Political Use of Flight Restrictions


Ever since September 11, 2001, the government can usually justify whatever it does on the grounds of security. Sports team owners wanted banner-towing aircraft banned from overflying stadiums and thus competing with in-stadium ads. They got their wish shortly after September 11, but since the government did not want to be departing from its “airspace belongs to the public” concept, all aircraft were banned. (The restriction was just recently updated. See this page for the latest draft. Note that the restrictions are specific to stadiums where teams owned by particular organizations are playing, e.g., “NCAA Division One Football” or “Major League Baseball”.)

This didn’t get any press coverage, but an anti-media TFR put in place over Ferguson, Missouri has generated some (nytimes). It seems that everyone in the government could agree that high-res TV footage of rioting Americans was something that the world could live without. First the FAA banned aircraft from going below 5000′ above the ground and then 3000′. Arguably the TFR had some rational basis since the police wanted to fly their helicopters around. On the other hand it is smack up against the main St. Louis Airport and therefore already very tightly controlled by ATC (nobody could fly in that area without an ATC clearance anyway).

Does an iPhone 6 on T-Mobile place calls over WiFi?



I’ve got a Verizon Samsung Note 3 that has tortured me for months with a Contacts manager that thinks the best results when searching for “Bob” are (1) people not named Bob, (2) people for whom only an email address is available (i.e., I couldn’t call them if I wanted to). I also can’t get over the fact that voicemail is not integrated. My final verdict on the Note 3 is that it is a good tablet but a terrible phone (due purely to software; I don’t mind the size even when using it as a phone).

Separately, I am spending a lot of time in a new suburban house where the Verizon coverage is non-existent. I don’t think other carriers will be much better because this is an area where people tend to obstruct the construction of towers. However, I notice that T-Mobile phones are programmed to be able to make calls over a WiFi connection.

So I’m wondering if I can solve two problems with one purchase: a T-Mobile iPhone 6 Plus. Has anyone tried using this over WiFi on a regular basis? How well does it work? (This review is positive.)

Any other general comments from people who’ve switched from Verizon to T-Mobile?

[I did make some phone calls to Verizon. It started out with them asserting that the coverage at the house's address should be great. Then they tried to sell me a "range extender" (i.e., make the customer pay for using the network every month and also to build the network and backhaul the traffic). I asked the tech support guy what the range extender had to be plugged into and he said "nothing." The wall for power? No. An Internet router for communications? No. It could just be placed on a coffee table and would magically make the service in the house better? Yes. (As you might expect, the box actually does plug into the wall for power and into a router for Internet but it also needs a view of the sky so that it can get GPS location; VZ doesn't trust the customer to enter the home address I think.) Did the fact that the Verizon FiOS installer couldn't use his own mobile phone standing in the driveway convince them? That's a different department. Instead of taking my word for it/their own employee's word, they opened a trouble ticket and paid someone to drive out there. The person reported back to them that there was no coverage. Verizon then closed the trouble ticket without texting, emailing, or calling me. I called back a month later and they are now offering to send me a range extender at no charge but they don't have any in stock. If it works, I might be about to stay on the VZ network though I am thinking that the ability to make calls over WiFi might be useful in other folks' houses who also have poor signal.]

Massachusetts Election


Friends have been asking what I think of some of the Massachusetts election choices this year, so I thought I would write up a blog post.

We have four ballot questions (official page):

  1. require the Legislature to vote to raise the gasoline tax instead of having it go up automatically with inflation
  2. add a container deposit to bottled water, iced tea, etc.
  3. repeal the recently enacted casino authorization
  4. require companies with eleven or more employees to be able to take 40 hours per year of paid sick time (or 80 hours if sick time had been accrued in previous years and not used)

It is tough to know what the right answer is on 1. In theory it would probably be better for our wise legislators to meet every year or two and decide on the right amount to spend on roads and the correct gasoline tax for funding it. In practice it is hard to imagine this being done with precision. So maybe it would be better to assume that the old tax was correct and just crank it up automatically as the dollar loses its purchasing power.

I’m not convinced by 2. There isn’t too much trash in Massachusetts and I don’t see more water bottles as trash compared to soda and beer cans. As for recycling I think people are motivated more by the availability of recycling bins than by getting 5 cents.

The best argument in favor of 3 is that casinos are tacky. On the other hand, we authorized a casino and people spent a lot of money developing bids. So it seems as though repealing this now would have the effect of further discouraging anyone from wanting to do business in Massachusetts.

I don’t understand how 4 would work for the business where I work.  If I am sick for 48 hours, for example, Sunday morning at 0900 through Tuesday morning at 0900, how many hours does the flight school have to pay me for? Does it depend on what the weather was like on those days and whether I would actually have flown? What customers had booked? I don’t understand the rationale for making it apply to businesses of only 11 or more people. If this is a question of basic fairness then why is it okay for a 10-person company to be unfair. The ballot question says “The Attorney General would have to prepare a multilingual notice regarding the right to earned sick time, and employers would be required to post the notice in a conspicuous location and to provide a copy to employees.” How does that work in a distributed/virtual company? Why does our flight school have to have a multilingual notice given that the FAA requires English-language proficiency as a condition of any of us having pilot or instructor certificates? Do we know that the cost to taxpayers to enforce this new law won’t be higher than any benefit to workers? Why would there be any benefit to workers overall? Wouldn’t companies just give smaller raises for a year or two as an adjustment to this new law?

The governor’s race is between a career politician, Martha Coakley, and a business executive, Charlie Baker. Coakley seems to be the one Democrat that people in Massachusetts don’t like. She was defeated for Senator in 2010 by Scott Brown, a Republican (!). The Boston Globe has endorsed Baker (editorial), citing the generally incompetent nature of the Deval Patrick administration (“Effective activist government isn’t built on good intentions.”), of which Coakley has been a part.

Given that the Legislature makes the laws and is permanently controlled by one party you might ask what difference it might make to citizens of the Commonwealth who is governor.

I think the answer is judicial appointments, especially in the Probate Court, which handles divorces, custody, and child support matters. These are almost entirely within the judge’s discretion and therefore the governor’s choice of judge, who will generally serve for life, becomes critical to children. For a book project, we looked at the record of Judge Maureen Monks, appointed by Democrat Deval Patrick (see this article regarding the controversy surrounding her appointment):

we pulled all of the cases for one judge, Maureen Monks in Middlesex County, for 2009, 2010, and 2011 (approximately 350 cases per year, though not all of them involved disputed custody). Judge Monks awarded custody via temporary order to the mother in nearly all of the cases examined except for one case where the mother was a drug addict and another where the mother was in a mental hospital (and as soon as the mother was released from the mental hospital, Judge Monks awarded custody of the children back to her). During the three-year study period no father was successful in going to trial and obtaining a 50/50 shared physical custody situation from Judge Monks in the cases that we examined.

The idea that children should nearly always be awarded to, and generate cash for, the mother has become a feminist position. If you agree with that then it would make sense to vote for Martha Coakley, identified as a feminist, because she will probably appoint more judges like Maureen Monks. If, on the other hand, you think that children should have two parents following a divorce, it would probably make more sense to vote for Charlie Baker since judges that he appoints would have the discretion and perhaps the inclination to award 50/50 shared parenting.

[Separately, in case you're wondering how being automatic custody winners and having the potential to collect $100,000 or more per year in tax-free child support became a "feminist" position, here's an excerpt from our book:

Legislators and attorneys told us that women's groups and people identifying themselves as "feminists" were proponents of laws favoring the award of sole custody of children to mothers and more profitable child support guidelines. Is that a recognizably feminist goal? For a woman to be at home with children living off a man's income? Here's how one attorney summarized 50 years of feminist progress: "In the 1960s a father might tell a daughter 'Get pregnant with a rich guy and then marry him' while in the 2010s a mother might tell a daughter 'Get pregnant with a rich guy and then collect child support.'" Why is that superior from the perspective of feminism? A professor of English at Harvard said "Because the woman collecting child support is not subject to the power and control of the man."

We interviewed Janice Fiamengo, a literature professor at the University of Ottawa and a scholar of modern feminism, about the apparent contradiction of feminists promoting stay-at-home motherhood. "It is a contradiction if you define feminism as being about equality and women's autonomy," she responded. "But feminism today can be instead about women having power and getting state support."

Why isn't there a rift in the sisterhood, with women who work full-time expressing resentment that women who met dermatologists in bars are relaxing at home with 2-4X the income? "[Child support profiteering] is kind of an underground economy. Most people just don’t know what is possible. We hear a lot from the media about deadbeat dads who don’t pay any child support and the poverty of single mothers. The media doesn’t cover women who are profiting from the system. The average person assumes that equal shared parenting is the norm and that, in cases where a man is ordered to pay child support, it will be a reasonable amount.”

How did we get to the divorce, custody, and child support system that prevails in Canada and in most U.S. states? “This is because of the amazing success of feminism,” answered Professor Fiamengo. “The movement has totally changed the sexual mores of society but held onto the basic perceptions that had always advantaged women, e.g., that a woman was purified through motherhood. Feminism did not throw out the foundations of the old order that it pretended to reject.”

What’s the practical implication of these perceptions? How do they influence the legislators writing the statutes and judges hearing cases? “People still think of the mother as the best parent, the essential parent,” said Professor Fiamengo. “And that a woman would never lie to obtain the financial benefits offered by the system. A woman would never try to profit from her child. We think of mothers as moral beings who care only about the welfare of their children. There’s a presumption that mothers don’t operate out of greed or self-interest despite the fact that all humans operate out of self-interest.”

But couldn’t it actually be true that women are purified by motherhood? That they wouldn’t lie to collect a few million dollars tax-free plus enjoy the company of their children? “Even pretty decent people would be tempted by the rewards handed out,” said Professor Fiamengo. “It is easy to justify if you no longer like the guy you had been with.”


The Senate race is absurdly lopsided. The incumbent Democrat, Ed Markey, is running against a Republican selectman from a small town (raises the question of why Republicans bother; wouldn’t it be better just to let Markey run unopposed so that voters are reminded that they don’t have a choice as a practical matter?).

Most of the other positions on the ballot are for jobs that voters don’t understand and, in any case, the only question is whether to vote for an incumbent Democrat running unopposed.

[Update post-election: Voters repealed the indexing of gas tax to inflation by a narrow 53/47 margin. Voters rejected expanding the bottle deposit law to water bottles, etc., by a resounding 73/27 margin. Voters rejected rejecting their own previous approval of three casinos (60:40). 60 percent of voters agreed with the idea that they were entitled to more benefits from their employers. People still hated Martha Coakley enough to elect a republican governor, Charlie Baker, by 48:47 (there were some independent candidates who soaked up 5 percent of the vote, but I can't figure out if those votes would have gone to Baker or Coakley). All of the incumbents on my ballot, all Democrats, won reelection.]

How is Haiti doing?


I haven’t thought too much about Haiti since a 2010 trip down toward the earthquake-stricken zone. How is the country doing? I’m halfway through Haiti After the Earthquake by Paul Farmer, one of Boston’s local heroes.

So far (in the book), the news doesn’t seem to be good. Farmer describes his hostility toward companies that ran factories there in the 1980s and paid what he considered to be unfairly low wages. He had similar complaints about the tourism industry. By the time of the quake, the factories had moved to Asia and tourism had shut down, but no high-wage employers came in to replace these industries. Farmer also attributes Haiti’s poverty to “unfair trade practices” by the U.S. but doesn’t explain what these are (perhaps our tariffs on agricultural products and subsidies for domestic agriculture?).

Foreign aid doesn’t seem to work out that well for Haiti. Farmer describes food aid programs that devastate the local agricultural economy, a U.N. group that keeps massive shipping containers on a hillside before a pre-quake hurricane (they wash into a river, smash into a bridge, and bring down the bridge, thus cutting off a heavily populated portion of the country), and a U.N. group that brings cholera to Haiti. Even when foreigners show up to do something useful they tend to displace Haitians. Farmer describes American, European, and Israeli medical personnel showing up to work in Haitian hospitals and clinics after the quake. For every foreigner who shows up, a Haitian employee leaves to check up on/assist his or her family. Farmer describes the earthquake as having been devastating to Haiti’s central government, with most of their ministry buildings flattened. He complains that foreign aid goes to non-governmental organizations and/or is directly spent by foreign governments (e.g., the U.S. government paying its own military personnel) rather than being funneled through the Haitian government.

The CIA Factbook shows Haiti currently growing at a healthy 3.4 percent real rate (well above the population growth rate of 1.1 percent). Global Finance says that Haiti suffered a 5.5 percent reduction in GDP during 2010 but made it all back up in 2011. The Economist in 2013 said that things weren’t going as well as hoped. By the numbers it looks as though the earthquake resulted in two lost years of growth, which of course is bad but not nearly as bad as the number of years of growth lost in various countries that have had financial meltdowns.

Robel Phillipos guilty but government workers still get paychecks?


This week in Boston, 21-year-old stoner Robel Phillipos was convicted of lying to the authorities a day after the last Tsarnaev  brother had been arrested (Globe story). He faces 25 years in prison. It occurred to me that his actions, due to his conversations all occurring after the relevant events, couldn’t have had any effect on the bombing or the arrest of the perpetrators. I’m wondering what happened to the government workers who could actually have prevented the attacks, e.g., by heeding the Russian security service’s warning about the brothers (see this section of Wikipedia) or by more thoroughly investigating the triple murder in Waltham, Massachusetts. Were they disciplined? Fired? Promoted?

[Separately, this New York Times article chronicles a Dominican man who was wanted for murder in New York City, never prosecuted here, and ultimately welcomed with citizenship (and a gun permit, in case he wanted to shoot some more people without violating any laws) while living under his own name in Florida. The shooting victim's daughter found the man with "an Internet search." He was freed yesterday because of the government's failure to prosecute him diligently.]

What is the best monster-sized backyard grill?



Who knows about really big backyard grills? I want an outdoor grill in which I could roast a turkey, cook burger, dogs, and veggies for 30 people (don’t have to all eat at once), and maybe sear steak on the fancy infrared burners that I didn’t know existed until a few weeks ago when a friend showed me his TEC grill.

Consumer Reports likes the “Napoleon Prestige” but I’ve never seen one. My default choice would be some sort of big Weber.

Does it actually work to roast a turkey in an outdoor grill using the rotisserie feature? That is my dream for Thanksgiving this year! (And use the oven in the house for baking side dishes.)

Some people are grateful for what they already have and dream of world peace; I dream of buying something new and then assaulting a dead bird in the backyard…

Who knows about divorce laws in countries other than the U.S.?


This is crowd-sourced appeal to readers… I’m looking for divorce litigators to interview outside of the U.S. One restriction is that they have to be able to speak English. This is for a book project on which I am a co-author. We’re particularly interested in the following countries: Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan. However, we would be happy to learn about other places as well.

This draft chapter shows what we’ve got so far (England, Denmark, Iran, Switzerland).

One thing that we’re trying to figure out is how many countries worldwide make having a child following a casual encounter potentially more profitable than going to college and working. (Easily done in California, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin, for example.) How many other governments set up these kinds of economic incentives?

We want to know if other countries have large variations in the profitability of children across provincial boundaries, comparable to the Wisconsin/Minnesota border for example (the child who yields a $20 million profit in Wisconsin will yield only about $200,000 in profit over 18 years, above USDA-estimated child-rearing expenses, across the bridge into Minnesota).

We want to know which other countries assign different cash values to children from the same parent. [From our book: New York can serve as a simple example. Consider a married couple with three children. The wife goes away for a few weeks to help a sick relative. The husband goes to the neighborhood bar, drinks too much, and, by the time the wife returns he has gotten three women pregnant. The first woman to sue gets 17 percent of his gross income. The second woman gets 17 percent of the 83 percent remainder (14 percent). The third plaintiff gets 17 percent of 83 percent of 83 percent (about 12 percent). Roughly 43 percent of his pre-tax income will thus go to satisfy these court orders. Roughly 50 percent of his income will go to pay local, state, and federal income taxes. The three children and the wife of the marriage will thus be living on 7 percent of his income while each extramarital child gets a larger, but different amount.]

We’re curious to know if selling abortions is a standard practice anywhere outside of the U.S. [In case you're not familiar with the practice, here are some excerpts from our draft book:

"The Supreme Court made abortion legal with Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Congress made abortion profitable in 1988 with the federal Family Support Act [that required states to develop child support guidelines],” is how one attorney summarized the evolution of law in the last quarter of the 20th century. The new state guidelines made an out-of-wedlock child just as profitable as the child of a marriage. Our interviewees report that it did not take long for people to put these two legal innovations together and thus began the age of women selling abortions to men. “If the child support guidelines make having a baby more profitable than working,” a lawyer noted “it only makes sense that 5-10 years of the average person’s income is a fair price for having an abortion.”

In many of the jurisdictions where child support is substantially more than the $9,000 per year that the USDA estimates as the actual cost of caring for a child we learned about the practice of selling abortions. From the Massachusetts chapter:

Due to the $40,144 number at the top of the guidelines, the 23 years over which child support is payable, and the convention whereby a defendant must pay a plaintiff’s legal fees, Massachusetts is one of the most lucrative states for the marketing of abortions. In our interviews we learned about a 40-year-old entrepreneur who was dating a seemingly carefree 25-year-old. Two months later, the young woman presented the man with a positive pregnancy test result, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet showing the $923,312 in child support that he would owe over 23 years, plus a likely $300,000 college budget and additional amounts for health insurance, day care, etc. Her attorney offered to sell her abortion for $250,000 plus legal fees and the cost of the abortion itself. The man paid the $250,000, which was tax-free to the woman. Could that be considered extortion? “It is not extortion nor illegal to threaten to have a baby,” responded Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk, when asked to consider the facts of this incident. Asked to comment on the prevalence of abortion transactions in Massachusetts, another attorney said “This is a good state in which to work your mind and education, but it is a great state in which to work your body and child.”

Attorneys report that one issue in abortion sales is establishing paternity. “When I’m involved in an abortion transaction on the father’s side,” noted one lawyer, “I recommend a paternity test if there is any possible doubt. The person who sells an abortion is not necessarily the most reliable source of information.” Is it possible to do a paternity test on a fetus? “Absolutely,” the lawyer continued. “They can do it after a couple of months using the mother’s blood and a blood sample from the father. It’s called ‘NIPP’ [Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity] and relies on the fact that some of the baby’s DNA makes its way into the mother’s blood.”]

We want to find out which countries have administrative procedures, as opposed to litigation, for ending a marriage and what the typical costs are if the person initiating the divorce does choose to litigate.

We are interested in whether a country has a custody presumption(e.g., 50/50 if the parents don’t agree on something else, mom always wins, mom always wins until the kids are Age X, etc.) and, if favoring one parent with primary custody is common, whether there is a statutory schedule for the child to see the other parent (or if the schedule itself can be the subject of litigation; see the Texas Standard Possession Order for a unique U.S. jurisdiction where parents can’t fight over the details).

We want to know the extent to which it is possible to obtain a de facto divorce via a domestic violence complaint (see “Criminal Law Comes Home” from the Yale Law Journal for how this works in the U.S.; also this more consumer-friendly article by David Heleniak in the Rutgers Law Review).

Basically we need to be put in touch with English-speaking working divorce litigators in other parts of the globe. Thanks in advance for any help.

Most efficient medical record system for dogs and cats: paper


I took Mindy the Crippler, PC for her 12-week veterinary appointment today. The doc wrote everything down by hand on paper to be placed in a folder. I asked “Are electronic health records popular among vets?” She responded that vets used computer systems for reminders and recording vaccinations but generally not for the full health record. “It slows everything down too much [to use a computer],” she noted.

The vet world is mostly uninfluenced by insurance companies and government, so I’m wondering if the fact that computerized records apparently don’t yield net benefits in that domain should make us skeptical that they will pay off in human medicine.

[I might add that, unlike in human medicine, Mindy the Crippler, PC was seen on time and I was able to schedule follow-up visits on dates/times that were convenient for me. What did the vet get paid? Seventy-five dollars, which is about 1/6th as much as my doctor charges as a retail rate and almost exactly the same as my doctor gets paid for an exam (see previous posting about my $83 checkup). The vet might be more profitable because the $75 was collected with a simple credit card swipe.]

Movie review: Maidentrip


Continuing in the category of reviews-of-round-the-world-sailing-trips-by-someone-who-gets-seasick… I watched Maidentrip the other night, a documentary about a 14-year-old girl’s round-the-world solo voyage in a 38-foot sailboat. Aside from the nautical aspects of the voyage, in which the teenager displays far more prudence than most adults, the movie is kind of interesting from a legal point of view.  Laura Dekker was reared primarily by her Dutch father starting at about age 5 (according to the movie, the German-born mom went to live with a boyfriend and left the child [a rational financial decision in Europe, where obtaining custody and collecting child support may not be profitable]). The father was a sailing nut and boat-builder who allowed the girl to take trips commensurate with her skill but unconventional given her age. The Dutch government fought a 10-month lawsuit, ultimately unsuccessful, to try to prevent Dekker from embarking on her journey, which had been approved by both of her joint custodial/biological parents.

Note: the movie is available for streaming from Netflix.

Related: my posting about Wild Eyes (Abby Sunderland’s round-the-world attempt) and All is Lost



For people who are quarantined in their houses or apartments due to the fear of contact with Ebola, how about a service called “e-shutin.com”? With one click you register and get

  • upgraded cable TV subscription with all premium channels
  • higher speed Internet
  • Amazon Kindle Unlimited subscription
  • Amazon Prime subscription
  • additional streaming music subscriptions
  • Peapod online grocery delivery subscription
  • a sign for the front door reading “UPS/Fedex: Please leave packages. No signature required.”
  • subscription to Audible
  • upgraded Netflix subscription to 8 disks out at once

Any other ideas?

Log in