Grrrr.....

Self-driving cars now have some company on the road.

A new self-driving truck, the Freightliner Inspiration, was unveiled this week in the Nevada desert just outside of Las Vegas.

The Inspiration can drive itself on highways, similar to an autopilot function in an airplane.

I have a prediction -- systems like this, and similar ones in cars that require the driver be able to take control back from the computer at any given point in time will increase the risk of serious multi-vehicle crashes rather than decrease them.

If you're going to wreck your car or truck the wreck you want to have, from a societal point of view, is the single-vehicle wreck where only the people in the vehicle are at risk.

In other words the guy who falls asleep at the wheel and dies in a single-vehicle crash takes all the risk of his conduct and all of the consequence; he hurts nobody else.

The worst case scenario is the one where due to your inattentiveness or whatever you wind up plowing into a bunch of other people, injuring or killing them.

I am quite-interested in a self-driving vehicle where I can literally get in the car and tell it to take my drunk ass home.  That's the only standard that works for such a vehicle; one where I can sleep, text, work on the computer or whatever without any requirement to take control of the vehicle myself.  Unless I am relieved of the legal liability for operation (and thus can be smashed, sleeping or whatever) then requiring me to be available if a dicey situation develops but am not in command at all other times means that I'm less-likely (more like not at all!) to be mentally processing the situation around the vehicle in the moments leading up to the dicey situation and thus the risk of that crash goes up, not down.

"Augmented driving" sounds great but it reduces the amount of mental acuity necessary to operate the car.  This sounds great in low-conflict situations where little acuity is necessary in the first instance, for example, cruising on a highway at 70mph.  However, if such augmentation means I am not paying attention to the road if a deer suddenly runs across it or a "gator" (blown truck tire) appears just over a crest in a hill right in front of me the odds of my not noticing that in time to react go way up compared to my being fully "in command" in the minutes beforehand.  As such these systems are likely to increase rather than decrease the risk of serious accidents involving multiple people and/or vehicles.

Purely warning-oriented systems sound great too (e.g. blind-spot detection) but as things stand right now I need to turn my head before changing lanes in order to know that the space into which I intend to move is in fact clear.  Less than perfect coverage by such sensors means that if I don't turn my head due to the BSM system I may run over a motorcycle.

Likewise, backup camera sound great and I like the ability to know exactly where my rear bumper is when backing into a tight parking spot.  But, if you try to use that as a replacement for your mirrors and manually clearing the sides with a turn of the head you will eventually clip someone or something on the side of the car due to not performing that basic act as a driver.

So yeah, bring on the automation.  But let's cut the crap about "safety benefits" until I can climb in the back seat and punch in a destination, leaving as my only remaining manual task refueling when the tank gets low.

From the View page we have this vomit:

Gay rights won't fade as a political issue. The Republican base won’t let it.

Utter and complete crap.

Prominent Republicans calculated that if the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutionally protected, the issue would become settled law and disappear politically. This would be welcome, they reasoned, as the party was on the wrong side of the politics and history.

Then Indiana enacted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act last month that critics said would allow private enterprises to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Arkansas followed with a similar measure.

After vehement opposition from businesses in both states, Republican governors forced modifications that make it more difficult to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

And what drove that "vehement opposition"? 

Let me point out what didn't drive it: A desire to evenly enforce equality of access to all goods and services irrespective of the provider of same and their personal beliefs .vs. those of the person doing the buying.

My evidence?  Right here.

Think that's an isolated incident?  Nope.  Not even close.  How about 13 gay bakeries asked to make explicitly Pro-Christian wedding cakes?

Where are the prosecutions?  And where is the screaming from the left on these bakeries, all of not only apparently talking about a hypothetical purchase but denied an actual attempt to buy, documented on video?

Now let me be clear -- none of these folks should be prosecuted for refusing something that grossly offends them in the case of artistic expression.  This is not public accommodation, it is artistry along with intimate involvement and actual, physical support of an event that is about to take place.  Absent the decoration and inscriptions nobody knows what the hell you want a cake for so it is you as the buyer who are explicitly demanding participation in your intimate event.

There is no legitimate reason for an individual who is about to undertake some sort of event to try to contract with another for the explicit purpose of assisting them in that specific event if that person has a serious ethical or moral problem with what is about to take place.  Such deeply personal events as weddings, funerals and the like are some of the most-intimate that we as humans engage in.  It is simply beyond reason to believe that such an individual about to undertake such an event would have a legitimate desire to have another individual that is personally convinced that the conduct about to take place is immoral or otherwise unacceptable be an intimate and innate participant in such an activity unless their motive is not to add to their own personal experience but to damage or destroy others.

That's what this comes down to when you evaluate it on the merits.  This garbage is part of the grievance industry -- the same sort of people who brought us the Duke LaCrosse "rape" case, the Tawana Brawley incident, the alleged gang rape at a frat house that never happened and more.  These people are not interested in justice, equality or anything of the sort.  They are very interested in destroying anyone with a contrary opinion or lifestyle and they seek not acceptance but rather forced cooperation with their most-intimate life choices while denying that same forced cooperation requirement to anyone else.

Step back a bit and think about the furor that arose among "corporate" entities with regard to Indiana, in particular Apple.  How do you square that position with manufacturing and sourcing of components from China, a nation that openly mocks what we call civil rights, say much less sales into nations that persecute and even murder gay people.

You can't, unless you step back and see that such force is only good when it benefits Apple and, specifically, Apple's Chairman (by increasing his net worth, of course.)

In other words it's perfectly fine for the law to require a Christian photographer to shoot a gay Apple employee couple's wedding -- despite the fact that such an engagement is an inherently intimate thing that the photographer finds personally repulsive (and as a result, whether intentional or not, is likely to come with a sub-optimal outcome) even if the only reason to engage such a person is to attack their moral beliefs (at the possible expense of the quality of your pictures!)

But, the same sort of concern for civil rights turned toward environmental destruction that sickens and kills children near the factories making components going into Apple's products, or for those who work at Foxconn assembling same is illegitimate because that's aimed at Apple and its CEO rather than at those who are "lesser."  In other words we can't have tariffs that are intended to support wage and environmental parity between nations (thereby destroying the incentive to exploit people and the environment under the faux banner of "free trade") because that benefits those who are not as worthy.

It's the same with so-called Globull Warming.  Al Gore thinks you should drive a Volt or a Tesla -- or even better, not drive at all. However, he doesn't think he should give up his 40' yacht that burns diesel at a rate of about 2 gallons per mile, nor should he give up his private jet instead of traveling on commercial flights.  Nor, for that matter, should he give up his palatial estate that consumes 10x as much energy as my home likely does, and 20x as much as yours.  This, of course, is because you (and I) are "lesser" and he is "greater" and therefore those proscriptions he wishes to have ensconced in law are for you, not him.

Another example?  How about Liam Neelson; he has made millions portraying himself as a gun-using good guy and going after bad guys.  Ah, but you see that's for him, not you: he doesn't think ordinary people (like, for instance, if you had the misfortune of being the father of a kidnapped daughter) should have guns as he's for lots of gun control.  You are lesser, you see, and therefore that which he portrays on the silver screen doesn't apply to little you -- only to big him when it makes him millions of dollars.

How about Obama?  He recently obstructed a pair of military members about to get married so he could play a round of golf.  He couldn't go sit at the bar for an hour or two and then play after the ceremony was completed, or, if his schedule did not permit, decide to play tomorrow instead.  No, he had to play now and the couple-to-be had to move their wedding.  A golf game is not a necessity; as someone who has played many rounds of golf (poorly, I admit) it's a luxury and one that is often baked through with frustration.  Yeah, Obama "apologized" but the fact remains: Those who serve our nation and wished to profess their love and had booked the venue were lesser, he was greater and therefore just barged right in.  A man who had a bit of humility (not to mention humanity) would have chosen to have a beer or two, then play on.  But not our President; me me me mine mine mine damnit is the order of the day for him.

I can list literally dozens of other examples and so can you if you think about it for about 30 seconds.  And let me make this quite clear just in case you think you're one of the greater -- unless you're Obama, Elizabeth Warren or similar you're not -- you're one of the lesser and you are being used.

My personal view is that no wedding should have anything to do with the state; if you want to get married you should go see whatever religious adviser floats your boat and have at it and keep it between the two of you and said religion, if any.

In other words there should be no recognition of so-called "marriage" in the civil arena whatsoever; if anything the State should instead recognize and be willing to enforce privately-negotiated partnership agreements in the domestic realm just as it does for any other sort of business arrangement.  After all merging two lives into one at an economic and personal level has business-related constructs to it and that's a place where the government can legitimately arbitrate disputes.  Trying to arbitrate disputes of the heart in a courtroom is not only futile it is none of the government's damn business!

THAT would be equality and, I might add, it would put a permanent stop to the 40+ year practice of unilaterally changing the terms of a couple's deal at literal gunpoint 10, 20, 30 or 40 years later, often at the gross expense of one party or the other -- yet another act that the grievance industry has feasted on for decades at the expense, in the majority, of children.

If we did that it would also erase one of the biggest strangleholds the grievance industry has in America today.

Shall we, my fellow Americans?

When in the course of human events it becomes evident that enslavement has not left the land, indeed, it has simply traveled underground via the mechanisms of finance leaving threadbare the claim that men are free when in fact no such thing is true;

We reassert that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights by their creator and that among them are the right life, liberty and pursuit (but not a guarantee of attainment) of happiness;

We reassert that in order to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;

We reassert that whenever government becomes destructive to these ends it is both the right and duty of men and women to withdraw their consent from said government, enforcing a reorganization of same to address the abuses served upon the people;

We assert that liberty cannot exist in the absence of the right to obtain and accumulate wealth, including property, money and other assets, free of theft-by-devaluation through intentional government malfeasance;

We assert that no government nor any person has the right to impose a debt upon those not yet of the age of majority and in possession of the franchise or those not yet born, and no person against whom said debt is attempted to be laid has an obligation to pay or service said debt;

We assert that no act of government enacted by fraud is valid, and that any act imposing a cost upon the citizens or businesses of the nation without said funds being collected by contemporary taxes is inherently fraudulent and thus void ab-initio;

We further assert that allowing private institutions to practice effective counterfeiting of the currency is both the cause of myriad financial panics, market crashes and other disruptions throughout history and that it constitutes theft from the populace;

Therefore, we demand enactment of the following Amendment to the Constitution:

Section A:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution or Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, no entity, organ, authority or sub-unit of government in the United States or its possessions may issue or maintain debt except;

1. In anticipation of tax revenue to be collected within a 12 month period via tax anticipation notes, with each such issue binding the specific sequester of tax revenues so-anticipated;

2. During a time of declared war, the declaration of which contains a specific statement declaring and defining an existential threat to the continued existence of or liberty in the United States, and only to fund the specific and identifiable costs of said conflict with a maturity of no more than 10 (ten) years beyond the termination of hostilities;

Section B:

In order to facilitate the transition of the existing stock of debt by the United States government along with that of the States and localities in the United States, in conformance with this amendment existing maturities of debt may be rolled for a period of no more than 10 (ten) years, but no less than 10% (ten percent) of said debt outstanding on the date of ratification of this amendment may be so-extended in any given year.  This authority expires 10 (ten) years from the date of ratification and may not be extended except by further Amendment of the Constitution.

Section C:

All banks and other financial institutions shall operate under One Dollar of Capital with any breach thereof being defined as counterfeiting, punishable under 18 USC Section 472 as of February 10th, 2015 or any subsequent statute with liability for same being personal against all officers, directors and board members of any such organization if a corporation, and against the owners if a partnership or proprietorship.

Section D:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution or Section 4 of the 14th Amendment any borrowing not paid or refinanced under the authorities of this Amendment, or otherwise not in conformance thereof, is declared null and void.

Here comes (much) higher auto insurance rates... and this should result in heavy consumer-protection related prosecuting aimed at carmakers -- but it won't.

If you own a new car, there's a good chance that it features some form of keyless security. Whether it helps unlock your car or lets you start it with the push of a button, it makes driving all that bit easier. That's unless it's the reason your car gets stolen. Police forces all over the UK are reporting a rise in keyless car thefts, but a new report released by the Metropolitan Police today suggests that it now accounts for over a quarter of all vehicle thefts across London.

How are they getting in the door?

The claim is that they're breaking in physically and then accessing the ECU via the OBD port, allowing cloning of the key.  I'm not sure I'm buying that, although with some vehicles it is probably possible.

Specifically, it is known that certain older VWAG vehicles can have their cluster broken into via a piece of software that is available from various places in China.  This results in returning the "secret key" necessary to program new keys into the cluster, and then Bob's Your Uncle.

I think it's reasonable to assume that our "friends" with "most-favored nation" status over in China have this software for other makes as well.  In fact, I'd bet on it.

But the simplest way to steal a car with so-called "advanced keys", that is those that you don't have to press a button on a fob to unlock the doors and which has keyless start, is as trivial a paired set of radios and a confederate that gets close enough to you (5' or so) to be able to excite your key in your pocket while his "buddy" stands outside your car's door and pulls the handle.  The car thinks the key is next to it and the key thinks the car is next to it; they transmit their coded handshake and voila!

Next said thief sits in the car and hits START.  Same thing -- the key talks to the car, the car starts.  So long as you don't turn it off you can drive it.

The ugly part of this is that the frequencies aren't secret -- nor can they be, since the fobs and the cars are both intentional transmitters and thus have to operate on specific authorized frequencies.  The coding can be secret but that doesn't matter since you don't need to break the code -- just make the key think it's next to the car and vice-versa.

I'll lay odds this is how they're being stolen and it's why when I bought mine I was ok with keyless start but not with a fob that didn't require a press of the button to unlock the doors.

If you have to bust the glass to get in, or use an airbag or other conspicuous tool, it gets a lot harder and greatly increases the amount of time that the confederate has to be near me while the other guy works my car over before he can start it and drive off.

This is what your "convenience" has gotten you folks -- a car that is trivial to rip off for anyone with a modicum of technical ability.

Oops.

It isn't often that three bogons show up in quick succession, but we've got it here from the so-called paper of record of the scam machine known as Wall Street.

First, let's deal with the so-called Obamacare Escalator.

On Wednesday the actuaries at Health and Human Services released their new annual projected measurement of national health expenditures for last year and through 2023. Spending in 2013 grew at a relatively low rate in historical terms for the fifth consecutive year below 4%, though at 3.6% it still outpaced real economic growth. They expect the rate to climb to 5.6% in 2014 and continue rising by 6% a year on average through the decade.

Health spending as a share of the economy rose to 17.2% in 2013 from 16.2% in 2007 and will hit 19.3% in 2023, assuming that GDP grows as smartly as the auditors project. In other words, health care will soak up nearly one of every five U.S. dollars instead of one of six. Taxpayers will finance 48% of that spending a decade out, up from 41% in 2007. Thank you, Peter Orszag

So let me see if I get this right.

Health care spending as a share of the economy will go to 20% within the next 10 years.  It's bad because that will hit the Federal Budget.  But it would be "good" if it didn't, and instead skullfucked everyone in America who isn't Michael Jordan or Bill Gates within an inch of their lives?

The mental gymnastics required to get there are beyond ridiculous.  Oh, and guess what -- they even try to justify it:

Medical spending is valuable to the extent Americans are buying longer and healthier lives and financing innovation in treatments and therapies.

Really?

Would spending on gas be "valuable" if the fuel was $30/gallon to the extent you could get to work using it?

Well, maybe.  But shouldn't we instead be asking why it's $30/gallon instead of $3 when the only reason it's $30 is the monopoly protections that the government provided for in the form of specifically enabling price-fixing of various sorts?

How do we know this?  We know it because hospitals claim it's perfectly reasonable to charge $9,000 to bandage a finger and $60,000 for two $100 vials of scorpion antivenom that can be purchased over the counter a couple hundred miles to the south.  We also know this to be true because a common test that can be purchased for $20 is charged out at $10,000 by some hospitals.

It is in fact laws that make criminal the sale and possession of said anti-venom without a valid license from a cartel-controlled group that enable said $60,000 price, just as it is laws that make a crime your attempt to have such a test done for $20 on yourself without a valid prescription by a member of that very same cartel.

Those acts -- restraint of trade where market power exists -- are supposed to be felonies according to The Sherman and Clayton Acts.  They in fact result in prices that are thousands of percent higher than the market price for said commodities and services.  It is in fact these acts that leads to an entire industry being required for most people and having a reason to exist in the first place (that is, the medical "insurance" business), a situation that is facially a close analogue to a mafia protection racket.

Then there's this ditty on Disillusioned Doctors....

This economic interaction fostered a better physician-patient relationship. Unfortunately this is lost in U.S. health care, where third-party payment dominates and physician allegiance is divided between trying to take good care of patients while adhering to demands of government agencies and insurance companies which pay the bills.

You know what happens when you allow yourself to be used as a pawn akin to a drug mule for a cartel?

You get fucked, that's what.

Doctors really thought they could be a part of the above crap, actively participate in fucking their customers out of trillions of dollars at the behest of and for these other actors and come out ahead in the long run?

Oh sure, it worked great for a while.  Being a doctor used to be a solid middle-class profession.  Then it turned into one that got you a Porsche and a mansion when you began robbing people.  That was a carrot -- the stick is that you weren't going to be able to keep any of it long term because you were cooperating with and enabling the devil.

And finally, if that's not enough, you have this on $20,000 bruises:

I was proud to see the health-care system working, to see academic medicine working, and most of all to see my son run as fast as he could out of the ER two hours later.

Then the bill arrived, and you know where this is going: $20,000. Our insurance had already paid $17,000, and we owed $3,000 out-of-pocket. What for? Among the items listed on the printout was a $10,000 charge for a "trauma team activation." This made me want to give consumers some very simple tips on how to fight their health-care bills, so here goes:

The rest of the article is a bunch of arm-waving about how he got rid of the bogus $10,000 charge.

Bogus, I say, because no such activation of said trauma team occurred and if it had it would have been in direct violation of published regulations.

He finishes with (after getting the bogus $10k charge removed) "be graceful in victory and realize you got lucky."

Uh, no.

You see, billing someone for a thing when you didn't do it has a name -- F.R.A.U.D.

When that is systemic, that is, intentional and widespread instead of an occasional "mistake" how do you argue against a position that you're operating a criminal enterprise.

And that means that everyone involved would be engaged in the felony known as Racketeering, which in turn means treble damages, huge fines and prison time for everyone involved from the Hospital Administrator on down to the doctors and clerks who were fully aware that they billed out for services they didn't perform.

All in my opinion, of course, since that would be the outcome if we lived in a world where there was actual Equal Protection of the Law.

I will remind you that we're supposed to live in that world because our Constitution via the 14th Amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So there is supposed to be one law for everyone.  So says Amendment 14.

You and I go to prison when we rip people off for 10 large, especially when we do it daily on a systemic basis.

So here's my position on all of this:

If the hospital, doctors, billing clerks and administrators don't have to obey the law why should those people expect anyone else to obey the law in their dealings with them?

You want to know how we get Mad Max in this country?  Keep playing this game long enough, keep making excuses for what ought to be hard-time felonies, and eventually you'll piss off the public enough to find out.

I'm not looking forward to that day and if you have any common sense you're not either.

Cut the crap and stop making excuses.

Now.