USA Today - FAA OKs drones for moviemaking

USA Today had an article by Bart Jansen that said that the FAA is now permitting six movie companies to legally use drones.  Rules for drone use won't be released for another 18 months.

Eighteen more months is far too long, when the FAA has already been working on the problem for years.  Approving companies on a case-by-case basis will result in unfair competition, favoritism for friends, and use too much of the FAA's time. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx seems to be dragging his agencies feet.  He is quoted as saying: "These companies are blazing a trail that others are already following offering the promise of new advances"..This statement seems to imply that the agency is going to "learn" from the movie companies, and seems to admit that many other users are out there--but are operating illegally.   The FAA says they will learn by taking each application on a case-by-case basis and use that information for helping them craft new rules and regulations.   Meanwhile thousands of drone users will be using their drones "illegally" for years, and will have no reasonable guidelines for operation.  Farmers, Realtors & Wedding photographers meanwhile will be using drones for their job, but will be subject to arbitrary and capricious enforcement which will be unfair to everyone including enforcement agencies, operators, and nearby citizens.  
Interim standards need to be issued ASAP, and then the agency can amend them, as necessary, over the next few years.  Interim standards are pretty obvious:

•  400 ft altitude limit, 
• line of site to operator, 
• permission of property owners, 
• notification to residents, 
• establish a minimum distance from any airport etc.  

Minimum design standards for licensed drones need to be established so manufacturers will be able to produce equipment that is FAA and FCC approved over the next few years. These simple design requirements could be published now as a minimum standard.  Details could be fleshed out over the next few years.  Those minimum standards also seem pretty obvious and should include the following:

• All drones must have a beacon that squawks a unique ID, 
• Drones must broadcast their GPS location and altitude.  
• Drones must have encrypted/authenticated command & control system to protect from cross-talk, or high-jacking by nearby hackers.
• Drones must have unencrypted payload downlink to allow neighbors to see what is being collected.

In addition,  an FAA website needs to be developed ASAP for registering operators, equipment, and flight plans.  The FAA needs to start development now, so it can be "live" within 2 years.  As a minimum the web site should allow for:

• All drone operators can file and close out all flight plans which include a GPS-coordinate flight track.  Flight plan filing should be as simple as drawing a box on a Google Earth map. Flight plans must be filed at least 24 hours prior to a flight.  Close out of flight plan within 24 hours of flight completion.  
• Website should be public, and should allow citizens to register so they can be notified if a drone flight path is filed within an area defined by the user using GPS coordinates.    
• The FAA website should allow operators to register their drone including the unique ID number which the beacon squawks.  Registration should include the manufacturer, model number, serial number, RF channel to be used.
• Operators should be able to take an online training course which defines the rules under which the drone is to be operated.
• Following the completion of the short on-line course, the operator should be allowed to register for a license which would include an on-line exam that would result in a license good for a couple of years. Renewal time initially should be relatively short, since the rule-making process will change and operators would need to be updated on the changes.  Operators should be able to provide a photo of their driver's license as an identification as part of the registration/licensing process. 

60 Minutes Report 21 Sep 2014 on Income Tax Refund Scam

Last night on 60 minutes Steve Kroft report on the rapid growth of an Identity Theft/Income Tax Refund Scam.  Here is a link to the video of the report and the text of the report.  I found it outrageous!  The IRS has NO excuse for allowing this to happen.  Now that 60 minutes has provided the world with a step-by-step instruction on how to perform the scam, I suspect rate of increase in the number of fraudulent income tax forms filed will increase far beyond the current projected rate.  We need to do something to stop it right notw!

There are some simple things that the IRS and Congress can do to put the brakes on this fraud:
1. Do not allow a refund to be paid until the W-2 has been filed (and paid) by the employer.
2. If a refund is to be sent to an address that is different from the one used during the previous filing period, a change of address must be processed in advance, which will prompt a letter to be sent to the previous address for verification.
3. Prepaid debit cards receiving refunds must be registered with valid ID at the bank issuing the card


Longer term solutions:
1.The IRS should enlist the USPS to assist in spotting suspected criminals participating in this sort of scam.  Yes, the USPS is a "private" business --but the Service and the Carriers could be offered some sort of reward for identifying criminals involved in this sort of activity..
2. Additional FBI resources need to be applied to arresting and convicting these criminals, and the Government should attempt to obtain restitution.
3. The IRS needs to make much larger investment in IT systems that will allow all of us to file electronically but have all the necessary check & balances to prevent all sorts of income tax fraud.

New York Times 2-page ad by John D. Haywood

A two page ad appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, September 21, paid for by a John Haywood who apparently was a candidate for President in 2012.  See this link: http://www.haywoodforpresident.com/. There is also a web site that summarizes his biography and stands on issues: http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/134878/john-haywood#.VCWVqvndWSo
 I found very little other information about him.  While I like most of his very outspoken positions, it appears to me that he would have difficulty running for any office after expressing these opinions in print. Other on-line pundits believe this one advertisement may have cost him around $100,000.  If I had to guess his mindset, I would say that he is a loyal American, who has serious concerns about how our country is being run.  He probably realizes that he will never get a chance again to implement any of these policies and is "hanging up his spurs."...  However, he wants to use some of his savings to get some of these issues out on the table to get people thinking about them as we approach another election.  I applaud him for sticking his neck out! 

He took firm positions on health care, global warming, income tax reform, US policy on Israel and anti-semitism, recreational drugs, judicial reform, and others. 

I was very surprised to see that I agree with many of the points he presented.  About the only one I completely disagree with is his proposal for a "Hefty Tax on Craig's List."  I get the idea that he is concerned that Craig's List's free advertising has killed the want-ad sections of newspapers, which, in turn is damaging the free press.  The problem is that Craig's list isn't the only place where free or very cheap advertising can be done on the internet.  VRBO, for example has killed off all of the vacation rental advertising in the newspapers.  I was surprised to see his very last proposal was to replace our uranium/plutonium nuclear power reactors with thorium ones.  For decades, I've wondered why the US DOE has not been working on the development of a thorium-based nuclear reactor system.  It would produce much less toxic waste, be safer, not produce weapons-grade materials, and could be lower cost in the long run.  

I also agree with his positions on Israel and calling anyone who disagrees with Israel's policies an anti-semite.  Our country needs to separate opposition to the policies of the Israeli Government, from those of the Jewish religion or people.  

I was surprised that the New York Times didn't seem to allow me to read the advertisement on line without subscribing to the newspaper.  I can see them protecting copyrighted news articles, but I would think their advertisers would want their ads made public.  I was able to copy/paste some of the article from another web site: Campaign Outsider -- I also copy/pasted a blurry photo that was posted on the site of the full two page ad.  Below is the text of the ad:

COMMON SENSE II

BY JOHN HAYWOOD

Efficient Health Care

In a July 13, 2012 interview with Betty Liu of Bloomberg Television, billionaire financier Warren Buffet was asked: “A few weeks ago we heard from the Supreme Court, they upheld the health care reform act, the Affordable Care Act. Was that the right decision?”

Buffet: “Well I think it’s the right decision, but think that the health care problem is the number-one problem of America and of American business. If we have 17 or 18 percent of our GDP going to health care and we’re competing with countries that have 10 percent. That’s seven or eight points. There’s only 100 points in the dollar. And to have a seven- or eight-point disadvantage is huge. And a lot of businessmen complain about corporate taxes….Corporate taxes are less than two percent of GDP. So if you eliminated all the corporate taxes you’ve got seven points against you in health care.”

If the United States adopted Britain’s infinitely more efficient National Health Service (while retaining, as the British have, for-profit care for the 10% that want and can afford it), America’s bill for health care would drop from 17.5% GDP to 9% GDP.

If Helen Thomas Wasn’t Safe, Who Is?

She was the 90-year-old dean of the White House Press Corps. She was also the daughter of Lebanese immigrants. Soon after Mr. Obama’s inauguration Thomas had the audacity to ask him whether any Mideast Country had nuclear weapons. His evasive reply made clear there would be no change in American policy toward Israel.

The following year Thomas was recorded saying the following about the Israelis: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine; Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?” Thomas’s hell was about to begin.

The White House Correspondents’s Assn. publicly called her remarks “Indefensible;” her speaker agency publicly dropped her; her book project publicly terminated; a journalism group’s award named for Thomas publicly “retired;” and a planned commencement speech publicly canceled. Former White House Press secretaries publicly condemned her.

President Obama also went on record, calling her remarks “Offensive.” Her effectiveness as a reporter having come to an end, she resigned her job. On her death in 2012 newspapers across the land reported that she, a Semitic woman, had been an anti-Semite!

Legalize All Drugs, Place Them Under FDA Regulation, Tax Their Sale Moderately, and Treat the Addicts

One hundred years ago, before the first war on drugs began, 3% of Americans were addicted to drugs.

Beginning in 1914 the federal government engaged in a continuing and escalating war on drugs. Each escalation brought more violent crime committed by desperate addicts, more incarcerations, incredible expenditures of taxpayer money, more gang wars, violence in nations producing/transporting the drugs, and monumental profits for criminals.

Yet, today, 100 years later, 3% of Americans remain addicted to drugs. Almost all of them wind up in the clink. Only 11% get treatment even though treatment methods have advanced.

Haywood ran almost a dozen ads in the New Hampshire Sunday News during the 2012 Granite State presidential primary. Which got us to wondering: Is the Times spread a trial balloon for the 2016 race?

Religious Conflict and Personal Freedoms -- example Malaysia

I believe in freedom of religion.  Everyone should be entitled to believe what they want to believe, and worship as they want to.  I can also understand why members of religious groups might want to display symbols to show their faith, such as wearing certain garb (yamakas, shadors), markings on their body etc(ashes on foreheads).  However when one religion tries to force their beliefs on others, that is where it should stop.  That destroys the "freedom" part of freedom of religion.

The problem is that so many religions also believe theirs is the only true one and that everyone else needs to be converted (or "saved") by believing the same way.  I think that this inclination of so many religions to want to proselytize others is driven by their leader's desire to expand to be able to get more money and power.  A larger church with more members allows the leaders to exert more influence on the community and live better.  Even Catholic leaders who took an oath of poverty seem to want to grow to be able to gain power and trappings of wealth, if not personal wealth.

In strict Moslem countries, drinking of alcohol is forbidden, women are treated as property, and must wear outfits that cover all of most of their body.  That might be OK if the laws only applied to believers.  However they enforce those laws against "non believers" as well.  In the US, the so-called Christians believe that their prayers should be done in public such as schools, city council meetings and football games to help convert people to their way of thinking.  They say they want prayer in schools -- but they really mean their prayers -- they wouldn't want Buddhist, Confucian, Moslem, or even Roman Catholic prayers in the schools.  If I don't want my child exposed to their prayers, they say "tough" --it will make your children better to say  the prayers ("save" them?).  Many of those so-called Christian religions also want to impose restrictions on Gays, eliminate birth control, and stop abortions.  I'd have not problem if a religion refused to marry gay people, but why must they prevent gay members of other religions from marrying?  I would think it appropriate if a religion told their members to not practice birth control or have an abortion.  However, why must they impose those restrictions on others?  

Early Christians had ceremonies to marry gays, and birth control/abortion wasn't an issue in the Catholic Church until Thomas Aquinas in 1250AD

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Goal_of_human_life

Aquinas dramatically changed Christianity from a role of passivity and love to a much more aggressive form.  He put a high value on human life, including the fetus, but at the same time believed that all heretics should be killed.  He also introduced the concept of a "just war" which then allowed Christians to make war on other religions to purge the world of heretics.   None of this, of course, was part of Christ's teachings, but through complex forms of reasoning, Aquinas was able to justify his conclusions.  The leaders of the Catholic church at the time wanted to hear this sort of reasoning.  They wanted to spread the religion further, they wanted more babies, and also wanted to kill or make war on opposing religions, so Aquinas was honored and made into a saint. 

This article in Malaysia describes some of the complications involved in that country where the Moslem's have a majority and want to impose their beliefs on others: http://m.thestar.com.my/Story.aspx?fls={FDD6D886-5EC0-4D71-9486-813819AB0DB3}

It sounds terrible --but I think it is just a case of one religion trying to compete with others. 

Conservative hostility to Dodd-Frank continues unabated - LA Times

Michael Hiltzik described the battle to block or change the Dodd-Frank law which attempts to prevent another bank meltdown (too big to fail) and need for resulting governmental bail out.

Conservative hostility to Dodd-Frank continues unabated - LA Times:

The reason we had the financial melt-down in 2007 was because the financial industry and their many well taken care of politicians in congress and senate refused to put the type of mortgage-backed securities under some sort of regulation.  The Dodd Frank bill was an attempt to close some of the many loopholes in banking regulation.  It passed mostly along party lines, and now the Republicans would like to gut the law any way they can.  I'm not sure the bill does everything that is needed.  Also, I'm sure that the industry will come up with some new, creative way of sidestepping the law and will create some new "bubble."  However this is the best we have now--and sadly, the Republicans have not come up with anything better.

As an investor, I want confidence that the investments I make are property represented and the executives involved are ethical.  I think most investors are still on the sidelines because of the fear that another meltdown might occur.  Passing some tighter rules for financial controls and disclosure seems to be a very minimal step toward improving the confidence of the investing public.

'Black sites' ruling a rebuke to Poland, the CIA and torture

The Sunday LA Times had an Op-Ed by Joseph Margulies about the recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights against Poland for participating in the "rendition" of Abu Zubaydah done by the US CIA.  This case, of course, is just one of many renditions done in many different countries, however it is one that has now had a very thorough review by a court.

'Black sites' ruling a rebuke to Poland, the CIA and torture - LA Times:

When it was going on, I thought George Bush and Cheney were wrong for allowing or causing it to be done.  It is clear that they, and the CIA knew it was wrong.  They went through extensive processes to hide what they were doing.  This sets a terrible example.  Now we are thumbing our noses at an international court, that Americans might need in the future if atrocities are committed against us. US enemies are now justified in torturing US soldiers because they can say with certainty that the US tortures their enemies.

Was Poland really "guilty?" in this case?  -- or did the US bribe Poland in some way to get permission to do the torture on Polish land?  It is clear to me, the US was the guilty party.  The US citizens involved with it would have also known that what they were doing was against US and international law, and that they are permitted, under US law to refuse to perform an act they thought was illegal.  So therefore, they, as individuals are also guilty of a crime.

I can sort of see a situation like depicted on the TV series "24" where a bomb is about to be detonated in hours and we need information to defuse the bomb and save millions of lives.  However torturing people weeks, months or years after capture seems like nothing but revenge, or the product of a sick mind!  Apparently there was very little useful information obtained from any of the torture performed.   I do believe it is time to expose the CIA's "dark side".  The participants need to be brought to some sort of justice.  Maybe they don't deserve prison, but they should be rebuked, fired, or at least not promoted!  Although I'd suspect that a lot of them are already in higher grades of public service.

I think I'd like to read the US Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the rendition if it is released by the administration.  However I think it might be very tedious reading, since it is 6200 words, and it may have so much redaction that it might make it impossible to make sense of.  I can understand why the Republicans might want to keep the document  under wraps, because it certainly puts them in a bad light.  The Bush administration did it on its own, and didn't get approval of Congress.  In a time of war, a Government might be given some leeway --but this was far in excess of what I think was necessary in the situation.

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.