Police Violence -- is it Mob Mentality?

 There have been several articles talking about the root cause and effect of the recent police violence. 

Here is one in today's Union-Tribune by Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times:

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=b328425c-7790-4a62-8c83-8411f5a66e05

And here is one by the Union-Tribune Editorial Board about release of police recordings

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=c474d157-383d-41f1-b6a6-671b57b4f0ef

There was another recent incident on June 14 2022 where the SDPD harrassed the head of the Taxi Driver's union for apparently no reason.  Then now 9 months later the police still have not released the body cam video as promised.  It seems that there should be some sort of discipline for the officers involved, but apparently, nothing has been done. 

• https://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=fe9fbe8a-6667-4dba-be88-a90ba6cf3cf3

Its clear that we've come a long way in the past 20 years.  20 years ago, police would arrest people taking video of a police incident and often confiscate or break their camera or phone.  Now the police are supposed to be wearing a camera themselves.  I really wonder how many people over the past 100 years have been treated badly by police, but there was no video to refute their story.  

I think there needs to be a post-event analysis of what was going through the police officer's minds when they were busy beating a suspect?  I know that's difficult because the officers don't want to admit what they did, since they are subject to discipline and legal action.  But what causes these highly trained people to treat their neighbors so violently?  Is it revenge for something the suspect said?  Is it because adrenalin is flowing through their veins and they can't think straight?  What actually goes on?  

When I see a police action underway in the streets, or when I see videos of the notorious interactions when police have killed or permanently injured suspects, it always seems like there is a mob of police gathering around the suspect.  In my small town of Oceanside, I've seen a couple of police detain a 12 yr old, search him and while that was going on, 5 other police cars show up, each with two officers.  So with 12 officers and 6 total cars, it would seem the entire Oceanside police force on duty was there.  It looked like the police spent about a half hour intimidating the boy, having him sit and lie on the ground, for example.  Then they all left and the boy just walked away.  I have no idea what went on!  However, the incident certainly didn't call for more than 2 officers to handle it.  Why were the others there? For certain the young boy will never trust a police officer again.   

I wonder if the primary arresting officers feel different when they are being watched by a crowd of fellow officers.  Do they need to act like tough guys because their peers would think they were too "soft" on criminals?  When one officer starts beating or abusing a suspect, do the other officers join in because of "mob mentality?"  What should the nearby public do in such a situation?  It seems that if they yell at the police to stop, it actually infuriates them.  Of course if they tried to physically interfere, they'd be arrested also.  It seems like a subject that deserves a serious study.  If we understood the dynamics maybe something could be done during police training that could reduce the effect

Housing Crisis in San Diego?

The San Diego Union Tribune ran an editorial today asking of the "public willing to tackle the housing crisis?" I'm not sure the public is willing! I'm also not sure the situation is actually a "crisis." Why do we need to have lower cost housing in an area where land is most expensive? Where are the economists? Economics would say that the normal situation is for prices to rise naturally until supply and demand come into balance. In a normal situation, retirees or disabled would move to lower cost areas so they could stretch their income further. There are areas throughout California that are lower cost, and there are places all over the United States that are lower cost. As those people would move away, their housing would become available to workers in the area. Why wouldn't retirees want to move to the huge amounts of open spaces available for affordable housing in other states? Why must Southern California accomodate so many people? The problem is that governmet policies have distorted the market in such a way that aggrivates the shortage. Some of them are: 1. Proposition 13 which keeps taxes on properties low. So many owners of properties keep the homes even though they rarely use them. Buildable lots remain empty because it doesn't cost the owner much for keeping it and hoping the values will go higher. 2. Capital Gains taxes. Even though long-term capital gains taxes are lower than taxes on current income or wages, it is still significantly high on properties that were purchased in the 1970s or earlier. Why sell and pay the tax, when we can hold the property and enjoy it? 3. The tax basis "step up" at death. Many owners of properties in San Diego, particularly in the coastal zone have signficant capital gains. If we wait for the owner to die, the heirs get the benefit of the "step up" of the basis to the value at death. This is a huge tax saving! So many people are simply keeping properties off the market and are using it just for short getaways waiting for that "step up" -- 4. Affordable housing to most people means low rent. Investors would build homes, condos or apartments for rent, if they knew they had good opportunities to earn above-market rates of return. Why take the risk of building or buying a property when you can get returns on stock market investments with less risk? However the state, cities and counties have passed rent control laws that put significant caps on what could be earned. Even though the caps are not too tight, there are threats and attempts to tighten those caps -- particularly if we have significant inflation. 5. The recent changes in income tax laws have put caps on the SALT deduction which actually removes a benefit from first-time home buyers. 6. The Coastal Commission says they want to encourage affordable housing and much of San Diego County's housing stock is within the coastal zone. However their bureacracy has added another layer of paperwork, approvals, and risk involved in making those investments. The Commission puts restrictions on making minor improvements to coastal property. If an improvement is made, the property is no longer protected as "existing construction" prior to the Commission so basically loses important property rights. The commission is also pushing the concept called "Managed Retreat" for response to sea level rise. That concept prevents owners from defending their own property from sea level rise. So different from other parts of the country where, for example, the Army Corps builds levees to protect Louisiana homes. 7. The cost of buying a home in a PUD or Condo is usually less than a stand-alone single family home. The higher density, as described in the article is also considered desirable. However, the State and local governments make it very difficult for people to obtain mortgages in PUDs and Condos. The mortgage applications are subject to seemingly arbitrary standards concerning construction, insurance, association reserves, and rental occupancy. In addition, the state continues to make knee-jerk reactions to problems and passes laws which make it much more difficult for an association to be managed by volunteer boards. All of these above constraints could easily be resolved by the government. But because each of them involve short-term pain for long-term gain, the sound-bites would tend to make those changes unpopular. Until we get legislatures with guts, integrity and technical understanding, the problem will continue.

Work Shorter Hours

I saw this opinion item by Noah Smith in the San Diego Union Tribune, originally from Bloomberg.  The article points out that when people work fewer days they appear to be more productive, and maybe happier.  I think this could have some public policy implications.
Working shorter hours may be able to improve productivity in some jobs.  But other jobs required people to be in their position.  For example, a security guard or a retail clerk needs to be at their position.  Also, this article seems to ignore the possibility that the increase in productivity was due to the "Hawthorne Effect" where workers productivity improved when lighting was decreased, and it also increased when light was increased.  It was then determined that the benefit was because the workers felt management was paying attention to their welfare. 
In reality, many low-paying, boring, repetitive jobs are being replaced by technology.  Jobs like librarian, music stores, book stores, key punch operators, bank check sorter/filers, newspaper delivery etc have been mostly replaced by technology.  During the next decade, we expect that self-driving cars and trucks might eliminate those jobs.  A lot of "fast food" ordering and production may be replaced by machinery and electronics. 
As jobs are eliminated, it is likely that they will be replaced by other new jobs that we haven't even thought of yet.  But I have the feeling that there might not be enough new jobs to absorb all of the labor that will be released by automation.  If that does happen, the world has the choice of simply having many people sit idly by unemployed or find something for them to do.   Another option would be to shorten the work week such that more people work, but they each work shorter hours. 
The French achieved the first 12 hr day law in 1848, and the idea of a 10-hour day was raised in 1810.  But the 8-hour work day, 40 hour/week concept became an international standard in 1919, and was gradually adopted throughout the world.  Now 100 years later not much has changed!    The definition of a work-week and "full time employment" affects how other employment benefits are distributed.  Typically full-time employees receive medical, retirement and vacation benefits. 
I propose that the US lead the way in passing legislation that lays out a plan for gradual reduction of the workweek definition.  Hours beyond the limit would be compensated by overtime pay.  Businesses need to be able to plan for the future.  They make capital improvement plans, design facilities, and plan shift schedules based upon laws.  Below is my proposal

	2020	2025	2030`	2035	2040	2045	2050
Hours per day limit	8	8	8	7	7	7	6
Days per week limit	5	5	5	4.5	4	4	4
Hours per week limit	40	37.5	35	32	28	26	24

San Diego County Tax Collector escheating of funds owed to citizens and business appears to be government theft

The San Diego Union Tribune today (Sep 10,2016) had an article by Joshua Stewart:  "Deadline Nears for County Refunds" that pointed out that monday Sep 12 is the deadline for people who may be due a check from the San Diego County Treasurer to file a form to request the funds or they will be "escheated" to the government, and the rightful owner will never again be permitted to claim the funds.  The San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector, Dan McAllister says he is confused:  "Why wouldn't anyone want some quick and easy money?"  There are more than $352,000 in funds waiting to be claimed. McAllister says he "has a team of investigators that try to track down people who might have a claim to the funds."  I looked at the list of funds, and the majority of the funds belong to banks, mortgage companies, title companies and even a trailer park.  You can't tell me that Dan McAllister's team can't find Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, or First American Title Company.  Is he really trying to find the rightful owners?  Or does he want to capture the money for the County?  I think it appears to be theft!
I understand that the county is authorized to do this under California Revenue and Taxation Code sections 5097 and 5102  It does make some sense to put pressure on citizens and agencies to "close the books" on old accounts.  In the past, when all records maintained on paper, it was expensive to keep, file, search, and find records.  Now that technology permits very easy record keeping, there is minimal additional expense involved in maintaining records.  I believe it is time the state rules on escheatment of funds be modified to allow for funds to be claimed after longer periods of time than just 4 years.  Of course, a penalty, such as 10% per year could be levied for periods after the 4 yr period to encourage closure of accounts.  In addition, the Government agency should not be permitted to escheat the funds unless it can honestly show that it really did make an attempt to contact the rightful owner.  I'm not sure that holding a little "press conference" or putting an article in the newspaper constitutes a valid attempt.
 .  I

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/

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!
,

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!

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.

$5.4B PLEDGED TO GAZA, HALF FOR REBUILDING | UTSanDiego.com

The Union Tribune says that a lot of countries have pledged an immense amount of money to help rebuild the Gasa strip:

$5.4B PLEDGED TO GAZA, HALF FOR REBUILDING | UTSanDiego.com

However, today's Union Tribune reported that none of the "pledged" money is being "funded" by those donors yet.  The report was made by Tia Goldenberg, who apparently is a reporter/writer for Israeli news organization (so probably can't be trusted to be impartial). See this link: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/81a7db32e60b4b7b89da5af38f6c02ce/palestinian-man-arrested-after-foiled-attack-soldier

  However it is believable.  Why would anyone put up money to rebuild something that will likely get blown up again by the aggressive Israeli's?    In response to the launch of a series of unreliable, inaccurate and somewhat impotent missiles launched by radical factions in Gaza, Israel blew up much of the Palestinian infrastructure (thousands of buildings) and killed a large number (2100) of men, women and children whom they keep trapped in what appears to be a prison camp called the Gaza strip.  Very little damage was done to Israeli property and very few deaths or injuries to its citizens (66 soldiers and 7 deaths according to Tia Goldenberg).

The correct response, in my mind, would have been for Israel to go into Gaza, capture the individuals involved, give them fair and open trials and impose fair and reasonable  punishment when found guilty.  Why must Israel blow up all of the Palestinian's buildings, power plants etc?  That is just crazy!  Why should the Palestinians have to depend upon the charity of other, uninvolved, Arab countries to rebuild?  When the US goes in to a country and blows up everything (which I also think is sometimes too much), we end up paying for the repairs, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq most recently.  We even helped Germany and Japan rebuild after WWII!  Why shouldn't Israel pay and manage the reconstruction of the Gaza strip?  The US has fully funded Israel's state-sponsored terrorism against their neighbors.  If Israel won't pay for the rebuilding, we should stop sending our money to Israel, and divert it to help the people of Gaza.  Israel and their allies have been paying for advertising on billboards, radio and television to try to convince US citizens that what they have been doing is correct.  I think that is just another example of why we shouldn't be supporting them.



If I were asked to contribute to help Gaza rebuild, I would insist that every building be designed to withstand bombs, and have anti aircraft and anti missile equipment mounted to help defend them from Israel before I would lend them a dime!

Optimizing Social Security Benefits

The Wall Street Journal had an article by Anne Turgeson that was published in this Sunday's San Diego Union Tribune  Free Tools for Optimizing Social Security Benefits - WSJ:
It is basically a review of various online tools that people can use to help them make the all-important, once-in-a-lifetime decision of when to start collecting social security. The decision to start social security is not only complex, it is also complicated selecting a tool to assist in making the decision.  Anne Turgeson's article helps! There are a lot of other online advice columns to help people make the decision:

• Forbes Magazine: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1112/092.html
• 2012 article by Morningstar: http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=343180
• 2012 article by "Market Watch" http://www.marketwatch.com/story/social-security-claiming-tricks-to-maximize-payout-2012-10-18 It includes options such as "file and suspend" etc.

We only get to do this once in our life, and don't generally get "do-overs" --(although there are some specialized cases where it can be done). The decision involves assessment of our own health and longevity, our spouse's health and longevity and the concept of present value, or time value of money. Also in the back of people's mind when they make this decision is the politics behind social security: Will it be there when I need it? Or will right-wingers take over Congress and the Presidency and "cancel" or "phase out" social security? They have presented several arguments in the past to replace social security with private programs, which might have been a good idea, but is hard to do when so many depend upon it now. Yes, of course nobody would "cut off" payments.  However if it were privatized, as more and more people are under the private system, there would be a fear that congress would keep payments up with inflation.    Inflation is a big concern. If we enter an era where inflation is rampant, will congress have the will to keep social security payments adjusted for inflation? It would be very tempting to increase the payments at a rate slower than inflation, which would have the effect of reducing recipients income, and reducing a governmental budget deficit.
On top of all of this, there are many arcane rules that complicate filing for social security, many of which are not clearly documented. For example, if your birthday is on the first day of the month, you have to file two months prior to the date you want to start.   Some of the rules are in contention--in that either the President or Congress would like to change the rules (generally to save money, or "close a loophole")  What happens if we make our decision, or plan, and then the rules change?
Why does it need to be so complicated?  I believe the decision is too complicated for most Americans to make a good decision to optimize their return from Social Security.  The difference can be amazing!  This article points out that even the experts who create these online tools don't do as good of a job as many of us might need to make the best decision.  It is also very difficult to get the best answer from the SSA staff at local offices.  It is hard to get an appointment, and the tools they currently use have some limitations. Divorces and remarriage also severely complicates determination of how much can be earned based upon a spouses earnings under the various options.
I have a Master's degree that focused on good financial decision-making, and I now think maybe my wife and I didn't make the optimum decision.  I have subscribed to the American Association of Individual Investors bulletin (AAII) for many years, and it has had expert explanations of various alternatives, but we still missed at least one opportunity to improve upon our total social security benefit.  If I couldn't make the best decision, I have the feeling that a LOT of Americans will make the incorrect decision.  How many read AAII publications, the Wall Street Journal, or look for online calculators when making the decision.
One of my well educated close relatives who had been in questionable health made her decision to start social security too late, and only collected for a little more than a year before she died  While another well educated one in excellent health decided to start collecting significantly reduced amount at age 62, even though she didn't need the money.  Her rationale was simply: "I may drop dead tomorrow, and who knows if social security will still be paying in a few years!"
When we receive our social security statements, they are personalized for our own benefits.  The SSA system knows we are married, and it knows our spouses earnings and SSA benefits.  It seems to me that SSA could provide both spouses with the various options for when to start based upon our ages, our lifetime earnings and when we decide to start.  The complicated options of "file and suspend" and "collect and then payback" probably don't need to be included.  In fact, it seems that those types of options should only be permitted in very special cases, such as several medical situations. Even if the SSA statements don't include that information, it seems that the SSA website could have a way of handling "joint" situations.

Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com

It is interesting that now there will be another large database collected by car companies, that will be almost as interesting as the highway intersection camera data, security camera data, internet data, telephone data etc, and also as much of an invasion of our privacy.

This article by Johnathan Horn in today's Union Tribune describes a bill in the California State Senate to force auto companies to share the data they collect with car owners and car repair shops.  The bill was introduced by Sen Bill Monning, a Democrat from Marin County.

Should you control your own car's data? | UTSanDiego.com:  The issue is extremely interesting because it involves so many aspects of law, privacy, security, and engineering.  Also it is interesting to see the crazy mix of groups in the coalitions for, and against the bill.  The AAA is in favor of it, but the NAACP is against it, along with the car companies.

This bill in the State legislature could set some precedents for other states.  Eventually it probably will need to be addressed by Federal legislation