Sentencing

Yesterday on the news was the story of Rob Blagojevich, the disgraced governor of Illinois who has been arrested for trying to sell Barack Obama's senate seat. If he is convicted, he could serve as much as 50 years. It seems doubtful that he will serve that much, but why should we lock him up at all?!?

The regular knee-jerk reaction to anybody committing a crime is to "lock 'em up." That has become our definition of punishment. While going to prison is DEFINITELY punishment, it does not seem appropriate to all crimes. In addition, putting everyone in prison has caused the US to have the largest prison population in the world, with 700,000 more people in prison than China (a country with a population 4X greater than the US). According to the federal government, it costs approximately $22,650 per inmate per year. With a total prison population (in 2006) of 2,258,983, that gives us a total cost of approximately $51,165,964,950 PER YEAR!!! (That's over 51 BILLION DOLLARS!!!)

I'm not saying that we should let everyone roam free, but I do think there are a few changes we can make...

1) Mandatory Sentencing. The US Government Sentencing Commission recommends policies to congress on mandatory sentences for certain crimes. Most of these sentences are related to drug charges as part of the War on Drugs. These guidelines often tie judges hands in giving lighter sentences due to mitigating factors. I think it would make far more sense to allow judges to do their jobs and sentence criminal based on the facts of that individual case (using precedent as a guide) instead of blanket rules handed down from congress.

2) Drugs. This is closely related to mandatory sentencing. Why does it makes sense for a guy with a small amount of drugs (a user) to serve prison time? How does putting a whole bunch of druggies together help the situation? It seems that you're just getting drug dealers and users together to network. When they get out, they now have more, easier ways to get drugs. Why not make the punishment fines for very small amounts (recreational users), and counseling for heavier users?

3) White Collar Crimes. Getting back to Blagojevich. This is a guy who wanted to abuse his power for financial gain. It seems a better punishment for this crime would be to fine him and not allow him to hold public office or work in public service, either for a period of time or for life. Instead of this costing tax-payers thousands and thousands of dollars, the government would get money from him and he would lose what he most valued. We need to start looking at more creative punishments that better fit the crime.

All in all, the point I'm trying to make here is this: Let's find a way to punish people in a way that costs the government (and therefore the taxpayer) less money and punishes people in more appropriate ways.

Planetarium Comment

Last night at the presidential debate, John McCain said something that really bothered me. It wasn't the "that guy" comment or anything else they've been talking about on CNN all day. This was the comment:

He voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

Here is a picture of the "overhead projector" he was talking about:

When McCain said $3M for an overhead projector, I bet you thought of this:

Clearly that would have been a huge waste of money, but since we're talking about replacing a 40 year old planetarium projection system, I think it's an amazing way to spend that money.

Both candidates have spent an enormous amount of time talking about how important it is that the US lead the way on finding new ways to harness and capture renewable energy sources.  The only way we're going to be able to do that is with scientists and engineers.  A big part of getting kids to get into math and science fields is by getting them excited by those fields when they're young -- through field trips with school.  A planetarium can be a wonderful way to do that.  $3M is a very reasonable investment to get hundreds of thousands of Chicago kids interested in science.

Here is a comment (PDF) directly from the Adler Plantarium.

Second Amedment

I'm thinking of starting a series of blog entries on hot-button issues and how one (or both) sides get the argument wrong. So often with passionate issues, the arguments become completely ridiculous when there are far more rational, although more complicated, arguments to be made. I'm going to start with gun control.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Most people who are pro-gun (for the lack of a better term), ignore the first clause. It is hard for me to understand how owning a gun for hunting or home protection constitutes a militia and keeps America a free country. The army may be an "Army of One", but you are not a militia of one. I do not accept the argument that freedom includes or requires gun ownership. If that is your argument, why isn't the right to bear heroin or kiddy-porn or napalm necessary to maintain a free country?

There is a much better argument that can be made for gun ownership. I maintain that the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with personal gun ownership, and therefore the constitution makes no case one way or the other concerning guns. When you take the constitutional argument out of it, this can now be left up to states to decide what is best for its citizens. I think using the Constitution as part of your argument is a cop-out. If you believe that you should be allowed to own a gun for home protection or hunting (or home decor), come up with a rational argument for it that doesn't include a document written over 300 years ago that was making reference to being organized against an invading British army. (I don't think Tony Blair or Gordon Brown are going to launch an offensive any time soon)

Without the constitutional crutch, the argument for guns does become a bit more difficult. For example, for hunting, a state could set up rules that allowed only regulated, licensed business to rent out guns for a day or week. This would allow people to hunt but make it impossible for them to have guns in their homes. For home protection, one would have to show statistics for how often guns are successfully used to protect a person or property and compare that to the risks of gun ownership.

What am I missing in these arguments?

Wordle

My Site's Wordle:



Awesome Site: Wordle

Deaths in America

With the recent Salmonella scare in the US, I've been thinking about how scared people get about the different ways they can die. Information seems like the best way to get over some of those fears (and perhaps create some rational ones). People get so worried about eating a tomato, but then go eat a greasy burger. Luckily for us, the US government tracks death rates for all sorts of things. The table below are US death rates (not worldwide).

The percentage in the chart is percentage of total deaths in the US per year. Clearly the numbers will not add up to the total, as I've only included a few of the causes of death for people in the US.

Discuss



References:

1. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/Vol5no5/mead.htm
2. http://www.weather.gov/os/hazstats.shtml
3. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/monthlytornstats.html
4. http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2.htm#tab
5. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm
6. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drown.htm
7. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
8. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#ddaids
9. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
10. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no5/01-0290.htm
11. http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm

Hybrid Purchase Analyzer

I created the following spreadsheet to help people calculate whether getting a new car makes financial sense as it relates to gas savings. The sheet has 2 functions:

1. Based on the value of your current car (resale value, trade-in value, etc.) it will determine how long it will take you to make up the different in value in gas savings
2. It will tell you how long it will take you to pay off the extra cost of a hybrid system (usually about $5,000). It will use the difference in mileage from your current car and the new car to determine your savings.
   

How to use it:

• Fill in all the fields under "Enter Information Here" ONLY. Do not do anything with the "Calculations" field. Your answers will be calculated there.
• The answers that you "care about" will be the last two rows.
• If you have any questions, please leave them as comments.
  

Prices

I've been wondering a lot lately about how airfare and gas prices relate to the increase in other goods over time. My hypothesis was that gas prices are increasing far faster than other goods, and airline ticket prices are increasing much, much slower. The federal government is nice enough to have a whole bunch of websites where you can get this sort of information. With a bit of number crunching and Excel formatting, I created the chart below.

This data came from the following sources:

1. US Department of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/data/
2. US Department of Transportation - Research and Innovative Technology Administration - http://www.rita.dot.gov/
3. US Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration - http://www.eia.doe.gov/

I would be more than happy to share the raw data with anyone who wants it.

Click on the image above to enlarge the chart.

Response from American Airlines

June 12, 2008

Dear Mr. ______:

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate hearing your perspective about the change to our checked baggage policy.

First, allow me to clarify that the $15 fee for one checked bag applies to tickets purchased on or after June 15, 2008. Assessing a fee for checked baggage was a difficult decision but reflects the reality of our business. We are taking direct steps to ensure the long-term success of our company in the face of unprecedented fuel prices and these fees help us to offset the rising costs associated with the transportation of baggage. We hope to have our customers' understanding.

There are some exceptions to the policy. To view the specifics, please go to AA.com and select "All News" from the Home Page and look for "View Updated Checked Bag Policies."

Sincerely,

Kay Farmer
Customer Relations
American Airlines

Senate Intelligence Report

Copied from: http://intelligence.senate.gov

Press Release of Intelligence Committee

Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence

-- Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office --

Contact: Wendy Morigi (202) 224-6101
Thursday, June 5, 2008

Washington, DC -- The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, and a bipartisan majority of the Committee (10-5), today unveiled the final two sections of its Phase II report on prewar intelligence. The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.

“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.

“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.

“These reports represent the final chapter in our oversight of prewar intelligence. They complete the story of mistakes and failures – both by the Intelligence Community and the Administration – in the lead up to the war. Fundamentally, these reports are about transparency and holding our government accountable, and making sure these mistakes never happen again,” Rockefeller added.

The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:

Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

Additionally, the Committee issued a report on the Intelligence Activities Relating to Iraq conducted by the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. The report found that the clandestine meetings between Pentagon officials and Iranians in Rome and Paris were inappropriate and mishandled from beginning to end. Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz failed to keep the Intelligence Community and the State Department appropriately informed about the meetings. The involvement of Manucher Ghobanifer and Michael Ledeen in the meetings was inappropriate. Potentially important information collected during the meetings was withheld from intelligence agencies by Pentagon officials. Finally, senior Defense Department officials cut short internal investigations of the meetings and failed to implement the recommendations of their own counterintelligence experts.

Today’s reports are the culmination of efforts that began in March 2003, when, as Vice Chairman, Senator Rockefeller initially requested an investigation into the origin of the fraudulent Niger documents. In June 2003, he was joined by all Democrats on the Committee in pushing for a full investigation into prewar intelligence, which was eventually expanded by the Committee in February 2004 to include the five phase II tasks.

The Committee released its first report on July 9, 2004, which focused primarily on the Intelligence Community’s prewar assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and links to terrorism. Those findings helped lay the foundation for some of the intelligence reforms enacted into law in late 2004.

In September 2006, the Committee completed and publicly released two sections of Phase II: The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress; and Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments.

In May 2007, the Committee released the third section of Phase II: Prewar Intelligence Assessments About Postwar Iraq.

Separately, in early 2007, the Pentagon Inspector General released its own report on the intelligence activities conducted by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and also concluded that those activities were inappropriate.

###

Letter to American Airlines

June 3, 2008

In regards to: Suggestions/Comments

American Airlines Customer Relations

P.O. Box 619612 MD 2400

DFW Airport, TX 75261-9612

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Airline policies and procedures

As a regular American Airlines traveler, I was unhappy to hear about your new policy to charge $15 for the first checked bag. I was also confused. It seems that while in the short-term this may raise a small amount of money to help cover rising fuel costs, in the long-term, it could very well end up costing you (the airline) even more due to unintended consequences. Also, this per-bag charge doesn't charge people for a convenience; instead you are charging them for a standard service.

From my experience, it seems that a significant cause of flight delays is due to the time it takes to board the plane. Most of that time seems to be spent waiting for people to find space to put their over-sized, rolling bags into the overhead compartment. There is a lot of wasted time waiting for people to find space for their bags and then even more time wasted checking the bags at the gate that don't fit. By adding this per-bag charge, you have now made this problem much, much worse. All passengers will now be trying to carry on all of their luggage and fit it into the overhead. This will increase your fuel costs while you have the planes idling at the gate, it will worsen your on-time percentage, and it will anger and frustrate passengers who have to wait even longer to get on and off the plane.

I have a solution... one that will solve both of these problems: instead of charging for checked luggage, consider charging for any bag that cannot fit under the seat. All carry-on bags MUST be able to fit under the seat in front of the passenger. If they do not fit, the passenger will be charged $15 -- this way they will be paying for the convenience of not waiting for their bag at baggage claim. Passengers would still be able to use the overhead bins for their carry on bags, but if there was no room there, ALL bags could go by their feet. People who really want to get in and out of the airport quickly will pay a fee for it, and the rest of us will be able to get on and off the plane faster. This will greatly speed up boarding times and customer satisfaction

On a separate note, I would like to congratulate you for the new, personalized phone service for AAdvantage customers. I am speaking of the service where the system authenticates you immediately when you call and gives you your flight information. Since this is usually the only thing I call for (especially on my day of travel), it saves me time. Great job!

I hope you consider my suggestion, and I look forward to flying with American again soon.

Sincerely,