main cause for the continuous unrest in the region, If Israel had acted better, would Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or ISIS been able to recruit and mobilize so many people? Would the neighboring countries want nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, if they didn't know that Israel already has them and would use them if threatened?
When the US attacked Iraq or Afghanistan, we then helped them rebuild infrastructure and establish a government. When Israel attacked neighbors, they have seemed to abandon them afterward. They don't help their neighbors rebuild, they don't provide medical care or other aid. In fact, they try to set up severe restrictions to inhibit help. Even though they are one of the wealthiest and best educated countries in the region, they expect other countries to help their neighbors. Then they complain when Saudi Arabia, or Iran donates food, clothing, housing, money or weapons to help the neighbors.
American news media seems to be very "pro-Israel" and does not seem to do a very good job of reporting on the Palestinian side of news. Conversely, it appears that Israel's government and "friendly organizations" spend tens of millions of dollars on billboard, television, radio, and internet advertising to try and convince Americans and the rest of the world that Israel is truly threatened by their neighbors and deserves the billions of dollars we send to Israel to subsidize them.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
US Movie Studios Face Antitrust Case in Europe -- It is about time!
The movie and TV industry complains about "piracy" but in many ways they have been "pirates" themselves!
According to this article in today's LA Times (by Daniel Miller, Meg James, and Ryan Faughnder), it appears that Europe believes that they were being anti-competitive I always wondered why the US has allowed the movie and TV industry to do "geo-blocking" which means that the studios could allow shows to be viewed only in certain regions and not others. Other industries, (for example beer distributors) tried to do similar things, but US anti-trust regulations made them cease. It appears that the movie/TV industry is somewhat "protected" politically in the US. The "Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for example, gave that industry a multi-billion dollar windfall.
It never made sense for the industry to do the geo-blocking, because it is easy, but cumbersome for consumers to get around the blocking, by either using a VPN back to a US carrier, , or buy and ship DVDs to other countries. I always thought the industry would maximize profits by releasing worldwide. However this article explained that the real rationale is that the studios don't like the idea that they might have to negotiate rates with similar-size "peers" -- they want to keep their customers small, so they can exercise their "power" over the smaller-size distributors and get much higher rates.-- Now I understand! That is clearly an unfair practice!
According to this article in today's LA Times (by Daniel Miller, Meg James, and Ryan Faughnder), it appears that Europe believes that they were being anti-competitive I always wondered why the US has allowed the movie and TV industry to do "geo-blocking" which means that the studios could allow shows to be viewed only in certain regions and not others. Other industries, (for example beer distributors) tried to do similar things, but US anti-trust regulations made them cease. It appears that the movie/TV industry is somewhat "protected" politically in the US. The "Digital Millennium Copyright Act, for example, gave that industry a multi-billion dollar windfall.
It never made sense for the industry to do the geo-blocking, because it is easy, but cumbersome for consumers to get around the blocking, by either using a VPN back to a US carrier, , or buy and ship DVDs to other countries. I always thought the industry would maximize profits by releasing worldwide. However this article explained that the real rationale is that the studios don't like the idea that they might have to negotiate rates with similar-size "peers" -- they want to keep their customers small, so they can exercise their "power" over the smaller-size distributors and get much higher rates.-- Now I understand! That is clearly an unfair practice!
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Michael Hiltzik's Concern about AirBnB
I frequently agree with Michael Hiltzik who has a weekly column in the LA Times. He wrote a thought-provoking column today concerning the effect of AirBnb type of rentals on neighborhoods -- in particular in San Francisco. Rental sites like Airbnb aren't as innocuous as they pretend - LA Times. I'm not sure I completely agree with him on this one!
Having been in the "short term rental business" by renting our beach condo across the hall from us for many years, I do understand the difference in short, and long-term rental and the associated rental revenue. Short-term rentals do bring in more revenue per night, but there are many vacant nights. So the net revenue after the additional fees (such as business license, and advertising fees, such as AirBnb), the net is typically not a lot -- maybe 10% more than an owner could get on a long-term rental. There is windfall profits available, however if the landlord is living in subsidized housing, or in rent-controlled housing. That is unfair, for sure!
The hotel industry HATES the vacation rental business. During periods when demand is the highest and they could charge the highest rates, the vacation rentals help hold a lid on how much they can raise their nightly rates. I'm certain that their VERY deep pockets provide a lot of the "seed money" that stirs up antagonism against vacation rentals.
Hiltzik complains that AirBnb rentals in neighborhoods affects the character of the block, neighborhood or city. Yes, I agree it may change the character -- but does it change it "for the worse?" -- or "for the better?"
I can agree that in the short term, people doing rentals pulls long term rentals off the market. However, if all short-term rentals were banned, the hotel industry would reap a windfall! Eventually many more hotels would be built to respond to the short supply and high rent situation. To build hotels, other properties must be eliminated -- would they be commercial properties, or existing housing structures?
The main reason for shortage of housing in New York and San Francisco is the fact that they have rent control and subsidized housing. Those cities have very high employment rates of professionals. The housing in the cities is scarce, so workers have to commute to the city. Why is housing scarce? Because people who are not necessarily fully employed (such as retired) are occupying those homes because the rent is low and they know it will be higher if they move! If rent control were eliminated and building were allowed, the economics of supply and demand would result in adequate housing.
Having been in the "short term rental business" by renting our beach condo across the hall from us for many years, I do understand the difference in short, and long-term rental and the associated rental revenue. Short-term rentals do bring in more revenue per night, but there are many vacant nights. So the net revenue after the additional fees (such as business license, and advertising fees, such as AirBnb), the net is typically not a lot -- maybe 10% more than an owner could get on a long-term rental. There is windfall profits available, however if the landlord is living in subsidized housing, or in rent-controlled housing. That is unfair, for sure!
The hotel industry HATES the vacation rental business. During periods when demand is the highest and they could charge the highest rates, the vacation rentals help hold a lid on how much they can raise their nightly rates. I'm certain that their VERY deep pockets provide a lot of the "seed money" that stirs up antagonism against vacation rentals.
Hiltzik complains that AirBnb rentals in neighborhoods affects the character of the block, neighborhood or city. Yes, I agree it may change the character -- but does it change it "for the worse?" -- or "for the better?"
I can agree that in the short term, people doing rentals pulls long term rentals off the market. However, if all short-term rentals were banned, the hotel industry would reap a windfall! Eventually many more hotels would be built to respond to the short supply and high rent situation. To build hotels, other properties must be eliminated -- would they be commercial properties, or existing housing structures?
The main reason for shortage of housing in New York and San Francisco is the fact that they have rent control and subsidized housing. Those cities have very high employment rates of professionals. The housing in the cities is scarce, so workers have to commute to the city. Why is housing scarce? Because people who are not necessarily fully employed (such as retired) are occupying those homes because the rent is low and they know it will be higher if they move! If rent control were eliminated and building were allowed, the economics of supply and demand would result in adequate housing.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
ExxonMobil donations to global warming deniers
Disinformation campaigns have a lot of similarity with terrorism. Similar to terrorism, it only takes a few "dis-informers" to have a tremendous impact on the public. Only a few airline bombers have forced all travelers to go through major inspections and loss of privacy to reduce the threat. Only a few anti-global warming advocates with little or no scientific data can force the rest of the world to have to expend major resources to prove the deniers wrong. The tobacco industry was very successful for many decades by using similar techniques to keep the public from believing that smoking caused cancer. The climate deniers are doing the same thing. We all know that the Koch Brothers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to protect the coal industry by paying climate-denying scientists and politicians. However companies like ExxonMobil seemed to suddenly become "good citizens of the world" around 2007 when they began saying that they now wanted to protect the climate and would no longer spend stockholders money on political donations or contributions to "bad science." According to this article in The Guardian, by Suzanne Goldenberg it appears they lied. If she was able to find this in Exxon Mobil's accounting, imagine how much money they may have spent in hidden ways, or channeled through executives and employees. And this is just ONE oil company!
What still amazes me is how many people I've met, including well-educated friend whom I think of as being rather level-headed, who believe the global warming deniers, or somehow believe that the subject is "controversial" or "undecided" due to so many opposing viewpoints. It shows me how VERY effective a disinformation campaign can be! It seems that so many people listen to just "sound bites" and really don't look at the actual data, and the sources of the data presented. Only a few "bought off" members of US congress and senate are necessary to keep the doubt alive in the public's mind.
What still amazes me is how many people I've met, including well-educated friend whom I think of as being rather level-headed, who believe the global warming deniers, or somehow believe that the subject is "controversial" or "undecided" due to so many opposing viewpoints. It shows me how VERY effective a disinformation campaign can be! It seems that so many people listen to just "sound bites" and really don't look at the actual data, and the sources of the data presented. Only a few "bought off" members of US congress and senate are necessary to keep the doubt alive in the public's mind.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Protests against Uber -- I think we need the competition!
Michael Hiltzik wrote a column about Uber protests. I usually agree with him..but I'm not sure this time
What the New Yorker magazine misses about the Uber protests - LA Times
I do agree that Uber & Lyft are destroying the taxi paradigm. However, we do need to keep them in competition with Taxi companies. Taxi companies are also free to set up their own smartphone app that rates drivers and customers. I agree that 20% "commission" sounds steep, and I think that competition could drive that down to 10-12%. On the other hand, drivers already own their car and presumably have no better "opportunity cost" for the time they are spending. So getting 80% of the fare is probably a lot better than what a traditional cab driver earns. I also expect that cab drivers are on the "endangered species list" with self-driving cars on the horizon.
I think that Uber/Lyft are doing to cab companies what Craigslist & Ebay did to newspaper advertising revenue. I don't believe they are "employers." If I make a business buying/selling on Ebay & Craigslist, and I agree to standards and fees charged by those businesses, am I their employee? If I rent my home using AirBnB and receive payment from them isn't that similar to renting my car-driving service on Uber?
This is a technological revolution. I remember when grocery bar-code scanning was fought by the grocery union because they feared loss of jobs (stamping prices on goods) and loss of skill requirements (memorizing prices of unstamped goods). However now it is fully accepted. Consumers got much larger selections in stores (easier inventory management) and more accurate check-out. Mark-ups in grocery stores can be less because of lower expenses. A win-win for everyone! Uber & Lyft are doing the same thing. We shouldn't stop the change. I believe we can manage the change, and help minimize or mitigate the damage to the displaced workers and businesses.
What the New Yorker magazine misses about the Uber protests - LA Times
I do agree that Uber & Lyft are destroying the taxi paradigm. However, we do need to keep them in competition with Taxi companies. Taxi companies are also free to set up their own smartphone app that rates drivers and customers. I agree that 20% "commission" sounds steep, and I think that competition could drive that down to 10-12%. On the other hand, drivers already own their car and presumably have no better "opportunity cost" for the time they are spending. So getting 80% of the fare is probably a lot better than what a traditional cab driver earns. I also expect that cab drivers are on the "endangered species list" with self-driving cars on the horizon.
I think that Uber/Lyft are doing to cab companies what Craigslist & Ebay did to newspaper advertising revenue. I don't believe they are "employers." If I make a business buying/selling on Ebay & Craigslist, and I agree to standards and fees charged by those businesses, am I their employee? If I rent my home using AirBnB and receive payment from them isn't that similar to renting my car-driving service on Uber?
This is a technological revolution. I remember when grocery bar-code scanning was fought by the grocery union because they feared loss of jobs (stamping prices on goods) and loss of skill requirements (memorizing prices of unstamped goods). However now it is fully accepted. Consumers got much larger selections in stores (easier inventory management) and more accurate check-out. Mark-ups in grocery stores can be less because of lower expenses. A win-win for everyone! Uber & Lyft are doing the same thing. We shouldn't stop the change. I believe we can manage the change, and help minimize or mitigate the damage to the displaced workers and businesses.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Uber drivers ruled employees by California Labor Commission.
A California Labor Commission has ruled that Uber drivers are actually employees rather than self-employed users of a web-based application. Here is Slate Article about it Here is LA Times Article & Huffington Post Article
The Commission says that this is a decision only applicable to this one situation --but everyone seems to recognize that this could set a precedent for other rulings to follow as well.
There needs to be some standards set for what is 1099 work and what is an in employee/employer relationship.I think the standards need to be applicable across the US -- not just in one state.
I can understand how a Labor Commission might make this determination. The drivers are dispatched by the application, and receive their money via the Uber application. Uber has standards for the employees and their cars to comply with in order to drive for them. However it could be said that Many other businesses are similar, and that this sort of ruling could destroy innovation, entrepreneurship, and venture capital.activities in California--and if it spreads, throughout the country.
I was a newspaper carrier for the Washington Star, an evening paper, in Suburban Washington DC (Silver Spring, MD) in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I was in 7th through 10th grade, and I had to cover a very wide growing rural area on my bicycle and eventually had around 100 customers. I paid for my newspapers, and then collected payments from my customers. I worked hard to get new customers, and provided my best service to try to earn good tips. I felt I was running my own business. My mom taught me bookkeeping so I could figure out if I made a profit when I had some customers who paid far in advance, and others delinquent. I bought IBM stock with my earnings and that investment's rapid growth helped cover a LOT of my college expenses. I thought the experience was VERY valuable for me, so I was very sad when government pressure forced the newspaper companies to convert carriers to full-time employees. All kids lost that opportunity! I'm afraid that this type of ruling could kill the opportunity we have with Uber & Lyft-type businesses to make our economy more efficient. It is clear that there is tremendous inefficiency in the taxi business when you see long lines of cabs waiting for a turn for several hours, and then, at other times, when we need a cab, there aren't enough around! Applications like Uber/Lyft help smooth out that problem.
At the Federal level, the 1099 vs employee situation has never been all that clear either. When a 1099-type employee files income taxes, there is always risk that the IRS could declare that the job was actually an employer/employee relationship. So companies and professionals are both taking risk when doing 1099-type work.
If Uber is determined to be an employer, what about "mechanical turk" or other similar job-placement services? There are hundreds of them! What about VRBO, AirBnB, and Flipkey? They have standards for rental properties, and collect and pay owners for renting. Are owners of AirBnB properties now employees, similar to owners of cars working for Uber? Why should Uber reimburse a driver for car expenses, and VRBO not reimburse an owner for utilities in a property rental?
I like the idea of having some sort of fair competition involved in all aspects of business. Too much competition can be bad, cutthroat, and counterproductive, so it does need to have rules to keep it all under control. So I like business constructs where labor is given opportunity to compete. 1099 work provides that opportunity, and these new internet applications have enabled more of that. I also see the advantages of having organized labor. Labor unions have a role to play, but they also need competition to keep them on their toes. Just like we have laws to prevent monopolies, we should have laws to prevent monopolies in labor. If every 5 years labor contracts were put out for bid, then unions could bid on those jobs and compete, rather than go on strike. If one union is more efficient with better trained and productive employees than another it should be selected as the winner! To implement such a system, Union size would have to be limited. To be fair, corporation size should also be limited. The size of our corporations are now so big that stockholders, customers, suppliers and employees have little or no control over it's power. Government recognizes that those companies are "too large to let fail" --so even if they are terribly mismanaged, Government will prop them up. Because they are so large, the corporations are free to contribute immense amounts of money to politicians allowing even more control over Government. I'm afraid now that the US Capitalistic system is in a "death spiral"....
I have the feeling that the Labor Commission made this decision as an attempt to put their "finger in the dike" to stop some of this --but as a result, made a bad decision that will further hurt the country.
The Commission says that this is a decision only applicable to this one situation --but everyone seems to recognize that this could set a precedent for other rulings to follow as well.
There needs to be some standards set for what is 1099 work and what is an in employee/employer relationship.I think the standards need to be applicable across the US -- not just in one state.
I can understand how a Labor Commission might make this determination. The drivers are dispatched by the application, and receive their money via the Uber application. Uber has standards for the employees and their cars to comply with in order to drive for them. However it could be said that Many other businesses are similar, and that this sort of ruling could destroy innovation, entrepreneurship, and venture capital.activities in California--and if it spreads, throughout the country.
I was a newspaper carrier for the Washington Star, an evening paper, in Suburban Washington DC (Silver Spring, MD) in the late 1950s and early 1960s. I was in 7th through 10th grade, and I had to cover a very wide growing rural area on my bicycle and eventually had around 100 customers. I paid for my newspapers, and then collected payments from my customers. I worked hard to get new customers, and provided my best service to try to earn good tips. I felt I was running my own business. My mom taught me bookkeeping so I could figure out if I made a profit when I had some customers who paid far in advance, and others delinquent. I bought IBM stock with my earnings and that investment's rapid growth helped cover a LOT of my college expenses. I thought the experience was VERY valuable for me, so I was very sad when government pressure forced the newspaper companies to convert carriers to full-time employees. All kids lost that opportunity! I'm afraid that this type of ruling could kill the opportunity we have with Uber & Lyft-type businesses to make our economy more efficient. It is clear that there is tremendous inefficiency in the taxi business when you see long lines of cabs waiting for a turn for several hours, and then, at other times, when we need a cab, there aren't enough around! Applications like Uber/Lyft help smooth out that problem.
At the Federal level, the 1099 vs employee situation has never been all that clear either. When a 1099-type employee files income taxes, there is always risk that the IRS could declare that the job was actually an employer/employee relationship. So companies and professionals are both taking risk when doing 1099-type work.
If Uber is determined to be an employer, what about "mechanical turk" or other similar job-placement services? There are hundreds of them! What about VRBO, AirBnB, and Flipkey? They have standards for rental properties, and collect and pay owners for renting. Are owners of AirBnB properties now employees, similar to owners of cars working for Uber? Why should Uber reimburse a driver for car expenses, and VRBO not reimburse an owner for utilities in a property rental?
I like the idea of having some sort of fair competition involved in all aspects of business. Too much competition can be bad, cutthroat, and counterproductive, so it does need to have rules to keep it all under control. So I like business constructs where labor is given opportunity to compete. 1099 work provides that opportunity, and these new internet applications have enabled more of that. I also see the advantages of having organized labor. Labor unions have a role to play, but they also need competition to keep them on their toes. Just like we have laws to prevent monopolies, we should have laws to prevent monopolies in labor. If every 5 years labor contracts were put out for bid, then unions could bid on those jobs and compete, rather than go on strike. If one union is more efficient with better trained and productive employees than another it should be selected as the winner! To implement such a system, Union size would have to be limited. To be fair, corporation size should also be limited. The size of our corporations are now so big that stockholders, customers, suppliers and employees have little or no control over it's power. Government recognizes that those companies are "too large to let fail" --so even if they are terribly mismanaged, Government will prop them up. Because they are so large, the corporations are free to contribute immense amounts of money to politicians allowing even more control over Government. I'm afraid now that the US Capitalistic system is in a "death spiral"....
I have the feeling that the Labor Commission made this decision as an attempt to put their "finger in the dike" to stop some of this --but as a result, made a bad decision that will further hurt the country.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Yucca Mountain best solution to nuclear waste problem-By Darrell Issa
I have always been concerned about the nuclear waste storage problem. I had hoped that President Jimmy Carter, who was a nuclear engineer, would have solved the problem. But the problem isn't an engineering problem, it is a political problem. So, we really need a political solution. We also need some politicians willing to solve it.
I don't always agree with Darrel Issa, our 49th district Congressman. However his editorial in Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune was absolutely correct!
Yucca Mountain best solution to nuclear waste problem | UTSanDiego.com
Yucca mountain is the correct location for the storage, and we should get working on it ASAP! 3000 Tons of the stuff in California, all stored in relatively unsafe locations really doesn't make sense.
I've also been a fan of nuclear power. I think we should be using more of it. It is important that the nuclear power plants be properly sited, well designed, carefully constructed, be operated safely, and the waste from those plants be safely and permanently disposed of. I think it is a shame that we aren't going to rebuild San Onofre and redesign or repair the potentially leaky tubes. The State and Country has too much invested in the site to abandon it. However, I don't believe any new nuclear power plants should be designed our built until the storage problem is resolved. Yucca Mountain is the answer!
I don't always agree with Darrel Issa, our 49th district Congressman. However his editorial in Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune was absolutely correct!
Yucca Mountain best solution to nuclear waste problem | UTSanDiego.com
Yucca mountain is the correct location for the storage, and we should get working on it ASAP! 3000 Tons of the stuff in California, all stored in relatively unsafe locations really doesn't make sense.
I've also been a fan of nuclear power. I think we should be using more of it. It is important that the nuclear power plants be properly sited, well designed, carefully constructed, be operated safely, and the waste from those plants be safely and permanently disposed of. I think it is a shame that we aren't going to rebuild San Onofre and redesign or repair the potentially leaky tubes. The State and Country has too much invested in the site to abandon it. However, I don't believe any new nuclear power plants should be designed our built until the storage problem is resolved. Yucca Mountain is the answer!
Repeal of ObamaCare Medical Device Tax
The Union Tribune had an editorial today advocating the repeal of the tax on medical devices. On rare occasions, the UT editorial staff goes above politics and states a well-researched opinion with a solid foundation. This, isn't one of those times. New hope for repeal of Obamacare tax | UTSanDiego.com The UT complained that the tax was destroying jobs etc.
USA Today's editors the opposite side of the debate in their editorial, however they did publish a rambling opposition opinion by Tom Fogerty that complains that the tax somehow reduces innovation. But back in 2013, Michael Hiltzik wrote a convincing column that the tax should remain-- I find I usually agree with Michael Hiltzik's opinion. .
First of all, the tax on the devices is only 2.3% which is hardly noticeable on a patient's medical bill. I don't know if there is sales tax added on medical devices but the 2.3% is probably less than 1/3 of the state, county or city sales taxes that would be added. If there is not sales tax on such devices, then 2.3% is negligible compared to taxes on everything else. Does the 8% sales tax we pay on electronic gadgets stop innovation? Second, the 2.3% tax is reduced by the savings a company gets on their income tax, so that the 2.3% is actually around 1.4% after taxes. The tax isn't charged on eyeglasses, hearing aids or exports. So over half of the industry's products aren't affected. Because it isn't charged on exports, it shouldn't affect international trade. Yes, it is likely that the tax pushes up the price of those devices by the amount of the tax. But we also know that a very large percentage of the cost of getting a heart stent, hip joint, knee joint etc is the cost of the operation and recovery. The cost of the device itself is probably less than 25% of the total medical cost. Also much of the cost is actually paid by the Government! If a medicare, medicaid, military, or VA patient gets a new hip, the Government pays the tax as part of the overall medical bill.
I recently read the book America's Bitter Pill by Steven Brill. It is a very long and very detailed description of how the ObamaCare --Affordable Care Act --was put together, and the struggle to get the important website up and running. The negotiations among the many stakeholders in the process of developing the bill was very complex and very intense. As part of the plan, it was recognized that by adding all of the new patients through Obamacare, some businesses would reap sudden windfall profits. Doctors, hospitals, Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies would get a huge boost in sales and profits when new patients were added. As part of the process, all of the participants gave up some "share" to make it fair to all. The medical device companies share was the 2.3% tax. They are now experiencing that windfall in sales and profits. However they have spent $150 million over the past 5 years to lobby and make contributions to political campaigns in the hopes of eliminating this tax. The problem is, if the tax is eliminated then next the other businesses, such as hospitals, will then want to also eliminate their "share." The Republicans know this, and understand that if that tax were eliminated, it would possibly cripple Obamacare. That, I believe, is their main goal. They have been working very hard to find some way to make the ACA appear to have failed, so they can more easily kill it. They want to kill it, not because it doesn't work, but because they don't want credit given to the Democrats or Obama. The "NIH" or "Not Invented Here" complex. The Republicans killed the Clinton medical plan, and had many opportunities to present their own. However they have never proposed any plan that appeared to work.
Concerning the tax effect on innovation. A device such as an improved hip replacement part would sell just the same with the additional tax as without if the improved device, is, in fact, improved. How many patients would worry about a 2.3% tax when selecting the best hip replacement joint?
It is revealing that Tom Fogerty and the San Diego Union Tribune editorial board carefully avoided any mention of facts or fairness among the industry stakeholders in Obamacare. Their editorials cited unsubstantiated loss of jobs and innovation as the rationale -- none of which meet the test of facts. You have to wonder if the editorial was written as quid pro quo for the medical device manufacturers placing ads in the newspaper?
USA Today's editors the opposite side of the debate in their editorial, however they did publish a rambling opposition opinion by Tom Fogerty that complains that the tax somehow reduces innovation. But back in 2013, Michael Hiltzik wrote a convincing column that the tax should remain-- I find I usually agree with Michael Hiltzik's opinion. .
First of all, the tax on the devices is only 2.3% which is hardly noticeable on a patient's medical bill. I don't know if there is sales tax added on medical devices but the 2.3% is probably less than 1/3 of the state, county or city sales taxes that would be added. If there is not sales tax on such devices, then 2.3% is negligible compared to taxes on everything else. Does the 8% sales tax we pay on electronic gadgets stop innovation? Second, the 2.3% tax is reduced by the savings a company gets on their income tax, so that the 2.3% is actually around 1.4% after taxes. The tax isn't charged on eyeglasses, hearing aids or exports. So over half of the industry's products aren't affected. Because it isn't charged on exports, it shouldn't affect international trade. Yes, it is likely that the tax pushes up the price of those devices by the amount of the tax. But we also know that a very large percentage of the cost of getting a heart stent, hip joint, knee joint etc is the cost of the operation and recovery. The cost of the device itself is probably less than 25% of the total medical cost. Also much of the cost is actually paid by the Government! If a medicare, medicaid, military, or VA patient gets a new hip, the Government pays the tax as part of the overall medical bill.
I recently read the book America's Bitter Pill by Steven Brill. It is a very long and very detailed description of how the ObamaCare --Affordable Care Act --was put together, and the struggle to get the important website up and running. The negotiations among the many stakeholders in the process of developing the bill was very complex and very intense. As part of the plan, it was recognized that by adding all of the new patients through Obamacare, some businesses would reap sudden windfall profits. Doctors, hospitals, Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and medical device companies would get a huge boost in sales and profits when new patients were added. As part of the process, all of the participants gave up some "share" to make it fair to all. The medical device companies share was the 2.3% tax. They are now experiencing that windfall in sales and profits. However they have spent $150 million over the past 5 years to lobby and make contributions to political campaigns in the hopes of eliminating this tax. The problem is, if the tax is eliminated then next the other businesses, such as hospitals, will then want to also eliminate their "share." The Republicans know this, and understand that if that tax were eliminated, it would possibly cripple Obamacare. That, I believe, is their main goal. They have been working very hard to find some way to make the ACA appear to have failed, so they can more easily kill it. They want to kill it, not because it doesn't work, but because they don't want credit given to the Democrats or Obama. The "NIH" or "Not Invented Here" complex. The Republicans killed the Clinton medical plan, and had many opportunities to present their own. However they have never proposed any plan that appeared to work.
Concerning the tax effect on innovation. A device such as an improved hip replacement part would sell just the same with the additional tax as without if the improved device, is, in fact, improved. How many patients would worry about a 2.3% tax when selecting the best hip replacement joint?
It is revealing that Tom Fogerty and the San Diego Union Tribune editorial board carefully avoided any mention of facts or fairness among the industry stakeholders in Obamacare. Their editorials cited unsubstantiated loss of jobs and innovation as the rationale -- none of which meet the test of facts. You have to wonder if the editorial was written as quid pro quo for the medical device manufacturers placing ads in the newspaper?
Friday, May 29, 2015
Gallup Poll -- Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?
It appears from the latest Gallup Poll that there are more people in the US who consider themselves "Pro-Choice" than "Pro-Life" I was surprised to see that somehow in the mid-1990s the so-called "pro-life" group actually outnumbered the pro-choice. I wonder how that happened? I suspect it was the influence of the "moral majority" group who really did a lot of marketing for their cause.
It is clear to me that the "pro-life" group is simply trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the US citizens --and the world, if they could do it. They believe that a fetus somehow has been bestowed a "soul" and is as much a human as any other human. There is no science behind that belief, so it is driven by religion.
It is hard for me to understand why the Republican Party could stand generally for "Pro-life" when they are also "Pro Death Penalty" and "Pro Guns." They generally claim they believe in the US Constitution, freedom of religion, and free markets. But they, for some reason want to restrict women from having abortions, restrict Gays from marriage, and restrict states from putting limits on guns.
One of the overarching problems of mankind is the continued increase in population in the world. The growth of population increases the pressure on the limited resources of the world. Yes Malthus was proven somewhat wrong, and the world was able to find food to survive a huge increase in population. But at what cost? There have been huge costs to the environment which simply cannot go on forever.
The world needs to get human population under control. I believe we can do it. China has shown it is possible, but there are less harsh ways to achieve population control by using other incentives. The US needs to take a leadership role and control our population and accept immigrants until we can get those other countries to get their population controlled. To do so, we need to dis-incentivize having more babies by eliminating tax deductions for babies, gradually increase costs to raise children by reducing subsidies for child care, medical care, and school to bare minimum for national health. We also need to provide free medical help for birth control (such as pills, devices or sterilization) and abortion when necessary.
It is clear to me that the "pro-life" group is simply trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the US citizens --and the world, if they could do it. They believe that a fetus somehow has been bestowed a "soul" and is as much a human as any other human. There is no science behind that belief, so it is driven by religion.
It is hard for me to understand why the Republican Party could stand generally for "Pro-life" when they are also "Pro Death Penalty" and "Pro Guns." They generally claim they believe in the US Constitution, freedom of religion, and free markets. But they, for some reason want to restrict women from having abortions, restrict Gays from marriage, and restrict states from putting limits on guns.
One of the overarching problems of mankind is the continued increase in population in the world. The growth of population increases the pressure on the limited resources of the world. Yes Malthus was proven somewhat wrong, and the world was able to find food to survive a huge increase in population. But at what cost? There have been huge costs to the environment which simply cannot go on forever.
The world needs to get human population under control. I believe we can do it. China has shown it is possible, but there are less harsh ways to achieve population control by using other incentives. The US needs to take a leadership role and control our population and accept immigrants until we can get those other countries to get their population controlled. To do so, we need to dis-incentivize having more babies by eliminating tax deductions for babies, gradually increase costs to raise children by reducing subsidies for child care, medical care, and school to bare minimum for national health. We also need to provide free medical help for birth control (such as pills, devices or sterilization) and abortion when necessary.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Two Encinitas YMCA Board Members Forced Out Over Youth Membership Dispute | KPBS
I saw an article in today's Union Tribune by Phil Diehl, about two Ecke YMCA board members being forced off the board. The story is quite interesting. Two members of the Ecke family (Lizbeth Ecke and Paul Ayers) whose family donated the land, and funded the construction of the Encinitas YMCA were opposed to a dramatic change in the YMCA membership and participation fees that were being forced upon them by the San Diego regional YMCA director. Instead of allowing children to join or take classes for a cost of $100 or less, they now require payment of $1000 per year as a "family membership." Ecke and Ayers have set up a website with additional info and their side of the story: http://www.ynowsd.com/. They also have a facebook page
I did find that there has been a LOT of information about it and a lot of discussion online. First I found this KPBS posting:
Two Encinitas YMCA Board Members Forced Out Over Youth Membership Dispute | KPBS
There was an article on San Diego Sun Times,
I understand the concern of Lizbeth Ecke and Paul Ayers. The YMCA's primary goal in my mind is to serve the children in the area who don't have access to other, higher cost, facilities and supervision. They apparently now serve 2400 children in the area. Families who can afford to pay $1000 to obtain a membership don't seem to be the ones in the "target" demographic. If a family can afford to pay $1000, they can afford to send their kids to private coaches and facilities. Why would the public be willing to donate funds to support that group? Why would the Ecke family have donated their land and money for construction of a facility to support that group. If the YMCA wants more adult memberships, the $1000 membership cost also seems high in comparison with the much more modest cost of gyms such as 24 Hr Fitness, LA Fitness etc which also have beautiful facilities.
The article pointed out that Herdelin Doherty, the San Diego County YMCA Executive Director was hired in 2010 with a salary of $400,000. He is apparently pulling funds from all of the local YMCA's --apparently to help give himself a raise! I do understand that managing such a large regional organization is a lot of responsibility. It does have to be run like a business to make sure that it meets its organizational goals while also keeping the financial books balanced. The Executive Director job does require some skill at management as well as fund raising. However, I'm not sure that the position should be one that pays such a high salary. It would seem to me that there are plenty of retired, highly skilled executives who would "volunteer" their time for a much lower amount of compensation.
I have served on boards, and I don't think this is the correct dynamics for a board. If members of a board have a minority opinion, the board, or management shouldn't try to kick them off the board. A board should allow, and encourage all members to speak freely. Otherwise why have a board that just says "yes" to everything that management proposes?
I am very surprised that if Herdelin Doherty has not responded publicly, nor has any of the other YMCA board members to explain their side and rationale for making the changes they are proposing. This sort of controversy is clearly a "black eye" to the YMCA and could affect future donations. If Doherty is truly a leader, as he was hired to be, he should be out managing the news, explaining his side etc.
I can see how the YMCA might want to offer family memberships, and then offer discounted rates, priority or early registration for classes to family members. Non-members could then sign up for space-available in the more over-subscribed classes. I think it would also be good for the community if a certain number of "slots" were set aside in each class for non-members. I agree that requiring families to apply for "financial assistance" when signing up for classes is somewhat demeaning, and would keep children who really need this type of activity from being able to take advantage of it.
It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.
I did find that there has been a LOT of information about it and a lot of discussion online. First I found this KPBS posting:
Two Encinitas YMCA Board Members Forced Out Over Youth Membership Dispute | KPBS
There was an article on San Diego Sun Times,
I understand the concern of Lizbeth Ecke and Paul Ayers. The YMCA's primary goal in my mind is to serve the children in the area who don't have access to other, higher cost, facilities and supervision. They apparently now serve 2400 children in the area. Families who can afford to pay $1000 to obtain a membership don't seem to be the ones in the "target" demographic. If a family can afford to pay $1000, they can afford to send their kids to private coaches and facilities. Why would the public be willing to donate funds to support that group? Why would the Ecke family have donated their land and money for construction of a facility to support that group. If the YMCA wants more adult memberships, the $1000 membership cost also seems high in comparison with the much more modest cost of gyms such as 24 Hr Fitness, LA Fitness etc which also have beautiful facilities.
The article pointed out that Herdelin Doherty, the San Diego County YMCA Executive Director was hired in 2010 with a salary of $400,000. He is apparently pulling funds from all of the local YMCA's --apparently to help give himself a raise! I do understand that managing such a large regional organization is a lot of responsibility. It does have to be run like a business to make sure that it meets its organizational goals while also keeping the financial books balanced. The Executive Director job does require some skill at management as well as fund raising. However, I'm not sure that the position should be one that pays such a high salary. It would seem to me that there are plenty of retired, highly skilled executives who would "volunteer" their time for a much lower amount of compensation.
I have served on boards, and I don't think this is the correct dynamics for a board. If members of a board have a minority opinion, the board, or management shouldn't try to kick them off the board. A board should allow, and encourage all members to speak freely. Otherwise why have a board that just says "yes" to everything that management proposes?
I am very surprised that if Herdelin Doherty has not responded publicly, nor has any of the other YMCA board members to explain their side and rationale for making the changes they are proposing. This sort of controversy is clearly a "black eye" to the YMCA and could affect future donations. If Doherty is truly a leader, as he was hired to be, he should be out managing the news, explaining his side etc.
I can see how the YMCA might want to offer family memberships, and then offer discounted rates, priority or early registration for classes to family members. Non-members could then sign up for space-available in the more over-subscribed classes. I think it would also be good for the community if a certain number of "slots" were set aside in each class for non-members. I agree that requiring families to apply for "financial assistance" when signing up for classes is somewhat demeaning, and would keep children who really need this type of activity from being able to take advantage of it.
It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Catherine Rampell does the US really need more babies?
Catherine Rampell, of the Washington Post, wrote a column that was published by the San Diego Union Tribune that is titled: "We need more babies." The essence of her column was that the birth rate in the US has fallen so low that we older folks won't have enough "workers" to support us. So she thinks we need to increase our national birth rate.
I disagree with her for several reasons:
1. The world' resources are being used up at an alarming rate, which is contributing to extinction of many other important species. Because of the increase in the world's population, we are increasing CO2, warming the ocean, polluting the ocean, and destroying the land. The process cannot continue forever! We need to reduce the global birthrate, not increase it!
2.The impact of Americans on the world's environment is many times larger than that of any other country. Increasing our birthrate will impact the world much more severely than increasing it in other countries.
3. Her opinion, as presented, could be considered as "racist" since what she really means is that the US needs to increase the birthrate of "people like us" and not let people from other countries come to the use to "backfill" our under-performing birthrate. Can't we accept people from Africa, Latin America, The Philippines, or Asia?
4. Medical advances that have been made, and those "in the pipeline" will increase the life expectancy of everyone, and contribute even further to the impact on the global environment. It will also allow more Americans to be able to live a longer, more productive life. That will mean that we will be able to work longer and produce more in our lifetime, and maybe we won't need so many workers to help us.
5. Robotics is moving very quickly! Many boring service jobs are being eliminated in the US and eventually around the world. Many of the lower-paying service jobs involve caring for older people -- which may, in part, be replaced by robotics, electronics and computers. The date of the "Singularity" when computers become smarter than people has been moved from 2100, to 2050, and now might be in the 2030's! Self-driving cars are now on the road, will be sold next year, and might be in the majority by 2025. Do we need more car and truck drivers to be born? I don't think so!
6. As a nation, we should do everything we can to promote reduction in global birthrate, but should also try to import labor, as needed to fill the positions we feel are required to maintain our country. To do that, we need to set an example of controlling our birthrate, and maintain high standards of welfare, political freedom, and security so that the best from other countries will want to emigrate to the US.
7. We may not want to "import" labor from other countries for all jobs. We can certainly export a lot of our "work" to other countries For example, we can establish health care standards and allow older people needing assisted living to move and be cared for in countries and facilities that embrace our standards. We have already moved a lot of the low-paying manufacturing and call center jobs to other countries. Why can't we continue that process?
I disagree with her for several reasons:
1. The world' resources are being used up at an alarming rate, which is contributing to extinction of many other important species. Because of the increase in the world's population, we are increasing CO2, warming the ocean, polluting the ocean, and destroying the land. The process cannot continue forever! We need to reduce the global birthrate, not increase it!
2.The impact of Americans on the world's environment is many times larger than that of any other country. Increasing our birthrate will impact the world much more severely than increasing it in other countries.
3. Her opinion, as presented, could be considered as "racist" since what she really means is that the US needs to increase the birthrate of "people like us" and not let people from other countries come to the use to "backfill" our under-performing birthrate. Can't we accept people from Africa, Latin America, The Philippines, or Asia?
4. Medical advances that have been made, and those "in the pipeline" will increase the life expectancy of everyone, and contribute even further to the impact on the global environment. It will also allow more Americans to be able to live a longer, more productive life. That will mean that we will be able to work longer and produce more in our lifetime, and maybe we won't need so many workers to help us.
5. Robotics is moving very quickly! Many boring service jobs are being eliminated in the US and eventually around the world. Many of the lower-paying service jobs involve caring for older people -- which may, in part, be replaced by robotics, electronics and computers. The date of the "Singularity" when computers become smarter than people has been moved from 2100, to 2050, and now might be in the 2030's! Self-driving cars are now on the road, will be sold next year, and might be in the majority by 2025. Do we need more car and truck drivers to be born? I don't think so!
6. As a nation, we should do everything we can to promote reduction in global birthrate, but should also try to import labor, as needed to fill the positions we feel are required to maintain our country. To do that, we need to set an example of controlling our birthrate, and maintain high standards of welfare, political freedom, and security so that the best from other countries will want to emigrate to the US.
7. We may not want to "import" labor from other countries for all jobs. We can certainly export a lot of our "work" to other countries For example, we can establish health care standards and allow older people needing assisted living to move and be cared for in countries and facilities that embrace our standards. We have already moved a lot of the low-paying manufacturing and call center jobs to other countries. Why can't we continue that process?
Monday, April 20, 2015
MISSION: SAVING LIVES WITH SOAP | UTSanDiego.com
I saw this article in today's San Diego Union Tribune by Brian Skoloff about saving used "hotel" soap and providing it to people who need it. It describes Shawn Seipler's "Clean the World" organization.
MISSION: SAVING LIVES WITH SOAP | UTSanDiego.com There are a lot of organizations who make use of left over hotel soap and toiletries. But this one sounds like it is really doing it on a grand scale!
It is amazing how much we waste. The difficulty, of course, is collection and distribution. It all takes people's time and energy to gather, process and then redistribute.
On the front page of the same newspaper was a photo of food found in dumpsters showing how much usable food is going to trash. Another clear example of waste in our distribution system.
MISSION: SAVING LIVES WITH SOAP | UTSanDiego.com There are a lot of organizations who make use of left over hotel soap and toiletries. But this one sounds like it is really doing it on a grand scale!
It is amazing how much we waste. The difficulty, of course, is collection and distribution. It all takes people's time and energy to gather, process and then redistribute.
On the front page of the same newspaper was a photo of food found in dumpsters showing how much usable food is going to trash. Another clear example of waste in our distribution system.
Friday, April 17, 2015
DRUG SEIZURES UP --At what cost?
According to this article in San Diego Union Tribune by Jeanette Steele, there has been a big increase in seizures of drugs going to the US and Canada during the past six months. DRUG SEIZURES UP | UTSanDiego.com
They value the "wholesale" value of the drugs at $848 Million during the past six months alone. Was it worth the expense? How much did those seizures cost to the American citizens? A typical, fully staffed navy ship can cost around $300,000 per day to operate. That is over $100 million per year! The article mentions the names of a couple of the ships involved. But to cover so much geography, the US and Canada must have over ten ships deployed -- that represents over a $Billion! The article also refers to flying a drone. An RQ-4B Global Hawk Drone costs about $49,000 per hour to fly. To keep just one on station over areas of interest 24 hours/day for a year would cost $429 million dollars. Those costs don't include the costs for guards and fences at our borders, inspections of all travelers on ships, planes, trains, cars, buses, trucks etc. I have to assume the Government also uses other sophisticated electronic systems such as sound-monitoring buoys, surveillance satellites and satellite communication links, which are all very expensive. We would also assume that Government spends money to pay for spies who work inside the drug operations in all of these countries. We pay hundreds of millions to South and Central American countries to provide them with training, equipment and operations against drug growers and smugglers. Other costs are the costs of prisons, prosecutors, judges, juries, balifs, courtrooms, probation officers, welfare for families who's breadwinners are in prison etc. None of those costs are ever shown as a cost of our drug war. We also don't talk about the loss of American Citizens privacy through the anti-money laundring laws and surveillance systems that are justified based upon the "war on drugs."
The bottom line is that even though the Government is bragging about their big "catch" in drugs this past year, the cost to the taxpayers was also much bigger. The cost might have been as much as an order of magnitude higher than the value of the goods captured. One of the reasons for the bigger drug haul, might be that the amount of drugs actually being transported is also higher. Are we catching a larger percentage of the total volume being transported? One of the best indicators is the street price for drugs. Has the price of those drugs increased since the interdiction success? Or stayed the same?
It still seems to me that those $billions could be better spent by offering free treatment for drug users, and we should legalize and tax the safer forms of these recreational drugs. Our country would be better, and our neighboring countries would also be beter off.
They value the "wholesale" value of the drugs at $848 Million during the past six months alone. Was it worth the expense? How much did those seizures cost to the American citizens? A typical, fully staffed navy ship can cost around $300,000 per day to operate. That is over $100 million per year! The article mentions the names of a couple of the ships involved. But to cover so much geography, the US and Canada must have over ten ships deployed -- that represents over a $Billion! The article also refers to flying a drone. An RQ-4B Global Hawk Drone costs about $49,000 per hour to fly. To keep just one on station over areas of interest 24 hours/day for a year would cost $429 million dollars. Those costs don't include the costs for guards and fences at our borders, inspections of all travelers on ships, planes, trains, cars, buses, trucks etc. I have to assume the Government also uses other sophisticated electronic systems such as sound-monitoring buoys, surveillance satellites and satellite communication links, which are all very expensive. We would also assume that Government spends money to pay for spies who work inside the drug operations in all of these countries. We pay hundreds of millions to South and Central American countries to provide them with training, equipment and operations against drug growers and smugglers. Other costs are the costs of prisons, prosecutors, judges, juries, balifs, courtrooms, probation officers, welfare for families who's breadwinners are in prison etc. None of those costs are ever shown as a cost of our drug war. We also don't talk about the loss of American Citizens privacy through the anti-money laundring laws and surveillance systems that are justified based upon the "war on drugs."
The bottom line is that even though the Government is bragging about their big "catch" in drugs this past year, the cost to the taxpayers was also much bigger. The cost might have been as much as an order of magnitude higher than the value of the goods captured. One of the reasons for the bigger drug haul, might be that the amount of drugs actually being transported is also higher. Are we catching a larger percentage of the total volume being transported? One of the best indicators is the street price for drugs. Has the price of those drugs increased since the interdiction success? Or stayed the same?
It still seems to me that those $billions could be better spent by offering free treatment for drug users, and we should legalize and tax the safer forms of these recreational drugs. Our country would be better, and our neighboring countries would also be beter off.
House Votes to Repeal Estate Tax and give $269 billion to the very rich
Big news today in San Diego Union Tribune in article by By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
House passes bill to repeal estate tax | UTSanDiego.com. I can't believe that the Republican congress would waste its time passing something that is so ridiculous that they know would not get through the Senate (even with Republican majority) and certainly would not get signed by the President. It is purely symbolic. Its obvious that they are pandering to the very rich in the hopes of encouraging increases in campaign donations. That's because it gives a quarter trillion dollars to those very rich. Congressman Kevin Brady's (R-Texas) legislation clearly benefits only the VERY rich people (estates over $10.9 Million for married couples)--and only those rich people who have not planned their estate well to pass on their wealth to children via trusts or donate it through the various charity options. The bill also had no way to "pay" for the huge cost to the treasury($269 Billion over 10 years) by eliminating the tax. That is a complaint that Republicans scream loudly every time Democrats propose some sort of increase in spending.
The main objection I have to repealing the estate tax is that it would eliminate the "step up" when a person dies, and require estates to pay capital gains tax. That becomes a huge paperwork nightmare for the personal representative of the estate! The tax basis of properties that were purchased, and improved by the deceased and often very difficult to figure out or find historical information about improvements, land divisions, etc. The bill claims that if passed it was employ over a 100,000 people. I'm not sure who would be employed if this bill passes -- but it sounds like it would require an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it all out. We don't need that additional complexity as "financial relief" for lawyers and accountants!
It seems to me that the truly fair way to handle the estate tax would be to index the "deduction" so it adjusts annually with the CPI. The actual tax could be "graduated" so that people with $10-$20 Million estates are taxed maybe at less than today's 40%. However as estates grow larger, the taxes could be reasonably increased to 50% or 60% for the hundred million dollar type of estates. As the article points out, very few people with $100+ million estate will end up paying those higher taxes because of careful estate and tax planning. However, such a bill would help a lot of people, and could end up being somewhat "revenue neutral."
House passes bill to repeal estate tax | UTSanDiego.com. I can't believe that the Republican congress would waste its time passing something that is so ridiculous that they know would not get through the Senate (even with Republican majority) and certainly would not get signed by the President. It is purely symbolic. Its obvious that they are pandering to the very rich in the hopes of encouraging increases in campaign donations. That's because it gives a quarter trillion dollars to those very rich. Congressman Kevin Brady's (R-Texas) legislation clearly benefits only the VERY rich people (estates over $10.9 Million for married couples)--and only those rich people who have not planned their estate well to pass on their wealth to children via trusts or donate it through the various charity options. The bill also had no way to "pay" for the huge cost to the treasury($269 Billion over 10 years) by eliminating the tax. That is a complaint that Republicans scream loudly every time Democrats propose some sort of increase in spending.
The main objection I have to repealing the estate tax is that it would eliminate the "step up" when a person dies, and require estates to pay capital gains tax. That becomes a huge paperwork nightmare for the personal representative of the estate! The tax basis of properties that were purchased, and improved by the deceased and often very difficult to figure out or find historical information about improvements, land divisions, etc. The bill claims that if passed it was employ over a 100,000 people. I'm not sure who would be employed if this bill passes -- but it sounds like it would require an army of accountants and lawyers to figure it all out. We don't need that additional complexity as "financial relief" for lawyers and accountants!
It seems to me that the truly fair way to handle the estate tax would be to index the "deduction" so it adjusts annually with the CPI. The actual tax could be "graduated" so that people with $10-$20 Million estates are taxed maybe at less than today's 40%. However as estates grow larger, the taxes could be reasonably increased to 50% or 60% for the hundred million dollar type of estates. As the article points out, very few people with $100+ million estate will end up paying those higher taxes because of careful estate and tax planning. However, such a bill would help a lot of people, and could end up being somewhat "revenue neutral."
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Innovation Act: For or Against "Patent Trolls?"
Patents and patent law have always been very complicated and controversial. The amount spent for legal support to challenge and protect patents is a huge cost of doing business. With the many international agreements, patent law is getting even more complicated across international borders.
As a national and global policy, we should try to do everything possible to encourage new ideas and inventions. The financial protection provided by patents and copyrights does need to be maintained. This Gallegher Intellectual Property Law Site has good history of the problem. However, the business that "patent trolls" do is generally despicable, counter-productive, and does nothing to help the economy, other than enrich the trolls and their lawyers. Legitimate companies are generally willing to negotiate fair and reasonable fees for rights to use patents. I think the US Government does need legislation to put some sort of controls on those trolls. But what is the right answer? Who can we believe? A new version of the "Innovation Act" is now pending in Congress which purports to resolve this problem.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports the "Innovation Act" which failed to pass in 2014, and may get voted upon again in 2015. See this link: But the San Diego Union Tribune today published an editorial by Bryan Pate, CEO of EliptiGo, who says that his small business would be ruined if the Innovation Act passed, due to the additional legal costs required to defend his patents. This trial lawyer presents a solid argument at this web page, for why the Innovation Act will only benefit the large corporations and not really help the small innovator. Of course, if patent trolls are stopped, lawyers will generally lose business. Who can we believe? This website appears to explain both sides of the issue Fox Business also tries to explain both sides. . From the corporations that are lining up on both sides of the issue, it appears that the very large businesses have lined up in favor of the "innovation act" and the small businesses are against it. It is hard to figure out who's money is behind it -- see this link: Since now corporations can donate as much money as they want to politicians, I am suspicious that the so-called innovation act will actually benefit the very large businesses and squeeze out the little guy. Based upon only that, I would be suspicious of it and would prefer it not be passed. I've often thought that patent trolls could be stopped if they had to show that they were actively pursuing use of the patent they own. After all, the goal of the patent system is to push patent owners to deploy their idea as fast as possible, before the protection ends. A troll typically never actually uses the patent or even licenses it to anyone in good faith to employ in a design.
The same sort of thing happened with Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was a terrible piece of legislation, but was sponsored and funded by Disney and a few other very big corporations. When the act passed, Disney was able to extend the copyright protection for old books and movies from back when Disney first started so probably made hundreds of millions of dollars from the passage. Meanwhile the act generally screwed the public's rights to fair-use sharing of copyrighted material. I wonder if the innovation act will end up doing the same thing?
I have not yet written to Darryl Issa, my congressman because I'm not sure which way I would want him to vote. It does seem to me that if we want to stop the evil of patent trolls, we have to "raise the bar" for litigation, which, in turn, will raise the costs for someone to litigate to protect their patent. I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this subject.
As a national and global policy, we should try to do everything possible to encourage new ideas and inventions. The financial protection provided by patents and copyrights does need to be maintained. This Gallegher Intellectual Property Law Site has good history of the problem. However, the business that "patent trolls" do is generally despicable, counter-productive, and does nothing to help the economy, other than enrich the trolls and their lawyers. Legitimate companies are generally willing to negotiate fair and reasonable fees for rights to use patents. I think the US Government does need legislation to put some sort of controls on those trolls. But what is the right answer? Who can we believe? A new version of the "Innovation Act" is now pending in Congress which purports to resolve this problem.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation supports the "Innovation Act" which failed to pass in 2014, and may get voted upon again in 2015. See this link: But the San Diego Union Tribune today published an editorial by Bryan Pate, CEO of EliptiGo, who says that his small business would be ruined if the Innovation Act passed, due to the additional legal costs required to defend his patents. This trial lawyer presents a solid argument at this web page, for why the Innovation Act will only benefit the large corporations and not really help the small innovator. Of course, if patent trolls are stopped, lawyers will generally lose business. Who can we believe? This website appears to explain both sides of the issue Fox Business also tries to explain both sides. . From the corporations that are lining up on both sides of the issue, it appears that the very large businesses have lined up in favor of the "innovation act" and the small businesses are against it. It is hard to figure out who's money is behind it -- see this link: Since now corporations can donate as much money as they want to politicians, I am suspicious that the so-called innovation act will actually benefit the very large businesses and squeeze out the little guy. Based upon only that, I would be suspicious of it and would prefer it not be passed. I've often thought that patent trolls could be stopped if they had to show that they were actively pursuing use of the patent they own. After all, the goal of the patent system is to push patent owners to deploy their idea as fast as possible, before the protection ends. A troll typically never actually uses the patent or even licenses it to anyone in good faith to employ in a design.
The same sort of thing happened with Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It was a terrible piece of legislation, but was sponsored and funded by Disney and a few other very big corporations. When the act passed, Disney was able to extend the copyright protection for old books and movies from back when Disney first started so probably made hundreds of millions of dollars from the passage. Meanwhile the act generally screwed the public's rights to fair-use sharing of copyrighted material. I wonder if the innovation act will end up doing the same thing?
I have not yet written to Darryl Issa, my congressman because I'm not sure which way I would want him to vote. It does seem to me that if we want to stop the evil of patent trolls, we have to "raise the bar" for litigation, which, in turn, will raise the costs for someone to litigate to protect their patent. I'd be interested in hearing what others think on this subject.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Why would God Bless the "Old America?"
Our friend Grace Armstrong Lewis posted this on her Facebook page:
It started me wondering: Why would "God" bless the "Old America" rather than the current America? How "old" is the "old America" that the sign is referring to? If alive today, it must be since the 1920s during prohibition, when crime was rampant, minorities and women were treated terribly, Klu Klux Klan were freely doing lynching and many children died in childbirth or disease. Could it be the 1930s, during the depression -- there weren't many good times then!. How about the 1940s? World War II, Hitler & Japan's atrocities, food and gas rationing, Japanese-Americans sent to remote camps? Could it have been the 1950s with McCarthyism, Polio, Korean war and the start of the Cold War with fear of global world nuclear war? It is hard to believe we miss the 1960s when we lost 50,000 lives fighting a stupid Vietnam war, and still had the threat of global nuclear war. The US war on Vietnam killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam and the region, and what did we gain? -- would God "bless" that? It is possible that someone might "miss" the 1980s, but I'm not sure why. Crime was much higher than today. The Government created inflation that reduced the value of the dollar by about half to pay for the previous wars which decimated the savings of many..particularly retirees on fixed incomes. President Reagan intentionally fought against rights for gays, women and blacks and refused to step up to stopping HIV/AIDs which contributed to the death of tens of thousands.
I think the world and American citizen's lives are much better today than any time in history. I think the "moral standard" of America and the United States Government is better now than it ever has been. Crime is down, traffic fatalities down, food is safer, water and air is cleaner, education is better and fairer. We have a good national "safety net" which protects poor, elderly and disabled better than ever before. In international relations, we seem to have relatively good relations with China, Vietnam, and now even Cuba. We are having a rough time with Russia --but our efforts show we are trying to bring peace. Yes we are fighting some "wars" but they are all relatively low level, and the number of soldiers being killed and wounded seems to be lower than most times in history. Why would we ever want to go back to the "old days?"
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs
I've always thought that state regulatory boards were in a strange "conflict of interest" situation that made them appear to be working to restrict the supply of people in their profession more than trying to protect the public. Even when their obvious goals were to protect the public, they were always under suspicion and had to go out of their way to avoid the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. Michael Hiltzik's column in today's Los Angeles Times explains how that situation might change a lot based upon the February 25 2015 Supreme Court ruling on NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTALEXAMINERS v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. See Michael's article at this link.
Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs - LA Times
Michael Hiltzik
With respect to this Supreme Court case, it is clear to me that "tooth whitening" does not require the same sort of regulation that dentistry requires. However, It probably does need some sort of regulation to protect the public from poor sanitization etc. The essence of the case is should a state regulatory board be exempt from antitrust law, which would, in effect, protect professionals serving on a state board if they "restrained trade" by monopoly-like practices. See this SCOTUS Blog. The fact that the Dentist profession wanted to maintain control over that procedure does appear to be an attempt to restrict the supply of teeth-whitening service providers and keep the profits from that service for the Dentists. The same concept could apply to almost every other state licensing board, in every state. Doctors, dentists, contractors, lawyers, hairstylists, swimming pool maintainers, and Realtors all are in the same situation.
One of the problems is that the best people to write laws about a specific profession and enforce those laws are the people who know the most about the field. So, for example, the Dentists propose the laws, serve on the Dental boards, and hole hearings and either perform or recommend discipline when malpractice is determined. Discipline is often very slight and usually very slow, even for egregious offenses. Professionals are viewed as loathe to discipline members of their own ranks.
Another part of the problem is that the top members of a professional hierarchy are often the ones who serve on boards regulating professional requirements for "lower tier" professions. For example Dentists are the board members who write and enforce the rules for dental hygienists and dental assistants. Medical doctors serve on the boards that license physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and the many other lower-tier medical professionals, such as phlebotomists, or x-ray technicians, General contractors serve on the boards that regulate lower tiers such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile setters etc. In Michael's example, Veterinarians regulate Veterinary Technicians That puts those at the top of the hierarchy in a position where they can restrict what those lower tier professionals are able to do in their state to make sure that the members at the top of the hierarchy continue to get their "cut" of the revenue from those lower tier workers. For example, requiring all dental hygienists to work under the direct supervision of a dentist in a dental office -- as opposed to allowing them to open their own office. To reduce the appearance of this apparent conflict, the boards often have "token" representation from the lower tier professions on the board, such as one Veterinary Technician on a board of Veterinarians.
There is a good argument for having those "top tier" professionals serve on the boards for the lower tier jobs. The top professionals are the best educated, usually have the most experience, and have the most to lose. Since the top profession is dependent upon the lower tier, they do need to make sure that they are protected from poor performance from lower tier employees. In many instances, the top profession's liability insurance acts as an umbrella for the other employees.
Serving on a board is usually in imposition on professional's valuable time. Even though most of the boards do pay members for serving it often doesn't represent the full "opportunity cost" to a professional for attending board meetings. They have to make room in busy schedules, they have to consider their employees, travel time, overnight accommodations near the meeting location (often near state capitol cities). and impact on friendships, professional society positions, and personal liability. The goal of altruism and serving the state to improve their profession could easily be overshadowed by the possibility of increasing total earnings by making minor changes in board rulings, license exams, or laws.
I see this Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to structurally change how many services are provided and reduce the cost of those services to the public, by reducing the ability of professions to earn excess profits from monopolistic pricing. I'm amazed at how much more reasonably priced similar services are in other countries. Dentists in Thailand go through almost the same sort of training, and require the same types of equipment and office operation as used in the US, but high-quality services are provided at much less than half of the costs in the US. I believe services are cheaper in every country of the world. Why do we pay so much more in the US? Possibly because of this sort of board oversight.
My suggestion is that board structures be changed throughout the US. The Supreme Court ruled against the current structure, but did not suggest how it could be corrected. The only advice was that:
1) the challenged restraint on competition is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy and
2) the policy is actively supervised by the state.
I will be greatly interested in hearing what the experts come up with. However here are some of my suggestions:
1. No voting member of a professional state regulatory board should be a member of the profession being regulated.
2. Boards should, however, be made up of state-licensed professionals from other professions, with no two members from the same profession, and none, of course from the profession they are regulating. Board members shall have short term limits to make sure that many have opportunities to serve.
3. States need to provide "active supervision" over the board and the professions. So all boards should serve in an advisory role to a state official. A state civil servant shall be assigned to approve all recommendations from the board, and the civil servant shall be nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative committee(s) that control the profession. The number of civil servants could vary depending upon the number of legislative committees a state has, the size of the profession, etc.
4. Boards should have a budget, from which they can hire professionals (often from the profession they are regulating) to perform studies and provide recommendations to the board. In general, the budget should be proportional to the number of people in the profession being regulated, and should be funded from fees collected for testing, licensing, and annual license renewal fees.
5. It seems crazy for a state to establish a statutory restraint on competition, so I doubt that would happen. But if for some reason a state wanted to do so, it could. Conversely, I believe states should encourage competition and should include the requirement for the boards to take steps to encourage competition as much as possible.
Supreme Court ruling puts state regulatory boards in crosshairs - LA Times
Michael Hiltzik
With respect to this Supreme Court case, it is clear to me that "tooth whitening" does not require the same sort of regulation that dentistry requires. However, It probably does need some sort of regulation to protect the public from poor sanitization etc. The essence of the case is should a state regulatory board be exempt from antitrust law, which would, in effect, protect professionals serving on a state board if they "restrained trade" by monopoly-like practices. See this SCOTUS Blog. The fact that the Dentist profession wanted to maintain control over that procedure does appear to be an attempt to restrict the supply of teeth-whitening service providers and keep the profits from that service for the Dentists. The same concept could apply to almost every other state licensing board, in every state. Doctors, dentists, contractors, lawyers, hairstylists, swimming pool maintainers, and Realtors all are in the same situation.
One of the problems is that the best people to write laws about a specific profession and enforce those laws are the people who know the most about the field. So, for example, the Dentists propose the laws, serve on the Dental boards, and hole hearings and either perform or recommend discipline when malpractice is determined. Discipline is often very slight and usually very slow, even for egregious offenses. Professionals are viewed as loathe to discipline members of their own ranks.
Another part of the problem is that the top members of a professional hierarchy are often the ones who serve on boards regulating professional requirements for "lower tier" professions. For example Dentists are the board members who write and enforce the rules for dental hygienists and dental assistants. Medical doctors serve on the boards that license physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, and the many other lower-tier medical professionals, such as phlebotomists, or x-ray technicians, General contractors serve on the boards that regulate lower tiers such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, tile setters etc. In Michael's example, Veterinarians regulate Veterinary Technicians That puts those at the top of the hierarchy in a position where they can restrict what those lower tier professionals are able to do in their state to make sure that the members at the top of the hierarchy continue to get their "cut" of the revenue from those lower tier workers. For example, requiring all dental hygienists to work under the direct supervision of a dentist in a dental office -- as opposed to allowing them to open their own office. To reduce the appearance of this apparent conflict, the boards often have "token" representation from the lower tier professions on the board, such as one Veterinary Technician on a board of Veterinarians.
There is a good argument for having those "top tier" professionals serve on the boards for the lower tier jobs. The top professionals are the best educated, usually have the most experience, and have the most to lose. Since the top profession is dependent upon the lower tier, they do need to make sure that they are protected from poor performance from lower tier employees. In many instances, the top profession's liability insurance acts as an umbrella for the other employees.
Serving on a board is usually in imposition on professional's valuable time. Even though most of the boards do pay members for serving it often doesn't represent the full "opportunity cost" to a professional for attending board meetings. They have to make room in busy schedules, they have to consider their employees, travel time, overnight accommodations near the meeting location (often near state capitol cities). and impact on friendships, professional society positions, and personal liability. The goal of altruism and serving the state to improve their profession could easily be overshadowed by the possibility of increasing total earnings by making minor changes in board rulings, license exams, or laws.
I see this Supreme Court ruling as an opportunity to structurally change how many services are provided and reduce the cost of those services to the public, by reducing the ability of professions to earn excess profits from monopolistic pricing. I'm amazed at how much more reasonably priced similar services are in other countries. Dentists in Thailand go through almost the same sort of training, and require the same types of equipment and office operation as used in the US, but high-quality services are provided at much less than half of the costs in the US. I believe services are cheaper in every country of the world. Why do we pay so much more in the US? Possibly because of this sort of board oversight.
My suggestion is that board structures be changed throughout the US. The Supreme Court ruled against the current structure, but did not suggest how it could be corrected. The only advice was that:
1) the challenged restraint on competition is clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy and
2) the policy is actively supervised by the state.
I will be greatly interested in hearing what the experts come up with. However here are some of my suggestions:
1. No voting member of a professional state regulatory board should be a member of the profession being regulated.
2. Boards should, however, be made up of state-licensed professionals from other professions, with no two members from the same profession, and none, of course from the profession they are regulating. Board members shall have short term limits to make sure that many have opportunities to serve.
3. States need to provide "active supervision" over the board and the professions. So all boards should serve in an advisory role to a state official. A state civil servant shall be assigned to approve all recommendations from the board, and the civil servant shall be nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative committee(s) that control the profession. The number of civil servants could vary depending upon the number of legislative committees a state has, the size of the profession, etc.
4. Boards should have a budget, from which they can hire professionals (often from the profession they are regulating) to perform studies and provide recommendations to the board. In general, the budget should be proportional to the number of people in the profession being regulated, and should be funded from fees collected for testing, licensing, and annual license renewal fees.
5. It seems crazy for a state to establish a statutory restraint on competition, so I doubt that would happen. But if for some reason a state wanted to do so, it could. Conversely, I believe states should encourage competition and should include the requirement for the boards to take steps to encourage competition as much as possible.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Coastal Commission makes controversial decision concerning Del Mar San Dieguito Boardwalk
It appears that the California Coastal Commission may have made a very controversial decision concerning the relocation of a boardwalk built with volunteer labor and donated material. The decision was a result of a 5-5 tie vote. I suspect that the Commission staff possibly slanted their arguments, and scheduled the vote on a day when the commission wouldn't have their normal 11 members, which would have avoided a tie vote.
Coast News articles about the Coastal Commission's denial of the boardwalk:
https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/coastal-commission-denies-request-to-leave-the-boardwalk-where-it-is/
https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/coastal-commission-denies-request-to-leave-the-boardwalk-where-it-is/
Editorial in Coast News: https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/letters-to-the-editor-64/
Sierra Club suit over boardwalk decision: https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2014/01/sierra-club-sues-coastal-commission-over-fairgrounds-decision/
Coastal Commission Decision being protested: https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/03/supporters-walk-the-planks-to-save-the-boardwalk/
Editorial in Union Tribune by Steve Kinsey: Chairman of Coastal Commission, in favor of boardwalk decision:
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/27/relocating-boardwalk-best-for-nature/
Editorial in Union Tribune by Greg Cox, opposed to the decision: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/27/another-view/
I do hope that there is another hearing, with the full commission and all of the factual information provided. There may be additional facts, analyses, and alternative mitigation options. It appears to me that there is a realistic compromise solution. They should leave the boardwalk in place for a reasonable number of years that would allow for the normal life of the structure (maybe 10 years) and after that time, the boardwalk could be removed and rebuilt in a new location.
On 5 April, the Union Tribune had an update written by Edward Sifuentes that said the boardwalk supporters were going to meet with the California Coastal Commission's staff on Monday. http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/05/tp-groups-want-state-to-reconsider-boardwalk/
Friday, January 16, 2015
Wage Growth and Productivity
The financial news seems to have been frequently talking about the fact that overall in the US the average wages have not been "growing" fast enough to get ahead of inflation. Yes, it appears that during the past few years, the number of people employed has increased, and the number of people looking for work (the unemployed) have gone down. However we continually hear that the average wages have not gone up faster than about 1.5% over inflation. The financial press implies that we need wages to increase faster so people will be able to afford to buy homes, for example.
From my understanding of economics, in a perfect world, average wages would increase exactly the amount of inflation + labor productivity. So if we have 1.6% inflation, and 1.5% productivity (see this Bureau of Labor Statistics Chart) increase, wages could increase by 3.1%. Of course "inflation adjusted" would be 1.5%. . If wages increased faster than productivity the nation would experience "cost push" inflation, which reduced the value of the currency, and forces the cost of goods and services higher. If wages increased slower than that amount, the economy could slow down. Although that could also increase the amount of money available for businesses to invest to expand or buy equipment to improve labor efficiency.
It isn't clear to me that real wages haven't been increasing faster than inflation. According to these charts the cost of medical care in the US rose by around 8% in 2014on a per capita basis. Yes a lot of those costs are passed on to citizens, and some are paid by the Government. However a significant percentage of those costs are also paid by companies who are paying for medical insurance. In addition, other federal, state, and local taxes have increased the cost of labor. Changes in laws that force companies to provide more insurance, or vacation also increases the cost of labor--but also results in increase in benefits to the worker. The financial pundits in the news seem to dwell only on the amount of pay increases that end up going into an employee's bank account, but ignore the large percentage of other benefits that employees are receiving --that have, in fact, been increasing faster than inflation.
From my understanding of economics, in a perfect world, average wages would increase exactly the amount of inflation + labor productivity. So if we have 1.6% inflation, and 1.5% productivity (see this Bureau of Labor Statistics Chart) increase, wages could increase by 3.1%. Of course "inflation adjusted" would be 1.5%. . If wages increased faster than productivity the nation would experience "cost push" inflation, which reduced the value of the currency, and forces the cost of goods and services higher. If wages increased slower than that amount, the economy could slow down. Although that could also increase the amount of money available for businesses to invest to expand or buy equipment to improve labor efficiency.
It isn't clear to me that real wages haven't been increasing faster than inflation. According to these charts the cost of medical care in the US rose by around 8% in 2014on a per capita basis. Yes a lot of those costs are passed on to citizens, and some are paid by the Government. However a significant percentage of those costs are also paid by companies who are paying for medical insurance. In addition, other federal, state, and local taxes have increased the cost of labor. Changes in laws that force companies to provide more insurance, or vacation also increases the cost of labor--but also results in increase in benefits to the worker. The financial pundits in the news seem to dwell only on the amount of pay increases that end up going into an employee's bank account, but ignore the large percentage of other benefits that employees are receiving --that have, in fact, been increasing faster than inflation.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Imprisoned by a lie; set free by the truth - CBS News
I saw this on CBS News this evening. Imprisoned by a lie; set free by the truth - CBS News
Ricky Jackson served 38 years from age 18 for a murder that he was innocent from. The police and prosecutors pressured a then 12 year old boy Edward Vernon to falsely testify that he saw Ricky Jackson do the crime. However at the time, Edward had been actually on a bus, and couldn't have witnessed the crime.
I have a hard time criticizing Edward Vernon for lying. A 12 year old boy, could be easily led by police and prosecutors into lying on the stand. I can't hold the judge or the jury liable for doing it. The prosecutors and police, on the other hand, knew what they were doing. They wanted a "win" at any cost. They clearly weren't doing their job of finding justice --but were just trying to convict someone to "close the books" on the crime.
The prosecutor and police officers involved probably received positive publicity, probably received raises and promotions based upon their "success" in convicting Ricky Jackson. Since 38 years have gone by, they may be dead or retired. I believe that somehow they or their heirs should be held liable for what is clearly malicious prosecution. But I doubt if anything will ever be done.
Police/Prosecutors probably think this is just part of "collateral damage" - sometimes an innocent person gets caught up in the "net."--- However, by doing what they did, they have somewhat "poisoned" future juries who may not believe testimony by police.
Ricky Jackson served 38 years from age 18 for a murder that he was innocent from. The police and prosecutors pressured a then 12 year old boy Edward Vernon to falsely testify that he saw Ricky Jackson do the crime. However at the time, Edward had been actually on a bus, and couldn't have witnessed the crime.
I have a hard time criticizing Edward Vernon for lying. A 12 year old boy, could be easily led by police and prosecutors into lying on the stand. I can't hold the judge or the jury liable for doing it. The prosecutors and police, on the other hand, knew what they were doing. They wanted a "win" at any cost. They clearly weren't doing their job of finding justice --but were just trying to convict someone to "close the books" on the crime.
The prosecutor and police officers involved probably received positive publicity, probably received raises and promotions based upon their "success" in convicting Ricky Jackson. Since 38 years have gone by, they may be dead or retired. I believe that somehow they or their heirs should be held liable for what is clearly malicious prosecution. But I doubt if anything will ever be done.
Police/Prosecutors probably think this is just part of "collateral damage" - sometimes an innocent person gets caught up in the "net."--- However, by doing what they did, they have somewhat "poisoned" future juries who may not believe testimony by police.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)