A Proposal to Support Those in the Gig Economy

As the spread of coronavirus is resulting in the cancellation of conventions, live music events, and many sorts of gatherings (as well as closures of restaurants, stores, hotels, etc.), many hourly or gig workers are finding they have no work for the foreseeable future.  In responding to a Facebook post by a friend, I outlined my proposal to assist hourly and gig workers in the interim:

Federal Government:

• An automatic 6-month extension on filing taxes and a 12-moratorium on interest on unpaid taxes (for the self-employed, not those with chronic pre-existing delinquencies)
• $1500/month rebate check to those without income due to the virus

State & Local Governments:

• 1 year moratorium on evictions and foreclosures

This would be a start.

In the Matter of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

There is no reason that Trayvon Martin should have had to die.  There's simply no reason.

His death is not right (in my sense of right and wrong).  It is not just, even if it can be legally justified under the laws of Florida.  Being legally justifiable does not make something right, nor just.

Just walking around

Trayvon had a right to be there, in that gated neighborhood.  He was staying there temporarily.  Just walking around, he was not up to anything wrong.

In fact, before the encounter and confrontation, each man was just doing his own thing, if you will.  Trayvon was just going to the store and returning to the home he was visiting.  George was just doing his rounds of watching the neighborhood.  Neither of them knew the other. Neither of them had any beef against the other.

And, if on that evening of February 26, 2012, each of them had simply just kept on doing their thing, neither would have nationally known names.  Neither of them would have been in a scuffle.  Trayvon would still be alive today.

Let me first suggest that no one, regardless of their opinion on this matter, would have wanted Trayvon Martin to die.  Even the most ardent defenders of George Zimmerman will only defend George's innocence, that, under the laws of the State of Florida, he had a right to use deadly force in the scuffle at a point when George felt he had reason to believe his life was threatened.  They would defend George's right to self-defense and to stand his ground,  But, I will suppose that none of them believed that Trayvon deserved death.

Why did he have to die?

So what went wrong?  Why did Trayvon have to die?

Here the details are only partial.  We don't have a video replay to document the events, step-by-step.  Piecing things together, we know that George called the police after seeing Trayvon.  There had been incidents of other crimes in the neighborhood, and apparently George suspected that Trayvon might be up to criminal intent.

About 7 1/2 minutes after George called the police, a shot is heard by a neighbor calling the police.

Somewhere in those tragic 7 1/2 minutes, Trayvon realizes he's being followed and runs, getting away from George.  Despite instructions from the 911 operator, George pursues Trayvon on foot.

In the last 3 minutes of Trayvon's life, the encounter escalates.  Somehow George finds Trayvon.  At some point the encounter turns into a scuffle.  One of them shouts for help.  A neighbor sees the fight and calls 911.

And then at 7:17 pm, the shot is heard.

Within a minute, police arrive.   Not too much longer, Trayvon dies.

Beyond these events, we hear how different people want to interpret the situation.

Some will say that George escalated things by not obeying the 911 operator's instructions not to pursue.  If he didn't pursue, when the police arrived, they might have only questioned Trayvon and interviewed George, avoiding the fatal encounter.

Others say George was just doing his job.  He found someone who might be up to no good, pursued him.  And when he felt his life was threatened in the scuffle, he defended himself.  They say he did nothing wrong.

How Doing "Nothing Wrong" Leads to Fatal Results

Why does the "he did nothing wrong" scenario end up in Trayvon's death?

Some will say that it was Trayvon who was attacking George.  And when the encounter changed to the point Trayvon threatened George, then George was justified in defending himself.

But on the other side, were Trayvon's actions tantamount to "standing his ground" when he felt threatened by Georges pursuit?

On another perspective, if not for George's gun, the scuffle may have been simply a "mano-a-mano" fist fight, perhaps with bloody results, but not with fatal results.  The deadly weapon was the variable that allowed the scuffle to turn fatal.

The "Loophole" in Stand Your Ground

On the surface, self-defense makes sense.  You're just minding your business, and some criminal comes up to you and threatens you.  Shouldn't you be able to defend yourself?  Most people will say this makes sense.

But now, change the nature of the encounter.  Say there's no one just attacking you out of the blue.  You're minding your business and so is the other person.  But you think the other person may be up to no good.  Then you do or say something, and the other person feels threatened.  With both persons now feeling somewhat threatened, an encounter or scuffle or fight follows.  The fight escalates.  Now, if either or both of the persons fighting feels their life is threatened, they can simply kill the other person can claim they're standing their ground.  

Does this mean anytime two people get in a serious fight, the stand your ground provisions apply and one person is allowed to kill the other?

Does this mean that someone can now go around picking fights, getting the other person all worked up until that person attacks, and the person picking the fight can now kill that person, justified by stand your ground?

Is this a justification for injecting a fatal conclusion is what should just be a fight?

If George escalated the encounter by pursuing Trayvon to the point Trayvon felt threatened, who is responsible for the scuffle that followed. Why does George get to claim stand your ground if he started it?

The Law vs. Right-and-Wrong

Somewhere, I believe there is a gut sense of right and wrong that is violated here.  Sure, I listened to the trial and based on the evidence and law, George was correctly found "not guilty."   But that doesn't make him innocent or even right in his actions. 

Only a lawyer can say that right-and-wrong of the incident boils down the the last 2 minutes of the scuffle, when George felt his life endangered and shot Trayvon.  I believe reasonable people would look at all of George's actions to judge what is right or wrong.

Thus, my sense of right and wrong encompasses the entire incident, from the first moment that George spotted Trayvon.

My sense of right and wrong looks at all the actions of each individual.  When you do that, we see neither was completely a victim.

When George first spotted Trayvon, he was doing nothing wrong and had every right to be walking through the neighborhood.  But seeing this young man in a hoodie, George made a judgement that he was suspicious, and then decided to follow Trayvon.  Observing only his race and attire, George wrongfully assumed Trayvon might be up to something criminal.  This act made Trayvon a victim of unjustified accusation.  

As a victim of unjustified accusation, was not Trayvon justified for feeling concerned about being followed?  For Trayvon, there was not an apparent reason why this guy was following him.  So, would not be reasonable for Trayvon to run away to escape from being followed?  Yet, George may have interpreted Trayvon's running as confirmation that he was up to something.

So, the situation between the two strangers has escalated, with George in pusuit of a potential criminal and Trayvon angry about why this unidentified guy is following him.

For any person, regardless of age or race, being followed for unexplained reasons puts one on the defense.  Many of us have had some situation where they are followed by someone.  It happened to me once at age 22, when two men pulled me down and robbed me.

According to the event timeline, there was about 3 min. between the end of George's call to the police, when he said he lost track of Trayvon, and the shot that killed Trayvon.

Clearly, in those 3 minutes, the pair found each other.  After finding each other, somehow a  scuffle ensued and likely punches were laid on George.

While a fight is never justified, we can see where the emotions of each person could lead to it.

But, who was the instigator?  George took the first actions, and created the encounter.  Without his pusuit, the two would have gone on their own ways.

Yet, under the law and in court, we see George made into the victim, fearing for his life in a scuffle lasting 2 minutes at most.  

Think about this.  George is the guy with the gun.  Trayvon is unarmed.  If Trayvon knew George had a gun and was pursuing him, did not Trayvong have  the right to stand his ground and defend himself in the only way he could by using his fists, as he was unarmed.

Yet, under Florida law, it is George that is justified for "standing his ground" (ironic for a guy lying on his back, loosing the fight that he instigated.

My sense of right and wrong is both of them are wrong in fighting.  But, once the fight began, both of them can be justified in "standing their own ground."

Finally, if this incident was left to trained law enforcement and not this amateur, self-appointed armed watchman, there is no reason for the incident to end in death.  But, thanks to the provisions of Florida law, we have a young man dead for no good reason.

The death of Trayvon was not right.  It was not just.

Political Candy (aka, Payroll Tax Cut)

The political debate over whether or not to extend the payroll tax cut tells us a lot about what candidates think of the American public. This debate tells me that the politicians of all persuasions think of the public as children and the payroll tax cut is political candy. It's only a short-time sugar high, but most people want their political candy! 

First, we see President Obama, feeling the pain of the average person in these tough economic times, saying now is not the time to end this tax cut. When the children are having a bad day, it just isn't nice to take away their candy. 

Then, we see various economists and others who are focused on our deficits saying they know what's best. Just because the children want their candy doesn't mean they should get it. They want to lecture the children about what's good for them and be firm: no candy! 

On the Republican side, the candidates for President are divided. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul like continuing the tax cuts. Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry don't like them. Bachmann says they're not working. But taking away their candy is no way to win votes. In a similar manner, Republic Party leaders realize they don't want Republicans to be tagged with taking away a popular tax cut going into a Presidential election year. But the rank-and-file, especially the Tea Party folk, disagree. 

I predict the tax cut will live for one more year. I see the Republican leadership twisting arms with the argument that in a close election, this issue could loose them their chance to capture the White House.

Immigration and the New Law in Arizona (Part 1)

The recent passage of a controversial immigration law in Arizona has put the vague memories of the health care debate far into the recesses of the national political buzz. And as many of our national debates, it seems both sides are so focused on different issues that it is completely impossible for our nation to address this issue in a simple common sense and effective way.

Let me present what I think are the legitimate arguments on each side, and then present what how I think the scientific theory of porosity should be applied to developing a rational and reasonable policy.

Before I start, I must say I’m married to a legal immigrant, born in Peru but now a naturalized American citizen (with a US passport to prove it!). My in-laws who live in the US are all here legally (e.g., my mother-in-law has her green card to prove it). What I have found that it’s much easier for us as Americans to travel to Peru to visit the relatives than it is for some of them (particularly children and teens) to get tourist visas to visit us here.

The Border in Arizona
Simply put, the border in Arizona is quite porous and illegal crossings occur daily. But more troublesome is the drug trafficking and associated crimes including murders of citizens and law enforcement officers alike. My reading of the situation is that this combination of illegal crossings intertwined with criminal activities has many saying “enough is enough.” Furthermore, the criminal activity has many in fear of illegal immigrants as how can one tell which ones are the armed drug runners or other dangerous criminals.

All sides agree that it is the Federal government’s sole responsibility to regulate immigration and border crossings. But, many have noted that for decades now, the Federal government has not done enough to control the border in Arizona. In some places (such as San Ysidro, CA Tiajuana, Mexico), there are walls, border patrols and designated entry points where documents are checked. But in other places, particularly remote areas, there is little in the way to prevent entry into the US.

The proponents of the new law say that it is needed because the Federal government did not do its job regarding controlling the border.

What Does a Person Suspected of Being Illegally in the US Look Like?
The gist of the opposition to the new law deals with how it might be enforced. In particular, how does a law enforcement officer come to have reason that someone may be illegally here?

So let’s be frank. While the law prohibits “profiling” and the law’s supporters say there will be no profiling, I still ask myself, how does an officer come to suspect someone in the US illegally? If it’s not by skin color, or accent or language, what is it? Sure, some people might look suspicious, like they’re trying to hide something or fleeing when they see the police approaching.

But, if someone is not doing anything criminal or suspicious, how can one suspect someone is illegally here and not a legal immigrant or a native-born American with the same “look” as an immigrant? Many wonder will this turn into situations where people are stopped for DWH (driving while Hispanic) or DWL (Driving while Latino)? It’s happened to other racial and ethnic groups. It could happen; the politicians and other supporters are not the same people as the cops who have to enforce the law on a daily basis.

“Show Me Your Papers!”
For those suspected, law enforcement will ask “Show me your papers!” Now for a legal foreign visitor, they’re probably carrying their passport. In fact, when in a foreign country, I usually carry my passport, so this is reasonable. For those with a work visa, they can produce a “green card.” If there is strong enforcement of the law, it would seem to be advisable that those with “green cards” carry them at all times, just in case they are stopped or with someone who is stopped. In this case, the burden of always carrying a “green card” is not much more that always carrying a driver’s license, which is something most of us do.

But here’s the problem for libertarians: what about American citizens who “look foreign” (to be frank, who look Hispanic or Latino). Some may be naturalized citizens, others born here, and others may be American citizens for generations. But they may still look like people who may be in the US illegally. Will this subject American citizens to have to prove they are Americans?

What if this applied to other Americans in Arizona? Would they like having to carry a passport of birth certificate to “prove” they are Americans?

What happened to the America where a citizen never had to “prove” they belong here? It’s bad enough we have to do this when we get a new job. (Why should law-abiding, American citizens be subjected to this scrutiny just because of a minority who apply for work illegally?)

Now the politicians and supporters will tell us this won’t be the case or this isn’t a problem. But, let’s be real. It will happen from time to time. And this is a slippery slope from asking a few Hispanic Americans citizens in Arizona to prove they belong here toward having a national identity card or similar way for big government to check on us, even if we’ve done nothing wrong. To me, asking even a few American citizens in Arizona to “show us your papers” is something that reeks of Nazi Germany and other repressive regimes.

The New Libertarian Socialist View of Immigration
Let me digress to present the origins of my beliefs as a “new libertarian socialist.”

The true Libertarian (not the view of conservatives in Libertarian clothes) position on immigration is the free migration of all peoples, regardless of international boundaries. Clearly, none of the conservatives in Arizona espouse this view!

The Christian Socialist view sees the immigrant as the stranger whom we should welcome, much as Christ said that we welcome him when we welcome the least among us who is a stranger in our land. This view is also not embraced by supporters of the new law. What is lost in the rhetoric is that even those here illegally are human beings, and like all humans they are created in the image of God.

Clearly, these viewpoints do not appear to align with ringing support of the law. And they clearly in opposition to the demonization of people who are illegally in the US, rhetoric we hear from many with a conservative viewpoint on immigration. But even those who are here illegally are still human beings, as the something else you might read on some blogs and websites.

But how do we get from the status of chaos to a state where immigrants are here legally? The current national debate will never get us to a conclusion as both sides have to feed “red meat” sound bites to their political bases. The politicians are forced into the more extreme positions, so we can’t look to Washington to solve this problem.

Nevertheless, as a practically-oriented engineer, I think the real workable solution lies clearly in between the political extremes.

A Better Approach: Start with What We Agree On
I think most people agree we have a mess in the border states. Immigration is out of control. This is the Federal government’s job and it’s not been done.

I think there is a majority who would like to see the current mess transformed into a situation where those in the US who are not citizens are here legally. This would be accompanied by reasonable controls to allow a number of legal immigrants to fill jobs where there is a need. And, this would also provide the protection of the law for those non-citizens who are here legally. These legal immigrants would pay taxes and need not fear law enforcement officers as they would have the documentation to prove their legal status.

I think many would agree this would be a more organized state of affairs.

What is the Solution? What are the Alternatives?
To be continued in Part 2.

Spill, Baby, Spill!

We've heard the chant "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Well, off the coast of LousianaSpill, Baby, Spill!

But, when you drill, sometimes you get a spill. That's just the way it is. As an engineer, I know we live in an imperfect world. Spills happen. Engineers may design drill rigs to avoid spills, but don’t fool yourself, nothing made by human hands is perfect. So, if the policy is "drill, baby, drill," at some point that will lead to "spill, baby, spill!"

The best thing we can do, as engineers, is design in contingencies. We know that the fuel tanks that at your local gas stations leak from time to time. Most don't leak. But leaks happen. So we now have double wall tanks. If the first wall breaches, there is a second wall to catch the leak.

We do that with fuel lines two: a pipe within a pipe. If the first pipe leaks, the second one catches it.

We need to find out more of why this spill happened and if the contingency provisions failed. This is a big one, with so much pressure, it can't just be capped. And it is very deep, too. It may take months to drill a relief shaft so the first one can be capped. When the pressure isn't too bad, one can put a valve (in the open position) on the end of a leaking pipe while the pipe is still under pressure. Once the valve is firmly in place, it can be closed slowly until eventually the leak is sealed. But, if the pressure is too great, or you can’t get to the pipe, you have to try something else.

In the mean time, the damage is occurring. There will be harm to wildlife and to the wetlands along the coast. And economic impacts, particularly to the fishing and tourist industries. The fishing and shrimping boats are all at their docks. If it takes months to stop the leak and clean-up the spill, they will be out of work for months.

This one spill doesn’t mean that we should take a knee-jerk policy adjustment and end all off-shore drilling. But it does mean we should have our eyes open on the risks that come with any energy policy that includes off-shore drilling.