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.

Airport security and econ 101

Airports are starting to roll out an option for travelers that would allow them to pay $100, give background and personal data to avoid the long lines at airport security. Here's the gist,

These travelers, who paid a $100 fee and underwent a background check to be part of a test program, bypassed the line and stepped into what may be a glimpse of the future — they inserted a biometric identification card into a kiosk that scanned their irises and their fingerprints to verify their identity, placed a fingertip on an explosives scanning device and stood on a scanning platform that determined whether their footwear hid a bomb.

Long time readers (Hi Ma!) know that if Benjamin "Penny saved is a penny earned" Franklin is right, then I'm a $100 richer.

But lets look at the value process. Here's what has value. Your privacy, your time, $100. Company's pay big bucks for your private info, and you can bet that your background test and biometric info are fair game for the Feds, and I'd read the fine print to be sure they can't sell it outright to other companies. So the folks who sign up for the quick line are paying $100 for info that they should be selling. The last thing to value is time, and everyone's time has a different value. So to help you decide if its worth it I did some checking for average wait time at Orlando International from the TSA site on average wait times. I picked Monday at 10 for no real reason.

Security Checkpoint Wait Times

The following wait times are historical averages for Mondays at Orlando International Airport (MCO) between 10am and 2pm. Please note that your personal experience may differ due to weather, airport flight schedules, staffing conditions, holidays or special events.

Airport websites often contain the most current information on airport layouts, airline locations, and descriptions of which terminals or concourses service which airlines. For more information on Orlando International Airport (MCO), visit http://www.orlandoairports.net/goaa/ops/airlines.htm.

Orlando International Airport (MCO)

	10am		11am		12pm		1pm		2pm
	avg.	max.	avg.	max.	avg.	max.	avg.	max.	avg.	max.
EAST Checkpoint	7 min.	18 min.	3 min.	3 min.	4 min.	10 min.	4 min.	17 min.	4 min.	6 min.
WEST Checkpoint	10 min.	20 min.	7 min.	16 min.	6 min.	15 min.	6 min.	10 min.	8 min.	11 min.

So when John Fox who travels "about three times a year" says he would sign up if Denver had the program, lets see what he's spending in hard dollars. Again, on a Monday.

Denver International Airport (DEN)

	8am		9am		10am		11am		12pm
	avg.	max.	avg.	max.	avg.	max.	avg.	max.	avg.	max.
A Bridge	2 min.	2 min.	8 min.	23 min.	11 min.	29 min.	5 min.	10 min.	2 min.	4 min.
North	5 min.	10 min.	11 min.	22 min.	11 min.	18 min.	8 min.	15 min.	3 min.	10 min.
South	8 min.	15 min.	14 min.	30 min.	14 min.	30 min.	9 min.	25 min.	5 min.	15 min.

So he's spending $100 bucks a year to save 33 minutes (on average, assuming he leaves at 10, which for whatever reason was also the longest wait. If he leaves from the A bridge at 8am, he'll spend $100 to save 6 minutes a year). Another way to look at it is that he values his time at about $200/hr (or $1000 if he leaves from A bridge at 8 am). Clearly, Mr Fox is living large. Also, this quick valuation does not value whatever wait he'd encounter if there were other buyers of this service there at the same time (which also takes them out of the "freebie" line, shrinking that wait), nor does it value the privacy he gave up. I have to wonder though, if he's in a line with an 11 minute wait, would he shell out $33 bucks to jump to the front? How about 2 mins?

Granted there's real value if somehow waiting in the security line caused you to miss your flight. Then $100 would be cheap compared to a $500 ticket. But how often is security really the reason?

So while I'll balk from a privacy standpoint, but its also nice to know that the economics back me up too.

100

For all the ham-handed hypocrisy with which Nancy Pelosi opened the 110th Congress, and for as little as I care for most of her immediate plans for the House, much of what she and Harry Reid told Bush today has long been true: "We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq."

Not since World War II has a war been fought with more support from the electorate, and never has the nation's trust in its leadership been so utterly undeserved.

I believe "recalibrate" is the word the Bush administration has used for what I charitably will refer to as their Iraq strategy; and it's a word they only used after the election, almost 3,000 Americans too late.

I give the Congressional leadership credit for raising the political stakes in earnest, and perhaps higher than some of their senior members, such as Carl Levin, are willing to play for. The "put up or shut up" moment for Democrats, however, arrives when they must choose between spending more for the war and hearing in '08 that they hate our troops.

Goin' Postal

Not one week into the new year and W's back at it. Now he wants to read your mail. To a new Postal bill, he adds one of his signature "signing statements":

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Agreed that this doesn't sound like much. But the question remains, if as Tony Snow says, "this is not new," then why add the new language?

And yes Stalin, I admit my bias here. After 6 years of relentless (I said I was biased) attacks on our privacy, I'm not real keen on biting on, "Hey, I'm just sayin'." If its not new, or irrelevant then don't add it. Like my middle school teacher used to say, "When in doubt, KISS." No, she didn't mean "Knights in Satan's Service," but she did mean "Keep It Simple Stupid." It's almost like she's reaching through time to talk directly to W (sorry, couldn't resist the jab, remember I'm biased. Once I admit that, I'm allowed to say anything I want, its the power of honesty).

100

Ethics and lobbying reform: Pelosi, a former ethics committee member, is the sponsor of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act , which ostensibly would restrict representatives and their staff members from accepting trips taken with or paid for by lobbying groups. Civil fines would range from $100,000-$500,000 per offense, and criminal penalties for those who certify restricted travel "knowingly, wilfully, and corruptly" could serve up to 10 years in prison.

"We will cut the link between lobbyists and legislation," Pelosi said at a news conference last month. "I honestly believe that you cannot advance the people's agenda unless you drain the swamp that is Washington, D.C."

GRRRR, sounds as if Congress clearly is getting tough on itself! Worth noting: Who in one year took about 70 percent of privately funded congressional trips? Staffers, not Congress, according to Robert Brodsky at The Center for Public Integrity.

And as American League of Lobbyists president Paul Miller predicts according to the report, "many of the lawmakers who will vote to prohibit lobbyists from organizing or attending congressional trips will be knocking on their doors for campaign contributions next election season."

Say! I thought McCain fixed that?

"Why don't they ask each member to sign a pledge that they won't take [campaign] money from lobbyists?" Miller asked. "The whole thing is hypocritical."

Tonight, according to the AP via Toronto's Globe and Mail, Pelosi will be honored "at a $1,000-a-head concert hosted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at the National Building Museum with performances expected from Carole King and others."

'Fin-ished

ESPN.com's Pat Forde takes college coaching to school:

PARADISE VALLEY, Ariz. -- With Nick Saban en route to a coronation in Tuscaloosa, it's officially time to change the vocabulary used to describe college coaches.

"Integrity" is out. "Character" is out. "Teacher" is out. "Leader of men" is out.

"Liar" is in.

They're not going to tell the truth to us, but we can tell the truth about them. It's this: They'll say anything to get recruits on campus, and they'll say anything to get media members off their backs when angling for a different job. And the panting attempts by school administrators, fans, other coaches and many media members to portray them as men of superior moral fiber needs to stop.

Although Saban undoubtedly believes what I do--that his employment is the business of Dolphins owner Wayne Huzienga and himself--it's clear from Saban's comments that his khakis caught fire weeks ago, and the time since then has been an amusingly and disasterously hypocritical attempt to hide the smoke.

In any event, Forde's a fine writer.

"Sophisticated Meat Machines"

From The New York Times' Dennis Overbye:

"A bevy of experiments in recent years suggest that the conscious mind is like a monkey riding a tiger of subconscious decisions and actions in progress, frantically making up stories about being in control.

As a result, physicists, neuroscientists and computer scientists have joined the heirs of Plato and Aristotle in arguing about what free will is, whether we have it, and if not, why we ever thought we did in the first place."

Equal Access

More than 2 million U.S. students pray together each September at public schools across the country during the annual See You at the Pole day, according to the National Network of Youth Ministries.

See You at the Pole began in 1990, but if I remember correctly, maybe a dozen students met semi-regularly to pray at my Tampa-area high school's flagpole in the late '80s.

Tolerated by all though they were, Chrisitian students elsewhere who wanted to gather freely before school hours on campus to pray needed Clinton's education secretary to write "American educators" a note reminding them about their students' basic civil liberties and the Equal Access Act. How far from the margins of public life expressions of faith have come, and for the better of us all.

The act simply and clearly states that public secondary schools that allow one non-curricular group to meet at school during non-instructional time cannot "deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting [at school] on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings."

The Equal Access Act, therefore, protects not only the rights of the religious, but those of whom the religious too often are less tolerant, such as Okeechobee, Florida 's Yasmin Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a 17-year old public high school senior in "a town of about 5,500 residents and around 60 churches", began a Gay-Straight Alliance for students that her principal and school board will not allow to meet at school.

According to schools superintendent Barbara Cooper, ''My position was then and remains that we are an abstinence-only district, that our clubs are primarily dealing with curriculum or curriculum-related clubs and organizations and we would decline the request . . . . We are an abstinence-only district and it's abstinence from any kind of sexual behavior, whether it's heterosexual or bisexual or homosexual, whatever it is.''

Cooper betrays not only a fundamental misunderstanding of Gay-Straight Alliances and, of course, the law, but also her curriculum.

Bus-ted!

From the Miami Herald's Amy Sherman:

"Broward County officials acted arbitrarily and used 'fundamentally flawed logic' when they recommended that the county buy buses that cost at least $16 million more than those offered by a competitor, a hearing officer found in a report released Thursday.
The recommendation that the county award the contract to the low bidder comes as Broward County Transit is struggling with a shortage of working buses and mechanics to fix them.
In fact, BCT is so desperate for buses that starting next month, it will use old Miami-Dade Transit buses that Dade had planned to retire . . . . The buses have about 500,000 miles on them . . . ."

Muscles' Shiny New Year

Here's what's on my mind for '07:

School vouchers: I concede it's our money and, therefore, it should be ours to spend more freely; Mrs. Muscles and I, however, in our second decade of public and private K-to community-college-level teaching, have seen little evidence to support Friedman's assertion that vouchers "would bring a healthy increase in the variety of educational institutions available and in competition among them. Private initiative and enterprise would quicken the pace of progress in this area as it has in so many others."

Simply put, teachers, both public and private, can't compete. People-pleasers and collaborators to the core, Boxers to the administrating Napoleons, teachers will work harder in their classrooms, but leave institutional "progress" to the same sloganeers and sham artists who for a generation have run us ragged in the same ol' system-stymied circles that are the antithesis of innovation.

For my money? It's the teachers, stupid. Let 'em work.

Legalization: "If drugs were legalized, there would be a drug spot in every corner. It wouldn't be a Starbucks. It'd be Weedbucks. McDonald's? McCokeald's. Krispy Kreme? Kracky Kreme."--Chris Rock, "Never Scared"

Drug use should be entirely the user's business if he or she is of age and the rest of us are able to go on with our lives. But if drugs were legalized, where would the business of drugs be done, and who would do it? My guess: on the same corners and by the same kids doing it today.

Physics: What's new?

Jump in, if you please, one and all, especially with "required reading" I should do on any of the above.

Happy New Year!

Welcome to Moe's!

From The New York Times via Albany's Times Union:

"His music was sweaty and complex, disciplined and wild, lusty and socially conscious. And beyond his dozens of hits, James Brown forged a musical idiom that is now a foundation of pop worldwide."

Brown: "I taught them everything they know, but not everything I know."

Added 12/28/06: Why cheap shot artists can't land the left on "black conservatives." Colbert Nation, you're On Notice!

That's What Chanukkah is All About, Charlie Brown

There is an irony in the Chabad of Greater Seattle's demand for the local airport to include a Menorah among its Christmas decorations that I, after 15 years in an "interfaith" relationship, am only beginning to understand: A Menorah stands alone.

A Menorah is much more than a representation of the ancient set of candles, lit with precious little oil, that Jews believe miraculously lasted eight days. Nevertheless, a Menorah lacks the religious significance that holiday displays such as those in Seattle and around the country lead too many kind-hearted people to assume means that Chauukkah matters as much to Jews as Christmas does to Christians. It ain't so, and it's a disservice not only to observant Jews and Christians, but to taxpayers regardless of faith who are paying for this multicultural clusterfuck.

Here's Channukah in a nutshell, thanks to Tracey Rich at the eminently informative Judaism 101: Channukah commemorates Jews who stood against the ruling Greeks who tried to make their rites the Jews'. Channukah is not a holiday of "Peace on Earth"; it's a celebration of defiance and independence. It's the Fourth of July--eight of 'em!

Or as Rich writes, " Chanukkah is probably one of the best known Jewish holidays, not because of any great religious significance, but because of its proximity to Christmas. Many non-Jews (and even many assimilated Jews!) think of this holiday as the Jewish Christmas, adopting many of the Christmas customs, such as elaborate gift-giving and decoration. It is bitterly ironic that this holiday, which has its roots in a revolution against assimilation and the suppression of Jewish religion, has become the most assimilated, secular holiday on [the Jewish] calendar."

Rabbi Elazar Bogomilsky, the Chabad of Greater Seattle's spokesman, exacerbates this irony when he says demanding a Menorah at the airport was about "adding light to the holiday, not diminishing any light"; yet the murk is exactly where we as a nation drag ourselves when we conflate Christmas and Chanukkah into a nonsensical "the holiday" for local officials nationwide to slap together every year at the eleventh hour like a playhouse without instructions. Whatever Chanukkah and Christmas mean, is it clearly not the business of the Seattle Port Commission?

To be brutally honest, these entanglements are less "church and state" and more "Mommy, it's my brother's birthday, why don't I get a gift?"

The expedient and compassionate solution is to do what officials around the country do: Simply ignore the civic and religious principles at stake, and let everyone have a happy whatever, usually on the taxpayer's tab. After all, if your local city manager won't celebrate these holidays for you, who will?

But, Christians and Jews, if I have to render unto your Lord and your Lord what is Caesar's, can official celebrations at least be true to the spirits of your holidays, and your faiths?

Can we, for example, instead of Christmatizing Chanukkah, celebrate Rosh Hashanah?

Traditionally, Rosh Hashanah begins the Jewish year with a blast from the shofar, the ram's horn seen above. (Sadly, this was missing from our family's dinner, but, oh, the brisket!) Apples dipped in honey represent the hope for, as Rich writes, "a sweet new year." Pockets customarily are emptied of bread into flowing water to symbolize the casting away of the past year's sins. I'd love to see any of this from the people mover on the way to B terminal.

Happy Chanukkah.

Rapids Response

Hats off--but not niqabs--for Grand Rapids' bus authority. The Interurban Transit Partnership ended a policy that allowed drivers to refuse service to anyone with a covered face after a Muslim woman was told she'd have to unveil herself before she could ride a public bus.

In a city of more than a million people, among whom there always will be "the poor", public transportation is a necessary evil if you're a taxpayer; therefore, if you're a taxpayer, you have a right to ride--or not--and what you wear without harming others should be beside the point. Can we as Americans agree that Grand Rapids is not Jerusalem (or cities throughout Europe), that our public buses are not commercial jets, and to not torch another bridge between ourselves and our ideals until lighting the match is at least a tough choice?


Unfortunately, no ('though some of the knee jerks come with a few worthy one liners about women and Islam). Nevertheless, the buses in Grand Rapids--with all aboard--will roll on. Remember that on the long road ahead . . .

Snarlin' Arlen

Is this the lesson Specter learned from '04 and his nail-biter of a re-election? This sorry, so-called populist, "forced-to-purchase" pap from the McCain playbook? A business offers its services on terms that consumers are free to pay for or to pass up. Why should the NFL be any different?