Autonomous Cars

I read a recent article that talked about the virtues of “autonomous cars” and what a brave new world the future would be if only all cars were self controlled.

I started reading the article because the title was intriguing and I was curious why the author choose to use a somewhat obscure word to describe efforts and goals for making cars more self sufficient and ultimately capable of going from point A to point B without any human input.

The planners envision a future with drivers doing office work, reading the news and perhaps even taking a nap while the vehicle does all the work. They tell us that cars will not get into accidents, travel will be more efficient, gas mileage will be better and efficiency will improve.

I see their future dream as one more step towards removing control from the human loop. The futurists who are selling this concept belong to a culture that wants to centralize authority to “those who are more capable than the common man”  and taking the right of each one of us to decide how and in what manner we choose to lead our lives…and knowingly responsible for the results of those decisions.

I know that driving from one place to another is a minor task but I would much rather depend on the awareness of a human being rather than the known fact that electronics fail at the worst possible time, with the worst possible consequences.

As for autonomous cars we already have that capability. If you don’t want to drive you can usually take the bus or hire a taxi.

Just a Thought

We have been on vacation and have little opportunity to update the blog, but the events in Boston have made me think about what constitutes terrorism and who the players are.

I find it most striking that the President can't seem to get energized when he talks about the bombs and the action the government is (should) be taking to find the perpertrators responsible. When he talks I get the feeling that he is bored and uninterested in the subject and is just talking about the problem because it's an expected thing for him to do. I wish I were wrong, but it goes along with his style of government by fiat and demonizing of any one who questions his tactics.

Perhaps he isn't interesting in pursuing the subject of terrorist bombings because his close friend and Chicago mentor, Bill Ayers made his reputation by being a domestic terrorist and is still proud of the actions he took as a younger man. To this day Ayers has refused to do anything other than brag about his history and still considers a bomb to be a political statement.

Since the Presidential thinking is much influenced by the Chicago political code it appears that deep down he doesn't see any problem with terrorism as a political tool.

A Change of Pace

My brother spent several years as a senior manager at Yosemite and I'm sure he saw these scenes every day.

The park is a beautiful place...enjoy the link

                 http://vimeo.com/40802206

The Peter Principle

Two events demonstrate the hubris of the political class in this country. Nancy Pelosi has come out as opposed to the congressional pay cut that is mandated by the administration proposed sequestration as "undermining the dignity of the job". I wonder what the reaction would be if I used that same statement if someone offered me a reduction in salary! Of course her comment comes on the heels of a statement she made last week that the economy was not in trouble because of "overspending", it needed just needed adjusting because of a "budget deficit".

The best illustration of political hubris came while watching the State of the Union dog and pony show. One Australian writer compared the attitude and actions of Mr. Obama to the actions of Captain Queeg in the novel.  "The Caine Mutiny". For those of you who have not read the book it is a beautiful description of a naval officer who has been promoted beyond his level of competence and freezes up when presented with events he has no understanding of or ability to react to. Queeg almost allows his ship to founder when he refuses to take any action other than to repeat previous orders that have proved ineffective during a typhoon.

Faced with what looks like an epic fiscal typhoon Mr. Obama has done nothing at all other than repeating pseudo-Keynesian fiscal mantra that are nothing more than repetition of failed ideas. His inability to recognize the issues his policies have created suggest that he is seriously deficient in mental agility and certainly unwilling to listen to other opinions and suggestions.

Watching him I'm struck by his visible lack of concern and his smug, self evident sense of his own greatness
His programmatic response to the coming debacle is to blame others and to ask for increased taxes on those he calls "the rich". A cursory look at economics reveals, to me, that there are not enough "rich" people to  lower the debt to any measurable extent.

The Laffer Curve, as applied in President Reagan's administration demonstrated quite well that the way to improve the economy and lower the deficit is to lower taxes. But the political class in this country is committed to the idea that only by doing the same failed thing over and over will the economy improve.

That's not economics....that's insanity.

Damn Their Eyes

The past few weeks I've been dealing with insurance problems and I'm becoming expert on the things insurance people can do to keep from paying a claim. Granted the greater proportion of claims are paid in a timely manner but in every industry there are people who seem to delight in making life hard for those they deal with.

The National Flood Insurance Program is a federally mandated and underwritten program that is administered by FEMA who ultimately pay out on all flood damage claims. Commercial insurance companies and local agents write and service flood policies but their risk is minimal and their economic exposure is infinitesimal. Nevertheless I have had scores of people telling me about their issues with the insurance company.

Could you produce a sales receipt for the coach you bought 20 years ago? And if you could find where you had filed that ancient receipt what do you do when all your records were washed away in the flood. But it seeems to be a requirement by some companies that if you can't produce a receipt for every item they will deny the entire claim...until you can prove when you bought and how much you paid for the item.

Then there are the companies that claim that their adjuster, the person who looked at your loss and wrote it up has never sent them the paperwork. Three months later and they never bother to tell you that their agent failed to do his job! And of course there are the companies who just never perform. The client keeps calling and they always tell them "next month" until someone (usually the client) gives up in dispair after using his own funds to pay for repairs the insurance is supposed to cover.

None of this is FEMA's fault, they are depending on the insurance companies to do their job. But when the client is at the end of their tether they usually end up talking to me since I'm usually the first human contact they can reach. I can help, I can refer to higher authority, but I cannot give the people back the time they have lost while waitng for the insurer to do the job in a timely manner.

That's not the worst of the crimes some companies commit. All mortgage companies require that purchesers of property within a defined flood zone have both property and flood insurance in force. It's logical that they want to protect their invesment. On more than one occasion I've been approached by a homeowner who was sold "flood insurance" by their mortgage ccomapany, with the particiption of an insurance company that was nothing more than a declining balance mortgage insurance. After the flood has totaled their home the couple who had been sold "flood insurance", and it said so in bolded letters on the insurance policy get a letter saying that the mortgage on their house had been paid off and that they were responsible for any and all repairs to the house.

Words fail me.

Rights

The great social debate of the day is focused on the right of the people to keep and bear firearms. Some of the people believe that the Second Amendment gives them unfettered right to own rifles, shotguns, pistols and just about any other weapon they desire and to enjoy any and all of the shooting sports. There are also other members of our society that think any kind of "weapon" including a pointed finger should be banned and the user punished.

Obviously the truth of the debate lies somewhere between those two extreme positions. I tend to believe that with few exceptions all qualified citizens have a right to posses and enjoy firearms and I cannot understand the thinking of those who would take away what I believe to be a right. I also believe that if we want to debate the issue all parties need to have a clear understanding of what the word "rights" mean.

To my mind rights can be identified as have either positive or negative positions. If you ask the average person to define the American Bill of Rights they will always identify them as negative rights that are reserved for the people to enjoy and the government is forbidden (and incapable) of taking away from the people.

The people who presently oppose the Second Amendment to the Constitution will loudly identify what they see rights to be. To them a right is a positive obligation of society to all its citizens. The right to an education, food, a job and an income are some of the rights they hold dear. I can't fault their desires, I just find it counter-productive to believe that things that can be achieved by personal effort should be given us by the state. It is society's job to present opportunity to the individual, not give him a handout.

If those rights are so important I believe the reason the writers of the Constitution did not enumerate them is that they saw those rights as a positive value, and one that could only lead to a centralized and controlling government. They had just fought a war and created a new nation over that issue and certainly did not want to create our own monster.

I believe the society and members of those who created our country were far wiser than many of today's society give them credit for. So if you don't mind, I'll stick with the negative values of the Bill of Rights and refuse to "improve" them as some of our politicians want us to do.

Lessons Learned

I've been on deployment with FEMA to the New York area helping people impacted by Super Storm Sandy. The last time I spent more than a day or two in New York was when I was growing up here...and I left the city behind me back in the 50's when I graduated from high school.

Old New York is not the same as when I was growing up and to my jaded eyes all the changes that have occurred are not all for the good. What was once a crowded and congested city is now a grossly crowded and congested assembly of people who seem to have lost all social skills. Manhattan used to be a walkers paradise and people on the street had a an almost ballerina skill in walking crowded streets without colliding. Today when I try to walk the streets it's almost impossible to avoid being run down by pedestrians who bull down the street, focused on their latest electronic toy and seeing neither people, cars or walk lights in their hurry to get elsewhere. The shear number of people concentrated in a small area has destroyed the concept of  "personal space" and the traditional in your face attitude is reflected by personal space becoming a contact sport.

Once out of the city and in my car I get a daily lesson in attitude from my fellow drivers. Speed limits and traffic control devices are there for tourists and I'm sure the horn industry sells lots of replacement horns every day. There are signs on all the highways that tell drivers it's a state law that turn signals must be used when changing lanes. HAH! they only use of turn signal I see is when traffic is jammed up (a common occurrence) and the guy next to you wants to get in the space your car is occupying...and he will do that come what may. About 20 percent of the drivers I see insist on driving with their high beams on and there is nothing that can persuade them to do otherwise. I guess they feel that if they don't blind you, you won't see them trying to occupy your space.

I made a decision many years ago that "elsewhere" was better than New York City and I'm glad I did. I got a wonderful lady, great family and an interesting career after I moved away. I've never looked back, but I also have to say that the xenophobic people who inhabit the region are also up front, outspoken and assertively some of the nicest people you can meet. Once they say hello to your good morning welcome they prove to be social and (almost) polite.

In my dealings with those who were impacted by the storm I've seen a resiliency and a willingness to work towards regaining their fractured lives that I find impressive. I'm still glad I live where I do, but I am impressed by the applicants I work with.