Constantly in the Darkness

Wow, it's not even November, and New York Times is in full frothing at the mouth mode

2012-01-18T15:41:00.000-08:00

Check out today's New York Times editorial, calling Newt Gingrich a lying racist. I'm sorry, it's one of those things where I understand the individual words and sentences, but not the meaning of anything they are trying to say.

...Mr. Gingrich has made racial resentment an integral part of his platform...presenting African-Americans with the great revelation that they should prefer paychecks to federal handouts.

Is "great revelation" praise, or sarcasm? If it is meant as praise, the section is self-contradictory, because where is the racial resentment? And, if is it sarcasm (as I suspect), it means that the editorial writers are seriously proposing that federal handouts are preferable to paychecks. In conclusion, this section literally makes no sense.

Newt blames Obama for putting lots of people on food stamps (SNAP). Now, one could legitimately argue that it was Bush's policies, globalization, and/or the financial crisis that really caused this, not Obama. But, to my great surprise, the NYT does not blame Bush or Wall Street for this, Instead, they quibble.

The fact is that Mr. Obama has “put” no one on food stamps. People apply for food assistance...because they’re poor or out of work...

Puhleese. Presidents get praised or blamed for job creation, inflation, whatever all the time. Even if they have little to do with it. Imagine the following argument in an editorial: "Obama/Bush has not 'put' anybody on unemployment. People apply for unemployment when they get fired..." I can't.

The NYT editorial goes to great pains to mention that whites far outnumber blacks receiving SNAP benefits. Duh! Whites far outnumber blacks in total. The relevant number is percentage, which the NYT does not provide. In any case, why is this relevant? As quoted by the NYT, Newt said "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president...".

The editorial continues

But these are inconvenient details to Mr. Gingrich, who implied that the rise in federal aid was a sad indication of the insufficient work ethic of black Americans.

None of the quotes attributed to Newt in the editorial even mention black Americans. Even if the NYT Editorial Board now includes Matt Parkman from the Heroes TV series and can read Newt's mind and knows that he is a racist, it is factually incorrect, based upon the quotes presented, to write that Newt said or implied that black Americans have a poor work ethic. He did nothing of the sort.

Newt then proposes that poor children (not "black children") be employed in jobs such as school janitors. He cites his daughter doing so and benefiting from the experience. The editorial responds:

Don’t try to follow any kind of logical thread of why the president wouldn’t want the jobless rate to decrease...

Don't try to follow any kind of logical thread in the editorial, because children don't count in the jobless rate! But this kind of talk from Newt is "divisive".

For the record, I'm not a big Newt fan. But this editorial is absurd in its criticisms, which are not supported by a single iota of evidence.

Oh yeah, check out the comments, which are even more wildly hostile and hateful. I'm just going to mention the first two I saw. MJR calls the Republican Presidential Debate a "KKK rally". And has 35 "thumbs up" votes. Julieanne Wozniak says "Newt is rich white trash...Newt is an odious, possibly narcissistic excuse for a human being, a waste of breathable air." And earns 43 thumbs up.

Enjoy November. It's going to be an incredibly hostile and bitter campaign.

A slightly useful Paul Krugman Editorial

2012-01-06T16:06:00.000-08:00

A recent Paul Krugman editorial takes Mitt Romney to task for some arguably misleading statements about jobs lost or created by Romney and Obama. I agree that Obama inherited a mess and it is unfair to count jb losses from, say, February 2009 against him.

Krugman then takes issue with Romney's claim of 100,000 jobs created by Staples, Sports Authority and Dominos. True, not all the jobs were created under Romney's tenure. Krugman asks, rhetorically, "Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years?". Of course not. But he can claim credit for some of it, by putting the companies on a good path to growth. And, let me point out, that the 2000s were an overall bad time for the US economy. Obama inherited a mess and deserves some credit for starting the economy back on the right track. But, to be fair, Krugman should give Romney credit for his companies doing well even through the lousy 2000s. Of course he won't.

The rest of the editorial is more of the recent Krugman sophistry similar to his recent column "well, the debt is not a problem, we owe most of it to ourselves". And well, if Staples did well, maybe Office Depot didn't, so Romney must take the blame for their job losses. Sorry, I'm calling B.S. here. You aren't going to blame your pitcher for lowering the batting average of the other team, are you? "Sorry Gio, you got us 3 extra wins but that came at the expense of the Baltimore Orioles who had three extra losses. So, overall wins for the league were equal, no raise for you." Like that would work...

Krugman then goes into a complete non-sequiter.

"In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole."

True, But need I point out the obvious? Romney wasn't responsible for America as a whole. Nor did he claim to be. This is a complete Red Herring, ascribing a ridiculous false argument to your opponent then tearing it down. Listen to Obama and you'll hear a lot of the same.

Krugman claims that Romney destroyed good jobs. Maybe Romney did. Perhaps Krugman, Nobel Prize Laureate economist with access to lots of data and papers, could cite a number?

California Coddles Lobbyists and Opposes Small Business

2011-12-26T16:38:00.000-08:00

In a previous blog post, I showed how California has by far the highest yearly fees of any state for small-business LLCs. $800 per year, plus a share of the gross. The vast majority of states charge no yearly tax at all, and those that do typically charge $200 or less.

By contrast, California has some of the lowest fees on lobbyists. $25 a year. Many other states charge a bit more; here's an old (2003) compilation of lobbyist fees and here is a more recent one. As you can see, many states charge more like $100/year, with Massachusetts at the high end at $1000.

To his credit, CA State Senator Leland Yee proposes to raise the lobbying fee. To a whopping $50 a year. Puhleese. Well, he has to worry some, cause the lobbyist lobby defeated Proposition 15 in 2010, which would have, among many other things, raised fees to $350. But $50 a year is pathetic.

This increased fee is not going to raise much revenue for California. Prop 15 was estimated to raise $1.5 million a year. So it wont fix our budget. But nor would it impact the big lobbyists, for whom a million dollars, split multiple ways so it more like a thousand dollars, is chump change. For example, PG&E is estimated to have spent $45 million in 2010. Akin Gump et. al., a top lobbying firm (they boast of it here), made $25 million in lobbying income in 2011.

So, why does California impede small business with huge small business LLC fees, while coddling lobbyist groups? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. It's due to our system of government, which is corruption. Our state representatives don't want the people to get money from the lobbyist groups, they want themselves to get money from lobbyists. And the cheaper the fees, the more lobbyists, which means more for them.

David Schoenfield makes great case for Edgar Martinez for the Hall of Fame

2011-12-12T11:37:00.000-08:00

A recent blog by David Schoenfield looks at the production one could expect from Albert Pujols over the next ten years. Assuming that Albert will remain elite, the post looks into the past, finding the best players (highest WAR), at his position (1B / DH), at ages 33, 34, ... up to age 41. As one would expect, there is a general decline from ages 32-34, where the top WARs are in the 6.2 - 7.2 range, through ages 35-38 where top WARs average 5.6, and beyond age 38 they rapidly decline into the 2.5 - 3.5 range. Based on this, the Angels may regret their deal after seven years.

But I was pleasantly surprised to see Edgar Martinez appear so often on the list. For four of those ten ages (if you include age 32 which for some reason Schoenfield doesn't) Edgar was the best 1B/DH in baseball. For five of those ten years he was the second best player, by WAR. And for two of those the "best" was Mark McGuire who deserves a large asterisk.

So, if you discount McGuire, from age 32-41, for six of those ten years, Edgar Martinez was the best first baseman / DH in baseball. And for three he was the second best in baseball. This is dominance over an extended period. And Edgar wasn't too shabby in his younger days either, posting OPS+ well above 100 in 1990, 91, 92 and 1994.

Hopefully the Hall of Fame voters will take notice. Last time he received a paltry 33%. Which is actually a slight decline from 36% the previous year.

A Short Illustration of Why America is in Decline

2011-10-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

USA Today ran a short article on how we could save $5.6 Billion by switching from the paper $1 bill to longer lasting $1 coins. (An older Business Week article is here). Just like most other western economies use coins. As a frequent visitor to Canada, I know that Canadians are especially proud of their pretty $1 coin, the Loonie, and reasonably accepting of their $2 coin, the Toonie. I like the British pound £1 coin cause it is hefty and really feels like you have something valuable. So, how does the USA fare with the idea? There's a proposal in Congress, with the cute name "Currency Optimization, Innovation and National Savings (COINS)Act" to replace the $1 bill with a coin.

The original proposals for $1 coins came from Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz. Not because it was a good idea or would save money, but as "a way to help Arizona mining interests". At least he is honest. By now we have two PACs formed, a pro-coin group, the Dollar Coin Alliance, (of which Kolbe is honorary chairman) and an anti-coin Americans for George. The former is supported by mining interests, vending machine companies, and the United Steelworkers Union. You can guess why.

Tom Ferguson, former government employee (Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing), probably drawing a large pension, and now a (probably) well-paid consultant and lobbyist, represents Americans for George and claims that "A nation's currency is more than just paper. It is iconic. It is emblematic. It signifies the economy". Other groups oppose the coin. Larry Sabbath of the National Armored Car Association has a valid concern, the increased weight. John Kerry, D-Mass, along with rival Scott Brown, R-Mass, show bipartisanship in opposing the move to coins. Their reasons? All paper for U.S. currency is made in Massachusetts by Crane and Co.

In the grand scheme of things, $5.6 billion isn't that much, but this issue really illustrates the fundamental nature of our current government. Selfishness and Corruption.

Newspaper Vice President Complains about Free Speech

2011-10-12T13:27:00.000-07:00

Lincoln Millstein wrote an unbelievable editorial in the Monday Oct 10 San Francisco Chronicle. In which he complains about the free press in Taiwan. It's "unfettered", it's "free speech run amok".

From the cracks about Fox News and Sarah Palin, it is clear that Millstein is liberal. Fine. But apparently he is not liberal enough to favor free speech. For any American to complain about too much free speech is wrong. And a senior newspaperman should know better, for him to complain about too much free speech should be a firing offense. This guy is a Senior Vice President at Hearst Newspapers. Who wants to limit free speech.

As for the Taiwan/China politics, here I must plead a lot of ignorance. Millstein decries Tsai Ing-wen, opposition party leader of Taiwan, as an extremist for not attending the Double Ten National Day ceremonies, a "shocking rebuke". Do another Google search. I quickly found this editorial, which seems to present a balanced view, revealing that this is not a rebuke, it is not the first time that a Taiwanese political party missed the ceremonies. The editorial decries a lack of political consensus on Taiwan (hmm, we don't have any of that problem here, do we?) and says that the invitation to Tsai Ing-wen was a "ruse" and calling her "shrewd" for declining. For a couple of more articles, none blaming Tsai for anything, see here and here. According to the second article, she did attend the ceremony!

A quick Google search on Millstein brought up some other incidents where he overstepped his editorial bounds, and digressed from Gernwich CT local politics into Taiwanese politics.

SEIU Editorial in WSJ almost convincing

2011-10-08T17:23:00.000-07:00

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, writes an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal supporting the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. She makes many good points.

It's been three years since Wall Street CEOs crashed our economy. When Wall Street was on its knees, the American taxpayers came to their rescue with trillions of dollars in bailouts and promise from the big banks that they'd invest in our recovery.

One could argue if it was solely Wall Street CEOs that crashed the economy. Whatever. We did bail them out. And we have received little in return. They have returned to their bonuses and excesses. They sit on hordes of cash and layoff workers. I'm pissed at them. I agree with David Brooks, neither of us a left-wing firebrand, that banks that are "too large to fail" should have been broken up during the bailout. Instead they got even larger.

But she then digresses into bald-faced politics.

And this week House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor again turned their backs on the American people by refusing to even bring the American Jobs Act up for a vote.

A fair-minded observer would also criticize Harry Reid who, two days ago, triggered a "nuclear option" to prevent a vote in the Senate on the American Jobs Act. But SEIU can't criticize Democrats, cause they are in bed with them.

Ms. Henry argues that Congress should pass the American Jobs Act and put Americans back to work.

to keep teachers in our classrooms, police on the beat, health-care workers at our hospitals and clinics, and ensure that we have enough firefighters to protect our communities.

Fine. If you are a teacher, health-care worker. etc. Which happens to be pretty much what the SEIU represents. Taxing the rich to pay SEIU members will provide some job creation and provide some spark to the economy, but it is hardly a cure all for the private sector, and is certainly not a righteous stand by the president of their union.

Book Review, George R R Martin's "A Dance With Dragons".

2011-09-25T11:05:00.000-07:00

For the record, I loved the first three books, was o.k. with the fourth, and eagerly awaited A Dance With Dragons, the fifth book of George R. R. Martin's Song of Fire and Ice series. I was extremely disappointed. It's long and very little happens. I guess that when you are a big shot author, editors wont tell you you have written too much filler. There's too many unrelated characters growing in importance. Too much Robert Jordan, not enough Glen Cook. At this rate Martin, like Jordan, will die before the story's conclusion.

There's some excellent stuff. Daenerys Targaryen rules an occupied city along Slaver's Bay, where her desires to do the right things there, and conflicts with corrupt or grasping local nobility, constantly interfere with her planned return to claim the throne of Westeros. There's a few too many suitors and not enough of her. But the dramatic and exciting resolution is wonderful - surely written for the screen as you'd expect from a screenwriter. It just makes you wonder why we wasted all that time leading up to it with all her endless suitors and all the endless intrigue.

In the North, Stannis Baratheon's forces endure extreme hardships as they march through severe storms to assault the ruins of Winterfell, held by the despicable Boltons and Freys. Both sides face internal dissensions and intrigues. The descriptions of the trials of the starving army at march are great. I'm sorry, I like some darkness, but the prolonged descriptions of even more sadistic cruelty by the Freys and Boltons disgusted me, and are unnecessary. They already broke hospitality and slaughtered their prospective in-laws at a Wedding Feast. Their sigil is a flayed man. We get it, they aren't nice guys - I don't need pages and pages of twisted sex, mental and physical torture to prove that.

Anyway, do we get to a battle? No. All that dramatic buildup, and all we get is a 2nd hand report of the results of the battle, via a letter to Stannis' wife.

Tyrion the Imp is a fascinating character. There are glimpses of his character continuing to develop - will he end the series as a nihilistic cynic or not? But most of the book he moves around aimlessly, almost literally travelling in circles as he is exchanged from one camp to another. There are pages and pages of repetitive descriptions of all of his feasts. A nice contrast from the starvation of others, but it seemed like much was cut and pasted from a chapter 100 pages before. Frankly, the Imp became borderline boring in this one.

At the Wall, Jon Snow deals with the unwanted presence of Stannis, plus preparing the realm's defenses for Winter. He makes many interesting and controversial decisions. And fights the temptation to get involved to assist his family in politics. But it's all prep. Nothing actually happens. When the movie or TV series arrives, no Others will be harmed in the making of the picture. More actually happens at the Wall in the prologue in the very first book, than in this entire book in which Jon Snow is a major character.

Many other characters appear. Too many. The Onion Knight is pretty much a waste of time. Some Dorne characters take up some time, mainly for naught. I like the Sand Snakes, wish we saw more of them.

At the start of the book is a major magical revelation - "there's this magical thing you can do in Westeros". Not an unexpected one, something I always suspected for Arya, but made explicit. Almost nothing happens with it. Arya herself (my favorite character) makes a couple of brief appearances. Unfortunately, what she is up to appears to have almost zero relevance to any of the main plotlines.

As expected, a major character unexpectedly dies. One of the major charms of the series. I literally cried when Ygritte died way back in book two - rare for me to do just reading a book. But this time I found the death unsatisfying, undramatic, and unbelievable.

Oh yeah - there's way too much needless backstory. Every little event, like tying a shoe, brings back tragic memories of some lost battle ages ago. With countless names of dead nobles, better forgotten.

For an even more negative (but clever) review, see this.

Reviewing the 2011 Fantasy Baseball Season

2011-08-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

Our league's regular season is winding down. Looks like my team, "Boomer's Wallbangers", will end up with a nice 12-8 record, but only good for 5th out of 10 teams, just missing the top four for the playoffs. This despite having the third highest total points. Such are the vagaries of head-to-head. I thought it would be a good time to review the season. In this post, let's look at how the players I drafted worked out. Here were my initial thoughts, but today, naturally, they are different. As a reminder, this was an automated draft, so the computer, and pre-season rankings, made many of the decisions. Though a lot of the As and Giants pitchers picks came from me. (Those I remember "bumping up" I'll put in italics). I'll rate them on a scale of "bust", "disappointing", "o.k.", "good", and "awesome". "RY" is shorthand for "Ranking (at that position) for the Year". "RM" is for the past month. For example, Evan Longoria is ranked, by our points, as the 6th best third basemen for the entire year.

1. Evan Longoria. RY 6th. Disappointing. But RM is 3rd, he's bouncing back at the end of this year.
2. Troy Tulowitsky RY 1st. A good pick.
3. Josh Hamilton RY 32nd. Disappointing.
4. Nelson Cruz RY 17th. Slightly disappointing
5. Jose Reyes. RY 4th. A good, possibly awesome pick.
6. Jayson Werth RY 38th. I dropped him at the All-Star Break - IMO, a bust. I'm surprised that his ranking is not lower!
7. Michael Young. RY hard to tell cause he's played all over, but I'd rank his year as awesome. His RY at 3B is 2nd.
8. Zack Greinke. RY 29th. Disappointing start of the year, but he'd coming on now.
9 Chris Young (the outfielder) RY 16th. He was excellent the start of the year, but has been dismal the past couple of months. (I dropped him a while ago.) So I'd say an o.k. pick.
10. Max Scherzer RY 31st. A good pick.
11. Kelly Johnson. RY 13th. He was awful for me the first 6 weeks, I dropped him. He had a slight revival but has reverted to lousy and has been dropped by a couple of other owners. A bust.
12. Joe Nathan Largely a Bust.
13. Tim Hudson. A good pick. I ended up trading him for Todd Helton.
14. Jonathan Sanchez. Luckily, I traded him, plus Elvis Andrus, for Justin Verlander. So he helped me, but objectively he's a bust.
15. Brian Roberts a complete bust
16. Andrew Bailey o.k.
17. Trevor Cahill. good first half, awful 2nd half. Hard to rate
18. Madison Bumgartner. This was a good pick. Unfortunately, in one of my big mistakes this year, I dropped him while he was struggling (and so was my team) and was slow to pick him back up.
19. Tsuyoshi Nishioka a bust. Of course, at this stage in the draft, you don't expect everybody to pan out, you are just hoping for a positive. Not here.
20. Denard Span. He was o.k., then hurt for the season. Disappointing.
21. Gio Gonzales. This was a great pick, until after the All-Star break. But still good overall.
22. Kurt Suzuki. RY 15th, Meh. I went through a lot of random catchers this year.
23. Austin Jackson. He was instantly traded for Ike Davis. Who played well for a couple of months and was then out for the year. So, I'd say disappointing (if you count him as Ike Davis)
24. Wade Davis. He was dropped fairly soon. o.k.
25. Logan Morrison. RY around 50. This was a great pick. Until Florida dumped him.
26. Michael Pineda RY 24th. A great pick.
27. Kila Ka'aihue A bust.

There were a few awesomes and good picks, but, overall, there were too many busts in this draft. But I feel good that man of the italic picks worked out well.

Warren Buffet Editorial "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich"

2011-08-16T07:30:00.000-07:00

Warren Buffet wrote an editorial for the Sunday New York Times. I agree with a lot of it. Progressive talk radio (the two shows I listened to yesterday) was all thrilled with it as a repudiation of Republican policies. And, in limited ways, it is.

As background, and painting in overly broad strokes, Democrats have called for repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, those making more than $250,000 a year. Republicans point out that many of those taxpayers are running small businesses, (the Wall Street Journal found that about half of that tax income came from small businesses) and increasing their taxes would hurt job creation. I agree that further burdens on small business would be a mistake in this weak economy. To me, the obvious fix is to write the tax laws so that the increased taxes fall only on rich individuals, not those running small businesses. To my knowledge, nobody in power has proposed any such thing, and maybe it would be difficult to write such a law defining exactly what is a "small business" without loopholes.

As an alternative, I like Buffett's proposals. They should please Democrats by raising the tax burden on the rich, should please Republicans by lessening the impact on small businesses, and they should please everybody by raising tax income to cut the deficit.

Many of the "mega-rich" make their money by investments, and the long term capital gains tax rate is a special low rate of 15%. Perhaps this rate should be raised. But there are arguments that we should encourage long-term investments.

By contrast, short-term capital gains are, in general, taxed as normal income, up to ~35%. But there is a carried interest loophole for investment bankers that allows them to treat much of this short term gain as long term. Closing this loophole would raise 4 billion a year.

Now, the UK has a similar lower rate. Not sure if there is any purpose to it. Barring some explanation of why it is needed, it should be repealed. Buffett argues for their repeal, and I think he would know if there were any good reason for the special low rate to exist. Republicans blocked this reform during the recent debt crisis.

Now, 4 billion a year is a nice start, but it ain't much in the grand scheme of our deficit. So Buffett adds proposals for two new tax levels, at 1 million and 10 million. Sounds good, and at these higher income levels they would be less likely to adversely affect any small businesses. He is not very specific about the new levels. I saw one estimate that this could cut the deficit by 3%. Still not much, but it's something.

Before Democrats crow over their vindication from Buffett, they should read the entire editorial. (emphasis mine)

Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues.

Even I know that 3% is a small reduction in the deficit, and Buffett is far smarter than me. He clearly states that cutting entitlements is essential.

Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again and Again

2011-06-22T09:52:00.000-07:00

I already have a blog post entitled "Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again". So this post must be named "Again and Again"

In a recent blog, Krugman argues that there was no growth miracle under Reagan, and there was one under Clinton. But he cherry picks the dates over which growth is measured. It's trivial to debunk with a one minute Google search.

To see some real data, go to the excellent Trading Economics web site and look for US GDP growth. Select 1973 in the Date Selection gizmo. You should see this:

Judge for yourself the GDP growth during the Reagan and Clinton growth periods. Looks pretty equal to me. But Krugman includes the years of recession in the average. There was a long and deep recession included in the Reagan totals, and a short and shallow recession in the Clinton total. So of course the averaged growth rate over the entire period would be higher under Clinton.

In addition, for two of these years of the long recession, 1979 and 1980, which are included in the Reagan totals, Reagan wasn't even in office. This is obvious BS. (And kudos to Greg Mankiw for pointing it out)

Jon Carroll messes up

2011-06-13T18:01:00.000-07:00

Jon Carroll, in a June 8 column, blasts Sarah Palin's comments on Paul Revere as embarrassing and garbled. Others have been even less charitable. When I first heard her comments, I thought the same thing. But it turns out that she had the facts more or less correct.

BLOCK (the interviewer): So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.
Prof. ALLISON (the guest): Well, yeah, she did.

And this was a couple of days before Jon Carroll's column. Now, maybe there is a lead time, and he wasn't aware of the NPR interview when the article was written. However, it is now nearly a week later and he should apologize.

BTW, for an interesting take on Paul Revere as "not much of a hero", read The Fort by Bernard Cornwell.

New York Times cannot bring themselves to really criticize the Democrats

2011-05-29T10:14:00.000-07:00

In today's editorial, "Passive in the Senate", the New York Times rightly criticizes the Democrat led US Senate for "not producing a budget proposal in more than two years". Last Wednesday, the Senate voted down the controversial Paul Ryan budget plan, 57 to 40. They also voted down two other Republican plans. For completeness, they then voted down President Obama's own budget, 97 to 0!. A complete waste of time, staged for politics.

But, does the Times really criticize the Democrats in the Senate? The following terms are used.

"deflect attention", "toxic plan", "outrageous", "extreme", "destructive".

However, as you probably suspect, these terms are all applied to the Republicans.

The editorial does criticize the Senate for being reactive, unoriginal, fearful, "play-it-safe", etc. But it's quickly diluted by the Times defending the Democrat actions, as in these sections:

These political considerations should not be minimized. With only a three-vote majority, Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are understandably fearful about losing the Senate next year and have decided that treading water is better than taking a showy but risky dive.

and

It is fine — and important — to attack Mr. Ryan’s destructive Medicare plan, and such criticism seems to be remarkably effective among swing voters, as we saw in last week’s Democratic victory in a special election in western New York.

Even the criticism is based on political motivations. The Times isn't criticizing the Senate Democrats for letting the country roll uncontrolled into a fiscal ditch, the criticism is completely political: their passivity loses the Democratic momentum, and empowers the Republicans.

But if Democrats are ever going to regain the momentum in the national conversation, they have to stand for something. Standing pat gives Republicans huge openings to move the debate to the right.

Democrats avoided passing appropriations bills last year for similar reasons, and that failure almost led to a government shutdown this year when Republicans exploited it.

In other words, the Times is not particularly upset that the lack of Senate vision and leadership is hurting the country. They are just upset that it is hurting the Democrats.

One other section of the editorial is very troubling. It complains that the Senate is "hobbled", in part because "Its members are not elected from the carefully drawn partisan districts that in most years are a House luxury". Sounds like the writer is in favor of Gerrymandering. That way Democrats would have secure seats and could "get things done" without worrying about the will of the people. Just like Tom Friedman admires China's ability to get things done.

I agree with the editorial that revenues must be increased, and that health care costs must be trimmed. But we have a representative government that is supposed to handle that, not some all-powerful entrenched oligarchy and political class. :-) Irony intended, we do have a powerful entrenched political class, but Gerrymandering makes it even more entrenched.

Fantasy Baseball 2011 April Review

2011-04-26T09:47:00.000-07:00

My team, "Boomer's Wallbangers", is off to a decent 2-1 start. I thought I'd look at which players have been "surprises". I'll define "steals" as players who are significantly over-performing their Average Draft Position (ADP), and 'disappointments" as those who have been under-performing. Based on our H2H league's point system, the "steals" are listed below. High numbers are good, meaning either lots of points, or they were drafted late. A "-" for ADP means that, in the average ESPN league, these players were not drafted.

Catchers Pts ADP
Russel Martin 81 - ("-" means undrafted)
Nick Hundley 69 -
Alex Avila 67 -

1B
Ike Davis 89 210

2B
Howie Kendrick 91 146
Neil Walker 80 166
Brian Roberts 70 150
D Espinosa 68 -
F Sanchez 67 -

3B
P. Polanco 84 203
Chipper Jones 73 202
Ryan Roberts 72 -
A Callapso 64 -

SS
Starlin Castro 82 151
A Cabrera 76 218
M Izturis 68 -
Angel Sanchez 68 -
Jed Lowrie 66 -

OF
Lance Berkman 99 204
Jonny Gomes 94 -
Jeff Francoeur 93 -
Alex Gordon 87 -
Sam Fuld 78 -
C. Maybin 73 -
B Boesch 73 -

SP
James Shields 100 204
K Lohse 96 -
A. Harang 82 -
M Harrison 82 -
I Kennedy 82 210
Randy Wolf 81 228
Josh Tomlin 80 -
J Masterson 79 -
A Ogando 79 -
AJ Burnett 76 211
J DeLaRosa 75 224
M Pineda 75 225
B Beachy 75 -
B McCarthy 73 -

Now, for the disappointments. In many cases, these players are currently on the DL (marked with a *) or have spent much time on the DL. Low numbers are bad - not many points or drafted early.

Catchers Pts ADP
Joe Mauer* 18 25
V Martinez* 46 43

1B
Adrian Gonzales 68 11
Adam Dunn 44 38

2B
Dustin Pedroia 69 28
Dan Uggla 65 34

3B
Evan Longoria* 1 5
R Zimmerman* 32 22

SS
Hanley Ramirez 43 2.5
Derek Jeter 45 56
Jimmy Rollins 56 64

OF
Carl Crawford 40 4
Josh Hamilton* 36 18
CarGo 61 11
Nelson Cruz 80 27
Matt Holliday 72 17
Jayson Werth 64 47

SP
Chris Carpenter 60 47
Tommy Hanson 61 49
Ubaldo Jimenez 24 47
F Liriano 14 86

Some thoughts. Remember that these numbers are for less than one month of play, so this is still a small sample size. That said...

First base has by far the fewest surprises. Good place to spend an early draft pick if you want a solid pick, neither good nor bad. In effect, at 1B, it's "reliable", you get what you pay for. By contrast, catchers have the most surprises, both steals and disappointments. IMO, catcher is not worth spending a high round draft pick, as you might be disappointed by an injury, and there seem to always be good steal catchers available for cheap. Shortstop is also a spot where there seem to be many surprises. Second base is kind of "medium". Less surprises than at SS, but still some. For catcher and middle infield, draft as best you can, but it is important to remain active with trades or on the waiver wire.

Third base and outfield have reasonably few surprises. Remember that outfield has three times as many total players, so 6 "steals" is more like 2 steals at another position. Most of the disappointments are due to injuries. So, in general, you seem to get what you pay for here.

Starting pitcher is interesting. There are a lot of positive "steals", pitchers who are doing far better than their ADP. But relatively few "disappointments". So, if you spend on a top-flite pitcher, you generally get what you pay for. But plenty of bargains are there to be had. Again, this is a key area to remain active with trade and on the waiver wire.

Will the New York Times make up their mind?

2011-04-06T09:40:00.000-07:00

In late March, the New York Times ran an article saying that GE was using "aggressive...lobbying" and "innovative accounting" to avoid paying US taxes, and even claim a tax refund of billions. There is some dispute as to the accuracy of the claims, but it's true that GE is taking advantage of tax laws to lower their tax burden. Whether this is "fiduciary responsibility" or "exploiting loopholes" is debatable.

In today's editorials, the Times, as one would expect, blast Paul Ryan's budget proposal. They blast it several times, including implicating it in any impending government shutdown, but I'm focusing on that one editorial. I agree with the editorial that "serious deficit reduction requires everything to be on the table, including tax increases", something Ryan does not envision. And Ryan dodges the whole third rail of Social Security. However, the Times goes on to say (italics mine)

The Republican plan calls only for tax simplification. It would get rid of loopholes and reduce rates in a way that would not raise overall revenues but would invariably cut the tax bill of wealthy taxpayers for whom lower rates are more valuable than assorted loopholes.

The Times cannot run an article complaining that tax loopholes let GE get away with paying no taxes, then, just a couple of weeks later, run an editorial that belittles the value of loopholes. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Instead of blanket condemnation of Ryan's proposals, how about "we like getting rid of the loopholes. but lets increase his top rate from 25% to X%", and actually propose something concrete and constructive.

A couple of the more conservative Times columnists offer a more balanced evaluation of the Ryan proposal, Ross Douhat and David Brooks.

The Sad Truth about TARP

2011-03-30T08:15:00.000-07:00

Today's New York Times has a damning opinion piece about the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Where the Bank Bailout Went Wrong. (see, I don't always disagree with NYT editorials!). Though the government declares that TARP has been "remarkably effective", the author, Neil M. Barofsky, who was the Special Inspector General of the program, strongly disagrees. Yes, the program "saved" our big banks.

From the perspective of the largest financial institutions, the glowing assessment is warranted: billions of dollars in taxpayer money allowed institutions that were on the brink of collapse not only to survive but even to flourish. These banks now enjoy record profits and the seemingly permanent competitive advantage that accompanies being deemed “too big to fail.”

But, as is painfully apparent to anyone, TARP failed in another goal, to protect home values.

Treasury, however, provided the money to banks with no effective policy or effort to compel the extension of credit... not even a request that banks report how they used TARP funds. ... It was therefore no surprise that lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery.

Later, the Home Affordable Modification Program was announced, and has been a "colossal failure." The housing bust means that (very roughly) 10 million homes could face foreclosure, and this program has modified only 540,000, about 5%. Mortgage writedowns, where banks lower the principal on a mortgage (and take a big loss) were seen an "inevitable" in 2009. But as of 2011 there haven't been many, as banks refuse to take the losses, and the government is still crafting proposals.

Even Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admits that the mortgage servicers are “still doing a terribly inadequate job.” But Treasury Officials aren't fixing this. Instead, Americans know that they were taken for a ride by "fat cat" bankers who exploited the crisis to save and enrich themselves, while many homeowners take a financial licking. The last paragraph is chilling:

Indeed, Treasury’s mismanagement of TARP and its disregard for TARP’s Main Street goals — whether born of incompetence, timidity in the face of a crisis or a mindset too closely aligned with the banks it was supposed to rein in — may have so damaged the credibility of the government as a whole that future policy makers may be politically unable to take the necessary steps to save the system the next time a crisis arises. This avoidable political reality might just be TARP’s most lasting, and unfortunate, legacy.

Fantasy Baseball 2011 Starts

2011-03-29T11:12:00.000-07:00

Our fantasy baseball league started again - in the wee hours of the morning the computer did an automated draft, and I woke up with much anticipation - what did Santa Claus being me this year? Before the draft, you can adjust the ranking of players. I targeted SS and 3B due to positional scarcity. For example, I had moved Troy Tulowitski up the ranks. Other teams seem to have targeted catchers, starting pitching, or relievers. Here are "my" picks, round by round. (I'm "Boomer's Wallbangers", picking sixth) Note that we are a head-to-head league with fairly "sabremetric" scoring, so some of the player's values vary from the more common 5x5 format. For example, steals aren't nearly as valuable in our league as in many, and walks are valuable. Though most of the GMs are very baseball knowledgeable, it's a "fun" league, not too serious. And, the computer sometimes does strange things...

1. Evan Longoria I love it! Had him last year, he's great and fills a relatively shallow position.
Many of the league members are Boston fans, so that somewhat explains the Pedroia and Lester picks.

2. Troy Tulowitzski again, I'm very happy. There aren't many good SSs. I've now have elite players at two hard-to-fill positions. The Daisuke pick is strange. I'm surprised that Matt Cain went so high but he's done great in this league for two years. Joey Votto at #19 looks like a steal for the Nerds.

3. Josh Hamilton. In a "live" draft, I may have picked Mauer instead, but this seems a good pick. Zimmerman is a good pick by the Marauders.

4. Nelson Cruz. I'm disappointed that Tex went just one pick before. (especially since I end up with no solid 1B at all!) Then, though I'm not a big Kershaw fan, McCann, Carpenter, Fielder and Posey might be better picks. But Cruz should put up huge numbers in Texas. Some of our league members value relievers highly, which explains why they are starting to fall earlier than would be usual. (I don't value them as much, but you do need a couple of good closers on your team)

5. Jose Reyes. I really don't need a second elite SS. But, the players picked shortly after don't excite me. So I can't blame the computer too much. I'm a bit disappointed that I barely missed out on Jered Weaver and Tommy Hanson. I've had Hanson on my team the past two years, and watching him grow and improve has been fun. Good picks by the Pirates and Penguins.

6. Jayson Werth. O.K. But computer is picking too many outfielders. I might have picked Kinsler or reached for Carlos Santana. But a solid pick. I had Jason Heyward last year, fun to watch him too, but I'm glad my friend Steven, who live and breathes Georgia sports, got him.

7. Michael Young. Darned, missed on Carlos Santana by one! Young is an interesting pick, especially if he stays in Texas and becomes eligible at multiple positions. None of the next 10 picks excite me too much, so, o.k. My team is getting a little "Texas heavy".

8. Zack Greinke. About time to get a pitcher. Two of the other teams (Comets and Pirates) obviously targeted top line pitching. I targeted "undervalued good pitching". At the end of the year we will see how well I rated them. Also, have to admit (as you'll see soon) I wanted to get a bunch of As and Giants to root for. :-) Assuming Greinke's health is not an issue, he should be a solid pick. I like the Prado and Stanton picks by the Penguins and Nerds.

9. Chris Young (OF). Picked him up last year and he was a pleasant surprise. Another outfielder, but the next 10 picks aren't all that exciting - maybe Konerko or Billy Butler to get a 1B?. Too bad I missed on Josh Johnson by 2 picks - a good pick by Displaced Braves Fan. Victorino to the Nerds scotches my plan to lock up all the Hawaiian born players. :-)

10. Max Scherzer. Love this pick, he was great for me the 2nd half of last year. Even though I'll desperately need a 1B, I prefer him to Billy Butler.

11. Kelly Johnson. O.K., gives me a good 2B. Sorry I missed out on Zobrist, Drew Stubbs and Panda - good picks by my opponents. If I didn't hate the Dodgers I might prefer Billingsly or Lilly. Actually, live, I might have picked Shaun Marcum or my next round pick...

12. Joe Nathan. If he's healthy, this is an awesome pick. But Shaun Marcum (who goes next) is a safer, good pick. Hard to say. I'm a bit surprised that Papelbon and Bucholz go so late.

13. Tim Hudson. Like him. And I need some quality pitchers. I'm a bit disappointed that Chris Perez, who did a good job for me last year, is off the board. But I wouldn't pick him till later anyway. Garza and Anderson are good picks by Monsters and Ewoks.

14. Jonathan Sanchez. You need some patience with him, but we'll see. I would have preferred Brett Anderson, but you can't have it all. Angel Pagan is a good pick by Monsters.

15. Brian Roberts. Another 2B? And injury prone. I don't like this pick. But the other picks later in the round aren't exciting either - that's what you start to get around pick 150... So, o.k., and some depth is good. I think Hudson and Putz are good picks by Nerds and Braves Fan.

16. Andrew Bailey. I like it - a good local reliever. Hope his arm works. Between Nathan and Bailey I may have to check the waiver wire for relievers the first couple of weeks. Myers and Hellickson look like good value picks for Falcons and Nerds.

17. Trevor Cahill. Like it. As you see, I bunched up many of the promising Bay Area pitchers in this area, and many have been drafted or will arrive soon... Brandon Morrow is a good pick by Monsters, and Neil Walker might be a great pickup for the Comets.

18. Madison Bumgartner. Like it - another promising local pitcher. Too bad Gaby Sanchez went two picks before, as I still don't have anybody for 1B!

19. Tsuyoshi Nishioka Like it - I had bumped him "up" on the draft list. But not sure why I need three second basemen! More depth. Live I may have picked Romero or Matusz, good value picks by the Falcons.

20. Denard Span. O.K. Solid outfielder who will probably improve over last year. Beckett and Wieters look like good alternative picks by Penguins and Monsters.

21. Gio Gonzales. I think this is an awesome pick. Also like Asdrubal Cabrera and Ike Davis picks by Pirates and Comets.

22. Kurt Suzuki. He was my catcher last year, and does a solid job. If you don't get an elite catcher, he is a solid pick. Escobar and Shields are good picks by Penguins and Monsters.

23. Austin Jackson. Not sure why he fell so low, but he's pretty good for round 23, right? I'm a bit disappointed that Freddie Freeman and Ryan Rayburn went just before. Other than Dexter Fowler, not sure who I would have picked instead, so lets hope Austin learns to make better contact.

24. Wade Davis. I like this pick too. A reasonable pitcher with upside. Jair Jurgens might be a good value pick by Pirates.

25. Logan Morrison. He's a good player, especially under our league rules where walks count. I like the pick, though I'm getting too many OF. Jake Peavy is the other interesting pick this round, by the Comets.

26. Michael Pineda - glad I got him. He was one of my "sleeper" picks. I'm really surprised that Posada, McLouth, Garland and Lackey fell so low. They could be great value picks.

27. Kila Ka'aihue. Another one of my "sleeper picks". And, a real 1B, finally, in round 27! Not sure what the computer was thinking. De La Rosa is a great value pick by Monsters.

Other than 1B, I'm happy with my team. So far...

Another nearly fact-free Paul Krugman editorial

2011-03-25T07:43:00.000-07:00

Though, to his credit, he doesn't rant about how his opponents are knowingly ignoring the facts in pursuit of an evil agenda.

In a recent blog, Krugman discusses a Lancet study on cancer survival rates in various countries. The USA fares well in the study, and many opponents of ObamaCare cite that as evidence that the US health care system is superior. Here is the summary graphic taken from Krugman's article:

Krugman argues that the longer USA survival rate may be due to better and earlier diagnosis of the disease, whether or not the actual treatment is any more effective. He provides an excellent illustration of how this might happen

"Here’s how I understand the over-diagnosis issue, in terms of an extreme example: suppose that there’s a form of cancer that kills people 7 years after it starts, and that there is in fact nothing you can do about it. Suppose that country A screens for cancer very aggressively, and always catches this cancer in year 1, while country B chooses to invest its medical resources differently, and never catches the cancer until year 4. In that case, country A will have a 100% 5-year survival rate, while country B will have a 0% 5-year survival rate — because survival is measured from the time the cancer is diagnosed. Yet treatment in country B is no worse than in country A."

So far, kudos to Krugman. However, does he resent any facts that the USA does indeed "over-diagnose"? No. One would think he could at a minimum support his argument with something, anything. But he doesn't. He ends with a short snipe at opponents of ObamaCare, "you shouldn’t buy the spin."

Plus, isn't early detection of cancer a good thing? Well, as Science Based Medicine discusses, the facts are mixed. The article explicitly discusses Krugman's theory, and states "there is a grain of truth buried under the absolutist statement but it’s buried so deep that it’s well-nigh unrecognizable". The article has a great (if lengthy) discussion, repeating and elaborating on many of Krugman's points, including the issue that early detection can make survival rates appear to be longer, even if actual survival is no different. Do they agree with Krugman? Well... (italics added by me)

"Does all of this mean that we’re fooling ourselves that we’re doing better in treating cancer? That, after all, is the charge being made. Not at all."

In other words, it's complicated, but Krugman's argument that early detection is "spin" that might fool us is wrong - Krugman himself is providing the "spin".

I'd like to add something both Krugman and Science Based Medicine fail to mention. Maybe today there are cancers for which early detection provides little or no benefit, because there are no effective treatments. That doesn't mean that we will never develop effective treatments. And, when we do, early detection will almost certainly be valuable. So, early detection is an important step in the treatment of cancer.

In conclusion, I wish Krugman could have provided some facts to support his argument that the USA over-diagnoses cancer. He may well be correct. And, to his credit, he does hint at the complications, that "Real life isn’t that simple". For the record, I'm completely undecided on the benefits of ObamaCare. But, it Paul Krugman wants to convince me of his arguments, he needs to bring some facts.

What were they thinking?

2011-03-19T04:21:00.000-07:00

Still filling in for my friend Ray who blogs at Remember Jenkin's Ear.

As most people with any information about Pakistan know, relations with the USA are badly strained over the Raymond Davis incident, where a CIA contractor killed a couple of Pakistanis. Eventually, we ended up paying off the families of the victims, and things may eventually quiet down.

However, relations are still rough. It's easy to find pictures of protesters burning American flags. (also here).

So what does some US genius do? Do we cool it for a while? No, we pour gasoline on the fire by ordering a drone strike. This drew a sharp rebuke from Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani (also here) for allegedly killing mainly civilians.

Now, I believe that the strike intended to hit terrorists, not civilians. Perhaps the Pakistanis are mistaken in their claims that it was a peaceful jirga of tribal elders. They could be protesting because right now we are very unpopular, and they want to, or need to, "stand up" to the USA. And. maybe they cynically complain in hopes of landing another large cash payout.

No matter. Unless the US strike took out Osama Bin Laden, it was a darned stupid idea. Not worth the risk. At a time when relations are terrible, we didn't piss off some shadowy ISI types who, IMO, aren't our allies to begin with. We pissed off the Pakistani army chief. Bad idea guys.

Filling in for my Friend Ray a Bit

2011-03-16T10:15:00.000-07:00

My friend Ray, who blogs at Remember Jenkin's Ear, is temporarily out of action. He's posted a lot about the Raymond Davis situation in Pakistan. Davis is the CIA contractor who "allegedly" shot a couple of armed Pakistanis who approached his car. This understandably created a small crisis in US - Pakistan relations, which seemed to be growing into a large crisis thanks to things like the ISI stating that he was CIA, and intervention by Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani. Davis was formally charged with murder.

Ray speculated that this incident could lead to an Egypt-like uprising, and pointed out the general "fishiness" of the whole story.

Looks like money will be the fix, averting a crisis in US-Pakistani relations. For a reported 2.4 million dollars to each victim, (and, I assume, an apology, as least implicitly) Davis has been released. Another article here.

"In Pakistan's legal system, charges against people accused of murder can be dropped if "blood money" is paid to the family of the victim's relatives.".

While I'm glad that this may have averted a serious break in US-Pakistani relations, it makes me wonder just how serious the Pakistani protestations really were. Frankly, this just supports my belief that the Pakistanis are, to some extent, "using" the US, playing us for as much money as they think they can get, especially given the extensive past misuse of much of the aid the US provides. I almost agree with one of the Islamicist parties, "The Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party condemned the release of Mr. Davis and said it would demonstrate." Unfortunately, as long as we are over-extended in Afghanistan, we need to remain on good terms with Pakistan..

New York Times Editorial Misses the Point

2011-03-11T10:45:00.000-08:00

Today's New York Times Editorial misses a couple of key points in their discussion of the Wisconsin situation.

"Some union benefits are exorbitant, but no politician was forced to hand them out. Lawmakers are free to end this practice and should, but ending the basic rights of unions is a very different matter."

1) It is not a basic right for public employees to have a union. Federal employees are, for the most part, not-unionized. They lack the key power of unions: "federal unions can’t advocate striking or actually go on strike."

2) Just how does the New York Times expect politicians to cut back on exorbitant benefits? When, by their own admission a couple of lines above, they give a lot of support to one party, the Democrats? Here in California, former governor Arnie was creamed by public employee unions when he attempted reforms. Now in fairness, this applies to more than just public employee unions. Senior citizens will fight long and hard to maintain their Social Security benefits, companies fight for their tax-credits, everybody for their tax cuts, etc.

Somebody needs to step up and tell Americans the unpalatable truth and lead. Provide cover for wavering politicians in both parties. That somebody is President Obama. So far, he has been, IMO, all too weak on the leadership front. Please, President Obama, lead! Frankly, I expect that much of the time I will dislike your direction. But it's better than no direction at all. Follow up on the recommendations of the Budget Commission.

Mayhem in Madison Wisconsin

2011-02-19T18:46:00.000-08:00

Well, I don't claim to be an expert, though I have been to Madison many times and have even visited the now quorum-less State Senate chamber, but here are some thoughts on the unrest in Wisconsin in response to Governor Scott Walker's proposals to make state employees pay more towards health care and pensions, and to strip them of most of their collective bargaining rights.

IMO, asking them to pay more towards health care and pensions is eminently reasonable. According to a WSJ analysis, the proposed increases would be "roughly the national average for public pension payments, and it is less than half the national average of what government workers contribute to health care". Currently, Wisconsin public workers pay nothing towards their pensions, and a mere 6% for health-care benefits.

As for rolling back collective bargaining rights, this is a tactical political mistake and an unnecessary overreach that allows opponents, such as President Obama, to readily portray this as an "assault on unions". In the short run, the real need is to restrain costs. Worry about obscure fine points (at least, to many outside observers) of collective bargaining rights later. If Governor Walker had been willing to settle for a partial victory, he might have it already, as many in the union are willing to accept the cuts but not the broader provisions.

At least some rhetoric from the left has been misguided. Democratic State Sen. Bob Jauch called Mr. Walker's move "the end of the democratic process" during the committee debate on Wednesday night. He then showed his magnificent support for the democratic process by fleeing across the border to Illinois to deny the republican controlled senate a quorum. Protesters, ignoring recent calls for civility in political dialog (most of which I think are misguided), are shouting "Kill the bill". Fortunately, their actions have been civil, as there have been no incidents between them and conservative opponents. Interestingly, even the liberal NYT admits in that article that the union's protests "have been more organized than organic" i.e. more "astroturf" than "grassroots".

Governor Walker, compromise. Propose that the unions accept the pay cuts to pay for health care and pensions, but leave their broader collective bargaining powers alone.

For the record, I'm waiting for our newly elected California governor, Jerry Brown, to ask public employee unions to face some of the pain of the immense state budget deficit. I even voted for him, thinking he might have a chance to succeed: just like only somebody with impeccable conservative credentials (Nixon) could open relations with mainland China, it may take a governor with solid liberal credentials (Jerry Brown) to successfully tackle California's public employee crisis regarding pay, benefits, and pensions.

California Business Taxes

2011-01-21T12:02:00.000-08:00

There's a lot of talk, at least from the right, about California being "hostile" to business. I've been thinking of converting my little consulting business into a one-person LLC. Some investigation revealed that there would be a minimum $800 per year tax on the LLC. It goes up as you make more money. This is in addition to the normal state income tax. Seems a bit steep. If a "typical" small business is making maybe $50000 a year, that's an effective 1.6% tax rate. What do other states charge? Yesterday I was at the local library browsing the NOLO book Form Your own LLC. Only 11 states (including California) charge any special yearly LLC tax at all. Here is the complete list. A value of "yes" means that the exact number varies and was not in the book, a "+" means "or more".

Alaska	$50
Arkansas	$150+
California	$800+
Delaware	yes
Illinois	$250
Kansas	yes
Massachusetts	$500
New Hampshire	$100
North Carolina	$200
Pennsylvania	$380+
Wyoming	$50+
Alaska	$50

As you can see, not only is California somewhat unusual in charging a yearly tax at all, it's tax is the highest.

Pentagon Report on Don't Ask Don't Tell

2010-12-01T22:21:00.000-08:00

I support repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, if it doesn't cause significant loss of combat effectiveness. The New York Times tells us that the recent Pentagon report proves just that, stating that "Only 30 percent of the serving military believes that open service would be harmful".

While that number may be true overall, what concerns me are the opinions of combat troops. The troops who are facing the most danger, and must live in close quarters in rugged conditions with their fellows. Here the results are much more negative. For example, on page 81, Table 17, Question 68c, 48.9% of Army Combat Arms and 59.7% of Marine Combat Arms respond negatively.

I have never served in the military. Here I'd defer to the troops. Much as I regret saying it, our serving combat troops are not ready for a repeal of DADT, especially in the middle of two wars. I hope that ten years from now the results will be more favorable and the military will be ready.

Alternatively, it seems like the Air Force is the most ready to accept homosexuals. Let it repeal DADT, and let's see the results in a few years. If things go well, the other services will follow.

Most of us have to pay for our own lawyers

2010-11-15T10:43:00.000-08:00

Charlie Rangel, (D, N.Y.) walked out of his House Ethics Panel trial today, making the serious claim that he was being denied his Constitutional right to have a lawyer.

Well, actually, just because he hasn't had time to let others pay for his lawyer.

"I am being denied the right to have a lawyer right now because I don't have the opportunity to have a legal-defense fund set up,'' the New York Democrat said. "I truly believe I am not being treated fairly.''

In his defense, Rep. Rangel has already paid 2 million dollars to lawyers, out of his campaign funds. When those ran out, the lawyers abruptly, and unprofessionally, left the case, leaving him in the lurch. But he could choose to pay them out of his own personal money, which is what most of us normal schmucks have to do. Maybe it is unfair for finances to play such a role in a trial, but welcome to the real world Rep. Rangel. Besides, I don't think this is a partisan "witch-hunt" without any foundation, it is his own party still in charge of the House.

This sense of entitlement by our representatives is appalling. Somehow they don't feel like they should pay for anything, it should all be provided as a government benefit and expense account, or by generous donors. Of course, all those donors are altruistic and would never expect any corrupt favors or benefits in return.

Sad State of Journalism

2010-11-01T12:55:00.000-07:00

Today, one day before the election, the San Jose Mercury News has a front-page news article about Carly Fiorina. Apparently, in person at least, she's not "a heartless corporate bigwig who blithely fired her workers and sent their jobs overseas". The article, somewhat correctly, criticizes Fiorina's campaign strategy.

But in a state as vast as California, only a sliver of voters actually see candidates in person; their main exposure is in TV ads. Fiorina never aired a biographical ad about herself. She did appear in several spots but never gave voters a real sense of herself,

But, but, but... isn't the media supposed to do some of this work for us? Don't they spend time with the candidates? Why the heck didn't they report this? Well, the Merc did provide information on their fact check page.

Boxer also neglects to note that Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP -- huge acquisitions and relentless cost-cutting -- eventually succeeded in making it the largest technology company in the world. ... her (Fiorina's) broader vision has been largely vindicated by time.

However, they cannot bring themselves to actually endorse her. Citing, amongst other things, that "Fiorina was fired from HP after a tempestuous tenure" and her support of Prop 23, which is a state issue, not a national one. They praise Boxer for pushing cap and trade, then admit that "she was ineffective at pushing through her legislation".

O.K., so Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP "succeeded", her vision was "vindicated", and Boxer was "ineffective". Why can't they listen to their own facts and recommend Fiorina? Because she's a Republican. The Merc endorsed seven democrats and only two republicans, and the republicans for less powerful positions.

California High Speed Rail - A Far Too Reasonable Proposal

2010-10-11T11:09:00.000-07:00

The California High Speed Rail Project (official site, wikipedia) proposes to link San Francisco and Sacramento, via the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego. But they are getting a lot of grief from cities along the San Francisco Peninsula, who don't want ugly, noisy, perhaps elevated tracks through their downtowns . Tunnels are not currently on the proposals, due to cost. You'll find lots of link with a Google search, here's one (see pages 20-29). The cities dislike the proposal so much that they are suing. Menlo Park is suing for the second time!

In an ideal, well-planned world, carrying the line the whole way to SF would be good. But, in the real, poorly-planned world, does it really makes sense to waste years on lawsuits, impact statements and permits, then spend billions of dollars on construction through some of the priciest land in the country? No. Terminate the high-speed line in San Jose, not San Francisco. That will easily save several billion, probably tens of billions.

Use some of that saved money to "spruce up" and electrify Caltrain, which is desperately needed for its survival, and estimated at less than a billion. Use some of the saved money to accelerate the BART extension from Fremont to San Jose.

How much will this impact San Franciscans who want to take the train to L.A? They will need an extra transfer, which is annoying and wastes some time - say 10 or 15 minutes with good scheduling. The train ride will be slower. Caltrain "baby bullet" trains take an hour to run from SF to SJ. But electrification is thought to save 10 minutes or so from that. BART takes 50 minute to run from downtown SF to Fremont. So getting to San Jose is probably a bit over an hour. However, there are many BART stations in San Francisco, so for most people, they are much more convenient than getting to the train station which is at 4th and King on the far east side of town. Bottom Line: Caltrain, with a transfer, is slightly over an hour, BART is more convenient for most but would take more like an hour and a half.

How long would a "High Speed" rail trip take? Though the trains may be capable of a couple of hundred miles and hour, the actual speed along the Peninsula would be limited to around 90 MPH. The distance as the crow flies is 42 miles, Let's say half an hour. But there are possible stops planned for SFO, Redwood City and/or Palo Alto. With those, we're talking more like 40 minutes.

The net benefit of high speed rail along the Peninsula is small. For San Franciscans using the downtown train station, they'd save about 20 minutes. San Franciscans who live near BART and far from 4th and King could well save time by taking BART.

My proposal saves California taxpayers billions of dollars in money, and years in costly construction delays. Plus, we get BART to San Jose, truly circling the Bay, and save and enhance Caltrain.

To the politicians and special interests in California - can you put reason and logic first?

Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again

2010-10-07T23:39:00.000-07:00

In today's editorial, Paul Krugman lashes out at NJ Governor Chris Christie for cancelling a 8.7 billion dollar tunnel project. The project sounds like a good idea, and much of the money is coming from the Feds, (only three billion from NJ) so, if you just read his editorial, the project does sound completely rational. What is this irrational, "destructive", and "incredibly foolish" Christie up to anyway?

A trivial Google search (I typed in "christie tunnel hudson river") reveals something that Krugman somehow fails to mention: The project is facing potential cost overruns of up to 5 Billion Dollars, all of which would be paid by the State of NJ. The very first hit is entitled "NJ governor kills Hudson River tunnel due to costs". Am I to believe that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman didn't know that? Or is it more likely that he deliberately intended to mislead his readers?

Another article states that the project may still move forward.

Christie and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will meet today “to discuss a path forward on the ARC tunnel project"

Presumably, Christie will seek a deal where the Feds will help pay for some of the overruns. Suddenly, Christie is the one who seems eminently rational, not the misleading Krugman.

I'm not getting excited about the Giants this year

2010-09-22T23:29:00.000-07:00

Even though they are a good team making a great playoff run, I'm finding it difficult to get too enthused. Why? Most of their hitters aren't "real" Giants, who have come up from the minors and you've been able to follow as they develop. Few of them have played even a year for the team. I'm not feeling a "connection".

Check out their roster. Or, even better, the box score from tonight's game.

Cody Ross joined the Giants August 22nd. One month ago.
Freddy Sanchez joined them late 2009. So he's been here roughly a year.
Aubrey Huff joined the beginning of 2010
Buster Posey is a real Giant. Hooray!
Pat Burrell joined the middle of 2010
Jose Guillen joined the Giants the middle of August of this year.
Pablo Sandoval is a real Giant. (Except he's awful right now)
Juan Uribe is an "old-timer", he's been with the Giants now for two years, even if he didn't come up through their minor-league system.

So, of their eight starting fielders, only two came up through the Giant's minor-league. Of the others, only one has been for the team much longer than a year.

Now, I enjoy following the Giant's pitchers, cause, for the most part, I've been able to follow their development, their struggles and their successes. For example, I feel some pride and joy seeing Jonathan Sanchez harness his talent to achieve well-deserved success, since I've also seen him struggle. There's a connection there. But I could care less how Jose Guillen or Mike Fontenot does.

I'd like to see them make the playoffs, but I won't be rooting as hard as usual.

The Strange World of Chess Politics steps into the Ground-Zero Mosque Quagmire

2010-09-16T17:05:00.000-07:00

The World Chess Federation (FIDE) has offered to buy the site.

It's almost certainly a publicity stunt for the incumbent president, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, who was once abducted by aliens and is currently in a tight election contest with former world champion Anatoly Karpov.

Organized chess is really strange.

Is Jerry Brown a Tea Partier?

2010-09-15T20:41:00.000-07:00

California Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown (democrat) has his first radio ad.

At the end, he says

"We have to start living within our means,
We need to return power and decision making to the local level, closer to the people,
and no new taxes without voter approval."

Hmm, Sarah Palin and Brown in 2012?

Phil Cuzzi is an awful umpire

2010-09-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

At least today. I'm a SF Giants fan watching the Giants/Padres game today, and Cuzzi, the home plate umpire has made repeated bad ball and strike calls, all favoring the Giants. A clear strike on Huff was called a ball (the catcher did catch it funny), Huff ended up on base instead of the 3rd out, and Posey hit a dinger. Two runs for SF. The same pitch, or worse, was repeatedly called a strike when a Padre was batting.

When Chase Headley was batting, he raised his arms as if to call time-out, then let the pitch happen and called Headly out on strikes.

Here's predicting some Padres get ejected by the end of the game.

Just think, if I were a Padres fan, I'd notice even more.

Two recent NY Times Editorials of interest

2010-09-11T22:50:00.000-07:00

David Brooks writes about one possible cause of the American decline.

"the U.S. has drifted away from the hardheaded practical mentality that built the nation’s wealth in the first place.

The shift is evident at all levels of society. First, the elites. America’s brightest minds have been abandoning industry and technical enterprise in favor of more prestigious but less productive fields like law, finance, consulting and nonprofit activism."

He's at least partially correct. Since we are unlikely to stop buying foreign oil and cheap Chinese manufactures, we need to export something back. If it's natural resources, we act like a colony, and our current strategy of producing and exporting treasury bonds is unsustainable. We must continue to have sharp minds producing valuable technical manufactures for export to remain a strong and prosperous society.

Thomas Friedman writes a column with similar thoughts. He largely cites a column by Robert Samuelson, which bemoans that students aren't motivated to do the hard work.

"Motivation comes from many sources: curiosity and ambition; parental expectations; the desire to get into a "good" college; inspiring or intimidating teachers; peer pressure."

to which Friedman adds

"We had a values breakdown — a national epidemic of get-rich-quickism and something-for-nothingism."

A good friend who teaches high-school says the same thing - the bailouts have been bad for student motivation.

I remember a recent TV ad for an on-line high school. Some of the supposed benefits were that you got to take courses at your own pace and take tests at your own time. For some students, this is a benefit. But, the real lessons of high school are not that the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares of the other two sides, nor that Jane Austen wrote a bunch of good books. The real lessons are the world does not exist for the benefit of the students, and sometimes you have to take tests on somebody else's schedule.

Thoughts on Koran Burning

2010-09-09T12:19:00.000-07:00

As most people know, some obscure publicity seeking pastor is planning to burn Korans on 9/11. I won't even dignify him with a link. The act is clearly legal and protected First Amendment Speech. It's also stupid.

In an ideal world, he'd get a little publicity, and some Muslims (and others) would protest and perhaps organize a non-violent response, such as burning bibles or declaring "National put a crucifix in a jar of urine day". But they would realize that this is an isolated act by a small group. And life would go on.

However, we live in a far from ideal world. Radical Muslims will gain a propaganda boost, endangering our troops and out efforts in the Middle East. The pastor should stop his plan.

I'm pleased that many prominent Americans have denounced the stunt. But how about the most prominent American, President Obama? Why hasn't he given a speech saying that he, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, disapproves of the stunt? Actually, I just noticed, looks like he has started. Good. He should also explain to foreigners that American is a free society where such stunts are Constitutionally protected. I would like to see Bush joining in too.

My friend Ray has some different thoughts. I really have to say that I disagree with his post on many points.

India is NOT Hindustan. Maybe Pakistanis perceive it that way, but they are wrong.

If the natural assumption of those overseas is that the government should stop the stunt, that's exactly why Obama should explain that America is different, and the stunt is protected free speech.

"The local cops should arrest this guy, if he burns a Koran, and he should be prosecuted. The reasons for doing this is that it is the only way for the US government to distance itself from Koran burning in the eyes of leaders of other states."

No. Unless the pastor shouts fire in a crowded theatre or calls for the violent overthrow of the US government, what he's doing is clearly free speech. Stupid free speech, but free speech. People overseas should get used to it, and again, Obama should explain that. If Ray doesn't want to defend the free speech right of stupid idiots that he opposes, his concept of free speech is meaningless.

As for Bush declaring a "Crusade", yes, he used that word once and meant it in the meaning "this is a good thing, like Ike's Crusade in Europe". It was a stupid mistake, historically tone-deaf. Ray claims we acted remarkably like a Crusade - just how? Very few Americans think we are on some Crusade to retake Jerusalem or protect pilgrim's rights in the Holy Land.

Frankly, for Ray to harp on the Crusade term incites angst amongst Muslims and offers recruiting benefits to our enemies. Just like the stupid Koran burning.

My bad, Rob Neyer is O.K.

2010-09-08T09:20:00.000-07:00

Seems like he agrees with me on the great year Felix Hernandez is having. He just fears that the Cy Young voters will overvalue wins and choose CC instead. I wish he'd do a little educating or cheerleading.

Here's the article Neyer refers to. Jason Rosenberg makes this point: "King Felix will be the AL’s best pitcher in 2010 but will not win the Cy Young."

I hope he's wrong on the second part, but we will see.

I hope Rob Neyer doesn't get a vote for the Cy Young Award

2010-08-31T23:58:00.000-07:00

In a recent post (mainly about Trevor Cahill) ESPN's Rob Neyer says "With an 18-5 record, CC Sabathia's obviously the No. 1 candidate" (for the Cy Young Award).

BS. CC is a good pitcher, but his stats for 2010 pale in comparison to King Felix Hernandez.

Innings Pitched: 194 vs. 211
HR Allowed: 17 vs. 14
Opponents Batting Average: .245 vs. .222
WHIP: 1.23 vs. 1.10
ERA: 3.14 vs. 2.38
Complete Games: 2 vs. 5

By every objective measure, Felix has pitched significantly better than CC in 2010.

Escape from White Rock BC

2010-08-29T11:29:00.000-07:00

I just spent a couple of weeks on a road trip vacation, including a wonderful time in British Columbia. Returning from Vancouver on 99 south, I still had a chunk of Canadian change (and nice job Canada having real $1 and $2 coins that work and save the government money instead of stupid paper bills) and wanted to make one last visit to a Tim Hortons. For those unfamiliar with it, Tim Hortons is much like a Dunkin Donuts, starting with donuts and coffee, but has since added healthier fare like sandwiches and soups. They are renowned for their Timbit donut holes.

"The biggest change in the chain's product focus took place in 1976 with the introduction of the phenomenally successful Timbit (bite-sized donut hole), today available in over 35 different varieties."

IMO, they rank up there with Ice Hockey and Neil Young as one of Canada's great contributions to civilization. If you eat in, real people serve you on real plates - no piles of paper waste either! And frankly, I had a hankering for a donut. So I turned off at on the King George Highway into White Rock, the last Canadian city before the US border. Signs boasted "White Rock, next 4 exits". Little did I know that this "short sidetrip"would turn into a small adventure.

I quickly found a sign saying "Tim Hortons", but it was just a gas station that just had a few of their sandwiches available. No good. The girl pointed me downtown for a "real" one. I headed that way, and saw no Tim Hortons between there and the Strait of Georgia. And there was some heavy traffic. Crap. Come on Tim Hortons, a little marketing advice, I can't be the first Yank wanting to spend their change before returning home, how about a big sign "Last Tim Hortons for 25000 miles"? Actually, since Canada has joined the 19th century and is metric, that would be "Last Tim Hortons for 40000 km".

So, the primary mission, eating some fried dough, was a failure. I ate at a Quiznos. I then headed east, hoping to hook backup with 99 south. Several roads crossed 99, but none had ramps leading south. Only north. Flustered, I backtracked north along King George Highway. Again, there is no ramp leading south, only north! By now loudly cursing stupid Canuck incompetence, I headed north, the wrong way. And north. And north. Would I end up trapped in Canada? Hotel California ("you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.") played through my mind. Along with thoughts of "54 40 or fight". After several miles, and several more minutes of cursing, there was a turnaround, and I managed to get turned around in the right direction.

It turns out that 3 of those 4 exits to White Rock are exits only. No return to 99 south. I can't be the only Yank who will ever face this problem, so here's the trick: to escape White Rock, do not attempt to retrace your steps. Instead, take the King George Highway south. It hooks up with 99 south near the border.

An appeal for religious toleration

2010-08-09T16:56:00.000-07:00

As most of you know, Cordoba House, which seems to be a moderate Muslim group, seeks to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City. This has raised some outcry, either those who want to stop it, or, more reasonably, those who ask that Cordoba House reconsider and build somewhere else.

I think it would great for them to build there to prove America's religious toleration.

But, I have one request. The mosque should have some space dedicated to the memories of the ten doctors from the International Assistance Mission who were recently murdered in cold blood by the Taliban for the crime of carrying bibles and "preaching Christianity". To prove their religious toleration.

Krugman doubles down

2010-08-06T12:32:00.000-07:00

On July 25th, Paul Krugman wrote a NY Times op-ed column in which he said that "Climategate" is "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media." James Taranto correctly rebutted this.

Now, it would be one thing for Krugman to argue--wrongly, in our opinion--that the "supposedly damning e-mail messages of 'Climategate' " were not actually damning. But no one has denied that they are genuine. Krugman's description of them--and every other accusation "leveled against climate researchers"--as "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action" is flatly false.

This week, Paul Krugman doubles down with more accusations of "fraud", bashing the proposals of Representative Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin), and the media for following them.

One depressing aspect of American politics is the susceptibility of the political and media establishment to charlatans. You might have thought, given past experience, that D.C. insiders would be on their guard against conservatives with grandiose plans. But no: as long as someone on the right claims to have bold new proposals, he’s hailed as an innovative thinker. And nobody checks his arithmetic. ...

But it’s the audacity of dopes. Mr. Ryan isn’t offering fresh food for thought; he’s serving up leftovers from the 1990s, drenched in flimflam sauce. ...

But they don’t. The Ryan plan is a fraud that makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future.

Hey, the "audacity of dopes" line is pretty good. In a later blog, I may look in more detail at the numbers behind Ryan's plans. It seems true that a Tax Policy Center analysis of his initial plan shows a shortfall. So, technically, Krugman presented a true fact. Part of the "shortfall" is because, under Ryan's plan, government revenues remain steady at around 16 - 17%, while, under the CBO baseline, they rise up to more like 18 to 20%. However, a quick followup search shows that Ryan is willing to work on the numbers.

Ryan has explicitly stated that he is willing to work with the Treasury department to adjust the rates on his tax reform plan to “maintain approximately our historic levels of revenue as a share of GDP.” (which is ~18%)

Looks like Krugman's "fact", though technically true, is intended to deceive. Since Krugman falsely cried "fraud" just last week, why should we believe him this week? Maybe it is Krugman who "makes no useful contribution to the debate over America’s fiscal future"?

Is Buster Posey for Real?

2010-07-26T15:44:00.000-07:00

A baseball post. As fans know, Buster Posey has been on a tear for the San Francisco Giants, with an 18 game hitting streak. Is he really that good?

Checking his stats for the last ten days, you get the following: (your stats may differ if you check a different day than today)

41 at bats, 18 hits, 1 HR, 3 walks and 6 Ks. Walks don't count as "at bats". In 41 at-bats, he struck out 6 times, and hit 1 home-run. Which means that he put the ball "in play" 34 times.

Of his 18 hits, 1 was a home run, so that means that, on his "in play" balls, he got 17 hits.

There's a stat for that of course, BABIP. (note - the stat also involves sac flies, of which I don't have the numbers) Posey's BABIP is a cool .500. A typical BABIP is .300.

Some BABIP can be attributed to great speed on ground balls, which doesn't apply to Posey, or to a greater ability to hit line-drives. He showed a bit of the later in the minors. However, seems like he's also been very lucky to have a BABIP 66% higher than league average.

Why International Law is silly

2010-07-23T17:47:00.000-07:00

The World Court recently ruled that Kossovo's declaration of independence did not violate international law. Well, sort of.

Legal experts said that while the International Court of Justice had ruled that Kosovo’s declaration of independence was legal, it had avoided saying that the state of Kosovo was legal under international law, a narrow and carefully calibrated compromise that they said could allow both sides to declare victory in a dispute that remains raw even 11 years after the war there.

After 11 years, they decide nothing. A major "purpose" of International Law is to resolve disputes short of war, and here they failed.

And the whole this is just absurd. If only the World Court had been a bit quicker with their decision, and released it on July 4th. Or maybe delayed more until September 28th. Or April 19th. You get the idea. Independence is settled between peoples and nations, not in court rooms.

Paul Krugman Fails to prove his point

2010-07-18T23:03:00.000-07:00

In a recent editorial, Paul Krugman writes about Voodoo Economics. He states categorically that cutting taxes does not raise revenues.

But the real news here is the confirmation that Republicans remain committed to deep voodoo, the claim that cutting taxes actually increases revenues. It’s not true, of course.

One would think that a Nobel Prize winner would follow this claim up with some facts, comparing revenues, adjusted for inflation and population increases and whatever, before and after the Reagan tax cuts. Should be simple to do.

But he doesn't.

Ronald Reagan said that his tax cuts would reduce deficits, then presided over a near-tripling of federal debt. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on top incomes, conservatives predicted economic disaster; what actually followed was an economic boom and a remarkable swing from budget deficit to surplus. Then the Bush tax cuts came along, helping turn that surplus into a persistent deficit, even before the crash.

While all three of these sentences are true (at least, arguably true), not a single one talks about revenues. The first two correlations are strongly confounded by the spending policies of the era. In any case, they do nothing to support his claim that lower taxes means lower revenues. I can spend 10 minutes on Google and find numerous web sites supporting Krugman (and many that don't). What intelligent Americans really need from our Nobel Prize winning columnists is adult facts and teaching how things work. Instead, we get political claims that deliberately skirt the hard choices and hinder an informed public.

A truly despicable NYT Editorial about Rand Paul

2010-05-24T16:16:00.000-07:00

The Sunday New York Times has a truly despicable editorial by Ross Douthat about Rand Paul.

First, let's talk about some of the meat. Rand Paul has expressed reservations about the government's statutory power to intervene in the private sector. And it's clear that some such interventions would be an overreach, "wrong" on balance of power/privacy/"what is "right", issues, and probably unconstitutional. For example, if spoiled rock-stars petitioned congress to pass a law forbidding red M&Ms, we could all disagree with that. If congress forbids racial discrimination, I would support that, but Rand Paul thinks that falls into a grey area.

How about congress (I'm using lowercase to be non-specific) forbidding home schooling, gay sex, cigarette smoking, or smoking pot? Is that o.k.? I think many would argue that this is in a grey area and it may be best for them to refrain from such a law.

How about congress forbidding abortion? Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is an overreach, an abuse of privacy.

How about Congress passing a statute forbidding alcohol? By precedent, we know that that would be an unconstitutional overreach, since it required a constiitutional amendment.

So, there clearly are limits to what congress can do regarding the private sector. While I believe that Rand Paul draws the line in the wrong place, his basic intellectual argument is sound. Those criticising him have not (to my reading) adressed the issue intellectually, just emotionally. Yes, racism is bad, but not everything done to prevent racism is right.

Now, what's really despicable about the editorial? Guilt by association.

It isn’t surprising that two of the most interesting “paleo” writers of the last few decades, Francis and Joseph Sobran, ended their careers way out on the racist or anti-Semitic fringe.

What? Just because a few writers with similar opinions were wackos has no relevance to Rand Paul. This is a truly sleazy line of attack and unworthy of some two-bit blogger like myself, let alone an editorial in a major national newspaper.

Douthat refuses to argue with the merits and demerits of Paul's opinion, and reverts to craven guilt by association. It's a lame editorial. BTW, Douthat is conservative, not a "typical" NYT liberal.

Frank Rich Editorial about Rand Paul

2010-05-23T09:45:00.000-07:00

The Sunday New York Times features an editorial by Frank Rick about Rand Paul, entitled "The Randslide and Its Discontents". As one one expect from a liberal NYT columnist, it isn't favorable. But one section about Paul's views is interesting, because his views seem reasonable, and would appeal to progressives.

Paul is articulate and hard-line. When he says he is antigovernment, he means it. Unlike McConnell, he wants to end all earmarks, including agricultural subsidies for a state that thrives on them. (He does vow to preserve Medicare payments, however; they contribute to his income as an ophthalmologist.) He wants to shut down the Department of Educationand the Federal Reserve. Though a social conservative who would outlaw all abortions, he believes the federal government should leave drug enforcement to the states.

It’s also in keeping with this ideology that Paul wants the federal government to stop shoveling taxpayers’ money into wars. He was against the war in Iraq and finds the justification for our commitment in Afghanistan “murky.” He believes that America’s national security is “not threatened by Iran having one nuclear weapon.”

Many progressives should agree with a lot of this. Earmarks are bad, agricultural subsidies are (generally) bad. Those who wish to pass local laws to legalize marijuana or assisted suicide might support Paul's views on drug enforcement. And of course they'd support his views on the wars.

So I'm really not sure what Frank Rich is doing in his editorial. Naturally, he goes on to call Paul a racist - it's pretty much a requirement nowadays. But, ultimately, either Rich didn't think things out at all, or he's up to something really devious.

Poor Political Advertising

2010-05-21T15:20:00.000-07:00

Yes, I know there's a lot of deliberately bad, or just plain bad political ads out there. The "YES" ads for California Prop 16 reach especially high levels of deceit. I'm both impressed and dismayed.

Here I single out one local group's campaign literature in particular, even though it's a cause I support! San Mateo County will offer up Proposition E. In a nutshell, it is a $150/year parcel tax on residents of the Cabrillo Unified School District to support local schools. I'm not big on taxes, but a small parcel tax to support local schools seems well worth it.

One major support group for E is Friends of Cabrillo Unified Schools. (FOCUS) My complaint is, if you look through that web site, it barely mentions the $150 parcel tax! Well, if you search on "tax", you do pick up one page, "Resources", which does have the word tax, which links to the fact sheet, which details the $150 tax. So, technically you can find the info, they just make it really hard.

I just received a nice printed flyer in the mail from FOCUS, and nowhere does it mention the word tax! It does say that "An exemption is available for senior citizen homeowners", which implies to careful readers that this involves a parcel tax. But no direct reference. I'm really sad to see this borderline deception - it may tilt me to vote against this measure that normally I'd support..

Why can't we have an honest and forthright discussion that treats voters as adults? Say that this is a parcel tax, it is small, it all goes to support local schools, there are fiscal protections, and ask people to support it.

Here's a discussion forum in the local paper about the measure.

I disagree with McCain and Lieberman

2010-05-07T19:00:00.000-07:00

I often agree with Senators McCain and Lieberman, who are more-or-less centrists (by US standards) and are more willing to cross party lines and compromise than many. And, I'm not against trying non-citizen terrorists as enemy-combatants with less rights than US citizens. However, I disagree with their recent proposal to try US citizens, such as Faisal Shahzad as enemy combatants.

For better or worse, Faisal Shahzad is a US citizen, entitled to all the rights in the US Constitution and relevant state laws.

But, I'd like to point out the following: Shahzad, as a US citizen, allegedly "levied War against the United States" and "adhering to their Enemies", and, if true, is guilty of treason. If the facts support it, he should be changed as a traitor.

"The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason" and it's a capital offense.

A twist on Freedom of Association

2010-04-23T18:35:00.000-07:00

In recent years, many "conservative" groups have been sued for discrimination, and defended themselves with claims to their right of Freedom of Association. The Boy Scouts being a prime example. In general, the left has sided with those claiming discrimination, the right with the group.

Now here's a case that turns the traditional story on it's head. The North American Gay Amateur Athletic Association (NAGAAA) has deprived a largely gay softball team of it's glory for "not being gay enough". Links (in no particular order) here, here, here, a link with some commentary here.

It will be interesting to see if conservatives rise in support of the NAGAAA, and if liberals support the team.

Fantasy Baseball Update

2010-04-12T14:15:00.000-07:00

I won the first week, despite my opponent having the red hot Vernon Wells. There have been several roster changes for my team.

With Cliff Lee on the DL, there was a free spot, and, in an attempt to beef up the outfield, I tried to get Nick Swisher, but lost out on him to another team with higher waiver priority. So I picked up Milton Bradley, a high-risk, high-reward player. Right now he's looking just high-risk.

Another team then dropped Carlos Gonzales, and I snapped him up, dropping Matt Diaz who hasn't played much this year, and likely won't with Heyward in the Atlanta outfield. So now my outfield is Holiday, Manny, Juan Rivera, Heyward and CarGon, with Bradley in reserve. That seems like a good mix of two excellent veterans, a solid performer, two exciting young talents, and a complete wildcard. I also dropped Kevin Gregg, the non-closer in Toronto, to pick up Franklin Morales, the interim Colorado closer, pending the return of Street.

And I had one fairly big trade. Another team needed infield help, and Scutaro was largely sitting on my bench. So I traded Scut and Roy Oswalt for Brett Anderson. I'm hoping that this is a pitching upgrade for me, and Oswalt is bit of an injury risk playing for a bad team. But Oswalt has looked pretty good so far this year. I think it's a fair trade that should help both teams, but time will tell. Last year this league had very few trades, it will be interesting to see if the two additional teams change that.

My "problem" of having two good catchers was quickly solved when Miguel Montero, my round 12 draft pick, went down for at least six weeks, probably longer. The bad news is he's no longer worth anything in a trade. The good news is that I had one spot open on the DL, and this opened up a spot to take a gamble on Justin Duchscherer, a two start pitcher for this week.

The other "interesting" news is that Neftali Feliz will, for the time being, close for Texas. The rate closers have been blowing saves and losing games this year, that may not be a huge benefit. But I now have three closers: Qualls, Morales and Feliz. One of them (Qualls) is pretty solid. This is still an area of concern but hopefully one of the others will pan out.

Baseball (and Fantasy Baseball) Returns

2010-04-07T13:02:00.000-07:00

It has stopped raining here in California, it's getting warmer, and baseball has started, meaning that, for a short while, all will be well in the world. Right now the Giants are in first place and the A's only a half game out. :-)

Last year I played in my first fantasy baseball league and had a great time. I joined the league in the third week, so last year I wasn't involved in the draft. This year I was. It was an automated "make your list" draft, so the results were, let us say "interesting". Overall, I'm very happy with how it turned out, but the ESPN computer made a few choices differently than I would have made in person.

Last year pitching was very important in this league, with fairly standard head-to-head (not 5x5) scoring rules. We tweaked the rules (e.g., dropping a win from +10 to +5 points) in an attempt to make pitching less important, but it looks like it was still highly valued by the participants. Originally, I had bumped starting pitchers up the list, but then dropped many back to end up slightly above their normal slots. I also downgraded any first-baseman not named Albert, figuring that if I didn't get him there were plenty of good 1B options available, mentally targeting Kendry Morales. I downgraded most catchers not named Joe - figured if I didn't get him I'd target Montero or Suzuki. I bumped up Pablo Sandoval, Ben Sheets, Ben Zobrist, Jason Hayward, Cliff Lee and Tommy Hanson. For each round I said "pick best available" instead of targeting any special position.

Here's a link to the results. I'm "Boomers Wallbangers" picking 6th.

Round 1: Lincecum going #1 was a surprise. Fred Lynns picking King Felix is a minor surprise, but she won last year with pitching, so I bet she ranked him and Timmy in the top three. I know I had ranked A-Rod, Halladay, Braun and Mauer in the top-10, and A-Rod fell to me.

Round 2: Verlander and Votto seem a bit of a stretch here. My computer somewhat strangely picked yet another third basemen, Evan Longoria. Hey, I grew up loving Brooks Robinson and Mike Schmidt, so having the two best third-basemen in the game is cool, if a bit redundant. If I were picking, I'd probably go with Teixeira or Upton here for better balance.

Round 3: I'm a bit surprised that Wainwright went here, before some other pitchers like CC and Greinke. And, IMO, drafting K-Rod here is too early. I'm very happy with Matt Holliday.

Round 4: Three elite pitchers this late are good bargains. Glad I got one.

Round 5: I'm happy with Cliff Lee here, and Chris Carpenter and Victor Martinez also look like a good picks. The Detroit Comets are clearly going for relievers early, which might be interesting in a year when Nathan, Lidge and and Street are hurt, but why aren't they picking Riviera or Papelbon?

Round 6: I'm happy with Zobrist. A good hitter and love his positional flexibility. McCann and Ethier also seem like good picks. Mariano Rivera might be a bit early, but at least he's an elite closer.

Round 7: I get Kendry Morales, somewhat as planned. Lets hope he lives up to his "undervalued" rep. If I had been picking in person I'd be pissed that Matt Cain went two slots before. Broxton goes before Papelbon. Peraps reasonable, but a surprise cause many in the league are from Boston. Or maybe they are sick of Papelbon?

Round 8: Apparently I rated Tommy Hanson above Ubaldo Jimenez. I like both and am glad I got one.

Round 9: Derrek Lee is o.k., one of the last "good, reliable" 1B. In person, I might have gone for Soria instead, and would be upset that Torii Hunter went just before.

Round 10: Feels about right for Manny. In person I might have tried Bailey, but the outfield needs bodies.

Round 11: We will see if Wieters or Suzuki plays better this year. As an As fan, I probably rate Kurt too highly, but last year I pointed another team towards him (I had Victor Martinez) and he killed me in the playoffs. In person, with relievers going early in this league, I would have been tempted by Heath Bell.

Round 12: O.K., this is a computer mistake. Miguel Montero is a fine catcher, perhaps even better than Suzuki, but I don't need two "top-seven" catchers, only one. Peavy and Lackey, who go just before me, look like good picks.

Round 13: I like Asdrubal Cabrera here. In person, with relievers going early, I'd probably have picked Brian Wilson instead, or maybe Carlos Gonzales for the outfield.

Round 14: Yunel Escobar is good. My infield is looking solid. Sorry I missed Brett Anderson. IMO, the last two Detroit Comets picks are excellent.

Round 15: I like a lot of the picks this round. In person, I'd be pissed that yet another reliever went one pick before, but Shields is a good pick this late. Be interesting to compare him, Garza and Jair Jurgens at the end of the year.

Round 16: Several good pitchers go here. Again, be interesting to compare how Jered Weaver, Burnett, Hudson, Oswalt and Harden end up. (I predict Huddy)

Round 17: Relief! I finally get Qualls, a decent quality closer. Nice to have at least one.

Round 18: I'm very happy to get an exciting Jason Heyward here. If he flops, who cares, I got to follow him anyway. I don't win any money in Fastasy Baseball, may as well get some players you love. In person, I would have considered Francisco, but my outfield is still thin, so Heyward is, hopefully, a good pick. I can understand Fuentes falling so low with Rodney in the wings, (I think he's a good pick this late) but its interesting that Ryan Franklin has also fallen so far

Round 19: Hard to argue with Porcello as another good young pitcher with upside.

Round 20: Several more decent pitchers. As an As fan, I rated Sheets higher, but, objectively, De La Rosa, Lilly and Jackson may turn out better. Again, wait till the end of the year! Cody Ross seems a good pick here.

From here on out, it's mainly the computer rankings in action, as I didn't tweak the bottom of the draft list very much.

Round 21: In person I would have considered Martin Prado, but the computer probably felt the infield was full and I do need bodies in the outfield. (but see round 23) Rivera is o.k. for an Angel. :-)

Round 22: In person I probably gamble on Matusz. Apparently Kuroda is rated higher on the standard points.

Round 23: Scutaro? Well, I like him, but not like I need a spare middle infilder. I hope! Maybe somebody else will.

Round 24: In person, at this point I like my starters, so I would take a "high-upside" gamble on Liriano or Chapman. But Niemann seems a solid, "o.k." pick this late.

Round 25: Here random relievers go and you may not know who has won the closer role. Neftali Feliz is one of the few non-closers who are worth having, so I'm vaguely o.k. with the pick Joel Pinero looks to be a good pick. Darned Fred Lynns, despite their name, have an eye for good pitching. But, it's interesting that Chapman is still available till next round.

Round 26: Kevin Gregg will probably be a complete waste unless he wins the closer job at Toronto. In person, I either pick Franklin Morales as a temporary closer, else I gamble on Bedard. Aroldis Chapman is a great "high gain, little to lose" pick.

Round 27: Apparently, Matt Diaz is the highest rated outfielder remaining, and I need one. Doesn't look like I missed out on anybody else.

Catholic Church Hierarchy turns Easter into "All About the Pope"

2010-04-05T17:04:00.000-07:00

Easter, to believers, should be a profoundly sacred day celebrating the miracle of Christ's Resurrection and His gift of Grace. Instead, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church turned it into a celebration of the infallibility of the Pope, "the unfailing rock of the Holy Church of Christ".

Whatever the facts of the case, they have failed their religion. Their self-centered focus on maintaining power and hierarchy disgusts me. It's not a surprise to any who study their history.

O.K., hopefully no more religious posts for a while...

Brief Commentary on The Church Scandal

2010-03-31T21:28:00.000-07:00

Just remember that Thomas Becket was sainted largely for his insistence that priestly offenders be tried in ecclesiastical courts, not civil courts. (see also here)

In late 1163 Henry decided to abolish certain privileges enjoyed by the clergy, which exempted them, when they were accused of crimes, from the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Criminous clerks, as they were known, were instead allowed to stand trial before a bishop in the ecclesiastical (church) courts, which usually resulted in much milder punishments.

So the Catholic Church has been defending it's criminals for thousands of years, while granting its highest honor to those who protect them.

We Have Eaten the Low-Hanging Fruit. What Next?

2010-03-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

The Health Bill is now Law. I'm not sure how it will work out. I think it will benefit me personally. The rest of us may have to wait to find out.

One thought that I haven't seen anywhere else. Let's be generous and assume that the deficit reduction mechanisms actually work, and this bill is deficit neutral (or even slightly beneficial as the CBO claims). Now, I don't really believe it will work that way, but let's say they do work.

The mechanisms involve roughly one trillion dollars in higher taxes on the rich, and savings in Medicare. No skin off my back (for now). These are, to some extent, the easy fixes, the most politically palatable, the "low hanging fruit" in the battle to decrease our deficits.

One trillion dollars is a lot of low-hanging fruit. Instead of using them to pay down the deficit, we have eaten them. Eaten them for a reasonable cause, but eaten them. They are gone. When the time comes to really tackle the deficit, we will have to reach higher. One trillion is "easy" deficit reduction is gone. Get ready for higher taxes that impact the middle class, and large cuts in other government programs.

Upon further searching, I noticed that Greg Mankiw makes a similar point here.

Clever media reporting on the CBO numbers

2010-03-19T18:22:00.000-07:00

Most of the news articles say something like:

"cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.

Congressional analysts estimate the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade."

Now, maybe I'm missing something, but the only way this math works is if the bill involves a tax increase of 940+138 billion. Which is 1.078 trillion. According to the WSJ,

"The answer lies mainly in new taxes and curbs on Medicare spending."

Duh, so I was half right. Wish the rest of the media would be more honest. The New York Times does mention, in passing

"it would reduce projected federal budget deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, with additional tax revenue and Medicare savings."

I like their use of "revenue" and "savings". Next time Republicans want to cut a government program, I assume the Times will call that "savings", not a "cut". Sure they will. Buried near the bottom are the hard figures of $438 billion in new taxes. (Same for the Yahoo article) The L.A. Times, somewhat more honestly, calls them "cuts in federal Medicare expenses", which, of course, are certainly not cuts in your Medicare benefits. No sirree Bob. Nice spin by the mainstream media.

Anyway, hope that clarifies things for anybody else who was confused. Now, the benefits of the bill and greatly increased coverage will, all in all, likely be worth the extra taxes and Medicare cuts. Especially for those of us who aren't rich and aren't on Medicare. :-) I just wish both sides could have a serious discussion of these vital issues and act like grownups.

re: Jim Bunning. Paul Krugman, like many is wrong

2010-03-05T18:19:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman writes an editorial that can't get two sentences without being wrong.

"For days, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky exploited Senate rules to block a one-month extension of unemployment benefits"

Jim Bunning did not exploit some obscure Senate rule. The Senate asked for unanimous consent on a bill and he said no. Surely well within his rights - if all Senators are required to unanimously support all bills, there's no point in having them. Apparently, Krugman is unaware of the whole purpose of the Senate, to vote yes or no on things, and thinks that voting no in itself is an evil, exploiting a Senate rule.

Actually, Bunning wanted the Senate to follow it's own rules, "PayGo", and pay for the$10 billion expense. Note that one of those links leads to the Democratic Senate Budget Committee website, which says:

However, this point of order is not self-enforcing like the sequestration process; a Senator must raise the point of order against any violating legislation.

In other words, Bunning followed precisely the rules, as created by the Democrats, to raise the point of order about Paygo. To balance the cost, he proposed, quite reasonably, using some TARP funds. He also proposed removing the "black-liquor" tax-credit. But this was nixed on a procedural issue by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif). Nobody is writing how she exploited Senate rules to block his bill.

Some of the angst was that the benefits were about to expire in days. True - real people would be affected, and that would be painful. Harry Reid decared it an "emergency", as one of his aides wrote:

“The short term extension of expiring provisions is designated emergency spending because in economic downturns of this magnitude the Senate has traditionally treated extraordinary assistance to the unemployed as an emergency,”

Now, the Senate knew a long time ago that unemployment was running out for some recipients. Was the Senate suddenly surprised that the economy is in bad shape? Did they have a mass fantasy that millions of new jobs would be created in February? No, they are too lazy to plan ahead, and rushed through some last minute bill. Hmm, that does sound "traditional" for our representatives, so I agree with that part of the statement.

All Harry Reid had to do was

agree quickly to spend TARP funds
agree quickly to allow Bunning's black-liquor amendment to proceed
Call for a cloture vote. Presumably, it would pass about 98-2, and the Bill would then get passed.

But the Senate leader chose to try to make a political point, trusting the press to misreport the facts. As Paul Krugman, unsurprisingly, did. See here for a blog about more misreporting of Bunning's actions as a "filibuster". But it may have backfired - enough people are getting the truth to realize that Bunning may have picked the wrong time and place for his solitary stand, but he definitely had some right on his side.

One later addition. As part of his column, Krugman writes that Republicans are in a weird moral universe, and that extending unemployment is "textbook economics". However, as James Taranto points out, in Krugman's own textbook, Krugman wrote:

"Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect"

Now, these are unusually tough times, I don't think that this one instance of extending unemployment insurance will cause structural unemployment, but a good find by Taranto.

A Proposal for a New Source of Tax Revenue

2010-02-25T08:59:00.000-08:00

Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission opens the door for a lot more political advertisements in upcoming elections. And there's already a lot. In 2008, the total cost for US Federal government campaigns was 5.3 Billion dollars. (roughly half was the Presidential campaign, half for others) A decent chunk of this is advertising. For example. President Obama and Senator McCain spent about 20% of their funds, 500 Million, on advertisements. State contests cost money too. Here in California, Meg Whitman will spend millions of her own money, and Democrats are responding.

In my opinion, this massive spending, and the fund-raising required to compete in a race, is a corrupting influence. However, as a vaguely Libertarian, and a firm believer in the Bill of Rights, a lot of this involves Speech, and especially political speech, which should have the highest protection. So, I'm torn. (I'd support a reasonable Amendment that corporations are not persons). But, frankly, my opinion doesn't matter. Attempts to control this spending have all failed miserably. If you will, government imposed "price controls" and "regulations" have failed, as they often do. Let's apply a more traditional government approach, especially in this time of fiscal problems.

Let's tax the heck out of political advertisements.

I'd set a low floor, under which there is no taxation. Say, $25,000. So those running for School Board, small town sheriffs, etc. aren't affected. (I hope, not sure what gets spent on those campaigns!) Above that, a steeply progressive scale, topping out at 50%. So, for the big races, for each dollar spent on a political ad, the people get a dollar. Ads for federal offices would pay taxes to the feds, ads for state office pay the states.

Now, part of me was worried that this just makes the glad-handing and lobbyists more powerful, cause politicians will have to raise twice as much money. I am no longer concerned. We already know what the politicians are. We are just haggling over price. Let's get a cut of the action.

Why Canada is better than the USA

2010-02-21T18:23:00.000-08:00

In Canada, they don't have the USA-Canada hockey game on a cable channel in low def! Pestering us between periods with ads for their political talk shows.

Come on NBC/MSNBC, this is a big game, why isn't it in hi-def on a real channel? What kind of weak crap is that?

As for why the USA is better than Canada, we don't have that cheap-shot punk Scott Niedermeyer throwing opposition players into the boards way after the period is over. And right now we are leading 3-2, but there's still a period to go.

Here's wishing a cold Molson for all the Canadian fans anxiously watching. Good luck, and congratulations on a well-run Olympics in a fabulously supernaturally beautiful area of the world. BTW, the Czech-USSR game was great.

More Depressing Goldman Sachs News

2010-02-19T17:03:00.000-08:00

One could have an entire blog devoted to depressing Goldman Sachs news, but here's a recent snippet. According to a New York Times article, "Wall Street" (mainly represented by Goldman Sachs) helped mask or obscure the true extent of Greece's debt problem.

"...financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere. ...
Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country’s liabilities."

Now, these deals were apparently perfectly legal, and most of the blame, IMO, rests with the overspending politicians and those who elected them. And the accounting rules that don't count these future liabilities as "debts" are silly too. But still, the banks profited from the addictions of countries like Greece and Italy.

In related news, Mark Pittman, an investigative reporter, filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in September 2008 with the Fed for details of the bank bailout. He was rebuffed - the Fed didn't even bother to answer. Mark Pittman died in November 2009. Unfortunately for would be conspiracy fans, there seems to be no conspiracy, which probably convinces them that there is one. :-)

Fortunately for the rest of us, Bloomberg News has taken up the mantle with a lawsuit, Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. Last summer, District Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled in favor of Bloomberg, but the ruling was appealed by a consortium of banks to protect “the substantial interests of its members in confidential information that they provided to the Federal Reserve.” They argue that if people knew which banks were taking loans from the Fed, there could be a run on the bank, or that it's reputation would be damaged. Yeah, sure, banks are held in such high regard, it would be terrible if they were stigmatized. The Fed did bring up one interesting argument:

"The Fed, meanwhile, has worried that if the appeals court rules for Bloomberg, then savvy traders could quickly get their hands on such data in the future and use it to their advantage even as the government was trying to stabilize the markets."

People everywhere are very skeptical of the bank bailout. No need for me to cite any links even for that one. It seems to have saved greedy institutions who took huge risks in order to make huge bonus payouts. I'm no wild-eyed socialist or populist, and I believe that those who truly create something useful for society deserve ample compensation, but I find it hard to believe that bankers truly create all that much. I usually disagree with Paul Krugman, but I completely agree with him that banking should be boring.

If the bailout were truly needed, and did save banks and the American (and world) economy from a disastrous collapse, one would think that The Fed would want us to know the facts. Ex-President Bush, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, and President Obama et. al. would want us to know. Because it would make them look good, proving that they were rapid responders who risked public disapproval to save the economy, and they are not dupes nor tools of Wall Street. Since they haven't provided these facts, I conclude that the bailout was a scam or a panic.

Perhaps there will soon be a book with hard facts about the bailout. Anybody know of one? From what most can see, it rewarded bad behavior, and the banks are going back to the same bad habits, with no shame or remorse. Not sure what anybody can really do about it. For my extremely small part, Tim Geithner went to my Alma mater, Dartmouth College. This year they will get no alumni donation from me. Take that!

A Followup on the Rachel Maddow Post

2010-02-10T14:55:00.000-08:00

Today's (Feb 10th) San Francisco Chronicle has a front page article about the upcoming Heath Care Summit. The second paragraph is

Obama made a surprise appearance in the White House pressroom and compared his hopes for the summit with the give-and-take of marriage. He said he is willing to consider medical malpractice reform, a key GOP demand, but said bipartisanship doesn't mean Democrats abandon everything they believe in.

More proof that Rachel Maddow was wrong stating that tort reform was "in the bill". If it were already "in the bill", President Obama wouldn't be making a key and important point that he is willing to consider tort reform as part of a bipartisan compromise.

Sorry for harping on Rachel Maddow. She's one of the liberal commentators (along with Alan Colmes and Thom Hartmann) that I generally respect and enjoy. There's a lot of raving nuts on the left and the right, so I enjoy finding commentators that are logical and reasonable and willing to have intelligent debates and discussions.

Here is the transcript from the Maddow show.

BTW, she also claimed that it's "in the bill" to accept the republican idea of allowing insurance to be bought across state lines. She stretches the truth here too. Here's an MSNBC (hardly a right-wing group) analysis of the complexities. In any case, the bill does not mandate allowing sales across state lines, it just allows states to consider it.

Rachel Maddow lies straight to your face

2010-02-09T20:59:00.000-08:00

I caught glimpses of tonight's (Feb 9 2010) Rachel Maddow Show. One part was her interviewing Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), about health care reform. While he continually tried to extend an olive branch to Republicans, repeatedly saying that they had some good ideas and quoting some specifically (his bill, is bipartisan, co-sponsored by a republican) , her response was to repeatedly ignore his comments and bash Republicans for obstructionism. It was comical and Wyden looked flustered, though he gamely smiled through it all. Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the video. Anyway, we aren't going to reach any compromise / bi-partisanship by watching MSNBC (and maybe not by Fox either).

In a followup segment, Maddow blasted Republicans for complaining about wanting things in the health care reform bill that were already "in the bill". Implying that they were hypocritical obstructionists. She said "in the bill" slowly and loudly, so it must be true.

But, in the one example I saw, (there were a few I missed) she lied straight to your face. Republicans are well known for wanting medical malpractice reform, i.e. tort reform. This may bring down the cost of doing medicine and lower fees. She said it was "in the bill". She then paraphrased the bill. You could see on screen that the actual text was different, but her paraphrase was essentially correct.

It was the "Sense of the Senate" that it "calls upon individual states to develop new ways to deal with malpractice lawsuits"

There is absolutely no way that this represents tort reform. First of all, the "Sense of the Senate" is meaningless. It takes 10 seconds of Googling to learn that this is not a statute or regulation. It is an opinion, it is "we would like this to happen please". Actually, it's probably more like "we are claiming that we would like this to happen because it sounds good, but we really don't because then the Trial Lawyers will stop giving us money". It's probably also the "Sense of the Senate" that the deficit should go down, the Dow should hit 20,000 by the end of this year, and there should be a chicken in every pot. Doesn't mean doodly.

Even if the "Sense of the Senate" were a legally binding statute, what does it call for? The "world's greatest deliberative body" passes the buck. It calls for states to develop the actual plans. With, from what I saw, no time-line, no definitions, no nothing. A burger flipper has more structure and guidance than that. If this is all it takes to accomplish tort reform , health care reform would be easy. Pass a bill saying that the "Sense of the Senate" is that "states should develop new ways to deal with health care reform." Declare victory and withdraw.

By any possible analysis this bill does not include tort reform and Rachel Maddow knows it. But she'd prefer to lie straight to your face, not even bothering to present any facts that support her case. In fact, she presents facts that directly contradict her claim.
.

Support Google, Freedom and stimulate the economy too!

2010-01-13T14:44:00.000-08:00

Here's some delicious irony.

Anyway, if Google holds firm with their plan to un-censor searches in China. everybody, please go do some Google searches, click on an ad, and buy something made in the USA that you need. It will support Google, support freedom by keeping pressure on the totalitarian Chinese government, and maybe help stimulate the U.S. economy.

There's a Joke in here somewhere...

2010-01-08T10:56:00.000-08:00

The Jan 2010 Irish Herald's lead article is titled "Harshest Budget in Living Memory", and describes the difficult budget decisions that must be made to more or less balance the Irish budget for 2010. There are budget cuts totaling $6 billion, which is still less than 20% of the estimated budget deficit of $32 billion. These cuts affect salaries and welfare. There are increased taxes. It sounds reminiscent of the California budget mess. But, every cloud has a silver lining.

"(Finance minister) Lenihan sounght to offer one boost to public morale by cutting taxes on beer, wine, and liquor."

Apparently, there is a bit of supply-side economics here too to boost the economy:

"...sales in pubs and liquor stores represent an exceptionally high percentage of its (Ireland's) economic activity"

Worst Letter of the Year

2010-01-06T18:15:00.000-08:00

The year is still young, but a letter to the editor in the Jan 5th San Jose Mercury News sets a high standard for historical ignorance. Scroll down to read:

"Peace is possible only with justice

In Mercury News letters to the editor, the Israeli blitzkrieg against the Palestinians continues...

You can safely ignore the rest of his letter; it's just self-praise followed by nine rhetorical questions, devoid of facts or cogent arguments.  But that looks good compared to the flaws in the tiny fragment presented.

   "Peace is possible only with justice"

This sounds nice, but it historically false. There was a long period of peace during the time of the Roman Empire. There was a hundred year period of European peace starting 1814 after the Congress of Vienna. Neither period is especially known for "justice". Strike one.

   "In Mercury News letters to the editor, the Israeli blitzkrieg...

The letter writer is criticizing previous letters. As noted before, he never addresses any specific points.

Instead, he attempts an impossibly long leap of logic and metaphor to link a letter to the editor, part of our freedom of expression enshrined in the Bill of Rights, to blitzkrieg, an act of war which features concentrated armored spearheads, including "terror elements", and infamous bombings of civilian cities. Strike two.

   "...continues..."

Blitzkrieg means lightning-war. By definition it is short and swift. It does not "continue". Strike three.

Three major flaws in less than two sentences. That's why it's my early nominee for Worst Letter of the Year.

Left Wing Firebrand has Feet of Clay

2010-01-03T09:36:00.000-08:00

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, Democrat from Florida, received recent fame thanks to his stinging (and some would say crude) criticisms of Republicans. Progressives like his "guts".

While Grayson can dish it out, telling former V.P. Dick Cheney to"STFU", he can't take it. As one might expect, his opponents have opened their own camel-cased web site, MyCongressmanIsNuts. In a move out of the Chinese Communist playbook, Grayson has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to prosecute and imprison the critic, based on the technicality that the owner of the website isn't one of his constituents, therefore she can't claim him as "my" congressman. Even though, in their "About Us" page, they say only that they are from Central Florida.

Similarly, Al Franken isn't "my" Senator. But when he runs roughshod over Senate tradition and ends up casting the critical 60th vote for Health Care Reform, he is my Senator. (for the record, I'm not sure what I think of the health care bill, and who knows how it will end up after the House and Senate get together anyhow.)

In any case, if some dubious technicality is the basis for five years in jail, better read that Cap and Trade bill and the Health Care Bill very carefully. Though 5 years is only half what you'd get in China for "subversion".

It's Official, the At The Movies Guys are idiots

2009-12-28T12:37:00.000-08:00

Neither Michael Phillips nor A.O. Scott picked any Lord of the Rings movie in the top 10 of the last decade. The movie that I, and their viewers, picked as number one. What did they pick as number one?

A.O. Scott picked WALL-E. A very good movie. But even my wife, who loves cute animated films, dropped her jaw at this pick. We will have to rent it again to see.

Michael Phillips picked There Will Be Blood. This is the kind of movie that critics love, because they can fire their full rhetorical blasts of praise and compare it to another good but completely overblown movie, Citizen Kane. Check some of the comments, easily available via a cursory Google search:

"a film of Darwinian ferocity, a stark and pitiless parable of American capitalism"

"(director) Anderson is an artful renegade who restores your faith in the harsh power of movies. This is his bloody and brilliant Citizen Kane."

"about Day-Lewis. "Gargantuan" is a puny word to describe his landmark performance."

"epic American nightmare, arrives belching fire and brimstone and damnation to Hell"

But Roger Ebert has it right:

"its imperfections (its unbending characters, its lack of women or any reflection of ordinary society, its ending, its relentlessness) we may see its reach exceeding its grasp"

I've seen There Will Be Blood. In my opinion, it was a movie written and directed with the express purpose of appearing to be "great". Designed to appeal to critics, arriving with hoopla and Oscar buzz. But not a great movie.

Best Movies of the Decade

2009-12-21T09:28:00.000-08:00

I don't watch "At the Movies" much (since it isn't Siskel and Ebert anymore) but did catch it the other night, and they were counting down the "Best Movies of the Decade". Since each critic had his own selection, and we were at #2, that's a total of 18 films. I have seen none of them. My wife has seen only one of them. Maybe we are really out of touch. Several of them I haven't even heard of. For what it's worth, which isn't much, only one (Million Dollar Baby) won the Academy Award, though several were nominated.

I'm really wondering about their choices next week for the best film. For them to have any credibility with me, it has to be one of the Lord of the Rings movies. But these guys are really into filmaking and art - maybe they will be like the the Editors at the Modern Library who didn't even rate Lord of the Rings in the top 100 novels of the last century, instead preferring more "literary" works like Ulysses, Lolita, and Sons and Lovers, while the common people voted for books people actually read, like Ayn Rand, Tolkien, To Kill a Mockingbird, and, in a particularly insightful pick, H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness. Some of the popular votes are dubious and repetitive (there's way too much Ayn Rand and Hubbard), but, all in all, I think they did a better job than the "pros".

So, drum roll please... Here are my picks for the ten best movies of the last decade

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers - my favorite of the three
Heaven
The Wrestler
Walk the Line
The Bourne Identity - again, my favorite of the three, though all were strong
Bend It Like Beckham
Finding Nemo
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (if only for the music)
Little Miss Sunshine

Plus a few honorable mentions (the two critics get 20 total)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
The Fountain this one was weird and ultimately baffling, but had wonderful visuals and tried to be something
O Brother, Where Art Thou? it's bonafide!
The Bank Job
Legally Blonde (a guilty pleasure)

Is Conspicuous Consumption America's Enduring Legacy?

2009-12-02T21:55:00.000-08:00

Noted sci-fi author David Brin argues for this in a recent article and on his blog. He argues "that the period of Pax America has been generally positive", and considers U.S. policy in the years just after World War 2.

Instead of annexing territory and looting the defeated enemy, (e.g. Franco-Prussian war, Treaty of Versailles) President Truman, Nobel Peace Prize winner George Marshall, and General Douglas MacArthur,developed an unprecedented historical policy of "countermercantilism" to lift up the defeated.

"the clearly stated intention was for the United States to lift up their prostrate foe, first with direct aid. And then, over the longer term, with trade."

Before this, normal empires practiced mercantilism, favoring home industry, and using other countries, particularly colonies, as sources of raw materials and as export markets. The British Empire is a prime example of this, but so were the Chinese, Moguls, Romans and Greeks.

"America became the first power in history to deliberately establish countermercantilist commerce flows. Nations crippled by war or mismanagement were allowed to maintain tariffs, keeping out American goods, while sending shiploads from their factories to the United States ....

What this amounted to, however, was the greatest aid-and-uplift program in human history. A prodigious transfer of wealth from the United States to Europe, Asia and Latin America."

Now, some of this was done to defeat totalitarian Communism. Which was also, overall, a good thing for humanity. While he makes it clear that he is no neo-conservative, Brin calls for the reflexive America loathers to give it some credit:

"Even if America is exhausted from having spent its way from world dominance into a chasm of debt, the United States does have something to show for it the last six decades. A world saved. Billions of human beings lifted out of poverty. That task, far more prodigious than defeating fascism and communism or going to the moon, ought to be viewed with a little respect."

Should the 21st century become the "Chinese Century", as many have postulated, when historians look back upon it, will they find any similar commitment to uplift the human race? One can hope.

Book Review: "Espionage"

2009-11-23T08:12:00.000-08:00

I've been slowly working my way through the book "Espionage, An Encyclopedia of Spies and Secrets" by Richard Bennett, published in 2002. I'm up to the Es. There's some interesting general information. Many of the details are wrong. (I've seen few positive reviews) But there's some real weirdness.

On the rear jacket cover, where you have a short bio of the author, you see three authors listed. In addition to Bennett, David Shayler and James Bamford are listed. They both write prefaces. Shayler's writes, amongst other dubious anti-establishment things, that "The main job of the intelligence in the years to come will concentrate on the conflict created by Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip..." I almost stopped reading there, as my "he's a nutcase" radar lit up. You might want to read the unsettling wikipedia article linked above. Bamford is perfectly respectable, yet you know he has a some history with the CIA and NSA. In any case, I'm confused as to why Shayler and Bamford appear so prominently, yet aren't listed as authors. Not sure how much they contributed, but the book does share their biases.

Now, for an innocent yet really strange entry, ANDRE, Major John (1751-80). Here's the first line:

Major Andre of the 54th Foot regiment was a courageous British officer during the rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, popularly known as the American War of Independence.

Who the F calls the American Revolution the"rebellion against the crown"? "Rebellion against the crown" refers to all such rebellions, such as the Irish, Scots, etc. So it's imprecise. Instead of the short and familiar two word term, "American Revolution", the author insists on making a rhetorical point by using nine words in a less familiar phrase. Does Bennett refer to the French Revolution as the "rebellion against Louis XVI by his French subjects and the unfortunate beheading of his Queen"? You can Google other instances of uses of this term for the American Revolution. But at least one of the blogs is, well, unsettling, very conservative Catholic - go read it and his posts. He legalistically analyzes whether the Revolution was a "just" war, and calls the claims in the Declaration of Independence "boring and silly". And the fact that I've read two really unsettling posts or blogs in researching this article is, well, unsettling. :-)

Speaking of legalistic, Espionage concludes its post on Major Andre with legalistic quibbling of it's own:

Until the new state had finally won its freedom, the lands of N America still belonged to the Crown of England. Therefore it can be argued that Andre could not have been a spy in his own country...

I've always believed that legalistic interpretations of International Law and War don't mix well. That was further evidence. I prefer the practical advice from (I believe) Shogun, that the only valid legal defense for treason is victory. If the USA had lost, would Bennett refer to "rebellion against the Crown by British subjects in America, and the glorious hanging, drawing, and quartering of the traitorous leaders"?

O.K., now for a few examples of "serious" entries that show bias. How about the entry on ASSASSINATION? There's one short introductory paragraph that says, in effect, "everybody does it". Then there are ten paragraphs, some speculative, of litany about the CIA's possible escapades, the Church hearings, etc. The tenth paragraph is a huge list of foreign leaders whose assassination was supposedly "considered" by the US. Most of them died naturally or are alive. The US has "considered" invading Canada. Doesn't mean much. The book presents no information about possible KGB, Mossad, or MI6 assassinations.

DIRTY TRICKS. Again, one paragraph of general, what does it mean. Followed by nearly four pages of litany of supposed CIA dirty tricks. Apparently, the KGB, Mossad, MI6 etc. are have not performed many dirty tricks. Or is it that the CIA is usually good at them? Hooray for the USA - your tax dollars at work.

Now, for the most interesting point. This book is clearly, shall we say, skeptical (one review said "disgusted with") of US Intelligence fairness and veracity. But under BIOTERRORISM he writes (remember - the book was written in 2002)

"the chance that rogue Russian scientists have helped expand the Iraqi, Iranian, Libyan and North Korean CBW capabilities is very high" ...

"Chemican agents have been mass-produced in ... Iraq, Iran and Libya and there is little doubt that Osama bin Laden has been more that a little interested in ... these weapons"

Now, officially I haven't read the entry on Iraq, but a quick glimpse at page 132 reveals

"The Salman Park complex is also the base for intensive training courses for terrorist groups" ... "in the use of chemical, biological, and possibly crude nuclear devices."

Bennett then writes about training to hijack planes for suicide attacks. In other words, Bennett, in 2002, details the "Axis of Evil", and then makes a convincing case for war with Iraq that mirrors that made by the Bush administration.

Der Spiegel has an interesting juxtaposition of articles

2009-11-17T21:21:00.000-08:00

In the Nov 18 issue (temporary link here , but I think this will point to the current paper, not the specific issue), the front page has two articles that interested me.

One article blasts President Obama on climate change. And it contains this hyperbole:

"If the rest of the world were to follow the US example in their approach to fossil fuels, the oceans would not only heat up, but would probably soon begin to boil."

But the real interesting section is Part 2, Americans Do Not Look Beyond Their Own Borders. And it includes this analysis:

"For most Americans, the world beyond the US's borders is nothing more than an irritating nuisance"

What's another article on the front page? Actually, it's an entire section about the fall of the Berlin wall. Now, it seems to me that us insular Americans had something to do with that. Maybe we do look beyond our borders. But you wont see that in any of their articles (at least in the headlines). The Wall just mysteriously fell. American power had nothing to do with it. Thanks for nothing Der Spiegel.

A Belated Cheer for the end of the Berlin Wall

2009-11-11T23:03:00.000-08:00

For those, like me, questioning President Obama's realism/pragmatic approach to foreign affairs, such as with Iran, here's some counterpoint.

Is it time for Obama to tell Tehran "Tear Down This Clerical Oligarchy"? Hmm, maybe I don't have a future career as a speechwriter...

More Marginal Tax Concerns over Health Care Reform

2009-11-02T14:55:00.000-08:00

Greg Mankiw comments on the CBO analysis of the House's version of health care reform. In a nutshell, the House bill establishes significantly higher marginal tax rates than the Senate bill. The Senate Bill imposes a marginal tax rate of roughly 23% on low to moderate income Americans, and the House bill increases this to 32%.

As I discussed in an earlier post (about the Senate bill), this rate, when added to other marginal taxes on that tax group, which range from 28% to 50% depending on how you do your math (and make your assumptions), the House bill will impose a marginal tax rate of somewhere between 60% and 82% on working class Americans.

Economists disagree on how people react to such high tax rates. Mankiw discusses it here. One can certainly guess that this may be a disincentive towards increasing your income. Or reporting it. Mankiw concludes, and I agree:

"None of this necessarily means that health reform is not worth doing. President Obama’s push for reform is premised on the belief that access to good health care should be a right of all Americans — a proposition better judged by political philosophers than economists. But we should not forget the cost of translating that noble aspiration into practical policy."

Maybe I Will Become a Socialist

2009-10-28T11:06:00.000-07:00

Probably not, but the impending divorce of Jamie and Frank McCourt (co-owners of the Los Angeles Dodgers) gives one pause for thought. Here are some of her requests of him, to help her "maintain" her lifestyle:

Paid Business dinners and lunches, 5 days a week
Unlimited travel expenses
24 hour security
Oh yeah - flowers at her desk
I'm guessing at least one residence, because they own "tens of millions of dollars worth of residential real estate in the U.S. and Mexico"

Now, in addition to these "perks" of food, shelter, and luxury travel, she also wants alimony. The news reports differ, but the minimum number is around $330,000, and I've seen numbers close to half a million. Not a year. A month. She expects as much money in a month as many Americans earn in around 10 years.

Now, don't pick completely on her. If she wants this, you can imagine what he has or makes. Most reports claim that their net worth is about 1.2 billion, though most of that is from the estimated value of the Dodgers..

The court papers are fairly damning as to their extravagant lifestyle, apparently paid for by the Dodgers. Geez, one would think if you were worth 1.2 Billion you could pay for some things yourself.

"Travel. Frank and I travel frequently, both for personal and business reasons. Everything is always first class." .... "When we fly, we usually fly on private planes, typically a Gulfstream-IV, through Net Jets paid by the Dodgers." ... "We always stay in suites when available at the nicest of accommodations, such as The Ritz Carlton and Four Seasons Hotels. It is not uncommon for us to spend $1,000 or more per night at hotels." ... "It was not uncommon for the two of us to spend $400 on dinner when dining out together."

An NBC Sports Blog writes:

"...based on Jamie McCourt's description of the Dodgers' owners' lifestyle -- constant private jet travel at $12K an hour, hotel rooms which never cost under $1000 a night, six dinners out a week at $400+ a pop, etc. etc. -- I'm going to get medieval on anyone who suggests the players are the greedy ones who make too much money to play a kid's game."

On the bright side, the LA Times has obtained a copy of some of her court papers, and she does (claim) to give about $31,000 a month to charities. Here are some more court papers.

President Obama seems to be weak on "Human Rights"

2009-10-25T11:26:00.000-07:00

For the first time since 1991, the American President will not meet with the Dalai Lama.

"Obama has tossed aside Carter's "human rights-first" policy as much as he has George W. Bush's "freedom agenda." The Dalai Lama is more than just a religious leader: He embodies the struggle for universal human rights and religious freedom for millions."

And now the State Department it cutting off funding to some organizations that support democracy in Iran. The Boston Globe reports on the specific case of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

The US has always had a somewhat schizophrenic foreign policy, alternating between "realistic" and "idealistic". Looks like, for 2009, we are "realistic". Lets see how that works.

Baseball Playoff Continue to Prove that Payroll Matters

2009-10-19T12:46:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, I showed how the teams making the playoffs were, with 2 exceptions, in the upper half of the payroll scale. In other words, 75% were in the upper half. Congratulations to the Twins and the Rockies for making the playoffs with below average payrolls. But, they both lost in the first round. In fact, in the first round, the higher payroll team won 3 out of 4 series. The only exception was Angels / Red Sox, and that's not a huge disparity in payroll, that's #6 defeating #4, with less than a 9 million difference in payroll.

In the Championship Series, the remaining teams have the #1 payroll, plus the 6th, 7th, and 9th. If both Championship Series finish with the current leaders, that means that the higher payroll team will have won 5 out of 6 of the playoffs. If we disqualify the Cubs and Mets for bad luck and incompetence, which we should, the two highest payroll teams in each league will make the World Series.

Marginal Tax concerns about Health Care Plans

2009-10-11T15:09:00.000-07:00

Coming mainly from Greg Mankiw's blog, and he's an admitted conservative, but there are a couple of articles, with supporting numbers, about the Baucus health car plan's effect on marginal tax rates. The plan includes subsidies for lower income participants, to help cover their insurance costs. Probably well intentioned, and sure to appeal to a lot of voters in those income ranges. However, these subsidies phase out as you get above the poverty line, creating a effective "marginal tax" rate. If you earn a dollar more, you don't get to keep it all, because you are losing part of the subsidy.

One article calculates the marginal tax rate for these subsidies at 23 to 24%. The CBO essentially agrees:

"In that case, marginal tax rates would go up by about 22 percentage points for all families whose income was between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level."

Note - the CBO estimates poverty level when these laws take place will be roughly $23,000. So this marginal tax will affect all Americans making between $23,000 and $92,000, which is the vast majority of Americans.

In an earlier post, Mankiw links to this article in New Atlantis, where James Capretta comes up with a higher estimate of 30% for the Baucus marginal tax. The math is a little different because he only considers families making 100 to 200 percent of the poverty level. He then looks at other taxes on people in this income range.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is reduced by $0.21 for every additional $1 earned - an effective 21% marginal tax..
The individual income tax rate is 15 percent. (Though most of this is covered by deductions at this low income, so I'm skeptical whether to count this)
Payroll taxes are 7.65 percent. And, one would argue that this tax should be doubled. Even though the company "pays" half, in reality, this money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from wages.

So, an optimist who completely discounts the Federal Income tax for these wage earners, and only counts FICA once, and counts the health care marginal tax at the lowest number, 22%, still comes up with a marginal tax rate of 50%. Pretty high. The "health care tax" roughly doubles the marginal tax rate.

A pessimist who counts all the taxes, including Federal Income Tax, and uses Capretta's slightly higher 30% number for health care, computes a marginal tax rate of over 80%.

The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between. These calculations do not count State and Local Taxes.

Banned Book Week is Over, now it's Banned Speech Incident

2009-10-07T21:23:00.000-07:00

Our local paper reports on a recent incident, where a mixed-race child was taunted by a another group of teenagers at a skate park. The taunters (allegedly) shouted "white power" and waved a Confederate flag. The incident is being investigated as a possible felony "hate crime".

This doesn't fit my understanding of a hate crime, nor Wikipedia's, which states:

""Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by hatred of one or more of the listed conditions."

because no criminal act occurred. Unless the article is missing something, there is no allegation of violence, theft, bullying, or whatever. Even a claim of "intimidation" seems dubious, as the alleged victim enjoyed the skate park for hours. It seems that only the mother, who was not a direct target of the taunts, was offended. And nothing sounds even remotely like a felony.

Now, I don't like what the taunters did, but, whether I like it or not does not matter. It isn't illegal to shout "white power" or wave a Confederate flag, in fact, that's Freedom of Speech.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (widely attributed to Voltaire but this is apparently wrong)

"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~Tommy Smothers

Baseball Team Payrolls for 2009, and who's in the playoffs

2009-10-03T10:40:00.000-07:00

Here's a link to a handy table of MLB 2009 opening-day team payrolls. And here is the data: (The first number is total salary, the second is average per player)

Yankees	$201,449,289	$7,748,050
Mets	$135,773,988	$4,849,071
Cubs	$135,050,000	$5,402,000
Red Sox	$122,696,000	$4,089,867
Tigers	$115,085,145	$4,110,184
Angels	$113,709,000	$4,061,036
Phillies	$113,004,048	$4,185,335
Astros	$102,996,415	$3,814,682
Dodgers	$100,458,101	$4,018,324
Mariners	$98,904,167	$3,532,292
Braves	$96,726,167	$3,335,385
White Sox	$96,068,500	$3,694,942
Cardinals	$88,528,411	$3,278,830
Giants	$82,161,450	$3,043,017
Indians	$81,625,567	$3,023,169
Blue Jays	$80,993,657	$2,892,631
Brewers	$79,857,502	$3,194,300
Rockies	$75,201,000	$2,785,222
D-backs	$73,571,667	$2,724,877
Reds	$70,968,500	$2,957,021
Royals	$70,908,333	$2,727,244
Rangers	$68,646,023	$2,367,104
Orioles	$67,101,667	$2,580,833
Twins	$65,299,267	$2,251,699
Rays	$63,313,035	$2,183,208
Athletics	$62,310,000	$2,225,357
Nationals	$59,328,000	$2,045,793
Pirates	$48,743,000	$1,874,731
Padres	$42,796,700	$1,528,454
Marlins	$36,814,000	$1,314,786

I highlighted in bold all the teams that will make the playoffs. (Note - Twins vs. Tigers are still competing for a playoff spot at this time). Other than the Rockies and possibly the Twins, all the playoff teams are in the upper half of payroll. Hardly a surprise. Thanks to the incompetent Mets and Cubs, many will say "but this shows you can't buy your way into the post-season". True. A large payroll is does not guarantee entrance to the playoffs. But it is still required. In other words, a small payroll pretty much guarantees failure.

I could correlate payroll with wins, but no need, somebody has already done that. Here's a nice chart based on data from 2006-2008. It shows a clear correlation between wins and payroll. Teams significantly below the line are more "efficient", in that they get more wins per dollar. As you'd expect, the As, Twins, Marlins and Rays are there.

Anyway, this proves that money largely buys success in MLB. With exceptions to "prove the rule", a payroll of roughly $90 Million looks like the minimum to get to the playoffs. Note that the three teams that missed the playoffs but were "in the race" in September were the Giants, Braves, and Rangers, whose average payroll is about $82 Million. This is another data point - looks like to be "playing meaningful games" in September requires about $80 Million.

Not sure how to fix this. Some owners are just plain cheap. Part of me admires the Steinbrenners for their willingness to spend money to win. But most of me hates them.

Here's a list of those who support Polanski - boycott them

2009-10-02T08:49:00.000-07:00

What Polanski did was despicable and he deserves punishment. Especially since he has shown no remorse. Yet many call for his release. Here's an article about the petition by misguided movie stars to win his release. And here's a list of the signatories, as of Sept 29 2009.

I strongly suggest that you boycott movies produced by, written by, directed by, or featuring these "artists". Unfortunately, based on the length of the list, that may mean no movies for a long time. Most of the names I don't recognize, but here are some I do (or that sound familiar):

Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar, Darren Aronofsky, Monica Bellucci, Lionel Cassan, Penelope Cruz, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Jonathan Demme, Terry Gilliam, David Lynch, Michael Mann, Martin Scorsese, Antoine Silber, Tilda Swinton, Tom Tykwer, Wim Wenders, Harvey Weinstein.

Luckily for me, I don't see the Coen brothers, Luc Besson, Peter Jackson, Peter Weir, or Clint Eastwood.

It's Banned Books Week

2009-10-01T10:07:00.000-07:00

Sept 26 - Oct 3 is Banned Books Week. (Also here) Now, I'm against banning books. But, if you look at the details, the good news is that books aren't getting banned.

The ALA provides details.

A "challenge" is an attempt by somebody to get a book removed, usually from a school class or library. Since 1995, there has been a slow decline in the number of challenges. The primary reason for challenges are concerns about Sex and Language, shown below.

The targets of the complaints are, overwhelmingly, schools and public libraries - see below:

And the actual complainant is, overwhelmingly, a parent. Organized pressure groups, government, and religions groups are a very small fraction of the complainants.

So, parents are complaining about books in schools - or, in a positive light, taking an interest in their children's education. Is there a problem? Here is a PDF report of challenges in 2007-2008. Thanks to the miracle of computers, you can search on terms like "banned".

One book was "banned", Mark Mathabane's Kaffir Boy.

One book was "restricted", Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's Alice on Her Way.

I counted about a dozen actual book removals. This doesn't count a Catholic school removing the Harry Potter books because of their themes of witchcraft. While I think this was a silly decision on their part, it's a private, religious school and its their right to remove books they feel inappropriate to their religion.

Notably, other than one outright theft from a public library, all the bannings, restrictions, and removals were from schools, not from public libraries.

Here is a list of the ten most challenged books. I looked into details of two, chosen vaguely at random.

Gossip Girl, by Cecily von Ziegesar, deals with "the lives and romances amongst the privileged teenagers" and is now a CW TV series. Here's selected lines from the wikipedia synopsis of the first book.

"Teenager Blair Waldorf sneaks away from a party at a friend's house to have sex with her boyfriend Nate Archibald ... She is also unhappy to learn that Nate and Serena had sex the summer before Serena left"

Naomi Wolf, hardly a conservative religious fanatic, writes that "sex saturates the Gossip Girl books". And shouldn't we be trying to have kids read literature? In my high school, not only did we walk through snow uphill both ways, but we read books like Grapes of Wrath, while my teacher pontificated on the genius of Thomas Hardy. Today kids read trashy CW sitcoms?

The TTYL; TTFN; L8R, G8R series, by Lauren Myracle. ttyl "gained attention for being the first-ever novel written entirely in the style of instant messaging conversation." It has "frank and mature content". Now, I'm not sure about the content, but should we be teaching students to read English, or IM?

In conclusion, the anti-book-banning people have done a great job. (The WSJ comes up with somewhat different statistics than I did, but the same conclusion) Books are not getting banned, and even the ALA admits it: "most of the books featured during [Banned Books Week] were not banned." Frankly, the books drawing criticism from parents concerned about their children's education seem to deserve it.

Baucus Plan - maybe it's a good start

2009-09-16T19:12:00.000-07:00

I'm saying that not because I have analyzed everything, but because it seems to be taking flak from both sides of the aisle. There's no Public Option, but co-ops are proposed as a competitive alternative to private insurance. If one believes the math, it doesn't create large deficits. Reaction from a Small Business Group has been somewhat positive.

So far, he has attracted no Republican support. This is unfortunate - this bill seems to meet at least some of their desires. I think it's an adequate starting point.

Here's some commentary from both sides.

Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Huffington Post

Open Left
New York Times

In my opinion, Health Care Reform cannot be handled in one giant leap forward, in some sort of Washington waterfall software development model. Let's get some decent bill in place. In several years, revisit it. This is going to be incremental.

We Need Some Real Honesty on Health Care Reform

2009-09-10T18:35:00.000-07:00

Just to prove that I can be "progressive" at times...

The whole Joe Wilson thing is a distraction. It will be a very good thing for everyone, including illegals, to have insurance coverage. We already pay a lot for uninsured at emergency rooms. And presumably they will stay healthier, increasing their quality of life and perhaps decreasing expenses. Frankly, if a few illegals slip through the cracks and gain some government credits and benefits, not a biggie in the grand picture, since most illegals will be paying for their insurance. That's good for us.

President Obama stated, truthfully, said "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have". This skirts the underlying issue. One of the good arguments in favor of health care reform is that current practices place a large burden on businesses, hurting their competitiveness. For this argument to make any sense, that means that after the reforms, some businesses will stop their current insurance support, to make themselves more competitive. Their employees will then change to the Public Option. Is this horrible? Well, hopefully the Public Option is decent, and I have to believe that most doctors will sign up. But, even if this causes minor hardship, overall, it is good for the country. But allowing a struggling small family-run business to remain competitive, to resist losing out to a Borders or a Starbucks or, even worse, to outsource their labor overseas, that is a very good thing. If this requires a few employees to change plans or Doctors, so be it. It's good for us.

All sides complain about "rationing", or pander to Americans that there will be no rationing. Rationing is required. Call it cost-benefit analysis, call it sabremetrics, call it common sense, but it's required. In a perfect world, we'd have infinite money, and no need for rationing. In that perfect world I'd own both an Audi R8 and a Porsche Cayman S and check out whether Motor Trend ranked them correctly as the top two "driver's cars". We are not in that perfect world.

Finally, I'd like to cite a New York Times editorial with which I agreed. Will probably come back to comment on it later.

Media getting it wrong

2009-09-10T17:58:00.000-07:00

Huff Post "exposes" Joe Wilson as a liar. By claiming that what Obama said was

"illegal immigrants would not qualify for credits for the proposed health care exchanges"

The Huff Post nicely presents the text of the speech. Search for "qualify for credits" or "health care exchanges". The text is not there. Obama did not say what Huff Post says he did, so the truth of that imaginary statement is irrelevant.

They cite a Time Article, which also ignores the plain facts:

The President's seemingly simple statement that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally" is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits."

Now, some Time copy editor didn't read those two sentences to see that the second does not support the first. Obama did not say that the reforms he was proposing would not benefit illegals. He said they would not apply. Since the reforms require everyone, including illegals, to purchase insurance, they clearly apply. The difference is that they will not benefit from government credits. Whatever phrase Obama's "seemed to mimic" doesn't matter - it's what he said, which Time knows, since they just quoted it.

Now, I'm admittedly, making a mountain out of a molehill, arguing technicalities of phrasing. As I said in a previous post, Joe Wilson's outburst was wrong. I believe that Obama (or his speechwriter) meant to say something like "benefit". But he didn't. And arguing technicalities of phrasing is what lawyers and judges will do once this reform is passed. If the leader of our country uses sloppy language, and the media uses sloppy language to analyze the "truthometer", and one suspects that the eventual bill will have sloppy language, some of it deliberate, it's hard to analyze anything for "truth".

Obama's Health Care Speech

2009-09-09T22:28:00.000-07:00

It sounded great to me. I'm all for That Health Care Reform Plan. But much of what he said didn't seem to match many of the proposals I have seen coming from Congress. I'm hoping he means "the health care plan I support will...", and that Congress works to meet his goals.

The most contentious part was when President Obama said

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

and Representative Joe Wilson rudely shouted "liar". (Rep. Wilson has quickly apologized)

The CNN truth check, after a bunch of hemming and hawing, concludes that Illegals will not get benefits. But, technically, President Obama's statement is false. He did not talk about benefits, but used the terms "insurance" and "apply to". Because the reforms force illegal immigrants to buy insurance, they clearly apply, and will end up insuring the illegals. A reasonable person would say the facts contradicts the strict text of his message.

Now, I think this was very poor, sloppy wording by his speechwriter, and I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt that what he meant to say is something like illegals will not receive taxpayer dollars and benefits. Even so, if they buy from the Public Option, and that public option ever receives any government subsidies, then they would, technically, receive benefits. To my understanding, current plans for the Public Option do not call for government subsidies. A cynic may doubt this in the future, especially if the bill is as sloppily worded as the speech.

A Huffington Post blog, which calls Rep Wilson a liar, effectively supports him. Though the bills have text to exclude illegal immigrants, the Huffington Post piece admits that such text will be ineffective, saying, quite correctly, that

"this country doesn't have a feasible and comprehensive system for keeping track of who's who here".

So, in practice, many illegals would receive benefits. The piece than makes a very good argument that illegals should be covered. After all, we already pay for all uninsured, legal or illegal, for emergency visits etc.

Let me state unequivocally that nobody should shout "liar" at the President while he is giving a major policy speech. Very bad form, and deserving of censure and an apology, if not more. However, the exact words of the speech can reasonably be interpreted as untrue, and I hope that Obama or his staff will clarify their meaning and intent.

Maybe It ain’t so

2009-09-06T08:50:00.000-07:00

An article in Chicago Lawyer (which I spotted not by reading lawyer magazines, but through Hardball Times) makes the case that Shoeless Joe Jackson was not complicit in the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Or at least, that the evidence is not there, and that the "definitive" book Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof is not so definitive.

Asinof has admitted to adding a couple of fictional characters, "designed to prevent screenwriters from stealing the story and claiming their material was from the public domain". A key incident, where a mob thug threatens star pitcher Lefty Williams, is fabricated.

"Asinof ... never read, or had access to, the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings".

Based on this information, Eight Men Out was not written as a factual, heavily footnoted historical treatise, but was intended as a dramatic popular "history" account, with a clear eye on making money from a movie.

For some pro-Joe Jackson information, check out BlackBetsy.com. His Grand Jury testimony is confusing - he admits to taking money to throw games, but claims he took no actions to actually throw the games.

Obama's School Speech

2009-09-04T23:03:00.000-07:00

I read that this was a very popular search phrase right now, so I'm trying to build some traffic. :-)

Also, I'm trying to figure out the hullabaloo over President Obama giving a speech to school children. It sounds pretty innocent. Of course, before Democrats get too righteous, they should remember that they complained about Bush I giving a speech to children in 1991. Apparently both parties can act like petty children.

O.K., I can see a minor case that schools shouldn't be "forced" to show the speech. And maybe the original Department of Education lesson plan could be interpreted as political, and by paranoids, as indoctrination.

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

You'd have to be pretty sensitive to think that was a deep dark pod-people conspiracy, but, hey, some of us have read 1984. The Department of Education has changed the lesson plan. Those on the Left, such as the New York Times have generally refused to address the (very slightly) troubling text, simply calling the protests silly and bizarre.

In my opinion, conservatives have shot themselves in the foot on this one. They look over-sensitive. Besides, the best way to turn school children, and future voters, against the President would be to force them to listen to his speech telling them to work hard in school.

David Sirota Complains about Hate, Chris Kelly spews it.

2009-09-03T08:10:00.001-07:00

On OpenLeft, David Sirota complains about some anonymous hate mail he has received. He quotes from one letter wherein there are terms like "drivel", "drooling buffoons", "incredibly stupid". I leave it to you to decide if this is "hateful" or merely "direct and colorful". Sirota makes one very good point:

"the political discourse in this country has gotten toxically coarse to the point where we're not having any kind of discussion about substance at all."

Of course, he blames this on the Right. Consider the first response to his column, by "the new", (an anonymous name) which has received high ratings (that 4.00/4 you see means 4 people voted favorably for the comment).

"I know it must be rough dealing with this shit, even from anonymous knuckle-dragging lunatics."

Good to see an intelligent response that gets to the substance of the issues. :-)

Over at Huff Post, here's a post by Chris Kelly (he posts there about once a week). He rips on conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham, who suggested that the Democrats should not politicize Teddy Kennedy's funeral, especially about health care. Since they took a lot of grief for (supposedly) politicizing Wellstone's funeral, that seems like decent advice. How does Chris Kelly respond to the substance of the issues, about why Democrats should use the funeral to push for need health care reform? He claims that at the 1996 Republican Convention he bumped into Ingraham and she showed anguish for a "nanosecond". And, in that nanosecond, Chris Kelly, world renowned psycho-analyst, saw the "face of the most hated child in the meanest fourth grade in the world". He concludes that Ingraham is a sicko who was traumatized in grade school. "This hateful wounded second-rate soul. I hope she finds peace."

Kelly's post is completely non-factual, hateful, a deeply deeply personal attack, non-constructive, with no substance or discussion of the issues. And most of the responses / comments to his blog are worse. Kelly's other Huff Posts are similar or worse - he really has it in for Ingraham, and in hating her, he screws himself up into a rabid left wing version of Ann Coulter. I won't bother to link to his posts cause I don't want to send them any traffic. Search yourself.

Returning to Sirota's column, he adds

"Despising one another and ignoring the substance of issues has become the defining mark of Americanness in the 21st century - and that's a tragedy."

I'm not sure if this is a purely 21st century problem. With the blogosphere and the decline of traditional media, it's probably more apparent. But it isn't new. On March 9, 1830, Senator Edward Livingston of Louisiana gave a famous speech, after the even more famous speeches of Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster debating nullification. (Warning - these are long speeches. I recently learned of these from Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson). Livingston wanted to warn against too much partisanship, to

"mark the difference between the necessary, and, if I may so express it, the legitimate parties existing in all free Governments, founded on differences of opinion in fundamental principles, ... and that spirit of dissension into which they are apt to degenerate"

As he continues, his "spirit of dissension" seems the very antithesis of St. Paul's Love, it

creates imaginary, and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue—denies every merit to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs—publicly imputes them to its adversaries: poisons domestic happiness with its dissensions; assails the character of the living with calumny, and, invading the very secrets of the grave with its viperous slanders, destroys the reputations of the dead; harangues in the market place; disputes at the social board; distracts public councils with unprincipled propositions and intrigues; embitters their discussions with invective and recrimination, and degrades them by personalities and vulgar abuse; seats itself on the bench; clothes itself in the robes of justice; soils the purity of the ermine, and poisons the administration of justice in its source; mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of Heaven, war, pestilence, and famine, as preferable alternatives to party defeat: blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled, and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friends as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing; rushes on the sword; braves the dangers of the ocean; and would not be turned from its mad career by the majesty of Heaven itself, armed with its tremendous thunders.

Beware of the Spirit of Dissension. You will see a lot of it in today's political debates.

OK, Rex Rammell is stupid

2009-09-02T21:04:00.000-07:00

But some of the columns against him are even stupider. Timothy Egan in the New York Times is discussing wolf hunting. For the record, I'm against it, as is he. But he sets up a typical rhetorical BS strawman is describing his opponents:

"For those who hate wolves and long for the era when they were wiped off the map, and for those who welcomed back this call of the wild"

In Egan's world, there is no middle ground. In his simplistic world, all in favor of wolf hunting hate wolves and want to wipe them off the map. Egan is unwilling or unable to discuss the matter civilly with them, so he dismisses them as genocidal haters. Does this technique sound familiar?

Egan goes on to condemn Rex Rammell who joked about issuing "Obama tags", that is, permits to hunt Obama. A bad joke. But by Egan's own works Rammel is a "fringe candidate", and the "Idaho Republican establishment came down hard on Rammell".

In conclusion, I'm not sure what the point of the editorial is. Egan is against wolf hunting, and against bad jokes about hunting the President. Fine points, but he brings no real insight about the American West (his specialty), no intellectual discussion, no nothing. I guess he had a bad day and a deadline to make.

Make America more Meritocratic

2009-08-31T11:35:00.001-07:00

Greg Mankiw lays out the case that talented people (who make above average income) tend to have talented children (who make above average income). He surely oversimplifies, ignoring the fact that wealthier children have advantages in schooling, tutoring, stability etc. But his point still seems reasonable, and, in a followup post, and another, he cites studies indicating that heredity ("nature" if you will, as opposed to "nurture") is significant.

Paul Krugman takes exception to Mankiw.

"But, you know, there’s lots of evidence that there’s more to it than that. ... It’s comforting to think that we live in a meritocracy. But we don’t."

Without getting too far into the nitty gritty details, (I'm sure that nature and nurture both matter, and Krugman cites studies that support nurture) read the comments on Paul's blog. I'm amazed at how many people state categorically that there is no correlation between intelligence and income. e.g. "By the way, does anyone seriously think there is a direct correlation between wealth and intelligence? " And many make straw-man arguments. Mankiw never claimed that the USA was a perfect utopian meritocracy.

I'm not sure what to make of Krugman saying we are not a meritocracy. If he means "not a perfect meritocracy", well, duh. If he means "not even remotely a meritocracy, it's all rigged", I beg to differ. Does he tell his students at Princeton to not bother studying or working, they may as well just waste their time playing beer pong? I hope not. We are an imperfect meritocracy, o.k.? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that's what he means. But that's not how he expresses it.

The other disturbing trend is how little either side considers "hard work" and perseverance and high-expectations from parents. If one only read the Krugman comments you'd think that the rich are only rich because they cheated or were lucky. (Here's an example) In effect, they are saying that neither nature nor nurture matter, just blind luck and greed. Now, in some cases, like recent Wall Street shenanigans, they are partly right. But, overall, hard work and talent matter. Inheritance is not all - the USA has high turnover in the richest Americans.

Maybe I've become an old fogey, but some kids today worry me. I have none, but have several friends with teenagers, and a good friend who teaches high-school. Many kids are not studying, not working, not even close to making the most of their talents. Why? Not sure. Because they see a few of their peers making millions as athletes or rock stars or poker players? Or they hear of government bailouts? Or they think it doesn't matter, we are a corrupt rigged state?

If we also buy into the liberal claim that the rich are just "lucky", that talent and hard work don't matter, that's one more nail in the coffin, why should kids study or work hard at all? Such a belief is bad for America's future. For a Nobel Prize winning economist to (possibly) advance such an idea (like I said, I'm not sure what is comment on meritocracy really means) is actively destructive to America's future. Conversely, government and business should not reward raw greed and luck, as has happened recently on Wall Street. Let's work to make America more meritocratic, if that's a word. :-)

Intimidation is Bad

2009-08-24T10:07:00.000-07:00

(Legal aside: please insert "allegedly" as appropriate)

Many on the left have condemned armed citizens (usually identified as conservatives) showing up at town hall meetings. I agree completely. You've got the right to bear arms, but I have the right "peaceably to assemble". Neither of us has the right to incite the violent overthrow of the government. In any case, having the "right" to do something (carry arms) doesn't make it the "right" thing to do. David Sirota states it well.

(let's make) public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums. That way forward honors our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is "war without bloodshed" -- and without the threat of bloodshed.

I an unaware of conservative columnists condemning the actions of these (few) citizens with guns who are clearly pushing the limits of political civility and attempting to intimidate. Hopefully, some will do so. And let me know if you know of any.

However, the right is correctly condemning alleged actions by the Black Panthers where they attempted to intimidate voters, by appearing in paramilitary garb, brandishing nightsticks, at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. I am unaware of liberal/progressive columnists condemning this action, or calling for the Justice Department to pursue the case. Hopefully, some will do so. And let me know if you know of any.

Can I Take that Back?

2009-08-20T09:08:00.000-07:00

The other night I watched the first Bourne movie (the Bourne Identity) on DVD and they have interviews with director Doug Liman and screenplay writer Tony Gilroy. Tony Gilroy is a talented writer of all the Bourne screenplays, plus many others, with many award nominations and one win. But even such a smart insider as he says something in the interview that, in hindsight, is silly.

Remember, the Bourne Identity was filmed in early 2001. Then came 9/11. As a thriller movie involving the CIA and explosions, it had to be rethought after 9/11. Apparently, in the original movie, the final battle at the Paris CIA safe-house had some big explosions. This was changed to a "less explosive" ending with a great shootout between Matt Damon and the CIA operatives. Explaining why they did this, Gilroy says:

"Everyone pretty much accepted that explosions is movies are over, that there would probably never be another film that had an explosion in it."

I will go out on a limb here and state that this turned out to be wrong. :-)

Now, Gilroy was obviously overreacting here. But this should remind us that 9/11 was shocking and, at least for a short while, did change a lot of things. I worked by San Francisco Bay, right under the main landing route to SFO. I still remember the shock of not seeing the routine of commercial airplanes slowly coming in to land, but instead watching missile-armed Navy fighter jets patrolling the skies.

Now, other people said silly things about the movie too. CrankyCritic's review:

Matt Damon does fine in a role that may have had more punch to it pre 9-11. As we said above, sometimes luck is bad. The Bourne Identity novel was first of a trilogy. We doubt you'll see the rest of 'em on the big screen.

Hmm, many of us did see the rest of them. To the tune of $288 million and $442 million.

As for the movie, I still enjoy it. And it's probably my favorite of the Bourne movies, though all are good. I agree with this review that seeing the action through the eyes of Marie (the fine actress Franka Potente) really heightens the drama and conflict.

I Support Whole Foods on Healthcare

2009-08-16T10:43:00.000-07:00

As some may know, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Markets recently wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal on health care. Since it does not endorse President Obama's plan, in fact, it calls for less government involvement and for individual empowerment, many on the left have called for a boycott. And some from the other side are calling for us to support Whole Foods. Lets consider the post by the Moderate Voice, which doesn't seem very moderate.

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey shot his company in the face the other day with an anti-health care op-ed screed in the Wall Street Journal.

Now, nothing in the editorial is anti-health care. Nor does it fit the definition of screed. Other than the call for tort reform, none of Mackey's bulleted proposals should have any objection from anybody. He calls for more transparency, more competition, and more tax equality, along with fiscal responsibility. Please, find something to object to there.

Another leftist blogger characterizes the post as

"he argues for insurance industry deregulation and a shrinking of the Medicare program".

Please, read the editorial. Technically, he does call for less regulation, so as to reduce the influence of industry lobbyists and increase competition. He calls for "reform" of Medicare, since it heading towards bankruptcy. Does this make him a shill for Newt Gingrich or the dreaded "drug companies"? No. These harsh and over the top reactions from the left are reminiscent of the "death panel" claims by the right. Both have a very feeble grasp of reality.

Mackey then calls for Americans to take some responsibility.

we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote most of a comment by Desider on Open Left.

Thank you for letting me know (4.00 / 1)
that you folks are a bunch of intolerant idiots.
What did this guy say so horribly?
That boomers are retiring, so fewer workers will be paying in while our deficits go up, so we need to cut the cost of entitlements, not increase them, especially for Medicare. [If we pay twice as much as other countries per capita, as Bob Somerby of Daily Howler keeps pointing out, shouldn't health insurance reform bring some of the costs in check, not increase them?]
That his company gets low insurance rates by going with high deductibles, and uses Wellness Accounts to roll over savings for the employees. [I use high deductibles myself, since I've gone more than a decade without seeing a doctor].
Make personal insurance tax deductible like corporate already is. Good idea, no?
Allow insurance competition across state lines. [Making insurance companies competitive, more responsive to customers and lower cost is a good thing, no?]
Make costs of treatment transparent. [Kinda obvious?]
He notes that at Whole Foods employees vote on what they want company health insurance to fund. [Workers' rights?]

David Sirota, in effect, agrees with Rush Limbaugh

2009-08-13T09:16:00.000-07:00

In a recent Open Left article, progressive firebrand David Sirota argues to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, income over $106,800 is "capped" and does not get taxed at 12.4% by Social Security. Eliminating the cap would make Social Security more solvent. On the other hand, it's a large 12.4% tax increase on those making more than $106,800 a year.

Sirota then makes a pair of interesting points.

IRS data ... shows people who make over $106,800 are squarely in the top quintile of income earners - not the "middle-class.

So, only about 10% of Americans would be affected.

Sloan - theoretically an objective reporter - is on the extreme fringe when he lambastes the proposal to subject more income to payroll taxes. As a 2005 Washington Post poll showed, a stunning 81 percent of Americans believe there shouldn't be a cap at all. 81 percent!

Now, those 81 percent of Americans are (largely) those who are not in the top 10%. So, 81% of Americans are willing to let others pay higher taxes. Hardly a shock, and hardly right or wrong. (For the record, I think some sort of 6% "half tax" on income above $107K would be a fine and all too obvious compromise)

But Sirota also implies that a 19% minority is an "extreme fringe". To me, 19% is still a pretty large group, but let's see what comes from accepting his rhetoric.

According to a recent Gallup poll,

only 21% of Americans describe themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal". By Sirota's logic, liberals are an extreme fringe. That's the kind of rhetoric you'd expect from Rush Limbaugh!

And since progressives are presumably largely in that 5% "very liberal", they are really a fringe!

Anyway, I don't disagree with Sirota's point that we should raise taxes on the rich. Though I wouldn't raise them as much as he. But, in my opinion, his class baiting and cries of "extreme fringe" do not help the debate, and backfire against his own supporters.

I Hope Paul Krugman is Right

2009-08-10T10:45:00.000-07:00

In Sunday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote:

So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all.

I sure hope his desk is made of wood and he knocked on it loudly while writing that column. Since it's still early, and the Great Depression took years to become "great". :-( What follows in Krugman's column isn't all that cheery.

Just to be clear: the economic situation remains terrible, indeed worse than almost anyone thought possible not long ago. ... We haven’t yet reached the point at which things are actually improving; for now, all we have to celebrate are indications that things are getting worse more slowly.

In praising the ARRA stimulus package, he writes

Nonetheless, reasonable estimates suggest that around a million more Americans are working now than would have been employed without that plan

Who made these estimates? Articles I have found basically say nobody can really tell how many jobs the ARRA has saved or created. In one article I found, even President Obama only claims 600,000 jobs saved or created. In general, the responses to these job claims range from skeptical to outraged.

Now, I would assume that Nobel Prize Economist Paul Krugman knows more about this than I. But he should cite a source for these reasonable estimates. Because, even though I sometimes disagree with Krugman (and President Obama) on policies, I'm rooting for them to be right. I'm rooting for an Obama landslide victory in 2012. Not because I love Obama, but because that will, most likely, come about because the US economy has recovered. Which is good for me, and most everybody. Probably even good for Beck and Rush. :-)

Last(?) Post on Sotomayor

2009-08-07T12:59:00.001-07:00

She got confirmed. Which I support. But even so, the politics of identity and "betterness" were raised again. Consider the comments by Sylvia Lazos in the article:

Sotomayor is also a divorced woman who has no children but a close relationship with an extended family.
"She is a modern woman with a nontraditional family," said Sylvia Lazos, a law professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "She is much more reflective of contemporary American society than the other justices like Alito and Roberts."
She was referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom are married and have two children.

Now, a lot of people are divorced and/or childless. But a lot of people are married and, as many of us know, have 2.4 children. So seems like Roberts and Alito are very representative too. Just what is "average" in America today is hard to say. To say that Sotomayor is "as reflective" or something like that is fine. To say that she is more reflective is just plain wrong.

For the record, almost all current Supreme Court Justices are married and have children. Considering the more liberal judges,

John Paul Stevens is married and has four children (one of whom is deceased).
Anthony M. Kennedy is married and has three children.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is married and has two children.
Stephen G. Breyer is married with three children.
Sandra Day O’Connor (retired) is married and has three children.

Why does Lazos claim that Sotomayor "more representative" than Roberts and Alito, but not "more representative" than Stevens and Breyer? Probably because Lazos disagrees with their conservative rulings. Not because of their backgrounds.

The article adds this about Sotomayor's finances:

Even Sotomayor's personal finances look more like contemporary America as compared with her new and wealthier colleagues at the Supreme Court. According to friends, Sotomayor has struggled to pay her mortgage and her credit card bills, and her financial disclosures show she has no substantial savings or stock portfolio.

I don't want to get into this too much, but the documents of her finances show a mixed result. She was a law partner in the early 1990s, presumably making a lot of money, and currently earns close to $200,000 a year. So one might expect her to have a lot of cash or stock assets, which she doesn't. But she's has made very good money for 20 years and is hardly "un-wealthy". Few average Americans own a million dollar apartment in Manhattan and earn $200,000 a year.

Sotomayor should have been confirmed because President Obama nominated her, she is well qualified, she brings a valuable, different perspective to the Court, and her past rulings are generally good. She has made a few missteps, but so has everybody. The Senate had no just reason to reject her. Sotomayor should not have been nominated and confirmed because she is Latino, childless and struggles to pay a large mortgage.

Are Harvard Students and Faculty thin skinned?

2009-08-04T09:49:00.001-07:00

Bob Herbert comments on other incidents "similar" to the recent Gates arrest. Let's look at what he says.

The Harvard police, responding to a phone call, spotted the youngster attempting to remove a lock from a bicycle. He tried to explain that the bike was his and that his key had broken off in the lock.
One of the officers reportedly pulled a gun and pointed it at the teenager. The frightened youngster said he did not have any photo identification, but he showed the officers his library card. Traumatized, he started to cry at one point. When the boy’s story was eventually confirmed, he was allowed to leave with his bike.

O.K., pulling a gun was perhaps a bit much. But note that this is not racial profiling by the police - they were tipped off by a phone call. The kid was not arrested and left with his bike.

In 2004, the campus police stopped S. Allen Counter, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at the Harvard Medical School...In a particularly humiliating ritual, the officers went to University Hall and asked two students to confirm that the professor had an office there. They did.

Now, what does being a distinguished professor have to do with this? Is Bob Herbert suggesting that distinguished professors should get special treatment? Shades of Gates allegedly telling officer Crowley that he "had no idea who he was messing with". Secondly, I don't see how walking over to a couple of students and asking if the professor belonged there is "particularly humiliating". If anything, it's humiliating (and embarrassing) to the officers when they are proven wrong. Was Professor Counter handcuffed? Was he shackled in leg irons? Was he strip searched for ibuprofin? No. I see nothing "particularly humiliating". Only if one considers that being a distinguished professor makes one immune to normal hum-drum police routine is any of this humiliating. Will Professor Counter complain next time he is asked to remove his shoes at airline security? He is, after-all, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at Harvard! Who are those TSA people to ask him to remove his shoes?

In the final example, Bob Herbert himself exonerates the police! (emphasis added by me)

Nworah Ayogu... told me about a well-known incident that occurred in 2007 when a number of black students were playing games like dodge ball and capture-the-flag on the Quad as part of an annual field-day-type celebration. White students called the Harvard police to investigate. The police showed up on motorcycles and asked the black students for identification, even though the students were wearing all kinds of Harvard regalia — caps, crimson T-shirts with “Harvard” emblazoned in white, and so forth. Mr. Ayogu said the cops actually seemed to be embarrassed by the situation and were not confrontational.

Now, I don't know how Mr. Ayogu knows that the callers were white. A reasonable, smart guess, or racial profiling? The police showed up, asked for IDs, and behaved properly.

Now, if Bob Herbert had a real point, I'd think he'd come up with shocking examples of police misconduct, false arrests, racial profiling, and brutality against black students and faculty. He fails. If these are the worst examples of "humiliation" he can come up with, things aren't so bad there. Stop crying "wolf" and get on with your lives. Enjoy the fact that you teach or study at one of America's top (and wealthiest) Universities.

Disclaimer: I was an undergraduate at Dartmouth, a Harvard rival. Go Big Green!

What is Charlie Rangel thinking?

2009-07-31T20:49:00.000-07:00

On July 27, a Wall Street Journal editorial criticized Charlie Rangel for his possible tax evasions. They listed a few of his questionable tax arrangements, then concluded with

All of this has previously appeared in print in one place or another, and we salute the reporters who did the leg work. We thought we’d summarize it now for readers who are confronted with the prospect of much higher tax bills, and who might like to know how a leading Democrat defines “moral” behavior when the taxes hit close to his homes.

On July 30, Representative Rangle replied in a letter to the editor. His first paragraph does absolutely nothing to respond to the charges. He also claims the ability to read the minds of the WSJ editorial board to understand their ulterior motive, which is to undermine health care reform. A classic ad-hominen attack.

Your July 27 editorial ("Morality and Charlie Rangel’s Taxes”) insulted me in an attempt to undermine my work on health-care reform legislation. But your slurs can’t change the fact that the Ways and Means Committee, which I chair, has already succeeded in negotiating and passing its portion of the health-care bill without a hint of the rancor you’ve resorted to in your mean-spirited editorial attack.

Whatever. I leave it to the reader to determine if the original WSJ editorial featured slurs, rancor, and was mean-spirited. But, as I noted, you see that Rangel provides no facts to dispute the charges. Anyway, what follows shortly thereafter is truly incomprehensible blathering.

Since when has it been the practice of a major daily newspaper like The Wall Street Journal to rely on the reporting of journalists “in one place or another” as the basis of a searing attack on the character of a public official?

Apparently, journalists are not supposed to rely on reporting of other journalists? And editorials are not allowed to attack public officials? What? What is Charlie Rangel thinking?

Health Care Reform

2009-07-30T08:44:00.000-07:00

Some thoughts and links

1) Health Insurance should NOT be tied to a job. Note that this editorial was written by a Democrat and appeared in a conservative publication (the Wall Street Journal). I think both sides would agree with the article's subtitle that "One thing we can all agree on is that portable coverage is more secure." This also clarifies the true costs of insurance.

"No country achieves universal coverage without subsidizationand compulsion, but U.S. politicians tie themselves and thehealth care system in knots by proposing reforms designed toconceal these realities. Politically, the most appealing plansare those that mislead people into thinking that someone elseis paying for their insurance. Currently more than half of insuredAmericans obtain their coverage through employment, and workershave been led to believe that their employer bears most of thecost of their care — a belief that labor-market expertshave concluded is invalid. When a firm pays $3,000 to $7,000per worker per year for health care, it can get that money inonly three ways: reducing potential wage increases, increasingprices for what the firm sells (which means lower real wagesfor workers everywhere), or lowering profits."

2) Administrative costs are only a small part of the problem. The Washington Post considers them here.

"For one thing, some administrative costs are not only necessary but beneficial. Following heart-attack or cancer patients to see which interventions work best is an administrative cost, but it's also invaluable if you want to improve care. Tracking the rate of heart attacks from drugs such as Avandia is key to ensuring safe pharmaceuticals."

They estimate that, if we could cut administrative costs in half (to the Canadian system's level), we would save about 5% off health care, or 124 Billion. A significant saving, certainly worth doing if it were possible, but not enough to cover growing expenses.

3) New technologies ar e are driving the growth in health care spending"

"Most real medical spending growth is accounted for by beneficialbut costly new technology."

Kenneth Arrow, noted health care economist, agrees.

"The basic reason why health costs increased is that health care is a good thing! ... A lot of these technologies clearly reveal things that would not be revealed otherwise. There's no question about it. Diagnostics have improved. Technology has improved. You know, sending things through your blood stream to help in operations, instead of cutting you open. It's incredible. But these things are costly. ... But, nevertheless, preserving life is a good thing."

4) Crass or immoral as it may seem, we must put a value upon human life.

Some of these new technologies have limited "bang for the buck" and must be "rationed". Some are inappropriate due to age or other conditions. For example, the Kidney Cancer drug Sutent adds maybe half a year to the patient's life. The drug costs $54,000. Worth it? Maybe. But what if the drug cost a million dollars? Most would say not. The article gives several other examples of evaluating and limiting spending that isn't "worth it".

Conservatives have been the main users of the "rationing is bad" point to argue against reform. I think they are being inconsistent here. Conservatives have argued, in my opinion correctly, that economic factors should be used to evaluate expenses for regulations, e.g. consumer safety and environmental regulations. To be consistent, conservatives must also agree that economic factors should be used to evaluate expenses for health care. Which means "rationing".

Maureen Dowd hypocrisy

2009-07-29T17:07:00.001-07:00

In a recent New York Times column, Maureen Dowd gets down on Sarah Palin for, among other things, being pretty:

Sarah seems happily oblivious that she benefited from Hollywood casting techniques. Just as movie directors have beautiful young actresses playing nuclear physicists and Harvard professors, knowing the fusion of sex appeal and a heavyweight profession will excite, the novelty of a beautiful former beauty queen and TV reporter cast in a powerful role that has featured dour, gray old men like Dick Cheney was thrilling. At first.

Now, look at the photo of Maureen Dowd that accompanies her column. Compare to a much less glamorous more current photo of her at her Wikipedia entry. Hmm, is somebody else exploiting her (past) good looks?

As for the limited factual content of her column, Dowd writes:

Obama advisers say privately that the president truly respects the woman he ran against, and that they have a good relationship, so good it has even surprised Hillary. ... In a funny way, he’s the man of her dreams.

It will be interesting to see how Hillary fares as Secretary of State, both in accomplishments and longevity. I have no insider information about her relationship with President Obama. But when "advisers" "privately" say something, hold on to your your wallet, it's usually just as reliable as information from people who say "trust me".

Birther thoughts

2009-07-29T16:05:00.000-07:00

I believe that President Obama is a natural born US citizen, and, frankly, don't care if he isn't. But the controversy around it seems almost deliberately planned to stir up conspiracy theories. Obama has released a copy of the certificate, but some conspiracy fans claim it is faked.

Without going into all the details, here the latest example of something sure to continue the controversy, a statement by Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino:

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,"

This statement is pointless, cause, as the article notes, Fukino "issued a similar press release Oct. 31". What would convince the Birthers would be for somebody they respect, like Sean Hannity, to accompany Fukino to look at the original certificate.

"State law bars the release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest."

If the constitutionality of the President of the United States isn't a tangible interest, what is?

Like I said, I think Obama is a natural born US citizen, and don't believe this conspiracy stuff. It's just fascinating to watch. And a bit fun - who doesn't like a good conspiracy theory? At this point, it seem like the left / progressives are enjoying this as much as the right-wing "birthers", cause it may paint conservatives as paranoid conspiracy freaks. And it may fire up the left.

So my conspiracy theory is that the democrats and the left are stirring this up. After all (tongue in cheek paranoid conspiracy fodder warning) Hawaii is a very democratic-leaning state, maybe somebody there is on on this? :-)

Added July 31: Hmm, maybe I'm right. DailyKos continues to push the Birther story.

Some job areas are growing during the recession

2009-07-21T09:07:00.000-07:00

The Sunday New York Times Week in Review section had an article wondering When Will HELP Be WANTED. The overall thrust was that rehiring will be slow. Even in the recovery from this recession, job growth will be slow.

What I found interesting was the accompanying graphic, showing jobs lost or gained since December 2007. Attached is a scaled down version, with a few areas highlighted.

You will note that automotive and construction has been devastated, with 35% and 17% job losses. Manufacturing in general is down, with 14% losses. Retail is down 4.9%.

But government is doing just fine. State governments have lost less than 1% of jobs, and this excludes growth in education. And the federal government shows robust job growth of 6.5%.

If this job growth were largely due to the stimulus package, that would be a good thing (at least temporarily) to help stem the recession, though even then I'd prefer that the jobs created be largely in the private sector. However, since these figures date from 2007, they don't reflect the stimulus, they just reflect growth in government bureaucracy. The United States cannot remain competitive on the world stage if the only area of job growth is in government.

Classy Move by a Classy Baseball Player

2009-07-15T16:32:00.000-07:00

In 2004, Seattle Mariners outfielder Ichiro Suzuki set a new record for hits in a season, breaking an 84 year old record set by St. Louis Browns 1B George Sisler. While visiting St. Louis for this year's All Star game, Ichiro paid his respects, laying flowers on Sisler's grave, and acknowledging the respect that Sisler's daughter showed by visiting Seattle to watch Ichiro break the record.

Some in baseball still respect and appreciate the past.