Proud to be a Coloradoan

My candidate for President didn't win last night, gathering a paltry 1% of the vote. But there was one result I was very happy with. The voters of Colorado decided to lead the nation in ending the ridiculous prohibition of marijuana (yes I know, there is still the small problem of Federal prohibition, but one step at a time.)

I find a useful guide to thinking about many social policies is to ask yourself what people will think twenty of forty years from now. I'm pretty sure future generations will find it hard to believe that once upon a time we sent SWAT teams to break down people's doors in the middle of the night and send them to jail just to stop a few people getting high, all while creating the massive black market on which the criminal organisations who reap so much death and destruction thrive. Sort of like we did in the 1920's when we ran the same experiment with alcohol with the same tragic effects. Alcohol is not without its problems, but I think we've proved that it does massively less harm when legalized and regulated.

Not that I plan to rush out and smoke a joint. Doesn't appeal to me at all. But neither does sky diving. People get hurt doing that too, but that's a pretty stupid reason to make it illegal. Police should focus on real crimes; the ones where people hurt someone other than themselves.

A wasted vote?

I've spent a lot of time over the past few months trying to figure out which of the two presidential candidates would be least bad.

Yesterday I submitted my ballot (I voted by mail - everybody going to a polling place on one day is a ridiculous process for managing an election in the twenty-first century).

I voted for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.

A number of people have told me I wasted my vote (including one libertarian!). I strongly disagree. Voting for either of the other two would have been a waste of my vote. Worse,  it would have been seen as tacit approval of a man, regardless of whether it was Obama or Romney, with little regard for personal or economic freedom and no willingness to take the hard decisions necessary to fix America's fundamental problems.

I don't blame the politicians despite my lack of regard for them. They are simply the best two men in the country at giving the electorate what it wants no matter how irrational those desires might be, 2012's masters of pandering. Right now what the people want is to moan and cry about how terrible everything is and how they want something better, but not to have anything actually change. That is to say, the majority of American voters want to keep doing the same things but get a different result. Last time I looked, that was the definition of madness. Well I refuse to be a part of it.

Krugman and space aliens

In an attempt to justify more Keynesian stimulus spending, Paul Krugman has suggested a strategy which has now most cleverly been dubbed Wag the Dalek - yes, a fake invasion by space aliens to justify massive government spending.

Actually, given the consistent Keynesian failure to understand that every dollar the government spends is a dollar not being spent by taxpayers themselves, I'm a little disappointed that Krugman didn't advocate a real alien invasion. Imagine the jobs created rebuilding our civilization once those helpful aliens blast us back to the stone age with their death rays.

It's all too bizarre for words. I do see the work of aliens here, but what I really think has happened is that the Nobel prize winning economist we called Paul Krugman has been replaced by an alien pretending (not very well) to be Paul Krugman. Seriously. How else can you explain this guy seeming to have unlearnt everything he ever knew as an economist?

Update: You can buy a (slightly geeky) t-shirt that makes the point:

Sydney airport deja vu

I'm sitting in my home office in Steamboat listening to the the radio from Australia on the internet.

The Australian Minister for Transport is currently talking about the need for a second airport in Sydney.

I have two words for him: Badgery's Creek.

That was the name of the second Sydney airport announced by the Australian Government in mid-1989. It was a political sop back then. I know this because I was part of the small team that put the proposal together to provide political cover to get approval to build a third runway at the real Sydney airport (whenever I land on 16L/34R, I like to think of it as "my runway").

It's still a sop now. There are very few cities that successfully run more than one major airport. New York, London, Tokyo, Paris and Chicago come to mind. All much bigger cities than Sydney.

One of the things the Minister was just rabbiting on about was that demand for slots exceeds supply. The best way to match supply and demand and to ensure a resource is allocated to its highest value use is via a very secret mechanism economists call price. In the context of airport slots that means auctioning slots off to the highest bidder. Of course that's not how it works. So I have zero sympathy for bleating about excess demand.

Cursing DST

Yesterday I was only able to get our for about an hour. Due to work constraints I wasn't able to get out late enough for the snow to really have softened. But the sun was shining, so it was still fun cruising a few groomers on the lower mountain where it gets warmer sooner.

Here's the GPS data.

The problem with not being out late enough was compounded by the ridiculousness of starting Daylight Savings Time in mid-March, an idea brought to us by our DST overlords in Washington a few years back supposedly to save energy. In a rational world the fact that it doesn't (save energy) would have led to the change being reversed by now. Of course politics is the only field of human endeavour where the gap between intentions and results is completely and utterly irrelevant.

And I still have one pesky clock that I haven't managed to change yet!

Knee jerk reaction

That's the only way to describe the TSA's response to the latest attempt to blow up an aircraft, with the emphasis on the jerk part of knee-jerk. Banning blankets on laps during the last hour of the flight because that's when this nut decided to set himself alight is as dumb a response as one can imagine. If this guy had tried to blow up a baseball stadium whilst buying a hot dog during the first innings, would it make sense to ban the purchase of hot dogs during the first innings at future baseball games? It makes as much sense as this.

I travel a lot. I'm willing to live with the minuscule risks associated with not adding any more inconveniences to the process and more importantly, I refuse to let terrorists win by being terrorised. Too bad our Homeland Security overlords don't understand that basic principle.

Anyone speak Swedish?

If you do, I'd like to ask the Nobel Committee the following question:

What the f... were you guys thinking?

That's my reaction to Obama winning the Nobel Peace Price.

I voted for the guy, and whilst I've been bitterly disappointed with his economic policies, I generally think that on foreign policy he's on the right track. But if this were a 400 metres race, he wouldn't even be through the first turn.

Things are better in Iraq but it's still only the sort of peaceful where people die every day in political violence.

Afghanistan is going the other way. It's one hell of a mess on the way to being a disaster of biblical proportions.

North Korea and Iran are still making nuclear weapons. Burma is still run by a repressive military regime. People are still being persecuted and dying in Darfur.

Obama's approach on all these issues is measured and considered and patient (unlike his predecessor who showed all the patience and consideration of a teenage boy), but it will be quite some time before he's achieved anything lasting and substantial.

Update 10:30 am Mountain Time: Ok, it seems need to translate "What the f... were you guys thinking?" into Norwegian. It seems that the Peace Prize is awarded in Norway, unlike the rest of the Nobel prizes which are awarded in Sweden.

Yale is a joke

If the fact that George W. Bush is a graduate wasn't sufficient evidence that Yale's claim to be a world class institute of higher education is a joke (motto "if your daddy is an alumni or has enough money, or better still both, we'll graduate you"), this act of moral and academic cowardice seals it.

Why would anyone spend money, let alone serious money like thirty or forty grand a year, on attending such a place? Sure some employers will continue for a few years to be sucked in by the brand, but if you're actually worthy of an Ivy League education you'll spend the rest of your life knowing that you're associated with a sham.

By the way, here's those notorious images. Like WTF is all the fuss about? And screw you Islamic fundamentalists. And Yale. Seems like I've got more courage than you.



HT: Coyote Blog

Where's the cloaking device when you need it

Only our homeland security overlords in Washington DC could be stupid enough to think that flying a 747 over New York was a mission that could be kept secret. Or perhaps the cloaking device they borrowed from the Star Trek set didn't work...oh wait, that's science fiction and we live in the real world, but clearly someone in Washington doesn't.

Best comment on the current economic crisis

I've been reading a lot about the economic crisis, including a lot from economists who are universally pessimistic about the Administration's response. I've avoided commenting for want of something original to say. But this blog post summarises the situation so well I have to repost it here:

Money flows out to the folks on Wall Street who bankrupted their firms, to schoolteachers who’ve failed to teach their students, to government workers who feel that simply showing up to work is a heroic achievement, to executives and union workers in America’s oldest and least competitive industries. If times are tough and money is tight, that means almost nothing is left over for productive investment. What would have been a short recession will turn into a long depression and decades of higher taxes and slow growth to pay for all of the cash ladled out.

Best argument yet against the bailout

Here's the best argument I've seen yet against the $700 billion bailout:

Once signed into law, Treasury would begin a process to determine the assets it will buy and the manner it will set a price. Like everything in government, this is a moment that is lobby-able. Expect swarms of financial services lobbyists, investor groups, housing advocates, and others to try to game the system for their individual clients or members.

If you don't believe we're on the path to the mother of all special interest feeding frenzies, think about this. In the midst of what our political leaders claim is the greatest economic crisis to face America since the Great Depression, a situation so dire as to require unprecedented urgent and bipartisan legislative action on massive scale, Senators could simply not restrain themselves, adding $150 billion of pork to the bailout bill.

On the financial crisis

As much as I have no great desire to live in Michigan, I wish I lived in this guy's district because it would be so nice to have a candidate I could vote for without having to hold my nose.

This pretty much sums up my position on the bailout; let the market do what it's doing, correcting for past excesses; let those who gambled on the bubble wear their justly deserved losses; and let the Government stop thinking that it can repeal the laws of economics with my money to buy the votes of those who were too stupid to think twice about what they were doing.

If you bought a house with no money down - you're a fool.

If you bought a house believing that you'd sell it in a year and make a killing - you're a (greedy) fool.

If you bought a house with an adjustable rate mortgage and didn't think about what you'd do when the rate reset (to a higher level) - you're a fool.

If you're a bank that issued a mortgage with no money down - you and your shareholders are fools.

If you're a financial institution that bought mortgage backed securities without caring to understand the true risk of the underlying loans - you and your shareholders are fools.

I'm sorry (well actually I'm not), but I don't tolerate fools terribly well. And I certainly don't want the Government taking my hard earned money to reward them for their folly.

You know you're a joke when...

They parody you on Saturday Night Live and the script uses your exact words.



No wonder I'm having trouble telling which one is a candidate for Vice President and which one is the comedian.

I'd love to say that I'm voting against McCain/Palin because I disagree with their position on the issues, but seriously, I can't find a position in this.

Thanks Sarah

As a new US citizen one of the challenges I face is deciding who to vote for in November. I've wavered back and forth between McCain, whose economic policies are much closer to my views, and Obama, who I believe understands how much damage the childish "with us or against us" foreign policy of the current Administration has done to America's interests not to mention undermining the very foundations of the freedoms that make America unique.

But the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's VP candidate has helped me make a choice.

Whilst the Republicans are busily touting her executive experience I couldn't help but look at the reality. She's the Governor of a teenage state, sponging off its parents in Washington. Here's a State that receives back two dollars for every dollar it sends to Washington. So how is she going to apply that model to balancing the Federal budget? Here's a State that's so awash in oil and gas money it has no sales tax, no income tax and sends its residents money every year. So what exactly are the tough choices she's had to make as the Governor of such a State?

Added to that, her penchant for firing anyone she didn't appoint indicates she's a "leader" in the mould of George W. Bush interested primarily in loyalty (to her) above all else (and isn't it interesting that we've just had another hurricane in New Orleans to remind us of the results of Bush's "heckuva job Brownie" model of management).

And for someone running as a "family values" conservative, I can't but help look at her personal life and think, "no thanks I've already got a mother and it looks like you've got your hands full". Plus, I'm sorry, but I don't admire the sort of single minded ambition that would allow you to run for high public office when you've got a special needs baby and a pregnant, unmarried 17 year old daughter on your hands. In the same way I simply couldn't understand how John Edwards could run whilst his wife was fighting breast cancer. Talk about your screwed up priorities (little did I know how big a toad he is).

But it was her speech tonight that really sealed the deal for me. I just can't believe that the Republicans wrote her a speech that regurgitated the same divisive, hateful, totalitarian rhetoric that poisoned the 2004 campaign and risks putting America on the path to becoming a one party state where to hold a different view is considered treasonous.

Well I've got news for Republicans. You are the ones who have wilfully and repeatedly betrayed the very essence of the United States, the Constitution, and until you realise that you're not fit to hold even the lowest public office, let alone deserving of another four years in the White House.

ACLU misses the point

The ACLU issued a press release today pointing out that the Government's terrorist watchlist now has more than a million names on it. They make the perfectly logical point that a list that long is effectively useless in screening for terrorists:

"Putting a million names on a watch list is a guarantee that the list will do more harm than good by interfering with the travel of innocent people and wasting huge amounts of our limited security resources on bureaucratic wheel-spinning."

Of course the ACLU has completed missed the point. Yes, if your goal is to catch terrorists a list this long is counter-productive. But if your goal is to convince the great mass of voters who don't want to think too hard that you're not taking any chances in the "war on terror", then the longer the list the better.

Hell, I'm surprised there aren't three billion people on the list. After all every one of the 9/11 hijackers was a man, so if you've got a Y chromosome you fit the profile. Better to be safe...

Activist judges?

John McCain has flagged as a key part of his re-election strategy pandering to the "conservative right" in judicial appointments, especially appointments to the Supreme Court. He's using the standard code words - "activist judges" - to criticise judicial appointments that conservatives don't like, the implication being that conservative judges will somehow avoid "activism" and will stick to the letter of the Constitution.

What does it all mean? Shall we test it using the poster boys for judicial appointments during the reign of King George President George W. Bush, namely Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts?

Can you see where this is heading?

These judges are not activists, so say the conservatives and therefore it must be so. Which means that we can rest easy in the knowledge that they won't twist and turn the Constitution inside out to make it mean whatever conservatives want it to mean. Can't we?

They, not being activists, would never for example decide that the Federal Government can regulate the private, local consumption of medically prescribed marijuana under the powers granted it to regulate "commerce... among the several States" (the Commerce Clause) would we? After all, it involves neither commerce nor anything among the States so any other interpretation would be patently and wilfully absurd wouldn't it?

Oh, but they would and they have! It doesn't take a law degree to know that these men are full of it, that they are nothing more than unprincipled hacks who believe the end justifies the means, and that no principle is above delivering the outcome desired by those "conservatives" they owe allegiance to. Dare I say "ACTIVISTS!"

To prove my point, here's Alito in his dissent to the recent Supreme Court decision confirming that Guantanamo Bay detainees have the right to challenge their detention in a (real) civilian court:

... the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Hmm, looks to me like he's playing the part of politician, arguing the merits of the policy (not with real evidence or logic but with emotion and fear, but that's another story), rather than doing what a judge ought to be doing which is expressing a view on what the law is and the Constitution requires and nothing else.

So when John McCain says "I won't appoint activist judges" I can just hear my favourite character from my favourite movie reply:

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means. (Inigo Montoya played brilliantly by Mandy Patinkin in The Princess Bride)

If only they'd read this...

I was searching for a quote from Winston Churchill to use in a presentation when I came across this gem:

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.

If only George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had read this before they created the mess in Mesopotamia.

Flying with the PM

I just arrived in Wellington, New Zealand (it's already Monday morning here even though it's still Sunday at home). I have a major presentation to a customer on Wednesday and then I'll be back home on Thursday.

Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand was on my connecting flight from Auckland. They're an egalitarian bunch the Kiwis. Not only does the PM fly commercial, she flys coach. (Well she has no choice since domestic flights are all single class, but still it's an interesting contrast to the US President and Air Force One).

She had one staffer with her but no real security. I suppose the PM of NZ isn't quite as good at making enemies as the President of the United States.

Historic preservation

One issue that's been on the agenda in Steamboat in recent times with all the development going on is historic preservation.

To the credit of the current City Council they are moving in the direction of a completely voluntary code. That is the only approach that is consistent with a meaningful concept of private property. It's one thing to restrict what I can do with my property if it harms others, it another to restrict my property rights in order to benefit others.

Unfortunately there are still plenty of players in this town who are ready to impose costs on the private owners of historical structures for the "benefit of the community." Here's an idea. If historic preservation is so valuable to "the community" how about they put their money where their mouth is and pay private owners to preserve properties. It always focuses the mind to have to pay for one's high minded ideals doesn't it?

Not so Great Britain

For a country that used to rule an empire on which the sun never sets, it's a long way to fall, but I think the final votes are in: Great Britain has the world's worst major airport in London Heathrow.

If it wasn't enough that (alone of all the world's airport operators) BAA has imposed it's own more restrictive hand luggage policies because it's too damn cheap to hire enough security staff, now we have British Airways telling customers they can't check any bags!

Imagine turning up at Heathrow to fly home (say to Denver, as I've done three times in the past six months) to be told "sorry guv, you'll need leave the suitcases behind"!

The crazy thing is that unlike most cities where there's an element of natural monopoly to the airport business, London actually has huge amounts of traffic along with two major airports (Heathrow and Gatwick) and two not so insignificant ones (Standsted and Luton).

The obvious solution is to have them compete with each other. Of course that's not so obvious to the bright sparks pretending to govern Britain who in their infinite wisdom continue to let BAA operate all four airports at a standard which can only be categorised as a global embarrassment.