Municipal Wi-Fi is a bad idea

Every now and then a city will announce plans to provide free Internet access points around the city, and there will often be praise from the hi-tech community.  Or a state will move to ban such initiatives and heaps of scorn will be heaved on top of them and the local cable and DSL provides.  That's a mistake.

While I realize folk love to hate their cable companies (often with good reason) and the woeful state of broadband in this country, having the cities provide the access is worse idea.

Once municipal broadband is wide spread and available at no additionl cost than the taxes people are already paying, then the rational, individual decision is to stop paying Comcast or someone else for Internet access.  With enough people doing that, residential broadband from private companies will eventually go away.

That may be fine, assuming the municipalities allow free and open Internet access, but I'm not convinced they will. There are many great things on the net, but there are many foul ones as well.  We already see debates in favor of blocking undesirable websites at libraries and schools.  Will a vocal minority really allow the city to make such content available in homes?

Obviously the first target will be block already illegal or obscene content. I can't imagine many city councils will oppose a determined group of citizens who want to prohibit the city from "supplying" child pornography.  You can already imagine the campaign ads.

So what's next? Should the city be in the business of sending regular pornography into homes? Can't children see it then? Is that how we want to use tax money?

Porn is an easy target for those who want to restrict access to content. And a city blocking such content from it's own service may not be in the business of censorship.  After all, it's not like their banning the content.  They're simply choosing not carry it on a municipal service.

So what's next?  In many places, it's probably hate speech.  Should the city be facilitating content that is racist or misogynistic?

There are extremes on both the right and left of our political landscape that would like to see certain content go away.

Many would argue that the city should block sites that enable violence -- perhaps content related to building explosives and fighting a government force.  But what about sites that promote non-violent political unrest?

At this point I think it's safe to say that no city would ban a legitimate new site's content from it's service.  But then who is determining  the legitimacy of a new site?  I think CNN and Fox would be safe from calls to ban it from the city's service, but what about Al Jazeera?

In the recent uprisings in the middle east, one of the first things dictators try to do it cut off 'net access for the people. Can we count on local governments there to not do that if pressed?

The Internet is a powerful tool because of both the good stuff and bad stuff that's on it.  And I trust the users of the Internet, and, yes, many of the private party ISPs out there, to deliver a free 'net experience much more than I trust a city council trying to stand up to a vocal group of citizens barking their vocal call to, "Think of the children!"

Memorable Political Names

If nothing else, the current WA state primary ballot is good for a chuckle.  Take a look at the Senate race:

I'm tempted to vote for Goodspaceguy just because it would be awesome to hear about Senator Goodspaceguy on CSPAN.

Too bad about Mike The Mover, though.  He probably thought he would have the most unusual name on the ballot.  Senator Mike The Mover still has a neat ring to it, though.

Movie Review 12: Avatar

Avatar is easily the most talked about movie of the past year.  It's been a tremendous box office success and is up for a huge pile of awards. The GF and I finally saw it tonight. It was a good movie and I'm glad to have seen it on the big screen.  It wasn't quite the amazing experience many people have said it is, but it is still worth seeing.

The depth of development that James Cameron put into this movie is truly stunning.  From creating a language with grammar to creating and entire taxonomy of flora and fauna, the volume of source material for this movie is simply stunning.

As many reviewers have already said, it's a beautiful movie.  Seeing it in 3D on an Imax or pseudo-Imax screen is worthwhile.

The story itself is familiar.  I saw this movie in the early 80s when it was called "Dances with Wolves."  Fortunately, that was also a great movie.  Like that earlier one, this movie was also long.  At times it seems a bit too long, but any cuts that could be made would likely be a minute here, and a minuter there throughout the movie, rather than cutting entire scenes.

The message is a bit heavy handed.  We get it.  The corporate interests running down the natives are bad people.  The names of some of the characters and items are a bit eye-roll inducing.  The miners are after a mineral called "Unobtainium."  The corporate head of the operation is "Parker Selfridge." The belligerent Colonel is "Miles Quaritch" and the hero who is sent to undermine the natives is named "Jake Sully."

If you can get past all that it is a good movie and fascinating exploration of an alternative and fake culture.




***Potential Spoiler***







There's one additional thing I want to note. By about 20-25 minutes in, it's pretty clear the mercenary marines and corporate liason are "the bad guys."  Later in the movie, the audience finds itself in the position of cheering the deaths of the mercenaries -- the soldiers there to protect corporate interests.  And while they are certainly not fighting for a noble cause, I can't imagine a movie like this could have been made in many countries of the world.  And in many places had Cameron made this movie, he would not be up for awards.  He would be up for prison time.  The beauty of or country lies in the fact that he could make this movie. That's something not to take for granted.

I'm not saying he's worng for making this film.  It's a film worth seeing.  But sometimes it pounds the good/evil aspects of the story too hard. There are no shades of gray in this story.  And its so strict it sometimes take me out of the movie and becomes a bit less effective.

I did enjoy the Norm Spellman character and his growth.

I also liked the Trudy Chacon character (remember we're still in the spoilers section here), but her role in the story seemed a bit contrived.  She bails on a major attack due to her conscience.  She breaks a bunch of "good guys" out of jail, and then flees the mercenaries, stealing a gunship in the process. The character appears to have been thrown in just to break out the other characters.  She feels bolted on to the rest of the story.  Still, seeing that helicopter show up with blue war paint on it was pretty awesome.

If you haven't seen Avatar yet, check it out while it's still on the big screen.  That experience makes it worthwhile.

Healthcare Reform 04: EMR

Electronic medical records are becoming increasingly possible.  And it makes sense.  So much medical history and documentation is scattered about the country on paper getting lost and damaged n decades old filefolders in non-descript medical facilities.  Significant cost reductions and the potentila for better, faster, and cheper healthcare are possible by replacing much of that paper with standardized, electronic documentation.

This article from the Seattle PI is brief discussion about this field.  The VA is the medical organization making the most progress on this front.

The electronic medical records system at the Department of Veterans Affairs' Kansas City Medical Center gives Sanders and his staff almost immediate access to medical histories, allowing them to seamlessly treat veterans from other states. But when patients aren't in the VA's system, it could mean hours or days before doctors have crucial information to properly care for patients.

"It's increasingly frustrating for us and other providers that it's difficult to find a workable interface," said Sanders, chief of staff for the Kansas City veterans hospital. "Our systems don't talk to each other."

Interoperability, or allowing providers to share records and view them from anywhere, is a requirement for facilities to receive some of the more than $17 billion in stimulus funding that the government is offering to encourage the adoption of electronic medical records. Congress will likely penalize providers who aren't doing so by 2014, cutting their Medicaid and Medicare payments, the Obama administration said.

...More

Shatner-Palooza: Political Poetry

What do Governor Palin and Elton John have in common?

It took William Shatner to truly bring life to their words.

Healthcare Reform 03: Follow up to the plan

Considering the depth of some of the comments I saw to my Monday post, I thought it would be good idea to respond to them in their own post.

As I respond to the comments below (and thank you very much for making them) I am not trying to dispute things. I am, however, using them as a jumping off point to further explore my thoughts on a topic and it's related ones.

When it comes to health care (and many other issues) I tend to be a radical moderate. Which means each time I think I have an answer to a question, it simply leads to 5 more questions.

I guess I'm trying to devise a system that is fair, compassionate, competitive, efficient, and effective.

The proposal I layed out a couple days ago is not intended to be the answer but it is intended to be an improvement. It won't solve all the problems for all people. But it may solve many of the problems for many people.

Sandy said...

Wow...I was with ya on the first half of your article. I think it's a terrible that the US, the most civilized country in the world does not provide for it's own. I do agree we currently have (though most would disagree) socialized medicine. The welfare system provides care for those who abuse the ER, which costs us all dearly and provides bad medical care management...but the working poor have zilch. They don't have care and thats wrong on so many levels.

Having worked in the medical field for 22 years, I can say Insurance Companies and the Medical field need to change. Doctors are paid far more than a decent wage, and so are Insurance companies. Drug companies have tremendous waste. Their employees are highly paid, and have lots of perks. Some of the fat from these 3 entities needs to happen. I have no problem with people who are working hard making a good living, I do have a problem with the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer.

We need Doctors, Insurance Companies, and Drug Companies to be more accountable. And employers who pay their Executives far more than they're worth, but cheat their regular employees ought to spend some time in their shoes. I do not think the burden they have of insurance is what you describe. I do know many companies who alter hours, and conditions of employment to get around the duty and responsibility of providing insurance for their employees. Firing employees, then hiring them as temps for example. Cutting their hours just a few hours a week to keep them under the radar on legally needed to pay for their insurance. This is wrong, and very unjust. These same companies provide private jet service to the management people for trips that are not business related, vacation homes, expensive cars etc. etc.

I say trim the fat, there's plenty of it, and then providing medical insurance would be a piece of cake.

I might also add, I have 2 family members who work in the insurance industry, and 1 for a drug company...this just isn't my opinion, but opinion based on personal information and experinces.

Sandy
Everytime we treat someone in the ER for the flu or a cold, or sore throat prices go through the roof. And everytime someone ends up having emergency surgery for soething that might have been caught had they been able to visit a family doctor...same thing. Current system is way too costly, both in lives and in $$

I appreciate the detail here. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say doctors are overpaid (though I may be reading too much into your comments). Theoretically, people are paid just enough to get them to keep doing the job. With doctor in private practice it gets more complicated because they are not necesarily salaried like many workers are.

And we want to draw the best people to the profession. That's one reason the system can produce such high-quality care. But obviously, salaries at all levels of the care system contribute the rising costs.

While I don't believe you are calling for salary caps for highly paid medical professionals, it is an idea that may merit some discussion. I think it makes more sense to discuss salary caps in a broader discussion of tort reform. Generally, I am not a supporter of legislative limits to pain and suffering award or punative damages for medical malpractice. While there have been some outlandish awards, I don't think they are representative of the broader malpractice issues.

However, if we were to impose limits on those awards through tort reform, then we also need to limit compensation for professionals shielded by those limits. It's about balancing the high-risk=high-reward equation.

Outside of that, when we talk about cutting pay and perks, do we risk driving professionals into other fields? Or discourage the next generation from pursuing those professions?

The broader picture of executive compensation merits a closer look. Although those highly paid executives are paid that way because that's what the company owners (the shareholders) want to pay them. The trick is to align highly paid executive pay more closely with both short and long term company performance.

It's interesting that you cite the cutting of employee hours as immoral while also citing profligate waste within the organization. I think most would agree that paying more for a product than it should cost is a form of waste. We see that in stories of aspirin and other things that cost pennies at retail and dollars in a hospital. Overpaying is typically regarded as a bad thing.

If a company is overpaying someone that means a couple things. First, they could get the same work done by someone else for less money. Second, the value that person brings the compnay does not exceed that person's cost to the company.

Reducing the number of overpaid people is cutting waste. When that standard applies to executives, people cheer. When that same standard applies to the lower ranks, people protest.

Cutting hours to reduce the number of full time employees and the need to pay for insurance is a way for a company to reduce waste. If they can get the same work product done at lower cost, that is a good thing for the owners.

While the ideal of living wage and full benefits is important to society overall, providing it, for many companies, is a form of waste.

I like the idea of trimming the fat, and I agree there is a lot of it, but defining the fat is where we get into trouble.

The costs and support structure in the industry need to come down somehow. It's not only a tremendous outlay of money, but the more people we have in the healthcare industry means there are fewer available to other industries.

One more note on the idea of wasted money: the money isn't being burned or destroyed. And getting even bigger than health care reform brings us to the broader issues facing the economy. Money wasted in healthcare isn't really wasted, as long as it gets spent elsewhere. The extra people employed there, or overpaid there, can spend their money in other aspects of the economy.

I certainly don't have all the answers, and my views are sometimes self-contradictory on this matter. That's one of the reasons I'm throwing these ideas out there.


Sharkbytes said...

It's all pretty broken, and those of us with just enough money to be poor but not destitute are left out in the cold.

That's the problem our modern welfare system faces, that need-based college financial aid faces, and that many programs that help the poor face. Programs that help the poor often do nothing to help those who are teetering on the edge. With a little help, perhaps fewer people would teeter off into serious problems and get past their current struggles. But when faced with limited resources, the general choice is to hlep the person that is starving today, and not the person who has been just a hair away from starving for the past few months.

And those who are struggling, and haven't given in to collapse, are the ones that we should be supporting more. The challege is to build social safety nets that don't encourage failure.



Mike Golch said...

the thing that worries me is will the plan become as bloated with ripoffs atrists like medicare has become.some of the reinbursements that are paid out of medicare are just gross.

My plan isn't the best solution out there. There are definite flaws; it's goal is to make the situation better, not to make it perfect.

There will always bee some ripoffs. The question is how much is too much? What is an "acceptable" percentage of fraud in a program? 2%? 5%? 10%?

In order to design a truly fraud proof plan, you will spend more money preventing fraud than you would have lost to fraud to begin with. And that makes no financial sense. The other option is to put such rigorous controls in place to prevent fraud that you end up making the program too difficult to be used by those it was orginally designed to benefit.

I'm not giving fraudsters a free pass. Inded, they should be vigorously prosecuted. But there comes a point where it's just not worth it. Right now, I'm thinking a 5% fraud rate is acceptable. But that's not set in stone.


grayspirit said...

I think the concept is a reasonable one, but my concern is that there is really nothing in place to manage the cost of healthcare. As long as the government provides reimbursements for healthcare, the industry tends to keep costs high because there really is no competitive pressure to bring prices down. Just my opinion. :)

And figuring out how to limit the costs without getting in the way of proper care is the challenge. HMOs are designed to do exacly that, and yet they are often considered one of the most evil aspects of the health care industry.

Time and again, we hear that bureaucrats should not be interfering in decisions between doctors and patients, and yet, that's exactly what limiting costs will require. Someone with the purse strings has to be able to say, "No." But that is not something most people want to see incorporated in the law.

I think the same problem faces colleges and universities today. Tuition and fee increases have exceeded the rate of inflation for well over a decade. One reason for this may be the proliferation of financial aide. If the government cut back the college financial aid programs by 75% or so, would we see a comparable drop in the number of students? Or would we see a much smaller drop in students and a larger drop in college costs?

College costs can rise as high as they have because the taxpayers are willing to give them more money through the financial aid system.


Pricilla said...

You forget in your plan people who are sick with chronic conditions or who have pre existing conditions. They (ie: ME) cannot get private insurance in the marketplace for any price. No insurer wants the risk. So my husband HAS to work. I am disabled and medicare does not begin to cover my medical costs.

Until there are viable options for sick people in the marketplace the system will not be viable. There are a lot of people with minor pre existing conditions that get them bumped from insurance plans. Major problems like what I have really cause issues.

The system is broken and needs serious fixing. I think you are right about corporate America though since they are paying for it now and basically paying for congress..

This is part of the problem with the idea of even offering health insurance. And here I am going to choose my words carefully. While there should be a way to cover those with preexisting conditions, it shouldn't be insurance.

Insurance exists on the basis of a gamble. People purchase insurance gambling that they will receive more in benefits than the pay in premiums. Insurance companies offer insurance gambling that they will collect more in premiums (and interest) than they pay out in benefits.

If I was guaranteed I would never need to file a claim, I would be an idiot to purchase insurance.

Likewise, if an insurance company sees a situation where they are guaranteed to pay out more than they are likely to collect in premiums than they would be idiots to offer that coverage.

Which make insurance a poor model for providing healthcare coverage to those with preexisitng conditions.

Once insurance is not a viable option, the question becomes who should pay? If the costs are outlandish, the person with the condition can't reasonably be expected to pay so someone else has to. Should that person be the tax payer? In many cases, the answer is likely,"yes," due to lack of alternatives.

This raises another issue then. (Note: I am not saying this has anything to do with your conditions.) The issue is one of lifestyle choices.

As a taxpayer, maybe it makes sense for me to pay for the medical care of someone who can't pay if they are sticken with cancer. But what if that person is a smoker? Should I now have to pay for the care of someone who has lung cancer when that person caused the disease themselves?

What about someone who is obese and suffers from diabetes or heart disease? Should I have to pay for that person's care when the reason they require care is because of poor life style choices?

If I get injured in a car accident that's not my fault, can I expect the tax payers to cover that cost? Maybe. But what it 90% of the costs are because I wasn't wearing as seatbelt? It is still fair?

What about child birth? Should I as a tax payer have to pay for pre-natal care and the birth process someone choose to undergo in what, again, is a lifestyle decision?

These are questions we will need to struggle with in any program that ultimatley gets implemented. Do we cover everything regardless of cause?


Kerrilee said...

Hi
I would like to share with you a Best Blogs Award, thank you for sharing. You can check it out at http://www.LazyBearBlogs.com
Have an awesome day :-)

Blessing
Kerrilee

Thanks, Kerrilee. It's always nice to be recognized.

Healthcare Reform 02: Electronic Medical Records

This week seems to have turned into Healthcare Reform week at Cromely's World. Or more specifically, Unresearched Healthcare Reform week. I'm not sure how that happened.

I'll be responding to the comments on yesterday's post tomorrow. But as I think more about some of the issues we encounter, Medical Records is a big one.

The volume of paper work generated by the health care and insurance industries is mind-boggling. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year in administration. I don't want to call that waste because without it, so many things simply wouldn't get done, but there has to be a better way.

Besides the cost, there is the hassle for the patients. When you move to another doctor, you either need to get your records transferred or start from scratch. And if a new doctor uses a different system than an old doctor, there is the transition to deal with.

If a patient needs medical care away from home and is unable to speak, ER physicians may also need to start from scratch.

We hear about deaths every year related to mistakes with prescription drugs. A pharmacy may misunderstand a doctors instructions, or a doctor may prescribe a drug that has deadly interactions with something else that patient is already taking and is prescribed by another doctor.

Friends in the medical industry have told me about different electronic medical records system. In my own job, I tangentially have dealt with the issue as well. Thousands of people are involved in various, diverse ways of attacking the paper problem.

Moving all the records off paper and into bits is part of the solution. But it's the next step that I get concerned about.

From a practical standpoint, it makes sense to me to have all medical providers creating patient records in one electronic format that is readable instantly by any other medical professions. I believe Google and other companies are already pursuing this.

The records should be comprehensive. Everything should be in one place, so every healthcare provider knows what the other is doing. And it should be easily accessible for the patient, and easy for an authorized medical provider to access should a patient arrive incapactitated. Information should be easily exportable to the appropriate health insuarnce providers to effectively manage coverage and payments.

Theoretically, such a system could save hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of lives, and hours of incovenience for patients.

And it scares the heck out of me.

The privacy implications of such a system are staggering. Collecting that much information in one place could put people at risk with employers. It could expose embarrasing information to firends and family. And if it fell into the wrong hands, it is ripe for abuse by conartists.

And if incorrect information makes its way into such a file, it could be painfully difficult to remove and could compromise care for years to come.

In other words, if humans were not involved in the process, I would feel much better about it. But once you factor in human error and greed, the system becomes potentially dangerous.

So I'm torn on whether I want to see such a system in place. There are trememndous cost- and life- saving benefits to such a system. But is it worth the risk to freedom and privacy?

And is such a system inevitable despite such concerns?

Healthcare Reform 01: Government sponsored health care

A key initiative of the Obama administration is to bring health insurance to the uninsured in one form or another. Whether this is the US finally coming out of the dark ages or the beginning of an apocalyptic slide into communism is a more complicated discussion than I have the energy to get into tonight.

But that won't stop me from opining on the topic.

Here are some assumptions I am starting with, and I think many people are likely to agree.

We already have socialized medicine.

Between Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, workers compensation, the VA, Federal employment benefits, and assorted other programs, the Federal, State, and local governments already provide millions of people with health care.

A person in need of immediate medical attention won't be denied care at an emergency room. Millions of people already use hospital emergency rooms for primary health care because they can't/won't pay to see a regular physician.

Socialized medicine is here today -- it's just delivered with terrible inefficiency.

We have some of the best medical technology in the world.

The medical schools and technology we have in the US create some of the best procedures, medical instruments, and medication. We have fantastic physicians and they are typically well compensated after years in their profession. Many other health care providers (RN's for example) are not as well compensated as we would like, but are still extremely talented.

The US pharmaceutical industry is a technological leader.

The US drug companies come under fire for their prices and for their defense of patents around the world. But the reason they are so often attacked for not sharing their products with the poor of the world is because they make such fantastic and innovative products.

Employers in the US have an extra burden they don't share with the rest of the world.

The primary provider of health care coverage in the US is the employer. Large companies provide coverage for employees. This cost, which is measured in the thousands of dollars, either depresses cash wages, or it reduces profits. Companies in other countries do not have to pay for health care for their employees.

Any health care plan we implement in the US must meet the following standards:

1. Preserve the health care technology leadership the US has
2. Keep and fairly compensate the skilled people in the industry
3. Make the system more efficient and less wasteful than the current system
4. Make health care affordable for those who currently can't afford it
5. Reduce the burden on employers

We don't have to get there in one step. And I've always doubted that health care reform will come from the Democrats. Not because I question their commitment, but because there are too many industries opposing it, and too many varied constituencies within the party to reach consensus on one plan.

The true impetus for health care reform in the US will not come from the left. It will come from the corporate interests on the right. Health care reform in the US will come when big and medium business decides it is time to shift the burden of paying f0r health insurance to someone else.

In the meantime, the tragic stories of individuals will provide headlines, but are not likely to result in a significant changes to the system.

A small proposal

In the interim, here's a way to tweak the system that may help lower individual costs and increase coverage. I am making up the numbers out of thin air, so bear that in mind.

Everyone should have a government provided health insurance program that features a $50,000 annual deductible. Above that amount, the Feds (taxpayers) would cover the costs.

This will mean the private health insurance providers can lower their rates to make health insurance more affordable since their losses will be capped.

This will also lower the costs for employers.

Most people don't spend more than $50K per year on health care, so there is still an incentive for individuals to look for ways to minimize their costs.

The pharmaceutical and hospital industry can continue to operate as they currently do. Doctors and pharmacists don't suddenly become government employees, so the local hospitals don't become the local DMV.

This plan addresses some of the concerns above, but it's not comprehensive. It's a simple plan that provides a step forward. And maybe it will break the current political log jam.

CA Supreme Court gets is right

As I wrapped up my work day, I heard the helicopters hovering over my building. They were there to cover the pro-gay marriage protests in downtown Seattle. More than 200 protesters showed up to express their, quite understandable, anger with the California Supreme Court.

However, it seems the court in CA did the right thing.

First, let me say that I do favor equal marriage/civil union rights for same sex and opposite sex couples (actually, I favor civil unions for both, and getting the state out of the marriage business, but that's another post altogether).

Of course, I am not a lawyer, so there may be something escaping me here, but this was not a ruling on gay marriage. This ruling answered the question, "Can a state constitutional amendment be unconstitutional under the state constitution?" And the answer is no.

The role of the state supreme court is essentially to decide whether or not a law or amendment is allowed by the constitution. When you change the constitution, you end up with a new set of rules to apply. And that's what happened with Proposition 8.

Essentially, if you follow the proper procedure to change the state constitution, that new amendment is by virtue of its nature constitutional.

The problem here is that it was too easy to change the state constitution.

A constitution is such an important document that changes to it should require an extremely high burden, to help insulate it from political fads. When a state governs by Citizens' Initiative as California does, you are going to have all sort of problems.

The US Constitution is much harder to amend, and that's important. It takes the approval of 3/4 of the states, among other requirements, to make changes. California didn't require approval of 3/4 of its counties; it required just a popular vote of 50% + 1 vote. And that's the problem.

Some have argued, "Does that mean the state can amend the constitution to ban Mormons or ban interracial marriage?"

The answer is yes. The state can do that -- in theory.

The difference here is that those changes would conflict with the US Constitution. And the US Constitution would trump the changes to the CA state constitution.

At this point, the US Constitution is silent on the matter of gay marriage. And that's why the people of CA can legally enshrine this discriminatory policy in the highest law of the state of CA.

Some people are making arguments that the equal protection clause of the US Constitution may be used to over turn CA Proposition 8. It will be interesting to see how that argument develops.

In the mean time, it seems the best avenue available to advocates of marriage equality in CA is to get another amendment on the ballot to overturn the Proposition 8 amendment. And then someone, please, fix this amendment/initiative process.

And when you're done fixing the initiative process in CA, how about helping us fix it in WA, too?

New times

Today the European Union standards agency announced a new initiative, as part of the ongoing G20 summit. Building on the nearly world-wide success of the metric system for weights and measures, they are ready to take the metric system to the next level.

The system will be phased in over the next several years. By 2016-04-01, all member states will need to complete the switch over to metric time. “The current calendar is a relic of Pope Gregory and the medieval Catholic Church. It builds on the Roman calendar developed by Julius Caesar. And just as we no longer use Roman Numerals to count, and we no longer use Feet and Hogsheads to measure distance, it’s time to get away from the chaotic math of the current clock,” said the chairman of the Greenwich Mean Time committee.

The new system will make it easier to tell and calculate time.

The base unit of the system will still be the day. The new day will be 10 hours long. During the transition, the metric day will be called an “mDay” in English. Once the transition is complete, the “m” prefix and archaic name will be replaced permanently with the new metric name. To make the conversion, 1 hour will equal .416667 mHours.

The term “hour” will be replaced with the “deciday.” There will be 100 minutes in an hour (or 100 Millidays).

The new week, the mWeek (after 2016, the Decaday) will equal 10 mDays. Each mMonth (or Hectoday) will equal 10m weeks (or 10 Decadays), or 100 mDays.

The mYear (or Kiloyear) will equal 10 mMonths (or 100 Decidays), or 1,000 mDays.

This chart may help:

New Term	Definition	Obsolete Term
1 Milliday	.001 Days	Minute
I Deciday	.1 Days	Hour
1 Day	1 Day	Day
1 Decaday	10 Days	Week
1 Hectoday	100 Days	Month
1 Kiloday	1,000 Days	Year

The problem here is obvious, and was discussed extensively in committee. The current year is 365.25 days. The new Kiloyear is equal to almost 3 current years (which total 1,095.75 current days). Naturally age restrictions in laws, licensing, retirement, and other documents will need to be adjusted.

It also means each year will have three summers and three winters. We will need more Holidays to adjust for the annual events.

The dates for each season and equinox will have to float. Protesters argued this is unnatural. “Comment peuvent-ils indiquer la Terre quand incliner?” shouted protesters in Paris. The committee chairman shrugged it off. “The dates on the calendar have always been arbitrary. Some years we adjust the year by as much as 15 seconds because of the inconvenient nature of the Earth’s slightly irregular orbit. This is the same thing.”

“We can’t let the arbitrary holidays interfere with the science of measurement,” he continued.

Nineteen of the 20 member of the G20 issued a joint statement praising the shift:

Not only will this change simplify time, it will provide a significant aid to the world economy. Manufacturing and scientific organizations will have a cleaner and more efficient measurement system. And it will be a significant boon to the watch and clock makers around the world during these troubled times.

President Obama declined to join in the statement. The President released his own statement later.

While we are pleased to see our European partners working so closely together to come up with new solutions to old problems, we don’t plan to impose this change on the American people. The American people have no trouble with the 60s and 7s that make up our calendar. Further, we don’t need to mandate this program.

The American people have always worked with partners around the world to build a world class economy and to help people from all walks of life achieve their true potential. The American people are thrilled to buy their soda in 2 liter bottles and their milk by the gallon. The power of American business is that it works with and respects the traditional culture of America, while still working with the rest of the world in the different measures they use. The people will use the units they prefer as we move into the next global age of economic revitalization.

Some European editorialist scoffed at Obama’s suggestion that this won’t be a problem for the US. “Didn’t the Americans lose a space ship because they don’t understand metric?” suggested the editor of the London Financial Times.

The Director of the US Bureau of Weights and Measures stated the US would work with others on the new calendar, but beyond providing conversion tables, would take few initiatives. “We still plan to keep our speed limit signs at 65 MPH. We don’t plan to change them to 249.6 KMpdD (kilometers per deciday).”

After the press conference, was overheard talking to a colleague about the issue. Apparently he didn’t realize his microphone was still open. “Not this crap again. What is this? 1977? I’m getting too old for this.”

The second will remain at 9,192,631,770 Cesium atom vibrations for now. The seconds in a Milliday will be defined by conversion tables. The standards body will discuss alternative definitions for the “second” over the next year.

There is still a great deal of debate over what to do with the yet to be implemented Decimilliday.

ISS Pettiness

You can't put too many people in the International Space Station. Despite the ongoing construction, size is too limited. So what the best way to decide who eats what food and who uses which toilet?

Let an Earth based committee make up rules for it.

This article appeared in the Seattle Times:

Gennady Padalka told the Novaya Gazeta newspaper as saying space officials from Russia, the United States and other countries require cosmonauts and astronauts to eat their own food and follow stringent rules on access to other facilities, like toilets.
...
Padalka, who will be the station's next commander, said the arguments date back to 2003, when Russia started charging other space agencies for the resources used by their astronauts. Other partners in space station responded in kind.
...
He said he had inquired before the current mission whether he could use an American gym machine to stay fit.

"They told me: 'Yes, you can.' Then they said no," he was quoted as saying. "Then they hold consultations and they approve it again. And now, right before the flight, it turns out again that the answer is negative."

While sharing food in the past helped the crew feel like a team, the new rules oblige Russian cosmonauts and U.S. and other astronauts to eat their own food, Padalka said, according to the report.

"They also recommend us to only use national toilets," he was quoted as saying.

...More

President Harrison house

I had a few hours available this afternoon, so I asked my trusty Neverlost Lady where I should go (though lately we've been having problems -- I think she suspects there's something going on between me a Judy Garmin).

Since I was in Indianapolis, she suggested the President Benjamin Harrison house. Actually she suggested several museums, the brickyard, the state house and a few other things, but I figured parking would be easier at an attraction designed around a President most people have never heard of.



The house is a 16-room mansion. President Harrison bought it before he ran for president, and paid $4,000 for the land. Building the house cost another $25,000.

It looks a lot bigger on the inside than it does on the outside. The two main floors have 14' ceilings, and the top floor was a ball room. Inside, the property is beautiful and looks quite comfortable. What I find interesting is that houses that have been built in the last few years take up the same or bigger foot print, yet have fewer rooms or less effective use of space on the inside.

The volunteers do a nice job of showing off the various parlors, bedrooms, the library, kitchen, and other spaces. I wouldn't mind having President Harrison's home office (though they called it the library back then). It was filled with Harrison's actual books. He was a fan of other presidential administrations and of classics.

The house had two staircases. One was for the family and guests. The other one was for the servants in the back. The main one was large and easy to climb. The servants were not so lucky. They had a narrow, steep staircase with shorter stairs. It was a bit nerve wracking descending it.

I didn't take any pictures inside the house because it was all on a guided tour. The tour costs $8, and there were only two other people in the group. I felt awkward stopping to take pictures so i passed. The other weird thing is that the middle of the tour includes a visit to the gift shop, in what used to be the butler's pantry. The guided stops to give people the opportunity to shop. After you browse and make purchases, the tour continues.

The guide was informative, and I learned a lot on the tour, but I would have preferred the option to take a self guided tour, so I can wander at my leisure as I read every placard.

If you get the chance, stop by. It's an hour and a half well spent.

The guide talked to us about some of the key events in Harrison's presidency and campaign.

The one-term Republic served from 1889 to 1893. He served between President Cleveland's two terms, and was the only president to interrupt two terms of another president. He was also the only President to have a grandfather who also served as President. He came to office after losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral vote.

The campaign was quite different than the recent, 15 year long 2008 campaign we just survived. Harrison didn't seek out the nomination. He wasn't even in the same city as the Republican convention when they nominated him on the eighth ballot. He accepted the nomination in between two of the rooms we saw on the tour.

His campaign was one of the first front porch campaigns. Rather than travel among the 40 states, he entertained visitor and delegations on his front porch. At larger events, people would steal parts of his fence as souveniers.

During the campaign on 1893, his wife died of tuberculosis. He didn't campaign after that. Once he heard about it, his opponent, former President Grover Cleveland also stopped campaigning, rather than take advantage of the President's wife's death. Harrison did lose reelection.

His White House biography, and his Wikipedia entry highlight some of the key events of those four years Harrison spent in the White House.

He was the first President to have a Christmas tree in the White House.

He was the first President to advocate flying the flag on a regular basis.

He wrote the first version of the Pledge of Allegiance.

During his administration, for the first time ever, the US Federal Budget exceeded $1 billion. At the beginning of his administration, the budget showed a significant surplus, but he and the congress spent that down, in part by expanding pensions for Civil War Veterans.

One of the biggest political challenges was the question of what to do about tariffs. From Harrison's Wikipedia page:

The issue of tariff levels had been a major point of contention in American politics since before the Civil War, and tariffs became the most prominent issue of the 1888 election.^[66] The high tariff rates had created a surplus of money in the Treasury, which led many Democrats (as well as the growing Populist movement) to call for lowering the rates.^[67] Most Republicans wished the rates to remain high, and to spend the surplus on internal improvements as well as the elimination of some internal taxes.^[67]

Representative William McKinley and Senator Nelson W. Aldrich framed the McKinley Tariff that would raise the tariff even higher, including making some rates intentionally prohibitive.^[68] At Secretary of State James Blaine's urging, Harrison attempted to make the tariff more acceptable by urging Congress to add reciprocity provisions, which would allow the President to reduce rates when other countries reduced their rates on American exports.^[66] The tariff was removed from imported raw sugar, and sugar growers in the United States were given a two cent per pound subsidy on their production.^[68] Even with the reductions and reciprocity, the McKinley Tariff enacted the highest average rate in American history, and the spending associated with it contributed to the reputation of the Billion-Dollar Congress.^[66]

That's right. The Democrats were calling for lowering taxes and the size of government. The Republicans were resisting those initiatives, and supported using the surplus to expand social programs. The Republicans pushed for protectionist tax measures; the Democrats supported free-er trade.

He signed the Sherman Anti-Trust act and expanded the US Navy in the Pacific. He had major foreign policy initiatives with other countries in the Americas, and nearly got the US into war with Chile.

It may have been a short 4 years, but the legislation and initiatives Harrison pursued have had a significant impact on today's economy. The impact of the Harrison administration is much broader than I recalled from high school.

As we deal with the economic challenges the country faces today, it may be time to take a closer look at what happened during Harrison's administration and the Panic of 1893 that followed his administration.

And it's all because the Neverlost Lady showed me a quirky option.

Bonuses and taxes

I've been listening to the story about the $165 million in bonuses AIG is about to pay out. And the accompanying outrage.

If these bonuses were going to one of the divisions that is profitable, and they were significantly less than the profit, then I wouldn't have a major problem with it. But they're not.

According to CNN, they are going to one of the very groups responsible for the shambles they current AIG is:

In a letter to Geithner, obtained Saturday by CNN, AIG Chairman and CEO Edward Liddy said his company was taking steps to limit compensation in AIG Financial Products -- the British-based unit responsible for issuing the risky credit default swaps that have brought the company to the brink of collapse.

In the letter to Geithner, Liddy said the unit's 25 highest-paid contract employees will reduce their salaries to $1 this year and all other officers in the unit will reduce their salaries by 10 percent. Other "non-cash compensation" will be reduced or eliminated. But he told Geithner that some bonus payments are binding legal obligations of the company, and "there are serious legal, as well as business consequences for not paying."

...More

I understand that the new AIG CEO may be in a bit of a bind here. If they are contractually obligated to pay the bonuses, and the recipients are not willing to renegotiate those contracts, then they should pay them.

But that doesn't have to let them off the hook.

It occurred to me that the simplest way to deal with it -- without breakin any contracts -- is with the tax code. There's no reason Congress can't craft an income tax provisions specifically for bonuses like this, and tax them abt 99.9% or something like that.

This way, people still recieve their bonuses.
AIG doesn't have to break the contracts.
And the Treasurey recovers funds.

Fortunately, Senator Chris Dodd is already on it.

Later, Dodd told CNN he is considering an unusual approach to get the bonus money back.

"One idea we're kind of thinking about is a tax provision," the Connecticut Democrat said. "We have a right to tax. You could write a tax provision that's narrowly crafted only to the people receiving bonuses. That's a way maybe to deal with it."

Dodd said the notion is in the "earliest of thinking" and has not been settled on as a way to resolve the issue that has set off outrage in Washington and across the country.

...More

We may not be able to allow AIG to fail. But we can make sure we don't reward failure.

Tax cuts are a bad idea

A stimulus package should encourage spending. In that respect, it's ironic to rely on this tool, since an orgy of debt heavy consumer spending on credit cards and silly mortgages is what got us here in the first place. A mild, several year long recession would likely be good for the economy in the long-term.

What it needs is a controlled burn in the forest to clear out the dead wood. That's what a mild recession would do for us, and we probably should have had one a couple years ago. But we didn't, and that controlled burn has now turned into a massive conflagration set to level a major metropolis. It's too severe to just let it burn. Thus, I am resigned to a massive stimulus package.

That package should focus on infrastructure -- transit systems, roads, new power transmission lines, enhanced nationwide broadband access, new energy technology, new materials, bridges, space exploration, and other items of that ilk. Some of these projects may be pork, but that's okay. The point is to put people to work -- get those private construction companies moving again. Make sure their employees spend money in their communities and employ even more people.

At the end of the stimulus period, either the economy will be moving again, or it won't. If it is, that's great. If not, well, at least we will have all this new infrastructure which we desperately need. And people had work. The money will not be wasted.

An additional benefit of the massive infrastructure spending is that not only will we get this cool new stuff, we'll get it cheap. People will work for less money. Steel, oil, and other raw materials are cheaper than they have been for years.

Plus, if we make these investments only when "we can afford it" in a strong economy we are also stealing labor and resources from the private sector's own growth initiatives. Let's get the infrastructure done now when we don't have to compete with the private sector. The country will be stronger for it and already have the key blocks in place when the next boom begins.

Of course this is all money the government is borrowing and we have to pay back, but that is also cheaper than it has been for years.

If you have the capacity to borrow and spend money this is now the best, cheapest possible time to do it.

There was a lot of stuff like that in the House version of the bill.

My concern is the tax cuts. The $800 billion package include more than $200 billion in tax cuts and rebates. The latest details are a bit challenging to nail down.

The problem with tax cuts and government stimulus checks in a bad economy is that they don't encourage spending. Responsible people will not spend that money on new stuff. Instead, it will go to pay down bills. Or it will go into savings for the hard times ahead.

And that's exactly what people should do with those savings. That demonstrates great personal responsibility.

But it won't stimulate the economy. It won't get other people employed. It won't bring more manufacturing on line. It won't drive increased investment by technology companies.

In short, it won't move things forward.

But I don't see anyone opposing middle class tax cuts anytime soon. As much as I hate to say it, the best compromise will be to leave the tax rates alone. Don't send out a "stimulus" check. Instead, provide tax credits for purchases.

I normally don't like tax credits and deductions. They make completing tax forms more complicated than they should be and are one of the reasons our tax code is such a mess.

But the point of the tax reductions in the bill isn't to save people money. It's to stimulate the economy.

So let's replace those tax cuts with rebates for buying things. For education. Or for buying a new, energy efficient car. Or for making substantial home improvements (spend $10K on your kitchen? Get a $5K tax credit). Or for paying for child care. Or for moving to a part of the country that needs a specific set of skills.

By putting those tax reductions in the form of tax credits, we take the money out of the savings accounts and put it to working creating jobs for people. The people in those jobs can now, in turn, make their own purchase.

Saving money doesn't move the economy forward. Spending does. Whether that spending is private or tax payer funded doesn't matter. Nothing happens until someone buys something. And that's what a stimulus package needs to encourage.

Tax credits for buying stuff will do that. Tax rate cuts and generic stimulus checks will not.

Another Vice Presidential candidate

While people around the world express their glee at the new President- and Vice President-Elect, it's important to take a moment and remember another Vice Presidential candidate who went on to his final reward over the weekend.

During the tumultuous years of the eighties a third party candidate made headlines and T-Shirts throughout the nation. With daily coverage in hundreds of newspapers, millions of Americans followed the unfolding story of his campaign. Despite running valiant campaigns in 1984 and 1988, the third party would not meet with success. Saddled with a small party structure, less charisma than Walter Mondale, controversy over the San Francisco convention, getting slapped with the Liberal label, allegations of an affair with Jean Kirkpatrick, and a presidential candidate who was mostly dead, the Meadow Party just couldn't pull in the votes.

The Vice Presidential candidate with Southern roots lived a full life. His early jobs included writing personal ads for the local newspaper before he began work as an assistant to the only lawyer in town. He toured with renounced heavy metal band Deathtongue, until the lead singer was caught up in a biblical scandal. He briefly married a sculptor, before the wedding was annulled over concern about children and noses. There were rumors of an affair with Diane Sawyer, but those rumors may have been started by the candidate himself. Always the Star Trek fan, he owned his own Spock uniform.

He valued diversity, and was close, personal friends with a fascinating group of people -- nerdy and cool, black and white, liberal and conservative, wheel-chair bound and runner, young and old, and in later years, gay and straight.

Throughout the years, he tried to bring out the best in human nature. But the one thing he sought for over twenty five years is the one thing he finally got -- a mother and a home.

Opus passed away this past weekend after several weeks in an animal shelter.

He ended up there after a run in with Homeland Security due to his immigration status. His last act was to surrender a chance at freedom to his cell mate who likely made it to Tahiti.

Opus passed on from the pages of the comic strips to the pages of Good Night Moon, where he will spend eternity cozy in the warmth of a loving family and story.



No matter what happens in the next four years, remember:

Don't blame me. I voted for Bill and Opus.


For more details about the final weeks of Opus's life, see this Wikipedia article.

Hotels and elections

The last time we got a new President, I watched the long drawn out coverage from my room at Cavanaugh's Riverside hotel in Spokane, WA. I remember staying up until 3:AM waiting for a final result in the election that would go on to bring a whole new level of derision to the state of Florida.

Tonight, at a hotel in Irvine, CA, I can go to be on time. We know who the new President is, after an extremely well executed campaign. If Obama governs the same way he ran the campaign, it sounds like things will go well.

McCain gave one of the best concession speeches I'm seen. In the past 4-5 days, we've gotten to see more of the real McCain -- the McCain that got people excited 8 years ago. If this is really who he is today, and if what we saw for the last several months was really just a creation of the party establishment, then his time in the Senate should be very interesting. Perhaps once he leaves the Senate, Obama can find an ambassadorship or administration position for him.



So is it time to start naming candidates for the 2012 election? For those of you who haven't thrown your machine through the window when I mention that thought, here are some folks I expect to announce in the next 2-3 years.

Republicans:

• Sarah Palin
• Rudy Giuliani
• Mitt Romney
• Mark Racicot
• Jeb Bush
• Christine Whitman
• Mike Huckabee
  

Democrats:

• Hilary Clinton
• Gary Locke
• Tim Kaine

I don't expect any of those Democratic candidates to seriously challenge Obama -- just to lay the ground work for 2016

Quick Election Day thought

You done good, big guy.

And after writing, rewriting, and deleting paragraphs about voting, the candidates, tonight's McCain/Palin SNL appearance, and the impending demise of the 2008 political ads, I'm just going to leave it at that, and encourage everyone to earn their free coffee on Tuesday.

Bond issues and the economy

In Seattle, as in most parts of the country, there are bond issues on Tuesday's ballot. In our case, they are for expanding the regional public transit/light rail system and for refurbishing Pike Place Market.

In other parts of the country, they may be for parks, roads, court houses, firehouses, bus routes, etc.

States and municipalities put these things on the ballot before the recent Wall Street melt down. Now, polls are showing less support among the electorate. There is a sense that with declining tax revenues and a weaker economy, the governments should not spend money on infrastructure. They should conserve funds as much as possible.

Nonsense.

Now is exactly the time cities and states should spend this money. If these projects made sense 6 or 12 months ago, they make even more sense now.

1. In a strong economy, building materials and labor costs go up. Everyone is building and competing for the same resources which drives prices higher. Municipalities that build now will find that costs are lower.
2. In a similar vein, building in a strong economy means that municipalities compete with private industry for limited resources. This drives up costs for both parties. In a really strong economy, that can mean industry can't do some projects because resources are absorbed by the municipalities.
3. Putting people to work in a down economy is a good thing -- especially when they are working on real projects and not just "make work" projects. It blunts the impacts of private industry layoffs.
4. Municipalities normally pay for these projects with long term bonds. In other words, much of the cost for these programs won't hit the citizens in the year they are built, but over the course of several years -- in weak and strong economies.
   
5. Putting off projects until the economy is stronger will make them more expensive. Besides the fact that they will be competing with industry, those costs will also be higher due to regular inflation.

If the projects makes sense in a strong economy, they makes even more sense now. They are cheaper to build in a down economy and have the added benefit of putting people to work. And putting people to work -- real work -- is a key ingredient in bringing an area out of a recession.

McCain on SNL

I just caught McCain's appearance on Saturday Night Live.

Sure, it had the mark of candidate that had nothing to lose, but it was quite well done. McCain didn't take himself too seriously, seemed relaxed, played well off Tina Fey's Sarah Palin, and he still got his message across.

The McCain Pork Knives were a nice touch. And I got a kick out of the McCain Fine Gold.

The Palin in 2012 bit was good aside, too.

All in all, well done, John. It was a nice way to show a lighter side, with some self deprication, and still maintain your dignity.

You can see the McCain SNL video here.

Plan your own electoral college map

What will happen to Joe the Plumber? Now you can figure it out.

CNN is now showing Obama ahead of McCain 277 electoral vote to 174, with 87 still up for grabs.

But you can plan your own strategy for the candidates with the Electoral Map Calculator.

Visit the map here. Then click the Blank Slate link, and click on a state to assign it to a candidate.

This would have made that high school project in 1988 so much easier.

You can find previous elections here.