Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

nj man suing the port authority

Wednesday, September 21st, 2011

From NBC New York, “NJ Man Sues Over Toll Hikes, Claims Bias“.

A New Jersey man has filed a federal lawsuit in New York over the Port Authority’s toll increase.

Yoel Weisshaus of New Milford claims the increase is an abuse of power and discriminates against him because he is poor.

Cash tolls on the George Washington Bridge, Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, Goethals Bridge, Bayonne Bridge and Outerbridge Crossing went up from $8 to $12 on Sunday.

Weisshaus claims the tolls are targeted to restrict minimum-wage earners and will be used to complete the World Trade Center project instead of improving bridges and tunnels.

Sounds like a USA Today story from 3 years ago.

world war z by max brooks

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

Max Brooks is likely the world’s foremost authority on zombies – how to survive them, what to do if there is an uprising, etc.

In “World War Z – An Oral History of the Zombie War”, he tackles the issue of reporting on what happened by interviews with those who survived. From first-hand accounts from a variety of sources – early spotters, military members, religious leaders – from around the world, Mr Brooks presents a thrilling, chilling, engaging narrative of “The Crisis”: both as it happened, and what we need to do to continue to avert any further repercussions.

I have yet to find another report as balanced and in-depth as Mr Brooks with regards to this horrific chapter in human (and zombie) history.

  • Quality of writing: 5/5
  • Entertainment value: 5/5
  • Historicity: 5/5
  • Viscerality: 5/5
  • Overall: 5/5

gideon’s spies by gordon thomas

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

Gideon’s Spies by Gordon Thomas claims to be “the secret history of the Mossad”.

From the myriad reviews on Amazon, I didn’t know whether to be expecting a massive work of historical fiction, or a insightful tour de force. After having nearly finished it, I don’t know if I have an opinion of whether it’s “inciteful” or “insightful”. Of course, this is supposed to be detailing backroom dealings, secretive organizations, and national intelligence operations: so there is likely a fair amount of ego building and some fanciful manufacturisms along the way.

It is written in a conversational, informative tone and is eminently readable. The “structure” reminds me of how some of the best professors I had in college spoke – the stories didn’t seem to happen in any particular order or for a reason, but by the end you can see how they all interlink to give the picture.

Several of the items in the book I can informally verify to be true having spoken to other first-hand sources on some of the topics. Whether the entire book is “true” or not, it is certainly worth reading for at least the perspective of Mr Thomas, and the sources he has interviewed.

As with any other claimed exposé, much of what is said needs to be taken with grains boulders of salt, but it is very well written overall. It starts with an account of folks surrounding Lady Diana’s death – Mossad agents, MI5, MI6, Dodi Fayed, etc etc. What this has to do with the rest of the book… I don’t know, but it was still an interesting take. Some would say this is to support conspiracy theorists and their beliefs that intelligence agencies are all-powerful, and that they will actively withhold information that could benefit their allies just because of personality clashes. Personally, while I think some of that happens, it can’t really be as wide-spread as some would claim, or some countries would have been removed from the gene pool.

My biggest complaint is that for a professional journalist, Mr Thomas CANNOT use the phrase “try to” properly – almost invariably he says “try and” instead! GAAAHHH!!

Should you read the book? I think it’s worthwhile, even if it turns out to be 90% fiction. If you approach it as a book in the strain of the Jack Ryan universe created by Tom Clancy, and it turns out to be true – cool. And if not, you at the very least had an entertaining time.

  • Quality of writing: 4/5
  • Quality of content: unknown, but I’d guess at least 3/5
  • Entertainment value: 4/5
  • Historicity: unknown, but between 2/5 and 4/5
  • Overall: 3/5

health care “reform”?

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

The problem with health care in America is NOT that too many people don’t have it.

And it’s NOT that it’s too expensive (though it is expensive).

The problem with health care in America is that there is no reason for people to pay for what they can get for “free”. And if something goes wrong, you’re just a phone call away from heaps of cash (after the 35-50% that goes to the lawyers, of course).

I see people using the Emergency Room as their Primary Care Facility. Not because they think it’s better than a doctor’s office, but because if they can’t pay for it, the hospital can’t come after them.

The bill that passed the House last night, supporting President Obama’s “Hope and Change” agenda is going to cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.  The only way of paying for that, since the government never CUTS spending (except for President Clinton who cut our defense budget in the 90s), is for taxes to be increased.

As it stands now, someone earning $40k in the US (depending on the state) pays about 9% to Social Security and Medicare. Another 0-10% to their state. And 10-20% to the IRS. That’s a total of 20-40% of their income being taken from them. Add on top of that the sales taxes that [almost] every jurisdiction in the country charges (4-10% from where I’ve been, except OR and DE). Also add-in fuel “surcharges”, phone taxes, etc – and the typical American is paying about 50% of their income to various taxes.

Yes, I do understand that government services are paid-for with taxes. And I understand there are a host of taxes available. Some people even manage to pay [almost] no taxes. Due to earning too little, there are a host of Americans who benefit from government services who never pay into them (other than sales taxes).

Should citizens benefit from their government’s provided services? Of course. Should citizens contribute (something) to benefit? I believe that is also a resounding “YES“.

Should citizens be forced to pay for things they are not using? That’s where this health care “reform” bill has me against it. It’s where most of the state and federal budget items have me upset.

Property taxes supposedly pay for education in most areas. Except, of course, for where there are “educational” lotteries. If lotteries pay for education, why are property taxes still as high as they are? And if property taxes pay for them, then the lotteries are just get-rich-quick-schemes taking advantage of people who can’t do math. (Personally, I think if you can derive $1 of entertainment from a scratch-off ticket, then it’s ok; it’s when someone looks to the lottery as a “way out” of their current economic situation that I have a problem – they’ll keep coming back and back and back, because “you can’t win if you don’t play”.)

Fuel taxes supposedly pay for road maintenance and expansion.

Income taxes (personal and corporate [and capital gains and taxes on interest earned etc]) pay for pretty much everything else.

The current federal budget is about $3 trillion. I have no idea how much money that is. No one does. If you split it evenly over the population, it’s about $10000 per person (man, woman, boy, and girl) in America. According to the BEA, Americans earned about $5 trillion in personal income last year (excluding the $1 trillion governments paid in salaries). Additional to that was another about $1 trillion earned by proprietors of businesses. After all is said and done, that comes out to a per capita earnings of about $35000.

Estimates I have seen so far put the cost to the federal government (and therefore US – taxpayers: it’s where the “government” gets its money from) in the range of about $1000-5000 billion ($1-5 trillion) over the next decade. That’s an additional $100 billion per year – just over the next 10 years. That’s an increase to our national budget of about 3-15% per year. As a percentage, the bottom of the range is not big (but the top is huge). As a “real” number, the whole range is huge.

Various reports put the number of “uninsured” in America at 30-45 million people, or about 10-15% of the population. Why is it important that these folks become insured? What percentage of those “uninsured” actually NEED coverage? Why do they not have it? Is it truly because they cannot afford it (they earn too little, etc)? Is it because they DO NOT NEED coverage? I went without health insurance for 4 years. I’ve had it since January 2007, and haven’t needed it yet. It would be far far cheaper for me to not have health insurance and just pay my doctor once a year when I go for a checkup than it is to pay for insurance. (Yes, if I *did* need it, it would be nice to have.)

What costs are actually associated with health care? How much of that $200 you pay your doctor per visit is really associated with “care”, and how much goes to overhead costs, such as staff and their OWN insurance in the event the patient decides to sue them? The medical practice I used to use employs two doctors and three nurses. Let’s say for sake of argument that the nurses are paid $20 per hour for 40 hours per week. That’s $160 per day and $800 per week per nurse. So, if 4 patients come in on Monday, their office fees have paid one nurse for the week. Four patients in a day seems low based on every visit I’ve ever made to a doctor’s office: it seems to be typically about 2-3 per hour (or more), which is about 20 per day. Twenty patients times $200 are $4000 a day (gross) that the practice is charging.

Some amount of that goes towards utilities. Other goes to security. Some is used for supplies. Some chunk is paid directly to the government in the form of taxes. And some noticeable amount is paid to a liability coverage company to protect the staff in the event a patient sues them for malpractice (real or imagined).

I read that twenty years ago, a neuro-surgeon in Australia only had to carry $100000 in liability coverage because lawsuits are capped in Australia (except for gross malfeasance, which carries criminal penalties as well as civil ones). At the same time, US-based general surgeons had to carry $1 million in coverage, and neuro-surgeons $5 million. That’s 10-50 TIMES the coverage – at a MINUMUM! And that did not guarantee that if the surgeon was sued, he would be able to cover the costs of the lawsuit with his liability insurance.

That means that two, otherwise identical, surgeons, practicing the same type of work, had to have a ~50x difference in their insurances due to litigation law.

America is a very litigious (lawsuit-happy) country.

Only in America could you have someone sue their microwave manufacturer for not telling them not to use it to dry-off their hamster.

Only in America could someone sue McDonald’s for spilling hot coffee in their lap and burning themselves.

Only in America would a family sue Ford for the death of a wife and mother when she was backing her car on the interstate (patently illegal), and was rear-ended.

Only in America can a home-invader/thief/mugger sue the very family he was attacking because he got injured while trying to escape.

Only in America would a physician be required to carry millions of dollars in liability insurance, order “unneeded” tests, get extra opinions, etc: just in case the patient (or their family) decided that something wasn’t perfect in their care and therefore the doctor should have to pay.

What America needs is not “health care” reform. What America needs is “attitude” reform: we need to not be a country of victimhood, a nation of folks who think it’s someone else’s job to pay for their needs, a citizenry who all participate in the betterment of their nation, a society that is not afraid of mistakes – the society and citizenry that described America during its founding all the way through the early/mid-20th century.

I’m sure most of the folks who use ERs for their PCF aren’t trying to game the system. I’m sure many of them truly can’t afford the cost of going to see a doctor preventatively. I’m positive the percentage of those gaming the system is small.

The problem is that even a small percentage of a big population is a big number. If only 1 percent of 1 percent of the population were in the “gaming” category, that would be about 30000 individuals. Spread across the fifty states, it’d be merely a few hundred per region. If that was the percentage, health coverage would not need be so expensive.

Instead, and whether they intend to “game” or not (and I’m positive the great majority do not), the number of uninsured is 10-15% of the population. The number of insured, then, is 85-90%.

How many of those who have health coverage abuse that coverage? How many never go to a doctor, never use the insurance they pay for, and only have it just-in-case? How many go to the doctor every time they have a sniffle?

Forcing all Americans to have health coverage will cost taxpayers hundreds or thousands of billions of dollars.

Capping and limiting lawsuits would cost little more than passing yet another law.

Health care providers need to not be afraid that an honest misdiagnosis will land them in the poor house. Patients need to realize that there is no perfect diagnosis – sometimes even the best teams and techniques won’t determine the cause of their malady. Maybe it’s imagined. Maybe it’s real. Maybe it’s never been seen before. Maybe it’s just that the doctor you use doesn’t know what he’s looking at when he reads the X-ray. Maybe he’s new. Maybe he’s tired. Perhaps it was just your loved one’s time to go.

Forcing yet another trillion-dollar measure down the throats of hard-working Americans won’t cure the ills of the system.

How often does merely throwing money at a problem solve it?

How often does throwing people and ideas and a healthy attitude at a problem solve, mitigate, or refocus it?

Once good ideas, attitude, and people are working on a problem, money can be directed well. We won the first space race because we put all the best people we could find to work trying to solve the problem – and gave them fiduciary resources to make their visions happen.

Everything we as a nation have ever won has been because those with the vision, courage, and ideas to make somethign happen have gotten out there and done it.

We can reform health care once we remove [most] fear from the system.

Fear cripples any environment: doctors fear being wrong, so they order more tests; they fear patients suing them, so they are hyper-cautious in evaluations and diagnoses. Insurance companies fear lawsuits, so they charge customers lots of money for even the most basic of services. Patients fear the costs of insurance and that their doctor may not be perfect, so they use the ER for their doctor – or they sue for a misdiagnosis or “wrongful” death.

Doctors are human. They can make mistakes. Health care professionals don’t make many mistakes – ever. It’s one of the few professions where everyone is expected to be flawless. And it’s one of the few professions where the vast majority (I’d venture to say >99%) are flawless. From drawing blood and giving shots to replacing livers and hearts: medical professionals daily turn out not only their best work, but exceed the expectations of any reasonable person.

from `fortune`

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

The five rules of Socialism:
(1) Don’t think.
(2) If you do think, don’t speak.
(3) If you think and speak, don’t write.
(4) If you think, speak and write, don’t sign.
(5) If you think, speak, write and sign, don’t be surprised.
– being told in Poland, 1987

anniversaries – or conspiracy?

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

20 years ago the Berlin Wall fell, signaling the demise of the Soviet Union, and the Cold War.

40 years ago Sesame Street premied on PBS, signaling the use of television as an aide to education and learning.

I think the Berlin Wall fell because Sesame Street turned twenty.

oh no! more information! stop it!

Thursday, March 19th, 2009

As reported here, authorities in Sydney claim that by having the “blacklist” leaked, it will ‘”the concerned parent’s worst nightmare” as curious children would inevitably seek it out.’.

Oh come on! Kids can find anything they want anyways. I certainly could when I was younger – and it didn’t require the internet. Encyclopedias, libraries, talking to people. The list goes on and on.

Back to the article, ” half of the sites on the list are not related to child porn and include a slew of online poker sites, YouTube links, regular gay and straight porn sites, Wikipedia entries, euthanasia sites, websites of fringe religions such as satanic sites, fetish sites, Christian sites, the website of a tour operator and even a Queensland dentist.”

Fortunately there is [some] sanity in Australia, though – ‘”The Australian democracy must not be permitted to sleep with this loaded gun. This week saw Australia joining China and the United Arab Emirates as the only countries censoring Wikileaks.”‘

For such an otherwise [mostly] pro-democracy nation, Australia really bolloxed it up here.

‘”Adult supervision is the most effective way of keeping children safe online and people shouldn’t be led into believing by Labor that expanded blacklists or mandatory filters are a substitute for that.”‘ Right. That makes sense, and always applies.

On a related note, it’s funny that they compare the blacklist to a loaded gun, since fireams are [effectively] banned in the country, too. And like banning information, banning guns hasn’t dropped the crime rate – criminals still have them.

The piece de resistance, though, is this quote, “No one interested in cyber safety would condone the leaking of this list.” Huh? The list has nothing to do with “cyber safety”. It’s an attempt to control information, and a poor one at that. Blocking 2500 sites does nothing to the other 38 million “unsavory” ones out there.

Remind me to not move to Australia.

guess it’s good this server is in the united states

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

Because this link to wikileaks would be illegal in Australia.

That’s right – if you operate a website in Australia, just linking to a banned site will cost you $11k per day.

So.

Mr Australia government guy… you’re banning domains? What happens when folks copy data from places like http://wikileaks.org to their own sites? Or other domains? Or change the domain name? Or refuse to pay the fine?

Just curious.

jim hansen – climatologist

Friday, February 20th, 2009

A friend pointed-out Jim Hansen’s profile page on the NASA site: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html.

I find this quote amazing on his profile, “The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”

He flat-out admits to manipulating data to better his study’s goal.

I’ve seen brazen folks before (myriad politicians come to mind), but someone who’s supposed to be an impartial researcher?

That’s frightening.

I wonder how many of his esteemed colleagues do the same thing?

how is this racist?

Thursday, February 19th, 2009

Yes, I am aware of regional American history in which black people were sometimes referred-to as ‘porch monkeys’.

But please tell me how this cartoon is racist? stimulus

According to Roland Martin, it’s a racist attack on the president. “The cartoonist didn’t hang a sign around the neck of the chimp, so he left it up to the reader to determine exactly who the cops were referring to. We all know that the stimulus bill was the first priority of the new president, so when reading the caption, it was easy to infer that the cartoonist was implying the president of the United States.”

I’m a smart guy.

I’m pretty up on the news.

I saw the story about a chimpanzee that was shot in Connecticut after escaping and attacking several people.

If I hadn’t seen the CNN editorial, I wouldn’t have known about the cartoon (I don’t get the New York Post frequently). Now that it’s become a broohaha, I’m looking at the cartoon.

Mr Martin is sorely mistaken – no one I know would’ve seen a racist comment being made in this cartoon. Nor a statement against the President of the United States. Congress wrote the bill (even if the President did back it).

The statement obviously being made is that Congress is a bunch of monkeys, and a chimp could do no worse.

In my experience, it’s people like Mr Martin, Al Sharpton, and others who constantly bring-up racism (who, may I add are black themselves) who keep the issue alive and well.

In my experience, skin color has never had any role in any interaction I’ve ever had. Where I grew up, the line of work I now have, jobs I’ve previously held, and where I’ve gone to school all show that if the person (irrespective of ‘color’) gets his work done, is pleasant, and overall just a ‘person’, they’re fine. I have friends of all sorts of colors and backgrounds. None of them feel any race issue.

I have a huge problem with hyphenated Americans. Other countries don’t have hyphenated citizens. There are no African-British. No Italian-Canadian. Never heard of a French-Chinese. So why do we have African-Americans (especially when a large percentage of black folks in America didn’t come from Africa)?

We are a post-racial country, as long as folks like Mssrs Martin, Sharpton, Jackson, and myriad others who vault themselves into the public eye keep quiet. Did America do wrong by other colors in the past? Absolutely. We participated in enslaving blacks (who we typically received as already-enslaved blacks from competing tribes), turning Chinese into barely-human workers to build railroads, etc.

This cartoon, and the [apparent] whirlwind of attention it is getting, just go to show that the only reason it’s an issue is because a few people make it one.

Had Roland kept quiet, anyone who had missed the cartoon wouldn’t have known, and everyone who saw would have gone along with the surface, obvious, not-read-into ‘meaning’ of the drawing as a political statement drawn on top of a recent news story that the stimulus bill was written by monkeys.

“News stories” like this contribute to people hating the news media. When the media becomes the news, makes the news, and comments about its own news, they’re not reporting’ the news’ – they’re participating in a narcissistic, self-aggrandizing series of congratulatory back-patting to make themselves feel better.

Maybe folks like Roland Martin could go back to doing something productive in life, rather than making an issue of something that isn’t there.