Outsider's View

Nail the board

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:00:00 +0000

Companies are falling one by one. Banks, car manufacturers, insurers. Bankruptcies, bailouts, executives who ground their corporations into the dirt are getting millions in bonuses and, instead of being jailed, retiring to Bahamas.

People are frustrated and angry. But to my greatest surprise, the anger is directer towards completely wrong targets. Americans are blaming Republicans, immigrants, Democrats, executives, Obama, Chinese, Bush, and the wrong phase of the moon. It is nonsense.

We need to understand that everyone in a corporation have their little particular interests in mind. Executives want bonuses, option holders want to predate them, sellers look for kickbacks and buyers would rather destroy a company so that they can pick up pieces for peanuts. It may not be pretty, but it is a rational self-interest, for everybody except one group: the board of directors.

The members of the board have one and only one duty: to look after the overall well-being of the company, and safeguard the company on behalf of the owners (shareholders). They approve the compensation packages for executives, decide on business model, overlook balance sheets, control the debt levels. Or, at least, they should. That is their (fiduciary) duty.

However, even though it is both legal and moral obligation, there is no real punishment threat in case the board does not discharge its duty faithfully. The laws of Delaware, Caymans and Bahamas (where most big corporations are incorporated) practically hand the directors immunity regardless how bad they do. And that is the core of our problems.

As soon as the directors are actually responsible for the companies, as soon as they pay with their own money (or prison time) for their stupidity, things would change. No longer the directors would feel free to hand over hundred million bonus to the brother in law of their golf buddy. No longer they would feel it is all right to load a company with ten billion debt just to pay dividends to their daughter's sweetheart.

What we really need, it is to nail the board.

Communist corporations

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:03:00 +0000

Have you ever wondered why communist countries failed, or, at least, have had serious trouble making ends meet (with an exception of China¹)? Some will say it's due to the brilliant policies of the Saint Reagan, others will expound the inner evilness of totalitarian regimes. But the truth is much more prosaic: in communism there is no direct incentive to care. To care about anything, but most of all, there is no direct incentive to care about the work one is supposed to do. Everything is owned by the state, everything is a communal property, and so no one is taking care of it. Whether one does his job properly, or not, he or she will be paid the same at the end of the month. And so nobody did anything, except the few who deeply believed in their cause (anyone remembers Boxer from the "Animal Farm"?). Companies would fail, but since the state had to prop them up, they were not closed. They operated at a loss, doing nothing, or worse, depleting resources and polluting just so that they seem to operate, and contributing to the general decline of the economy.

Worse yet, since the person in charge had no vested interest in the success of failure of whatever he was doing, more often than not a small personal benefit would trump a big harm to the company. Can I get couple of bucks for signing a really harmful contract? Sure, why not, what do I care. Should I repair the phone line today, or go for a beer? Is that a trick question? Why should I bother fixing a phone if I can bask in the sun with a cold beer?

What all that has to do with US corporations? Well, look around. This is exactly what is happening to the big corporations now. Theoretically there is an owner - the shareholders, who, through he board of directors, exercise control over the company. But in fact, they do not. It is a rare case when the shareholders actually made any decision, including such a simple one as picking the right director. Everyone always vote just like the board recommends. And if one try to do something else, the sheer inertia of the rest, who do not even bother to vote at the shareholder meetings, will make that a futile effort. Thus those who have most interest in success of the company are left out.

So, who else have the incentive to take care of the company? The CEOs? The couldn't care less. Every day they are employed, they earn more than an average worker in a year. And if they grind the company to the ground, they just take their golden parachutes and leave. No incentive there.

The Board of Directors, perhaps? Well, they get paid a little, but they get paid regardless whether the company is doing well or not. And if the company goes bankrupt, the directors ask their friends on other boards to place them there...

Perhaps the workers? Yeah, right. Just tell me about the last time you have heard an employee in a big company saying "I pour my whole heart into the good of the company." The corporations treat the workers like trash, and get the same treatment in return.

The result is visible all around us. Consider the mortgage, or, in general, the financial crash of late. It is the direct result of big bank employees giving away loans that had no chance to be repaid. Just because they were on commission... If it was a small local bank, such employees would either be family or friends of the owner, or, at least, they would be closely scrutinized by the owner, and would not want to throw money away like that. The "Big Three" automakers - their response to soaring gas price is not making smaller, more efficient cars, but laying off workers and closing factories. Gas prices - the de facto monopoly of a small handful of gas companies makes them allows them to increase price instead of finding new oil sources. One does not need Dilbert to see that the "corporate" became synonymous with "lazy, stupid, and inefficient".

This lack of incentives was what made the communist countries fall, and it could be what will make the capitalistic countries fall - just more slowly.

Of course, the simple solution would be to make the companies smaller. Even though the "economy of scale" is an important factor in company's efficiency, the innovativeness, energy and true involvement of the employees are much, much more necessary (if you do not believe, compare the story of Southwest Airlines with American or United).

That could be accomplished by a steeply progressive revenue tax (tax on the revenue, not on profit), which would make two companies selling $1billion each more profitable than one company selling $2billion. But find me a politician that has the will and wisdom to do it...

----------------
1. China is a special case for two reasons: enormous amounts of direct foreign investment, and the government, who, even though it is communist, encourages private small business ownership.

Carnival of Political Solutions -- June 20, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:39:00 +0000

Welcome to the June 21, 2008 edition of carnival of political solutions. The submissions are, as always, excellent, however, we still have a number of off-topic articles (either not solutions, or not political). I have not included those, even though they were very nice postings.

Edmund Ross presents So what are you going to do when gas hits $12/gallon? posted at Political Bull.

Kurt Yordy presents different solutions to high gas prices in Random Thursday posted at Lyving Well.

Doug Ragan presents My Presidential Campaign ? Oil and the Environment posted at I'm A Pundit Too, saying, "I am putting together a series of posts regarding my Presidential Campaign Platform. I am not actually running for President of the US for a few reasons. One reason is that I am 33. Another reason is that I have no political experience. And lastly, I am a very reasonable person who does not enjoy lying, therefore no one would ever vote for me. The first part of this series will be the issue of oil and the environment."

Charles H. Green presents What Malpractice Suits Teach Us About Trust posted at Trusted Advisor Associates, saying, "Even when it comes to something like a doctor saying sorry for messing up, politics, and laws, are involved."

Matthew presents I?m on the Pavement Thinking About the Government posted at Conservatives and Normals . Com - The Blog, saying, "Take time to learn about politics."

Vihar Sheth presents Living in the City is Greener posted at Vihar Sheth.

Edmund Ross presents Pursuing renewable energy will create jobs and get us off of oil posted at Political Bull.

APH presents Rent Control Part 4: Conclusion and Solutions posted at Market Urbanism, saying, "Discussion of solutions to rent control."

Collin Williams presents Assumptions of Competence posted at RejectSociety.com.

John Phillips presents Race and Gender Forever posted at The Word On Employment Law, saying, "Race and gender keep going and going and going."

Yi Hui Chang presents Ratings of Bay area hospitals from Consumer Reports posted at The Simple Wealth.

Andrew Heath presents How to Achieve Peace in the Middle East posted at Andy, saying, "Here is my proposed solution to our conflict in the Middle East"

Recoil presents Obama Will Raise Taxes - McCain Says DRILL! posted at Double Barreled Opinions.

Holly Ord presents John McCain Doesn’t Support the Troops posted at Menstrual Poetry.

Phil B. presents A Plan to Destroy All Weapons of Mass Destruction posted at Phil for Humanity, saying, "No leader and therefore no country can be trusted enough to control weapons of mass destruction."

Sammy Benoit presents Democratic Stupidity on Drilling Threatens Our Economy posted at YID With LID.

Allen in Fort Worth presents Libertarians Will Not Work Hard For You. We Promise. posted at The Whited Sepulchre, saying, "here's the libertarian solution to a lot of problems."

Phil B. presents Why Demonstrations and Petitions Do Not Work posted at Phil for Humanity, saying, "If demonstrations and petitions work, then the 1960s would have seen a lot more political, social, and environmental changes."

Joseph McClellan presents Revitalize Economy? Spend Says Obama posted at Debit versus Credit, saying, "Obama recently shared his opinions on what needs to be done to bring this economy out of its recession. I cover it and share my opinion on the matter. What is yours?"

Educatorblog presents ?Don?t tase me, bro!? (AKA - the Obligatory Edublogger TFA Post) posted at An (aspiring) Educator's Blog, saying, "An educator debates the merits of Teach For America."

Jeffrey Stingerstein presents Abortion (a secular response to Richard Dawkins) posted at Disillusioned Words.

Jeffrey Stingerstein presents A System to Replace Affirmative Action Points in College Admissions posted at Disillusioned Words.

That concludes this edition.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political solutions, blog carnival.

Carnival of Political Solutions -- May 20, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Thu, 22 May 2008 03:07:00 +0000

Welcome to the May 20, 2008 edition of carnival of political solutions. This edition brought once again a lot of excellent posts, many from our regular contributors. Unfortunately, many were off-topic, and as such, not included in this carnival.

Lets start with 30 years old, but still relevant article on American Spirit entitled Have we Forgotten of Clyde W. Kirkman posted at Fred Black's Fred Black: Internet Business Blog..

Jeffrey Stingerstein presents 'in vitro meat', a -- still hypothetical, unfortunately -- solution to many ethical and economical problems in A Question to the Carnivorous... posted at Disillusioned Words.

John Phillips discusses the stigma related to mental health problems in Mental Health and the Workplace posted at The Word On Employment Law.

Phil B. argues against tariffs and subsidies Subsidies and Tariffs are Anti-Capitalism « Phil for Humanity posted at Phil for Humanity, saying, "Are subsides and tariffs fair in a free market?"

Chicks With Guns Magazine presents a tongue-in-cheek diatribe Whirled News - President, Candidates Address Gasoline, Climate Crisis posted at Chicks With Guns.

Mark Schauss calls for a crash R&D program for clean energy in An Apollo Program for Clean Energy? posted at Toxic World Blog - Detoxify and Heal Your Body.

Shan Siddiqi presents Immigration - the key to economic success? posted at Globally Rational, saying, "Some of the most successful countries are also the most cosmopolitan. But which comes first: the immigration or the economic success?"

John Phillips discusses race issues in Would you hire Hillary? posted at The Word On Employment Law.

Rickey Henderson presents a political review of action hero movie in Rickey Reviews This “Iron Mensch” Movie That The Kids Seem Rather Keen On… posted at Riding with Rickey.

Lucynda Riley argues for less government and more market in PayDay Loan Companies prevented from doing business in Arkansas. posted at Quietly Into the Night.

Working 3 or 4 days a week seems like a very fine idea, but may or may not be economically feasible. It was presented though by Lucynda Riley in Just some ideas posted at Bound Down South.

An excellent point: I am not terrified!, posted by Adam Pieniazek in War on Terror Ends! at Adam Pieniazek.

Dr. Jose DeJesus discusses the unsustainable current arrangement where large payers, including government, insurance, and large employers have negotiated payment rates that do not reflect real healthcare costs. Those who have limited benefit or no health insurance face rates that often reflect distortions created by these large payers, and mandated but unfunded costs. Finally, Dr. DeJesus suggests some alternatives to the current situation in Cash Before Treatment - The Crisis in Medical Care Funding posted at Physician Entrepreneur"

Jeffrey Stingerstein discusses oil problems in Oil Oil Everywhere and Not a Drop to Drink (Part One) posted at Disillusioned Words.

Matthew presents Project "Elected Official Accountability" posted at Conservatives and Normals . Com - The Blog, saying, "An attempt to hold elected officials accountable."

APH discusses the infamous gas-tax-holiday in How McCain or Obama Can Permanently Eliminate the Gas Tax, Cut Pork, Help the Environment, and Save Face posted at Market Urbanism, saying, "A unique free-market solution to the gas tax:
John McCain and Hillary Clinton have both supported the idea of a “Gas Tax Holiday“. The whole idea of a Holy Day to celebrate the worship of socialized transportation catered by Santa Clinton/McCain seems pretty absurd to me. Nonetheless, they expect pandering to gas-addicted voters to pay off in their election hopes.
Unfortunately, such a gas holiday would burden the deficit, incentivize the burning of fossil fuels, and further socialize our transportation system."

Adding his voice to the current debate on presidential candidates is SteveW, who presents Why Obama Shouldn?t Be President. at PurposePlansLife.

And we finish with a cartoon by Jeremy Zongker entitled Election Promises posted at Debt Comics.

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of
carnival of political solutions
using our
carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political solutions, blog carnival.

Stop Farm Subsidies

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Sun, 11 May 2008 01:54:00 +0000

In a few days the Congress is going to vote on the $300 billion Farm Bill. Its passage is pretty much assured, however, there is still hope that president Bush would veto it, as he should.

The bill contains a significant number of provisions, all of them either wasteful, harmful or downright scandalous. Yes, scandalous! How else can you call a provision, added by the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, that gives tax breaks to the owners of the race horses? How do they dare to create taxpayer funded welfare for race horse owners?! Well, McConnell is from Kentucky after all, I guess he or his friends/relatives own some race horses...

However, this, and other provisions like this, are just a drop in the bucket (or trough, as some would have it). The real problem lies in the commodity subsidies.

The federal government is giving out some $30 billion a year to farmers, for producing certain commodities: corn, rice, soybeans, etc. These subsidies create a lot of troubles, and solve nothing.

First problem, the redistribution of income. It is always bad when the government takes money form one group and gives it to another, but in this case it borders on ridiculous. In 2005, the average of farm household income was about $80,000 while average of all household income was close to $65,000. So, in effect, the subsidies move money from the poorer general population to the wealthier few. Very few. The list of recipients of the federal farm subsidies include such names and companies as David Rockefeller, Chevron, Eli Lily, Ted Turner, Kenneth Lay (of Enron fame). In fact, about 75% of the subsidies go to the wealthiest 10% of recipients. The other 90% of recipients receive in average some $500, that is, less than one percent of what Mr. Turner gets. And with current (and most likely, future) commodity prices at record high, why should we subsidize them at all?

Well, the federal government argues that we get lower food prices in return for our subsidies. Maybe, but since the price cuts are paid for with our taxes, where's the gain? Considering that the money go through the federal redistribution, it is a safe bet that half of it is wasted and/or stolen on the way from taxpayer through the federal government through the farmers back to the taxpayers (in the form of lower food prices). I would much rather keep the tax money and pay 3 cents more for an apple.

Another problem created by the subsidies is the distortion in the commodity market. The farmers, having even small incentive, will produce more what the farm bill tells them to produce, instead of what is needed. Rather than paying attention to the demand and supply (which is the only way to have real competition that brings prices down), the farmers pay attention what the central government want them to grow. Currently, our lawmakers want mostly corn. That leads to overproduction of corn, which is then wasted (actually, it is distilled into ethanol, but since creating a gallon of ethanol from corn uses about a gallon of oil, it is pretty much wasted effort), and underproduction of everything else. Have you been grocery shopping recently? These prices are results of such underproduction, coupled with the oil price and the weakness of the dollar, of course.

Then there is the current budget deficit. Farm subsidies are paid by either borrowed money, or "printed" money. The first method is rather costly, and results in ever-increasing taxes; the second one raises inflation and increases prices, defeating the very purpose of the subsidies. If there ever was something to cut from the federal budget, it is farm subsidies.

There is still time, write your representative!

Housing Rescue or Highway Robbery

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:10:00 +0000

I have never thought it would come to this, but I actually agree with president Bush. He threatens to veto the new "housing rescue" bill, and I can't hope enough he will actually do it.

The House of Representatives must share Hillary Clinton's opinion on economists and other "elite" specialists: "who needs thinking if we can get votes". And what is the easiest way of getting votes if not giving one group of people money squeezed from another group?

In particular, two of the bill's provisions are particularly harmful. First the House want to spend $15 billion buying foreclosed houses. I don't know where to start on that, even. What business the government has buying houses? If I want invest my money in real estate, I will do it myself, thank you very much. I do not need a bunch of politicos in Washington telling me that my (tax) money is best spent speculating on foreclosed houses. And if it is not a speculation on real estate than what? Bailout for the ~~morons~~ bankers and investors who made bad decisions, gave money to unqualified borrowers and ended up holding empty houses in disrepair? If so, the only thing that should be said is "if you can't take the risk of investing, don't invest." And not, as the House would have it, "if you lose on your investments, and have some friends on the Hill, the taxpayers will make up your losses." This is nothing but a robbery.

The second brain-dead provision would have the federal government pay up to $300 billion for the shaky loans that unqualified borrowers cannot pay. Three hundred billion dollars! Of taxpayer money, channeled to those who got houses they couldn't afford. And where are they proposing to find this money? Raise taxes? That wouldn't do in an election year. Sell Alaska back to the Russians? Same here. Borrow more from China? I guess. Isn't it ironic how our leaders think they can get out of the mess caused by reckless borrowing by recklessly borrowing even more?

In effect, this bill would reward the greedy investors who take more risk than they can; the unscrupulous loan pushers giving money to whoever they could catch, regardless of qualification; the reckless home buyers getting loans on houses they could not really afford.

And those who wisely managed their money, did not live above their means, got modest houses or apartments, paid their tax bills and worked their behind off to be able to earn money for it all?

They get robbed blind.

You can express your opinion on this issue at Where I Stand.

Elite Economists

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:13:00 +0000

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Hillary Clinton said when asked which economist thinks her proposal is sane. Then she declared that the "elite opinion" of specialists in their fields is somehow harmful to the "vast majority of Americans." This is scary. A presidential candidate, who dismisses educated advice in favor of wishful thinking is really going to make mess out of our country. Didn't we learn something in the last 8 years!? "Cakewalk", "they will greet us with flowers", "mission accomplished", "that's helluva job, Brownie". When will we understand that even the best of our wishes do not become true just because we want them? The laws of physics are immutable, and so are the laws of economy. The President does not have to know everything, but he -- or she -- has to listen to those who know about a particular area. And if those who spent years of their life figuring out economic results of our actions tell us that what we want to do will be at best wasteful and at worst disastrous, we ignore them at our own peril.

What's next? Dismissing the "elite opinion" of engineers that the paper bridge we want to build will collapse? Rejecting the "elite opinion" of doctors that shooting ourselves in the foot will hurt?

The egotism of Hillary Clinton thinking that she and her ignorance is better for the country than specialists and their education is truly staggering. It is scary. But not as scary as what happened in Indiana the day after her speech: she rose in the polls. Instead of tanking to the bottom, she actually rose. I guess the populace feels some resentment towards more educated and more knowledgeable people. After all, who likes them nerds. Especially in America, where, in the 21 century, belief in ESP (extrasensory perception) is more widespread than knowledge that electrons are smaller than atoms*.

What's next? Perhaps Ms. Clinton, as the president, will remake our health care system, replacing these elite physicians with witch doctors? Put the Chief Astrologer as the head of NASA? Get rid of the elite telecommunication engineers and tell people to use telepathy instead of telephones?

People! Wake up! Ms. Clinton is a disaster in making. Unless we stop her right now, we will be in a really big trouble.

* http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm

Assassination of D.C. Madam

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Thu, 01 May 2008 23:52:00 +0000

I am not much of a conspiracy theory buff. I do not believe in UFO hold at Area 51, and I laugh at people who tell me that the CIA did in JFK. But today a headline caught my eye: "Police: D.C. Madam killed herself..." I have looked more closely: it was an article form AP written by Mitch Stacy. I read it, and I could not believe my eyes.

Specifically, the following comment just blew my mind away: "... making good on her vow never to go to prison for running a high-end Washington prostitution ring..." I thought that reading on grade level was a prerequisite for being a writer for AP, but apparently I was wrong. What the D.C. Madam said was: "I'm sure as heck not going to be going to federal prison for one day, let alone four to eight years, because I'm shy about bringing in the deputy secretary of whatever. Not for a second. I'll bring every last one of them in if necessary."

Got it? Not "I will hang myself", but "I'll bring every last one of them." And now she is dead. There will be no bringing anyone, no deputy secretary needs to tremble thinking about his escapades. Yeah, trembling. Remember what happened to Eliot Spitzer? The Client Number 9, who used to be a powerful err... someone or other? I bet the politicos on D.C. Madam's list wouldn't like to share his fate and be remembered only as a next client number XYZ.

So, what is going to happen now? My guess would be - nothing. The police will accept the suicide story. Why not? It is convenient, and it is safe. If they try to dig deeper, some congressman, deputy secretary or commissioner will come after them, so why bother? The politicos will be only too happy to let the story die, lest someone finds his own name on the client list. The public? Well, the public is apathetic enough not to do anything, as usual. And the media? They have abdicated their responsibility as the nation's watchdog, and so we should not expect anything but talking heads reading press releases prepared by the politicos.

We, the people, have to demand a thorough investigation. We have to reject the cover story, and dig deeper. We need to publish the list of prostitutes' clients anyway, thus denying the crooks their objective.

I have not been this outraged about the death of a public figure and the subsequent stories about it since the year 2000. Do you remember? The plane carrying Senator Paul Wellstone crashed, killing the Senator and his family, and, by quite a coincidence, handing the control of the Senate to the Republicans for the next six years.

To quote a TV commercial: "People, wake up!" Do you really want a country where politicians get troublesome people murdered and no one even makes a peep?

Political Game Site

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:54:00 +0000

I have started to construct a Political Game site. It is - basically - a quiz site, where questions are related to politics, and more often than not are quite not obvious. It is intended as an "edu-tainment" site, where one can find amusement as well as hard facts.

The name of this site is "The Game" and the address http://thegame.exofire.net.

Any comments are most welcome!

Carnival of Political Solutions -- April 20, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:52:00 +0000

Welcome to the April 20, 2008 edition of carnival of political solutions.

Apparently we are in a great need for some solution: the number of submissions to this carnival is truly astonishing.

Sagar presents a full-of-hope economic forecast for the presidency Barack Obama in 10 Surprising Economic Implications of a Barack Obama Presidency posted at Currency Trading.net.

Jeffrey Stingerstein presents his opinion on the issue of abortion in Abortion (a secular response to Richard Dawkins), Part Four posted at Disillusioned Words. It is not really on topic for this carnival (we are looking for solutions to the current political problems) but it is an interesting read, so I include it here.

Phil B. calls for simplification of tax returns in Tax Returns are Too Complicated <<> posted at Phil for Humanity.

Carole G. McKay extolls the virtues of honesty in Hilary, Bill and Noah Webster posted at McKay Today, and says, "Can we take a candid look at how we lie to ourselves and others and the price we pay when looking the other way?"

John Phillips considers whether a military experience should be prerequisite for the President's job in Best Qualified Candidate posted at The Word On Employment Law.

Lori Jewett calls for the election of Hillary Clinton in Coming Together for Change posted at Between Us Girls, saying, "Recognizing our interdependence and joining together to encourage change is the only way to solve the problems that face individuals, nations and the world. The days of individualism at all costs have come to an end."

David Gross presents Taxpaying as Complicity posted at The Picket Line, saying, "If the government is causing problems, and you're contributing to the government, are you contributing to the problems? Or is it that once you've "rendered unto Caesar" then Caesar takes the blame for what happens next? This has been debated for hundreds of years, in arguments that remain interesting and relevant today."

Gavin R. Putland calls for shifting our policies towards land-value taxation in Still on the mountaintop: Economically rational racism posted at /etc/cron.whenever/.

Mark Schauss republishes a Washington Post editorial in Ignoring the Supreme Court Ruling - Bush Administration Flaunts the Law On the Environment posted at Toxic World Blog - Detoxify and Heal Your Body.

Shan Siddiqi presents The Global Network of Scientists posted at Globally Rational, saying, "There is a major flaw in the way that scientists currently share information. This flaw is causing huge delays in medical/scientific research, leading to countless unnecessary deaths. What can we do to fix this problem?"

Huck Finn presents a unique brand of black humour in PutinToon 26 - How Our Money is Sucked Out of the U.S. posted at Putin For President.

Alexander argues against torture in As American as violence posted at Extremely Lame, saying, "I’m not even getting into the argument that torture doesn’t provide us with accurate actionable intelligence. Torture is just something a civilized country doesn’t do."

DWSUWF calls for an environmental action in Of salmon and trout and canaries in a coal mine posted at Divided We Stand United We Fall, saying, "The question goes begging. What happened to the salmon? There are many theories, and scientists are, as yet, unwilling to state that they know the reason. But we have an indisputable fact. The canary in the coal mine is dead."

There were some other great articles submitted to this carnival. However, as they simply presented a set of facts (such as features of presidential candidates' web sites), or simple opinion and speculations (such as involvement of major world powers in Iran's issue), I have decided against including them here.

Technorati tags:

carnival of political solutions, blog carnival.

How will McCain fund his tax breaks?

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:57:00 +0000

Today we have heard yet another great idea from a presidential candidate: suspend the federal gasoline tax. No, really, it is a good idea. The high gas price is one of the biggest problems of US economy, as it drives up prices of everything else. It is also almost non-discretionary expense: people have to drive around to get to their workplaces, shops, schools and vacations. And, of course there is the psychological impact of seeing $4.999 on the gas station billboard.

And yet, as usual, it is less than half-baked idea. When will the politicians learn that the tax breaks are only beneficial if they are offset by corresponding decrease in government spending? The federal gasoline tax brings about $28 billion per year into the treasury. If McCain does not cut the spending by this amount, then what is he going to do? Print the money, bringing the inflation up, increasing prices for everything and making the US dollar even more worthless? Or borrow even more from China, getting deeper in debt and increasing our vulnerability to the pressures from foreign governments? Or tax us somewhere else, nullifying the effect of the tax break?

Do not be fooled: if the politicians do not identify the source of funding for their tax breaks, it means that sooner or later you will pay for it, with huge interest.

Who Owns Your Fingerprint?

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:41:00 +0000

On a recent trip to the SeaWorld park I was asked to be fingerprinted at the entrance. As a matter of principle I have refused (they checked my ID instead), but a quick look around revealed a steady stream of patrons putting their fingers in a scanner. Not even frowning at this latest addition to our surveillance society. "It helps public perception to have biometrics deployed on a widespread basis," said a former chairman of the Biometrics Consortium. "The more people use biometrics, the more people are comfortable with it." Apparently the consortium have achieved their goal: people begin to get comfortable with fingerprinting, face recognition software, and other biometric devices.

SeaWorld and other theme parks (mostly Disney's) ostensibly introduced the fingerprinting as a way of preventing people from selling their multi-day passes. Which I guess makes a good business sense. However, two very important issues need to be raised.

First: How are these corporations going to use the data they collect? Right now they claim it is exclusively to match the pass with the person, but how long will it take before the government realizes the value of such database? Especially since many former Disney's employees are now working for US intelligence and security organizations (e.g., Eric Haseltine, Bran Ferren). Soon enough there will be a request from DHS, FBI, or some other three-letter agency to make this database available. First they will claim it will help them catch terrorists. Then it will be child molesters, drug dealers; then other criminals. Next the turn will come for deadbeat parents, anarchists, anti-globalists, Muslims, militia members, and those punks with pants hanging below waists. The agencies will ask, the corporations will deliver (remember the retroactive immunity for AT&T?), and the general population will acquiesce. Not a murmur will be raised, not a word of protest, since, as I wrote in "Life Above All" the members of our society are scared to death. Scared that a big bad terrorist will come and kill them in the night. And to protect themselves they will gladly give up the remaining shreds of their liberty and privacy.

The second issue perhaps is not so profound, but more practical, and certainly as important. Namely: How are the companies going to protect the biometric data they collect from theft and misuse. The list of companies (and government organizations) losing sensitive personal data is quite impressive (just do Google search for companies losing customer data...) The resulting identity thefts are more and more common, and more and more costly (Federal Trade Commission estimates there is about 9 million identity thefts every year, with financial costs of about several thousands dollars per incident). Now imagine what may happen if not only your social security number or bank account number is stolen, but also your fingerprint. For as little as $20 one can create a "gummy finger" from the electronic fingerprint data, which will be accepted by most fingerprint scanners. What is even more scary is that the imprint of such "gummy finger" may also be accepted by forensic labs... Imagine the day law enforcement officers break your door because of a gun with your fingerprint on it. Just because SeaWorld or Disney created the biometric database and did not protect it properly.

These companies will disclaim all the responsibility, saying, as other companies has done before in similar cases, that it is not their fault. Even though they collected and preserved the data and they did not protect it.

Here is my proposal. Let them pay the liabilities for everything that results from the data being stolen. After all, they benefit from the data they collect, while passing the cost and risks to the consumer. That need to change. Unfortunately, our weird laws assert that the fingerprint data belongs to whoever collected it, not to the actual owner of that fingerprint. (It is the same situation with any other personal and biometric data: whoever collected it is the owner, not the actual person about whom the data is). It's time to change that, and to demand laws that would make the companies that collect personal data responsible for its misuse -- whether by their own employees, by government, or by other thieves.

We need to demand more responsibility from the companies that collect personal, and especially biometric, data. And the only way to achieve that is to make them liable for the loses they facilitated.

Carnival of Political Solutions -- March 20, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:35:00 +0000

Welcome to the March 20, 2008 edition of Carnival of Political Solutions. The submitted articles were outstanding, and will provide a lot of interesting reading!

Shaheen Lakhan is calling for easing access to voting for elderly and disabled voters in Elderly Patients Face Tough Barriers When Voting posted at GNIF Brain Blogger.

John Phillips submitted 29 articles from The Word On Employment Law. These articles are not as much solutions as presentations of positions of presidential candidates on various topics. However, since they are rather detailed, and interesting, I have decided to include here the pointer to Mr. Phillips' blog The Word On Employment Law

Phil B. considers the effects of the minimum wage laws on the society in Minimum Wage is a Joke <<> posted at Phil for Humanity, concluding: "The minimum wage law is a joke..."

Tracee Sioux presents Stop Abortion Vote Healthcare! posted at Blog Fabulous, saying, "With healthcare for disenfranchised women on the table, those who consider abortion the number one issue should jump on the opportunity to drastically reduce the abortion rate by voting for a healthcare candidate."

John Phillips calls for action against race-, gender-, age-, and anything else- based discrimination in Ferraro, Race, Gender and No Change posted at The Word On Employment Law.

aprocrastinator analyzes the options for the healthcare reform in excellent article Socialized Medicine: Replacing Health with Politics posted at Will's Perspective, saying, "Does nationalizing health care lead to free and efficient care? Or, do price controls lead to rationing, waiting lists, and deteriorating quality? Ending the employer-provided care monopoly and replacing it with empowered consumer choice (individual coverage options) is the solution to health care reform. We shouldn't socialize health care and replace the current monopoly with a government monopoly."

aprocrastinator list the most important issues and the ways the ideal political candidate should address them in Voting Issues Guide posted at Will's Perspective, saying, "From taxes to health care to education: what should candidates for public office say about today's issues?"

Hear hear! Phil B. list the reasons why the Economic Stimulus Rebate is bad for everyone (except the politicos) in The Top 6 Reasons Why the Tax Rebate Won't Stimulate the Economy at Phil for Humanity.

Phil B. presents few excellent ideas in A Few Humble Suggestions to Get Out of this Recession <<> posted at Phil for Humanity.

Christine looks at the war plans of one presidential candidate and finds it lacking in Why Obama's War Plan is a Bust posted at Me, My Kid and Life: An American Single Mom Living in France.

Wenchypoo presents a libertarian leaning self help guide in The Self-Help Guide to Living in a Free Society (Super L-O-N-G) posted at Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Mental Wastebasket.

Thursday Bram calls for open source voting machines in Can Open Source Save Electronic Voting? posted at One Vote Matters.

Michael Bass presents From the Headlines: Home Power and Reason magazines posted at Debt Prison, saying, "I would like to propose some legislation of my own. We’ll call it “The Greenest of Green Energy Bill to Reclaim America’s Hazeless Sunsets and Clean Mountain Water.”"

And we end this edition on a lighter note with What The Promised Recession Means To You As An American presented by Brent Diggs at The Ominous Comma and
Alton Brown for President (An Interlude) presented by Richard Parrish at One Vote Matters.

That concludes this edition. Thank you for the excellent articles! Submit your blog article to the next edition using our carnival submission form.
Past posts and future hosts can be found on our

blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

blog carnival.

It's Time to End the Executive Privilege

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:19:00 +0000

"Democracy dies behind closed doors." Never in our country these words were as poingnat as now. On every turn the current administration hides all it can, whether important or not, from the public eyes. The number of documents classified by the Bush administration in 2006 was over 20 million - the same as during the whole second term of Clinton. The government increasingly delays and denies requests made under the Freedom of Information Act, especially after the infamous 2001 memo of ex Attorney General John Ashcroft urging all government agencies to deny disclosure of any information under any pretext. We know of the “black site” detentions, renditions, domestic eavesdropping and other murky dealings only because of leaks and unintentional disclosures. The administration even tried to close deportation hearings due to "security needs", even though the only information needed is whether someone has a valid visa.

Such devotion to secrecy is very dangerous, for many reasons. The 6^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati stated in one of their rulings: "A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the framers of our Constitution." I couldn't say it better. Ill-informed citizens cannot make proper political decisions; their behavior, and voting patterns will be ruled by fear and ignorance. But well, maybe this is what the administration wants, a frightened populace docilely doing everything the government orders?

Executive privilege is yet another expression of these inclinations. This administration refuses to disclose information on anything, hiding behind the executive privilege. Just a few examples: US Attorneys' firing. Rove testimony. Miers papers. Cheney's Energy Task Force. Patrick Tillman's death. Abuses in the Boston FBI office. You name it - every piece of information sought from the White House is meet with "No, we claim executive privilege."

Which is really just another way of saying "Try and make us". When the Congress issued subpoenas, the administration refused anyway. If the Supreme Court issues an order, the administration will still refuse. They dress the refusal in a legalistic mumbo-jumbo, but the core message is plain: "We control the law enforcement agencies, so how are you going to enforce your subpoenas and orders?"

Obviously, all three branches of the government understand that, and try to play the chicken game. Who blinks first, loses. It would be easier if there is anything in the Constitution that mentions the executive privilege, but there is nothing. No law, just "implicit" and "assumed" powers. And tradition: the presidents tried to claim such privilege for a long time (starting with Washington and Jefferson). Sometimes they prevailed, sometimes not.

But in all cases it created problems. One of the most important issues I have already mentioned: excessive secrecy, for which there is no place in a country like ours. Another is that the claim of executive privilege effectively places the members of the administration above the law, and that is the real danger. From there to authoritarian rule and dictatorship is just a small step.

The justification given most often by the presidents is that they need the executive privilege because they need "candid and unfettered advice" from their consiglieri, who may be unwilling to give it if they know that they may be called to testify publicly about it.

But in fact this is the most important argument against the executive privilege! This is the very reason why we need to end that nonsense, and end it right now.

What would be reason for not wanting to make your advice public? Are you afraid people will think you are warmongering? Disregarding constitution instead of protecting it? Calling for policies enriching your friends and pauperizing the population? Disenfranchising people? Well, maybe you are!

In a democratic country like US, if someone's advice is such that it cannot stand to public scrutiny, it is better not given at all.

whereistand.com issues: here.

On Lack of Candidates

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:43:00 +0000

Here we are, left with three presidential candidates that have any chance to be elected: Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. And no one to vote for.

The Democratic Party candidates try to appear dissimilar, but in fact they are pretty much the same. Their voting record (as I pointed in "Obama's I didn't do it") is essentially identical, especially with respect to the Iraq war and economy. Both are determined to increase entitlement programs as much as they can, increase the role of the central government in our lives, and legalize the illegal immigrants. All these will be paid by tax increases: either direct tax rate increase across the board, or selective tax increases (e.g., as promised in one TV ad spot "closing tax loopholes on corporations"). Of course that will cause the corporations to raise prices, which ultimately will make us pay these taxes.

John McCain, on the other hand, promises to stay in Iraq for another 100 years. Since increasing taxes is not that great idea for a Republican, he will either finance it by borrowing money, or by printing money. Printing money is bad. Very bad, close to economical suicide for a country: it entails deeper inflation, further devaluation of the currency, and deeper recession. Borrowing is not that much better, and it will not be easy anymore. Dollar is losing its safe currency status as fast as it is losing its value. The interest rates on Treasury notes are not attractive for foreign investors, and increasing the interest rates will push US deeper into recession. And, of course, the debt servicing will make a hole in the US budget only bigger. If he understands that, he will have no choice but increase the taxes, which would have its own negative impact on economy - just like the tax increases brought by the democrats.

Thus we are left with such a dreadful choice: pick the one that promises to tax and spend, or the one that promises to borrow and spend. Which one is the lesser evil?

Obama's "I didn't do it".

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:50:00 +0000

I have heard Mr. Barack Obama claim that "Unlike Hillary Clinton, I did not vote to authorize the Iraq war." Duh. Obviously: when that resolution was introduced, Mr. Obama was not a member of the senate yet. He could not possibly voted for it even if he wanted. What was said may have been "technically true", but in fact is an disingenuous lie intended to deceive the public.

I took the trouble to check the voting record of the two democratic contenders (using the US Senate web site and Project Vote Smart web site). Surprise there! On all matters related to the Iraq, Defense, Appropriations, National Security etc. these two voted identically. When they voted (and they missed disproportional number of votes, about 10%), they voted the same. There were only 7 bills among more that 250 I have checked where their votes were different. Two energy-related bills, two tax reconciliation bills, some judge appointment. One "Cluster Munitions Amendment". And that's it. On every war-related bill senators Obama and Clinton voted exactly the same.

In his own words, Barack Obama was against the war from the beginning, unlike Hillary Clinton. In his actions, the two are impossible to tell apart.

What do you believe: his words, or his actions?

Carnival of Political Solutions

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:31:00 +0000

We all know the problem. You know the solution.

If so, this is the place for you. This carnival is intended for posts that offer a political solution to any of the current issues in the United States. The problems we all know: education, budget deficit, healthcare, you name it. If you thought of a solution, send your post here. Any solution. Well, there are some conditions: the solutions must be grounded in science (e.g., "statistics show that.." or "research points to..."), or, in the very least, common sense. Wishful thinking ("imagine world without borders..."), religious methods ("let's pray for..."), and pure fantasy ("call the Godzilla!") will be rejected. Of course, extremely violent or unlawful proposals will be rejected as well.

The carnival will be published once a month, on the 20th. Submission of articles can be done via
carnival submission form. Please limit number of your submissions to three.
Thank you!

Modern Tribalism

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:35:00 +0000

"My tribe is better than your tribe." Unfortunately, such infantile statement lies at the foundation of the current state of affairs in the US. People are convinced that their particular tribe is the best, that it is the only one that matters, and the good of their tribe is their foremost objective.

The tribe they feel so strongly about can be almost anything nowadays: a particular religious group, shared national origin, a street gang, political party affiliation, sports team; anything, really.

In particular, the two major parties function as the modern day tribes. Party affiliation replaces common sense, judgment and plain observation. "I am a Republican, you are a Democrat, so, obviously, you don't know what you are doing." "I am a Democrat, you are a Republican, so you are a thief!" The politicians make their decisions based on the potential benefit for their particular party, rather than for the country as a whole. Sadly, the voting public increasingly display the same sentiment. So often they vote for wrong reasons: "yeah, that guy is a felon convicted for public funds embezzlement, but he is in my party, so I'll vote for him." (If they bother to check who they vote for at all, as most often they just do "straight party ticket").

As with other things, the modern tribalism has its positive and negative aspects. A positive aspects would include competition and balance. These are important forces in our society. The proponents of the divided government principle will list (and rightly so) a number of very positive consequences of the situation when the president and at least one part of the Congress are from opposite parties. Regrettably, the changes in people's mindset render that positive aspect less and less relevant. What we see is the insurgence of "the worse the better" mentality. I have heard people saying (in a radio interview): "I'll vote for the worst possible democratic presidential candidate. She will do such awful job, she will bring the country so low that the people will finally realize they should vote republican." Never mind the harm it will do to the country. Never mind fellow citizens. Never mind that the depressed economy, lack of security or lax law enforcement will negatively impact the speaker himself. As long as "they" get blamed, it is good for "us".

And that is the problem.

It may bring a short term benefit to the chiefs of the tribe (i.e., top politicians and their sponsors), but it definitely brings a lot of harm to everyone else in a slightly longer term.

The desire to belong to a tribe is one of the fundamental needs of men, the social animal. Thus, calling for abandoning the tribalism does not make sense. People will simply not discard their affiliations, nor should they. However, we need to work towards changing the "the worse the better" mentality. We should bring back the competition and balance.

Or soon enough there will be only "worse", and no "better".

Re: Electoral College in Republic

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:23:00 +0000

In a small piece entitled: "The US is a republic not a democracy" Brady Cuthbert argues the virtues of the Electoral College in the US. I would agree with him 100%, except one small detail: the Electoral College does not work as envisioned by our Founding Fathers any more. I would be more than happy to elect someone I trust, who can spend time and energy studying and investigating the presidential candidates, and making the best decision. But that not the case anymore. No one knows, or cares, who are the electors. People cast their votes for a particular candidate, or particular party, and the party makes sure the "electors" elect the party's candidate. The end of the story. It is very unfortunate, as most people that are voting nowadays really shouldn't. They have no clue what are the proposed policies of the candidates nor how would they affect the country. Most are voting either because they like the candidate's hairdo, their populists slogans, or just because they belong to a particular party. And any of these criteria are not really good.

If it was possible to go back to the original Electoral College idea, I would, in a blink of an eye. But it is not. As it is right now, it brings more harm than good (as I argue here), and therefore should be abolished. Before the elections, preferably.

Insane Sentences

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 01:50:00 +0000

According to the news released today, United States keeps 1 out of every 100 adult citizens in prison. 2.3 million inmates in the country of 300 million. This is crazy. Even such regimes like China (1.5 million inmates among 1400 million citizens), Iran, or Russia does not treat their people like this.

The direct causes of this situation are many: longer sentences, mandatory sentencing laws, criminalization of even most petty offenses. One of the most prominent is the criminalization of the use of marijuana and other "recreational" drugs. Yes. The majority of people arrested in the US are for drug-related offenses, mostly for possession of marijuana. Usually, those are some dope-smoking youngsters, with no violent history, no drug dealing charges and no criminal intent.

This has many negative effects. The most obvious is the financial cost borne by the increasingly cash-strapped states. The most sinister is the transformation of non-violent offenders into hardened criminals, who, after their release will have almost no recourse but join a street gang to survive. The change of potentially productive members of society into taxpayer-supported inmates. There are other social, financial and moral costs.

What's the solution? Well, it would be legalization of marijuana for one, lessening of the penalties for most offenses, or replacing incarceration with a fine for minor problems.

But the most important would be addressing the root cause of this problem. And the root cause is the "my safety above anything" (I wrote about it here) attitude of the American population.We demand that the government "does something" to protect us from the criminals, from the dangers, real or imaginary. Someone steals my doughnut? Send him to the prison, for a year, or five, or thirty! (This is real story from October 2007: "Man faces 30-year prison term for stealing doughnut" on Yahoo!News). And that's what is truly insane. Unless we change our attitude, our prisons will swell...

Live or Die: it is your choice

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:15:00 +0000

It is well understood that the US health care system is full of administrative inefficiencies, inflated prices, improper care, waste and fraud. Pretty much everyone agrees on that. Unfortunately, one important - maybe even the most important - element is usually left out of the current debate on healthcare costs. And that is personal responsibility.

Every discussion tacitly assumes that Mr. Joe Blow is entitled to medical services, even if he cannot pay for them. And that is wrong. The result of that is the rest of Americans having to spend over $100 billion a year on the care of uninsured in the form of taxes, higher hospital and doctor bills (who have to cover the cost of services rendered, but not paid), and higher insurance premiums. Granted, $100 billion is not that much compared to the total healthcare expenditures, but it is still about $1000 per year per American family. And there is a lot of good things a family can do with $1000 dollars.

In addition, as the uninsured tend to use the limited resources of emergency rooms for their routine care, the quality of care for everyone in many facilities is falling.

A possible solution to that would be a stricter policy of not providing care for people that cannot pay for it. Even - or especially (as they are extremely costly) - in life threatening situations. Of course that would require also a law shielding the healthcare providers from liability in cases when they refuse to treat an individual that cannot pay.

This will put the responsibility for the healthcare back where it belongs: on an individual. After few well-publicized cases of someone dying because he/she was turned away from emergency room, people would get the idea that after food and shelter the next necessity is health care. People will better understand the need for living healthier lifestyle and taking better care of themselves. More will buy the insurance, which will become more affordable.

That would benefit everyone.

Some may ask what about these who are really unable to pay for the healthcare? We, Americans, are a generous people as a group. I have no doubt there would be charities and churches (even some minimal taxpayer-supported social services) that can provide assistance to those who truly cannot afford it.

But for everyone else, it is their choice: if they prefer to buy a doughnut than pay for a vaccine, they shouldn't complain when they get sick.

Torture Straw Man

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:11:00 +0000

The public debate about torture often involves a question similar to the following: "If an acknowledged terrorist knows about impending horrifying attack on our people, would you torture that man or not?" That is known as the "ticking bomb" question. Many presidential candidates were asked this question, most answered affirmatively. Also, if you listen to "conservative" media, this question is often offered as a proof that we should allow our intelligence organizations more leeway during interrogations.

But in fact that is nothing but a straw man question.

Remember the Straw Man arguing technique (or fallacy, depending on whether we are using it, or it is used on us)? It relies on construing a "straw man" - a false position close enough to the position of the opponent, but false enough to be knocked down easily, taking the opponent with it. For example, someone argues: "I do not think the new fighter jet is worth the money". The opponent replies: "You want to leave us defenseless in the face of enemy!" and gets the fighter funded.

The "ticking bomb" question is exactly that, a straw man question. If we know that a person is a real terrorist, with blood on his hands, knowing about another attack, then what the heck! Hang him upside down and flay him alive for all I care. But this is never the case. In reality, our troops round up ten potential suspects on the streets of Fallujah, out of which, as our petty informant tells us, one may know a little abut something or other. Now the question is: are we going to torture these ten, most likely innocent, people to find out who knows what? What about just waterboarding them? Using "advanced interrogation techniques"? Keeping in solitary confinement for years? Without charge, without access to defense? What if it is only two people, does it make it easier? What if it is a hundred, or a thousand?

And so, the real question to ask is: "Are you willing to sacrifice innocent people to protect us from a future attack?" And the debate on the interrogation techniques should include this question rather than the faulty "ticking bomb" one.

For many people the answer to these two questions will be the same, for others it will change. Whichever it is for you, don't let a reasoning fallacy mask the true nature of the issue.

Price of Death

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:55:00 +0000

Death penalty may, or may not be an effective crime deterrent. Different people will give different answers to such question, depending on their point of view (usually more "pro-life" and "pro-family-values" individuals are more "pro-death-penalty").

However, the monetary price of the death penalty system in US can be figured out pretty much objectively. To illustrate my points I will use only two States: California (based on Los Angeles Times article from 2005) and New Jersey (from New jersey Policy Perspectives, also 2005).

In California, during the 1978-2005 period (that is, since the death penalty was reinstated) , various state-funded institutions spent about $114 million a year on death penalty cases. That includes the parts of budgets devoted to trying and defending death penalty cases at the Attorney General, California Supreme Court, Office of the State Public Defender, Habeas Corpus Resource Center, federal public defender offices, and death row sections of California Corrections Department. At the same time 11 executions were carried out. For a cost of more that quarter billion dollars per execution. This is insane.

It costs about $200 thousand a year to hire and train a police officer. For $100 million a year California could provide 500 additional officers that would actually have impact on the community. Total budget of California Army National Guard and air National Guard is less than $100 million. Spending a quarter billion dollars per execution is, in itself, a criminal waste of money.

In New Jersey the situation is even worse. They spend, in average, $11 million a year on death penalty cases. And the total number of executions, since 1983, is 0. Zero. Talk about waste of money there.

It is not surprising that in such situation the death penalty is not much of the deterrent for criminals. In both California and New Jersey it is more likely for people on the "death row" to die of old age than to be executed. And for what a cost!

We need to make up our mind. If we believe the death penalty can be effective tool in the fight against crime, we need to reform our system. Sentence, appeal, second appeal, injection, and we are done. Or just abolish it altogether, even though housing criminals for years and years is not that cheap, either.

Either way, the colossal waste of taxpayer money should be stopped.

Life Above All

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:40:00 +0000

Various things were written on the flags of nations: "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". "God, Honor, Country". "For Our Liberty and Yours". Many people died defending these ideals. But it seems that the motto on our standard nowadays turns slowly into "My life, my safety, my money". It seems as though people are running scared witless, screaming "Yes, take our liberties, our pride, our rights, but let us live! Oh, Government, protect us by any cost!".

Consider: the only thing standing between our liberties and totalitarian oppression by the government is our Constitution, with its checks and balances and the Bill of Rights. And what are we doing when we feel a bit threatened? We dump all of that out, give the central government as much power as they want, and trust that they, unchecked and uncontrolled, will take care of us. Good luck with that.

Yeah, terrorists are a thread that should be dealt with. But in the last 50 years the total fatalities (in US) caused by terrorism (and that both domestic, caused by the likes of Timothy McVeigh, and international, caused mostly by Islamic fundamentalists) amount to about 4000 persons. Which is minuscule compared to one year fatalities from causes like car accidents (~40000/year), falls (~18000/year), drowning (~3000/year), suicide (~30000/year), homicide by firearms (~16000/year), or alcohol-induced deaths (~20000/year)*. An yet we jettison our essential liberties, and our moral ideals, to protect us from such a minor nuisance.

We could go through each amendment one by one and give examples of what is going on, but there is no need: you could search the news as well as I can. However the pattern repeats itself ad nauseam: "We have to limit free speech, otherwise we would endanger our security". "We need unwarranted searches, or our security will be compromised". "Right to speedy trial and right to confront the accusers will jeopardize the security." And so on and so on.

Yes, it may. Yes, it will. But this is not the point. The right to free speech is infinitely more important than some "security" one gets by abridging it. Same with habeas corpus, due process, unwarranted searches, bearing of arms, and any other right enumerated in the Constitution. We will prevail over the terrorists anyway, using lawful procedures, and methods that do not bring us down to their level. But if we surrender our liberties in the meantime, we may never recover them.

Remember, the Constitution does not say "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, [...], shall not be violated, [..], unless someone decides that this may enhance security." It does not provide for freedom of speech "as long as it is convenient to the government". These right are absolute.

And priceless. Even if the price is the highest one an individual can pay.

*All data from National Vital Statistics Reports, 2006.

Why be Afraid of Nuclear Iran?

noreply@blogger.com (Laslo Weger) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:52:00 +0000

I can believe that a person can be suicidal. Plenty of those around, in fact. But a nation, as a whole -- that's a different proposition. I do not believe any nation will commit suicide, and Iranians are no exception.

Consider. Iran is a long way from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that not the core of the problem. Making a crude nuclear weapon is rather easy: I remember a schematics of one in my grade-school level physics textbook (yes, we did have physics course in grade school). So lets assume they will create one, sooner or later. So what? The difficult part is to deliver that weapon efficiently. Building -- or even buying -- a working ICBM that can fly between continents is not a trivial matter, in fact, out of the reach of countries like Iran for any foreseeable future.

They may use it against their neighbors, though, in particular against Israel. And here is where my disbelief kicks in. Israel is determined to protect herself, and her will and ability were put to test a number of times, with pretty much uniform results ("Don't mess with us", if you need me to spell it out). As of now, our intelligence organizations put the number of Israel's nuclear warheads to 400. On the other hand, Wikipedia, in their "Modern cities and important towns of Iran" lists 201 places. If Iran dares to attack Israel with its couple of homemade Fat Mans, they may succeed in destroying a city or two. But the response may, and most likely would, erase every single population center in Iran. Twice. As I said -- I do not believe in suicidal nations.

And if they are? If they are truly blind, stupid, and misguided? Well, they commit suicide, we have one problem less. Some bleeding hearts will cry over the "once great nation", and history will resume its march...

whereIstand.com issue: here