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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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. 

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.