Boycott Shell Oil for deal with Iran!

Shell Oil has just announced a deal with Iran, despite pressure from President Bush to forgo said deal. Keep in mind Shell has every right to do business with whomever they want, and that Shell is not an American company. So while Iran is a likely a direct threat to the US, it not a likely a direct threat to either England or Holland. However, Shell does do business in the US, and that makes their actions accountable to the us. Given that there was talk, and action (maybe) around a boycott of Venezuelan gas company Citgo, why no call for a boycott of Shell? While Chavez called W a "devil" (is that better or worse that Democrat Party?), Iran is both a much bigger future threat, and a very real current one given their support for those in Iraq who are killing US soldiers.

Soooo, I'm officially calling for a boycott of Shell Oil. Buy BP, they've made the commitment to not invest in Iran (no word on whether they'll divest, and the decision may be because they don't have anything going anyway - but enough cynicism), or better yet buy Sinclair which imports from Canada, and Sunoco which import from Canada, Nigeria and Angola (all figures from 2005, for more info on which oil companies import from where click here).

And yes I know Shell has already faced a boycott due to its facilities in Angola and Nigeria (two places on the H-Blogs "approved" list). Look, I'm not a big fan of this situation, but since Iran may, at some point, have the ability to nuke the US, and is currently killing US soldiers I'm OK with the trade. Clearly the best place to buy gas is Sinclair, plus they have that neat little dinosaur logo.

The GOP's big Slur

Been reading of late about W's big "slur" against the Democratic members of congress in his State of the Union Address.

During his speech, Bush congratulated what he called the "Democrat majority" while welcoming the "new," "changed" Congress, even though the prepared text of the speech reportedly called for Bush to recognize the "Democratic majority."

Apparently referring to members of the Democratic party as the "Democrat" party is some kind of big insult.

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Furthermore, while the word dates back to at least the Hading Administration, use today is all the fault of Newt Gingrich and pollster Frank Luntz

In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

But here's the thing, both my parents (Hi Ma, Hi Pop) are members of the Democratic Party and I grew up a Democrat...(ic?) (before making the big switch to Libertarian), and I just don't see the insult. Sorry. I dunno, maybe I'm tougher than I thought, or, more likely, I've been called much worse. When I try to place, "Called Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party" on the big list of slurs, well, it doesn't even make the list of things to be listed. Seriously, it just feels silly. But after reading the first article, I did a search and this really bugs people. Well at least some people. From The Huffington Post,

"Those two letters actually do matter," Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book--it's entitled Words That Work--and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of "ic"s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.

What Michelle Pilecki leaves out is just who the those two letters actually matter to. Preceding that paragraph was another in the original.

Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party.

And now you get it. No one really cares, except those are so wrapped up in party politics, on both sides, that they share little with the rest of America. I never knew it was a slur and I'm not new at this game. So when members of the Republic Party (hah-suck on that Gingrich, how's it feel now?) say "Democrat Party," I never knew they were trying to hurt my feelings. Not really the best insult when the insultee doesn't know they've been insulted. Ironically, since the Dems have brought so much attention to it, now I know, and honestly, I think the Dems are the ones looking silly.

Finally, from what I've been able to ascertain, "Democrat" is OK when referring to one member of the Democratic Party. "Democrats" is OK when referring to several members of the Democratic Party (or at least I assume so, the Democratic Party web site is www.democrats.org), Dems are OK as short-hand (Whew, I use that a lot). In fact, the only time this slur is a slur is when referring to the whole of the Democratic Party.

Not to be nitpicky, but this is another example of how the Dems don't get it. Rather than just mocking this as the all-time worst insult, they actually get all hot and bothered by it. Just completely the wrong way to handle it.

My take on W's Insurance Tax Plan

I've been mulling over W's health insurance initiative, at least the tax code part. Here's the passage from the Sate of the Union Address.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans. (Applause.)

Says House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY),

This is a dangerous policy that ultimately shifts cost and risk from employers to employees and could result in a higher number of uninsured. The new, Democratic majority in Congress is interested in relieving, not increasing, working families' tax burden.

Clearly, two hearts living as just one mind. Now on to the analysis. NYT tackles it here (I know, Stalin I know, but for all your paranoid ramblings, NYT still does the best job - but I have to admit, "With his proposal to uproot a tax break that has been in place for more than 60 years..." is not the most neutral way to start the article).

I agree with W on this one, at least as a start (and I haven't heard him say, "This will fix things all by itself."). However, the tax code is a blunt instrument, mostly helping those who itemize and make enough to pay taxes. For those who don't fall into either category, this is not going to be a big deal. One real issue is that the bulk of people who are uninsured fall into the latter category. So I think its a solid argument to approach the President's bill with some skepticism as far as just how within reach this will put health insurance for the uninsured.

But as one part of a much needed solution, at this point I'm a fan (I'm not hedging here because it comes from W, rather because tax-code cause/effect isn't the easiest thing to work through - but that's why you have me...right...and subscribe to our email feed to the right...right?). Here's what I like. Rep Rangel is correct, this does shift the risk from employer to employee, and that's where it should be (so at least you can say he understands the point). The employee understands their needs better, and is better prepared for the risk/reward decision than an employer who buys a blanket policy for all employees. When the employee takes the personal risk two things happen. They buy the policy they need, and they shop for value, not just from the insurance company but also in treatment. Take into account incentives that will be offered by insurance companies to cover health, home and care in a bundle, and that employees do change jobs, often taking a period of risk without insurance, or even become trapped by one job precisely because of insurance benefits and it seems that attaching insurance to the employee is a much better option. I need someone to explain to me why this scenario is worse than having the employer pay create the system.

From what I gather, W is basically saying that insurance is a perk that has value. His tax cut is really a tax increase, immediately followed by a tax cut. It's a two step process, this is important. Now employees don't pay any tax on the benefit of employer based health insurance even though it is a perk that has definite and quantifiable benefit. What he's immediately proposing however, is to offset this newly created taxable event with a tax break. In my mind, a large part of getting comfortable with this plan is getting comfortable with creating a new tax, one that can be manipulated by later lawmakers, and then cutting it.

According to NYT, W's "economic rationale for Mr. Bush’s proposal is that too many people have “gold-plated, deluxe” health insurance, which encourages them to use excessive amounts of health care, driving up costs for everyone." Really hard to argue with that one too. But some try. Mr Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office said,

The president’s proposal addresses inequities in the tax code that provide an open-ended subsidy for premiums paid by employers. If your employer does not provide health insurance and you have to buy it on your own, you get no tax benefit at all. The president’s plan would eliminate that distinction.”A glaring problem with the president’s plan is that he did not call for any stronger regulation of the individual insurance market.

And the NYT tacked on,

In that market as it now exists in most states, insurers can deny coverage or charge higher rates to sick people.

I'll take them in order. Notice that Mr Reischauer shifts the focus. In the first part he gets W's goal. In the second, he just tacks on some random criticism. Again, at least as far as I've read, W does not claim that he's "solved the health insurance issue." I see this as one part of the solution. Calling for stronger regulation may be another part, but why join them? Doesn't that risk drowning both of them? Oh well, I guess he had to say something to make the paper.

The second part is a major can of worms. What people don't get is that by forcing insurance companies to cover sick people for the same cost as healthy is that everyone pays. There are no free meals here. If you demand that an insurance company cover a sick person for the same cost as a healthy person, what you're really demanding is that the healthy person pay more for services they won't likely need. If said healthy person is poor, you've just increased the cost of his insurance. I'm not sure this is the goal. I suppose one could make the argument that under the current system all employees get the same coverage, healthy or sick. But the reality is that this means two things, you may not be getting the most insurance you can for the buck (here what the employer pays in your name) because the company's rate is higher with more sick people, and customers are paying more for goods because the company works the cost of insurance into the cost of goods. Again, there are no free meals. You are bearing the cost somewhere. W's plan at least puts it close to home so you can monitor and control it.

This is already a long post so I'll just summarize from here. W's plan definitely shifts the momentum towards employee based insurance. One, I haven't heard why this is bad. Two, employer based insurance is no longer what it was. It's the fastest growing expense line in most businesses and they're cutting back. The momentum is already away from employer based insurance. I like this proposal. It is not the end, there is no "Well, that's that" moment with this, but it is a step in the right direction. Provided, of course, that Congress doesn't get all weird with this new tax class.

We Are Going to Slap Your Wrist SO HARD

The UN has just realized that Iran wants nukes for geopolitical power and not economic power. Welcome to the party, boys. Sadly, it's the US Undersecretary of State Scott Burns who said, "If they think they can get away with 3,000 centrifuges without another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure, then they are badly mistaken." Oh no! Not another Security Council resolution and additional international pressure! Who could possibly withstand that? What's next? The fluffy pillows with all the stuffing down in one end?

I really hope the impotence of the international community in facing a soon to be nuclear Iran does not lead to tragedy. I really hope people like me who see mushroom clouds in our future, and more immediately Israel's future, are just extremest Chicken Littles. I truly hope it really doesn't matter who has nuclear weapons because no one will ever use them as the international community must believe since they do nothing to seriously stop their spread. But if not, the UN and the rest of the fat, dumb and lazy modern world will have the blood of possibly millions of people on their hands. Because they did not have the courage to face Iran when they had the chance.

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!" - Winston Churchill

Tancredo goes after congressional race based caucuses.

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R) wants to end all race based caucuses. His reason?

Tancredo told The Hill: “You should not have any organization, a caucus especially, based solely on race. I mean on issues? You bet. But on race? Why should we be separating ourselves up into these racial divisions?

“It would be anathema to me if someone wanted to create a white caucus. A race is something over which we have no control. Everything we are told is we should ignore it, that we should try to eliminate that as a distinction in our society,” he added.

Here's my official Stalin Malone Bias Alert (or SMBA if you like), I'm no fan of Tancredo. I disagree with most everything he says. But...he's in the right place on this one. I don't think there needs to be official racial caucuses. His reason above is philosophically correct, and he has an ally in me. Apparently, he'll need all the allies he can get.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Administration Committee, which tracks and governs caucuses, has already cast an unfavorable eye on Tancredo’s proposal. “Congressman Ney would not be supportive of such a concept,” said Brian Walsh, Ney’s spokesman. “He believes that those members of Congress who share similar interests … should be able to form a caucus.”

Since, Me and Tanny (That's what us friends call him) are on the same side, I would like to point out to Rep Ney that skin color is not an "interest." You can, however, be interested in affirmative action, for example, and Tancredo even allows that interest based caucuses are A-OK. Personally, I think its even more insulting for Rep Ney to assume that all blacks have the same interests. I mean, isn't commingling race and issue a bit...wrong? Seriously, see the man not the stereotype.

So while agree that he has a philosophical case, does he have a "legal" one? The way I see it, we have laws forbidding membership based on race/gender for public groups. Public is usually defined as taking government money. I agree. Private groups can do whatever they want. I also agree. Congress is the ultimate public group, right? Maybe. Here's the tricky part.

In 1995, the House abandoned the policy of funding caucuses with taxpayer money. Aides working on congressional caucuses now are paid from the lawmakers’ congressional accounts.

So are caucuses "public" or "private?" Great move in 1995, really like it. I assume it came way back when the GOP was about shrinking government - ahhh the good ol' days. So now that these caucuses are paid by the members, are they private? If they are, does Tancredo have a legal point? Shouldn't private groups be able to do what they want? I honestly don't have a quick answer for this as it relates to members of congress and congressional grounds. As it stands, I agree with him philosophically, but not sure I agree as a matter of process.

Anyway, while it looks like this thing has zero chance, I applaud his efforts, and the fact that he's bringing this to the public's attention.

Quick note, for those of you keeping score at home, MSNBC notes the following race based caucuses: The Dems have the Congressional Black Caucus, the Hispanic caucus with 21 members. While the Republicans have a comparable Hispanic conference with five full members and 11 "associate" members who are not Hispanic.

Funny, no mention of a Republican Black Caucus? Must be a typo.

SNL writers read the H-Blog, you should too.

Simply put, reading the H-Blog not only keeps you ahead of the news media, but ahead of the comedy media too.

Check out this new Saturday Night Live segment called "Really." It "borrows" heavily from my earlier post about Michael Vick's "issues" in Miami.

OK, fine, the jokes were lay-ups, and they did them better. But still, my ball was in the hoop first.

"N" word no-no and a dog

I'm on a bit of a state and local government kick, so bear with me.

First, found this article on Foxnews.com (I'm waiting for my high-five Mr. Malone) about a small town, Brazoria, Mayor in Texas named Ken Corley who wants to make using the "n" word a $500 fine, but only if its used in "an offensive fashion." And what's the threshold for "offensive?"

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

Hmmmmm. How does it protect those who use this horribly offensive word as a "term of endearment" if the deciding factor is someone else's feelings or interpretation? I may call Muscles for Justice a "serial rapist" and mean it with the most love, but if files a complaint I get charged. So just how was I "protected?"

I love it when unconstitutional laws are also poorly thought out and written.

Over in Washington State, State Senator Ken Jacobsen introduced a bill that would allow dogs in bars with their owners. Two things I want to point out. One, as in other posts, however silly, I like to point out and give an H-Blog Hear Hear to anyone who attempts to roll back government. While hardly a cornerstone of the Libertarian platform, or the Senator Jacobsen's motivation, allowing bar/restaurant owners to decide if they want dogs in their establishments, and allowing patrons to decide if they want to eat and drink there is a step in the right direction. Two, if this bill passes into law, dogs will be allowed in bars and restaurants, but not smokers. I'll give you, the reader, the final comment on that as we head into break.

The Great Flag Debate Continues

Here's a quick follow-up on the Pahrump, NV ordinance banning flying foreign flags alone. Locals Bob and Liese Tamburrino flew an Italian and and a Polish flag on their garage in direct opposition to the new ordinance. First, mad props to the Tamburrino's. But I'm saving the biggest props for Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo who said that he has no plans to ever enforce the ordinance as he thinks its unconstitutional.

"The sheriff is a constitutional office," he said. "My job is to make sure when we enforce something there's a constitutionality behind it."

Then later in response to an ordinance calling for restrictions on service to illegal immigrants,

"The Nye County sheriff's office dispatch center is not going to ask someone's national status before we send a police car to their residence."

Beautiful. Sheriff of the year in my humble opinion.

While in Pahrump, NV you can't fly a foreign flag alone, CO's House (sorry for the CO focus today, hitting the Denver Post web site) is getting ready to vote to remove legal restrictions against permanent displays of other nation's flags at the State level, and pushing the issue to the local school boards. First, great job by the CO House giving up authority and letting the locals decide. Yes, this isn't the biggest issue, but here at the H-Blog we applaud any movement towards more local control (and my "we" I mean "me").

The "flag flying issue" is an example, however small, of the power of the US system. Each state is free to decide what's best for its state, resulting in many simultaneous experiments. In theory, states should pick and choose from those successful experiments, while avoiding the negative ones. The more the Feds assume nationwide laws, the fewer opportunities for experimentation.

So, lets all keep our eyes on Pahrump, NV and the newly freed (hopefully) CO school districts to see who's handling the foreign flag issue more successfully.

CO Electoral College Update

I know that H-Blog readers are riveted by CO Senate Bill 46, the Bill that would allocate CO's electoral college votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, if enough other state's join the fun passed the Senate along party-line votes. Again, I'm a fan of this bill. The article says that the ideas prospects in the CO House are uncertain, but I'm still optimistic.

I don't want to get off too far from the main idea, but I do want to take a minute to recognize that this bill passed along party lines. Interesting. I understand that this bill is controversial, but I don't see it as a party issue. Yes, the Electoral College/Popular vote quirk helped W, but who's to say next time it doesn't help the Dems? Maybe I'm wrong, but with something this nuanced, straight party votes tell me that at least some Senators on both sides of the aisle are making an emotional vote, not one based on their own reasoning. I'm also having a hard time coming up with any big interests who would pour money/influence into this issue. It seems nearly purely philosophical, which makes the party line thing even more...peculiar.

Nuclear Boondoggle Upon Us Again

Looks like Nuclear Power is back. My feelings on this are well known (my comment from last year, plus another) , but it still bugs me to no end that we can't get past nuclear power. But I do hope we get past this new "wave."

Look, I'm a clean air guy (a nation of little obese kids who can't exercise because they have asthma is not my happy vision of the future) and my bet is that human related emissions are adding to the warming trend, but even given both of those, I still think that nuclear is a bad, bad investment by the American people (and make no mistake, we will bear most of the cost, while giving away most of the revenue). My past comments,

The "nuclear boondoggle" is the fallacy of the cost of Nuclear energy. It's commonly touted at about $.06/kilowatt. However, that cost does not include the following: First, there’s insurance. Here the free market has made coverage too expensive for any plant to cover. Insurers just wouldn’t touch it without a very, very high premium. Damages from an accident range from hundreds of billions to trillions depending upon location of plant and scope of damage. Thus, the feds decided that the national taxpayers would cover any and all liabilities. Then, waste. Again, too expensive for the plant operators, so the feds again decided the national taxpayers should build, store, transport, and maintain waste facilities, and again cover any liabilities. Finally, there’s financing. Here the feds decided that the national taxpayers should guarantee the loans for building plants. Add those real costs back into the equation and “cheap” nuclear is easily the most expensive power on the planet. It would be cheaper to hire Lance Armstrong to pedal a generator at my house than to buy nuclear. Especially if the feds cover the three biggest expenses.

As much as I want clean air, I just don't think nuclear is worth the cost and risk. Period. No matter how you look at it, its just too expensive to survive without massive help from the taxpayers, and that will never change. This isn't an emerging technology where the taxpayers could be sold on future reduction in real costs, nuclear is actually the opposite. Take solar. The more solar panels are sold, the cheaper they get, basic business principle, right? The more that's produced the cheaper the cost. But with Nuclear, the more that's produced (waste, building, etc), the more expensive it gets (insurance, waste, transportation, building, land, potential for disaster; either accidental or terrorist related, etc). Nothing gets cheaper, everything related to nuclear power just makes it more expensive as time goes by. Why are we hitching our wagon to that star? What genius thinks this is a good "investment?"

Plus, what genius thinks its a good idea to build nuclear targets and scatter them around the nation during our "long war" with terrorism? Seriously? They don't make sense during times of peace, but war? Especially when our opponent's only hope is use our stuff against ourselves? Someone thinks it makes sense to create nuclear "stuff?" Wow.

Nuclear is just a really bad investment, even when the "clean air" component is figured in, but especially while we're at war. Spend the billions (and potentially trillions) on something else. Please.

SCOTUS protects the 6th Amendment

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 ruling declared that judges cannot sentence people using information not found and voted on by a jury. Just for kicks, here's the 6th:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I'm a big fan of the ruling (while admitting that the case that brought this up should merit life in prison). If you go to jail for something, every part of it should be before the jury, no "bonus time" allotments without the right to defend that in front of a jury.

So, which of the anti-constitution fun bunch broke ranks to help the 6th? Ahhhh, it was a trick question. Actually, it was most of the anti-constitution fun bunch along with Ginsberg and Souter who voted to strengthen the 6th. I mean, what the hell? Ginsberg, Souter, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas all broke for the 6th, while Alito, Kennedy, and Breyer went against. Man I hate it when a well crafted stereotype falls apart. It just kills my rants.

I mention this because A, anytime one of the Amendments is upheld and actually strengthened I think it's cause for celebration, and B, most of the hand wringing (and I do a lot of it) that comes with the SCOTUS and the "voting blocks" is overblown. Yes, people of certain dispositions often vote alike, but every year has its share of cases where the blocks break down.

PS: Here's the actual opinion if you're really bored.

The College Tuition Increase Act of 2007

I can't believe I missed the chance to name this thing in my post in the interest rate cut. Sloppy, just plain sloppy. I also liked, "The College Windfall Act of 2007." Feel free to use either/both.

Muscles, I know you responded in the comments section, but as I've been poking around I've found some interesting stats, and I'm not savvy enough to figure out a good way to create links in the "comments" section, so we're back to the front page.

First, to Muscles' point about a "Three Tier System" either official as in CA, or implied as in the rest of the country. And for Stalin, here's an official H-Blog BIAS ALERT, not only did I go to a Junior College, but I received a full on AA. That's right folks, my business card reads Unknown Blogger, AA, BS, MBA. So naturally I bristle at this notion that JuCo's are inferior. Perhaps because of this, I also feel a strong affinity for Trade School Grads. Both are often derided among polite company for not being "real college." But here's the thing, and we'll dig deeper into this later, but 4-year schools are not for everyone, at every time. I'll wager that there are quite a few people with college degree's earning much less than those with trade skills, electrical, plumbing, and of course, IT. Also, and here's another confession, it took me 3 years to earn said AA, and two to earn the BS, for a total of 5 (see, at least I learned to count in 13th grade). While I'm not the only person to take 5 years to get a BS, my extra year came at a much, much cheaper price than had it come during my time at an out of state private college. In any case, the JC was a great option for me, and having that in my background hasn't been any sort of anchor.

Now to the fun stuff. College grads do earn more over their lives than non-college grads (about a million - not chump change), but here's the thing, the article- here's the original data - compares bachelors to high-school diploma. This is key. No mention of trade schools (AA gets the nod, and earns about $14k/yr less than BA). But, there's also no mention of the debt load that goes with with the degree. As far as the $1,000,000 folks care, its all about the upside. You have to back out the expense of getting the degree to show the actual benefit. It's like raving that you're company earned $1 million, without mentioning that you're company spent $2 million to get it. You have to subtract expenses from revenue to get earnings. The media is just talking about revenue. It's not the complete, or fair, story. To be clear, I believe that the BA will out earn an AA, even when you back out expense, and probably even the Trade Schools, but it won't be nearly as dramatic as $1,000,000!

My bet is the real losers in the college grad game are those who go, but don't get the degree. They earn $18k/yr less than the BA's, but have taken on varying amounts of debt for the right to earn less than an AA, and probably trades. And this is where the debate gets interesting. How many of these folks would wind up in 4 year college if the loans weren't subsidized so heavily. Anyone can get into college (This is an absolute fact in FL, and here's why. Community Colleges accept everyone, period. FL has an arrangement where if you earn your AA, then you automatically gain acceptance to one of the State U's), but not everyone can afford the real cost of college. Most colleges will give direct scholarships to students they covet, dramatically dropping the cost of that students tuition, but will take other students at no real cost to the school. In a sense, those on the bubble fund those who the school wants. All this talk about how college is everything brings in people for whom college isn't the right fit. Pelosi is creating demand with her speeches, demand that only bumps up price. Pelosi would be doing a much better service if she played up the virtues of JC and Trade schools. If her speeches were geared to removing the stigma of JC and Trade schools, or better said, removed the shine of college degrees, she could actually impact the cost of said degree by decreasing demand.

Additional reading recommendation: Jacob Sullum over at Reason Magazine's blog has as good a summary as I've seen.

My wrap-up? Everyone floats the $1,000,000 number. However, no one backs out the cost to gain that income. Assuming most people who float this number have a college degree, they should know better. Second, the comparison is always between a High School Diploma and a Bachelors Degree. This comparison leaves out a whole swath of educational/vocational options. I want to see the data on real cost, and the delta from AA, to Trades to BA. I would also love to see the decrease in net (college payment/debt adjusted) lifetime income for some college vs HS, AA, and Trade schools. My personal bet is that a college degree loses some of its luster, and the incomplete college degree is downright ugly.

Actually, here a bonus issue. Congress just voted to decrease the interest rate. This action tells us a lot about student loan interest rates. If they're so artificial that congress can just randomly adjust them, then they are clearly not bound by any market sentiment. Among loans, at least as far as I know, this is unique.

Earmark's marked.

The Senate voted to curb earmarks, special legislation slipped into spending bills, by mandating that the mark be posted to the internet 48 hours before the bill goes to vote, and 48 hours after the mark is introduces. As part of the post the Senator must include the names of all sponsors and they cannot use earmarks to induce other Senators to vote their way on a bill (I have no idea how they plan to monitor/enforce that last part - I'm sure the all powerful Senate Ethics Committee will have something to do with it, meaning you will never, ever read about a violation of this rule leading to any kind of punishment).

Definitely a "around the edges" move on earmarks. But, also definitely better than before. I particularly like the internet angle. First, sometimes the best reform is sunshine. While not a direct slam to earmarks, making them less secret should slow them down. 96 hours is a long time in this day and age. Lots of time for news/blogs to discover, discuss, and put pressure on those earmarks and who/why they were placed into a spending bill. Second, I believe that the internet is a great tool for a democracy and that the government should by using this tool more aggressively. The people's protection against the government (physical, economic, legal, etc) is oversight. The internet is a fantastic tool for the people to oversee the legislators they entrust with the power to run the nation.

So my hope is that this turns out to be a bit of a Trojan Horse.

The Student Loan fiasco.

Congress voted en mass to decrease the interest rates on student loans. Says SOH Pelosi,

"Our young people should be driven by their dreams, not weighed down by debt."

Great quote! Really. Inspiring, lofty, succinct. Oops, she carried on juuust a bit too far.

"At a time when college tuition continues to skyrocket, this crucial legislation will help remove some of the barriers to a higher education."

And that's the rub. What I still don't get is how throwing more money at the system, which is what lower interest rates do, ground the rocket? Decreasing loan rates will only lead to increased tuition. It's just moving numbers around. Less capital at a higher interest rate, or more capital at a lower interest rate. It's a wash.

The college system is flushed with cash. At the end of fiscal year 200f Harvard had an endowment of $26 billion. With tuition at $38k in 2003, and current undergrad enrollment of 6,700, that's $255,000 in undergrad expenses. If the Endowment makes 10% a year, that's $2.6 billion, more than enough to cover free tuition for all, for example (and Harvard does give free tuition to anyone accpeted from a family with combined income of less that $60k). None of this is to call out Harvard, good for them. Rather to illustrate that the "problem" isn't price. So a priced base solution (especially from the demand side) is going to fail. Period.

I assume the problem is tuition increase. At least I get that from bill sponsor, Rep. George Miller's (D-CA) spokesman,

"There has been a 41% increase in the cost of college after inflation in 2001, and we now have students graduating with record levels of debt."

Before I get too far, I have to make this point again, they still will (see above for the capital/interest example). Anyway, what it looks like to me is that college's can charge whatever they want. They keep raising prices and people keep paying them. When was the last time you heard of a college going bust? Something outside the market is propping them up. Endowments certainly. Maybe I'm not sentimental enough, but I paid my money, I received my education and diploma, I'm done. I don't send more money to Toyota every year just because I bought one of their cars. Federal and State Tax money also play their part. When money just flows in from the fire hose, colleges don't have to be at all careful about spending. And College's use the treat of having to raise tuition to scare people into giving them more money when they do make an economic mistake. The whole system is rigged against the student, including well meaning Democrats and loads of Republican's who stand on the corner and get them to take more money to pay higher tuitions.

If Congress wanted to really help students they should do more to promote Junior (Community) College and Vocational Schools. Create some competition for those student dollars. Also, as counterintuitive as it sounds, drop the subsidies. Getting rid of all the props that only help colleges (and this interest decrease does just that - wait for the "you'll pay less interest so you can borrow more language) will force them to act in a way's that bring them into line with free-market theory.

Again, throwing more money into the system is not the answer. When you get your money through a fire hose, you don't need more liquidity. Sometimes economics is simple. If you want more money in the system you lower interest rates. Does anyone in congress think that the students will capture any of this new money? Maybe the banks will if they can get tricky with the financing. All we know for sure is that colleges will capture the bulk of the new money. The same colleges that are floating along on massive endowments while raising tuition every year. I'm assuming that specifically wasn't the plan.

Nice job.

XM X-ed out?

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts ruled that the music industry lawsuit against XM + mp3 can proceed. The gist? The industry says XM is infringing on their rights by allowing users to record broadcast music on their mp3, XM says their protected by existing law saying people can record music onto tape players for personal use. Are too, am not, etc.

First off, I have to admit I don't know much about the technology, don't own a satellite receiver and don't listen to much radio (aren't I fun?). Given that, here's my take.

As you know, I do think that technology changes things. So I get that a cassette recording is different than mp3, with the mp3 having the potential to be mass distributed in a way cassette's never could. So crux one for me is the exportability of the mp3's derived from the satellite's feed. If there is none, then I think this is a dead issue, if it's there (and not, "You have to be a super geek to make it work") then I think the industry has a point. Unless, obviously you can record mp3's from regular broadcasts, then it loses that point. I'm a fickle pointer.

However, I think the music industry is making a huge mistake with this. I don't know the history of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (the act that allows you to record from broadcast) but I assume that the music industry was going through one of it's periodic troughs and freaked out that people were recording songs from the radio, killing sales (funny how it's never simply that the industry is putting out bad music, or is in transition from one fad to the next). Anyway, lots of hullabaloo from all sides and presto the AHR comes about. My point is this, cassette recording for private use didn't destroy the industry. I think it's unlikely that mp3's will either.

However, mp3's may save it. Personally, and I get that I'm probably not mainstream, most of my listening at home and car comes from my iPod. I'll occasionally listen to the radio but mostly I don't like their mixes and few things bug me more than radio banter. A close second is when I finally do hear a new song that I like and, despite all the banal banter, no one tells me who it was. So off I go, definitely not buying a new song for my iPod. However, let me record it on the spot, and I can take the time to figure out who it is, or better yet my understanding is that XM tells you right on the screen who it is. Now I can go by a song or album. Isn't that good for the music industry? Furthermore, with XM I can listen to music broken down by my favorite genre (Come onnnn Hair Metal - make that comeback!). Thus I'm more likely to hear a new song I like and go buy that one. Again, isn't that good for industry? Rather than look at this as a threat, see it for what it is, the future. And not necessarily a bad future, if the industry embraces it, XM can actually help boost sales, even XM + mp3.

But I don't expect that. The music industry is famously backward looking. It's also fearful. Despite all the panic about mp3's and digital downloading, I own exactly zero pirated songs. Granted I know some folks that were big into back in the day, but now even the biggest of them doesn't do it. iTunes is a buck, and it's great quality, why bother? Plus people are basically law abiders. But even if someone has a handful of "Pirated" songs, odds are they've bought a whole bunch legally. I know I've bought more music over the last three years than I did in the three years previous to the purchase of my first iPod. The music industry needs to quit fighting customer service and add-on features and embrace them. Expand the market by offering more, don't shrink it by offering less.

CO prepared to side-step Electoral College

CO's Senate is preparing to vote on a bill that would enter the state into an agreement with other states to give all of their respective Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote (Yayyy!) while CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just vetoed a similar bill (Awwww.).

The idea is backed by a group cryptically called "National Popular Vote" and they claim that they have bills sponsored in 29 states (As a quick side note, they discuss CA right up to the point where Arnie vetoes it, and they still list CA as one of the states. Maybe technically true, but I wasn't able to find anything about the the bill's sponsors looking to override the veto.)

Anyhoo, I'm for the bill. I'm not a fan of the Electoral College, I think we have more than enough technology to allow for direct voting. I also don't but the argument that the EC makes small states relevant (no democrat campaigns in Wyoming and no Republican campaigns in Rhode Island, in fact nobody campaigns in either - Cheney doesn't count.), while the fact is that the current system makes all but a few key states irrelevant, and renders democrats in Texas and Republicans in NY completely irrelevant.

Since I doubt that I'll ever see a formal scrapping of the EC, I support this as the next best option. Hopefully if this passes with enough numbers, we'll go ahead and get rid of the thing altogether.

All Day Happy Hour?

Don't know why I'm on this alcohol bender, but here's one more.

SC's State House is getting ready to vote on a bill allowing all day drink specials (but still not less than half-price), as opposed to just one hour.

Beyond a rant long time readers (Hi Ma!) can now probably write for me, I'm stuck trying to figure out why the first law exists in the first place (and why the "not less than half-price" condition). My first thought was that it was some kind of prohibition left-over, but the fine, "at least three months in jail and a fine of $100" seems more modern. Anyway, the only thing I found particularly interesting about this is that I didn't know that the concept of "Happy Hour" was bracketed by law.

Landline surcharge landmine

Interesting AP story 'bout cell phone subscribers paying a subsidy for rural land telephony users.

You can predict my rant, but I wanted to also use this as a case to point out how technology is changing existing labels. The only thing that cell phone and land line users share is the idea that you are talking to someone at a distance. The technologies are completely different, as are uses, abilities (a cell phone has mp3 players, camera, recorders, games, calendars, sms, email, etc - a land phone has...numbers) and even users. Yet in the minds of companies, regulators, and customers they are just versions of each other. It's like comparing a bicycle to a jumbo jet. Both enable you to travel more efficiently and faster than walking, but nothing about how they work, users, ease, etc are the same. We need to realize that cell phones and land line phones are fundamentally different, just as telephony and Internet use are different. Technology allows things that are very different to have similar uses. We need to embrace, not constrain this idea.

As for the subsidy, AT&T Spokesman Gordon Diamond says,

“We believe the core principle is that everyone, including cell phone callers, benefits from being able to call people in the high-cost areas. If wireless customers didn’t contribute, the surcharge on wireline customers would have to be higher.”

Two, things. One if AT&T believes this as a "core principle" then AT&T should either provide that service, or set up its own fund. As to the second sentence, my only thought is "And..." What's the problem with wireline customers being charged more? If it cost's x to use that service then it cost's x. How is forcing cell phone users to pay more to help wireline users more fair than asking wireline users to pay for the cost of their service? Take it down to the stereotypes. If you're poor and live in the city, why should you be forced to pay more for something that should not only be cheaper, but cheaper and better to subsidize some who is poor and living in the country? At that point, aren't you just saying that one group of poor people are more deserving than another. My personal bet is that there are far more people on the lower end of the economic spectrum living in areas with cell coverage than areas without. Said another way, and much more confusing, but what the hay: Getting rid of the subsidy helps far more poor people than keeping the subsidy helps. Plus it has the benefit of making the system more efficient, removes what is undoubtedly a kitty for the providers, and eliminates a whole oversight issue.

The thing is, wireline phone service is a dying technology. Wireless is taking over, its cheaper and offers more services. You shouldn't fight the inevitable, especially when fighting it is expensive and damaging.

Vick-tim?

Atlanta Falcon's QB Michael Vick was relieved of his water bottle at Miami International Airport Wednesday. Was it because of the silly new rule banning liquids? Nope. It was because it had a "secret compartment" that had "a small amount of dark particulate and a pungent aroma closely associated with marijuana."

Looks like Vick's decision making off the field is as questionable as it is on.

One, Vick's got loads of cash. It's not like the Mary J is only sold in Miami. Just wait 'till you get wherever you're going and buy some there. Better still, Vick's a multi-millionaire with loads of people on his payroll, have someone from the entourage do it so you're not even close to the action (Limbaugh, as much as I like to nail him, had that figured out). But to be his own Wacky Weed mule? That's just not thinking. Why take the personal risk of getting caught with a dime bag at an airport. Everyone knows they screen, they screen for drugs, knives, guns, bombs and...

LIQUIDS! According to the SI story, "The compartment was hidden by the bottle's label so that it appeared to be a full bottle of water when held upright." So Vick's genius plot to smuggle his oregano was to hide it in a water bottle that was rigged to look "full." Did he miss the 27 signs saying that you can't bring liquids onto a plane anymore? That bottle was guaranteed to be searched, emptied and/or confiscated. His "plan" had zero chance of success. Why not just smuggle the stuff in a device rigged to look like a loaded gun?

If I'm Falcon's ownership I immediately trade Vick. Not because of the Marijuana, but because he's clearly a moron.

Wal-Mart savings account? Don't bank on it.

Colorado's intrepid elected officials are all geared up to protect its citizens, oops my bad, banks from the scourge of banking competition. The way I understand it, citizens elect politicians, and said citizens would clearly benefit from having Wal-Mart bring it's low cost model to the extremely profitable banking industry. However, Sen. Lois Tochtrop (D-Thornton) and Rep. Rosemary Marshall (D-Denver) both feel that they must protect those high margin banks and keep the scourge competition from helping the people of CO.

Here's what's interesting. Wal-Mart made it's name by servicing rural areas that lacked real competition. Most big-box retailers set their criteria for store openings, generally based on income level in a given area, at a level much higher than Wal-Mart. Back in the day, this formula gave Wal-Mart a huge hole in the geography to exploit, and they did. And while there is much caterwauling about the loss of small stores, they generally went out of business because Wal-Mart sold the same goods cheaper. Lack of competition allowed small stores to charge more for goods to the detriment of the customers pocket-books. Given that these were mostly rural folk who generally make less than big city slickers, a small savings from Wal-Mart meant a lot to the family's savings, so they shopped there.

So on to banking, where, "The community banks can not compete against Wal-Mart," said the wholly unbiased Barbara Walker, executive officer of the Independent Bankers of Colorado. But they can compete against large multi-national banks? Here's a secret, community banks exist to be sold to large multi-national banks. That's the game. It's like a feeder system. Set up a community bank, get customers, sell to larger bank, repeat. No real incentive for large MNC's to force prices down as they know that when they buy said community bank, and they will, they can charge the inflated price. Everyone wins (well, except for the customer). Wal-Mart blows the system. Wal-Mart doesn't buy the competition, they destroy them. And they do it by offering cheaper goods. Now everyone loses (well, except for the customers and Wal-Mart).

Even if you assume that MNC banks do actually push prices down in densely populated areas, you have to accept that there is little competition in rural areas (fewer customers, less expensive land, less expensive goods period, and fewer loan dollars). Again, this creates a large hole in the geography for Wal-Mart to exploit (to the benefit of the customers and the detriment of the community banks charging high prices). Personally, I think banking is an area where customer service counts, as does "trusting" who you're banking with. Trust and service aren't Wal-Mart's strong points. By the same token, anyone who's had a bank account over the last 15 years knows that banks are bought and sold constantly, and you never see the same people working in your branch for very long. They view us as a commodity, maybe it's time we did the same.

Quick aside. I was bidding out a business loan a few years back and it came down between a community bank and an MNC. The MNC had better terms, and I went with it. My contact at the community bank actually got upset and told me that I'd regret going with the MNC because, "You won't be working with the same person in a year, and I'll always be your contact. That matters." He was right about me losing my contact at the MNC (took longer than a year-but whatever). However, the transition to the new person was seamless and we never had a problem with them. My contact at the community bank? That bank was sold to an MNC, and he changed position in two years. My point? I don't know, probably something about the fact that community banks are largely myths and need about as much protection as the Loch Ness Monster.

Bottom line, there's no such thing as a "mom and pop" bank. Allowing Wal-Mart banking benefits CO citizens. Protecting inefficient banks hurts citizens. How does this fact escape a committee that passes the measure 6-1? Kudos to Sen. Jack Taylor R-Steamboat Springs for voting against and avoiding the knee jerk.

UBlo: Mad as Hell and He Won't Take it Anymore

Our Beloved Blogger took to the streets with his pals to rally for terrorist rights. My favorite part was the impromptu poetry reading that broke out from the fired up mob. Nothing says, "Take my movement seriously" like a good poetry reading!

Confarned Confederate Flag!

Joe Biden (D-DE), looking to gain some points with the Dem base saying about the Confederate Flag flying on South Carolina's State House grounds,

"If I were a state legislator, I'd vote for it to move off the grounds -- out of the state."

I've never really been too worked up about the "Confederate Flag" debate. My personal feeling is that if the people of SC are offended, they should speak up. Most of the talking seems to come from out of staters, and I do understand why. Lot's of people associate that flag with hatred (including lots of those who support keeping it). However, and just to clarify, the flag that everyone's talking about is not the "Confederate" flag. What most people incorrectly call The "Stars and Bars" (made famous by the Dukes of Hazzard, and is the picture on the right) is actually the battle flag of the Confederacy and was nicknamed the "Stainless Banner." Back in the day "Stars and Bars" referred to the actual "National Flag" of the CSA and is the flag on the left.

Here's my issue. The battle flag of the Confederacy is an open sign of rebellion, of violence against the state. Its also a symbol of division and a flag under which many people killed and died in an effort to forcibly divide the Union. Being a proud southern man, I understand and fully buy into the notion of "southern pride" and do think the South is different, in a good way. But, I do think its odd to fly the battle flag on the state grounds. I believe that history is key, and that many good people fought in the War of Northern Aggression and to deny the honor of those individuals is a disservice to them, their families, and the collective history of the nation.

But...that very flag has become a symbol to those who share nothing with Southern soldiers. The KKK, White Supremacists and other bigots have absolutely nothing in common with the great General Lee, Stonewall Jackson, or Ranger Mosby (a personal fav). Sometimes symbols are corrupted, words can change meaning (think "gay"), and perception becomes reality.

Thus I suggest that SC fly the actual national flag of the Confederacy at the memorial. It honors the soldiers, keeps history alive, educates folks, yet doesn't suggest that violent hostility towards the Nation is good, and it doesn't give the KKK and WS' anything to brag about.

Finally, and I know this is a long post so I'll keep it short, SC has a great Revolutionary history, and this is reflected in SC's actual state flag. Too bad this flap about the "Confederate Flag" makes it seem like SC's claim to fame is the Civil War.

Car Jacked

It goes without saying that Martin Luther King Jr's legacy is a victory for all people. He fought against an evil that made it legal to arbitrarily deny one group of Americans the rights offered by a free society. He is worthy of the praise of all Americans. It's a shame his universal message is reduced to provincialism by little people every year on his birthday.

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin whines that because so many blacks and Latinos can't find jobs after high school (during a time of near full employment and when America is importing workers by the millions) this shows that Dr. King's work is not done. What nonsense. It is sad that this woman probably has no idea that she is belittling such a proud legacy by attaching it to such wrong-headed gripes. The civil rights movement was not a communist revolution. It's objectives were not to make all people equal economically or intellectually or spiritually or athletically. It's objective was to make all people equal in regards to the opportunities available to them in this great country. It succeeded brilliantly. And because of that we should all rejoice in a job well done and ignore the little people who will try to drag the leader of this great movement down to the level of their petty politics.

MADD not mad at influential State Rep

MADD decided to enter the picture to defend Ocean City PD officer Douglas A. Smith's (AKA OCPD's toughest DUI enforcement officer) decision that Delaware State Rep John C. Atkins was drunk enough that a friend had to come get him from his pulled over vehicle, but not drunk enough to merit a charge. Lest you doubt Officer Smith's judgment, a breathalyser tested the Honorable Atkins at .14 (well over the state limit of .08).

Fun quote.

"(Smith) followed the same procedures and protocol for this arrest as he would for any other," she said. "He did smell alcohol on his breath, but there was no hesitation or fumbling, no confusion as to what was being asked, no slurring, no delay. None of the clues were really there."

And,

"He administered the (test) after he had decided not to make an arrest and he made the right call by not letting him continue driving," Elzey said. "He probably saved lives by not letting him drive home."

Yet...

"He's had a couple hundred DUI arrests in a few years,"

Now frequent readers of the H-Blog (Hi Ma!), know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer (wait, Ma look away!), but I'm a bit confused. Alcohol is so damaging that a level of .08 is illegal, yet you can have a BAC of .14 and not be exhibiting any signs of impairment? Which begs the question, if "none of the clues were really there" why did Officer Smith pull Atkins over in the first place?

Also, Officer Smith "probably saved lives by not letting him drive home" but made the right call by not making an arrest? Did Rep Atkins teleport to the place where Officer Smith pulled him over? What about all the risk the other drivers were taking before Officer Smith found him? It's not like Officer Smith intercepted the good Rep before he started his car (but sitting behind a parked care with a BAC above the legal limit does qualify you for an arrest). In that vein, how can MADD, with a straight face, say that Officer Smith treated Rep Atkins the same as all the other people he pulled over? The guy's "toughest" DUI officer in the state with "a couple hundred arrests in a few years." You don't get those kinds of numbers if you sitting around waiting for friends to come get a drunk driver you just pulled over (I accept that I may be wrong here, maybe Officer Smith pulled over four hundred drunks and only arrested 200 hundred, but I'm skeptical).

So what gives?

Balco's take: Reb Atkins sits on Delaware legislature's public safety committee and has apparently had some positive votes on MADD-favored DWI issues (nows a good time to thank Mr Balco for bringing this to my attention). This is also supported by Rep Atkins' actions after being pulled over. Again, according to Balco (I found back up here), "Immediately after getting pulled over, he flashed his Delaware Legislature ID, after which the officer assured him that he wouldn't be arrested."

Maybe MADD's not playing favorites, but here's the thing, MADD's savvy enough to know that the best move is to stay out of this. A simple "This is a police matter" would have been the better response. Getting directly involved only muddies the picture and makes them look bad. I don't imagine that many readers are sitting back and thinking, "Good for MADD, supporting the release of a State Rep, while simultaneously supporting more road blocks (plus, I assume hiring more police officers to sit with caught drunk drivers while their friends come and pick them up), putting alcohol detection devices in every vehicle (I guess we're all guilty now), zero tolerance (or I guess, zero plus one)." - all spot taken from the MADd website.

Look I want to be clear. I get MADD. I'm also a fan of DUI laws. My particular brand of libertarianism is basically, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't threaten me. Not much more threatening than a 5000lb vehicle under the control of a drunk. But I also think they push it. Getting arrested for being drunk behind the wheel of a parked car? Nope. Roadblocks? Nope. Breathalysers in all cars? No way, no how. But I've always given them a pass because so many of their volunteers have been directly affected by drunk driving. But this little incident, and getting directly involved to give cover to both the Officer and the Rep, well that just blows the "monomaniacs with a dream" exemption.

I'm also a fan of officers working with citizens to find an acceptable solution (anything that gets around the fact that citizens are a source of income for police departments is for the better - I'll save that for another post). But this just doesn't seem to be the case. Officer Smith, at least according to MADD, is fairly hardcore about this.

So now the way I see it, Mothers are Against Drunk Driving, unless you're in a position to vote for things said mommies like.

"Big insurance has a new day coming"

From the Palm Beach Post's S.V. Date:

For a decade and a half, [Florida] has offered massive subsidies and other carrots with the hope of enticing the private insurance industry to continue writing hurricane coverage.

This week, [Gov. Charlie] Crist is ready to use a big stick instead to force the industry to lower its rates, and, if it doesn't, to have the state-run insurer prepared to step in as a backstop.

"They can be the most competitive, even, if that works for the advantage of our people," Crist said. "Let's understand: We're already in this business. We're here. So let's acknowledge what the current reality is and work as best we can within it to help the people."

The state-run insurer, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, is Florida's largest property insurer, with State Farm for the moment a close second. Whether that will remain so following this week's special session of the state legislature, or whether a state is on its way to becoming its citizens' only property insurance choice, is the question.

The legislature will meet to consider requiring both rate cuts of at least 25 percent (mine from State Farm more than doubled last year) and policy offerings that must include property insurance in order to sell automobile insurance in Florida. Reinsurance, which private insurers received from the state's Hurricane Catastrophe Fund at a more-than $2 billion discount from what they would have charged consumers, would remain available via the state in greater amounts and below market level.

Pizza, Pesos, Prediction

Say that three times fast!

OK, not that hard, but thanks for trying.

Anyway, I'm looking into my crystal ball and I see legislation preventing businesses from taking foreign currency. The future is cloudy so I can't tell if this will be local or state. However, I'm not seeing federal (federale?), but I'm getting a very strong Texas vibe, but I could be misreading the last two letters. Could it be that its not TexAS, but something, something, something AZ?

We Can Do Even Better

Congress has finally decided that crooks should not be supported for life by tax payers. Fine. Better late than never. But I say we can do better, I say congressman should not be supported AT ALL by tax payers. There should be no salary for federal lawmakers (I'm not sure about state and local yet, but I think I'd be agin' paying them too). This would immediately eliminate the ugly spectacle of one group voting to make a weaker group give them more of their money. It also might (I grant, only MIGHT) discourage financial opportunists from seeking these positions for immediate monetary gain. Hey, these people are called public servants and act like martyrs for taking these jobs in the first place. If they are sincere about that, they won't mind these new changes.

So won't only the wealthy then be able to hold office? No. Here's how these people will get paid. They'll raise the money. Just like they do for their campaigns. You build into the campaign finance laws a salary fund. Some percentage of the total hand out take goes into the candidates pay. Granted, this too will be abused (see "only MIGHT' discourage financial opportunists) but at least then the people being shafted will be those who volunteered for it.

Paying pols strikes me as silly. The majority of the job seekers are in it for power and the big payoff of lobbying or sitting on corporate boards that comes after you've "served" your fellow citizens. We'll still have a flood of candidates and we won't be growing the welfare rolls.

Pizza for Pesos

The Pizza Patron chain is running a promotion where pesos will now be accepted as currency in its restaurants. Interesting move. Tap into unspent assets, create a differentiating factor to your business (if Pizza Hut won't accept pesos, and Pizza Patron will, and you have pesos to spend, off you go to Pizza Patron), and build loyalty in the fastest growing segment of the US population (besides, of course, Hydrablog readers). Nothing illegal about it, and they bump profits by upping the exchange rate by 9% (from 11/dollar to 12/dollar) in effect increasing the price of the pizza by about 9% (some decrease due to exchange fees). The great thing is they get to charge more without actually raising the price of the pizza and suffering the negative side-effects of having a costlier product. In fact, for those affected, they elect to buy the more expensive product, while thinking better about the company.

Of course the negative side-effect are those who think you are doing wrong and who will no longer eat at your restaurant. And they are there, read the article.

Overall, a great experiment and I applaud the management for creating and implementing it. My personal bet is that it's a long term winner. The furor will pass, but the benefit will stay. What may actually help the furor pass is if other chains realize that you can charge more and create good will and jump on the bandwagon.

Your Jiffy Lube Keys to the Game

Success in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi government. The announcement today by al-Maliki that militiamen must lay down arms or face destruction is the first hopeful moment this conflict has seen since the Iraqi elections. The success in Iraq, if possible, will come only after the national government shows itself to be the strongest force in the country. Bush seems to understand this and it is clear that al-Maliki announced this policy change today because he was advised to do so by the US. Success in Iraq is exactly as important as Bush stated. I hope, as does he, that the critics offer viable solutions along with their concerns. The anti-war movement has no solutions as it is an emotional and not a logical expression of dissent. But thoughtful critics do exist and hopefully they will seize this moment to add to our nation's chances of success.

My main concern with the new policy comes from the fact that Syria and Iran were explicitly described as assisting our enemies and yet there is no remedy for that problem other then disrupting the supply lines. Both nations are at war with us. Just as both nations are at war with Israel. And yet neither the US nor Israel is doing anything other than whining about this. I'm not implying here that these facts demand invasion. However, they do require much stronger responses than have been made to date. My fear is that Israel's defeat last summer has made a solution from a position of strength impossible in the minds of the US and Israel. This will simply delay conflict and give the enemy more time to prepare for that moment. Optimism can only be found in the hope that Israel learned from the summer and will be able to apply those lessons effectively when the next battle comes. And it will come.

Superhero?

Silver Surfer...comin' atcha!

SILVER SURFER -

Color coordinated, technologically savvy, loved by the ladies.

CO Courts say 1st Amendment need not apply

The Colorado Supreme Court, while overturning a 45 day jail sentence for contempt of court for wearing a T-Shirt with a picture of Stanley "Tookie" Williams (more on that later), says,

"...wearing a shirt bearing a political message in a courtroom is not protected under the First Amendment."

Meaning, the CO Ct believes that your First Amendment rights are valid everywhere but the very place set up to protect that right. Meaning, you can't make a political statement in court. This seems a bit off to me. When did the court become Cuba? I understand that Judges are, in effect, mini-dictators (patience, patience), but now they feel the need to quash political speech? Wow.

Now, on to the 45 days for contempt by said dictator. I've never fully understood how a judge can just accuse you of something and jail you without:

1. Arrest
   
2. Representation
3. Burden of guilt
   
4. Right to face accuser
5. Trial by jury

Judge says you did bad, go directly to jail, do not pass go. Yes, there is an appeal, but it comes not after a trial, but in effect is your trial, and you're not released on bond until said bizzaro trial. Get it? You're presumed guilty. Contempt skips kind of a key part of our legal process, in the very place set up to protect our legal process.

I find that...contemptible.

The first "Hitler" reference of the year belongs to...

Paul Craig Roberts. Hooooray! Juuuuust sneaking in under the 10 day mark. I'm sure he had to dig deep to pull this off, so congratulations Mr Roberts. For history buffs, Mr Roberts was, among other things, assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, associate editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and contributing editor of National Review.

Details if anyone cares are here, but basically, Bush is insane like Hitler in the end and wants to nuke the middle east.

A personal "Atta boy" from me for looking like a loon on a Libertarian web site. Like we don't have enough problems getting taken seriously.

Sports does imitate life

The Gators trounce The Ohio State University 41-14. Lets recap the H-Blogs projections. Me: Gators 75-3, Muscles Gators 38-23, Stalin OSU 31-17, and by the by, the line was OSU by 7.5. This plays out almost exactly like real life.

I have it right, but get too excited and overshoot the goal (Gators cover and win big), Stalin falls victim to conventional wisdom, overstates even that by claiming that OSU not only wins but covers big and is wrong on all counts (no cover, no win, not even close), Muscles quietly gets it right (Gators cover), beats the pundits (Gators win) and gets closest to reality (far and away the closest to the real score). So for all you H-Blog fans (Hi Ma!), tune in to me if you want to be passionately right (think Braveheart), tune into Muscles if you want to be right - outright (think King Robert the Bruce), and tune into Stalin if you want an exaggerated version of the conventional wisdom that is so often wrong, or more simply, if you want to be passionately wrong (think Prince Charles).

I wonder if Stalin will finally admit to being wrong on something?

Signing Statement Statement

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) sent W a letter asking him to say just what exactly he means with his last Signing Statement attached to a postal reform bill. While its clearly rhetorical (I don't imaging W sitting at his desk composing a reply) it did get me thinking. In this 100 hours of doing the people's biznezz, why not add legislation dealing with these Signing Statements? I haven't heard any real good reason for them besides just "I like W and W likes Signing Statements, so I like Signing Statements." Just about everyone else thinks they skirt the Constitution. So now that the Dems are in and we have hopes for Checks & Balances, the Dems should make a move to reestablish the power of Congress. My bet is that there's enough GOPers who are uncomfortable having congressional bill's vetoed sans veto to get it passed. W will veto, which means that Congress must come up with 2/3's, no easy task. But if they do, the White House will sue and the Supreme Court will have to decide. Hopefully with only two years left in W's term and a GOP that just got spanked SCOTUS will realize that a permanent GOP Presidency is not guaranteed and will quit promoting an all powerful Executive Branch.

Granted I'm not hopeful about overturning these Signing Statements. But at least legislation banning them will get focus on them, which will hopefully curb this "well isn't that legislation just the cutest little thing" practice.

"In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight"

That's right folks, according to this test, if I was a superhero (and who says I'm not?) I'd be the Green Lantern. Frankly I like this much more than a zodiac sign.

Actually, I was a three way tie between GL, Flash and Superman. And yes, I'm happy with all three. However, I have to rethink my childhood. I was a Marvel guy growing up, didn't much care for DC (I blame the Superfriends cartoon with the bad animation and the Wonder Twins and that little monkey thing-Gleek?) but given my top three, maybe I wasted all those hours on the wrong mags.

The full results:


You are Green Lantern: Hot-headed. You have strong
will power and a good imagination.

Green Lantern 70% The Flash 70% Superman 70% Robin 60% Iron Man 60% Spider-Man 50% Supergirl 50% Hulk 50% Batman 35% Wonder Woman 25% Catwoman 15%

Click here to take the "Which Superhero am I?" quiz...


Sadly, my childhood hero, and the one I wanted to be most of all - that would be your friendly neighborhood Spiderman - came in 6th.

You're innocent but your cash is guilty

Andrew Wolfe of the Nashua Telegraph (Looked it up, Nashua's in New Hampshire-which probably explains the tone) has an article about asset seizures and the law and K9's.

Interesting stuff. The individuals cited had seizures of $22,740, $124,700 and $30,670 respectively despite spending zero guilty verdicts, and zero actual charges. Yup, the government took a total of $178,110 and didn't file a single actual charge.

How's that you ask? Because the people looked guilty and a dog "alerted" to the cash (meaning the dog acted as if it smelled drugs on the cash). Yup, a dog acted as if your property had drug smell on it, so the government can take your property. Not, the "alert" lead to the finding of drugs, not the "alert" showed the money was made of drugs, not even the "alert" lead to a confession, just that the "alert" signaled that your property may have been near drugs.

Citing the amount of cash Gonzolez carried, his efforts to conceal it, his method of travel and the drug-dog alert, the (Nebraska) court ruled that “the evidence as a whole demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a substantial connection between the currency and a drug trafficking offense.”

"Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas" I guess. See, here because things looked bad, and the dog "alerted," the preponderance of evidence concept doesn't get you a criminal charge, it gets you "guilty" and a loss of significant assets. An alerting dog, by the way, cannot be cross examined. I did some quick research and found this about the importance of training, as well as this, plus this on false positives, there's more but you get the drift. An imperfect dog, added to imperfect appearance leads to a perfect outcome for the government.

Well, at least the NB judge used the words "preponderance of evidence" to take a man's money. The reputationaly liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was happy with "probable cause."

If this is OK with cash, is it OK for your home?

The only thing that even begins to make sense on any level is that a seizure can only occur with a guilty verdict. Period.

Finally, I would love to see some kind of data on the amount of cash and other assets seized each year in relation to guilty verdicts. My pessimistic guess is that lots of value is taken from the citizens each year, without guilt.

Steve Horner wants no friends

Apparently attempts to draw large amounts of inebriated women to one location deeply offends Mr Horner, and he's mad as hell and he's not taking it anymore. So Mr Horner filed suit to stop "ladies night" at bars in Colorado.

Why? Well legally its because he's being "discriminated" against. Funny, I didn't know that bitter, women hating divorcee was a protected minority. But the real reason? The article says that Mr Horner has "been on an anti-feminist crusade since his wife left him with two young children several years ago." Yes, clearly the feminist ideal that Gloria Steinem envisioned was, in fact, half-price drinks for ladies at bars across America, all the better if a wet t-shirt contest is thrown in. Well done Mr Horner, you've struck a direct and devastating blow against feminism! What will Ms Steinem do now that feminism has been set back so? (As a side, my bet is that Ms Steinem was no big fan of "ladies night," potentially throwing this into the upper reaches of the comedy scale.)

At the risk of putting words in Mr Horner's mouth (and also at the risk of killing the comedic genius of such mighty calls to arms as, "I will now make it a point to visit as many ladies nights as I can every week. I'll have my rights violated, then I'll sue them in county court and collect my $500 (the maximum penalty in county court for each incident of discrimination)...I feel it could net me $3,000 to $4,000 a week easy, and I'm going to do it"), I think he means that he's been on an "anti-women" crusade since his wife left him several years ago. Why anyone would want to leave such a fun loving guy is a real mystery.

Now ladies night may be a thing of the past (I think a bigger hit that the smoking ban). Soooo, to summarize, in the era before Mr Horner, ladies night meant that women got half-priced drinks, men got to hit on drunk women, and the world was a happier place once a week. Mr Horner, doing his best to bring back the He-Man Women Hater's Club, felt that this was an abomination, sued, won, and now ladies night is at risk. Wow, what a guy. He doesn't like ladies and has now ruined a good thing for all those who do. That's it, I hereby revoke his "guy" card. Revocation of said card means that guys everywhere are free to wedgie, wet willie, and titty twist (aka "Purple Nurple") Mr Horner at will, with the addition of a maximum of one swirly a week.

Lest we think he's done, Mr Horner adds, "It takes me five minutes to be discriminated against." Yes, and five seconds to sound like a complete idiot.

Secret Service does it's job

The White House and the Secret Service apparently reached an agreement last year classifying records of who visited the White House. Prior to this agreement, the Secret Service owned those records, and as such, they were open to the public. But when the Abramoff scandal hit, and it wasn't playing at all well with the public, well, the Secret Service once again protected the president and signed an agreement stating that those records are actually presidential records, and are immune from the Freedom of Information Act.

Great for the W, and his supporters, but bad for the country. These records have been used in the past to investigate Executive Branch actions. Public oversight, and their effective use in the past, act as a shield against improper actions. Because of public oversight, and their effective use in the past, this White House has decided to remove this tool.

UBlo May Be Wrong, but UBlo May Be Right

On whether "Coaches can bounce from college to pro and play the two off against each other", I remain from Missouri; on whether college players have the same rights as their coaches, this week's NCAA news shows that not only the college coaching profession, but also the universities' administrations and athletic departments, shut student-athletes out on both sides of that hyphen:

From economics professor Andrew Zimbalist, author of "The Bottom Line: Observations and Arguments on the Sports Business" [a redundancy, to be sure], in today's New York Times:

So, what’s going on? It’s the market. If universities want to get the best coaches, they have to pay the going rate.

Never mind that the presidents of large public universities generally have compensation packages of $200,000 to $700,000. Never mind that paying the football coach 5 to 15 times more than the college president (and many times more than the professors) sends a strange message to the student body about the institution’s priorities. Never mind that Article I of the N.C.A.A. Constitution affirms that academics have primacy over athletics. The market demands it.

What kind of a skewed market makes these demands? First, the players are not allowed to be compensated. Instead, the coaches walk off with the value produced by the “student-athletes.”

Although it can be argued that Mario Williams, Reggie Bush, and Vince Young walked off to the pros with at least their value in the NCAA, they of course left behind hundreds if not thousands of fellow players who won't.

Whether Gators All-SEC cornerback Ryan Smith will be among those players remains to be seen. He enters tomorrow's BCS National Championship Game as a top five pass-picker in '06, but Smith is the exception to an NCAA rule reinstated yesterday that prevents college athletes who have graduated--Smith's a former Ute with a sociology degree--from continuing their college careers immediately at another university.

Smith can go pro this coming season based on his breakout season as a Gator and the 21 hours of summer classes he passed to get off the bench at Utah and make it to Florida in time to play.

As Tampa Tribune Gators beat writer Andy Staples writes:

Sounds like a fair trade. Smith sits one season and plays two for Utah, helping the athletic department rake in far more than the scholarship money it gave Smith, and then moves to a better school with a better football program. He earned the degree faster than most of his fellow students, and he deserved a reward.

College coaches, including Florida’s Urban Meyer [at least before his former cornerback at Utah arrived in Gainesville], said the rule would usher in an era of free agency and would force coaches to begin recruiting players enrolled at other institutions. Guess what? They already do that. When a highly recruited player doesn’t get much playing time or clashes with a coach, word spreads. One way or another, coaches at other schools pass word along to that player that he would fare better at their school.

In most cases, that player isn’t in a position to graduate. I talk to these guys all the time, and many don’t belong in college in the first place. They aren’t a threat to graduate with eligibility remaining anyway.

So why not reward the players who can do the job on the field and in the classroom? According to the NCAA, only 25 players took advantage of the rule last year. Sounds like a real epidemic, doesn’t it. Sure, that number would have risen this year, but by how much? A hundred more players? Two hundred?

The presidents — including Florida’s Bernie Machen — caved on this one. To make life easier for their millionaire coaches, they chose to punish the true student-athletes.