Taking photographs of airplanes is terrorist activity?

I often go to a public park in Arlington, VA called Gravelly Point.  It is just across the river from DC, and it is about 500 feet from the National Airport (DCA) runway.  I've taken many visitors there, since it is a great place to watch planes land; they are only a few hundred feet above your head and you can even feel their jet engines.  Most people I know like to take photos of the planes behind when they pass.  Apparently, this is terrorist activity.

Thus begins the governments war on photographers...  What the fuck does taking a photo of an airplane have to do with aviation security?

Top Secret America

The Washington Post has a very interesting feature this week called Top Secret America.  It appears a few of their reporters spent a couple years investigating the government's response to 9/11 and the large amount of money being spent on top secret activities.  While this was compiled using publicly available data, there are now questions as to whether the consolidated report would be considered classified using the controversial "mosaic theory".  It is very interesting reading, considering we have now spent over $1T on anti-terrorism measures.

This is very alarming to me, when you take into account that very, very few people are killed or harmed by terrorists.

Why nutrition labels are a damned good idea

Stepping away from the current healthcare debate, there is one area of the healthcare bill that will make a very visible presence in all of our lives: mandated nutrition information on menus. 

There are some libertarians who aren't happy about this, but count me as one who goes against the grain.  Most restaurants will already provide diners with nutrition information upon request.  Not all will.  

This bill does not force people to make certain menu choices, and the inconveniences to restaurants are minimal.  We are talking about maybe a few days of analyzing the ingredients in your meals, and then printing some new menus.  Consumers are not inconvenienced at all; they will simply be given information up front that usually takes some digging (think about Google vs going to a library).

This is actually a bit of libertarian paternalism, which you can read more about in Nudge.

The bottom line is this: if consumers are shown that their favorite pasta dish at Macaroni Grille contains 2,500 calories (this is just a guess, not picking on Macaroni Grille) and the customer sees this when ordering, there is probably a good chance that most consumers will opt for a lower calorie dish, or at least split this with another person.  The truth is, that restaurant dishes contain a HUGE amount of calories, sometimes orders of magnitude higher than a home cooked meal.  Look at the "Plain Jane Potato" at supposed "healthy" eatery Jason's Deli.

It contains a whopping 2300 calories, 147 grams of fat, and 2500 mg of sodium.  In other words, it contains all of the calories and sodium you require in a DAY, and enough fat to last you for 2.5 days.  I think if people saw this on the menu when ordering, they would probably opt for something healthier.  Or maybe not.  In any case, having this information easily available to the consumer will likely lead to healthier choices, fewer deaths, and possibly lower calorie options on the menu.

In summary, nutrition labels have done a lot to help you buy food at the grocery store, and now will serve a similar purpose when you dine out.

Court backs tainted ball players

A court has ruled by a large margin that federal agents should not have taken a list of players who tested positive for steroids in 2003.

My favorite judge, Alex Kozinski, said that this was an illegal search and seizer.

Basically in 2003 MLB asked players to voluntarily give urine samples, and told them there would be no penalties associated with these tests. I completely agree with this ruling. It is up to MLB and the players' union to agree on what drug related rules should be enforced. The government had no right to step in and confiscate these samples. By doing so, players will be less likely to be honest in the future, for fear of being outed later on.

NHTSA thinks all phones should be banned

I always thought banning handheld phone use in cars was stupid, since its not the hands the lead to the problems, its the brain. Looks like the government agreed, but lacked the balls to make this recommendation public until they were forced.

Not that I agree with it, I just think it's stupid to ban handhelds. The way I see it, if you injure someone while talking on the phone, it constitutes negligence, a tort. This alone is enough reason to not use it while driving.

Infrastructure under stress

Last night I watched the excellent History special "The Crumbling of America". This documentary raised several areas of concern for every American. They detailed several classes of infrastructure that are degrading quickly:

Bridges

Dams - Some states, such as Alabama, do not even have a dam inspector.

Levees - Surprisingly, the state most in danger is California, particularly Sacamento.

Roads

Sewers

Water Mains - Montgomery Co. MD, a rich suburb of DC, was singled out in this segment.

For anyone who has drived around the Rust Belt (e.g. Detroit) this will not come as any surprise. As a country, we spent several decades and a lot of money building this infrastructure. But since the boom in the 50s and 60s the state and federal governments have not taken action to properly maintain these roads, generally because they were too busy spending money on other items, which they deemed more important.

At this point, it will likely cost several trillion dollars to repair our infrastructure. Some of this will be done with the recent stimulus package. While republicans may balk at this figure and claim that it is the responsibility of the states, the states simply do not have the money to undertake this project. Once the tap water shuts off for weeks due to major water main breaks, or a bridge near your house fails and you need to drive an extra 50 miles to work each day, I think this issue would hit home with any American.

This is going to cost a lot to fix. This is also not a partisan issue. Today in Detroit, the democratic city council voted against an increase in the sewer/water tax. Sure, people in Detroit may have trouble affording an increased water bill; but if the infrastructure which delivers and cleans the water fails, they will be paying a lot more.

Time to kill cash

In the most recent copy of Wired, there is an interesting op-ed about the costs of cash, that is, hard currency.  

The US government spends almost one billion dollars per year on currency, and over half of that is to make coins, which are utterly useless.  I agree with the author that it is time to end paper currency, at least in the US where everyone from McDonald's on up accepts at least the three most major credit cards.  For smaller purchases (for example, a garage sale) the technology is already here to "flash" a small payment via your smart phone's bluetooth.  And if one party of the transaction doesn't have that, there's always PayPal.  

Not only would we save a billion dollars in taxpayer money, but we'd save all the costs involved in shipping and sorting the paper money and coins.

There are some who argue that food workers will get hosed because of the lack of tips, but credit cards support tips.  I think the real opposition is from those who don't report their tips, but they are committing tax fraud anyway.

Fallout from the NYC flyover

The idiot who made the decision to fly air force one over NYC has resigned.  Not that it was voluntary; President Obama was truly pissed.

No Car Czar

Barack Obama scales back one of Bush's big government proposals.

No help for the needy

The NYT points out that despite rising unemployment, states have continued to cut welfare programs.  When the economy is strong, there is a good case to scaling back benefits.  But in the face of an economic meltdown, I think its necessary to help families out.  If that means giving them cash handouts, so be it.  

Three GOP Senators to Support Stimulus

Thus far, three republican senators have said they will back the new stimulus package.

They are:

Olympia Snow (ME)

Susan Collins (ME)

Arlen Specter (PA)

That leaves 38 republicans who are not backing it yet.  If you live in a state with republican senators (I do not; though both were only 3 years ago!) you should contact them and urge them to support this needed legislation.  At this point, their talk about not adding to the debt is not helpful.  We are beyond the point at which the market can correct the situation.

The Buy American Clause

The stimulus bill that is currently moving through congress includes a provision that requires that infrastructure projects use only American iron and steel.  Some complain that this will harm American jobs that work in the import/export business.

I disagree that this is unfair.  I think that in this case, it is not a tariff against foreign goods since the federal government is paying the bill.  If they are paying the bill, it should be up to them what materials are used.

The Party of Racial Backlash

Krugman has an interesting editorial today on the GOP's strategy for the past 40 years.  I agree with him that overall, the GOP has symbolized a "good ole boy" network, in which very few minorities were given top spots.  But Bush changed some of that with his appointments, although the party lost many of them under McCain (like Colin Powell).  

One thing that Krugman misses is the GOP's small government rhetoric, which was powerful for a time, even if it may partially be to blame for the current meltdown.

The Spending We Need

Soon to be President Obama plans to spend between 500 and 700 billion dollars on public works projects.

While this figure approaches all of the money spent on economic bailouts of financial institutions, I believe it is a debt we must incur.  If you take a look at many roads and bridges within America, particularly in areas that are not economically prosperous, things are bad.  Whether it is a pothole or a structurally unsound bridge, the public's safety is at risk.  

The last time we spent such a large amount of money on infrastructure was likely in the 50's when Ike created our Interstate System.  Since then, time has taken a toll on our roads.  We aren't building any new ones but desperately need to maintain those that we have.  It is inconceivable for a non-government entity to fix all these roads, unless we created a private toll road system that would rival any government bureaucracy.

The good news is that these are construction jobs that will not be outsourced and that the extra work may be able to help a good amount of the unemployed construction workers (who lost their jobs after the housing bust) get back to work.

This is a win-win for all.

Automakers bring different strategies, needs

Today was quite interesting and telling when it comes to the current states of GM, Ford, and Chrysler.  

First the bad news.  The bailout goes way above the initial $25B, it could easily top $40B.

Chrysler: Want something around $7-8B.  No real plans other than that.  There are some vague mentions of electric vehicles, but Chrysler's bottom line is that its bottom line is quite bad.  It will only have $2.5B at the end of the year.  They feel if they do not receive the loan by Jan 1, they may go under.  Their CEO, Robert Nardelli, supposedly already makes $1* a year.

GM: Want up to $18B, but at least $12B, with $4B by the end of the year.  GM wants to kill Saab, Saturn, and possibly Pontiac, though Pontiac may be refocused as a "performance brand", whatever that means.  Cheap, fast cars?  I agree with dumping all three.  Saab is kind of interesting, but nobody buys them.  Saturn was interesting until a few years ago when GM closed the TN plant and turned Saturn into copies of other vehicles.  GM's plan also calls for dealer reductions, $1* a year pay to Rick Wagoner, and UAW renegotiations.  And how exactly can they renegotiate with the UAW when they have all that cash?

Ford: Ford is asking for access to a $9B loan that they hope not to use.  They predict a return to profitability in 2011, although a long recession or a bankruptcy by GM or Chrysler would hurt them and could turn that $9B maybe into a $14B bailout.  At least they seem to be willing to go it on their own.  They plan to convert many of their truck/SUV factories to make small cars.  They plan on cutting their dealer network, and also raising their fuel economies by up to 36% in a few years.  If they take the assistance, their CEO Alan Mulally will take a $1* salary.

*Plus stock options

Mark Cuban and the SEC

Mark Cuban was charged with insider trading today by the SEC.  He cannot and will not go to jail, as this is a civil charge, not a criminal.  He stands to lose about $1.5M.  I am rather skeptical of this charge, since Cuban is known as being an upfront, albeit pompous, guy.  His official statement:

“I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff’s win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff’s process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government’s claims are false and they will be proven to be so.”

We shall see what happens.  But we should remember the last time the SEC went after a celebrity: Martha Stewart.  And that was quite the miscarriage of justice.  For more on that, I'd suggest you read Reason's article entitled: St Martha: Why Martha Stewart should go to heaven and the SEC should go to hell.

For what it's worth, Mark can count on my support.

 

No Passenger Bill of Rights

Remember when all those Jetblue passengers were caught on the tarmac for 8 hours or more?  The outrage of those people coupled with extensive media coverage led to the creation of a task force to look into implementing a "passenger bill of rights."  

The whole thing failed, and that's probably a good thing.  What other industry has government oversight into how they can treat their customers?  By and large, if you are a paying customer, you voluntarily entered into an agreement with a certain party.  If you don't like the way you've been treated, you don't have to patronize them again.  I'm sure many people will never fly Jetblue again.  But should the government be stepping in and mandating a certain amount of time passengers can be kept in a non-moving plane?  And if they mandate a certain time what are the unintended consequences?  If bad weather is on the horizon, more carrier may just cancel all the flights, instead of risking fines by the government.  This may lead to more displaced passengers and more anger than the situation before, which only affected a small handful of people.

Should we let GM fail?

General Motors is now teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It currently has about $16B in available cash but its burn rate is close to $2B per month. When you add to this the fact that the majority of Americans will not buy a car that is made by a struggling company due to potential warranty and service issues, you create a negative feedback loop that will likely bring GM down.

This is nothing new. I wrote about GM's problems over three years ago. All auto companies, including the venerable Toyota, are hurting now. But American companies are even worse off. Why? Because of the union contracts they've had for the past half century, including the socialist JOBS BANK, which pays workers to sit in a room and not work. GM complacency during boom times gave the union these types of benefits that are practically unheard of in any industry.

It is not so simple to just allow GM to fail. If GM goes under, parts suppliers will probably have to close as well, which has the potential to hurt the other automakers. Furthermore, close to 10% of US jobs are in someway connected to the auto industry, when you include dealership personnel, parts manufacturers, and the entire dealership industry.

What they want is a couple dozen billion dollars to continue operating, but I'm not sure that would do any good. I think that a bankruptcy may be their best chance at survival, as that would allow them to renegotiate a lot of their contracts, likely including their UAW contracts.

I don't have any quick term solutions to propose and neither does our current president. Our next president favors a bailout, since you don't want to start your term presiding over a meltdown just as bad as the financial crisis.

HIV Travel Ban Struck Down

The ban on HIV positive people entering the United States as tourists or immigrants has been ended.  The US had been one of only a small handful of countries (mostly non-democracies) that prohibited people from visiting based solely on their HIV status.  When the laws were first passed, people were very afraid of HIV and thought that it was highly contagious, and at that time people only had a few years to live.  There was a fear that they would languish in hospitals, taking up valuable beds.  Those days are now behind us, and allowing someone with HIV into the country is likely less of a burden than allowing in someone with cancer.

McCain: Worse than Bush?

Hopefully we will never know the answer to the title of this post, but in order to inform the undecided, we need to visit this issue.  Would a McCain presidency be worse than Bush?  

When George W. Bush was first elected president in 2000, we were at the peak of the internet boom.  The business cycles has since been on a downward spin, most likely because we have not had a positive technological shock since the dot.com boom of the late 90's.  Whether we will have another such shock in the next 8 years is anyone's guess, but it is likely as these cycles run over 15-20 years.  

No matter if Bush or Gore was elected president, we would likely have faced a minor recession sometime over the past 8 years.  What would not have been predicted, however, is the massive cost of the Iraq War, which has been a major factor in the spike in oil prices, the fall of the dollar, and the loss of our rights to privacy, jury, and other freedoms.  

How would John McCain or Barack Obama confront such issues?

When it comes to the Iraq War, currently McCain is more gung-ho about it than even George Bush.  While the White House has recently flirted with the idea of setting a vague timetable for withdrawal, McCain remains steadfast that we should maintain permanent bases in Iraq, against the wishes of the Iraqis and more than 50% of Americans.  McCain's wishes would likely lead to at least a $1,000,000,000 level of spending over his presidency, from this issue alone.  

When it comes to oil prices, McCain favors "offshore drilling" and not much else.  Offshore drilling was already allowed, oil companies did not choose to partake in it.  All Bush just did was open up some more areas.  That point is moot, since we do not have enough refineries to keep up with this, so even if we did strike oil (this would take 5-10 years), we would have to have it made into gasoline by another country and then re-import it.  Even conservative oil-man T Boone Pickens does not see oil as the future.  Instead, he proposes we use a combination of wind power and natural gas.  I also think that geothermal power, nuclear power, and solar power have to be added to the first two to be our new backbone of electricity, which could power a new generation of vehicles.  McCain talks about alternative energies, but seems to be continuing Bush's legacy of paying lip service to alternatives while just drilling for more oil to further fuck up our planet.

McCain worse than Bush?  Maybe, but hopefully we will never know the answer.