My comments on Thoma's Economist's View blog today

My comments on Thoma's Economist's View blog today: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/04/paul-krugman-the-intimidated-fed.html#tpe-action-replied-6a00d83451b33869e201538e34ff2c970b


Last I heard inflation is the cheap way to pay down enormous debt -- and isn't inflation the way to "painlessly" reduce the real price of real estate; the classic way severe housing slumps (caused by burst bubbles) end?

What exactly is the big need for under 2% inflation anyway? Most of my long life until recently inflation has run between 3% and 5% a year -- except for the double digit inflation of the late 70s. What's the big harm?

******

First and foremost is inflation the cheaper and quicker way out of federal (Chinese) debt and out of our busted housing bubble (historical average time to get out I just read in one of David McWilliams' books: 5-7 years)? Which busted bubble is threatening us with a lost decade or two. Is it or is it not; let's get the giant positive(s, plural) established before we weigh the trade offs.

Is it or isn't it?

Second, if we had an adequate safety net we would only have to worry about some retired people living a little less enjoyably versus pulling out of two economic tailspins that threaten to crash us fatally. But since as a country we never worried about adequate safety nets before why start now?

We work people for less and less and less every year for the same work even as average outputs doubles (since 1968 -- back when the minimum wage was $10/hr adjusted and the median wage was but 20% lower than today's average person's wage) and then we set them out to pasture -- or should I say to sleep in the street. Minimum SS and maximum food stamps together come to about $900/mo -- eat or stay indoors, your choice.

Why start worrying about the elderly now? ???

******

What the great majority of workers in the American labor market -- not the European -- suffer is a total collapse of economic bargaining power along with the necessarily concomitant loss of political muscle -- Americans not Europeans.

Which has left in its wake a federal minimum wage that is now $1/hr below Eisenhower's (really senate majority leader LBJ's) 1956 minimum wage and $3/hr below LBJ's 1968 minimum wage -- following the "big" 2007 raise! !!! Meantime the median (average person's) wage has grown 25% since 1968. All the above while average income grew 100%! !!!

15% of income share shifted from the bottom 90% to the top largely 1% -- disproportionately to the top 1/10 of 1%. I think we can agree that the doubling of per capita output over two generations is brought about by (maturing not brand new) technologies (what tripped up Malthus) and not by 25X better paid linebackers, TV news readers or even CEOs. Just my amateur guess but shifting that 15% back could cause 30% inflation over whatever time period with the back and forth adjustments: a perfect place to start, killing every bad bird with one stone?

Across the better paid OECD world and even in the second (Argentina) and third (Indonesia) worlds there is a DECADES OLD answer to America's race-to-the-bottom: legally mandated sector-wide labor agreements -- an elegant theory that unarguably works.

Ask your favorite progressive economist about sector-wide as the answer to the race-to-the-bottom. You will have to ask I am afraid; they will not volunteer the knowledge. They have understood the benefits and hopefully the absolute necessity of sector-wide agreements all their professional lives (started in post-war Germany to moderate a potential labor race-to-the-top -- works just as well opposite polarity) but they will never tell anybody -- too lost in diagnosing today's symptoms, they never ponder or at least never mention out loud the easy cure.

You know, 10 MLKs would not have gotten the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law past the murderous US Senate of the time with JFK or Obama president. LBJ (not known as a giant intellectual policy wonk) got it through because he had the fire in his belly -- he told Senate nothing else was ever going to happen until that bill passed and he meant it -- he out waited the filibuster 84 days (also passed Medicaid, Medicare, $10/hr minimum wage, etc., etc.).

Supermarket and airline employees would kill for sector-wide agreements: good place to start (try German heavy or Canadian lite).

MORE FROM THE SAME THREAD:

"i am not so fond of "inflating our way out" myself. i prefer "taxing our way out" and paying our bills."

Not when the overseas debt becomes so large it is building a vicious cycle-potential tail spin from which we may not be able to recover -- we are said to be approaching that trap; ask a Republican.

Not when the economy may be stuck in doldrums for another 5-7 years if our housing over-supply/prices-stuck-too-high trap is not resolved (by inflation one way or the other -- slow or fast); people have to get back to work. I'm not worried about paying back the Chinese in discounted dollars -- the Chinese have been pegging the yuan artificially low to increase their exports forever. Manipulating currency is standard operational procedure for all nations.

Must be noted here that the first $4 trillion of recent deficits were Bush II tax cuts for the rich -- which bankers who got the trillions from people who couldn't even spend it used it fuel the housing bubble -- all the while Republicans rashly deregulated banks so they would have no trouble at all getting all that cash out of deposits to people who could not even pay back. Whence the burst bubble forced Democrats to go more trillions into national debt to avoid a depression.

Inflation caused by shifting 15% of income share back to the lower 90 percentile earners (causing price rises from pay raises) could end up killing all three giant birds (great wage depression is number three) with one stone.

Play money, real money, online poker and the First Amendment

Play money poker should be covered by the First Amendment -- like passing jokes around -- like any board game -- recreational speech?

If so -- big if?; but could they outlaw Monopoly? -- then poker is covered by the First Amendment per se -- including real money poker. Once a constitutional right is involved the legislature may no long outlaw something just because they feel like it is reasonable. Once a constitutional right is involved the legislature must be able to present a "compelling" reason to outweigh the right.

The snuck-by Congress legislation bars online poker for moral reasons. They waited too long to enforce it. By the time tens of millions from every continent are playing the game online -- with no reports of massive (or any) moral collapse -- the idea of infringing freedom of speech to protect our morals is not merely arguable, it is universally laughable.

Internet poker US cashout problem solved with overseas cash payouts?

Say Pokerstars had a cash window (like a racetrack) in England where you could travel to to pick up your payouts. Sounds perfectly legal for you to pick up your own payout outside the US. Matter of fact you could pick up a Pokerstars money order in England and cash it in in the English bank it was drawn or check cashing store (if they have such) -- and reconvert the cash into a money order to send to yourself in the US. No foreign bank account needed -- just you in person. No gambling enterprise would be sending a financial instrument to a US bank -- that is all the law prohibits AFAIK.

NEXT STEP: Say a player's personal rep goes and does the same thing for him: same legal payout process. Or, suppose, instead, some smart cookie opens a business in the US where they charge players (plural) a fee to travel to Pokerstars cash payougt window in England -- or just as legally open the same business in England to act as player pickup rep -- to pick up our winnings in cash for us -- not working for Pokerstars; working for us -- and then send checks or money orders to us in the US. No gambling enterprise would be sending a financial instrument to a US bank -- that is all the law prohibits AFAIK.

NEXT STEP: Say Pokerstars sends cash to US players. When I worked as a truckers helper for a Wall Street Bank in the early 1970s we took tons of mail to the Post Office some of which was registered mail containing cash going to South America. I was told that Registered mail must to be signed for by every person whose hands it passes through all the way to the recipient. Pokerstars could send small to medium payouts by registered mail right now. Really large deliveries could be done by armed insured messenger (you might want to make an appointment to meet the messenger in a bank). No gambling enterprise would be sending a financial instrument to a US bank -- that is all the law prohibits AFAIK.

Problem solved? I hope this looks as good in the morning as it does at 4AM. :-)

[PS. See the following legal essay on the unlikelihood of anyone ever standing trial -- not talking about copping out either: http://www.gamblingandthelaw.com/blog/299-federal-poker-indictments-revisiting-prohibition.html]

The Settler State -- Uri Avnery

"Some weeks ago I wrote that the problem may not be the annexation of the West Bank by Israel, but the annexation of Israel by the West Bank settlers."


The Settler State
http://avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html
You-u-ul have to look for the Headline (after the first week out: 4/17).

Medical insurance double and redouble and re-redouble -- while doctors income's have not even kept up with average income gains

AFAIK Doctors' income have not even kept up with average income gains -- the latgter doubled since 1968. AFAIK average income for doctors was $150,000 before Medicare and Medicaid, after which the average rose to $180,000. AFAIK, today, $360,000 is the average income for the highest paying specialty, radiology.

Medical insurance double and doubles and redoubles -- what is with focusing on doctor's incomes?

A doctor in my cab told me that in his other career as a Navy helo pilot the new beast (Blackhawk) has three engines and 60 miles of wiring -- everybody can see the difference between that and the Huey. When people go to the hospital all they see is the bed.

Ever think unions are unrealistic not wanting management to count the ever increasing cost of medical insurance in negotiations? Isn't the whole country like that? Do we really expect to pay the same for more and more and more medical advances?

How to get the cost down to European costs level -- half? Simple; govern ourselves like Europe. Govern ourselves -- instead of left and right elites taking turns governing us. RE-UNIONIZE THE ONLY WAY THAT ACTUALLY WORKS: SECTOR-WIDE LABOR AGREEMENTS. Cut the Gordian knot at the heart of almost every other poliltical issue -- re-balance the labor market -- and simultaneously the political forum -- so the labor market actually works to insure fair prices -- automatically -- just like Republicans say markets do. Then all the common sense reforms will be absorbed (automatically?).

Say the words: S-E-C-T-O-R W-I-D-E L-A-B-0-R A-G-R-E-E-M-E-N-T-S.

My comment on Open Salon to: Carry a big stick -- when I was ordered to paddle students

My comment on Open Salon to: http://open.salon.com/blog/jlw1/2011/03/30/carry_a_big_stick--when_i_was_ordered_to_paddle_students

The same principal who smashes away on kids for being late (not usually an animal) might feel unable to beat an adult the same way for breaking into school, breaking into lockers and spray painting cars in the parking lot all at the same time. Something goes missing when we are not beating social equals or something (we are talking dumb social instinct here).

If the principal's boss paddled him for the above mentioned crimes the principal would not hate him. If the principal's boss paddled him for being late the principal would hate him -- a violent assault over efficiency, mere office management.

Let principals contemplate these contradictions (and why some kids hate them forever).

There is a hole in the law against violent assault. There is provably no justification for the hole -- provably by the common policy in the worst hitting states (where 90% of the beating of girls and 75% of the beating of boys is for tardies) : it is often optional for the student -- take detention or suspension or a beating. If the school lets the student decide how can the school tell the courts that it is so necessary the court should allow a hole in the law against violent assault with a weapon?

Unfathomable social instinct can be at work on students here: if everyone else chose a beating over an hour's detention so would I. Instinctively must accept the same danger as the rest of the hunting pack? ??? Sometimes like in the famous YouTube video the student will miss a days work as with the boy or as with the class president girl miss the prom if they do not take a tardy bend over for a behind beating by the (male) principal. Sometimes a student fears even a tardy suspension may affect college admission. None constitutionally justifies a hole in the prohibition against violent assault -- especially on children.

Left this comment on "Open Salon" this morning to "Geraldine Ferraro’s Campaign Stop from Hell"

Left this comment on "Open Salon" this morning at http://open.salon.com/blog/wild_ginger/2011/03/29/geraldine_ferraros_campaign_stop_from_hell. Will be interesting to see if it stays up there -- which is sort of my point. :-)

The left does not need to shout down the other side of the abortion issue at the rowdy physical level. The left shouts down the other side -- by shutting it out -- at the more sophisticated media, legislative and above all judicial levels.

Media: never even hear the issue framed as the "abortion issue" -- it's the "woman's right to choose" -- never even hear the other side at all.

Legislative: a year and a half in jail (FACE) plus crushing law suits (RICO!) for passive, non-violent resistance demonstrations in front of abortion clinics (sorry Gandhi and MLK).

Above all judicial: the Roe majority threw out 46 seriously enforced state laws with what I choose to call a "consensus test": "... may not, just by adopting one theory of life, override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."

Easy to dismiss the theories of life the decision consulted: three were theological plus viability and quickening. Roe's writer could was "not in a position to determine when life begins" at four weeks overdue -- but I am sure he would no trouble at twelve weeks early arrival.

Going by the real -- as in honest -- medical consensus -- not "viability is the medical focus" -- Roe's writer might have discerned life's very certain beginning somewhere between 14 to 20 weeks. One week under which "consensus" he could have discovered what Roe so busily talked around: possible human life as an undeniably compelling state interest.

The high court could hardly have picked a week at which the possible life was no longer compelling: too nakedly legislative.

Prenatal personhood? What will the high court say when fetuses may be removed overnight for medical procedures and returned to the womb? Will it continue to hold that inalienable rights begin at birth? Oh, all of a sudden the left is all strict constructionist.

New Hampshire's Don't Touch My Junk Bill

When entering land borders from Canada and Mexico we are not asked to choose between naked scan or genital frisk – likely unconstitutional without at least reasonable cause. Why does the TSA put us through an underwear search getting off intercontinental flights? Are they afraid we are going to blow up American taxicabs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkRPS0pSScQ

And (perhaps most unreasonable of all – with so much unreasonable it is difficult to know where to start) why must we be subjected to all over, private area gropes when a scanner spots one thing in one pocket? Why may we not merely remove one thing from one pocket and at most go back through the scanner?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLpOcEtsElI&feature=player_embedded (Note pubescent female at end of video posing for her naked rendition to be remotely viewed by male agent shown at beginning.)

Suppose scanners were in use in lockups only – and a story came out that males guards viewed females – maybe even a “backroom story” of males gathering around to make comparisons? Suppose the same stories came out about a juvenile (under 18) lockup?
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/11/15/editorial-of-the-day-on-tsa-horndogs-heads-up-got-a-cutie-for-you/

Privacy? Our courts will release a serial killer – to kill again and again -- because of one illegal intrusion by police way back at the beginning of the investigation. I don’t agree with the exclusionary rule but our courts certainly don’t put whether we live (safety) way out front of how we live (privacy) … unless you mention airliners. (Larry Eyler lived one block north of my 1633 Chase, Chicago apartment.)
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/eyler/freedom_6.html

Danger? 90,000,000 to 0 – the odds of getting on a domestically originating flight with a suicide bomber since 9/11/01. If you are on the soil of the “Great Satan” why try to sneak a few ounces of explosive on a plane when you can get a couple of thousand pounds of fertilizer together on land? But, what about the guy who planned to take down a dozen foreign originating 747s in one day? When he was here he actually carried out the same scale attack -- on the ground: his bomb in the WTC garage was intended to make one tower fall against the other bringing both down.

What protects us from suicide bombers is living in the USA not in Iraq – and our security services stopping them before they start. Lots of experts tell us that any capable terrorist would circumvent what they call today’s “security theatre” (I’m not even going to get into that). The real and present danger? A Cornell study added 1,200 traffic fatalities to Bid Laden’s 9/11 score due Americans driving to avoid flying. How many hundreds or thousands of traffic deaths a year may airport security's new, enhanced sexual intrusiveness add to his score?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/11/the_tsa_is_literally_killing_a.html?f=most-commented-intel-7d5l

What is most (there’s that word again) ironic about the enhanced TSA groping technique is that it undermines -- in practice -- what the court said justified irrevocable consent to be searched (once you enter the screening area) in the first place. The court permitted preventing passengers to leave mid-search because that could allow terrorists to sample screening areas to see which they could get past undetected. But, the new groping is so obnoxious that the TSA – in practice -- seems not to have the heart to insist we may not change our mind and leave unmolested.

Bottom line, if a federal agency imposes rules that are in clear (or arguable if you will) violation of constitutional guarantees of our free way of life – that means the newly imposed rules have no legal existence -- which means any state or locality may legitimately criminalize such offenses . Privacy versus danger: let the federal Constitution decide whether state laws protecting privacy strike the more legitimate balance.

(Odd – if not useful – legal puzzlement of mine: Should TSA administrative regulations -- composed with delegated Congressional legislative power – be able to overwrite the explicit will of Congress prohibiting naked child imaging: a legislative house divided against itself? Said Congressional prohibition of such image making or distribution passed First Amendment muster precisely due to the serious harm done the child. Making and viewing of (especially opposite-sex) naked child images by either TSA or any security personnel anywhere inflict precisely the same substantive damage. Doesn't overriding the explicit intent of the body that delegated the power to you in the first place seem as incongruous as allowing pre-1789 common law to take priority over new legislation -- just a quirky puzzlement. ???)

If you touch my WIFE, I SHOULD BE able to have you arrested

If you touch my WIFE, I SHOULD BE able to have you arrested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NI7JEA4iK4&feature=related

I would like to ask the police officer in this video -- frisking a woman's leg area (and who knows what else; the video cuts off after he goes down one side of one leg) reportedly over "expired registration" -- if he and other male officers (they all feel free to frisk women going by net searches) would be so fearful of having a less than fully frisked female (only the waist, upper side and ankles) REAR-CUFFED, STRAPPED DOWN, LOCKED IN THE BACK SEAT CAGE that he would ask a fellow officer if one were available to drive behind him to the police station so she would know she could not get away with hurting him.

I am sure he and any other male officers who heard this question would instantly laugh -- meaning there is no appreciable officer safety issue justifying what is undeniably experienced as a sexual assault by females. Everybody assumes such actions are prohibited by law -- everybody -- because only too reasonable.

If officer safety consumes them so much let them bring a wand to check for weapons before "hermetically sealing" females for the short trip to the police station. Good enough for protecting 747s from terrorists at 40,000 feet, good enough for them.

Our crazy courts have unleashed this "officer safety" nonsense on us -- without any differentiation over what constitutes what is called an immediate threat. The police have gotten so inured to the invasion that they feel free to teach male police cadets to grope the private areas of female police cadets as shown in this video -- neither video shows the the use of the back of the hand either.

http://www.booads.com/videos-stop-and-frisk-%5BW1-dcSUDPE8%5D.cfm

The probable California Highway Patrol officer in this video -- possibly incorrectly identified as LAPD -- cannot call for a female officer as easily as a street cop can. I presume it is nearly impossible. This video makes it look like every female who drives down the highway had better not leave her license home or lose her purse or she potentially faces a much more horrifying experience than she would have had she taken a plane from the airport.

The one good thing the TSA nonsense may have accomplished is alert one and all that much worse is experienced by American women and girls at the hands of police everyday. (BTW, no government or police hater here: heavy prolife and usually prowar.)

EIGHTH GRADE MATH LATE NOTE:
60-70 POLICE DIE FROM ASSAULTS ON THE JOB EVERY YEAR. IF ENDING THE "FUNNY FRISKING" OF REAR-CUFFED, STRAPPED DOWN, LOCKED IN A CAGE FEMALES FOR THE SHORT RIDE TO THE POLICE STATION ADDS 10% TO THAT RISK (UNIMAGINABLE) THAT WOULD ADD 1 EXTRA CHANCE IN 100,000 (THERE ARE 700,000 MALE LEOS) TO EVERY MALE OFFICER'S RISK: NO SAFETY JUSTIFICATION AT ALL FOR THE KIND OF FRISK SEEN IN THIS WHAT I WILL CALL "RHONDA KING" VIDEO.

DITTO FOR TERRY FRISKS: TERRY IS NOT ABOUT DISCOVERING SECRETED RAZOR BLADES -- TERRY IS ABOUT FINDING GUNS WHICH CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT MALE FINGERS (TRY A SIX-INCH RULER IF YOU MUST PROBE AN AREA) TOUCHING FEMALE FORMS.

FOR BOTH SITUATIONS: BRING A WAND TO WORK OFFICER! GOOD ENOUGH FOR 747S; GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU!

Why economies tank -- American labors only practical road back

MY COMMENT AT http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2011&base_name=organizing_is_a_right_not_a_pr

Did someone say the word "insolvency"?

That is what happens to states when the economy tanks. Why do economies tank? 9 times out of 10 in history and around the world it is because TOO MUCH money gets into the hands of bankers (no left-winger here -- this is about free markets) who then lend it to people who cannot pay back (bankers go for a bubble like a moth to a flame for some reason ???).

This becomes double-jeopardy when the too much lending goes into real-estate. When house prices finally drop in half nobody will come down enough to sell -- until inflation painlessly makes real real estate prices come down over a very, very long time -- nobody sells, nobody buys -- ergo, a long, long recession.

This becomes triple jeopardy when banks are deregulated (crazier moths) at the same time.

The Republican Party managed to accomplish all three -- sent the bankers TOO MUCH money to lend via $4 trillion (!) dollars of tax-cuts for the rich -- which fueled the real estate bubble all the while deregulating (moth to a flame) banks. Ergo, an potential repeat of the Great Depression.
******
If labor were running the country for the average person -- instead of two elites trying to tear up different parts of the country for play -- the endless recession never would have happened.

The only way to unionize in the modern world (if unheard of in America) is called sector-wide labor agreements -- legally mandated -- all worker who perform the same type of job in the same geographic locale work under one common contract with all firms. This ends the race to the bottom. Wal-Mart closed 88 big boxes in Germany because it could not compete (when legally forced) to pay the same wages and benefits.

Sector-wide agreements were originally instituted in post-war Germany by very conservative, very anti-communist, very Roman Catholic (think Konrad Adenauer) politicians to keep labor costs DOWN so their just post fascist industrialist could rebuild -- by allowing labor to make concessions without worrying whether others would make the same concessions. This is not "socialism." (English labor did not do this at first and thus fell behind rebuilding.)

What avoids the race-to-the-top by labor just as beautifully avoids the race-to-the-bottom by ownership -- as each owner claims he must cut labor costs to match the competition. Sector-wide bargaining creates a fair and balanced labor market for both sides.

And can be instituted by one law -- easy.

Sector-wide is the practice throughout the better compensated OECD first-world and even used in the second-world (Argentina) and third-world (Indonesia) -- also Canada. It is about how free markets actually work -- nothing to do with "socialism."

My email to Wisconsin on government union busting

My email to Wisconsin on government union busting:
One stat tracks the disappearance of America's -- collectively bargaining -- middle class:

US median wage (the average person's) wage, 1968: $12.50/hr
US median wage (the average person's) wage, 2008: $15.00/hr
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/view/201

During the same span average income doubled from $14,000/hr to $28,000/yr!
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/P01AR_2009.xls
******
The federal minimum wage is now $3/hr below what it was in 1968:

Federal minimum wage 1968: ($1.60 nominally) $10.15/hr
Federal Minimum wage, 2001: $7.25/hr
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/

Doubling the federal minimum wage might add only 3% to the cost of living -- that is how little money goes to the bottom.
Doubling the federal minimum wage (to today's median wage) would add how much to the price of housing, health care, transportation, clothing, electronics? A Big Mac could go up 33% (fast food being by far the biggest labor user) -- but half the country would get a raise!
I worked out 2% inflation from $7.25 to $$12.50 here: http://ontodayspagelinks.blogspot.com/2008/08/3-cost-of-gdp-output-and-inflation.html
******
Today America is being fought over by two elites. The liberal elite wants to tear up the social fabric (TSA invasiveness) while the conservative elite wants to tear up the economy (tax cuts for the rich-to-deregulated banks-to-borrowers who can't pay back). When I was a kid (67 years old now) the liberals healed the social fabric while the conservatives guarded the economy.

When I was a kid the average person still counted because unions gave us economic and political leverage: as much organization as any special interest and the majority of votes.

This is not the time for Wisconsin to disband the last bastion of American labor, government unions.

MY SUPPORT FOR AMY SULLIVAN'S TIME MAG POST -- VERSUS -- UNKNOWING DOWN-PUTTERS

MY SUPPORT FOR AMY SULLIVAN'S TIME MAG POST -- VERSUS -- UNKNOWING DOWN-PUTTERS -- http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/08/stay-classy-tsa/

male agent: heads up; we've go a cutie, to (presumably male) remote viewer
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1147497-tso-saying-heads-up-got-cutie-you.html

small airport -- sorry; only male agents (see my post above quoting TSA MANDATORY male on female frisk you cannot walk away from)
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15083260-post63.html

"Male screeners have certainly attempted to pressure women to allow them to touch them - this has happened to me. I assume they succeed sometimes.

"In BOS, a male screener told me there was a 'very long wait' for a female screener and it 'would be better' to let him do it. "
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-safety-security/1142981-another-first-hand-account-new-patdowns-6.html

no law (supposedly) says male police officers may not frisk females
http://www.lawforkids.org/speakup/view_question.cfm?id=269&topic=OTHER

Most of these answers are false. A male officer can frisk a female. There is certqin training that covers how to do this.
http://www.answerdigger.com/19140/Can-a-male-police-officer-frisk-my-13-year-old-girl

When searching a female it may be helpful to:
* · Have a female officer present, if possible. Be certain that the written report of the incident contains details of the arrest, mention of any weapons or contraband that were being sought, what if anything was found in the search.
* The more immediate or important the arrest the better. If there is a legitimate belief that she is carrying weapons or contraband a search should not be delayed.
* Do not search a female alone unless it is absolutely necessary.
* Conduct the search of a female in the same manner that you would search a male.
* Before starting to search the front of a female, tell her that the search is not meant to embarrass her. Ask if any weapons or contraband are concealed in her clothing or body. She may deny having any weapons or contraband, search anyway. If she admits to having weapons or contraband locate it, seize it, safely secure it and resume your systematic search.
* Use good judgement and discretion. These basic steps may be employed similarly when a female officer searches a male.
http://www.correctionsone.com/products/apparel/articles/1334679-Optimum-Search-Frisk-Techniques-For-Law-Enforcement-Personnel/

TSA male agents target female travellers
http://www.dailykosbeta.com/story/2010/11/30/883319/-TSA-male-agents-target-female-travellers-%28w-poll%29

MY OWN ESSAY ON THE TOPIC: TSA extends sexual abuse from stop-and-frisk to fly-and-frisk
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2010/12/tsa-extends-sexually-abusive-searches.html

Is it really fair to make San Francisco's homeless carry their "fair share" of the city budget cutting load?

Is it really fair to make San Francisco's homeless carry their "fair share" of the city budget cutting load (at least 10%*)?

Let's not go Arnold. The former governor squeezed $1000/yr literally out of the mouths of the state's 1.3 million neediest -- saving $1.3 billion. If everyone else ponied up as much the state budget would go into surplus -- and the neediest wouldn't have to give up a dollar. Hint.

* http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/10/BAA11HL2Q4.DTL

Can recording an Illinois politician's speech violate the Eavesdropping Act?

BACKTRACK:
A lawyer now informs me that Illinois Eavesdropping the law does not apply to a political speech because it is not a conversation -- setting me back -- but off the top of my head I wonder: suppose the speech maker answers question or curses or takes personal questions before a crowd while exiting. Suppose a teacher converses with the class.

A law could not constitutionally ban recording a political speech if it so intended. Wouldn't be putting too much of a burden on free speech to require students to constantly turn recorders on and off?

Got to kick it over. Sounds like it should all narrow down to whether a law may constitutionally bar recording a private conversation in a private place -- if everyone knows it is being recorded. Banning recording of a public official doing public work in a public place seems way back there somewhere on the bannable scale. Off the top of my cab driver head. :-)

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349966/Chicago-artist-Chris-Drew-faces-15-years-jail-recorded-arrest.html :
"In Illinois police are currently prosecuting nine people for alleged breaches of the law [Eavesdropping Act -- A.K.A., Illinois Corrupt Politicians Protection Act]. The maximum penalty is only three years behind bars for the first time the law is broken and five years if it is done again. But anyone recording a judge, attorney general, state attorney or police officer can be sent to jail for up to 15 years."

May a politician making a speech before an Illinois audience of many thousands forbid one and all from sound recording -- in light of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment? Can a citizen in Illinois recording such a speech without a politicians express permission be so charged under the Eavesdropping Act – in light of our First Amendment rights?

Assuming the Illinois eavesdropping act is constitutional, charging Street artist Chris Drew (no relation) recording police performance of public duty in the public way would seem a strange place to start. How about the tens of thousands of Illinois private college and high school students who record their teachers lectures without so much as informing them?

It should be easy to set up a sting for inarguably such criminal behavior by passing an investigating officer off as taking a survey taker, asking students if they record in class, as they exit their schools. Wait until they get around the corner to grab them and put them on buses – students wouldn't need too much guarding; you could utilize a minimum number of police. A couple busloads from 100 Illinois schools should be easy to fill: 10,000 students in one day. Drive the buses to someplace like United Center. Seat students in the stands. Judges can set up multiple courts on the stadium floor for arraignments.

Once that legal point goes out to the world it will be time for neighbor to watch neighbor – Janet Napolitano style.

I just watched a cell phone video on TV news of somebody driving the wrong way down a highway taken from a vehicle driving on a parallel road. If the picture taker forgot to inform his passenger that he was recording sound too as they conversed: you've got a prosecution. You just have to think through the angles.

Recording devices are becoming so ubiquitous – a recording studio in everyone's pocket; broadcast studios did not even have high definition until recently – that First Amendment jurisprudence may have to accept their unannounced -- and an asked -- use as legally indistinguishable from recordings we make with our brains – or something like that. ???

I'm not saying it should be okay to sneak into the back of a police car and secretly record officers private conversations about their preferences in doughnut shops – threatening to overload their favorite spots when word gets around: 15 years!