Paul M. Jones

The carriers have access to everything. Phone calls, text messages, search histories, usage histories, locations, elevations, movements over time. As modern people we have mostly chosen to pretend like we aren't aware of how vulnerable we are. But what information have these law enforcement agencies been after?

The companies basically did not say anything about who is requesting what. It could be anything from a 911 operator needing to know the location of an incapacitated caller (scariness quotient: very low) to the FBI wanting to know the call history of a suspected terrorist (scariness quotient: pretty high) to a blanket request from a local police force seeking unwarranted wiretaps (scariness quotient: extremely high). Many of those calls, including the three I just named, can be called "emergency" requests which require no warrant or waiting period.

How many were emergencies? No idea.

Then there were "tower dumps," in which a law enforcement agency makes one request to access all the information from one entire tower. This could allow them access to hundreds or thousands of users. A tower dump, by the way, counts as one of those 1.3 million, even though it affects many, many more.

How many were tower dumps? We wonder.

via In First U.S. Accounting of Wireless Phone Surveillance, Carriers Reveal 1.3 Million Requests For User Data | Popular Science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NfLUCBZ1is&feature=youtu.be

Last week Lake Charles police killed Monkey.

Monkey was a family dog -- a friendly one, by all accounts. Monkey’s picture doesn’t suggest he was particularly intimidating. Granted, in that picture, he’s dead because a police officer has just shot him four times.

Monkey was barking at a policeman who was in his yard -- not by invitation, but because he was chasing a suspect. The policeman, according to a statement, “felt he was being attacked by the dog and was forced to discharge his weapon.”

Police believe that we, the citizenry, should defer to their judgment about when deadly force is warranted. They tell us that they are the thin blue line between us and violent lawlessness.

If the police are afraid of dogs like Monkey, is it even minimally reasonable to accept those propositions?

It is high time that policemen start being held *personally* responsible for their actions. No official immunity. That'll help set up incentives to respect individual rights. Via What Else Are Lake Charles Police Afraid Of? | The Agitator. (For what it's worth: I have friends in Memphis whose daughter was viciously attacked by a dog, and an off-duty policeman who was with them by invitation killed the dog after pulling it off her. He did the right thing. That situation, and this one, are completely different -- be careful not to consider the two as morally equivalent.)

Not sure I buy this, but it's food for thought:

Above a rather modest $34,600 in taxable income and up to around $106,000, the real-world middle class tax burden in high-tax American locales is 75%:

Social Security and Medicare: 15.3%

Federal income tax: 25% (28% above $83,600)

State income tax: 5% (mid-range)

Healthcare insurance: 15%

Property tax: 15%

15% + 25% + 5% + 15% + 15% = 75%

Clearly, the percentage of income devoted to healthcare insurance and property taxes declines as income rises. Someone earning $200,000 has not only dropped the 12.4% Social Security tax for income above $106,000, healthcare insurance and property taxes as a percentage of their income drops from about 30% for those earning around $86,000 to 15%.

We can argue fruitlessly about how many tax angels can dance on the head of a pin, but all the caveats and quibbles don't change the basic fact that real-world tax rate for the "middle class" earning more than $34,500 in taxable income in high-tax locales is a confiscatory 75%.

Please don't tell me the U.S. is a "low-tax" nation; I might suffer a breakdown that I couldn't afford due to exclusions in my "voluntary" healthcare coverage.

via Guest Post: The Real-World Middle Class Tax Rate: 75% | ZeroHedge.

UPDATE (same day):

Per the US Census, the 2006-2010 median household income was $51,914 (in 2010 dollars). There are issues with using household income as a measure, but let's skip that for now.

Income tax is marginal. If you're at the 25% rate, you're only paying on that part of your income in that bracket. The portions of your income in the earlier brackets are taxed at the levels for that bracket. Thus at the 25% rate, you pay in four brackets: 0% of $0-9,500, 10% of $9,501-18,000, 15% of $18,001-44,000, and 25% of $44,001-93,100.

Given the median household income of $51914, the subtotals for the brackets are:

• 0% of $9500 = $0.00
• 10% of $8499 = $849.90
• 15% of $25,999 = $3899.85
• 25% of $7916 = $1979.00

The total income tax paid would be $6728.75, which is 12.96% of $51914.

So, for that income level, the above income tax percentage would be 13%, not 25%, resulting in a total tax percentage of 63% (not 75%). Even so, that's almost 2/3rds of one's income to taxes. That doesn't include sales taxes and other fees.

UPDATE 2:

God only wanted 10%. Hell, even the Joker only wanted half.

When you're a boy, other boys are inclined to follow an informative three-step process upon being factually corrected:

1. Shut up, [insert name].

2. I said, shut up already!

3. (Punch face)

It is a succinct and persuasive method of communication. Pretty much any boy with an IQ over 75 rapidly learns the importance of keeping one's opinion of the factual accuracy of other's statements, however wildly agley they might gang, to oneself. This, like many other examples of of delayed-gratification and long-term thinking, is an important aspect of what is called "civilization".

via Alpha Game: Snippy isn't witty.

Abolish the TSA.

"The water or or the juices or anything you buy here in the airport, TSA is going to come over and look and check and test it? That's just ridiculous," world traveler Thomas Burgard said.

We asked the TSA about the drink testings and they said, "TSA employees have many layers of security throughout airports. Passengers may be randomly selected for additional screening measures at the checkpoint or in the gate at any time."

Passengers we spoke to also said they think the price of drinks are too expensive. If security is going to test them, it should be before they are purchased, so they do not waste their money.

via Passenger could be asked to give drink samples to TSA | News - Home.

Just read the whole thing: PJ Lifestyle » The 7 Most Badass Founding Fathers.

So what's the least-bad answer to the "How come Snooki's big and I'm not" challenge?  Probably: "Because the masses aren't good enough for you."  Millions want to watch eight idiots get drunk in a hot tub.  Only tens of thousands want to watch Emily Whitehurst sing.  The market gives people what they want, not what deserves to be wanted.

via Jersey Shore, Emily Whitehurst, and Merit, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty.

"I’m going to talk today about the economics of medical care. This in an area, in which we all know there has been a trend toward ever-greater government involvement. One step in this area inevitably leads to another. We have had an expansion of government involvement in the spending of money – Medicare, Medicaid funds, expenditures by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for other medical purposes have been growing by leaps and bounds. They have gone from a very tiny portion of the total national expenditures on medical care to a substantial portion. If this trend continues, it inevitably leads to completely socialized medicine. I believe that this trend is very much against the interest of patients, physicians, and other health care personnel. And in the brief time I have to today, I want to explain why I believe the trend is so much against their interest, why it has occurred, and what, if anything can be done about it."

Six videos ensue. Great stuff. Via CARPE DIEM: Milton Friedman's Response to Obamacare? The "Economics of Medical Care" from 1978 at Mayo.

The assumption of natural rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence can be summed up by the following proposition:  “first comes rights, then comes government.”  According to this view: (1) the rights of individuals do not originate with any government, but preexist its formation;  (2) The protection of these rights is the first duty of government; and (3) Even after government is formed, these rights provide a standard by which its performance is measured and, in extreme cases, its systemic failure to protect rights -- or its systematice violation of rights -- can justify its alteration or abolition; (4) At least some of these rights are so fundamental that they are “inalienable,” meaning they are so intimately connected to one’s nature as a human being that they cannot be transferred to another even if one consents to do so.  This is powerful stuff.

Really, read the whole thing. Great stuff. Via The Volokh Conspiracy » The Declaration of Independence Annotated.