Shootings and Stats

A picture is worth a thousand words. Mass shooting statistical graphs can as well. My intention was not to stir up a particular way of thinking, but rather to illuminate the facts without imposing a biased view. 

In summary, we in the U.S. are a violent (albeit less so in recent decades) people, more so in the south and east, with the amount of guns in homes declining, and yet incidence of mass shootings and victims remain steady.   

Below is a picture of deaths due to injury by firearms. The obvious fact is that, for the most part, the southern part of the U.S. has more deaths than the north, northeast, and west.

Below is a graph of the mass shootings in the U.S. Most killers obtained their weapons legally.

Below is a graph that shows how the U.S. relates to other developed countries. The U.S. has always been higher in its assault deaths compared to other countries. The U.S. has declined in assault deaths since the late 1970s.

Below is a graph of gun ownership in the U.S. Gun ownership has declined in households since the late 1970s.

Below is a graph of mass shootings per year and the victims in the U.S. The amount of mass shootings and victims varies from year to year, but on the average has not changed for the last several decades.

Based on the data above, there can be a few conclusions. The U.S. has a history of gun violence, relative to that of other developed countries. There has been a decrease in assaults when comparing it to the total population growth. The south and eastern states have the most percentage of deaths than the rest of the country. The percentage of gun ownership has decreased in the last few decades. And the trend of mass shootings and victims have remained steady for decades.

Everyday Heroes

Where are the heroes of today? News reports rarely highlight them; not because they aren't around, but because they don’t want to be found. The best known hero is a man who knew from the beginning he would sacrifice himself to provide an eternal life for others. That hero was Jesus. We celebrate the birth of that hero on Christmas day - and yet we give to others. It sounds odd to do that, but it makes all the sense in the world. Jesus is a model for us to be heroes too.

A hero is running in when others are running out. A hero helps the helpless. A hero picks up the pieces when others cause wreckage. A hero is passing out love when hate is expected. A hero is there when others are gone. However, we forget that at most times, there are heroes around us doing the mundane.

When you care for your children, love your spouse, pay your bills, be kind to your neighbors, be diligent at your job, you are a hero. Anyone can take the easy way out, by cheating, stealing, or even killing the innocent…but staying steady in a chaotic world is something most of us do, or strive to do, each and every day.  No one gets on the news because of these common activities. But it is due to the masses in our culture that hold our society together. The common unknown heroes are the glue that keeps our country united.

During this holiday season, remember that there are many unknown heroes among us. Yes, Jesus is the one that is remembered. He is the catalyst that ignites us to become better. It makes perfect sense to give gifts to one another. For we are practicing the love and sacrifice that Jesus modeled for us. Most of you reading this are heroes to me – even those who feel they are weak in their beliefs. I wanted to take this moment and say how proud I am to know you. Stay strong, and continue to show your faith by your good deeds.

Christmas Gifts

If you can't get 3 wise men for Christmas, there's always 3 books from a wise guy. :)

Is Marijuana a good thing?

Colorado and Washington recently approved the recreational use of marijuana. This is a mistake.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for government letting us live our lives. But, in my opinion, this is a time where the people should rethink their vote. There are two main reasons that I believe this is a mistake. First, it’s bad for you. Second, adding another bad substance to a list of already legal bad substances doesn't make it right.

Why it’s bad for you.

Proplem #1:Teens who smoke marijuana frequently are more likely to experience a long-term drop in their IQ. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57501243-10391704/smoking-marijuana-regularly-as-a-teen-may-lower-iq-scores-as-an-adult/

Problem #2: Marijuana use is associated with over a double risk of testicular and lung cancer. Additionally, adverse chemicals in marijuana are 20 times higher than in tobacco. http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/healthy_kids/Can-Marijuana-Prevent-Cancer.html

Problem #3: Cannibis use can cause cognitive breakdown that can lead to schizophrenia. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121102084632.htm

Problem #4: Marijuana use during pregnancy is implicated in complications in embro development, such as preeclampsia. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120912101806.htm

Problem #5: If one decides to quit, trying to withdraw from marijuana use causes irritability, tenseness, anxiousness, and sleep disruption. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/27/marijuana-withdrawal-is-real-study-says/

Proponents say that no one has died from marijuana. I guess we could also say that no one has died from smoking tobacco either. In both cases, it’s not the one time use but the reduced quality of life and slow death we need to worry about. Proponents also say marijuana helps in depression, anxiety, and a few other conditions. So? Marijuana isn't a miracle drug that uniquely cures a condition where nothing else can. People have been surviving just fine without it for eons.

Why it’s not right to do.

Considering the health defects of marijuana, it seems logical not to introduce this inferior product into the market place; especially while other inferior products are being ostracized…such as tobacco and high energy drinks to name two. Additionally, the nation is up in arms about obesity and other long term health problems, so it doesn't makes sense to plow ahead by legalizing an unsafe product.  

I've heard law enforcement officials say that we should legalize marijuana because it’s too hard to enforce and there aren't enough resources to investigate other harder crimes. Okay, make it a fine like a parking ticket, but don’t suggest that because it’s hard to enforce we should legalize it. Seat-belt laws are hard to enforce too, but law enforcement isn't saying we should remove seat-belts  What about parking in a handicapped space? Jaywalking? Texting while driving? All of these examples are hard to enforce, but are necessary laws for the health and safety of its community.

One might say that this is about food not seat-belts  Well, let’s talk about food. Raw milk is banned in 21 states. Sassafras oil has been banned in the U.S. since the 1960s. Wild beluga caviar is prohibited in the U.S. Slaughtering horses for consumption is banned in the U.S. And most unpasteurized cheeses are banned in the U.S. These are rarely harmful and in some cases beneficial.  Obviously, safety has little to do with current laws against food.

In the future, Colorado and Washington can now look forward to a sub culture of people with not just less anxiety and depression but with more people becoming cognitively impaired, lung cancer, and other physical and psychological conditions.

America is on a slippery slope. It seems that, we want government to leave us alone when we want to hurt ourselves, and yet come to our rescue when we can’t take care of ourselves. When we are well again, expect the government to leave us alone until we need help once again…and so on. Legalizing marijuana is one more step backward that walks our culture toward ruin. It pains me to see these nonsensical laws enacted while greater concerns in our society are at hand. We the people could use some self reflection to think better, become better, and to expect more from ourselves—not less.

Bloomberg Does it Again...sigh.

I wrote a post awhile back explaining my displeasure for the way Mayor Bloomberg of New York is handling food and drink issues.
The latest news out is that Mayor Bloomberg of New York City outlawed food donations to homeless shelters because the city can't assess their salt, fat, and fiber content. What is wrong with this guy? He worries more about salt and fat content than the survival of the destitute?
I'm just plain flabbergasted.

The East Coast is suffering from a horrible storm that put thousands out of power and/or out of their homes and trying to survive another following storm. Many others are trying to help those effected by providing food, clothing, and other necessities. Even New York City marathon runners that couldn't participate in the event decided to help out by distributing goods for the needy.

Here is a link to the article that got me riled up. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/

After the storm Sandy devastated the coast, and any reasonable person would be pragmatic about the public good. But when it comes to food, when has Bloomberg ever been reasonable.

Get it right, people!

I get thoroughly annoyed with news agencies that leap at the chance to snag the latest news and end up getting it wrong. This time it’s the latest jobs report and the stock market.

With the latest increase in the October jobs report, the media reported a good showing in the stock market.

Forbes -  “Stocks reacted favorably to the numbers”

Huffington Post - “Investors were pleased by the news… within minutes [the Dow] was up 30 points.”

L.A. Times – “Stocks rose in early trading after two upbeat reports fueled optimism about the labor market”

Bloomber Businessweek – “stocks are within reach of record highs”

Here is a stock market graph of today's Dow. It dropped like a rock.

So where are these favorable numbers and optimism? If the reporter could have waited 30 minutes he/she would have seen a tumble of 139 points on the Dow. Maybe we can blame attention deficit disorder for their jump to conclusions.

Not only were they wrong about the stock market, the jobs report is misleading. The news agencies stated that 171,000 jobs were created, indicating that there was good economic news as a result. They said the same thing when commenting on the September jobs report.

The Daily Beast, referring to September numbers said, “The payroll-jobs figure shows the labor market is recovering."

Oh really?

Here is a graph of this years jobs report. The blue rectangles indicate the levels for the month they were reported. 

You might have noticed the red lines. I added them to indicate the revised levels for June, July, August and September.

Last month the news was raving about how the jobs report showed increases and that the economy was on the mend. In August there was a rise, but in September it fell. 

With the revision, the news could easily have said that in September, the economy is weak and evident of a possible double dip recession. But I doubt the Daily Beast will admit they were wrong between August and September...it is old news after all.

So is October’s numbers accurate or not? Is it accurate to say the economy is bouncing back? Until the November’s jobs report comes out, we won’t know for sure. Even then, with jobs numbers like this October the economy is far from out of the woods. In any case, a few positive months does not necessarily mean the "market is recovering."

My intention of this article is not to promote a particular view of the economy or bolster either candidate in the latest presidential race.

My comments are about the sensationalism of the media to distort the news. If news agencies are going to announce well formed conclusions, I would hope they would pause a moment and focus on accuracy first. When they don't, it reduces their credibility and standing with the public.

Romney/Biden Ticket?

I was watching the latest polls and it dawned on me how both parties could win the election.

It sounds odd, but if I’m not mistaken, there is an avenue in which this could occur.  With the polls at 48% for Obama and 48% for Romney, there is a sliver of a chance that there could be a tie. Don’t laugh; the swing states are neck-and-neck for each candidate, so it’s possible.

The swing states are: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Vermont. Let’s say Obama took Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsyvania, and Vermont, while Romney took Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Florida, and Virginia. That is an even split in the Electoral College, with 269 each.

The Electoral College has 538 votes that make up the districts within the states and a split of 269 to 269 could feasibly occur. It has happened three times before, in the 1800s. The popular vote is only a rough indicator of how the president is elected. Those votes are sent to the electors who examine the wishes of their district and make a final determination for president.

If a tie occurs in the Electoral College, then the 12th Amendment states that the new House of Representatives must make the final decision. Each state gets one vote. That means Montana would have the same vote as New York. As you can see, the majority party would have the advantage. If the Republicans are still in the majority after the election then they would most likely vote Mitt Romney as president.

But what about the Senate? The Senate gets to decide who the Vice President is. If the Democrats are still a majority, then most likely they would vote for Joe Biden. In essence, we could have a Romney/Biden administration. Even if there was a tie in the Senate, Joe Biden (president of the Senate) would have the deciding vote to break the tie. Would he vote for himself?

In this strange scenario, two men from opposite parties could be in the white house. I will let you decide whether this is a win/win or not.  

Bigger Government is rarely an admired government.

Conservatives believe government should be small and stay out of their way, while progressives feel government should be big and be a helping hand to the little guy.

I believe the conservatives have got it right and not for the normal reasons. Sure government should be around to assist in roads, the welfare and security of citizens, but bigger government can create a cyclical negativity resulting in dissatisfaction. Let me demonstrate.

Let’s say you are conservative and your guy is in office and he is doing a lot of stuff you like. After your guy’s term is up, a liberal guy gets elected and you’re furious, because all the stuff your guy did is now being dismantled. 

If voters elect liberal government officials, then the democrats will no doubt get what the policies they appreciate most. If voters elect conservative government officials, then the republicans will get what they want. What we are forgetting is that after an election, almost half the people didn’t get what they wanted.  The result is constant complaining for the next several years from the side not in office. As government grows, so too will the animosity of the citizens.

Think of it this way.  If my coworker nags me day after day or is regularly critiquing my actions, the coworker I rarely see becomes much more pleasant. This is because those less involved in our lives are not around to offend us, so we complain more often when someone wrongs us more often. A bigger government will, by the nature of its increased involvement with communities, foster more complaints.

How could a modern country do without big government? There was a period in our young history when the churches and civil minded people volunteered to take on the role of helping the uneducated, poor, sick, jailed, and destitute. Now, we rely on government for these things…and volunteers are disappearing.

 It may be a nice security blanket to have the government of your choice in office, but when the other team is in office that blanket could smother you.  Remember, it’s not the four years or so when your guy is elected that you need to worry about, it’s the next four years or so when the other guy is elected.  That is why, although it may mean more work on my end, I believe a small government is appreciated more.

“Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.” 
John F. Kennedy 

Illegal to Legal Immigration

How to solve the Immigration problem 9/3/12

 

For the first time, illegal immigrants outnumbered legal ones. The number of illegal immigrants peaked at an estimated 11.9 million in 2008. Illegal immigrants are growing at a rate of ½ million per year, one third is from those with legal visa that overstay their visit and become illegal.             

                                                                   

Note: In the context of this article, the use of illegal and undocumented should be construed as the same. Due to the nature of the hidden culture of undocumented immigrants, dollar amounts are estimates and not exact. 

                                                                                                       

The political landscape seems to complicate the murky issue of immigration as the presidential candidates stammer around with weak proposals. But when one steps back and looks at the facts, a clearer solvable picture emerges.  There are two basic views regarding undocumented immigrants: A concern for oppression of immigrants and a concern for the safety of U.S. citizens. The common denominator between the two views is the horrendous amount of dollars being wasted in the process. I will lay out the recent history of the issues and dissect the facts for a meaningful conclusion.

President Bush proposed amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants and allowed them to be in a guest worker program for 3 years. After that they must be required to return home. With that plan they would be a guest - then not a guest after the 3 years. He also offered the idea that they could become legal after registering as temporary workers. They would receive amnesty, get fined and have other sanctions applied, then be able to achieve citizenship. Both of Bush’s ideas went no-where in Congress.

President Obama’s solution is just as impractical. The initiative allowed illegal immigrant children temporary citizenship for two years. But after the second year, they would be illegal again. Between the two presidents, both offered a temporary solution, but nothing permanent. 

Not unlike president Bush, Mitt Romney’s had the idea of self deportation. Common sense tells us that no illegal immigrant would willingly deport themselves back to a condition worse than the one they already are in.

Let’s take a look at the advantages of keeping undocumented immigrants in the U.S. verses returning them to their place of origin.

Keep the Undocumented Immigrants:

It would be impractical to remove millions of illegal immigrants, therefore they should stay. Estimates to remove illegals are estimated to cost over $200 billion.

Immigrants help the economy by contributing less expensive labor for work not favorable to U.S. citizens. Economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive.

The social security system benefits from the influx of money from illegal aliens. Total taxes from illegals are estimated at $17 billion.

Federal immigration law says illegals are only committing a civil offense not a crime. This is true. A crime is something committed against the state or society as a whole, but immigration law does not see this as such. However, if your smuggling aliens or it’s your second time crossing after deportation, it’s a crime.  It is more accurate to say undocumented immigrants have broken the law and must be held accountable for their civil offense.

Return the Undocumented Immigrants:

Millions of illegals steal social security numbers from U.S. citizens to keep their jobs. Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an "earnings suspense file" - an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. Social security number theft could be a plus to the owner of the number, but it could also mean that the owner has to resolve a debt or bankruptcy from the illegal user affecting the owner’s credit. Misuse of the social security numbers cost taxpayers over 4 billion annually.

Illegal immigrants enter the U.S. quickly, while legal immigrants have to wait years to enter the U.S. Currently, there are over 7 million in the queue for citizenship and undocumented workers slow the process.

Illegals take jobs from U.S. citizens. ¾ million American workers are displaced yearly at a cost of 4.3 billion per year. Experts believe cheap labor also depresses the wages and working conditions of the working poor.

Illegal immigrants burden the health care system with free services. Educating the additional 28 million children in public primary and secondary schools, providing free medical services through Medicaid (over 300,000 children are born to illegals each year allowing automatic welfare from birthright citizenship), and incarceration for illegal criminals — costs the U.S. over $36 billion.

Drugs and criminals are mixing with the flow of illegal immigration. At least 10% of the prison population are illegal immigrants. This would translate into roughly 1 million per day to house them. House Judiciary Committee by DHS found illegals commited nearly 2,000 DUI (11.9%), over 1,400 drug violations (8.8%), and more than 1,000 major criminal offenses and violent crimes (6.9%), including murder, assault, battery, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, domestic abuse, lynching, stalking, and torture and include 19 murders, 3 attempted murders, and 142 sex crimes.

Money sent back to their place of origin and does not help the U.S. economy. $25 billion dollars of remittances bypass the U.S. economy, the proportion of that from illegals is estimated at $5 billion.

Unwinding the Data

Lets deal with points made for keeping undocumented immigrants. The first obvious issue is deportation. At $200 billion and more, it would be ambitious at the least and ridiculous at the most to try and return all undocumented immigrants to their place of origin. Even if all were deported, it wouldn’t stop the flow back in. Therefore, that is off the table. So what do we do with 11 million illegals? Simple, keep them…unless they have committed a crime, which would move the issue from a civil offense to a criminal offense. I will discuss how shortly. The second issue is the amount of income generated by illegals. A first glance it looks to be a boon to the economy, but the other side of the coin shows the negative aspect to it. There are billions of dollars lost from stolen social security numbers, from undocumented immigrant criminals, from displaced American workers, and from a burdened healthcare system and education system. All this has costs the U.S. over $36 billion annually (2008 figures). Illegal immigrant income minus illegal immigrant expenses equals a $20 billion loss to the U.S. taxpayer (these 2008 figures are estimated to more than triple this year).

The dilemma is that the U.S. can’t afford to deport the millions of undocumented immigrants from its borders, and yet the U.S. can’t afford to keep the illegals operating in the system as is.

The Solution.

My solution is to make the illegals legal, by way of a permanent business work visa. They would not be U.S. citizens.

 This would resolve three things. First, it would free up immigration to focus on more pressing illegal activity, second, it would save the U.S. billions not having to return the illegals to their place of origin, and third, it would give dignity to the immigrants that wish to stay.

Many would say that they would get a free pass. I agree that no one should get a free pass. The legal document for immigrants would be for work – and only work. The U.S. Department of Labor can coordinate with the immigration department and businesses to match work needed with existing and future immigrants. This would give the immigrant a document, enabling him/her the ability to work and live with their dependants in the U.S. As a side note, the DOL should revamp its whole system to be an efficient employment matching entity for ALL U.S. citizens and immigrants…connecting the employee to available and suitable jobs. The catch for businesses is this: If they truly assert Americans won’t work for them and feel they must instead invite immigrants to work for them, health care and their children’s educational needs should be provided by the business, not the U.S. taxpayer.

 Additionally, a business work visa would also reduce the burden of processing immigrants taking the standard path to citizenship. If an immigrant holds a job in the U.S. for 15 years without committing a crime, they should be automatically enlisted into a path for citizenship if they so desire. Another point - no children born in the U.S. should be automatically granted citizenship unless their parents are citizens. The reason for this is twofold. First, it keeps families together by solidifying their country of origin, and second, it thwarts any attempt by immigrants wishing to take advantage of the generosity of the U.S. Medicaid system by using their child as a source of income. This also doesn’t snub the immigrants trying to achieve citizenship through regular channels. If the children have lived in the U.S. for 15 years, they too can apply for citizenship.

Border security should modify its current hunt for undocumented immigrants and criminals to hunting for criminals, as well as processing undocumented immigrants coming to the U.S. for work. I envision a large employment center strategically located at each border state receiving and matching the worker with employers desperate to get their product out.

With this plan in place, it’s a win win. All working immigrants and their dependants in the U.S. can hold their head high and come out from the shadows. Employers can be open and confident about their employees. Billions of dollars will not be wasted trying to return hardworking immigrants (without a criminal record), and billions of dollars will not be wasted hunting down immigrants just wanting a better life for them and their children.

Sources: The Center for Immigration Studies, Don Huddle’s “The Net Costs of Immigration,” the INS Statistics Division.  House Judiciary Committee by DHS 

Additional links:

 http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6787438-illegal-immigration-and-the-federal-budgetpart-2

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/03/pdf/cost_of_deportation.pdf

"And for His Next Trick...QE3!"

The latest news on the economic front.

The U.S. economy struggles. For the last few years the Federal Reserve has tried to stimulate the economy by cutting interest rates. The rates have been cut so low, they can't be cut anymore. This is call “zero bound.” The chairman, Ben Bernenke, initiated a new plan. Once it was revealed to the public, it created the stock market to jump to a 13-month high. It is being called the “Bernanke bounce.”

This bold new plan could be referred to as QE3 or the central bank’s version of a stimulus. The Fed will continue to pump $40 Billion into the economy each month until the job market improves. This method is called quantitative easing and has been implemented twice in Obama’s term - QE1 & QE2.

Unlike Europe who has been focused on austerity (more or less cut overspending), the Obama administration has pushed for a stimulus (more or less go into debt to encourage spending).

As much as Obama has tried, congress has not been cooperative. So when the Fed announced they were to do their own version of the stimulus, and since Obama can’t make decisions for the Federal Reserve, he must have breathed a heaving a sigh of relief at the news.

How it works.

The Fed will accomplish this QE3 by essentially printing money when it buys bonds or other securities on the open market (with hopes that inflation won’t rise). Unfortunately, past episodes of temporary infusions of cash by the central bank have yielded little results. The difference with this plan is that the Fed wants to keep it going for “as long as it takes,” said Bernenke The Fed has already bought over 2 trillion in government and housing debt in QE1; QE2 and is expected to spend over a trillion more on this plan. But will it work? That’s the 40 billion dollar per month question.

Stock Market

Wall Street loves it, since it drives down interest rates and lures investors out of safe investments like treasury securities, and into riskier investments such as stocks. Rising stock prices draw more buyers off the sidelines, boost sales commissions at brokerages, and generate more investment banking activity.

Main Street

Will this help the common U.S. citizen? 

Americans can also look forward to as Bernenke put it “more demand for homes and more refinancing” by “putting downward pressure on mortgage rates. “ Experts believe a drop of .25% may occur. So a 3.25% 30 year loan would drop to 3.0%. Therefore, those who own homes may feel better knowing the value of their homes will go up.

Nevertheless, most Americans could care less about the value of their home when they are concentrated on keeping their home from foreclosure. And, even with record rates not seen since the great depression, it becomes a risky venture to buy a home in an unstable job market. Even Bernenke said, “the weak job market should concern every American.” Ya think?

The real proof the QE3 will work is if more jobs are created.

But don’t hold your breath. QE1 and QE2 haven’t brought unemployment numbers down, so it's unwise to expect the QE3 come to the rescue…see idioms below:

            QE1 You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

            QE2 You can lead a horse to more water and he still may not drink.

            QE3 You can keep leading the horse to lots of water month after month and prodding him to take in the clean, blue, cool, fresh elixir, but you still can’t make him drink.

Bottom line – Jobs are the true sign of recovery.

When Wall Street succeeds and employment suffers, it is called a jobless recovery. Anytime unemployment is high, there is no real recovery. 

So how do we get more jobs? People get jobs from companies that need workers. It’s that simple. So why aren't companies hiring? Some think companies hire workers when tax rates are reasonably low, but past data doesn't prove this out. Additionally, low interest rates intended to get companies to hire, also do not prove true. In short, companies will hire workers when they predict that job orders will exceed the current work staff. Companies must feel confident future business will occur.

QE3 and Jobs:

So how will pumping Fed money into the economy provide jobs? It doesn’t. But what it does do is prime the pump so that something can occur. And this something translates into confidence. Bernanke is hoping that confidence will build from his QE3 and activity will occur in the job market. Companies will catch the bug and hire the unemployed, and eventually unemployment will drop below 7% or so. The economy will then be on stronger footing and…. Voilà! Happy days are here again.

QE3 and reality:

Bernenke sees a connection between mortgages and business hiring – I believe it is only one piece of the puzzle and do not have high expectations.

First, people are practical. If a business person sees nothing but uncertainty in the industry, looming heavy regulatory laws, and potential tax increases that may reduce profits, why would he/she invest in something new like a piece of machinery or a worker?

Second, we can’t be myopic. The U.S. does not operate in a bubble. Europe is still going through its own economic woes. This whole thing may actually backfire if Europe gets nervous about the Fed’s frivolous spending spree. The U.S. can’t sell if Europe doesn’t want to buy. And this is only Europe. China (who is now going through a tough spell of its own), Brazil, and other countries are no doubt watching too. The U.S. economy is inextricably attached to the world market and it can only move forward if the rest of the world is confident as well.  

The Fed is essentially out of tricks and is hoping this last one will work. And only time will tell whether or not Bernenke has pulled a rabbit out of his hat or whether he is only talking through it.

Is Bloomberg's paved good intentions a road to hell?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg no doubt has good intentions. Don’t we all. However, his passionate emotions do not add up to good science, good government, or pragmatic implementation.

If we all wanted to be thin and fit, we would exercise and eat right. But we don’t. So is it the responsibility of government to be the Jiminy Cricket of our eating conscience? Simply put…no. I will explain my answer by addressing three major reasons how his new “soda ban” in New York City is flawed.

First. Is it good science?

The assumption is that sugary drinks lead to obesity. Do they? No. In fact it may be just the opposite. Diet drinks are more likely to be a causal affect in weight gain. What?  Here is a portion of an article from dailymail.co.uk.

 A study of almost 500 men and women linked low-calorie soft drinks with bulging waistlines, revealed that those who downed two or more diet fizzy drinks a day saw their waistbands expand at five times the rate of those who never touched the stuff. The results were so dramatic that the American researchers advise that people ditch their diet drinks and use water to quench their thirst instead.

Those who cannot bear to give up the sugar rush may be better off drinking normal full-sugar fizzy drinks.

Professor Helen Hazuda, of the University of Texas’s health science centre, said diet sodas and artificial sweeteners may foster a sweet tooth, distort appetite and even damage key brain cells. As a result, treating them as healthy alternatives may be ill advised. The professor, who no longer drinks diet colas and lemonades, said: ‘They may be free of calories but not of consequences.’

Back in New York the ban stated (you guessed it) that a diet soda, a milk shake or sweetened latte that is larger than 16 ounces wouldn't be banned. In other words, not only is Bloomberg wrong on the science, he is actually encouraging people to get fatter 

Second. Is it good policy?

A majority of polled New Yorkers didn’t want the ban on soda, but the board of health directors appointed by Bloomberg pushed ahead with the judgment anyway. People get nervous when government intervenes in their behavior…especially when it comes to their stomachs. We like to eat and drink what we want regardless of the negative outcomes. Most of us thought that dictatorships ended when we became an adult and didn’t have to listen to mom or dad telling us to eat the vegetables we hated. Well welcome to Bloomberg’s big brother world…or is it a nanny world? In any case, all this will end up doing is infuriating the soft drink and cup manufactures, who make money and provide jobs...not to mention the people who just want a drink large enough to sustain them in central park on a hot day.

Three. Will the Soda Ban accomplish its goal?

The ban states that it will have no effect on people who buy 16 ounces of soda or more at the grocery store. Then why have the law? Why punish only the restaurants and outside venders and give the stores a free ride?

Setting the stores aside, will selling 12 ounce drinks have as Bloomberg put it “get you to drink in moderation”? Even if people buy a 12 ounce drink from a fast food chain, hasn’t Bloomberg heard of refills? That 12 ounce cup can be refilled as Lional Richie put it, “once, twice, three times a lady.”

And what of those smugglers driving in from New Jersey, New Rochelle, and other locations outside the five boroughs? Will police really enforce the smuggling of a 16 ounce drink?

How about other sugar drinks. The 16 ounce soda is about 200 calories. A 16 oz Latte is over 200, a mocha coffee is over 300, and a milkshake is over 600 calories. Should we ban these as well? Where does this end? Politicians can be so upside down in their thinking that the obviously cruel substances like tobacco are perfectly legal -- but soft drinks over 16 ounces should be outlawed?

Final thoughts

You may think that those New York City folk are different and that it couldn’t happen in your city. Why not? Politicians are just as gullible in your area as they are in New York. Once this kind of thing happens in one part of the nation, well meaning people across the country step all over themselves to be next.

Don’t get me wrong. It is understandable that we take steps to curb obesity. Weight gain of the U.S. American has, pardon the pun, ballooned in the last few decades. However, looking at good science and working on a comprehensive plan that the citizens can agree to is ultimately best medicine.

GM is profitable, but...

The national news reported on the success of GM and its latest profitable quarter. That is only one piece of the pie. I found an article from Megan McArdle, a senior editor for The Atlantic. She paints a pragmatic picture, which I couldn't have said better myself. You be the judge on whether or not the bailout for GM was a good deal for the U.S. taxpayers. 

Here are the highlights:

About $40 billion of the money that the government gave GM was converted to GM common stock. In the November IPO, the government made about $20 billion selling 478 million shares, leaving us with around $20 billion more to recoup on our remaining 26.5% stake in the company.

A very important extra:  the $14 billion gift that the government seems to have handed the company, in the form of a special tax break:

That break will reduce GM's U.S. tax bill by an estimated $14 billion in the coming years, and its global taxes by close to $19 billion, according to a company filing.

Companies typically get a break on future taxes because of past losses. But in most cases they lose that tax break during bankruptcy, because the losses are offset by the "income" the company receives from shedding its debt.

Since the company shed $30 billion in debt during bankruptcy, it should have wiped out most of the tax break. GM even warned it expected to lose those tax breaks shortly before filing for Chapter 11 protection.

But somehow, that never happened, and the automaker was able to keep most of its tax breaks, essentially receiving a $14 billion "gift" from the government.

While it's unclear why GM was allowed to carry over its losses, some experts insist that GM got preferential treatment.

What lesson, exactly, are we supposed to learn from this "success"?  What question did it answer? "Can the government keep companies operating if it is willing to give them a virtually interest free loan of $50 billion, and a tax-free gift of $20 billion or so?"  I don't think that this was really in dispute. When all is said and done, we will probably have given them a sum equal to its 2007 market cap and roughly four times GM's 2008 market capitalization.

No, the question was not whether GM could make a profit after a bankruptcy that stiffed most of its creditors and shed the most grotesque burdens of its legacy costs, nor whether giving companies money will make them more profitable.  The question is whether it was worth it to the taxpayer to burn $10-20 billion in order to give the company another shot at life. To put that in perspective, GM had about 75,000 hourly workers before the bankruptcy. GM has closed 13 plants and shed 25,000 union jobs in the United States. We could have given each of them a cool $250,000 and still come out well ahead compared to the ultimate cost of the bailout including the tax breaks--and over $100,000 a piece if we just wanted to break even against our losses on the common stock.  

Chief Justice Roberts got it right...or did he?

Obamacare and the Supreme Court

      I remember joking that those on the political left treated president Bush’s appointment of judge John Roberts as the nefarious Dread Pirate Roberts in the movie The Princess Bride. But now the Left think he’s a “hero.” On the flip side the Right is furious and say Chief Roberts sold out for a “massive spending spree.”

      Being a pragmatist, I view the whole thing differently. On a technicality, Judge Roberts was right to assume that the Individual Manadate (key component of Obamcare to force people to buy health insurance) is a tax.  It doesn’t matter if, in the past, president Obama said the affordable health care act was a tax or not (although he did speak on it i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ixAxfAhAhs).  What matters is what the Obama attorneys are presenting in court. And Chief Roberts realized that if it looks like a tax, and walks like a tax, and operates like a tax…it’s a tax.  It really is no different than Medicare or Medicaid…but on a grander scale.

      What irks the conservatives is that it’s one more step to big government taking control of our lives. And they are correct. It is one more step in that direction. We as Americans must pay a nominal sum during tax time and in the process give up a little more freedom. In return,  the government provides its citizens (and many illegals) with health care of some type.

      If the government wants to do it right, it would use a progressive payment system like our tax code, and abolish all forms of Medicare and Medicaid. But that’s wishful thinking at best. Once Obamacare is fully implemented, a plethora of ugly details will undoubtedly rise to the surface, forcing us to ask pesky questions. Will fraud run rampant as when Medicaid did?  Will costs go sky high like other government run programs? Will private agencies like the Catholic Church have to go against their religious convictions to fund abortions? Will long lines reminiscent of the Soviet Union become common-place? Will research and development for new drugs grind to a halt from lack of incentive? And ultimately, will we get the health care we hoped for?

      There are plenty of ifs in this brave new health care program. And no one knows what it will develop into. A loose technicality may have brought Chief Justice Roberts to side with the left, but only time will tell if he got it right.

Diaries of an Electrician

EM A-School

          I enlisted in the United States Navy with a contract that would allow me to learn some type of electrical. They offered me three choices. My first choice was to be a construction electrician (CE) with the Seabees (they’re the tough guys that are on the front lines setting up housing just after the marines clear the area). My second choice was for interior communications (IC), and third choice was general shipboard electrical (EM). Needless to say, the Navy decided I should go with my third choice and become an Electricians Mate.

            The next step would be my education. Since I had boot camp in San Diego, and the electrical school was in the same area, one would think I would travel 1/2 mile for my schooling. Instead the Navy felt it best that I move across the country to a base at Great Lakes, Illinois. It was February and I traded a beautiful sunny climate for three feet of snow.

            While I was there, I clowned around a lot and just barely got by with passing grades. What did it matter? I figured eventually I would be sent to a ship somewhere in the ocean—no big deal. After my fourth week, I missed a passing grade of 70% by one percent. I still had eight more weeks of electrical training before final graduation from electrical A-school and assumed I would be able to continue with my nonchalant attitude. The head of the school had another idea. He sat me down and expressed in no uncertain terms that if I didn’t bring up my score in the future I would be chipping paint…not as an electrician, but as a “monkey mate.” Translation: “Your rate will be changed to a boatswains mate”(the janitors of the navy...a vital yet unappetizing prospect for me).  To ensure I passed the exam the following week, I was ordered to take on the additional night class. It was available for the slower learners and careless individuals such as me.    

            I got the message. Needless to say my enthusiasm to pay more attention escalated tenfold. After my little encouragement speech, I vowed that my fifth week would be different. I studied harder during the eight hour classes and spent another two hours an evening at the night class. At the end of the week I passed the test. But not only did I pass the test, I scored a 94%. By passing in the 90 percentile, I was permitted to leave the classroom early.  Why you ask? At the end of the week the men have to clean up the room...sweep up, mop the floors...general cleaning.  However, those who ranked in the 90 percentile weren’t required to do those chores. 

            When the teacher read the names of the men who could leave, everyone in the class knew it would be the usual distinguished intellectuals. After a couple of the regular nerds were announced, my name was read aloud too. Yes MY name.  Everyone in the room was shocked.  Even the teacher had to look at the score again. I tried to look casual about it, shrugging my shoulders as if it was nothing special. I walked out the door and accepted my new role as a smart guy. It’s very odd to hold the baton of idiot one week and be handed the baton of genius the next.

            Every week after that, I and one other Nigerian were known as the two top scorers in the class. The guys would crowd around the Nigerian and I to ask how we answered the questions. The Nigerian and I seemed to accept one another on an equal basis and exchanged a few words about a certain question that could have gone one way or another. Then we assumed our roles as tutors guiding the others on where they blew it or not.           

            I learned some hard lessons. Living a casual lifestyle is a careless way to operate in the world. A little hard work can eventually provide benefits and earn assurances for respect. Proof was when our next duty station was given to us. Most of the guys were selected for jobs on an aircraft carrier with 5000 other guys, but I was ordered to a Destroyer Escort or Frigate (back in San Diego)—a sleek antisubmarine vessel with a compliment of 250 men. I had a job with a lot of variety and a place to learn every man’s name. It wasn’t all roses; in fact, duty on a smaller vessel is hard work. But I have to thank God for the failure of week four and the Navy’s foresight. If it weren’t for that kick in the butt, I would have wasted my talent and not had the opportunity to help save the lives of my comrades…but that’s another story.

Diaries of an Electrician

            This may or may not be a web-series.

 The Beginning

            It all started back when I was an inquisitive kid living in the basement of a Lake Oswego home. My dad always collected an array of miscellaneous pieces of equipment that was going to be discarded from the lumber mill he supervised out in North Portland. I rummaged through the garage and came up with a gear motor hiding in the bowels of dad’s boxes. I attached an old cord to the connection at the motor and tested it. I was relieved when the motor didn’t smoke on me. I was really impressed with the variable speed control it had. I built a little building and used the gear motor to lift an elevator for my army men. When the enemy attacked, the good guys were able to escape up the elevator. What fun!

            Things didn’t always work out so well. I had an old radio in my bedroom that needed an antenna to break free of the basement static. I simply got an old cord and attached it to the antenna terminal and ran it under my mattress and out the window. Presto! A clear signal! All was great until one day when my mom was scolding me for not doing something. For the life of me, I can’t remember what it was. What I do remember is that we were arguing through my locked door. When I turned around from shouting at the door, the curtains at the window burst into flames. As my mom continued to argue with me, I yelled back that I was busy putting out a fire. I frantically swatted the burning curtains with a towel. She asked me to repeat myself. After shouting my dilemma, my dad showed up at the door pounding for me to open it up. I kept at my fire fighting until the blackened curtains stopped burning. I ran for the door and unlocked it. Dad didn’t have time to spank me. He rushed into the smoke filled room and opened the window. He turned over the mattress and we saw a black smoldering line snaking across the bottom. He took the mattress outside and hosed it down.

            We found out that the wire from the radio had shorted at the terminals and heated up enough to ignite the fabrics. I can’t remember what my punishment was, but I believe that little escapade was the start of my journey into the electrical field. I even remember as far back as four years old and sticking a knife into a socket and getting zapped. Any normal person would have given up long ago…but not me. I was a hard headed kid who wouldn’t let a silly thing as a shock or fire to deter him from pursuing his goals.

            Thus began my life as an electrician. 

My Wonderful Human

Dedicated to all you animal lovers.

My Wonderful Human

            I sat on the chair when she entered the room. How exciting it was to see her again after so long. I counted three sleeps, and two wakes before the bright light in the sky came up again. I rushed over to her and she picked me up. She gave me a big squeeze and said she loved me. I can tell when she says she loves me, because her voice goes up and it sings smoothly.

            Her name is Lyla and she is my human. I know that is her name because that is the sound that her mouth makes after picking up the ringing thing. I even try to call her the way she speaks, but it is so very hard. The best I can do is Meowa.

            Let me tell you why she is wonderful. My human is very brave. She will stand between me a wiggling thing to protect me from it. I try to get at it to show her I do not need to be protected. I am brave and can take care of myself. So I slash and punch at the moving thing that darts around her leg. Sometimes I catch it with my claws but Lyla cries out and pulls back the wiggly thing so I cannot kill it.  

            My human is so generous. She will give me food to eat and water to drink. I don’t have to hunt for my own food … unless I want to. But I could. I have seen a fury little animal squeak by me at night and I dashed for it. I have killed the intruders and left them by my food for my human to admire. You see, it is I who is the real protector of the territory.

            I need no one to clean myself, I take long naps to conserve my strength for battle, and I always keep one eye open in case I am needed. I have a thick coat to keep me warm when it is cold, and I have long whiskers that tell me how wide of a hole I can go through. My strong legs let me leap up to high places, where I stand guard and watch for dangerous moving things.  My tail gives me balance and my long claws are excellent for slashing and catching things. But I don’t want to talk about me; I want to talk about my wonderful human, Lyla.

            My human is so very smart. She lets me into the moving room with black round things and she knows how to move us across the land to other places; even bad places where they poke things into me. Why does she let them do that? It is the only time I wish to slash her … but I don’t. She is a good human most of the time. I have trained her to make up special places for me around the living territory. I have my special chair, my special couch, my special pad in the corner, and even special places my human doesn’t know about … such as the rumbling noise area. That is where I paw open a little door to a cozy spot in the back above some layered fur stacks.

            My human is kind. When the darkness outside comes, she will sit in front of the light box with food and drink, and I will sit on her lap. She will stroke my fur and the rumble inside me comes out. I don’t know why I rumble inside, but it happens every time I have a happy feeling.

            My human is faithful. I am very clean and need to squeeze out the bad smell stuff away from me. I also like to bury it so I do not have to look at it. My human has a box for me and she knows how I like to have it cleaned out.

            My human is playful. Many times when I am bored, I will race around my territory as fast as I can. Sometimes my human will dash with me and play chase or hide and find. Other times she will stand by when the bright little spot intruder comes by. I can never get my claws on it. My human also stands by to watch me dash and slash at the wing intruder that flies into the room. I leap and jump and get it. It is fun to let it wriggle and get loose, so I can jump at it again. When it stops I know I have killed it--and have protected my human.

            My human is odd and clever. Sometimes she will say things with other humans and they make funny nonsense sounds as if they know what they are saying. I haven’t been able to train my human to understand my own sounds but she knows what I am saying anyway. Like when I want food, I meow, or when I want to be held, I meow, or when I don’t like something, I meow. And somehow she knows which meow I am sounding about. Isn’t she amazing?

            I am so very lucky and proud to own such a human as Lyla. So for all you animals that have a human…love them, rub them, and take care of them. Humans are the best and the most wonderful pets that any animal could wish for.