Thursday, October 30, 2014
The video above shows Deanna Griego getting pulled over and subsequently arrested for DWI. At the police station she accuses the arresting officer of sexual assault and asks to recieve medical treatment.
Thankfully for the officer involved the entire arrest was video recorded by his personal camera, which officers in Albuquerque are obliged to wear.
According to The Blaze "police were not pursuing additional charges against Griego because, despite the apparent falsehood of her sexual assault claim, police did not want to set a precedent that could discourage other potential victims of sexual assault from coming forward."
This women made extremely damaging and ugly allegations about the arresting officer that could have severely damaged his career and reputation and nothing happens?
The Albuquerque Police are setting the precedent that is OK to lie about a policeman sexually assaulting you as even if it doesn't work, it won't cost you anything.
As is becoming increasingly evident today the victims of false accusations are not seen as victims.
Posted by William Occam at 10:45 AM
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
There are a number of reasons why healthcare is so expensive in the US, but a primary one is that the system simply meekly agrees pays too much for it.
This morning I went to pick up a prescription, but did not do so as my pharmacy told me it would cost $399.
The exact same product can be bought in Europe over the counter for less than $20.
Until greater thought and harder choices are made concerning what healthcare is provided and how much is is paid for it costs will continue to spiral.
Posted by William Occam at 10:09 AM
As per the Daily Mail:
A new graphic video recording has emerged showing a mentally ill Michigan man being shot at 46 times by eight police officers for refusing to drop a penknife during a standoff in 2012.
The killing of Milton Hall, 49, sparked a nationwide outcry and a federal investigation into allegations of police brutality, but the officers in question have been cleared of any wrongdoing.
At the time, Milton's mother, Jewel Hall, described the officers who shot dead her disturbed son as ‘a firing squad dressed in police uniforms.'...
... Jewel Hall has expressed dismay over the fact that after a months-long investigation, the US Department of Justice concluded that the police shooting was not intentional.Not intentional? What does it look like when the police intend to shoot?
Posted by William Occam at 9:21 AM
Monday, October 27, 2014
So as to give some perspective, I'm going to ask readers for their guesses about human behavior before explaining my embarrassment by some of my fellow economists.
Suppose the prices of ladies jewelry rose by 100 percent. What would you predict would happen to sales? What about a 25 or 50 percent price increase? I'm going to guess that the average person would predict that sales would fall.
Would you make the same prediction about auto sales if cars' prices rose by 100 percent or 25 or 50 percent? Suppose that you're the CEO of General Motors and your sales manager tells you the company could increase auto sales by advertising a 100 percent or 50 percent price increase. I'm guessing that you'd fire the sales manager for both lunacy and incompetency.
Let's try one more. What would you predict would happen to housing sales if prices rose by 50 percent? I'm guessing you'd predict a decline in sales. You say, "OK, Williams, you're really trying our patience with these obvious questions. What's your point?"
It turns out that there's a law in economics known as the first fundamental law of demand, to which there are no known real-world exceptions. The law states that the higher the price of something the less people will take of it and vice versa. Another way of stating this very simple law is: There exists a price whereby people can be induced to take more of something, and there exists a price whereby people will take less of something.
Some people suggest that if the price of something is raised, buyers will take more or the same amount. That's silly because there'd be no limit to the price that sellers would charge. For example, if a grocer knew he would sell more -- or the same amount of -- milk at $8 a gallon than at $4 a gallon, why in the world would he sell it at $4? Then the question becomes: Why would he sell it at $8 if people would buy the same amount at a higher price?
There are economists, most notably Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who suggest that the law of demand applies to everything except labor prices (wages) of low-skilled workers. Krugman says that paying fast-food workers $15 an hour wouldn't cause big companies such as McDonald's to cut jobs. In other words, Krugman argues that raising the minimum wage doesn't change employer behavior.
Before we address Krugman's fallacious argument, think about this: One of Galileo's laws says the influence of gravity on a falling body in a vacuum is to cause it to accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second per second. That applies to a falling rock, steel ball or feather. What would you think of the reasoning capacity of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who'd argue that because human beings are not rocks, steel balls or feathers, Galileo's law of falling bodies doesn't apply to them?
Krugman says that most minimum-wage workers are employed in what he calls non-tradable industries -- industries that can't move to China. He says that there are few mechanization opportunities where minimum-wage workers are employed -- for example, fast-food restaurants, hotels, etc. That being the case, he contends, seeing as there aren't good substitutes for minimum-wage workers, they won't suffer unemployment from increases in the minimum wage. In other words, the law of demand doesn't apply to them.
Let's look at some of the history of some of Krugman's non-tradable industries. During the 1940s and '50s, there were very few self-serve gasoline stations. There were also theater ushers to show patrons to their seats. In 1900, 41 percent of the U.S. labor force was employed in agriculture. Now most gas stations are self-serve. Theater ushers disappeared. And only 2 percent of today's labor force works in agricultural jobs. There are many other examples of buyers of labor services seeking and ultimately finding substitutes when labor prices rise. It's economic malpractice for economists to suggest that they don't.
Posted by William Occam at 12:00 PM
Apparently Paul Krugman has weighed in on Amazon and has concluded that it has "too much power".
I just cannot believe progressives are falling into the trap of defending major publishers against Amazon. People like Krugman who bash Amazon are effectively setting themselves up as defenders of a small oligarchy of entrenched publishers who have, until recently, done a very good job of making themselves the sole gatekeeper of who gets into print. Amazon is breaking this age-old system down, in the same way that Uber is challenging taxi cartels and Tesla is challenging traditional auto dealer networks, and giving most everyone access to the book buyer.
The system that Krugman is defending is the system of the 1%. Or 0.1%. The current publishing system benefits about 200 major authors who are in the system and whose work has traditionally been spammed by the large publishers to every bookstore and news outlet. When you walk into an airport book seller, how much diversity of books do you see on the front table? You just know that you are going to see Sue Grafton's "AA is for Aardvark" and Janet Evanovich's "Fabulous Forty-Six". The publishers have risk-return marketing incentives to push the 46th Stephanie Plum novel over trying any new author.
So while the traditional publishers flog the 0.1% of authors, Amazon has empowered 20,000 authors. Those who sell just a few thousand copies (or fewer) of books have found an outlet in Amazon that never existed for them (as disclosure, I am one of those). And writers who distribute mainly through Amazon get a far higher percentage of their book revenues than they ever would get from the traditional publishers.
So Amazon is helping the consumer (lower prices) and 99.9% of authors (better access and higher profits). It is perhaps hurting the top 0.1% and a few century-old entrenched corporations. So what doesn't Krugman like?
Posted by William Occam at 11:52 AM
Friday, October 24, 2014
Posted by William Occam at 7:03 PM
Homeland Security confiscates Royals underwear in Kansas City
Peregrine Honig says she just wanted to help celebrate the hometown team when she designed Lucky Royals boyshorts.
The panties, with “Take the Crown” and “KC” across the bottom, were set to be sold in Honig’s Birdies Panties shop Tuesday. But Homeland Security agents visited the Crossroads store and confiscated the few dozen pairs of underwear, printed in Kansas City by Lindquist Press.
“They came in and there were two guys” Honig said. “I asked one of them what size he needed and he showed me a badge and took me outside. They told me they were from Homeland Security and we were violating copyright laws.”
She thought that since the underwear featured her hand-drawn design that she was safe. But the officers explained that by connecting the “K” and the “C,” she infringed on major league baseball copyright. (The officials involved could not be immediately reached for comment.)
They placed the underwear in an official Homeland Security bag and had Honig sign a statement saying she wouldn’t use the logo.
“We just thought it was something funny we could do,” Honig says of the panties. “But it was so scary.”...I feel safer already
Posted by William Occam at 12:43 PM
Friday, October 17, 2014
In what must have been an awkward moment for everyone involved, President Barack Obama said his credit card was declined at a New York City restaurant last month.
“My credit card was rejected. It turned out I guess I don’t use it enough,” Mr. Obama said....WSJ
Posted by William Occam at 4:04 PM
Charlotte Parker, a teaching assistant who had a torrid 2-year affair with a 14-year-old male pupil, has avoided jail time.
Explaining his decision to issue a suspended sentence, Judge Austin Stotan stated that although the boy was underage, he was a 'willing' participant in the affair: "It seems the victim had explained that he had been seeing the defendant for a period of two years. He understood she was married.For more go here
Posted by William Occam at 1:05 PM
Given anything done by government costs at least twice as much as in the private sector New York City's achievement of spending twice the already stunning amount both LA and Chicago spend per prisoner is truly epic. Well played.
From the New York Times:
Even though the inmate population at Rikers Island has fallen to its lowest level in decades, the amount of money spent to run New York City jails soared to a record $1.1 billion in 2014, according to a new report by the city comptroller. And yet there appears to have been little improvement, with assaults by guards and inmate violence drastically worsening.
The report, which is to be released on Friday, found that the amount spent by the Correction Department per inmate in New York was nearly $100,000 in the city’s 2014 fiscal year, which ended in June. That is 42 percent higher than seven years ago and more than twice the amount spent per inmate by correction departments in other large cities like Chicago and Los Angeles.
During the same period, there was a 124 percent increase in assaults on the staff by inmates at city jails, and triple the number of allegations of use of physical force by guards. The number of city jail guards dropped to 8,922 in 2014, from 9,203 in 2007.Of course instead of spending the already obscene amount NYC takes from taxpayers more wisely DiBlasio et al will look to increase taxes even more as its only "fair".
“These numbers show very clearly that what the Correction Department is doing isn’t working,” the comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, said in an interview on Thursday. “We’re spending more money on inmates and we’re getting worse results.”...
Posted by William Occam at 12:23 PM
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
As per the Daily Mail:
As news helicopters swarmed over Dallas' Love Field this evening to watch the second U.S. nurse to contract Ebola board a private plane bound for Atlanta, one lone man stood out from the pack.
Holding a clipboard and directing the transfer, the unidentified man seemed to be the only person on the tarmac without protective clothing, wearing just a button down shirt and trousers...I'm thinking the NIH should spend less money investigating why 75% of lesbians are overweight and more money explaining to people that a clipboard is not an effective defense against highly contagious deadly diseases
Posted by William Occam at 9:29 PM
Obama thinks your daughter is four times more likely to get raped on campus than graduate summa cum laude
Yesterday 28 Harvard Law School professors expressed their view that Harvard's "sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials".
As per The New Republic it turns out Harvard is not alone. :
This August, Columbia University released a new policy for handling “gender-based” misconduct among students. Since April, universities around the country have been rewriting their guidelines after a White House task force urged them to do more to fight sexual assault. I was curious to know what a lawyer outside the university system would make of one of these codes. So I sent the document to Robin Steinberg, a public defender and a feminist.Given, according to Obama et al, your daughter is four times more likely to get raped on campus than graduate summa cum laude and your son has virtually no civil rights if he is accused of said rape its a wonder anyone voluntarily sends their kids to college anymore.
A few hours later, Steinberg wrote back in alarm. She had read the document with colleagues at the Bronx legal-aid center she runs. They were horrified, she said—not because Columbia still hadn’t sufficiently protected survivors of assault, as some critics charge, but because its procedures revealed a cavalier disregard for the civil rights of people accused of rape, assault, and other gender-based crimes. “We are never sending our boys to college,” she wrote...
Posted by William Occam at 2:45 PM
Posted by William Occam at 12:10 PM
28 professors at Harvard Law School have voiced their "strong objections to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures imposed by the central university administration and the Corporation on all parts of the university, including the law school."
For more go here...We call on the university to withdraw this sexual harassment policy and begin the challenging project of carefully thinking through what substantive and procedural rules would best balance the complex issues involved in addressing sexual conduct and misconduct in our community.The goal must not be simply to go as far as possible in the direction of preventing anything that some might characterize as sexual harassment. The goal must instead be to fully address sexual harassment while at the same time protecting students against unfair and inappropriate discipline, honoring individual relationship autonomy, and maintaining the values of academic freedom. The law that the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have developed under Title IX and Title VII attempts to balance all these important interests. The university’s sexual harassment policy departs dramatically from these legal principles, jettisoning balance and fairness in the rush to appease certain federal administrative officials.We recognize that large amounts of federal funding may ultimately be at stake. But Harvard University is positioned as well as any academic institution in the country to stand up for principle in the face of funding threats. The issues at stake are vitally important to our students, faculties, and entire community...
Posted by William Occam at 11:54 AM
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Remember that whole "Obamacare" will reduce the defict" even though "we have to vote for it before we know what's in it" thingymajig?
Apparently that is not the case:
Analysis of Congressional Budget Office projections by the Senate Budget Committee finds that Obamacare will increase the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade.Reason
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not actually scored the deficit impact of Obamacare since the summer of 2012.
At that time, it estimated that Obamacare would reduce deficits by $109 billion over a decade. But that was for the 2013-22 budgetary window. Using growth rates derived from that estimate, Senate Budget Committee (SBC) staff found that this $109 billion budgetary surplus for 2013-22 would have become a $180 billion budgetary surplus for 2015-24, if nothing had changed in the interim.
Posted by William Occam at 11:20 AM
In August, a troop of Turlock, California, Girl Scouts asked the city council to consider a ban on smoking in public parks. Months of sporadic—and occasionally heated—debate followed. The Scouts said they were seeking the ban, in part, to reduce childrens' exposure to secondhand smoke, though the girls also asked that e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco be included in the ban.
Then, last week, Parks, Recreation & Public Facilities Superintendent Erik Schulze piped up. It turns out smoking in Turlock's public parks has been illegal for more than a decade...
Posted by William Occam at 9:34 AM
Monday, October 13, 2014
From the New York Times editorial board:
...Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs...No word yet on whether the New York Times plans to continue requiring photo ID's from anyone wanting to enter their office buildings.
Posted by William Occam at 10:39 AM