Wells Fargo raised $12 billion in stock sale in plan to repay $25 billion

From CNN:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Wells Fargo said it raised more than $12 billion in a stock sale Tuesday as part of a plan to repay $25 billion in government aid.

The sale came one day after the lender joined Citibank (C, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) in announcing plans to return money received last year under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Wells Fargo said it sold 426 million shares of common stock at $25 per share. The deal's underwriters, which include Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), exercised options to buy an additional 63.9 million shares.

Common Sense wonders where to begin with this one.

Lets see!  Wells Fargo who was so stunningly mismanaged that it needed $25 billion in your money to avoid going bankrupt now thinks, along with Goldman Sachs, that the company is now worth $12.5 billion more by selling stock!  Even more amazine, having sold the stock Wells proposes to pay back the $25 billion it borrowed!  Lets summarize.  First Wells borrows $25 billion from you via the government.  Then it raises another $12.5 billion from you as part of a plan to pay back the original $25 billion.

Common sense thinks this is a lot like a pyramid scheme, you know that's where money from the next bigger fool is used to pay the earlier fool!

How about instead of this nonsense Congress restores the laws that kept this kind of nonsense from happening for over 40 years!

Just some Common Sense.

The Health Insurance Industry Giveaway Act of 2009

AKA Health Care Reform

This one is so stunningly wrong headed that it's hard to know where to start.  Now the Senate is close to passing a bill.  The principal provision is that virtually all Americans have to buy health insurance!  The bill does essentially nothing to address the underlying issue of health care cost.  On a positive note it does restrict some of the most agregious health insurance industry practices.  But on balance calling this Health Care Reform is, well,  just dumb.  I'm forced to believe that Congress has decided that American citizens have no common sense at all!

In this regard there was a news item on PBS today where a young woman reporter for the Christian Science Monitor offered the opinion that come January after the non-reform health insurance giveaway bill passes that Congress would expand the coverage to include some provisions that might actually reduce health care cost.  She offered the argument that the original Social Security Act was very limited in scope (it was) and that it was subsequently extended to provide a wide variety of benefits (it has).  Common sense, however, notes that there is a very essential difference in Social Security and Health Care.  In the case of Social Security the act established the essential principal that we as a society have an obligation to our retired people.  That's not the case with the pending Health Care bill.  All they do is to require that individuals buy health care insurance.  No where do they go in any way to the notion that we as a society have an obligation to individual citizens to see that they get health care regardless of their ability to pay.  Common sense argues that this essential difference is fundamental.  Common sense argues that we do not have any obligation to one another concerning health given a bill that establishes a compulsion on individuals to buy health care insurance!

Disgusting.

Want some change?  Change Congress.  It's gotten beyond any sense of fair play.

Privacy rights when using employer owned property.

From the LA Times:

Reporting from Washington - The Supreme Court said today it would rule for the first time on whether employees have a right to privacy when they send text messages on electronic devices supplied by their employers.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a police department in Ontario, Calif., that was successfully sued by Sgt. Jeff Quon and three other officers after their text messages -- some of which were sexually explicit -- were read by the police chief.

The city had a written policy that the devices were for use on official business and subject to monitoring.  The police officers were told of that policy.  When they discovered that the police chief had read some of their messages they sued and prevailed in the 9th District Court.  The case is now on appeal to the US Supreme Court.

There are several things of note here.

First, the 9th District Court has a long and arguably sordid history of trying to change the law and being overturned on appeal.  I'm personally put out that we continue to have to pay for a court that seems to get it wrong so often.  Common sense suggest that the court needs to change.  Unfortunately, short of impeachment, retirement, or death those judges are appointed for life so there is little that can be done save to continue to pay to undo what the 9th does.

In the matter at hand, given the written policy and notice common sense suggests that the officers should have no real expectation of privacy.

Intellectual Property

There was an article in Sunday's Boston Globe that caught my attention having to do with intellectual property.  Briefly it seems that there are some litigations over web sites that provide copies of student notes for various college courses.  The colleges or professers assert that such sites violate their copyright in the material.

These cases are interesting on several grounds and present some interesting legal and common sense issues.

Consider first, does a professor have a copyright interest in the course taught?  Here I note that a college professor is an employee of the college.  Thus arguably any course materials that the professor creates is a work for hire and it would be the college not the professor that would have a copyright interest if one existed just as any work for hire belongs to the employer not the employee unless otherwise stipulated by contract.

Beyond the question of who, if anyone, holds the copyright interest in the course (not the student's notes) for any copyright to exist the course must be reduced to durable materials; that is course notes, presentations, recordings, and the like.  In todays colleges that is often the case so arguably a copyright can in fact exist.

Now comes the issue of the student's notes.  The student bought the course by paying the college to attend it.  Thus the student has a fair use interest in the course copyright just as a student has a fair use interest in any textbook the student buys.  Student notes are a work of the student not the professor or college and within the domain of fair use the student is entirely free to use those notes.  That's fairly settled law.

Finally we get to the issue of the use of the student notes.  Here's where things get interesting and a bit muddy. 

Suppose that a student takes notes and shares them with a study group.  Is that a copyright violation?  Is it within fair use?  The practice is common and often encouraged by professors.  Common sense says this is not actionable.  So in principal a student CAN share class notes with others without violation of copyright even if one exist.

But what if the student shares outside a study group?  Say a club such as a soriety.  Again the practice is common although generally not sanctioned and has not been a cause of action to my knowledge.  So in principal a student CAN share with an arbitrary outsider without violation of copyright.

Now suppose our student places the notes on a web page, say a personal web page?  Is this any different than placing the same notes in a group's file cabinet?  Does the fact that the scope of access is not NOT RESTRICTED to a group change things? 

Here things get a bit more complex.  Consider that if a newspaper wishes to publish a copyrighted picture or article, the newspaper must obey the copyright.  Even if the publication itself is free the publisher must get permission of the copyright holder before publishing.  So the issue of charging for the student's notes is not in and of itself a factor.

But the student's notes on the web are NOT the original copyrighted material, they are the student's interpretation of that material.  Rather like a sketch of a famous person in a cartoon, say a satirical cartoon.  Even though the famous person has a property and copyright interest in their image they can not enforce that interest on either the author of a cartoon or the publisher.  Here as well common sense argues against a copyright issue.

Consider, however, that the college has a business interest in selling access to courses to provide the student familiarity with the course's intellectual property.  Does publication by a student of notes taken by the student who paid for the course violate the colleges business interest or intellectual property interest?  Intellectual property law is a murky area.  Even so, common sense suggests that since the college and the professor (who is after all an employee and presumed to be party to the college's business proposition) engage in teaching, that is conveying intellectual property to students for the student's future use, that any claim based on intellectual property fails.  That is common sense says that any claim that the use of intellectual property violates an intellectual property right when the underlying purpose of the college's business is the CONVEYANCE of intellectual property fails.

All things considered then, it seems to me that common sense sides with placing student notes on the web without copyright violation.

Obama and Afganistan

From CNN:

• Extra 30,000 U.S. troops to secure uncovered areas, help Afghan security forces train
• Obama said he hopes to start transferring U.S. forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011.
  
• Troop buildup just one strategy to achieve goals in Afghanistan, Obama says
• U.S. also to pursue more effective civilian strategy, Obama says
• Better partnership with Pakistan also essential, Obama says

In October 2001 the US went to war in Afganistan following the Al-Queda 9/11 attacks.  After the initial invasion, the US gained significant control of most of the country and its nominal government relatively quickly.  However, contrary to much popular belief the Taliban and Al-Queda was not defeated, at least not in the sense of defeating an organized government as one can not defeat an idea.

Now, some 8 years on the US through its president proposes to send some 30000 extra troops hoping to improve the situation so that US forces can begin leaving in July 2011.

While I have been in wars and in Afghanistan I do regard myself as an expert in either.  That said I offer the following common sense:

Much of Afghanistan is very harsh and difficult terrain.  While additional forces can help, 30,000 is not nearly enough to actually subdue a very determined enemy under these circumstances.

This strategy depends on establishing a functioning government in Afghanistan.  Unfortunately, the country has never had a functioning government in the sense that the US or other western countries have.  There is in my view and the history of several other failures no hope of creating such a government in the hoped for time frame.

Notwithstanding the above, leaving Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan to the Taliban and Al-Queda is unacceptably dangerous for the US.  9/11 happened.  Al-Queda is a sworn enemy of the US.  An  enemy that finds motivation in a perverted interpretation of Islam.  In that part of the world such enmity is taken very seriously.  Much as everyone might wish it otherwise, the US is hated and while that hatred has means it will lead to continued attacks on the US.

I have no clever solution to offer but I note that common sense dictates that 30,000 troops will help but not lead to anything that can be understood as victory, 18 months is not nearly enough time to create sustainable government institutions it will take many years, and the US dare not allow the Taliban to regain control of the area and provide another haven for Al-Queda

Criminal justice and parol

From CNN:

Seattle, Washington (CNN) -- A suspect in the shooting deaths of four police officers was not found in an east Seattle home where authorities had tracked him, police said Monday.
 ...
Clemmons is a convicted criminal with a long rap sheet who was given a 95-year prison sentence in 1989 for a host of charges, including robberies, burglaries, thefts and bringing a gun to school.

Clemmons' sentence was commuted in 2000 by then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, said Troyer.

Huckabee, a Republican presidential candidate in 2008, is considering a run for president in 2012.


"Should [Clemmons] be found responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state," Huckabee's office said in a statement Sunday night.

Clemmons, 37, of Pierce County has an "extensive violent criminal history from Arkansas, including aggravated robbery and theft," the sheriff's department said in a statement.

He also was recently charged in Pierce County in the assault of a police officer and rape of a child, according to the statement.
...
Huckabee cited Clemmons' young age -- 17 at the time of his sentencing -- when he announced his decision to commute the sentence, according to newspaper articles.

Clemmons was paroled in August 2000, after serving 11 years of his sentence.

Huckabee's office said Clemmons' commutation was based on the recommendation of the parole board that determined that he met the conditions for early release.

"He was arrested later for parole violation and taken back to prison to serve his full term, but prosecutors dropped the charges that would have held him," the statement said.

It's hard to know where to start with this one, common sense seeming to be habitually absent.

First we have a violent felon sentenced to 95 years when he was 17.  As later events seem to prove the sentence was entirely appropriate.  Had it been carried out a rape and four murders might well have been avoided.  Common sense dictates that harsh sentences for young offenders is NOT cruel and unusual, at least not when the offender is habitually violent.

Then we have a former presidential candidate, you remember that part of his claim was tough on crime, who pardoned the criminal noting that the parole board suggested it.  So how does an appointed board unaccountable to the voters get to decide that a violent criminal should be set free?  Why does an elected official get to say the devil made me do it, oh, that's right it was the parole board?  Common sense suggest that parole boards are entirely out of control and need some serious changes.  Likewise governors.

Finally we have a subsequent arrest that would have put a clearly dangerous criminal in prison where he belonged because prosecutors dropped charges!  Now there are four dead and a rape!

Common sense suggest that the criminal justice system is, well, criminal.  Perhaps actually having prison terms served is a reasonable thought.

Just some common sense.

Swiss ban minarets

From the AP:

GENEVA — A top Swiss official said Monday that voter approval of a ban on minarets next to mosques could be struck down in court, as critics at home and abroad swiftly condemned the vote, saying it undermined the country's secular image.

The Swiss, normally a sensible people, have passed by 57% a ban on minarets next to mosques!  One wonders what this normally sober people were on.

Consider that Swill mosques do NOT broadcast call to prayer from loud speakers instead choosing to have a man sing the call in the courtyard of the mosque.  Note as well that it is a violation of noise laws to broadcast the call by speakers as is comon in much of the Islamic world.

Why then this ban on an architectural symbol of Islam?  If there is a concern for the secular nature of Swiss government OK, ban minarets.  Oh, also ban church bell towers and all other religious architectural symbols.

It seems that Muslims now represent 4% of the Swiss population.  It also is reported that the vote split rural and urban with urban voters generally opposing the ban.  It would seem that at least in rural Switzerland we have reached the point where our fear of a faith overrides all common sense.  It rather brings to mind other cases where religious fear overrode common sense and morality.  Can anyone remember the holocaust or the Swiss role in financing the Second World Way?

Common sense suggest that the Swiss should be shamed.

Dubai and the Middle East

From the Wall Street Journal:

LONDON -- Dubai's debt debacle is stoking a new fear for investors across the globe: potential government default by heavily indebted nations.

The Dubai government roiled markets this week with its move to delay debt payments owed by its flagship holding company, Dubai World. The company is stressed by tens of billions in debt that funded spending on glitzy real-estate projects from the Middle East to Las Vegas.

For much of the last 30 years or so there has been remarkable interest in the Middle East and, of course, oil.  I've always been a bit bemused by it.  Certainly the Middle East generally is important to the West, particularly Europe, in the short term. But what of the long term?  What of 20 years from now?  Or 50?  What, if anything, does the Middle East have going for it?

For all their oil wealth the short common sense answer is NOT MUCH!  The middle east is only marginally habitable.  Lack of fresh water is a major problem.  The region can not feed itself today and absent the ability to import food it will return to the impoverished past.  The region has a poor to non-existent history of modern government.  Indeed the Dubai news is only one of any number of examples of mismanagement.  It's easy to find others in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait both of which have also largely squandered their oil wealth on extravagance and privilege.  If you actually need someone to work in the region, you import them from elsewhere!  When the oil that will be gone in some few years what then?  There is little by way of natural resources except for sun that might be used for massive solar farms.

What then of the near term?  Modern economies need oil.  But for how long?  Are there alternatives?  The short answer is not very long and there are in fact many other alternatives, albeit they cost more.  Does the Middle East have alternatives?  Can they demand any price?  The short answer is oil is nearly the only resource the Middle East has, it doesn't really have alternatives!  They might use it themselves but as I've noted before, you can't DRINK OIL!  While you can make water with it when its gone you are back where you started.  Price oil to high and you only accelerate the move to other energy sources.  In short the Middle East has little option but to sell oil to the West at a reasonable price.

Just a POV driven by some common sense.

Health Care - From the St Louis Tribune

Health care bills do nothing to lower costs, some experts say

"There are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform," Dr. Jeffrey Flier, the dean of the Harvard Medical School, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 18. "In discussions with dozens of health care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health care spending rather than restrain it."

Now everyone work with me as we go slowly through the crushingly obvious - the bill is almost entirely about health insurance not health care! Stunningly, notwithstanding the facts, to wit US health care cost are higher than other first world nations and our results poorer, we've focused our health care reform on insurance coverage and regulation of insurance practices.  So is there any reason we should expect any impact on cost when our apparently bought and paid for congress all but completely ignores them.  Reality and common sense need not visit congress.

American Jobs

There was a news item this evening that struck a cord with me.  It seems that the NBA, that's a professionual basketball league in the United States, is considering having their uniforms made outside the United States.  This provoked a congressman to declare that it was outrageous.

So if professional uniforms are outrageous how about souvenirs?  They've been made offshore for a long time.  If it's outrageous for the NBA, how about professional baseball (exempt from antitrust laws), or football, or hockey, or fill in the blank?  What's special about NBA and their uniforms?

While we're in the area, is it outrageous that when the government contracts for building the steel comes from offshore?  Or how about military equipment?  Or bridge steel?  When is "Buy America" required?

These questions are related, I believe, to the notion of where American jobs should come from.  I was struck recently by yet another pundit commenting that we need more education (we probably do but not in the way the pundit intended) so we can have more high tech jobs.  Never mind that the middle class and a strong economy are based on a strong manufacturing base.  Never mind that most of the things real people in the real world actually touch and use day in and day out are decidedly low tech.  Never mind that the countries balance of trade deficit if rooted not in high tech but manufactured goods.

Common sense suggest that beyond the NBA's uniforms a strong manufacturing base should be central to economic policy.

Oh, and by the way, the NBA buys its uniforms from Adidas (not a US company) who had subcontracted to a US firm and now wants to subcontract to someone who will make the uniforms for less money!  The congressman is interested in preserving those US jobs, not all the others such as shoes and promotional items.  It seems that somehow in the congressman's mind there is something somehow sacred about basketball uniforms.  The congressman might want to take a tour of Lawrence or Lowell Ma where there use to be shoe and clothing industries before they were shiped offshore.  Never mind a few million others.

WSJ: Congress Grows Fed Up Despite Central Bank's Push

From the article:

The Senate Banking Committee is considering legislation to strip the Fed of its role supervising big banks -- despite the Fed's insistence that doing so would cripple its ability to prevent and manage financial crises. The House Financial Services Committee voted Thursday to undo a 1978 law that shields Fed interest-rate decisions from congressional auditors -- overruling protests from Mr. Bernanke and predecessors Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker, as well as the Obama administration and committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.).

Now here's what's interesting, the large financial institutions that led to the financial crisis are a DIRECT consequence of acts of CONGRESS.  Herewith extract of the relevant legislation - Descriptions taken from "Major Statutes Affecting Financial Institutions and Markets", Congressional Research Service. July 7, 2004.

• Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (P.L. 63-43, 38 STAT. 251, 12 USC 221).
  Established the Federal Reserve System as the central banking system of the U.S.
  
• Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162).
  Also known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Established the FDIC as a temporary agency. Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.
  
• Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
  Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government.
  
• Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133).
  Required Federal Reserve Board approval for the establishment of a bank holding company. Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.
  
• International Banking Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-369, 92 STAT. 607).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Brought foreign banks within the federal regulatory framework. Required deposit insurance for branches of foreign banks engaged in retail deposit taking in the U.S.
  
• Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-221, 94 STAT. 132).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Also known as DIDMCA. Established "NOW Accounts." Began the phase-out of interest rate ceilings on deposits. Established the Depository Institutions Deregulation Committee. Granted new powers to thrift institutions. Raised the deposit insurance ceiling to $100,000.
  
• Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-86, 101 STAT. 552).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Also known as CEBA. Established new standards for expedited funds availability. Recapitalized the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Company (FSLIC). Expanded FDIC authority for open bank assistance transactions, including bridge banks.
  
• Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-328, 108 STAT. 2338).
  Available from Library of Congress Thomas Website. Under Legislation, select Public Laws, then select the number of the Congress and find the Law by the P.L. number.
  Permits adequately capitalized and managed bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state one year after enactment. Concentration limits apply and CRA evaluations by the Federal Reserve are required before acquisitions are approved. Beginning June 1, 1997, allows interstate mergers between adequately capitalized and managed banks, subject to concentration limits, state laws and CRA evaluations. Extends the statute of limitations to permit the FDIC and RTC to revive lawsuits that had expired under state statutes of limitations.
  
• Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-102, 113 STAT 1338)
  (pdf version from Government Printing Office.)
  Repeals last vestiges of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. Modifies portions of the Bank Holding Company Act to allow affiliations between banks and insurance underwriters. While preserving authority of states to regulate insurance, the act prohibits state actions that have the effect of preventing bank-affiliated firms from selling insurance on an equal basis with other insurance agents. Law creates a new financial holding company under section 4 of the BHCA, authorized to engage in: underwriting and selling insurance and securities, conducting both commercial and merchant banking, investing in and developing real estate and other "complimentary activities." There are limits on the kinds of non-financial activities these new entities may engage in. Allows national banks to underwrite municipal bonds.
  Restricts the disclosure of nonpublic customer information by financial institutions. All financial institutions must provide customers the opportunity to "opt-out" of the sharing of the customers' nonpublic information with unaffiliated third parties. The Act imposes criminal penalties on anyone who obtains customer information from a financial institution under false pretenses.
  Amends the Community Reinvestment Act to require that financial holding companies can not be formed before their insured depository institutions receive and maintain a satisfactory CRA rating. Also requires public disclosure of bank-community CRA-related agreements. Grants some regulatory relief to small institutions in the shape of reducing the frequency of their CRA examinations if they have received outstanding or satisfactory ratings. Prohibits affiliations and acquisitions between commercial firms and unitary thrift institutions.
  Makes significant changes in the operation of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, easing membership requirements and loosening restrictions on the use of FHLB funds.
  
  

The most relevant of these are Glass-Steagall, the bank holding act, Riegle-Neal, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley.  Under the first two acts large banks that operated in many states were NOT legal.  That is, it was generally not legal to have a bank that was "to big to fail."  The latter two acts made such banks legal.  Now, these are acts of Congress not the FED!  Perhaps rather than be angry at the FED congress ought to consider altering the laws that allow "to big to fail" banks to exist.

Just a bit of common sense.

Court: Army Corps of Engineers liable for Katrina flooding

This is interesting on several levels.  Here are a couple of quotes from the story:

"It has been proven in a court of law that the drowning of New Orleans was not a natural disaster, but a preventable man-made travesty," the attorneys said in a statement. "The government has always had a moral obligation to rebuild New Orleans. This decision makes that obligation a matter of legal responsibility."


Duval ruled that because the Corps failed to maintain the shipping channel, erosion widened it, and its banks -- which helped protect the levees -- deteriorated, leaving the levees unprotected, undermined and more vulnerable to waves coming off Lake Borgne. The Corps also failed to take other actions, such as armoring the banks with rocks, the attorneys said.

First the attorneys argue that the flooding was not a natural disaster.  Someone should explain to me how the FACT of a hurricane is NOT a natural disaster.  Duhh!

Then the attorneys argue that the government (not sure which one but no matter what it means you and me) has a moral obligation to rebuild New Orleans.  In other words, if someone builds in a flood prone area then you and I are morally obligated to rebuild when they are flooded!  If we are to apply that value to flooding why not forest fires, earthquakes, volcanoes, and so on?  Where does it stop?  What about the plaintiff's moral responsibility to build in an arguably safe place?  My point here is not that the Corps isn't liable, they may well be, but that the argument fails the common sense test that if you build in a flood plane you can reasonably expect to eventually get flooded.

What then of the Corps responsibility?  Assuming that in fact the Corps was negligent in maintaining the relevant structures, is the Corps liable.  Now as regards various New Orleans flood control structures there is a long and rather sordid tale of political interference and lack of funds.  If government, particularly local government, doesn't adequately fund public works projects or interferes in the design of those projects as they have consistently done with the New Orleans levy system, is the building agency liable for what happens?  Common sense suggest that they are not; certainly not liable to the exclusion of all other parties.

Now understand, I like New Orleans.  I've been there a few times and it is a wonderful and enjoyable place.  Much of it is, however, is built in very flood prone areas.  Moreover, the delta area has been mismanaged by local, state, and federal government in a wrong headed effort to cater to businesses and individuals so that the entire region is a disaster just waiting to happen.  Should the country as a whole be responsible for the entirely foreseeable consequences  of the foolish decisions of others particularly local governments and individuals?  I think not.

Just a bit of common sense.

Health Care - The beat goes on

The remarkably surrealistic health care debate continues.  On offer two recent events.

The first is a TV ad that notes that the house passed bill will dramatically increase health care cost and be bad for individuals and small businesses.  Note, the ad is in part true.  Under any health care bill health care cost will in fact increase.  But some common sense notes:

• If more people have health insurance then more people will receive health care and quite inevitably health care cost will increase.
• No matter what happens, including nothing, health care cost are going to increase.  Prescription prices are expected to jump 9% to 16% this year according to a recent news item.  That's got nothing at all to do with any or no health care bill.  It's already happening.  Likewise heal insurance premiums according to several recent news items and surveys.
  
• The badness or goodness of the bill depends entirely on the current health care position of the individual.  If you've got good health care including insurance then it's unlikely that your cost will change much at all.  If you don't have good health care including insurance then the bill will indeed impose new cost.  But, those cost are much lower than the societal cost of uninsured patients!

This one strikes me as factually true but entirely misleading to the point of being false.  It's a pity that the health care conversation continues to be so profoundly detached from any reality and common sense.

The second is a phone call I got yesterday.  It seems the AARP was conducting a town hall phone conference in Massachusetts with health care reform as the topic.  I listened for some time before becoming convinced that this was yet another nonsensical posturing.  Consider the following:

• While I was on the call the speaker noted that AARP had supported the recent House bill in part because it rescinded a previous provision that would have cut medicare payments to health care providers.  Never mind that the US health care cost per person is much higher than other industrialized countries and that the results are poorer we should continue to overpay for under performance! 
• During the call there were several survey questions.  What troubled me about the questions was that they were NOT intended to elicit any thoughtful insight into health care issues.  Rather they were structured around building support for sound bites.  Consider the one that asked of the following what is your greatest health care concern.  OK, am I concerned by any particular health care condition.  Just now I'm in good health so no I'm not.  But, of course, if I get cancer then cancer treatment will be very important to me.  Likewise Medicare coverage and EVERY other one of the items on the list.  Common sense dictates that such questions don't inform the discourse they simply allow someone to say this percent of older Americans in a recent Massachusetts survey were afraid of this condition.  Interesting in its way but not relevant given that a significant portion of Americans have or will have EVERY ONE of the listed conditions!
  
• The call also had phone in questions.  I don't know what the process was for selecting phone in questions but I did note that the questions during my time on the call were driven exclusively by the sort of sound bites various ads and news stories have raised.  Here I note that I believe that Mr Obama is entirely right when he noted in a recent speech that much of what passes for discourse in this area is incorrect on the facts or worse.

While on one hand I'm glad that the AARP has a position, but if this is the best they can do to promote something remotely related to common sense and reality then I'm not at all hopeful that health care reform will be anything more than yet another example of political failure leading to bad public policy.

A parting common sense thought.,  We continue to talk about health care reform when what the law is really about is health care insurance.  While we continue to focus on insurance there is little hope that we might actually get health care reform that brings our cost and results inline with other first world countries.

Just a common sense POV.

AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'Map For That' 3G Ads

So here's the thing Verizon has an add showing its 3G coverage vs AT&T.  AT&T has sued saying the ad is deceptive and has cost it market share.  Now a judge has ruled that, in fact, the ad is not deceptive (indeed it is factually true).  AT&T is unhappy.

Now some may recall that a while back I fired AT&T land line service over, well, lack of service.  It seems AT&T doesn't get it still.   To be competitive in a highly competitive market - of which cell service is stunningly so - you must in fact compete!  It doesn't matter if it's cell coverage or customer service.  If you can't deliver service one of your competitors will.  That is, after all, why they're called competitors.

AT&T might consider that fewer lawyers and more service including better 3G coverage is just common sense.

Familial DNA

Familial DNA is a somewhat new criminal testing technique that has raised some some controversy.  It works by searching not for a DNA match but a close match.  Close matches are likely to be related providing a clue as to who the DNA is from. This recent Colorado case illustrates the point.

In February 2008, two cars were broken into in the city. Police found blood at both scenes and ran the samples through DNA databases but couldn't find a match. Then, as part of a study being conducted by the district attorney's office, investigators used new software to see whether the DNA in the blood was close enough to potentially be from a family member of someone in the criminal DNA database.

The controversy is rooted in the notion that since the family member has done nothing wrong it shouldn't be legal to test.

"People have a reasonable expectation of privacy of their DNA," said Maryland defense attorney Stephen Mercer. "It's a basic violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution"

Now the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seasure.  Mr Mercer's argument strikes me as not just wrong but silly. 

A person's DNA comes from their parents.  Thus the DNA of related people is similar.  Now, the DNA in a criminal database came from criminals.   It is entirely legal to have a criminal DNA database and to search it for a match.  That is the act of searching IS legal.  If someone's DNA is in the database it is NOT a Fourth Amendment violation to examine it!  Mr Mercer's argument fails on this ground.

If it is legal to search for a match, why would it be illegal to search for a near match when we know that near matches may be related to a criminal?  DNA matching is a technical technique.  That is matches are determined by matching algorithms.  Any argument about familial matches then is ultimately an argument in part about the legality of algorithms.  What would make a near match algorithm illegal if it is not illegal to examine the DNA data to begin with?  It is rather like interviewing a known criminal and asking "Did your brother do this?"  Since there is no prohibition against that why should there be a prohibition against a familial search of a legal DNA database? 

Common sense argues that there shouldn't.

Life without parole for juvenile criminals

From CNN:

The Supreme Court wrestled in often emotional terms Monday over whether sentencing juvenile criminals to life in prison without parole is "cruel and unusual" punishment, especially when their crime is not murder.


The justices appeared divided over how to treat two separate appeals, one involving a 13-year-old rapist and the other a 17-year-old violent home-invasion robber.

Now if that's as far as you got one might well wonder if life without parole is cruel and unusual.  But how about some facts.

It seems that the then 13 year old raped a 72 year old women and had a history of violent behavior.  The then 17 year old was sentenced after being caught in a violent home invasion while on parole for previous violent crimes.

These cases are interesting in many ways.

Consider first the rape.  Is rape of an elderly woman especially henious?  We regard child rape as especially wrong.  But rape of an adult is different and there is no special provision for elderly rape.  Why? It is certainly true that an elderly woman has no hope of self defense or flight.  Shouldn't this create some special circumstance?  But what about rape of a woman if some middle age.  Is she any less violated?  Any less a victim?  Now it seems to me that any rape is a terible crime.  The rape of a child or an elderly person is especially offensive.  So I'm inclined to think that special circumstances apply to the rape at issue. 

What then  of the rapist age?  He was after all only 13.  It has long been a matter of law that age is a factor in determining if there was an understanding of right and wrong.  As a general rule crimes commited by those under the age of 18 are treated as juvenal offenses.  They are subject to lesser punishments upon conviction on the argument that juvenal offenders have a lesser understanding.  I can understand that at some level but it beggs the question - does a 13 year old know that rape is wrong, that it is a crime?  The common sense answer is of course yes.  So if the understanding is present does age matter?  The common sense answer is of course no. 

Then what of the sentence?  Given that there were special circumstances in the rape and that age was not a factor then the sentence was just.  It was not "cruel and unusual."

What then of the 17 year old?  The crime here is different in many regards.  It is a violent home invasion commited by a habitual criminal who was then on parole.  The same sort of common sense analysis would suggest that the sentence was in fact just the argument being that the offender was habitual and within months of being an adult.

Bank Reform: breaking up large banks

From a recent CNN item:

Lobbyists for the big banks are fighting the break-up proposal hard, calling it "misguided." The proposal could "lead to long-term damage" to the economy, wrote Rob Nichols, president of the Financial Services Forum, in a letter Monday to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

One wonders where to start with something so utterly detached from reality as this.  Surely others have noted that financial institutions that are "to big to fail" have in fact already lead to "long-term damage" to the economy!  It beggars the imagination how anyone even remotely attached to reality could miss the obvious common sense observation that concentration of financial power in a few large firms lead directly to much, I'm inclined to most, of our current financial trouble.  Allowing such institutions to continue to exist, to continue to have a claim on government (that's you and me) to bail them out of their own folly is ridiculous in the extreme.

That just common sense.

Newsweek: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah (Palin)?"

Ms Palin has published a book, been interviewed on Oprah, and is much in the news.  If anyone has been off world lately you'll remember Palin as the former GOP VP candidate.  Now Newsweek with a cover of Palin in her running outfit looking "oh-so-sexy" writes "How Do You Solve A Problem Like Sarah? She's bad news for the GOP - and for everybody else too."  Meanwhile Palin is in a snit and writes "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist, and oh-so-expected by now."

I must admit that I'm more than a bit bemused and chargrin by Newsweek and Palin both.

The photo is in face of Palin which was taken with not just her consent but her active participation while she was in the hunt for publicity and agreed to a photo shoot for Runner's World.  So common sense suggest that Sarah should get over herself and come to grips with the fact that she is by her own choice and active participation a public figure.

Meanwhile Newsweek wonders "How do you solve a problem like Sarah?"  Really?  But nooooo!  Newsweek wants quite understandably to sell magazines.  A mildly provocative photo of Palin, catchy headline, and bit of controversy will doubtless sell magazines.  If Newsweek really wants to solve the "Sarah" problem it could do the obvious, just ignore her.  Newsweek should decide if it wants to continue to be a tabloid mascarading as a news magazine or actually be a news weekly.

I suppose in many ways that Newsweek and Palin are made for each other. 

Palin wants publicity and Newsweek wants to sell magazines.  It's more than a little sad that what now passes for public discourse is reduced to such.  Indeed, common sense suggest that so long as it is thus there is little if any hope that the real and pressing business of governence can succeed.

Just a bit of common sense.

Sexting

The news

It seems one 18 year old Phillip Alpert was convicted of sending a naked photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend, a photo she had taken and sent him, to dozens of her friends and family after an argument. Mr Alpert was charged with child phonograph and pleaded no contest and is now on the Florida's sex offender registry. Mr Alpert expresses some disbelief noting that he is now on a list with child molesters and rapist. His attorney, Larry Walters, commented "Sexting is treated as child pornography in almost every state and it catches teens completely offguard because this is a fairly natural and normal thing for them to do. It is surprising to us as parents, but for teens it's part of their culture."

Common sense

The girlfriend was 16 years old. That is she was a minor, a child, not an adult. Mr Alpert was 18, that is an adult. Despite Mr Alpert's immaturity in sending his girlfriend's nude photo he is, in fact, an adult and is, in fact, ghilty of child ponography. Immaturity is not a defense under these circumstances.

Even more disturbing is attorney Larry Walters who regards sending a nude photo of a 16 year old girl as a "fairly natural and mormal thing" and "part of their (youth) culture." Now, I don't know Mr Walters but I'm inclined to reasonably believe that he is rather older than 18. That is, he is clearly an adult arguing that the behavior is acceptable and excuseable. Given that kind of adult example is there any wonder that young people act as they do?

Common sense suggest that there is more than simple child penography. It is adults that should be responsible for setting the standard rather than excusing the behavior. It is adults that should provide the ethical framework and guidence that teaches 16 year olds that is is not OK to send their boyfriend a nude photo. It is adults that should teach an 18 year old that it is not OK to get angry and send a nude photo of their 16 year old girlfriend to others.

Dear Congress, Please Grow Up

Today on the news we were treated to several senior congressional spokesmen declaring a) their outrage over the AIG and other bonuses paid for by bailout money, and b) their anger at being blamed for passing the law that allows the bonus payments noting they they, the congress, was deceived and pressured to pass the law with the amendment.

Congress's argument is sophomoric to the point of being simply dumb. They argue that some 535 congressmen were unable to understand the language and consequence of the law they passed. Now, if that's true then we have 535 really inept congressmen. While, I'd certainly grant that some, perhaps many, of our congressmen are not "the brightest bulb in the socket," there re a number of very capable congressmen in the 111th congress. So to argue that Congress understand is simply outrageous.

There were a few congressmen that noted that the bill was so complex and they were under such pressure to pass it that they didn't have time to study it. If that's the case them I am apparently suppose to believe that our able congress thinks it's OK to pass enormously expensive bailout bills that they don't understand/haven't studied/didn't read/etc. Now if that's true then there is, in my opinion, something fundamentally wrong with the way congress is organized and managed. Since our elected congressmen are responsible for organizing and managing Congress it follows that they are at best inept and at worst incompetent. That line of argument is, in my opinion, every bit as outrageous as the first.

The problem with today's noise out of congress is that that no matter who did what to whom, no matter where the finger of blame is pointed, ultimately Congress passed the bill. Ultimately Congress is responsible for the bill. Pointing the finger elsewhere is simply childish and right now the US needs an adult Congress not business as usual.

Just some common sense.

Mr Dodd have you no shame!

So here's the latest on Sen Dodd's excuses for his misbehavior.

A defiant Sen. Chris Dodd defended his actions on bonuses for AIG executives Friday as news surfaced that a senior company executive was returning his $6 million bonus.

Sen. Chris Dodd admitted to CNN this week that he added bonus legislation to the stimulus bill.

Dodd said he was misled on the issue of bonuses for AIG executives. He claimed he would not have drafted key legislative changes allowing the bonuses to move forward if he knew the purpose of those changes.

Meanwhile, a senior AIG executive said through a company spokesman that he will return his $6 million bonus. The executive, Doug Poling, is returning the money "because it's the correct thing to do," said Mark Herr, an AIG spokesman.

Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut, said officials at the Treasury Department led him to believe that the changes added to the $787 billion economic stimulus bill shortly before its final passage were merely "technical and innocuous" in nature.

So Mr Dodd didn't do it, then he did it but the treasury made him do it (you'll understand my amazement at the notion that anyone can make the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee do anything), now he's angry and he's been mislead. And, of course, according to the mislead Mr Dobb the changes were "technical and innocuous," never mind the millions they cost the taxpayer.

This last is really priceless. Lets see, presumptively as chairman of the Banking Committee, Mr Dobb is suppose to be competent and, one supposes, has sufficient staff to ensure that he understands the bills he's responsible for. So when Mr Dobb says he was mislead one can only assume that he is either incompetnet or such a poor manager that his staff is out to lunch. In either case, Mr Dobb should be replaced at least as chairman of the Banking Committee where given the pending next round of banking bailouts I'm inclined to the common sense notion that the country really could use someone who knows what they are doing and is in control of their staff.

Of course, I suppose, it is possible that Mr Dobb was bought and paid for by the very industry he is suppose to help regulate on behalf of the people of the country.

So which seems most likely. Mr Dobb is incompitent, corrupt, or both? Hm. What does common sense suggest to you? Oh, and does "technical and innocuous" ryme with "porky little ammendments?"

C. Dodd - Perhaps it's time to hold people accountable

Senator C. Dodd has been in the news lately in the matter of the AIG bonuses. Herewith a chronology of events courtesy CNN and others:

• June 13, 2008 - From the Wall Street Journal to the Associated Press, the national media were reporting Friday that U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd received favorable mortgage rates from a highly controversial mortgage company (Countrywide Mortgages).
• Sept 23, 2008 - Sen. Dodd notes in Senate banking committee hearing 'Too much power to the Treasury'.
• March 17, 2009 - Christopher Dodd , Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and recipient of $280,000 in campaign contributions from AIG, adamantly denied that he had anything to do with the clause in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to go forward.
• March 18, 2009 - Hardball with Chris Matthews - Chris Dodd got over $100,000 from AIG. Barack Obama got over $100,000 from AIG. John McCain got almost $60,000 from AIG. Hillary Clinton running for the presidency got almost $40,000. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on Finance, got $25,000. Joe Biden, the VP, got $20,000.
• March 19, 2009 - Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN Wednesday that he was responsible for language added to the federal stimulus bill to make sure that already-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored. AIG's derivatives branch is in Dodd's home state. Many of the bonuses in question were awarded to executives at that branch. But in the written statement, Dodd said he had no idea the legislation would impact the company.

It rather reminds me of when young children get caught doing something they shouldn't. First you deny and lie. When that fails you blame someone else. Mr Dodd is a sterling example of what a senior US Senator should be - NOT.

So here's the short version Mr Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, took a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Mortgage, but hey, it's just business as usual, and the Senate does nothing by way of censure. Then a couple of months later Mr Dodd says the treasure has to much power. Then Mr Dodd denies that he was responsible for the amendment that allowed the outrageous AIG bonusus. Then he says he is but the treasury made him do it.

Common sense suggests that a Senator on the payrole of AIG having conducted himself in this fashion should be impeached. Failing that, he should be censured. He should certainly not be re-elected.

Just some common sense.

Mr Obama and the Financial Industry

Yesterday, Mr Obama was on the news. He was giving a speech in what appeared to be a town meeting like venue. During his speech he spoke to the need for the government to rescue banks. To make his point he noted that if the local bank failed, the FDIC would step in guarantee the deposits (this isn't strictly true but that's another issue) clean things up and sell the bank so that the depositors would not be especially bothered (that's also not true as anyone who has ever had money in a failed bank can testify, but that's also another issue). Mr Obama then went on to note that when a big bank such as Citi, Band of America, or Wells Fargo got in trouble it was a much different matter. He noted that such large institutions control some 70% of the US financial services market. Consequently, they are to big to be allowed to fail.

Mr Obama is both right and wrong in this matter in my opinion.

First, I'd note as someone that from time to time has studied these and other banks for a living, that they in fact control rather more than 70% of the US banking marketplace. Depending on what one considers they may represent up to 90%! Mr Obama significantly underestimated the market share of these institutions.

Second, I agree with Mr Obama. Any institution that controls even 10% of a nations banking market is, indeed, to big to fail.

Third, Mr Obama entirely missed the really important issue. Should any single financial entity be allowed to control so large a share of a countries financial markets that they are to large to fail? A close related question is, should decisions about a countries financial markets be in the hands of a small (in the US read less than a dozen) number of CEOs?

My answer to both questions is a resounding no. Further, I'd note that not so long ago in the US it was not legal for banks to be remotely as large as they have become in the last dozen years. Laws that were passed after the depression to avoid just such concentration of financial control were changed some years ago so that a handful of large banks, read CitiBank, Band of America, Wells Fargo, WAMU, and a handful of others could engage in nationwide banking. Subsequently, these large institutions went on a merger binge and became the superlarge institutions they are today. In addition, they became, as Mr Obama notes, 'to large to fail'.

In the US, banking is part of the free market. While that's not true in all democracies a free market banking system has in general worked reasonably well. We have banking crisis of one sort or another every dozen or so years generally driven by greed overcoming common sense and inadequate regulation. But we survive them and life goes on. But while banking is a free market activity, it is not 'free market' in the sense that say the local pizza shop is. Banking involves the nation's well being and is, quite appropriately, subject to significant state and federal regulation.

Perhaps it's time to restore appropriate banking regulation. To cause banks that are 'to large to fail' to be split up and required to do business in a marketplace where if they make bad decisions and fail 'we the people' in the form of the federal government spending tax dolars don't bail them out and don't pay bonuses to executives who are clearly incompetent.

Just a thought really. Just some common sense.

Medical cost part 2

My cold continued for some days and I finally decided to go see the doctor. It was, simply put, a classic example of why medical cost are high.

Part 1 - People involved 2 - 9AM call the doctor to schedule an appointment. Call Lahey. Get in call queue. Listen to advertisements for Lahey. Operator answers. Tell her I need to schedule appointment. Get sent to scheduling queue. Listen to more advertisements for Lahey. Doctor's scheduling nurse answers. Explain to her that I need to see doctor. She takes my name and callback number.

Part 2 - Total people involved so far 3 - Nurse calls back 2 hours later. My physician is not available so I agree to see someone else.

Part 3 - Total people involved so far 4 - Drive to Lahey. Park in their new 'pay to park' garage. Something about the notion is singularly offensive, but I've decided to put up with it. Go to doctor's office. Stand in line 15 minutes waiting for receptionist to deal with 3 people in front of me. By now I'm feeling very bad and wondering just how long I can stand up. Eventually see receptionist. Give her the copay. Wait in waiting room for 45 minutes after the scheduled apointment.

Part 4 - Total people involved 5 - Nurse eventually comes out and shows me to examining room. Leaves.

Part 5 - Total people involved 6 - Second nurse comes in. Takes my tempature and blood oxygen. Surprisingly, doesn't take my blood presure. Nurse leaves.

Part 6 - Total people involved 7 - About 10 minutes later doctor comes in and examines me. Perscribes different antiboitic.

Part 7 - Total people involved 11 - Drive to pharmacy. Stand in line. Get to head of line. Turns out it's the wrong line. Redirected to different line. Stand in line and turn in perscription. Clerk hands perscritption to one of pharmist. Pharmist fills perscription and puts perscription in tray. Third clerk picks up perscription. Pay for perscription. It is now 4PM.

So lets recap. In order to schedule an apointment, be seen, and get a simple perscription filled it takes 7 hours and involves 11 people! It set me to thinking about the way things worked 20 years ago when I saw a private practice physician. I'd call his office, speak to his nurse, and get scheduled. At the apointed hour I'd go to his office and be shown to an examination room. I'd see the doctor. He write a perscription. I'd take it to a small pharmacy (since driven out of business by a large chain pharmacy) give the perscription to the pharmacist. The pharmacist would fill it. I'd pay and leave. People involved 4. Lesson - complicated systems are both inconvient and expensive.

Shamrock Financial and Deceptive Promotions

Yesterday we received a letter about the “Economic Stimulus Act 2008.” The letter had an official government look about it. So much so that my wife showed it to me asking if I knew about the program. Here's a direct quote from the letter.

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 has allowed the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to temporarily broaden lending policies to assist mortgage holders and promote economic stimulus.

Status:

Our records indicate that you have not yet called to confirm eligibility for your property at ... . It is important that you contact us toll-free 1-888-477-4438 within 3 days of receiving this notice.

The letter sounded and rather looked like a government letter. However down at the bottom of the page in rather smaller type was the following:

This offer is being made by Shamrock Financial Corporation who is not affiliated with your current lender. It is not an agency of the government nor is it affiliated or associated with HUD/FHA. This is not a government form. This is not a commitment to make a loan. ...

So what I have from Shamrock is a) deceptive but b) legal. Should it be legal?

A bit of checking finds that Shamrock is one of those credit vultures that solicit the unwary with doubtful credit offers managing, but only just, to stay within the letter of the law.

The letter got me to wondering. Why is it that companies like Shamrock that are arguably part of the problem can continue with business as usual why the country deals with the aftermath of their previous dealings? Isn't it time that we put back the stricter regulations that helped protect consumers from such companies? Of course that would be common sense, a rather uncommon quality in government.

Stem cell research

Mr Obama is about to reverse some of Mr Bush's stem cell research funding rules. With this in the works there was a news item featuring an interview with Michael Fox. Mr Fox spoke to his hope that stem cell research could lead to treatments of Parkinson's, a devastating disease that Mr Fox has.

There was a quality to Mr Fox's remarks that struck me. He expresses what might well be reasonably characterized as a religious hope in stem cell treatments. Now, Parkinson's is a terrible disease. It is easy to understand that anyone with the disease will look to any hope for treatment. Moreover, there are some positive indications that stem cell treatments may be beneficial for Parkinson's. But what of this almost religious faith in science and technology?

During my life there have been many technologies that were going to fundamentally change life and society. Things like gene therapy, artificial intelligence, several revolutionary drugs, and others come to mind. Each in their time were widely regarded as the solution to some problem. Each failed!

My point here is that science and technology are more often than not like that. Progress is made most often not by great leaps. Rather progress is often made by failures where each failure eliminates one wrong path. It is only what is left after all the failures, only the things that worked, that provide progress.

Will stem cell research provide a treatment for Parkinson's? I don't know. I'm hopeful. Parkinson's is a devastating disease. My father suffered from it and I painfully remember how it affected all the family. But, for all of that I would caution everyone that science and technology are far more often wrong than right. Science and technology are most often about what is left after all the failures not about magic bullets.

That said, my heart goes out to Mr Fox and all other Parkinson's sufferers. I to hope that stem cell research provides a treatment.

Medical Care and Computers

As part of the stimulus package there is going to be spending to computerize medical records. The argument here is that it will help control cost and can lead to better care. While both things might turn out to be true, I had an experience with computerized medicine today that gives pause.

I've had a cold or possibly flu for the last couple of weeks. It finally lead to sinus and chest infection as such things occasionally do. So I called my doctor to see what might be done. Now my doctor works at Lahey Clinic, one of the countries best medical facilities. Lahey has extensively computerized their service delivery. So here's what computerized medical care was like for me today.

9:30 am - Called number purported to be the doctors office. Turns out it's a general number. Nice lady answers and after a brief explanation routes the call to the general medicine center.

9:30 - 9:35 am - Listen to promotional messages extolling Lahey clinic as a great medical center. Decide no one is going to answer or the call may have got lost in the phone system. Hang up.

10:00 am - Call a different number. Turns out to be even worse. Get transferred to a wrong number.

10:03 am - Call original number again. Get transferred again. Wait while listening to Lahey ads for 8 minutes.

10:11 am - Phone is answered. Explain to nice lady what the issue is. She's very sympathetic and promptly transfers me to the doctor's triage facility.

10:11 am - 10:15 am - Talk to pleasant nurse who says she'll see if the doctor will send a prescription or wants to see me. Promises to call back.

10:30 am - Nurse calls back. Doctor will issue prescription. Oh by the way, we do it electronically now it should take about 90 minutes.

1:00 pm - Call pharmacy to be sure they have the prescription and it's ready. Now I'm feeling rather poorly and am anxious for treatment. No prescription.

1:45 pm - Call pharmacy again. Ditto. On a positive note, the pharmacy answers their phone relatively promptly - AFTER I go through 3 levels of their IVR system.

2:30 pm - Call pharmacy again. Ditto. Now I'm feeling really bad.

2:30 pm - Call Lahey again. On hold for 10 minutes. Give up. Call back and plead with operator to connect me to a real live human as I'm not getting through and am now really feeling bad. Get transfered to call queue. Wait 5 minutes more. Nice lady answers phone and says the doctor has to sign the prescription electronically before it can be sent. Plead with nice lady to interveen to expedite as I'm starting to feel very bad. She says she'll phone it in.

3:00 pm - Call pharmacy. I'm becoming friends with the lady who answers their phone. Perscription is ready. Drive to pharmacy, pick up prescription, drive home.

3:40 pm - Take pills!

Time to fill simple perscription - 6+ hours. Number of people involved at Lahey - 4 phone operators, 1 triage nurse, 1 physicians assistant, and (I'm only guessing here) the doctor. Number of people involved at pharmacy - 3 including the 1 pharmacist that actually filled the prescription. Perscription cost - $3.45. God knows what the total cost of the adventure was.

I wonder why our medical system is needlessly expensive? I would note that Lahey's computerized system was in this instance part of the problem. It wasn't until a real person interveened at Lahey that the perscription was issued. One hopes Mr Obama's folks have better luck.

The Supreme Court, Mr Obama, and justice

In today's news the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by suspected al-Qaida sleeper agent Ali al-Marri to the president's authority to detain people without charges, granting an Obama administration request to end the high court case when Mr al-Marri was transfered to a civil jail under civil indictment.

It is a small item in a way but consider the following. Mr al-Marri is accused of being an al-Quaida sleeper agent. He has been held without charge in a military prison for 5 1/2 years! At the time of his arrest he was a legal resident of the US. Mr Obama did not renounce the use of preventive detention and choose not to take a position in the case.

I am not in any way soft on terriorism or terriorist. Indeed, I would not hesitate to be on Mr al-Marri's jurry or to report a guilty verdic consistent with the evidence that lead to his death.

Still, I am troubled by the notion that the US government can arrest someone and hold them without trial for 5 1/2 hears. This goes straight to the issue of protections afforded to US citizens (it appears that al-Marri is not a citizen, only a legal resident) under the consititution and law. It speaks to the issue can a visitor to the US be held indefinitely in controvention of laws that would not allow a US citizen to be held? It would seem that the Supreme Court and our new President would prefer not to answer that question. That's more than a little shameful.

Freedom of speech and highschool

There was a news item today about a high school newspaper having published an article at least one parent objected to, said article dealing with sex acts on high school property.

Now, while I'm well past high school, I do, in fact, still remember how sexually charged high school was, and, oh by the way, I went to an all boys high school. During that time I spent considerable time chasing after and occasionally succeeding in finding a willing partner. Said partner and I enjoying each other in whatever location offered even a small measure of privacy. The point here being that I am keenly aware that high school students engage in sex.

With that out of the way, consider the following question - should a high school paper publish material some parents regard as offensive? That is offensive enough to make issue of it.

Interestingly, although somewhat depressingly, the high school student interviewed, said student being on the school newspaper, regarded it as a second amendment issue saying, "It's a free speech issue. As a journalist I can write anything I want."

Work with me here. This is from a high school student and self professed journalist. I'm inclined to the view that high school isn't what it once was. Even so, should a high school student reasonably believe that he is a) a journalist (he's not, he's a high school student whose only claim to journalism is that he belongs to the high school newspaper club), and b)he has an unabridged right to write and publish whatever he wants? I think not.

There is an old saw to the effect that the first amendment does not give one the right to scream fire in a crowded theater. That is, free speech is not an unabridged right. A self professed journalist, even if he is a high school student, should know this.

But what of the content per se? Is it appropriate for a high school publication to publish material at least some parents regard as lewd? Now, I don't know about this particular high school newspaper, but most are funded by city funds. That is by tax money given to schools for some several purposes including various clubs including, in particular, high school newspapers. Given that the publication is tax supported should it have a right to publish anything it wants? I think not.

Clearly such things as hate speech should be restricted. But what about value related speech? Whose values? Therein lies the devil. Should the standards we apply to commercial speech be applied to high school newspapers? Who decides when material is of such a nature that it has no redeming social value?

While I don't have a clear opinion here, I do believe that the high school student is wrong. You can't scream fire in a crowded theater.

Gay rights and prop 8

It seems that the fine folks in California passed a resolution, Proposition 8, that defines marriage in California as one man and one woman. Some 400+ same-sex marriage supporters rallied adn demonstrated in San Diego on the eve of oral arguments before the state Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

This is one of those issues like abortion or assisted suicide that stirs passions on both sides of the issue. And like all such issues, much of the passion distorts the issue and ultimately delays resolution to the benefit of all involved, whatever their position. In such cases it is often useful to examine the issue through questions.

Is marriage a religious or civil matter? In much of the world today, the civil and religious elements of marriage are completely intertwined. For those that regard marriage as a religious matter and gay marriage as an affront to their understanding of religion, same sex marriage is an understandably serious affront. While I understand such outrage, and while, it seems, the people of California through Proposition 8 recognize its validity, I do not believe that it need be so.

What if, we separate the religious and civil elements of marriage? In this matter it is worth noting that in a surprisingly large number of countries in the world, the dual nature of marriage is recognized. If you want to be married, you MUST have a civil ceremony. If you'd like to have a religious ceremony, that's fine but it caries no civil consequence. In these countries, marriage is a civil contract that is, by custom, recognized by many with a religious ceremony. In these countries, since marriage is a civil act there can be no underlying religious issues. Problem solved. In this matter, it is worth noting, that only in the relative recent history of marriage, has it been a religious act! Further, that through much of history it did not involve one man and one woman, polygamy harems and the like having a well established history often rooted in our fundamental religious texts.

This matter of separation of the religious and civil elements of marriage is interesting from other perspectives. Consider the question, what civil elements of marriage are not available to any person or persons (where more than 2 people can be involved)? I had occasion to consider this issue for myself some years ago when I was involved without marriage with the woman I eventually married. It turns out that most, though not all, civil elements of marriage are available to anyone via contract! Medical issues are not a problem at all, though one should expect to have to press the issue. Inheritance is similarly not an issue. Surprisingly, financial responsibility for children, either issue of the union or adopted, isn't much of a problem. The two issues where things get sticky are medical insurance provided by an employer and taxes.

Think about that for a bit. In the United States today, one can achieve all the civil benefits of marriage to one or more people independent of gender via civil contract with the exception of employer issued medical insurance and taxes!

So is the issue of "gay marriage" really about medical insurance and taxes? If one listens to the arguments for gay marriage it is very clear that it is not. Most of the arguments from the gay rights community at their most fundamental go to respect. Two men who have been in a 17 year relationship are simply saying that they want the rest of society to recognize their commitment and love for one another. It's really that simple. I for one could not deny such recognition, nor do I regard those who would as kind or loving.

There is, of course, a flip side. Do those who oppose "same sex marriage" really believe that people in a committed relationship should be denied medical insurance and tax benefits? When I listen to those opposed to "same sex marriage" I don't hear about insurance and taxes. Rather I hear talk about religion, morality, and children. People seem to be saying that their fundamental religious belief is that marriage is about one man, one woman, and raising children. Indeed, for most of us it is about just that simple truth! I for one can not deny that truth, nor do I regard those in a very vocal minority, here I note without prejudice that gay activist are in fact a minority and are in fact often vocal, who would force their own values on the majority as either kind or loving.

I regard both sides in this argument as wrong in that they fail to recognize that the debate is often about two very different things. It is simply not possible to have a conversation and resolve such issues when the parties are not even talking about the same thing.

So here's a common sense solution that should satisfy people of good will on both sides.

First, let's stop talking about marriage.

Second, if you want the civil benefits that now accrue to marriage, go down to the civil authority, fill out the necessary forms, and sign ... gender need not be an issue since it's about taxes and such.

Third, if you want to hold a religious ceremony do so. It IS your special day and you should celebrate it.

Finally, if you're on the religious right quit going out of your way to antagonize people who love each other and are willing to commit their lives to each other. There's little enough love as there is. Celebrate it wherever you find it. If you're a gay rights activist quit going out of your way to offend people of faith. Understand that they ARE the majority! They clearly don't want to call it marriage but, I believe, most would gladly support your civil rights and while they struggle with your choices are ultimately willing to accept them.

In short, I propose that we all grow up and get religion out of, if not marriage, then insurance and taxes. But hey, that's just a common sense POV.

Occassionally common sense actually shows up.

I quote from CNN Ed Rollins, who was political director for President Reagan and is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.

(CNN) -- The cold winds of March have obviously affected the intelligence and thought processes of people who need to get their thinking straight.

The idiotic debate raging in Washington this week around Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the nearly defunct Republican Party, and Rush Limbaugh, a conservative icon for the past 35 years, is beyond foolish.

The battle to be the "de facto leader" of this party is akin to the question of who wants to steer the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Who represents the party or its values is not relevant when only 26 percent of voters have a positive impression of the party at all and only 7 percent very positive, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey.

The Democratic Party is the reverse, with 49 percent positive. When 60 percent of the country approves of the job President Obama is doing, every Republican leader is going backward.

Republicans are not relevant. We just lost two back-to-back elections (2006 and 2008), and obviously, what we are selling, the voters aren't buying. In the midst of the most severe economic crisis in my lifetime, we have a president who is taking the country on a dramatic sea change. This is what he said he would do and he is doing it. And where are Republicans? Right now we don't have the alternative ideas, a message or, more important, the messenger.

Ed is spot on in my view. That, however, raises the question of why the Washington political class nattered away for over a week and just doesn't seem to let it go?

More from the "You couldn't make it up" file

It seems that one Rodney Parham, a McDonald's employee, has had his worker's compensation claim denied. Here are the facts, most of which are visible on the McDonalds security video.

In August 2008 one Perry Kennon, 27, was beating a woman in the McDonald's where Mr Parham worked. Parham broke up the asualt and forced the attacker Kennon outside. Kennon then shot Mr Parham three times. Mr Parham then walks back inside the McDonnalds and collapses. After three surgeries, $300,000 in medical bills and six months recovery Mr Parham filed a workers compensation claim for his injuries. Claims specialist Misty Thompson with insurance company Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing responded, denying Haskett's claim, noting "We've denied this claim in its entirety, it's our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course of his employment," a portion of the statement reads.

So lets see, Mr Parham saves a woman from a beating inside McDonalds. Now I'm not sure of the law here but it does seem likely that the woman might well have held McDonalds liable for her injuries, possibly serious given that her assailiant subsequently shot Mr Parham three times, arguing that McDonalds had a duty to act to insure her safety in the store. So Mr Parham, for whatever his reasons, interveened and drove the attacker outside where he was shot three times. Rather than regarding Mr Parham as the hero he is, McDonalds through their insurer denies Mr Parham's injury claim on the argument that it wasn't his job to intervene thus his injuries fall outside worker's compensation insurance!

Stunning!

It leads one to wonder. Suppose there had been a robery and Mr Parham was shot trying to save another employee or patron. Since that's not his job, presumably according to McDonalds and their insurer that responsability falls to the police, he could be denied worker's compensation. Suppose there had been a fire and Mr Parham was injured trying to put it out before others were injured or the business destroyed. Since he's not a fireman presumably his injuries would fall outside worker's compensation.

It troubles me that in more and more areas of contemporary American life, businesses shirk what is by any common sense standard their responsability. They deny financial liability and often moral responsability for their own actions.

Shame on you McDonalds.

PS-How about we boycot McDonalds and see if they can bring themselves to treat Mr Parham like the exceptional employee he is and, oh by the way, pay his altogether justified worker's compensation claim.

What's really wrong with politics?

There was a news item in CNN's Cafferty's blog that got me to thinking about what's really wrong with political parties. Briefly, the item noted that there was something of a controversy involving assertions by Mr Obama's White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who calls Limbaugh the “voice and intellectual force and energy” behind the GOP and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says he’s “a national spokesperson for conservative views.” This after the radio host recently repeated his claim that he wants President Obama to fail. Moving right along, RNC chairman Michael Steele first said that Mr. Limbaugh was an "entertainer" whose comments are "ugly." Mr Limbaugh, as is his wont and right, made an issue in his radio show and accused Mr Steele of supporting President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and suggested that Steele was being used by the "liberal media." After which, Mr Steele promptly backpedaled and apologized.

It's hard to know where to begin with this bit of nonsense.

Just for fun, lets start with Mr. Limbaugh. You remember him. He wants Mr. Obama to fail while the country is in the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Mr Limbaugh's notion of being a stand up American and mine are rather different. Of course Mr Limbauch still has a job. I'm looking for one as is my oldest son, nevermind my daughter who is woried about here job. Now none of us are Republicans or Democrats. We are, however, keenly interested in seeing the US economy moving again and hopefully recovering the 60% losses to our retirement funds and don't much care what the underlying politics are. Mr Limbaugh, on the other hand, seems to have drunk way to much of his own coolaid (true believers are a lot like that) and thinks politics transcends what's good for the country.

Moving right along there's Mr. Obama's White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who sees in Mr Limbaugh the "intelectual" center of the Republican party. This is another well balanced view and clearly represents "change" - NOT. Now, Mr Emanuel is plenty smart enough to realize that while Mr Limbaugh may well represent the extreme right wing of the Republican party, he doesn't speak for the party as a whole. The card Mr Emanuel plays is from that deck the country elected Mr. Obama to dispose of - the politics of division and name calling.

While I'm inclined to think that Mr Emanuel isn't nearly as crazy as Mr Limbaugh, I'm also inclined to think that his offense is worse. While Mr Limbaugh gets paid to generate ratings from a far right radio audiance Mr Emanuel is actually charged with helping to govern the country in a time of serious crisis. Shame on you Mr Emanuel!

So here's a thought, Mr Emanuel. We no longer need the politics of division and extremes. Rather we need the politics of the center where people of good will work to help resolve the countries very serious problems and people like Mr Limbaugh, or for that matter Nancy Pelosi (a bastion of reasonableness - NOT) are ignored into the oblivion they so rightly deserve.

Oh, and Mr Limbaugh, why don't you and Al Sharpton find something to do that actually contributes to the solution. Failing that, just go away.

Route 650, Stimulus Math, and Sustainability

There was a CNN news item today that got me to thinking about the stimulus package. Briefly the article reported on the first infrastructure repair projected as part of the $787 billion stimulus bill. The project involves repairs to Maryland Route 650. Apparently the road has not been repaired for some years and is heavily traveled. The firm that won the repair contract, America Infrastructure, will apparently hire some 60 people to do the work. It should take some 6 months and America Infrastructure hopes that it will be possible to retain those workers as they bid on additional projects. Said projects being part of some $27 billion in recently released stimulus infrastructure projects.

All of this seems fairly reasonable. However, consider the following. The US has a total population of something less than 300 million living in something around 100 million households according to the US Census Bureau. When you do the math, the stimulus bill is almost $3000 per person or $8000 per household! That's a LOT of money particularly in view of America Infrastructure's "hopes" that it will be possible to retain 60 highway workers after completion of the Route 650 project, said "hopes" being contingent on winning additional contracts.

In a fundamental way that's one of the valid criticisms of the stimulus bill. Mind you, I'm not sure it's a correct criticism, only that it makes sense. As a country, we're going to spend a lot of money doing some things that will provide work to a few people for a short time. What we need though is to do things that will provide work for a lot of people for the rest of their working life. Now while the Route 650 project will doubtless improve Route 650 how do we engage sustained maintenance of all the other Route whatevers that need maintenance.

It seems to me just common sense that we also need to change how we pay for and maintain infrastructure so that infrastructure related jobs outlive the stimulus bill. That in turn brings to mind issues surrounding the Highway Trust Fund, but that's a topic for another day.

Courts and common sense

It's easy to pick on politics, politicians, and government agencies given the entirely reliable stream of foolishness from that quarter. But I came across something today that shows that even the courts, presumably independent of the day to day world of executive and legislative politics can be every bit as foolish.

Here's the brief

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear the Federal Trade Commission's appeal in its suit against Rambus Inc. that accused the memory chip maker of "deceptive conduct," sending the company's shares up as much as 16% in early trading.

The FTC, one of two U.S. agencies to enforce antitrust law, said Rambus failed to tell a standard-setting group about patented technologies while advocating them as a new chip standard.

The Supreme Court denied the FTC's appeal without any comment.

The suit is one of several legal issues involving Rambus, whose shares whipsaw with each development.

The FTC asked the high court to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which had found on April 22, 2008, that the FTC erred in concluding Rambus acted to gain a monopoly.

The FTC last year had ordered Rambus to stop collecting some patent royalties. The agency later amended that order to put the royalties in escrow, but then had its order put aside by the appeals court.

FTC Commissioner Jon Leibowitz said the agency would continue to make standard-setting and monopolization cases a priority.

So the basic facts seem to be these:

• The FTC, the government agency that is tasked with protecting the public from unfair trade practices, acted to restrain Rambus from collecting royalties on technology that Rambus has promoted to standards groups without telling the standards groups that it was, oh by the way, patent protected and that Rambus would thus be charging other chip manufacturers a royalty or might use the patent to restrain other memory manufacturers from competition. Good on you FTC.
• The courts, that's the folks that are supposed to enforce the law, in the form of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and now Supreme Court, have said no fowl! To wit, it's OK to engage in what common sense says is a deceptive practice and to profit by it both monetarily and possibly to form a monopoly.

Now, lest you think that it's all technical and what is memory anyway, be informed that memory is absolutely central to a technological society. It's one of two or three things that make your cell phone, PC, TV, car, refrigerator, washing machine, etc. smart. The chip market is worth 10s of billions per year. Moreover, it is dominated by a handful, about 6 or so, very large providers.

Think about it for a minute. We're talking about something that is essential to our technological society that is controlled by few large firms!

Common sense tells us that that is a recipe for abuse as we've recently experienced with oil and banking. But, of course, the courts don't have to deal with common sense or the real world. Where the FTC rightly sees unfair trade, the court sees no harm. It seems that justice isn't simply blind, sometimes if dumb!

Gordon Gee and Folks Not Connected to Reality

In today's Parade Magazine, there was a small interview with E. Gordon Gee, president of Ohio State University. Mr Gee has argued that public colleges should get more funding from the federal government.

Among the things Mr Gee is reported to have said are:

• Why public colleges deserve funds from the economic stimulus package: We are the economic stimulus. The future of the nation is going to be idea-driven, so colleges are the smokestack industries of tomorrow.
• Concerning what he would say to Mr Obama: I would argue for a significant infusion of money for the intellectual infrastructure of the country—the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. The Obama Administration needs to focus on supporting things that will be important to the knowledge economy, like science, mathematics, and engineering—things that allow us to remain competitive in the world.
• Concerning his $1.3MM salary: I run the largest and most complex institution in the country. If I perform well, I hope people look at me and say I'm worth what they are paying. I assure you, if I don't perform, people will complain.

There are a couple of things about this that strike me as entirely nonsensical.

First, in the matter of his $1.3MM salary. Mr Gee argues that he runs a large school. He does. But does that, in and of itself, make his work worth $1.3MM? Does his work create $1.3MM in value for the University and his employers, the people of Ohio which has a 7.8% unemployment rate? I suspect that the answer to both those questions is no. Mr Gee further argues that he hopes people, here I assume he means the people of Ohio, will complain if he doesn't perform. I find that a curious argument. Consider, for example, someone working for Mc Donalds in a minimum wage job. If that person doesn't perform people not only complain, the employee gets fired. It's called work and if you don't do your job E. Gordon you get fired entirely independent of how much you are paid!

So neither of Mr Gee's arguments about his salary really make much sense. They amount to little more than an extremely well paid man saying he thinks he should be extremely well paid.

Now, I don't know Mr Gee. Perhaps he does, indeed, deserve to be well paid. But consider what else he had to say!

Second, Mr Gee says that the nation's future is an idea driven economy and therefore his university is deserving of money from the economic stimulus package. Mr Gee is presumed to be a smart man as he is, after all, president of the largest US university. Does he rellay believe this, or does he simply have his hand out like so many others?

I've heard this argument about the new economy based on knowledge, ideas, service, etc. That it is entirely silly seems to me entirely obvious.

Don't think so. Consider the following thought experiment. You're in your home. You just woke up in your bed. Now imagine going through your day under two different conditions. In the first, there is no new economy but there is an industrial economy. In the second, there is a new economy but there is no industrial economy. Now in the first, you'd still have breakfast, still have cloths, still have a car, still have all the things that an industrial manufacturing economy provides. Life wouldn't really be much different. However, in the second, you'd not have any of the numerious every day things an industrial economy provides. Never mind that the new economy can't exist without the old economy. It is after all true that the new economy depends on an extensive industrial infrastructure that provides electronics, communications, etc.

My point here is that talk about a new economy that forgoes well paying manufacturing jobs is simply silly. As a society, I believe, we need both. Unfortunately, in the last few decades US business and government has bought into the notion that we should ship industrial jobs to other lower cost countries. The net, entirely predictable, result is that the US middle class has been severly damaged.

Returning to Mr Gee, he seems to have drunk much to much of his own cool aid. What Ohio needs, you remember Ohio, the folks that pay Mr Gee $1.3MM, and what the US needs, you remember Mr Gee's desire for some of that, are jobs, some 1MM or so jobs to replace those lost in the last year. The US doesn't need 1MM new software engineers. There are already many of those out of work. What the US needs is 1MM new manufacturing jobs! Given Mr Gee's rather silly views, I have a hard time imagining he's much different from many other overpaid executives who justify their compensation for no better reason that they think they should be well paid and argue silliness such as the new economy.