Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to each of you and warm wishes for the best year ever in 2011.
Jerrianne Hayslett
Friday, December 24, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Keys to Recovery
Conservative -- truly conservative, not pseudo- or nouveau conservative -- philosophies seem to be the key to the post-recession economic success of metropolitan centers in various parts of the world cited in a Brookings Institution survey, "Global MetroMonitor: The Path to Economic Recovery." Alan Berube, who reported on the survey, discussed it earlier this week on one of my favorite radio programs, "Conversations with Kathleen Dunn" on Wisconsin Public Radio.
Surprisingly, the metropolitan area that topped the list as having the best economy based on employment and production output per capita in the first year after the Great Recession was -- (drum roll) -- Istanbul, Turkey. The best the U.S. did was Austin, TX, which placed 26 (out of a total 150 metropolitan centers worldwide). Next best U.S. metro area was Virginia Beach VA at 36. The criteria were employmennt rates and output per capita.
So, why Istanbul? Two factors, according to Berube.
One is that Istanbul experienced no real estate bubbl. In other words, unlike a number of metro centers such as Las Vegas NV and Dublin, Ireland, that went through huge pre-recession housing booms, Istanbul took a conservative approach during economic good times and didn't overbuild. Both Las Vegas and Dublin were among the top economically successful metro centers pre-recession, and both were on the bottom post-recession.
The other is that its banks also took a conservative approach in their operations. They didn't engage in exotic "investiment instruments" such as credit-default swaps and other complex derivatives. As a result, when the financial world began to teeter on the brink of collapse banks in other parts of the world that did trade in such risky behavior parked a large amount of their assets in the safe havens of Istanbul banks, which enriched the Istanbul metro region.
Other metropolitan areas that ranked well in the first post-recession year are in Asia and Latin America. Lima, Peru; Rio de Janiero, Brazil, and Singapore, for instance.
Some common denominators among the successful metropolitan centers include low tolerance for corruption, not engaging in war and having a strong manufacturing base.
All three reflect conservative values, i.e.
(1) not liberally engaging in or condoning corruption;
(2) being very conservative about attacking and/or declaring war on another country;
(3) hanging onto and being very reluctant to and frugal about outsourcing jobs -- especially manufacturing jobs -- to other countires.
Berube quoted a Brazilian official he talked to about the Brookings report as saying, "We would rather go to our beautiful sun-drenched beaches than go to war."
One of the top metro centers, Shenzhen, China, Berube mentioned was a little fishing village of 25,000 in 1980 and is now a major manufacturing center and container-ship port of 10 million people. Manufacturing, according to Berube, isn't the end all for places like Shenzhen, but a foundation that is the basis for growth into modern technological industry such as telecommuncations.
In contrast, places such as Las Vegas that are consumption dependent with the majority of jobs in the service, hospitality and housing development wound up in the bottom of the rankings.
I'm on Twitter @jerrianneh
Surprisingly, the metropolitan area that topped the list as having the best economy based on employment and production output per capita in the first year after the Great Recession was -- (drum roll) -- Istanbul, Turkey. The best the U.S. did was Austin, TX, which placed 26 (out of a total 150 metropolitan centers worldwide). Next best U.S. metro area was Virginia Beach VA at 36. The criteria were employmennt rates and output per capita.
So, why Istanbul? Two factors, according to Berube.
One is that Istanbul experienced no real estate bubbl. In other words, unlike a number of metro centers such as Las Vegas NV and Dublin, Ireland, that went through huge pre-recession housing booms, Istanbul took a conservative approach during economic good times and didn't overbuild. Both Las Vegas and Dublin were among the top economically successful metro centers pre-recession, and both were on the bottom post-recession.
The other is that its banks also took a conservative approach in their operations. They didn't engage in exotic "investiment instruments" such as credit-default swaps and other complex derivatives. As a result, when the financial world began to teeter on the brink of collapse banks in other parts of the world that did trade in such risky behavior parked a large amount of their assets in the safe havens of Istanbul banks, which enriched the Istanbul metro region.
Other metropolitan areas that ranked well in the first post-recession year are in Asia and Latin America. Lima, Peru; Rio de Janiero, Brazil, and Singapore, for instance.
Some common denominators among the successful metropolitan centers include low tolerance for corruption, not engaging in war and having a strong manufacturing base.
All three reflect conservative values, i.e.
(1) not liberally engaging in or condoning corruption;
(2) being very conservative about attacking and/or declaring war on another country;
(3) hanging onto and being very reluctant to and frugal about outsourcing jobs -- especially manufacturing jobs -- to other countires.
Berube quoted a Brazilian official he talked to about the Brookings report as saying, "We would rather go to our beautiful sun-drenched beaches than go to war."
One of the top metro centers, Shenzhen, China, Berube mentioned was a little fishing village of 25,000 in 1980 and is now a major manufacturing center and container-ship port of 10 million people. Manufacturing, according to Berube, isn't the end all for places like Shenzhen, but a foundation that is the basis for growth into modern technological industry such as telecommuncations.
In contrast, places such as Las Vegas that are consumption dependent with the majority of jobs in the service, hospitality and housing development wound up in the bottom of the rankings.
I'm on Twitter @jerrianneh
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Instead of "His" and "Her" planes ...
My friend Jack Lohman, who publishes an enewsletter, "Throw the Rascals Out," http://www.throwtherascalsout.org/ and a Weblog, "Moneyed Politicians," http://moneyedpoliticians.net/resources/ offered his own thoughts on the more stringent TSA measures. Here's the beginning of his blog post on the subject:
TSA: Do you prefer Groping or Xray?
Or, why do we need this in the first place?
By Jack E. Lohman
The pragmatic side asks: Read more at: http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2010/12/03/tsa-do-you-prefer-groping-or-xray/
And one of his readers had this to say:
First, the 9/11 events were not security lapses, so much as operational ones. All airlines policy on hijacking was to take the hijacker whereever he wanted to go. Cooperate. Had the airlines had a policy to resist (I know personally a pilot or two that will resist, no matter what) the 9/11 hijackings would have ended right now. All the pilot had to do was shove the yoke down to generate a negative G or so–putting anyone not strapped in on the ceiling, then yank it up to go positive a couple G’s. all those on the ceiling hit the floor with a serious thud. Couple of cycles of this and anyone not in their seat is dead of a broken neck. Pilot tells everyone to strap in–you better do so.
Now–some knowledgeable person is going to point out that trasnport aircraft are not certified for negative G maneuvers–and they would be right. But–the airframe has considerable safety margin in it–the wings are not going to come off. They have to be designed for inadvertent negative loading–turbulence., etc.
Second, your comment is not at all flippant. If we simply turned the airline security over to the airlines–along with a trebled damages provision–and let them do what they want they would take care of security far more efficiently. El Al’s security is oft cited–note it is El Al’s–not Israel’s. Airline A–pay them for a background check; they put your retina on file–you walk on, no checks at all. Don’t have your retina on file–get ready for the rubber gloves. Airline B (the one I would probably ride) hands all passengers a small baseball bat as they get on board. Don’t want to be on an airplane with baseball bat armed people? Don’t fly Airline B. Airline C doesn’t accept women in a burka–or anyone in a burka–who can tell. Fine– Airline D offers them a special deal.
My guess–we would both be a hell of a lot safer and a hell of a lot less inconvenienced.
OK, this is about it on the subject of TSA security procedures -- unless something else pops up.
Next, I plan to offer a couple of truly conservative suggestions on how Wisconsin can reduce spending, possibly enough to balance its budget -- unless something else pops up.
I'm on twitter @jerrianneh
By Jack E. Lohman
“So let’s give passengers a choice: between a “total security plane” and a “zero security plane.” Take your pick, if you can find a pilot for the latter.”
That’s the flippant side of me.The pragmatic side asks: Read more at: http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2010/12/03/tsa-do-you-prefer-groping-or-xray/
And one of his readers had this to say:
First, the 9/11 events were not security lapses, so much as operational ones. All airlines policy on hijacking was to take the hijacker whereever he wanted to go. Cooperate. Had the airlines had a policy to resist (I know personally a pilot or two that will resist, no matter what) the 9/11 hijackings would have ended right now. All the pilot had to do was shove the yoke down to generate a negative G or so–putting anyone not strapped in on the ceiling, then yank it up to go positive a couple G’s. all those on the ceiling hit the floor with a serious thud. Couple of cycles of this and anyone not in their seat is dead of a broken neck. Pilot tells everyone to strap in–you better do so.
Now–some knowledgeable person is going to point out that trasnport aircraft are not certified for negative G maneuvers–and they would be right. But–the airframe has considerable safety margin in it–the wings are not going to come off. They have to be designed for inadvertent negative loading–turbulence., etc.
Second, your comment is not at all flippant. If we simply turned the airline security over to the airlines–along with a trebled damages provision–and let them do what they want they would take care of security far more efficiently. El Al’s security is oft cited–note it is El Al’s–not Israel’s. Airline A–pay them for a background check; they put your retina on file–you walk on, no checks at all. Don’t have your retina on file–get ready for the rubber gloves. Airline B (the one I would probably ride) hands all passengers a small baseball bat as they get on board. Don’t want to be on an airplane with baseball bat armed people? Don’t fly Airline B. Airline C doesn’t accept women in a burka–or anyone in a burka–who can tell. Fine– Airline D offers them a special deal.
My guess–we would both be a hell of a lot safer and a hell of a lot less inconvenienced.
OK, this is about it on the subject of TSA security procedures -- unless something else pops up.
Next, I plan to offer a couple of truly conservative suggestions on how Wisconsin can reduce spending, possibly enough to balance its budget -- unless something else pops up.
I'm on twitter @jerrianneh
Monday, December 6, 2010
A Taste of TSA's Medicine
A former flight attendant I know agreed with me when I shared with her my feelings about the new TSA passenger-screening procedures. She felt equally outraged. But she went further. She had an idea that would help matters, if not eliminate the intrusiveness and loss of privacy and dignity.
TSA training should include practicing theirfull-body scans and "pat-down" procedures on each other. Then after they've got a good dose of what it's like to have the interior of their underwear searched, the next step in their training should be to practice on TSA managment.
At the very least, she said, they would be more sensitive on the job with the real thing -- or things.
Or, I thought, they might find another -- more effective and less intimate -- way to screen for wanna-be terrorists
TSA training should include practicing theirfull-body scans and "pat-down" procedures on each other. Then after they've got a good dose of what it's like to have the interior of their underwear searched, the next step in their training should be to practice on TSA managment.
At the very least, she said, they would be more sensitive on the job with the real thing -- or things.
Or, I thought, they might find another -- more effective and less intimate -- way to screen for wanna-be terrorists
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Protecting America in Perspective
For most of my adult life, I haven't been particularly prudish about what I wear. In fact, as a late-20s-something I modeled a pretty skimpy swimsuit at a mixed-company fashion show, and as a mid-lifer living in Southern California was a backyard sunbather wearing equally brief attire. And, while not immune from the sags and bags of age creep, things for now remain in pretty fair shape considering the mileage and years.
But I have become increasingly conservative about keeping more and more of me under wraps. No more short shorts, plunging necklines or strapless tops. And the last swimsuit I bought has a skirt on it like the kind old women wore when I was a kid. (I wore this suit a few of times to the pool at the hotel where I lived when working in Indonesia a couple of years ago. Sure felt weird having all that fabric ballooning out around me as I descended into the water, but it did cover up some less eye-appealing areas.)
Maybe that's why I recoil and mentally hug protective arms around myself at the idea of an airport virtual strip search or intimate body probe. I travel a fair amount -- maybe a dozen or so times a year by air -- and have been wanded a couple of times and patted down once when I set off the magnetometer. That was, "patted," not "probed" or "felt up" and didn't feel like I was being molested.
But when the body scanners and "advanced pat downs" became policy earlier this year, I swore off flying -- at least for the time being. (I felt safe doing so since I didn't have any flights scheduled or trips on the horizon that would require air travel.)
As public ire has spiked with the increasingly intrusive and privacy-invading procedures, I've come down pretty much on the side of the "If you touch my junk" dude in San Diego and others who have raged over what seems to be outrageously intrusive "patting."
Anecdotes such as the man with a bladder problem whose urostomy bag was punctured in a too-aggresive search leaving him to travel in his urine-soaked clothing, and the woman who was told to remove her post-cancer surgery prothetic breast were bad enough. Then there was the account I read a couple of days ago about a woman who had her panty liner examined.
On the other side are those who think safety should come first and are glad for the peace of mind that a plane they're on won't be blown up.
But just how effective are these new TSA measures? Some reports say not only are they not particularly effective -- that the underwear bomber's device wouldn't have been detected -- but that they are used only at U.S. airports. (A few years after U.S. airport security started requiring passenger-shoe removal in reaction to the so-called "shoe-bomber," I went through security at an airport in Germany. As I reached down to take my shoes off, the guard said, "You do not need do that. You are not in the U.S.")
Another recent report pointed out that intelligence agents and observant passengers, not TSA guards, have detected the few wanna-be bombers that have surfaced in this country since 9/11.
While the loss of 2,973 lives in the 9/11 attacks was horrific and tragic, that number pales in comparison to the 42,196 lives reflected in traffic-fatality statistics that same year. Of those, 17,400 were alcohol related.
As great as the loss of 2,973 lives on 9/11 was, not one life has been lost in the U.S. in a terrorist attack since then. Yet 327,433 mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, husbands, wives and other loved ones have been killed in traffic collisions since then (through 2009). Those lives were just as precious, just as loved and are just as missed as those lost on 9/11. And approximately 40 percent of those traffic deaths were alcohol related. Yet, the U.S. government has undertaken nothing that even begins to approximate the scale of attention, effort, expense and manpower, or created the degree of public consternation that 9/11 prompted.
Why is that? Because the 9/11 deaths occurred enmass? Because they were perpetrated by foreigners, or even worse, by Arabs? Because driving is an "inalienable" right? (Well, isn't flying, too?) Because when we drive, we feel like we're more in control? (Really?)
Why, given the enormity of carnage caused on the nation's highways and byways by alcohol-related traffic collisions alone, aren't we taking similar preventative measures as the TSA is doing to avert death-by-terrorist in the skies?
A parallel would be for every driver to be subjected to a sobriety test every time we get in our cars and prepare to enter a public roadway, and to have our cell phones, PDA's and other attention-distracting devices confiscated.
Ridiculous? Impractical? Too expensive? Unreasonable search and seizure?
No more, to my mind, than what's happening in our airports in reaction to what is a fraction of American air-travel deaths compared to those that occur on the ground.
But, shouldn't the U.S. government undertake measures to mitigate air-travel attacks? Certainly. What I question is the effectiveness, cost and practicality of the escalation of inspecting each individual passenger, particularly since each escalation is reactive, not proactive and when the U.S. is the only country doing so. Perhaps America should swallow some of its national huberis and seriously examine effective measures other countries have adoped.
I also question the great focus on -- and harassment of -- people who travel by air, when non-passenger-related cargo (i.e. other than checked passenger luggage) that's loaded onto the same planes as passengers is not similarly inspected.
Too costly. Not feasible. Those are two of the reasons I've heard. My suspicion is it's because, for the most part, that cargo is shipped by companies and corporations and the government is loathe to inconvenience or rile the moneyed business sector.
Money can generally be found at the root of most, if not all, political and business decisions. "Follow the money" used to be an axiom of good jounalism, which seems to have become as antiquated as shoe buttons. If that were still practiced, someone would have reported weeks, if not months, ago on how much former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff has benefitted financially from the sale of the so-called "full-body scanners" for U.S. airport use. Upwards of 1,000 are reportedly projected to be bought and installed. Rapiscan, a maker of these scanners, is a client of Chertoff's Chertoff Group, which has been touring the country, championing Rapiscan scanners.
Someone recently coined the term "security theater" for what we've seen happening in the airport-security arena. The measures might not be particularly effective, but they do make the government look like it is doing something, and it's certainly enhancing the bottom line of at least one segment of corporate America.
But I have become increasingly conservative about keeping more and more of me under wraps. No more short shorts, plunging necklines or strapless tops. And the last swimsuit I bought has a skirt on it like the kind old women wore when I was a kid. (I wore this suit a few of times to the pool at the hotel where I lived when working in Indonesia a couple of years ago. Sure felt weird having all that fabric ballooning out around me as I descended into the water, but it did cover up some less eye-appealing areas.)
Maybe that's why I recoil and mentally hug protective arms around myself at the idea of an airport virtual strip search or intimate body probe. I travel a fair amount -- maybe a dozen or so times a year by air -- and have been wanded a couple of times and patted down once when I set off the magnetometer. That was, "patted," not "probed" or "felt up" and didn't feel like I was being molested.
But when the body scanners and "advanced pat downs" became policy earlier this year, I swore off flying -- at least for the time being. (I felt safe doing so since I didn't have any flights scheduled or trips on the horizon that would require air travel.)
As public ire has spiked with the increasingly intrusive and privacy-invading procedures, I've come down pretty much on the side of the "If you touch my junk" dude in San Diego and others who have raged over what seems to be outrageously intrusive "patting."
Anecdotes such as the man with a bladder problem whose urostomy bag was punctured in a too-aggresive search leaving him to travel in his urine-soaked clothing, and the woman who was told to remove her post-cancer surgery prothetic breast were bad enough. Then there was the account I read a couple of days ago about a woman who had her panty liner examined.
On the other side are those who think safety should come first and are glad for the peace of mind that a plane they're on won't be blown up.
But just how effective are these new TSA measures? Some reports say not only are they not particularly effective -- that the underwear bomber's device wouldn't have been detected -- but that they are used only at U.S. airports. (A few years after U.S. airport security started requiring passenger-shoe removal in reaction to the so-called "shoe-bomber," I went through security at an airport in Germany. As I reached down to take my shoes off, the guard said, "You do not need do that. You are not in the U.S.")
Another recent report pointed out that intelligence agents and observant passengers, not TSA guards, have detected the few wanna-be bombers that have surfaced in this country since 9/11.
While the loss of 2,973 lives in the 9/11 attacks was horrific and tragic, that number pales in comparison to the 42,196 lives reflected in traffic-fatality statistics that same year. Of those, 17,400 were alcohol related.
As great as the loss of 2,973 lives on 9/11 was, not one life has been lost in the U.S. in a terrorist attack since then. Yet 327,433 mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, husbands, wives and other loved ones have been killed in traffic collisions since then (through 2009). Those lives were just as precious, just as loved and are just as missed as those lost on 9/11. And approximately 40 percent of those traffic deaths were alcohol related. Yet, the U.S. government has undertaken nothing that even begins to approximate the scale of attention, effort, expense and manpower, or created the degree of public consternation that 9/11 prompted.
Why is that? Because the 9/11 deaths occurred enmass? Because they were perpetrated by foreigners, or even worse, by Arabs? Because driving is an "inalienable" right? (Well, isn't flying, too?) Because when we drive, we feel like we're more in control? (Really?)
Why, given the enormity of carnage caused on the nation's highways and byways by alcohol-related traffic collisions alone, aren't we taking similar preventative measures as the TSA is doing to avert death-by-terrorist in the skies?
A parallel would be for every driver to be subjected to a sobriety test every time we get in our cars and prepare to enter a public roadway, and to have our cell phones, PDA's and other attention-distracting devices confiscated.
Ridiculous? Impractical? Too expensive? Unreasonable search and seizure?
No more, to my mind, than what's happening in our airports in reaction to what is a fraction of American air-travel deaths compared to those that occur on the ground.
But, shouldn't the U.S. government undertake measures to mitigate air-travel attacks? Certainly. What I question is the effectiveness, cost and practicality of the escalation of inspecting each individual passenger, particularly since each escalation is reactive, not proactive and when the U.S. is the only country doing so. Perhaps America should swallow some of its national huberis and seriously examine effective measures other countries have adoped.
I also question the great focus on -- and harassment of -- people who travel by air, when non-passenger-related cargo (i.e. other than checked passenger luggage) that's loaded onto the same planes as passengers is not similarly inspected.
Too costly. Not feasible. Those are two of the reasons I've heard. My suspicion is it's because, for the most part, that cargo is shipped by companies and corporations and the government is loathe to inconvenience or rile the moneyed business sector.
Money can generally be found at the root of most, if not all, political and business decisions. "Follow the money" used to be an axiom of good jounalism, which seems to have become as antiquated as shoe buttons. If that were still practiced, someone would have reported weeks, if not months, ago on how much former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff has benefitted financially from the sale of the so-called "full-body scanners" for U.S. airport use. Upwards of 1,000 are reportedly projected to be bought and installed. Rapiscan, a maker of these scanners, is a client of Chertoff's Chertoff Group, which has been touring the country, championing Rapiscan scanners.
Someone recently coined the term "security theater" for what we've seen happening in the airport-security arena. The measures might not be particularly effective, but they do make the government look like it is doing something, and it's certainly enhancing the bottom line of at least one segment of corporate America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)