The following headline caught my eye:
======
More specifically, the WHO said:
“Ebola transmission … no longer constitutes an extraordinary event, the risk of international spread is now low, and countries currently have the capacity to respond rapidly to new emergences.”
Hmmm.
Now, re-read the WHO statement, substituting the words “radical Islamic terrorism” for “Ebola transmission”.
Let’s connect a couple of more dots …
In case you haven’t been paying attention …
The FBI snagged the government-owned cell phone that was being used by one of the San Bernardino killer-terrorists … but, couldn’t get at the data because of Apple’s security and encryption technology … which vaporizes the data if you enter a wrong password 10 times.
So, the FBI asked Apple to to provide a custom-cobbled hack to get at the data.
Apple said “no”, ostensibly to protect the privacy and security of its users.
So, the FBI sued Apple, and the case was working its way through the courts.
That is, until yesterday when the FBI withdrew its law suit.
Victory to Apple, right?
Not so fast.
Here’s why the FBI withdrew its law suit ….
Great analysis by Prof. Mark Perry (AEI Scholar) … entire analysis is worth reading … here’s the essence of the argument.
========
Question: It’s oft-reported that household income has been falling … but, digging into the data, hourly earnings have been increasing.
How can that be?
=======
According to Prof. Perry’s analysis, the answer lies in “mix” – the composition of households ….
The Brussels terrorists’ attacks were were an immense tragedy … to be taken seriously.
You wouldn’t know it, given some of the past week’s noteworthy dumb & dumber happenings.
Let’s start with the UK’s response to the bombings.
Did the Brits make any notable raids to crack the terrorists’ network of killer cells.
Nope, instead of going for the jugular, UK authorities went for the capillaries and arrested some dude for for making an inappropriate, potentially anti-Islamic tweet:
========
The charges were eventually dropped, but please tell me, how does law enforcement prioritize chasing insensitive tweeters over cold-blooded killers?
Maybe it has to do with the UK police patrolling with 1 bullet less than Barney Fife.
Tweeters are probably “safe stops” … cold-blooded killers, not so easy.
Or, maybe the world is just going completely wacky. A couple of more examples …
One of the few things I remember from Philosophy 101 is Pascal’s Wager.
In a nutshell, it says that God may or may not exist … and we all have the choice to live righteously or sinfully.
Naturally, that creates a 2 X 2 matrix …
If you choose to live on the wild side and God exists … uh oh.
If you choose to live a clean life, you score big if God exists … and don’t have much downside if she doesn’t.
I often find Pascal’s Wager to be a practical decision-making prop.
=======
Let’s apply Pascal’s Wager to the current ISIS mess?
Once the horror of Brussels sank in, some pundits observed how unprepared Belgium seemed to be … and some pointed to Europeans minimal spending on intelligence, defense, and homeland security (their homelands not our’s).
That prompted me to finally read the Atlantic article on the “Obama Doctrine”.
I thought the article would just make me chuckle … turned out that I found myself agreeing with some of Obama’s basic tenets …. and it helped explain why Europeans don’t want to protect themselves more.
Obama complains privately to friends and advisers that America’s allies in the Middle East are frustrating, high-maintenance countries, that seek to exploit American “muscle” for their own narrow and sectarian ends.
“Free riders aggravate me. Europeans and the Arab states want to hold our coats while we do all the fighting.”
Recently, Obama warned that Great Britain would no longer be able to claim a “special relationship” with the United States if it did not commit to spending at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense. “You have to pay your fair share,” Obama told David Cameron.
Given its proximity to Libya, Obama expected the UK to step-up and take a lead role there. But, in a stunning development, the British Parliament denied David Cameron its blessing for an attack. John Kerry’s reaction: “Oops.”
Let’s look at some numbers ….
True, the UK is only spending about 2% on defense (after all, it has to support its universal healthcare system) … but, it’s looks downright militaristic when compared to its European cronies. Look down the list to find Belgium.
Let’s cut the numbers a couple of more ways …
Interesting analysis from Nate Silver’s 535.com titled Manufacturing Jobs Are Never Coming Back
There’s no mystery why candidates love to focus on manufacturing and trade.
“It’s understandable that voters are angry about trade. The U.S. has lost more than 4.5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA took effect in 1994. And, there’s mounting evidence that U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, has caused lasting harm to many American workers.”
“Manufacturing in particular embodies something that seems to be disappearing in today’s economy: jobs with decent pay and benefits available to workers without a college degree. The average factory worker earns more than $25 an hour before overtime; the typical retail worker makes less than $18 an hour.”
“In 1994 there were 3.5 million more Americans working in manufacturing than in retail. Today, those numbers have almost exactly reversed, and the gap is widening. More than 80 percent of all private jobs are now in the service sector.”
=======
How can that be? Aren’t we hearing a lot about “re-shoring” and foreign capital investing in U.S. based manufacturing plants?
Michael Goodwin is a NY Post writer … says that he’s a Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008.
Over the weekend, he wrote an editorial titled Why it’s time for a Trump revolution .
=========
I think that Goodwin does a poignant job cutting to the chase.
His basic tenet: “Contempt for Trump reflects contempt for his working-class white support.”
Over the weekend, the Huffington Post ran an article: How Paul Ryan Will Pick the Next President.
Writers Chris LaTondresse and Adam Phillips claim credit for conceiving a scenario that would place an establishment Republican into the White House even if Trump is the GOP nominee.
Sorry guys, you’re a bout a month late.
Loyal HomaFiles reader would recognize the plot from our Feb. 29 post:
The GOP can still get a “true” Republican elected … here’s how.
Since it’s timely (and getting jacked without attribution), I thought I’d reprise it today.
=======
Let’s start with some basic assumptions:
(1) Trump hijacks the GOP and wins the nomination … much to the dismay of the GOP “establishment”.
(2) Trump and Hillary fight a tightly contested toss-up race.
======
So, how can the establishment get a “true” – or at least “truer” Republican elected.
It wouldn’t be easy, but it’s possible.
Let’s connect a couple of dots.
Dot #1: Politico is reporting that some big GOP donors are researching ballot-access requirements for independent candidates in case Trump wraps up the GOP nomination.
Dot #2: The electoral map and the quirks of the electoral college process.
There’s an out-of-the box way to make a “true” Republican president … really.
=======
You won’t hear this any place else, so let me explain …
From a very interesting election analysis in the Orange County Register by Joel Kotkin – Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University …
Disclaimer: I’m not a Trump fan because of his incivility (bad role model for kids), unpredictability (I have no idea where he really stands on any issue except “the wall” – and I’m betting the under on that one), and temperament (though I wonder why the U.S. should be the only country that doesn’t have a wild man with their finger on the nuclear button – why not round out the roster?).
That said, I’ll fill in his circle on the scantron ballot if it’s Trump vs. Hillary in Novemeber.
Why?
I have much sympathy for his constituency of victims: lower and middle class working class folks … with emphasis on “working”.
You know, the folks that the press likes to brutally characterize as “brain dead, mindless zombies”.
=======
In his article, Mr. Kotkin more charitably coins them as the “precariat” — people who are working, many part time or on short-term gigs, but lacking long-term security.
It’s that time of the year when university officials are picking commencement speakers.
Perhaps they should heed to words of the Washington Post: Conservatives give better commencement addresses than liberals.
Drawing on a sample of 48 speeches — 30 by conservatives, 18 by liberals — the Post concludes that the right-leaning speakers stand out for five reasons …
NY Times decided to take a shot at Trump’s opulence in a piece titled: A King in His Castle
Here’s an excerpt to set the context …
Everything seemed to sparkle at the Mar-a-Lago estate here on a recent afternoon.
The sun glinted off the pool and the black Secret Service S.U.V.s in the circular driveway.
Palm trees rustled in a warm breeze, croquet balls clicked and a security guard stood at the entrance to Donald J. Trump’s private living quarters.
You can always tell when the king is here.
Mar-a-Lago is where Mr. Trump comes to escape, entertain and luxuriate in a Mediterranean-style manse.
The king was returning that day to his Versailles, a 118-room snowbird’s paradise that will become a winter White House if he is elected president.
======
Mar-a-Lago was built 90 years ago by the cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post.
Here’s where the grand irony comes in …
Cyber-security folks always advise us to use different passwords for all accounts and to regularly change them.
Intuitively, that makes sense.
And, many organizations now force employees, as a matter of policy, to change their passwords every couple of months.
But, a recent study by the FTC’s chief technologist, suggests that the security benefits of changing passwords may be more apparent than real … and, may do more harm than good.
==========
According to the Washington Post …
“The longstanding IT security practice is based on the idea that flushing out old passwords will cut off access for bad guys who may have figured them out.”
But according to the Federal Trade Commission’s chief technologist, Lorrie Cranor, the strategy has some major holes.
“Unless there is reason to believe a password has been compromised or shared, requiring regular password changes may actually do more harm than good in some cases.”
Why?
“Because forcing people to keep changing their passwords can result in workers coming up with, well, bad passwords.”
=======
Some evidence …
A study at the University of North Carolina looked at a data set of thousands of old passwords belonging to former students, faculty and staff at the university who had to change their password every three months.
They found that users often followed patterns that linked old passwords to new passwords — such as swapping the order of meaningful numbers and letters, replacing a letter with a common number or symbol substitute (think changing an E into a 3), or adding or removing special characters like exclamation marks.
Using a tool they designed to predict those type of changes, the researchers could predict how users would change their passwords for 41 percent of the accounts in less than three seconds using a relatively low-powered computer.
The researchers also determined passwords for 17 percent of the accounts in fewer than five guesses.
======
My take:
The problem isn’t periodic password changes … it’s benign neglect or passive aggressive behavior by folks who are annoyed by policies that attempt to save them from themselves.
Passwords should be strong … and they should be changed periodically … and, they should be varied across accounts. Period.
Fool-proof?
Heck no … but improves the odds.
And, whenever possible, use a 2-step process (e.g. challenge questions) for your most sensitive accounts.
Trust me, it’s less hassle than getting hacked.
======
#HomaFiles
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma >> Latest Posts
=======
No, it’s not because Apple may be forced to break the encryption in the terrorist’s iPhone.
There are plenty of other reasons.
According to the Financial Times …
“There is a busy market for phones that are simple and cheap at a time when smartphones are becoming ever more complex and expensive.”
Strategy Analytics, a research group, estimates that 44 million “basic phones” were sold in 2015.
=======
What’s driving the retro interest in dumb phones?
Let me give you a couple of choices:
(a) Smiling is dictated by employer
(b) Fundamentally happy with job & pay
(c) Something else
According to a survey of 718 British cabin attendants by UK The Telegraph, the answer is (c) – something else.
The survey asked the cabin attendants if they had ever broken any of the airlines’ rules.
9 out of 10 answered to the affirmative.
Most of the violations were relatively minor – e.g. accepting tips.
But, some were doozies.
In light of the oil glut, Exxon has announced that it’s moth-balling some rigs and cutting capital expenditures.
That fits a bigger trend … supply high, demand slow, prices down, production down.
========
From a supply side, the economics of the business raise some interesting questions …
This is from the HomaFiles archives – one of my favs.
The original WSJ article was inspired by Clinton’s win over elder Bush (the Perot factor), younger Bush’s win over Gore (the Nader factor), and Jesse Ventura’s gov win in Minnesota.
The analysis has relevancy these days, given the way that the not-Trump vote is being carved thin among the array of GOP presidential contenders.
Let’s see how Iowa turns out tonight …
Now that it looks like Trump will be the GOP candidate. it’s time to reprise a “must read” opinion piece that appeared in the Washington Post a couple of months ago.
The article was penned by left-leaning GWU law professor Jonathan Turley
Turley has long been warning that Dems may think it is clever and appropriate when Obama circumvents the Congress and courts to implement his partisan policies, that they should be forewarned that what goes around, come around.
Specifically, he says:
Democrats have supported President Obama’s claims of unchecked authority in a variety of areas.
Obama has been particularly aggressive in his unilateral actions.
From health care to immigration to the environment, he has set out to order changes long refused by Congress.
Thrilled by those changes, supporters have ignored the obvious danger that they could be planting a deeply unfortunate precedent if the next president proves to be a Cruz rather than a Clinton.
While the policies may not carry over to the next president, the powers will.
The Obama model will be attractive to successors who, although they may have a different agenda, have the same appetite for unilateral decisions.
Here are some specifics that he cites:
Reading the headlines, it’s happy days again.
In February, employers added 242,000 jobs.
Pretty good, right?
=====
Well, unfortunately, there’s a rub …
I’m a political junkie, and even I got bored during the debate last night …
Yesterday, Romney (who I still think would have made a great President), Rubio (a smart policy wonk who looks like a Latino Doogie Howswer and will never shake the ‘Gang of 8’ goo off of his shoe), Cruz (who holds deep conservative principles that include cheating to win) took their best shots at Trump and the Donald swatted them all back at them in short order.
Bottom line: Nobody cares that Trump is shallow on policy, used Trump U. to swindle some folks, sprinkled money to practically all politicians as a cost of business, or is ambivalent about Planned Parenthood.
After years of watching Obama get pushed around by loose-cannon world leaders and ISIS, many Americans just want a President who will “man-up”. Out-bully the bullies who are taking our lunch money …
That’s the Donald.
=======
During the debate, I was reminded of a poll taken a couple of years ago.
The question: Who is the stronger leader: Putin or Obama ?
YouGov polled Americans on that very question. asking folks to to rate Obama and Putin – whether they are strong or weak leaders.
How would you have rated each of them: very strong, somewhat strong, somewhat weak, or very weak?
And the survey said …
OK, he didn’t really say it … but, he might as well have.
Granted, it was a masterful coup by the Donald.
Little Marco made him squirm during the debate.
12 hours later, Trump takes all of the wind out of Rubio’s sail by rolling out (<= pun intended) Gov. Christie with an endorsement.
A clever play by Trump … a moment of reclamation for Christie?
========
Err, not so fast …
Did you notice how quickly Christie got banished … by Trump … by the media … and by his now-former supporters?
Years ago, my sons’ high school headmaster (aka. “principal”) launched a program aimed at civility.
He was concerned that kids were becoming disrespectful to adults … and to each other.
Most parents thought the idea was a bit quirky… students had no idea what he was talking about.
The guy eventually got canned when he allowed police into the school to arrest some kids who were peddling drugs … a rather uncivil behavior. (Parents thought that letting police into the school was uncivil …)
My take: the guy was a couple of decades ahead of his time.
Fast forward to today.
As near as I can tell, the anti-bullying campaigns and rhetoric have been largely pushed to the back burner … only being cameoed when there is a teen tragedy directly linked to bullying.
Why is that happening?
Simple.
The bullies keep emerging as winners … and winning beats losing.
=======
Case in point: Donald J. Trump.
When Trump is ridiculing, he’s just mean-spirited.
My beef: he doesn’t make me laugh.
I think the new Marco delivers some pretty funny lines … with great timing and cadence.
Of course, most of his material is cooked up by his writers.
A comedian’s true meddle is tested extemporaneously.
My view: Marco scored in a recent Virginia rally.
A heckler was shouting that Rubio was an empty suit.
“At least it’s not a Trump suit that’s made in China.”
Not bad …
When the heckler continued, Rubio hit him with a haymaker:
“Ladies and gentlemen, meet the valedictorian from Trump University.”
Great line. Great timing.
======
#HomaFiles
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma >> Latest Posts
======
From a very interesting election analysis in the Orange County Register by Joel Kotkin – Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University …
Disclaimer: I’m not a Trump fan because of his incivility (bad role model for kids), unpredictability (I have no idea where he really stands on any issue except “the wall” – and I’m betting the under on that one), and temperament (though I wonder why the U.S. should be the only country that doesn’t have a wild man with their finger on the nuclear button – why not round out the roster?).
That said, I’ll fill in his circle on the scantron ballot if it’s Trump vs. Hillary in Novemeber.
Why?
I have much sympathy for his constituency of victims: lower and middle class working class folks … with emphasis on “working”.
You know, the folks that the press likes to brutally characterize as “brain dead, mindless zombies”.
=======
In his article, Mr. Kotkin more charitably coins them as the “precariat” — people who are working, many part time or on short-term gigs, but lacking long-term security.
The Homa Files 
&h=1237&w=2000&tbnid=RnhQUfYmVsO3zM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=184&docid=V8PDoX14zF8kRM&usg=__gYDwZkXKMsNM3DcVZh9DGQ4TU6w=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwifwe7Q2pfLAhVEJR4KHV5HDe0Q9QEIIDAA){kind=link}