Technology Meets Bureaucracy

For John, BLUF:  Federal liscensing and Bureaucracy held up cell phone introduction a couple of decades.  Did you miss them?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

We Could Have Had Cell Phones 40 Years Earlier

Here is the sub-headline:

This technology was intentionally prevented from getting off the ground for decades.

From Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), by Mr Thomas W. Hazlett, 20 June 2017 .

Here is the lede plus one:

The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 – not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday Evening Post.  Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies," declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be difficult."  The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story, would be formulated within months.

But permission to deploy it would not.  The government would not allocate spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until 1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully distributed for another seven years.  That's one heck of a bureaucratic delay.

Note this is about the cell phone as phone, and not your smart phone, as hand held computer.

Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but this bureaucratic delay, this imposition of regulation, is probably happening today, with one or more other technologies.

Regards  —  Cliff

Eureka: Fires Out West

For John, BLUF:  Laws have both good and bad consequences.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

How Regulations Made California's Fires Worse

From The American Thinker, by Richard Zuber, 18 January 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

After raging through almost all of December, the so-called Thomas fire, California's largest wildfire ever recorded, was finally contained on January 12.  While the worst is behind us (for now), the fact that last year's wildfires so violently spun out of control puts the spotlight on the Golden State's government and its lack of fire prevention measures.

The fires across the state caused unprecedented damage and loss of life.  Unsurprisingly, California governor Jerry Brown was quick to pin the blame on climate change for the forest fires' ferocity and extraordinary longevity this season.  Whatever truth there may be to this, it would be a mistake to gloss over how misguided policies and regulations have hurt California's ability to prevent and respond to fires.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances.  For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense.  However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Over Regulation

For John, BLUF:  Why President Trump's efforts to limit government regulations is good.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Please Sir, May I Build a House?

By Francis Turner from L'Ombre de l'Olivier, 8 Jul 2017.

It starts with an extract from President Trumps recent speech in Warsaw, Poland.

The West became great not because of paperwork and regulations but because people were allowed to chase their dreams and pursue their destinies.

One of the electricians rewiring our Daughter's house in Illinois told my wife that he has a place over in Missouri he is fixing up but has been told he will be fined if he does electrical work at the place.  Doesn't have a Missouri license.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Government Regulations Going in Opposite Directions

For John, BLUF:  What if you are traveling in Europe and put your eggs in the hotel room frig?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Why Americans Refrigerate Eggs

This item from FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education, is by Mr Jeffrey A. Tucker.  Here is the teaser:

No surprise:  the real answer has to do with government regulations over whether eggs should be washed.  In the United States, the government mandates washing eggs before commercial sale.  In Europe, egg washing is forbidden by law.

Which brings into question the whole government regulation regime.

Hat tip to FEE.

Regards  —  Cliff

Job Creation So Far This Year

For John, BLUF:  The Regulation State is hurting us.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS):

1st Quarter Employment Increase

78 percent of 1st quarter 2016 employment increase occurred at firms with fewer than 50 employees

During the first three months of 2016, firms in the private sector with fewer than 50 employees had a net employment gain of 175,000. This increase represented 78 percent of the total net employment increase of 224,000 jobs over the quarter.

Note that in the chart below we have job losses in Red and job gains in Blue and the Green dot shows how much job creation was compared to job loss.

The Green dots favors the smaller firms.

Larger firms tended to be net losers of jobs.  That is not a good trend.

Looking at the success of small firms, we can extrapolate into the next Administration that if Federal Regulations and Rules are reduced it might result in even more job creation.  While larger firms can afford the lawyers and accountants to deal with vast numbers of regulations, the small business owner can not.  A reduction in regulations will h3elp the small business owner on a comparative basis.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Distracted Driving

For John, BLUF:  Not just coffee.  Consumption of anything.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Only in New Jersey:  Bill would ban motorists from drinking coffee and driving

From an 8 August article by Mr Steph Solis, in USA Today.

New Jersey already draws ire for not letting drivers pump their own gas.  But the state might ban them from having a cup of coffee behind the wheel too.

That thing about pumping gas may be restricted to highways like the Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway.  I pumped gas myself somewhere in North Jersey last week.  But, it was at a gas station with no C-Store.

The problem is, unless there is a big uproar over this, it would just be a trap for unsuspecting motorists.  How do out of state drivers deal with this?  They drive around New Jersey, through Pennsylvania. Or they vacation closer to home.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

To Much Regulation

For John, BLUF:  The question is, the Supreme Court having spoken, can it then unspeak in other areas?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Crazy Right-Wing Supreme Court Rejects Government Regulations

Today, from The National Review, by Mr David French.

On page 27 of one of today’s Supreme Court opinions is this ringing rejection of regulatory regimes. The majority opinion addressed the argument that new regulations would prevent misconduct:

But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The regulatory state should tremble in fear.  There is now “no reason to believe” that additional regulations would affect wrongdoers.  That means that regulations may not even be able to escape the lowest level of judicial scrutiny — rational-basis review.

Then the article goes the other way, noting that Abortion is a special thing.

Never mind.  The regulatory state is safe.  Everyone knows that the Supreme Court privileges the killing of children above all else.  After all, as Justice Ginsburg has said, Roe v. Wade was motivated by “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  The undesired have to die — the reasoning matters not.

Surely Justice Ginsburg is not trying to channel Margaret Sanger.  This item, from 2012, say that Justice Ginsburg didn't mean what she blurted out.  Which is good, since it was favoring eugenics.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Plastic Bag Attacks British Airways Jet

For John, BLUF:  Keep on droning.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"'Drone' that hit British Airways jet was likely a plastic bag".

Here is the sub-headline:

British transport minister says fear of drone was "overreaction."

The source is Ars Technica and the reporter is Mr Sean Gallagher.

I worry that over reaction will kill the golden goose of technology.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Broke the Law

For John, BLUF:  We just don't leave folks behind.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

It is The Washington Examiner♠ (Mr Charles Hoskinson reporting), "Report:  White House broke law, deceived Congress in Bergdahl-Taliban swap".

Here is the lede plus 2 paragraphs:

The Obama administration broke the law and misled Congress in the swap last year of five Taliban leaders for a captured U.S. soldier because President Obama wanted to further his pledge to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday in a report.

The 108-page report also said key Defense Department officials who might have raised red flags on the swap for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were left out of the decision-making process.

"Our report finds that the administration clearly broke the law in not notifying Congress of the transfer," said House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.

For me the swap for Army Sgt Bowe Bergdahl was the right thing to do.  We need to bring all our Service members home.  Even if we expect we might later find them guilty of this or that military offense.  It is the proper thing to do.

As a side note, Sgt Bergdahl has been in the news lately.

Regarding the Administration's obsession with closing the prison at GITMO, I agree that we should move them to some Supermax here in the US, preferably in some Northern Tier state.  But, Congress has spoken and the idea that the President can ignore Congress is pernicious.  I would say that the President is confusing Congressional intransigence with disrespect for the office of President.  The President is an administrator of the law, not a maker.  Of course the US Congress bears some responsibility for this situation, in that it passes too much "rule making" authority to Executive Offices.

But, as to Sgt Bergdahl, here is a case where admitting that the Administration crossed the line and promising to not do it in the future would be a reasonable thing to do, but that is just me.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Per Wikipedia, The Washington Examiner is a political journalism publication based in Washington, D.C., ….  It is owned by MediaDC, a subsidiary of Clarity Media Group, which is owned by Philip Anschutz.

New Rules For Gas Pumps

For John, BLUF:  And, that gas is cold in the winter, making the pump handle cold.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is the Good News:

Gas pump clips now legal, but may take months to appear

For those of you who have never been outside our Commonwealth, in most of the US when you are pumping gas into your car you can push down a little lever to allow the gas to flow into your tank hands free, until the automatic shutoff valve ends the flow.

This article in last Tuesday's edition of The Boston Globe, by Reporter Jack Newsham, will have me looking for the first gas station to implement this new (new here) improvement.

And, this is a lot safer than someone stuffing something into the handle, because that item may not let the automatic shutoff feature work.  Think gas gushing out of your tank, onto the pad by the gas pump.

Regards  —  Cliff

Government Abuse of Power

For John, BLUF:  So much for Free Speech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From the pages of The Washington Post we have an item on FCC regulation of broadcasting stations.  The story is about the FCC wanting to ban the use of the Football Team name "Redskins" (or Skins to those of us who have cheered them on in the past).♠  But this is the most disturbing part:

Washington insiders know that the FCC often regulates by a “raised eyebrow”; publicly telegraphing its concerns, and counting on broadcasters — fearful of delays or even failure to renew licenses — to take appropriate steps without the need for formal agency action.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  If they want something to complain about as insulting, what about US (as in United States) Route 1, passing through Virginia being named after that traitor,♥ Robert E Lee?  Some State Route would still be offensive to me, but not as offensive as this current naming.  You don't have to had family here 1,000 years ago to be offended by something.
♥  Yes, I grant you that some see him as a Virginia Patriot, but he turned his back on the United States, on the Union.

Gun Control

For John, BLUF:  Gun control is someone else trying to control your ownership of guns.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Yesterday on City Life, at the very end of the show, the question of gun control came up.  Too late for the audience to respond.

We will pass over, for now, the question of trying to eviscerate our Bill of Rights through the back door and the question of if we chip away at this or that part of the Bill of Rights will we eventually just have chips and dust.

Let us ask ourselves the question of why we need the Second Amendment and then ask if those needs are satisfied:

1. Overthrow the Government—I think Thomas Jefferson is the big proponent of this.
2. Hunting.
3. Protecting the home, and family from home invasion.
4. Protecting oneself on the street, from crime.
5. Hobbies such as shooting and collecting of antique firearms.

Now let us see where we stand:

1. While I think President Jefferson was a little over the top with his tree of liberty line,♠ this is a never-ending need, as other nations show.
2. Well, some may think hunting is cruel, I don't, even though I don't hunt.  And in some parts of the nation hunting is a way of gathering food.
3. When the bad guys are only feet away the Police are only minutes away.
4. Like Number 3.
5. I don't see the harm, given that the gun owners keep things locked up when not in use.

One of the problems with gun control is it is a never ending quest.  There will always be someone out there with a gun.  At the end of the day some police arm of the Government will have to tear apart every house in America to ensure there are no more guns.♥ 

An indication of seriousness on the part of the Government would be a move to disarm the police (as in the UK) and most other agencies authorized to carry firearms.♦  The US Department of Education?  Please.  Call the Marshall Service.  Or Treasury.  Or the FBI.

UPDATE:  On a check ride in 1979 I flew into Chicken, Alaska, had lunch, and flew back out.  I was gigged for sucking the gear too soon coming out of Chicken—it was a short field in amongst rough terrain.  Chicken was also visited by the Feds more recently, in this case the Alaska Environmental Crimes Task Force (EPA).  Guns and body armor.  What has this nation come to when the Federal Government is afraid of the ordinary citizens.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
♥  Whoops, there goes another of our Rights under the First Ten Amendments.
♦  That would be some Federal 73 agencies, including the US Department of Education, which in 2012 purchases 27 "police grade" shotguns, to add to their inventory of weapons.  Why?

Deaths in Tahrir Square? Blame Ethanol.

For John, BLUF:  Fighting Global Warming by adding Ethanol to our gas raises food prices and leads to revolution (and immigration).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Reporter Kimberley A Strassel, of The Wall Street Journal, gives us "Behind an Ethanol Special Favor".  The subtitle is "An Alon USA Energy refinery in Louisiana was the only one—out of 143—exempted from an EPA mandate.  Why?".

Ms Strassel writes about the fact that political favors are being exchanged.  Here is her "bottom line", which asks why Krotz Springs gets a break?

The problem is we don't know.  The EPA, citing confidentiality restrictions, won't explain the process.  We are to trust that it did the right thing. Yet this is the same Obama administration that has spent years doling out billions in grants and loans to politically connected energy companies and junking federal rules to help favored players.  Why trust the EPA now?

With federal mandates growing to crushing sizes, agencies like the EPA increasingly hold discretionary powers that can mean life or death for companies.  The public deserves to know how and why that power is being exercised.

It is a great question, in that a redistributionist state is a state with an ever increasing number of regulations and more and more companies spending their time and money trying to find the loopholes rather than trying to find the scientific and engineering advances that make their produces safer, cheaper and more effective.  If personal computers were regulated like banks, then we would still be driving machines with slow speeds and small memories.

But, that isn't the important issue, important as it is.  The important issue is that in our effort to deal with concerns about global warming we are fomenting revolution across the globe and especially in the Near East.  The more we thin our gasoline with Ethanol the more food prices grow around the world.  When you produce more corn you produce less wheat and thus the price of wheat goes up.  Here is one take on it, a WSJ OpEd.  When you think of the ongoing turmoil in Egypt, remember that you, American voter, are helping to keep it going by who you send to Congress and what you are telling them is important.

Here is NYT OpEd writer, Mr Thomas L Friedman, writing about this issue and using a study by Princeton Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter♠ and two others.

Doing bad by trying to do good.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, this is the former Department of State Director of Policy Planning who wrote for the Atlantic an article titled "Why Women Still Can't Have it All`" (July/August 2012).

Time to End The War On Drugs

For John, BLUF:  You have to watch what you eat.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

The BBC, and a number of other news sources report that Lawrence County (Pennsylvania) Child Protection Services removed a three day old child from the Mother because it was believed the Mother was a drug user.♠  The child was kept away for five days, before rationality returned.

The price for this action was paid by the child (separation for the Mother) and the taxpayers, to the tune of $143,500.  Well, and the cost of the trauma to the child—maybe nothing, but maybe not.

Ban bagels.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yesterday I went to Einstein Bagel, at Drum Hill, where I committed the same sin as the Mother.  Before going into labor she had a poppyseed bagel.  I had a wonderful poppyseed bagel at Einstein's.  But, back to the Mother.  It is a good thing they didn't test the banknotes in her wallet, which likely had the faintest traces of cocaine on them.

The Durbin Fee

Remember the “Durbin Fee” while using your debit cards

When I first read that headline I thought they were talking about Durbin, South Africa, and this was about some UN Plan that accessed a small free on purchases to deal with AGW or Malaria or some such thing.  I thought it was one of those Internet stories about an International conspiracy of do-gooders.

I was wrong.  This is about the fact that BofA will soon be charging me $5.00 a month to use my bank card.  Why are they doing that?  Initially I thought they were doing it because they could.  This is not the same bank I started using 50 years ago.  Gone is the spirit of Mr Giannini, who started the bank out of his pushcart, in San Francisco.♠  Since they merged with that East Coast bank it has been different.  That said, if my Father was alive today he would tell me the rot set in before that and would regale me with his story of how he was fleeing BofA, changing from this bank to that, with BofA in hot pursuit, buying up a bank almost as soon as he shifted his money to a new account there.

It turns out that this is the response by BofA, and other banks, to a little item US Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) slipped into a bill that gave regulators the authority to regulate credit card fees.  I am sure it seemed like a good idea at the time.  At any rate, Opinionator Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air linked to an editorial in The Washington Examiner

During the debate over the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, when Democrats controlled Congress, Durbin insisted on including an amendment that had nothing to do with Dodd-Frank's stated aims of stable banks and consumer protections.  The Durbin amendment granted regulators the authority to establish price controls on what banks could charge merchants that accepted their customers' debit cards as payment.  The resulting regulations, which took effect Oct. 1, limit what banks can charge merchants to no more than 24 cents per debit card transaction.

Critics pointed out that banks, facing $6 billion annual losses from this change, would shift the costs of debit cards from merchants to bank customers. Sure enough, Bank of America and several of its largest competitors -- including Wells Fargo, PNC, HSBC, SunTrust, TDBank, and Chase -- will be imposing various new fees on their customers to make up for Durbin's folly

But, my point is, the 535 Congress Critters, neither collectively nor individually, are smart enough to anticipate all the new machinations the markets will come up with.  Nor are the Federal Regulators they empower.  Thus, market regulation needs to be lightly applied, in broad sweeps, and not focused on this or that item, which might well be a passing fad.  Otherwise, we could kill the golden goose.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I think that is actually a bit of hagiography.  Actually, he managed to get money out of the vault of his bank in San Francisco during the earthquake and was able to set up shop when most of the other banks could not.  He operated off of a table made up of a couple of planks over some barrels.

Dodd-Frank

Out in regulation land is Dodd-Frank, waiting to become full grown.

Here is a question asked about Dodd-Frank in comparison to the NCAA.

The question is, can Congress act quickly enough to add regulations to stay ahead of the Wall Street Quants, Accountants and Lawyers?  Or, if they pass the rule making off to some agency, do we lose democratic control of the process?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Apply It To Goverenment

There are so many rules and rulings that it is hard for a layman to keep up, or want to move up.  Here is the latest from Tiger Hawk on the FDA moving to use the Park Doctrine with regard to FDCA products (Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).  Now (if you are in the "chain of command") you can be prosecuted, and sent to jail, if there is bad stuff happening that you don't know about, but you "coulda, shoulda, woulda" known about.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released aggressive guidelines for prosecutions under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(FDCA)that put corporate officers at risk of criminal liability merely because of their position within a violating company. The guidelines reinvigorate the long dormant Park doctrine, which allows corporate officers to be held criminally responsible for corporate violations of the FDCA and convicted of a misdemeanor even if — unlike virtually all other criminal laws — they had no knowledge of the illegal conduct.

I think I wouldn't much object if the first prosecutions were with regard to the Operation "Gun Runner" conducted by DOJ.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff