Category: Uncategorized

A virtuous Hillary-supporting friend on Facebook posted a link about helping out at a Black Girls Code event. This generated a huge number of “likes” of course. I’m wondering why this works out as virtuous, though. I’m a volunteer tutor for children in our small suburb (currently working on 8th grade math and so far I’ve learned that nobody of average intelligence could possibly stay awake and motivated through public school 8th grade math). If I posted on the town email list “I am happy to tutor, but only if the child is of Race X and Gender Identification Y” (and if they change gender ID halfway through the school year, or through a tutoring session, what then?), I have a feeling that this would not put me into the virtue category. If it doesn’t work in the 1:1 context, why does it work to create an organization that sorts out and excludes children by race/gender?

Full post, including comments

From my inbox… November is Transgender Awareness Month.

Full post, including comments

In a world with more government regulation and government consuming a larger percentage of GDP, you’d think that it become increasingly sensible for an individual to work for the government or a big company that can lobby the government. Starting your own company would go from dumb to dumber. Inc. magazine gives us some numbers:

49.7 percent of World War II vets went on to own or operate a business, according to Syracuse University’s Institute for Veterans and Military Families. Some 40 percent of Korean War veterans did the same–creating millions of jobs along the way. … only 4.5 percent of the more than 3.6 million people who have served in the U.S. military since September 11, 2001, have launched a company, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The government sorting potential contractors by race and sex may distort the statistics:

Government contracting preferences have recently made it more attractive for a company to be woman-owned, so some of the numbers may reflect paperwork changes (such as dropping a husband from a co-owner title) rather than broad-based demographic shifts.

But it is tough to see how this can explain a drop from 50 percent down to less than 5 percent.

Related:

• Bloomberg article showing shift since 1988 of workers from small enterprises to larger ones

Full post, including comments

During America’s period of highest per capita GDP growth, recreational drugs were entirely legal. On the other hand the government wouldn’t give you a free house, free health care, free food, and a free smartphone. My entire lifetime has coincided with a War on Drugs and also a War on Poverty that has made being a jobless drug addict more comfortable. While the War on Poverty continues unabated (and Hillary proposes to expand it substantially; see Book Review: The Redistribution Recession for the effects of the Obama Administration expansion of this war), there are some ballot questions in various states this year proposing to end at least the state-run war on marijuana. There haven’t been any explicit arguments against marijuana legalization in the New York Times, but I’m wondering if “Millions of Men Are Missing From the Job Market” is an implicit argument against ending the war. The Times editorial says, essentially, that Americans are too busy taking prescription opioids to be bothered with a job. If this is indeed the source of the U.S.’s shrinking labor force participation rate compared to, e.g., Singapore, then wouldn’t legal and readily available marijuana further shrink the number of Americans who want to work?

One good thing about the proposed Massachusetts law is that citizens can “grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences”. A citizen who has been blessed with free public housing can thus sit on the sofa playing Xbox while taxpayers pay for the electricity supply to the grow lamps.

Milton Friedman said that we couldn’t have a welfare state and open borders at the same time. I’m wondering if he were alive whether he would say that we couldn’t have, simultaneously, (1) a welfare state, (2) legal recreational drugs, and (3) a high rate of labor force participation.

[Note that, other than paying taxes to support prosecutors, public defenders, judges, and the prison industry, I don’t have a personal dog in this fight. See my 2011 post regarding random drug testing for pilots.]

Full post, including comments

The Cirrus Jet is certified as of today and will be delivered in December. I think this qualifies as the first legitimate personal/family turbojet-powered aircraft. One-engine-plus-parachute and a service ceiling of FL280 (about 28,000′) are not so exciting if you have a two-pilot crew who fly a couple of times per week. But what about the regular private pilot who wants to take the family to the beach? The pilot who doesn’t want to spend two weeks every year maintaining proficiency at managing various emergencies, especially the failure of one engine while in instrument conditions? The Cirrus Jet is the first turbojet that could be as simple as a four-seat piston-powered plane. (The rest of the very light jets are about as difficult to operate as larger jets and therefore haven’t caught on as expected; if you’re going to do all of that training why not tow 8 seats behind the pilots instead of 4?.

Anyway, I’m grateful to Cirrus for bringing this to market and especially grateful to the Chinese owners of Cirrus who were willing to fund it!

[Oh yes, and what about the price? I think the paperwork says $2 million but, as is typical in aviation, that might be in 1946 dollars that have to be adjusted for inflation. Then there are mandatory options. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual wire transfer is about $3 million, which is one reason people will be saying “I can get a used twin-engine plane that goes to FL410 for half that.”]

Related:

• “Pipistrel Plans 19-Seat Hydrogen Hybrid”: Slovenia-based Pipistrel has signed a $550 million deal with Sino GA Group Co. of China to build its Alpha Electro electric trainer and hybrid-powered Pantera high-performance aircraft in China. And while that’s significant in itself, it’s Pipistrel’s plans for the money it will earn in the project that is bound to raise eyebrows. “Pipistrel will use a part of the mentioned amount also for the development of a new, very innovative zero emission 19-seat aircraft, powered by hybrid electric technology and hydrogen low temperature PEM fuel cells…

Full post, including comments

A week before Halloween I learned that it is not just 6-year-olds who spend at least a week thinking about what to wear for Halloween. Here are some photos taken in Harvard Yard of a kiosk staffed by a couple of Harvard administrators from the HappierHarvard campaign. (The handout says that the staffed kiosk was operated for “two weeks leading up to Halloween.”)

One question raised by the above is whether the woman at the lower left is wearing a geisha outfit or a Noh costume. Either way, wouldn’t it be safe to say that she was wearing Japanese dress? And yet the students surrounding her don’t look Japanese. Did someone preparing the poster go out and find assorted “Orientals” to photograph? Does that imply that all Asian cultures are pretty much the same? And that’s not racist?

More:

• #MyCostumeIsNotConsent
• #MyCultureIsNotaCostume
• #MyIdentityIsNotaCostume

Full post, including comments

A friend reported on the early voting here in the western suburbs of Boston. “There aren’t any Republicans on the ballot except for Trump,” she said. “And most of the races are uncontested though there are some independent candidates running for a handful of them.” She said that the ballots go into a box to be kept by town officials until Election Day. Presumably at that point they are fed into the same scanner that is used for same-day votes? Certainly it would be possible for a town official to correct any mistakes on the ballot, e.g., voting for Ballot Question 2, which would reduce town officials’ budgets and authority by authorizing more state-supervised charter schools.

Separately, I recently agreed to be part of a climate change panel discussion in Cambridge where they wanted one panelist from each political party. I agreed to be a “small-L libertarian” so that I didn’t have to defend current Libertarian candidates. They couldn’t find anyone willing to show up identifying as a Republican. Some more items from the panel:

• a woman said that she had complained to a Cambridge city councilor about exterior lighting on some office buildings being (a) bothersome to her sleep, and (b) a waste of energy. She said that the councilor had threatened her with eviction from “affordable housing” (controlled by a city-run housing ministry)
• the moderator said that a few previous panels had been all-female, which was okay, but this one happened to be all-male, at least in his opinion. He said that the lack of gender balance was unacceptable and would any woman in the audience be willing to come up to the table and sit with the panel. No qualifications were sought other than being a woman. This idea of last-minute token female presence was seconded by the organizer of the event. (Of course I promptly scolded him for the cisgender-normative assumption that panelists named “David”, “Larry”, etc. actually did identify as “men”.)
• at the end of the discussion, the moderator said that this showed that people with different political points of view could be civil. I reminded him that this might have been because they’d excluded Republicans from the room.

Full post, including comments

Here’s a fun database application with a web interface:

• California firefighters sorted by “total pay and benefits,” starting at $428,113 per year
• California police officers (not the higher-ranking captains, etc.), starting at $489,662
• plumbers with California government jobs, sorted from $253,229 per year down
• janitors who work for BART (max: $271,243/year, better than non-BART janitors, who topped out at $159,084/year)

For young people who have been listening to politicians braying about the importance of STEM:

• computer programmers (max total pay: $127,170)
• biologists (max: $163,388)
• statistician (max: $109,653)

Related:

• History of California public employee pensions
• History of Public Employee Unions
• Pensions: How states and local governments indulge in deficit-spending (about San Diego)
• family law in California (calculate profits from having sex with a government worker (or workers), as opposed to being a government worker)

Full post, including comments

Folks:

Trump seems to be doing badly in the polls. Aside from conceding right now, chess-style, what’s his best strategy?

From the second debate transcript, it seemed to me that his most powerful message was that a status quo politician such as Hillary Clinton generally rides to power (and, in her case, wealth) on a magic carpet of broken promises. Trump, in response to Clinton saying he had “targeted immigrants, African Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, Muslims,”

DT: It’s just words, folks. Just words. Those words, I’ve been hearing them for many years. I heard them when they were running for the Senate. In New York.

Where Hillary was going to bring back jobs to upstate New York and she failed. I’ve heard them where Hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster. Education-wise. Job0-ise. Safety-wise. In every way possible, I’m going to help the African Americans, help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.

She’s done a terrible job for the African Americans. She wants their votes and does nothing and then comes back four years later. We saw that firsthand when the United States senator she campaigned where the —

MR: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump — I want to get to audience questions and online questions.

DT: So, she’s allowed to do that, but I’m not allowed to respond. Sounds fair.

The moderator cut Trump off but, especially if expanded and supported by data, this seems like an effective message to voters who have been paying taxes and listening to incumbent politicians talk about all of the great things that the planned-by-them economy will do for average citizens.

In response to attacks on his business success, usually centered around some Chapter 11 reorganizations in the early 1990s (25 years ago, a bad time for leveraged real estate developers), he could tell the story of the Wollman Rink, which the government spent 6 years and $13 million trying to renovate. Trump was able to get it up and running in just 4 months for $2.5 million. This doesn’t exactly compare to the scale of the carnage when the Atlantic City casino went bankrupt, but voters don’t seem to have a great sense of proportion (Democrats lapped up the tax returns of Warren Buffett, never questioning why the world’s third-richest man has the same income as a successful Medicare ophthalmologist). And it is a direct comparison of standard government operating procedure versus what the Trump Organization can do. Similarly Trump could compare healthcare.gov ($1 billion+?) to any web sites that he may have built to support golf courses or hotels. Voters outside the Beltway can’t understand why it costs the government 4-40X what private industry pays for the same product or service (compare Boeing 757 operating costs for airlines and USAF, for example; also see what New York spends to operate helicopters).

On immigration, since Trump has demonstrated already that the quickest path to pariah status is questioning the wisdom of admitting folks from a particular country or particular religion, why not simplify to “Do you love sitting in traffic and paying 50 years of income to afford a house in a decent neighborhood? If so, you’ll love Hillary’s plan to expand the U.S. population to 600 million via immigration. If you think that 325 million is sufficient then vote for me and let’s be judicious about whom we invite to join our party. Even if you do want to live in a country dotted with Chinese-style megacities, ask Hillary how she refutes Milton Friedman’s observation that you can’t have open borders and a welfare state at the same time.” (maybe quote from this Senate Budget Committee report that says the 80-plus federal welfare programs cost $1 trillion annually and are the largest budget item currently (Social Security and Medicare are additional))

Since Trump can’t win the personal character war at this point (his comments about the availability of women surrounding TV stars being far more shocking to voters than the Clintons becoming billionaires through selling access and influence), why not stick to some simple policy points?

Readers: What else could Trump be doing in the home stretch of the campaign?

Full post, including comments

“New Emails in Clinton Case Came From Devices Once Used by Anthony Weiner” (nytimes) contains an interesting section:

In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said the emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, which law enforcement officials said was an F.B.I. investigation into illicit text messages from Mr. Weiner to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina.

What will it cost taxpayers to have the FBI look into the question of how exactly Anthony Weiner uses the Internet?

Full post, including comments