Want to rent a nice house in Northern California? Nice quiet street, great neighbors! Of course, the landlord is a bit of a problem. Digger has the details.
Just got this email from my wife:
Interesting visitor this afternoon to the clinic ... Bernard Parks ... running for mayor. Gave me a brochure -- I'll bring it home. Nothing much.Sadly for Councilman Parks, I'm voting for Hertzberg. Contrary to the above, Rachael seems to vote her own mind...
Asked me if I was a Los Angeles county resident. I said yes.
Asked me if he could place his signs in my front window. I declined saying I don't mix business and politics, it's not okay with patients. He said okay, he was cool with that.
Asked me if I voted yet, told me there was still time to mail in vote, March 8 is the deadline. I said no, we would vote in person.
Asked me if I made up my mind yet. I said no, I would discuss it with my husband. He shook my hand again and thanked me for my time.
Tuesday, the LA Times ran a 45-paragraph front-page opinion piece article on state worker's rejection of "private account" options in their government retirement plans.
President Bush believes Americans are so eager to join the "ownership society" that, given a chance, two-thirds of those eligible would divert funds from Social Security into the personal investment accounts he proposes.The article goes on a great length to describe how unpopular "private account" plans are among state workers, with the implication being that no one in their right minds would give up Social Security for the chimera of private stock plans.
But when public employees in seven states were offered the opportunity for similar accounts during the last decade, nowhere near two-thirds signed up for them. In many instances, the figure was closer to 5%.
So, Paris Hilton has her name in the press again. Seems "someone" hacked her phone and stole a lot of personal info. If it's not one thing, it's another...
Can't tell if that happened or not, but I am sure that the Hollywood press is all over it. Makes one kinda wonder if that was the whole point, no?
Note to the NFL: Probably not a good choice for the Super Bowl half-time show.
Secret Conversations. A Friend's Betrayal. Bush Unmasked. Marijuana! See It Now!
Ho hum. The NY Times' scoop on then-Governor Bush's conversations with a friend -- who secretly recorded them -- is going to be played by some as the equivalent of Monica's indescretions or Tricky Dick's banal criminality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
OK, so maybe he smoked a bit of weed. Who really thought he hadn't? I'm shocked, shocked, etc. The rest of it? He refused to play the anti-gay card, even though it hurt him with Dobson. He is a Christian, and thinks it's a good thing for the President to know that there's a God and he's not It. But doesn't think it's something that you really need to wear on your sleeve. He thinks Forbes is too preppy. True, and funny considering the source. The Times seems to think Bush was wrong when he said that McCain would wear thin. They should ask a Republican, if they can find one.
In short, the Bush that comes out in secretly recorded tapes is pretty much the Bush that comes out in public. Wonder how many other politicians could say that?
Facinating New Republic article about the threadbare intellectual cupboard of modern liberalism (requires registration). I especially liked this bit:
This patronizing attitude is proof positive that, as deep as the social and economic gains have been among African Americans, many liberals prefer to maintain their own time-honored patronizing position vis-à-vis "the other," the needy. This is, frankly, in sharp contrast to President Bush, who seems not to be impeded by race difference (and gender difference) in his appointments and among his friends. Maybe it is just a generational thing, and, if it is that, it is also a good thing. But he may be the first president who apparently does not see individual people in racial categories or sex categories. White or black, woman or man, just as long as you're a conservative. That is also an expression of liberation from bias.
Yesterday, the President answered a question about Social Security reform, where he did not specifically reject raising the $90,000 cap on FICA payroll taxes. The media trumpeted this as some kind of support for such a notion -- not surprising as the Liberal plan for "fixing" Social Security has always been to eliminate this cap, in a classic "soak the rich" operation.
Republicans erupted, of course, as anyone with half a brain knows that raising the cap from, say, $90,000 to $120,000 would constitute a massive tax hike on the middle class -- the Republican base. In effect, federal tax for a worker making $120,000 would increase by $1900, or another 1.6% of income. Another $1900 would be paid by the employer, who views it as added salary paid. The only joy is that the employer's portion is not doubly taxed as employee income.
Meanwhile, of course, it is just these people who get the least from both Social Security as it is now, capped at about $1800/month in benefits, and Social Security-to-be. Since higher earners such as these tend to be older and in their most productive years, they benefit least from the proposed changes, which have reduced retirement benefits for those now 45-55 years old while allowing them to set aside only miniscule portions of their income in their new private accounts. While these contribution caps will increase over time, many of these older workers will be retired before that happens.
If this is Bush's Social Secuirty Reform, include me out. As much as I like the idea of private accounts, the price/benefit ratio I'm seeing is way too high.
It would make far more sense to leave everything as it is and simply invest all new net FICA receipts (and bond redemptions) in AAA corporate bonds and preferred stock. Greenspan's argument against Clinton's plan to invest in common stocks -- that government shouldn't become an owner of private companies -- remains well taken. However non-voting corporate securities, selected by an independent board, would provide much higher returns, while avoiding control. It would also end the government's shell game with Social Secutiry revenue. Once the Trust Fund is actually a Fund with real assets, rather than a low-return accounting fiction, it might be possible to wholely reform Social Security on a private basis. But right now it seems like we get a little bit of private for an awful lot of tax.
As I said, include me out.
In a letter sent out today, former Mayor Richard Riordan has strongly endorsed Bob Hertzberg for Mayor.
Dear Friends,He then invites folks to go to Bob Hertzberg's web site and donate.
When I ran for Mayor of Los Angeles -- to "Turn LA Around" -- crime was out of control, businesses were fleeing the city and the downtown bureaucrats were either unable or unwilling to change. With your help I was able to add thousands of new police officers reduce the tax burden for businesses and reform our local school system. I believe we did turn LA around.
Unfortunately, Los Angeles is stuck in the mud. Gang homicides are at an all-time high, traffic is in gridlock and our schools are failing. It's time for a change. It's time for Bob Hertzberg.
- Bob Hertzberg will put 3,500 police officers on the streets -- without raising taxes.
- Bob Hertzberg has the vision to create smaller, neighborhood schools controlled by parents, teachers and principals -- not downtown bureaucrats.
- Bob Hertzberg will ease traffic congestion on our roads and freeways.
Never mind bilateral or 6-party talks with North Korea. In the end it's China's problem, and as long as China insists on perpetuating the problem, there's not a lot anyone can do. Which brings me to the question: WTF is a UN Security Council permanant member doing being the sole support of the craziest government on the planet while said crazy government builds nuclear bombs and missles and threatens to export same?
California Insider reports that State Senate President Don Perata wants to return control of schools to communities:
We don’t tell cops how to police, firefighters how to fight fires or doctors how to save lives. Why should teachers be any different?...What a concept!
Schools must have more local control and flexibility. We don’t have all the answers here.
A Tulsa blogger is being threatened by the local dominant newspaper, which demands he
immediately remove any Tulsa World material from your website, to include unauthorized links to our website, and cease and desist from any further use or dissemination of our copyrighted content.Disregarding the odd request that he specifically include unauthorized links, this is a transparently baseless demand. Between 1st Amendment rights (which the Tulsa World presumably supports), "fair use" and common internet usage of links, the paper hasn't a leg to stand on. Frankly, I thought the notion that one could control inbound links was disposed of as moronic in 1997. But apparently ignorance is alive and well in Tulsa's old media.
This piece over at Democrats.com brings up the never-ending question: Doesn't the Democrat Party care about its image? How in the world can they let such utter loonies use their party's name on the internet with such complete abandon?
Or is this just the Party's way of making outrageous statements with plausible deniability?
According to Daniel Weintraub, a newly submitted initiative will seek to create a state government board to fix regulate the price of gasoline products in California.
The commission's job would be to keep prices "fair and reasonable" and to limit refinery profits to no more than 5 percent.Two things that will happen as a result of this: utterly no out-of-state gasoline will enter California and no new refineries will be built in the state. Ever. Existing refineries will operate only so long as they require no new investment or significant maintenance. Then they will close. Meanwhile, the demand for gasoline will rise with the population. Since prices can't rise but demand will, and production will decrease, the only possible result will be scarcity and rationing.
The word is that Deep Throat (whoever he is) is gravely ill. John Dean suggests that we will know very soon (and apparently it is not Mr. Dean).
One suggestion I haven't seen elsewhere is E Howard Hunt. Mr. Hunt has been in poor health for some time now. According to an October 2004 Slate interview, Howard Hunt is suffering from lymphoma and atherosclerosis and is wheelchair-bound.
And no, this has nothing at all to do with Mr Hunt being one of my Dead Pool picks.
For the record, it should be noted that the Wikipedia entry on Deep Throat states that Dean's claim has been denied by Woodward and the current Post editor.
Vandals painted two swastikas on the truck of besieged University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, Boulder County sheriff's deputies said Wednesday.Compared to a news item from last year:
Deputies were called to Churchill's home Wednesday morning after he phoned them to report the swastikas on his truck, West said. Deputies canvassed the neighborhood looking for clues and interviewing nearby residents to determine whether they had seen anything unusual. Deputies said they found no other recent acts of vandalism in the neighborhood.
A Claremont McKenna psychology professor vandalized her own car last week and falsely reported the damages as a hate crime against her, police said Wednesday.I have a bet I'd like to make. Any takers? Then again Professor Churchill may just be one of those "little Eichmanns" you read about who had it coming.
Kerri Dunn, who spoke at a free speech seminar March 9, reported to police after the lecture that her car had been vandalized - tires slashed, windows broken and spray painted with racial epithets. Police, however, say two witnesses have come forward claiming they saw Dunn vandalizing her own vehicle.
The incident prompted all five of the Claremont Colleges to cancel classes March 10 for teach-ins and rallies against hate crimes. More than 1,000 people attended an evening rally at Claremont McKenna, where students pushed for racial and ethnic tolerance and Dunn was one of the speakers.
Usually I have no preference for candidates for LA city office. Except in rare cases, LA elections are indistinguishable from a Democrat primary. This election seemed no different, with all 3 Council candidates in the 11th District being Democrats. But, as of last night, Bill Rosendahl has my vote and, FWIW, my endorsement.
Sure, I have differences with him -- he is a solid Democrat. But he's not a crazy one by any means, and he has widespread support from Norman Lear to Bill Simon. In particular, he is pro-business, which in LA politics is a breath of fresh air, and an advocate of massive light rail investment, which this city desperately needs.
But that's not my biggest reason for supporting Bill. Last night when his caller couldn't answer questions I had that went off-script, Bill called me back and offered to answer them personally. And he did. I can't expect any candidate to agree with me in all particulars -- especially when I'm in the minority -- but the willingness to listen and be accessible to constituents is so very important and, lately, so very rare.
So, Bill Rosendahl has my vote, and if you live in LA's 11th District (Palisades, Brentwood, West LA, Mar Vista, Venice, Westchester), I suggest you check him out.
Last century, Stalin invented the concept of the "show trial" where the State used trials of its opponents to advance policy and influence opinion. This strategy was quite successful and was rapidly adopted by many governments. Nuremburg and the Watergate Hearings were notable examples of this in the West -- all the more effective when the defendants were indeed guilty SOBs.
But the world changes. Where the State's purposes were paramount in the 20th Century, news is now too important to be left to agents of the State. The global news agencies and their 24-hour news cycle demand something more. So, we now have the Event Trial.
The most obvious example of this phenomenon was the OJ Simpson fiasco, but it seems that every moderately titillating trial is now being forced into this mode. If no interest exists, it is manufactured, and if it does exist it is amplified beyond belief by the needs of CNN, Fox and others to have grist for their legal experts to mill.
The sad part is the degree to which the legal system cooperates. The OJ Circus and Lance Ito set the tone, taking a trial that should have taken about three weeks to an interminable length and an absurd result. Now we have Mr. Michael Jackson and a simple case of child molestation predicted to take 6 months. Whatever for? Who does this help? You can pass the Budget of the United States through the US Senate in less time.
Nor does it serve the cause of justice to allow this -- there is no reasonable set of facts that needs this level of presentation and dissection. There are few jurors that can be expected to focus on a case so full of distraction, digression, grandstanding and microscopic detail. One can only conclude that the needs of the media and the needs of the participants for access to that media is the driving force. Someone needs to rein this in, so that the process is returned to the pursuit of Justice rather than the pursuit of ratings and publicity.
One way to do this would be to ban cameras, but I suspect that won't fix it. Perhaps we need to sequester the judge and the lawyers instead of the jury and see if that speeds things up. Yeah, I know, won't happen. But Jeez!
For a while last year it looked like Secretary of State Shelley might be forced out of office just before the Presidential election. Certainly his goose was publicly cooked by the beginning of October as three separate charges of corruption had hit the press in the last week of September. See here, here and here.
But no, the powers-that-be managed to string it out until the new year, but it just couldn't be shoved under the carpet any longer. Especially, one expects, with a Republican governor (too bad about that recall, eh, Mr. Shelley?).
BoiFromTroi has been keeping up with the more recent progress of the investigation and Friday's resignation.
"Given multiple explanations for a phenomenon, the least convenient one is likely correct."
This is my current operating assumption in the Social Security debate.
So. The Great Social Security Debate starts.
The Democrat postion seems to be to make no changes in benefits, no private accounts of any kind. Those Democrats that are willing to admit there may be a problem argue for increasing (or eliminating) the current $90,000 limitation on taxable wages. Never mind that Dole's 1986 "fix" doubled the previous limit, increased the tax rate itself, tripled taxes on the self-employed and reduced benefits -- all without solving the problem. We cannot afford this mistake again. The problem is not solvable on the margin.
The Administration position is a partial privatization with a gradual Treasury assumption of the unfunded liabilities present in the system. I don't see how this plan works without a formal recognition that the Social Security Trust Fund is a joke and placing Social Security directly on-budget. The fiscal effects of this are unclear and could well be inflationary if they monetarize the liability.
So, I can't say that I'm on board with the White House here. While the Democrat position is a non-starter, and I do like the idea of private accounts, the Bush partial privatization plan is very limited and smacks of many compromises. I'd prefer lots more bang for the pain, and an assurance that we don't have to revisit this yet again.
What I do know is this: Defined benefit plans are doomed. Corporate plans are failing right and left as corporate promises to fund future benefits fail to be honored. Seems like every day another major corporation shucks its pensioners in Bankruptcy Court. As life expectancies increase, the pressures on these corporate pension schemes will increase. Very few will survive, especially if the pace of life extension accelerates.
Which brings me to the real problem of Social Security. The basic assumption that the current generation of workers can support the current generation of retirees breaks down as life expectancy increases. Even with very conservative estimates of this increase, Social Security is on shaky ground. If, as some think, a life expectancy singularity is approaching there is no hope at all. Only a generational decoupling, based upon individual responsibility for one's own retirement, can solve the problem.
Hence the Bush plan, which mixes defined benefit with defined contribution. I don't know how this is going to play out but my gut feeling is that neither partial privatization nor the Democrat alternatives begin to address the problem, and there is a danger that a phony reform will be worse than no change. See California Utility "Deregulation." We may be nibbling the bullet rather than biting it.
More to come.
[rant]
Can anybody give me a good reason why copyrights on computer software last 95 years? I mean, DOS 1.0 still has 70 years to go, and nothing written since Ada Byron is going into the public domain anytime soon.
The Constitution says "limited times" and 95 years with books or movies might be in some way limited, but for computer software it's about 70 years past infinity.
Yes, I know Professor Lessig is trying again, and I wish him well, but he seems focused on 1st Amendment claims which failed in Eldred. One would think there's an unmade takings case on the Bono extension (the expectancy of the public domain is property, Fletcher vs. Peck, etc), and software terms are unconstitutionally long.
[/rant]
According to HighwayRobbery.net, a number of California cities are attempting to scam people into identifying the driver of a vehicle that was photgraphed by a traffic camera, in cases where the driver's photo is not clear, or is not reasonably the registered owner (e.g. wrong sex). Unless the driver is clearly identified in the traffic photo, no citation can be issued as citations are per driver, not per vehicle. If the driver is not the registered owner, the citation is almost never enforceable. As one judge puts it:
"There is one defense that I call the always-win-never-lose defense, pretty much an absolute defense in these tickets, and that defense is if you're not the driver of the vehicle. Deputy Porche has two things that he has to prove to this court, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt this morning in each of your cases. First, he must prove that a vehicle went through a red light. Second, he must prove that you, the person cited, were the driver of the car. The primary way that he proves that you were the driver is with the photograph or the photographs. If the photographs are not photographs of you driving the car he has not met his burden of proof, you're not guilty, end of case, we don't waste any time on those cases."So, what does an uncrupulous municpality do in order to get around this burden of proof? Why they send you an official letter telling you that you have 10 days to identify the driver, and that this will obsolve you, the registered owner, of responsibility for the infraction. The implication is that failure to do so will leave this on your record, when in fact it will be dismissed if you contest it. You have no obligation to identify anyone.
According the this week's issue of TV Guide [not online], the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has protested the portrayal of a traitorous Arab-American family on FOX's "24." Near as I can tell, they feel that it is unrealistic that Muslim residents of the US would ever engage in terrorist acts, and that such a portrayal is a libel of all such residents.
The thing that bothers me is why FOX even listened to this drivel. Must we be relegated to endless repetitions of 4th and 5th Reichs when the world has clearly moved on. But apparently they did, and have altered the scripts somewhat as a result. Sigh.