The democrats, if I may paraphrase, are saying they don’t think a drunken rapist should be on the court. Or a conservative, but let’s set that aside. The republicans are saying, well it isn’t true, and anyway, it was a long time ago, and boys will be boys. Besides, it is unfair that these issues weren’t raised 30 years ago or at least two months ago.
There’s a movement to save the environment by having people stop using straws.
It is true that non-biodegradable straws will hurt the environment, but probably a lot less than those newspaper plastic bags.
A boba straw weighs about 2 grams. A drinking straw is less. As far as I know you need about a gram of oil to make a gram of plastic, so a gallon of oil or gasoline will make about 1700 straws.
According to the Be Straw Free Campaign, https://www.nps.gov/commercialservices/greenline_straw_free.htm
Americans use about 500 million straws a day (I’m not using my share!). This takes about a quarter million gallons of fuel. That is less than 0.1% of fuel usage for cars and trucks.
Let’s work on this, after we cut down on poor insulation and excessive driving, after we put up solar panels and wind farms. After we restore the EPA and stop using coal.
Work on the big stuff first. We have limited mind share for silly stuff.
On August 7, 2015, Anita Kurmann was cycling on Massachusetts Avenue in Boston and was killed by a truck making a turn onto Beacon Street.
This week Boston Police cleared the driver of wrongdoing.
The thing is, that if Dr. Kurmann did nothing wrong, and the driver did nothing wrong, then the rules of the road are not adequate.
It seems to me very reasonable to ask for sets of rules for bicyclists and drivers, such that if both parties follow the rules, then no one is killed. Boston Police may be correct and the driver was not at fault, but if they are then the rules are wrong. Where is the effort to fix the rules? Where are the BPD recommendations for drivers and cyclists and the city?
Maybe its as simple as not driving 40′ tractor trailers on city streets without flagmen and escorts.
In view of the power imbalance between motor vehicles and bicycles, in my view, if a motor vehicle hits a cyclist while the cyclist is in a legal spot, then the driver of the motor vehicle is at fault. This is similar to the rules about rear end collisions. If you smash into the back of a car, you are at fault. Either you weren’t paying attention or you were tailgating to start with. Full stop.
I’m a little sensitive to these issues because I used to commute 36 miles a day into Cambridge and I’ve had my share of idiot drivers.
On December 29, 2017 Andrew Finch was killed by police. He was an unarmed innocent man who made the mistake of answering his front door when Witchita police surrounded his house.
Much has been made of the culpability of Tyler Bariss, who made a false police report that lead to the event, and I agree with it. Bariss is essentially guilty of murder and has to be held to account.
However, the officer who killed Finch is also guilty. He was too frightened, or too incompetent to do his job without killing an innocent man. So far, the Witchita police have disclaimed any responsibility and are trying to blame everything on Bariss and Finch himself. The officer has not been named, probably because his feelings would be hurt by being in the newspaper.
According to the Washington Post in https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/
police killed around 1000 civilians in 2017. 68 of them were unarmed. Noone keeps any statistics on swatting incidents.
At the same time crime is at its lowest point in decades, the police are more militarized than ever.
Police face almost no accountability for violations of civil rights and under current law are almost impossible to sue for damages.
It seems fairly clear that changes are needed.
- Swatting needs to be a serious crime in all 50 states
- The “Reasonably scared cop” rule of Graham v Connor must be changed so that officers are held accountable
- Qualified Immunity must be changed, so that Police, departments, and towns can be sued when people are harmed by their actions.
I don’t care if an individual policeman can’t be sued due to qualified immunity, they can’t afford to pay damages anyway. Departments and towns however can, and it may be that repeated large settlements in court may be the only way to keep cities and towns from giving guns to the sort of officers who kill the people they are supposed to protect.
It also wouldn’t hurt for congress to actually do their job and write laws that correct bad judicial results like Graham and qualified immunity.
I’ve sent the following to my representative and senators. They are all democrats so who knows how much good it will do.
I am outraged to learn about the secret fund, paid for by taxpayers, that is used to settle sexual harassment claims against members of congress.
I would like you to publicly commit to ending this practice. It is shameful.
Further. I would like legislation that makes a non-disclosure agreement as part of a sexual harassment settlement non-enforceable with regard to illegal conduct revealed to law enforcement.
I think it should be clear to everyone how evil it is for congress to settle claims against members, and make us foot the bill. Congress has a habit of exempting itself from laws and the practice should stop everywhere, but it should certainly not extend to free settlements. (And don’t get me started about tax returns. Members should be required to do their own taxes and every one should be audited every year.)
Regarding non-disclosure agreements, frankly I don’t know what to do about these quiet settlements. It may be the only recourse people have, given the typical reluctance of law enforcement to pursue predators, but if those attacked are successfully silenced, then the powerful and entitled predators are free to attack others.
At present, the federal estate tax maxes out at 40% of the amount of an estate over 10 million dollars. Almost no one pays it, because of the large exemption.
The best argument I’ve heard against the estate tax is that if the bulk of the estate is something that is not liquid, like a farm or a business, there may be no way to raise the money to pay the tax without selling the family farm or the family business.
For those with more liquid assets like stocks and bonds and a dozen houses, well the estate tax isn’t that big a deal. Heres why.
Estates change hands about every 25 years, which arguably is the length of a generation.
The long term average appreciation in the stock market is around 7%. In 25 years, a stock market investment might grow by 5x. If you start with 20 million, in 25 years you will have about 100 million.
With the estate tax, your notional 20 million drops to only 16 millions, because 10 million is exempted and you pay 40% of the rest.
After 25 years, that 16 million would only increase to 86 million.
In this case, the estate tax cost the equivalent of about 4 years of growth.
Even if the exemption were zero, the estate tax would represent about 8 years of growth every 25 years. The fortune just keeps growing.
Of course this analysis is true only if you just leave the money in the market. Historically, fortunes last about three generations before being diluted and generally squandered. However, once you get into serious money, it is kind of hard to spend enough to keep the rest from growing to infinity.
If the policy objective of the estate tax is to prevent self sustaining multigenerational fortunes, it doesn’t accomplish its purpose. However it does kill those family farms and family businesses. What might be done?
Idea 1: Make the estate tax payable over a generation, rather than as a lump sum. In effect, this is a wealth tax, rather than an estate tax. If my figuring is right, the 40% estate tax applied every 25 years is very close to a 1.3% wealth tax applied annually. This has the same effect on cash estates, but might be managable for those family farms and businesses. Like the estate tax, this would apply only to wealth over 10 million.
Idea 2: Bump the tax rate on income for the 1% to raise the same amount of money. Evidently, the estate tax raises about 20 billion per year. In 2014, an income of 465,000 put you in the 1% and the average income of the 1 percenters was 1.2 million, and there were about a million 1% households – that is 1.2 trillion in income, and the income tax surcharge to replace the estate tax would be . . . 1.6%
These two ideas are not that far apart. On the whole a 1.6% income tax surcharge is easier, because income is reported, and wealth is (a) not reported and (b) often consists of unrealized gains.
All this leaves unresolved the question about the policy goal. Is the estate tax or a possible replacement just a way to pay for government? Or is it really intended to reduce income or wealth inequality? If the latter, we need a much larger discussion about how to accomplish the goal, because the estate tax doesn’t do it. Repealing the estate tax will surely make inequality worse, but keeping it only slows down increases in inequality, and not by that much.
It is possible to place a “credit freeze” on one’s account at the credit reporting companies. The major ones are TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian.
A freeze prevents other companies from doing credit checks on you, which generally prevents them from opening accounts in your name. This is important because the way that identity thieves monetize their theft is to open credit and bank accounts in your name, that you don’t even know about.
At present, credit freezes are governed by individual state laws, that range all over the map. In Massachusetts, a victim of identity theft with a police report can get a credit freeze for free, but everyone else must pay $5 to each agency to place a freeze and another $5 to lift it, even temporarily, to apply for credit.
In view of the recent Equifax breach which revealed the private information of millions of Americans, it it clear that the credit reporting industry itself cannot be trusted to keep personal information secure.
I propose that credit freezes and credit monitoring be made free for everyone. I would go further and suggest that a credit freeze should be the default state, but I suspect that would just destroy the whole industry (is that a bad thing?)
Since companies cannot keep private information secure, the alternative seems to be to devalue the information. Credit freezes help do that.
This will require state by state or federal legislation. I have just contacted my state representative and senator here in Massachusetts, as well as my representative in congress and both senators, requesting that they sponsor and support such legislation.
I recommend that you do the same.
Here’s what I sent Representative Clark:
I am Lawrence Stewart, of XXX.
In view of the recent Equifax breach which revealed the private information of millions of Americans, including 3 million Massachusetts residents, it is clear that the credit reporting industry cannot be trusted to keep personal information secure.
At present, the best defense against identity theft is a credit freeze, which prevents companies from doing credit checks without your permission. This stops identity thieves from opening accounts in your name.
Credit freezes are governed by a conflicting mess of state laws. Generally someone who has been a victim of identity theft can request a freeze for free, but the rest of us have to pay for the privilege of protecting our credit to the very companies that caused the problem through their negligence.
I urge you to introduce or support legislation to make credit freezes free for everyone. It is the best way to hold industry accountable for their actions and the best way to protect the citizens from identity theft.
Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney in Massachusetts, is leaving. I am glad she is leaving, but she should never have been appointed or confirmed. She should have been fired in January 2013, after she and her henchman Steven Heymann caused the death of Internet activist Aaron Schwartz through extreme over prosecution of a “crime” that was at most civil disobedience.
Here’s what I wrote at the time:
Here’s what the Guardian had to say:
Ms Ortiz now says (quoted in the Boston Globe here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/12/21/attorney-carmen-ortiz-announces-resignation/fV7IJmesqOU8SEYd1pylEO/story.html )
“I feel tremendous sorrow for what his family has gone through,” Ortiz said Wednesday.
“I regret I wasn’t able to identify that situation early on and we didn’t have that opportunity to have that go on a different path because a young man at the end of the day did lose his life.”
I am hopeful that Ms Ortiz will never be in a position again to cause the death of another shining star, or indeed anyone. As US Attorney, she was much more interested in personal power and headlines than justice. US Attorneys have little oversight and no accountability and many of them are not up to the job. Carmen Ortiz was one. For myself, I will not forgive or forget her actions.
She will be moving on, but Aaron Schwartz is still dead.
It seems that Trump won the electoral vote while Clinton won the popular vote. This has happened a few times before as well.
The constitution does not specify how states assign electoral votes. At the moment, two states, Maine and Nebraska, split their electoral votes in some way among the candidates, while all the other states are winner take all.
I don’t think the electoral college itself is a bad idea. Like the way that even low population states have two senators, each state has two “extra” electors, which tends to give a bit more power to low population states versus high population states.
I think that winner-take-all selection of electors is a problem. This removes ANY power from the minority party in winner take all states. There is little point to being a Democrat in Kansas or a Republican in Massachusetts. Such individuals have no say at all in choosing a president, and that isn’t right.
What would be better? According to the the electoral college FAQ, for example, Maine awards an elector for the winner of each congressional district, and awards the to extra electors to the statewide winner. A state that felt strongly about the popular vote could proportionately assign all the electors.
Perhaps it is time for some back-testing of elector selection algorithms against old voting records.
Personally, I think the Maine system runs up against another problem – gerrymandering. In most states, the congressional district boundaries are drawn by whoever controls the state legislature, with the goal of disenfranchising their opponents. At the moment, one of the main reasons the Republican party has a lock on the house of representatives is that they spent a lot of time gaining control of governorships and state legistatures, and as a result used the redistricting after the 2010 census to lock in district boundaries that benefit their own party.
One of the interesting developments in the 2016 electoral cycle is the use of offensive cyberespionage. Wikileaks is publishing internal email from the campaign of Hillary Clinton, with the publications timed to attempt to damage the campaign.
Maybe this is the work of Russian spies, with Wikileaks an unwitting stooge, maybe not, but the case is quite interesting.
What should a campaign organization, or corporation, or government agency do? Their emails may be next.
One possibility is to salt the email stream with really tempting tidbits suggesting illegal, immoral, or unethical behavior, but also put these emails in escrow somewhere. Then, when the tidbits come to light, you can derail the news cycle with one about how your infosec team has pwned the leakers and trolled the media.
The technique will only work the first time, but even later, professional news organizations are not going to want to take the chance that their scoop is a plant. That is how Dan Rather lost his job.
If the plants are subtly different, they could also be used to identify the leaker or access path. (This was suggested in “The Hunt for Red October” by Tom Clancy, written in 1984, but the idea is surely older than that.)
More on point, it should be obvious at this point that email is not secret, nor is any electronic gadget secure. [[ How do you identify the spook? She’s the one with a mechanical watch, because she doesn’t carry a phone. ]]
Until we get secure systems, and I’m not holding my breath, conspirators really shouldn’t write anything down. In the alternative, their evil plans must be buried in a sea of equally plausible alternatives.