BAIL BONDS

Governor Moon Beam first proposed elimination of the bail bond system in his 1979 inauguration speech. I wonder how many more lifetimes he will lead matters in such an important state.

The new system would allow judges to rate criminals and determine if they should stay in jail. If you have a serious felony, like third offense DUI or murder, you're going to stay put, I guess. Others, let 'em go.

Right now, the system acts as insurance that the offender will show up for their court date. If not, the bail agent is out his money (less the fees that are about 10% of the bond). Bond agents are not fond of forking over money because some knucklehead decided to skip, so they find them and drag them to court.

There are about 3,200 bail agents in California (and I would expect some support people?) and in 2014 they collected about $308 million in fees or roughly $100,000 average per agent. Take out all your expenses for rent, licenses (about $1,000 per after all included) and chasing down skips and it is a job, but not a great job.

Not only will the state lose the taxes, etc on the $300 million, implementation of the program is expected to cost $200 million per year. When was the last time a government project came in under budget?

The current system has faults. Seems like for a net cost to the state's economy in excess of half billion dollars (not counting the multiplier of economic activity), seems like some reforms might have been considered?

The ACLU was in favor, now not. Part of their perpetual employment plan.

Now, as you all know, I pretty much know nothing about bail bonds and have so far in my 73 years avoided needing one. Which is a pretty good thing because I can't remember phone numbers, even the simple ones that are plastered on the placards for these guys. But what a world we live in--I can opine about this stuff with not the foggiest idea of what I'm doing, sort of like a CNN correspondent.

SCHOOL BOMBING...A DIFFERENT TWIST

It was about this time of year, late August 1950.  My family, the four of us, were hot, tired and stuffed in the non-air-conditioned cab of the 1949 Chevy farm truck on our way back from a horse show on a Sunday afternoon when a neighbor stopped us on the road, leaned out of his car window and told us the “school blew up.”  The “school” was the one my grandfather, my father and my brother had attended and the one that I was scheduled to go to, Nance County District 12, “Big Cut.” And I was going to start school the very next day.

The school had been remodeled during the summer, the barn that provided shelter for students’ horses was torn down and a new propane-fired furnace and water heater were installed supplied by a large tank located a few yards away from the building. It was a one-room school house and the new appliances, along with indoor plumbing, were located in a new basement that was a major part of the remodel.  The propane was carried to the basement using soft copper pipe.  Ah-ha!  We have discovered a problem.  Soft copper is not approved for that application by building codes, for good reason.

There was a leak, propane being heavier than air pooled in the new basement and when the pump for the water well kicked on, the spark ignited the propane. There was an explosion and fire, but it did not burn the building down, just blew the ends out, charred the whole interior and caused the building to have a unique smell that never went away. It was eventually destroyed, ironically enough, by an arson fire when my niece and nephew were students there many years later.

The talk of the neighborhood was, naturally, how the accident might have happened 24 hours later and the kids would have been wiped out or maimed.  The location of the tank was also questioned, but was not a true issue.  As it was, we were shuffled off to start our school year at an abandoned house nearby.  During those years, it was poor and dry and abandoned houses were plentiful as families picked up and moved to California.

Horse shows were pretty common.  We already had the horses, it was entertainment and it was cheap.  Besides, you could be home in time to do the milking in the late afternoon, so it all worked out.  The “cheap” part was a significant motivation—we weren’t exactly poor, but one of the memories of my childhood is that there wasn’t much money.

When Nebraska was surveyed and laid out, the land was divided into “sections,” (squares with one-mile sides, 640 acres).  The sections were usually divided by roads and several sections would then comprise a township.  The next larger entity would be the county.  Nebraska has 93, Iowa 99, for instance.  Unlike the states in the East, the Midwest is characterized by these grids aligned to the cardinal compass points.  Factoid: Delaware has 3 counties and as far as I can tell, no roads that are straight.  The streets in Omaha are an illustration of this process as the major streets are one mile apart so that 60^th Street was a “mile road” at one time, 72^nd Street is the next and so on. Notice they are 12 streets apart each block 1/12 of a mile.

The townships had several acres set aside for schools and “Big Cut” was situated on one of those reserves across the road from the corner of our farm.  To my knowledge, none of those one-room schools survive with the possible exception of a few in the Sandhills.

My first back-to-school event would forever have an unusual twist.

DECLINING BIRTH RATES

I have been observing (ok, a lot of it looks like complaining) that when I stayed with my two granddaughters in South Dakota in May and my granddaughter in Denver in June, child care on a regular basis is exhausting. We keep the two and one-half year-old grandson in Va Beach on a regular basis, usually once a week. Yep, a lot of work.

The other observation I made, though, is the way bonding plays into the equation. Talk about a tough job you love! And before the trips, I wanted to talk to and see the little ones, but I didn’t have that yearning that was enhanced with bonding.

Preface all this with a comment I have heard many times, but it was repeated recently and goes something like this: “I don’t see how they do it. Having and caring for those kids is impossibly difficult.”

When I was first married and had children, I was 24 and far too young to know or even think about the challenges. We had no money, no support. It had to be harder on my wife, the mother, than it was on me, but I was working an average of 2 to 3 jobs just to have enough money to buy food. Many of you can endorse my statement that it is a huge challenge that is made even more difficult when you’re poor.

Summarizing the articles: Agreed upon: a birth rate of about 2.12 is necessary to replace the current population. The current US birthrate is in the 1.7 range and declining.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/upshot/american-fertility-is-falling-short-of-what-women-want.html

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/21/hat-looks-good-slug-birth-rates-us-falling-reasons-why-family-policies

NYT—the American fertility rate is declining, blame increased use of contraceptives and especially Long-acting contraceptives (LARCS) and millennials are not having sex as much. They used an excellent phrase for cell phones as one of the culprits—“get-out-of-human-interaction free devices.” Then concluded that the biggest drop in fertility was in the western states.

COMMENT:  Without some explanation, what does it matter what state has the most or least fertility? So, Mississippi is the only state to increase. Aren’t there some other factors at work rather than your time zone? How about race? How about income?

THE GUARDIAN (US Edition)—pretty simple conclusion: The reason fertility is declining and so far below replacement in the US is because the US is a terrible place and an even worse place to have and raise a child. OK. ?? Well, if that conclusion is true, why is the birth date declining similarly among the Swedes in Sweden, a paradise according to The Guardian? Back up on that statement—the birth rate is low for Swedes, but the immigrants and especially the immigrants have much higher birth rates. For that paper, though, don’t bother me with those kinds of facts—the US is a horrible place.

Now, wasn’t that helpful?

I’ll give you another scenario that is POWERFUL!! Say that you are a rational, highly-educated, single, 28-year-old woman with a good job. You are old enough and have enough experience to know (not just suspect, but KNOW) that having and raising a child is difficult work, risky and expensive. More kids? = More work. Hmmmm. “I think I’ll wait until Prince Charming drops around.” Completely true and completely rational thinking. But it is absent the love and bonding component. As it should be. You can’t love and bond with a Prince Charming who seems to love his horse too much or for children who are yet to be born.

My generation just went ahead and got married and blundered into parenthood. The apprehension of this generation is warranted, but it is also going to cause a huge change in the civilization going forward. The people who are educated and wealthy are going to dwindle and become less of a voting force, and the uneducated and jobless are going to run out of people to provide for them…and their larger than average number of children. Whoa, there are some words that can’t be published—not PC.

Interesting set of decades coming up.

A DAY AT THE MUSEUM

They flew the 1944 FM-2 Wildcat yesterday at the Military Aircraft Museum. That sound. Wow, that sound.

A special person came to hear it. A WWII vet, he parachuted into France with the 101st Airborne on D-Day, June 6, 1944. He went on to be in the Siege of Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge.

Let's say he was 18 when that happened, he would be in his 90's now. Can you imagine the flutter in his tummy when he heard that 9-cylinder radial engine make pass after pass over the crowd of over 500?

Given the weather the day before, the scheduled return of the P-51 Mustang was delayed so the crowd witnessed that beautiful bird and its distinctive Rolls-Royce V-12 Merlin engine as it came home.

Every weekend during the summer, weather permitting, the museum flies one or more of the War Birds. There are over 60 and most of them are airworthy.

Maybe it will be the Hawker Hurricane, flying in the livery of  Kenneth Haviland, the only American RAF pilot who flew in the Battle of Britain and survived the war. Or the PBY 5A Catalina, the flying boat that can stay aloft without refueling in excess of 24 hours. Maybe the first acquisition of the museum's owner, the Curtiss-Wright P-40E that was rescued as a box of junk parts and emerged with the famous shark mouth of the Flying Tigers.

I'm not qualified like the docents who have tons of information and stories about the aircraft and the museum's celebration of the first 50 years of flight, but I get this "feeling" when I go there. Something about how different the world would have been.

And then to see one of the Greatest Generation, in person. And experience that sound.

KAMALA HARRIS

OK, here's one to remember and learn how to pronounce. Vegas says she is the most likely Democratic candidate for President in 2020. And Wikipedia (source of all knowledge) says it is KAH-mele (and those e's are each a schwa so it rhymes with mullah)

What does she do now? US Senator from California, succeeding Barbara Boxer (you didn't think they could get worse?)

What will she do? If elected, the potential is unbounded, but a "Jubilee" is a likely scare. That would be forgiveness of debt, and the targets include forgiveness of student loans and about $1 trillion of credit card debt. You might ask yourself, who's to pay for this?

The answer? Surely not the bulk of Democratic voters.

Here it is, the end of July and you ran out of things to worry about. Glad I could help.

THE EVIL EMPIRE

If I were the evil empire, I would try to deflect attention. Like make people think that Russian is the enemy.

Well, Russia is AN enemy...but let's take a look:

• Russia is not the USSR
• They have less than 150 million people
• China has ten (think about it) ten times as many people
• Russia has a social problem, it has 11 million more women than men
• Why? Because the men are alcoholic and die early
• China has paid attention to infra-structure for decades

Sure, Russia is a nuclear power, but they are the paper tiger that Khrushchev called us. They do not have the power they once had, regardless of their lawless acquisition of part of Ukraine.

President Trump is an expert at deflection. He uses it all the time, so he recognizes it when he sees it. The press, bless their pointed heads, is just not very bright.

Who is the "evil empire" in this scenario? I don't think there is one. The Chinese are the logical target, but they have thousands of years of experience behind them and they are not going to act like rookies in this. 

I don't think there is one, unless it is ourselves. Looking at the current landscape, it is hard to decide if we aren't our own best enemies?

Trump can behave poorly. Call me Mr. Obviousman. When I was in the Army, we used to discuss the mistake of "stepping on our own unit." As painful as that could be, it is common, and it is something that Trump may accomplish. Hope not.

Let's keep our vision, voters. The Libtards will be out in force!! Don't let the media push us around.

 

 

NATO

This is a copy of an email I sent to a friend who is a graduate of the US Naval Academy, a retired F-18 pilot who spent the last two years of his career working with NATO.

My email will be last. His, the significant part, is first.

Subject: Re: NATO

Date: 2018-06-13 09:06

From: Monty

To: Bob Peterson <rpeterson@nbbcompany.com>

Bob,

The only real metric the NATO nations have agreed to is to spend a

minimum of 2% of their GDP on defense with 20% of that spent on

equipment. As of Mid 2017, 6 of the 29 NATO member nations meet or

exceed the 2% threshold. They are US, Greece, the UK, Estonia, Poland

and just recently Romania. Greece probably only makes it because they

essentially have no GDP.  All the other NATO nations have been under the

2% number for .... well, pretty much as far back as I know. As of 2016,

the U.S. Spends 3.3% of our GDP on defense (which is down from 8.4% in

1960) but since our GDP is so much bigger than other countries, we carry

the lions share of the effort.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

 I can understand how those nations would say there's been no real

threat. But now that the Russians are scary again, the chickens are

coming home to roost. The effect of those nations spending below the 2%

target is also a cumulative one. There are many necessary supporting

capabilities that only the U.S. can provide in any significant numbers.

Some examples include Aerial refueling, airborne electronic attack,

heavy sea lift, heavy air lift. There's also a capacity gap outside the

U.S. because the other nations simply haven't purchased enough "stuff."

The result of this is that if 28 of the 29 NATO nations decided they

wanted to get together and do an offensive (or in many cases defensive)

operation without the U.S., they would be unable to except in certain

rare circumstances because they need capabilities only the U.S. has

because they have been unwilling to pay for those capabilities

themselves. The longer the gap in spending exists, the larger the

deficits in capabilities and capacity become.

Now, to be fair, 100% of U.S. defense spending counts toward the 3.3% of

GDP and we don't use all of our capabilities in Europe. We have a large

puddle to our West to contend with, too. That being said, our

capabilities are, for the most part, mobile and can be moved to Europe

for use if necessary.

Trump does have a tendency to play fast and loose with facts. However,

the only real difference from previous presidents vis-a-vis NATO is that

he's been much more willing to take the other nations to task for under

spending on their own defense. That has allowed them some leeway in

creating their socialist paradises because they've been able to redirect

defense spending toward social programs. They would certainly either

have to spend less on something, have even higher taxes, or borrow more

money to pay for defense spending if they had to defend themselves

without the shield of U.S. military strength. That statement is up for

some debate (but not really), but Trump has been much stronger about

saying it.

Yes, I was just Monty for most of my career. I had a short stint as Data

but it didn't really stick.

 Hope this helps. 

James

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:08 PM <rpeterson@nbbcompany.com> wrote:

 Hey, Monty,

 BTW, was that your call sign? Seems too clean and obvious…but…

 Not my real question. As you know, I work the elections and yesterday

 was very slow. Fewer than 10% of the registered voters in this

 precinct voted. Seems a shame.

 While shooting the bull with another guy, I mentioned that I thought

 some of the richer nations should do more to fund NATO and that maybe

 the days of the US shouldering the burden of funding the defense of

 the free world should be re-examined.

 He was pretty huffy, started off by talking about what a liar and

 cheat and blah blah Trump was, and then said that all the countries of

 NATO were currently spending their fair share. I didn’t take it any

 further since I didn’t have facts.

 Looked up Fact Check. Well, they acknowledged that the US contributed

 22% of the budget for NATO and the other 28 countries contributed

 according to a formula based on their GNP. All good. They went on to

 say that the US VOLUNTARILY spent another bunch of money on operations

 and “indirect spending” for military purposes. The figure

 mentioned was 72% and I think that was for all indirect spending.

 They did not say whether that 72% included the 22% spent on Direct

 costs? I suspect it doesn’t. As Disraeli said, “There are lies,

 damned lies, and statistics.” So I am suspicious.

 What is your thinking on this as the only person I know who has

 first-hand knowledge of NATO??

 Don’t feel obligated to “educate” me, but if you have a few

moments, would appreciate a bit of wisdom!

Bob

Certainty is one of the great privileges of youth. ~ Sheryl Sandberg

to MIT graduating class 2018