*****Update 11/12/2015: I recently received this email from Ashleigh Bell of OnlineCollegePlan.com. It looked like junk mail, but I checked it out anyways, and they seem to be legit. Here's the email:
On Nov 12, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Ashleigh Bell <ashleighbell928@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Tim, I came across some of your blog posts and thought you’d be interested in this infographic about avoiding student loan debt we recently published on Online College Plan: “The Debt Pool: Avoiding Student Loan Debt” http://www.onlinecollegeplan.com/features/avoiding-student-loan-debt/
We know visitors come to their favorite sites often and value new quality content that relates to their interests. That’s why we thought you would be interested in posting this graphic on your site to share with your readers.
Thank you, Ashleigh Bell
Thursday, January 29, 2015
SLO: Now Let's Tax the Cr*p out of E-Cigs!
*****Update 4/22/2015: The Tribune ran an article on the front page of the April 17, 2015 edition. Though I could not find the article on the Tribune site, I found "Teen Tobacco Cigarette Use Down" on another site, where you can read the article by clicking here. Some highlights from the above referenced article:
Above (click to enlarge): Theo the dog on a recent camping trip. I like to sprinkle boring blog posts with photos I like. I got a chance to catch Theo's tongue in action going work on a snowfield (yes, there is still snow out there in California - just not much!).
• Recently released government data suggests that use of electronic cigarettes among middle and high school students has tripled between 2013 and 2014. It was also discovered that more teenagers are using e-cigarettes than traditional tobacco products. The findings were based on an annual survey of 22,000 students across the country.
• There is no data linking e-cigarettes to the use of traditional tobacco products. In fact, many teens who have tried e-cigarettes were already smokers.
• The Center for Disease Control - CDC should really be jumping for joy at the fact that smoking rates are declining. This is a huge success. Instead, they are using this as another opportunity to demonize e-cigarettes.
• Students are using e-cigarettes in place of traditional tobacco products. E-cigarette use increased from 4.5% to 13.4% between 2013 and 2014, and its usage tripled among middle school students. During the same time frame, traditional cigarette use showed its lowest level in years, dropping to 9.2% of high school students and 2.5% of middle school students (dropping from what level, the article, unfortunately, did not say).
*****Update 4/13/2015: In this post, I'm just trying to get ahead of the politicians, who want to first ban (anywhere outside your home) and then tax e-cigarettes because they want the tax revenue. It's too easy to just follow the money!
The Wall Street Journal contained a recent article on why our government loves cigarette smoking: because of the massive taxes they collect from their sale. This is what we call in the private sector a "conflict of interest". However, our government doesn't have to worry about such things because they are most often "above the law" that governs those competing in private enterprise to stay afloat. Anyways, you can read the article by clicking here.
What does this have to do with banning e-cigs? A lot, as it turns out. First, smokers are turning away from tobacco cigs to e-cigs — good, right? If you are our government, then it's not good, because, well, the government isn't taxing the sh*t out of e-cigs like we are with tobacco cigs - at least not yet.
So the question becomes: how to make e-cigs appear "bad" like the tobacco cigarettes that actually are bad. Before we can tax e-cigs, we first have to "ban them" from public sidewalks, parks and offices, thus setting them up to "appear" bad. After being established as bad, we can now tax them ... yeah! shouts our state government (quietly, of course).
Is the greedy rush to tax e-cigs beginning? H*ll, yes, it is! I'll just quote the relevant portions of the above reference Wall Street Journal article, and that should be "'nuf said".
"Lawmakers can claim they’re raising taxes on cigarettes to reduce smoking and improve public health. That talking point is belied by the recent imposition of taxes on electronic cigarettes, which are saving lives by delivering nicotine in puffs of water vapor instead of chemical-filled [carcinogenic] smoke. There are more than 15 tax bills pending across the country for currently untaxed e-cigarettes. Hawaii is proposing a tax of 80%, New York of 75%, Oregon of 65% and Ohio of 60%. For politicians, cigarette taxes are—and have always been—about one thing: money."
So why do I really care about any of this? 2 reasons:
1) I want people to be healthy and live longer. I believe e-cigs help some people quit smoking; tobacco cigs are 100's of times worse for you than e-cigs, according to current research. Most current research says that I am correct - so does common sense and logic.
2) I want to help the poor and the homeless. The cigarette-addicted poor are hurt most by the high cigarette taxes, and they can afford it the least. Money spent on cigarette taxes takes away from the essentials of living. Yes, the poor should give up smoking, but it's just not that easy. Remember, every who can quite smoking has already done so, leaving only the highly addicted to smoke and pay cigarette taxes to the government. If the poor move on to e-cigs, which are cheaper, they are better off, health wise.
US News and World Report put out an article last year begging our government not to tax e-cigs like their distant cousins, tobacco cigarettes, which you can read by clicking here. IMHO, our government will eventually win, and e-cigs will be banned from public and private spaces and heavily taxed, to the benefit of government coffers and to the detriment of the governed - time will tell.
*****Update 3/4/2015: As predicted, the SLO city council, in a 5-0 vote, elected to ban e-cigs from public places, including restaurants, sidewalks and parks. Oh well. The Nanny State marches on. You can read about it in the 3/4/2015 Tribune newspaper by clicking here, or just read about it on page 1 of the Trib (the Tribune web site is chock full of ads and other crazy stuff, and I am doing my best to avoid it).
Note: the info below is my opinion based on studies that I have read - should new studies come out to the contrary, I will weigh those new results. I have no horse in this race, as I do not smoke tobacco cigs or e-cigs.
As I am so simple-minded, let's get simple. Let's look at the erroneous objections listed in the Trib article and debunk them:
• Myth 1: the vapor from e-cigs exposes people to harmful second hand health impacts: totally false. Based entirely on "scientific" tests where they caused the e-cig to massively overheat, basically causing it to dramatically fail, then allow the chemicals used inside the cigarette (that were never meant to ever see the atmosphere) to escape into the air. Then they extrapolated that bogus result to say that all e-cigs have the potential to put out these operational cancer-causing chemicals. E-cigs are no more harmful than nicotine gum or the nicotine patch (both nicotine delivery devices), so why doesn't the city council ban them the patch and gum, while they are at it?
• Myth 2: E-cigs appear harmless to teens and are easy for them to get: So far as we know, e-cigs are harmless to teens, other than nicotine absorption. However, tobacco cigarettes, their competitors, are indeed harmful. Studies show that when teen e-cig use rises, harmful tobacco cigarette use declines - IMHO, that's a good thing. No idea whether they are easy to get, but I do know that banning them will make them even more desirable and popular with teens. This ban will increase teen e-cig use, by making it even more cool and hip than it already is.
• Myth3 : Allowing e-cigs undermines tobacco cigarette regulations: Huh? I have no idea what this even means. I could never be a government bureaucrat!
That's it - that's all the objections that it requires to ban something. The Nanny State of SLO marches on. Congratulations to all those people trying to quit smoking by using e-cigs: the odds of your premature death just increased a little bit. Sad.
*****Update 2/26/2015: The Wall Street Journal had a good article on the "misbegotten crusade against e-cigs" which you can read by clicking here.
• Recently released government data suggests that use of electronic cigarettes among middle and high school students has tripled between 2013 and 2014. It was also discovered that more teenagers are using e-cigarettes than traditional tobacco products. The findings were based on an annual survey of 22,000 students across the country.
• There is no data linking e-cigarettes to the use of traditional tobacco products. In fact, many teens who have tried e-cigarettes were already smokers.
• The Center for Disease Control - CDC should really be jumping for joy at the fact that smoking rates are declining. This is a huge success. Instead, they are using this as another opportunity to demonize e-cigarettes.
• Students are using e-cigarettes in place of traditional tobacco products. E-cigarette use increased from 4.5% to 13.4% between 2013 and 2014, and its usage tripled among middle school students. During the same time frame, traditional cigarette use showed its lowest level in years, dropping to 9.2% of high school students and 2.5% of middle school students (dropping from what level, the article, unfortunately, did not say).
*****Update 4/13/2015: In this post, I'm just trying to get ahead of the politicians, who want to first ban (anywhere outside your home) and then tax e-cigarettes because they want the tax revenue. It's too easy to just follow the money!
The Wall Street Journal contained a recent article on why our government loves cigarette smoking: because of the massive taxes they collect from their sale. This is what we call in the private sector a "conflict of interest". However, our government doesn't have to worry about such things because they are most often "above the law" that governs those competing in private enterprise to stay afloat. Anyways, you can read the article by clicking here.
What does this have to do with banning e-cigs? A lot, as it turns out. First, smokers are turning away from tobacco cigs to e-cigs — good, right? If you are our government, then it's not good, because, well, the government isn't taxing the sh*t out of e-cigs like we are with tobacco cigs - at least not yet.
So the question becomes: how to make e-cigs appear "bad" like the tobacco cigarettes that actually are bad. Before we can tax e-cigs, we first have to "ban them" from public sidewalks, parks and offices, thus setting them up to "appear" bad. After being established as bad, we can now tax them ... yeah! shouts our state government (quietly, of course).
Is the greedy rush to tax e-cigs beginning? H*ll, yes, it is! I'll just quote the relevant portions of the above reference Wall Street Journal article, and that should be "'nuf said".
"Lawmakers can claim they’re raising taxes on cigarettes to reduce smoking and improve public health. That talking point is belied by the recent imposition of taxes on electronic cigarettes, which are saving lives by delivering nicotine in puffs of water vapor instead of chemical-filled [carcinogenic] smoke. There are more than 15 tax bills pending across the country for currently untaxed e-cigarettes. Hawaii is proposing a tax of 80%, New York of 75%, Oregon of 65% and Ohio of 60%. For politicians, cigarette taxes are—and have always been—about one thing: money."
So why do I really care about any of this? 2 reasons:
1) I want people to be healthy and live longer. I believe e-cigs help some people quit smoking; tobacco cigs are 100's of times worse for you than e-cigs, according to current research. Most current research says that I am correct - so does common sense and logic.
2) I want to help the poor and the homeless. The cigarette-addicted poor are hurt most by the high cigarette taxes, and they can afford it the least. Money spent on cigarette taxes takes away from the essentials of living. Yes, the poor should give up smoking, but it's just not that easy. Remember, every who can quite smoking has already done so, leaving only the highly addicted to smoke and pay cigarette taxes to the government. If the poor move on to e-cigs, which are cheaper, they are better off, health wise.
US News and World Report put out an article last year begging our government not to tax e-cigs like their distant cousins, tobacco cigarettes, which you can read by clicking here. IMHO, our government will eventually win, and e-cigs will be banned from public and private spaces and heavily taxed, to the benefit of government coffers and to the detriment of the governed - time will tell.
*****Update 3/4/2015: As predicted, the SLO city council, in a 5-0 vote, elected to ban e-cigs from public places, including restaurants, sidewalks and parks. Oh well. The Nanny State marches on. You can read about it in the 3/4/2015 Tribune newspaper by clicking here, or just read about it on page 1 of the Trib (the Tribune web site is chock full of ads and other crazy stuff, and I am doing my best to avoid it).
Note: the info below is my opinion based on studies that I have read - should new studies come out to the contrary, I will weigh those new results. I have no horse in this race, as I do not smoke tobacco cigs or e-cigs.
As I am so simple-minded, let's get simple. Let's look at the erroneous objections listed in the Trib article and debunk them:
• Myth 1: the vapor from e-cigs exposes people to harmful second hand health impacts: totally false. Based entirely on "scientific" tests where they caused the e-cig to massively overheat, basically causing it to dramatically fail, then allow the chemicals used inside the cigarette (that were never meant to ever see the atmosphere) to escape into the air. Then they extrapolated that bogus result to say that all e-cigs have the potential to put out these operational cancer-causing chemicals. E-cigs are no more harmful than nicotine gum or the nicotine patch (both nicotine delivery devices), so why doesn't the city council ban them the patch and gum, while they are at it?
• Myth 2: E-cigs appear harmless to teens and are easy for them to get: So far as we know, e-cigs are harmless to teens, other than nicotine absorption. However, tobacco cigarettes, their competitors, are indeed harmful. Studies show that when teen e-cig use rises, harmful tobacco cigarette use declines - IMHO, that's a good thing. No idea whether they are easy to get, but I do know that banning them will make them even more desirable and popular with teens. This ban will increase teen e-cig use, by making it even more cool and hip than it already is.
• Myth3 : Allowing e-cigs undermines tobacco cigarette regulations: Huh? I have no idea what this even means. I could never be a government bureaucrat!
That's it - that's all the objections that it requires to ban something. The Nanny State of SLO marches on. Congratulations to all those people trying to quit smoking by using e-cigs: the odds of your premature death just increased a little bit. Sad.
*****Update 2/26/2015: The Wall Street Journal had a good article on the "misbegotten crusade against e-cigs" which you can read by clicking here.
I have attempting to persuade the SLO city council that E-cigs prevent tobacco cigarette deaths. They are simply looking at the wrong studies that are being trumpeted by those having something to gain by "snuffing out" e-cigs forever. Also, I suspect that government coffers have much more to gain in the way of tax dollars for the continuing sales of tobacco products than they do from e-cigs.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
SLO: Point-In-Time (PIT) Homeless Census 1/26/2015 Report
January 26, 2015, I participated in the Homeless Services Oversight Council (HSOC) Point in Time (PIT) Count of the homeless in SLO County. This was my first time, and I am glad that I did. It was an eye opener for me, but not in the way that you might expect (more below). You can read more about the "PIT Count" by viewing the SLO Homeless website by clicking here.
The count took place on Monday, January 26, 2015, from 6am to 10am. You can read an article on the count in the Tribune newspaper BY DAVID SNEED AND CYNTHIA LAMBERT entitled "Volunteers scour SLO County to count homeless population" by clicking here. For the PIT Count, the volunteers (like me) were teamed with paid homeless "guides". Together, the homeless/volunteer team was assigned an area of the city of SLO (and bits of adjacent county land) and given a map and census forms to be completed in the field. We were given until 10am that day to complete our survey work.
Thursday, January 15, 2015
SLO: Homeless Services in Need of a Fresh Approach
On Wednesday, 1/14/2015, Dan Carpenter (SLO City Council member) wrote a "Viewpoint" article in the Tribune entitled "SLO County's homeless services are in need of a fresh approach". You can read this article by clicking here. He made many major points, and I agree with all of them, more or less (some more than others). On this city council, he would appear to stand alone in his "fresh" thinking.
Within a few days, there was a backlash to Mr. Carpenter's article, much of which distorted what he was saying. I updated this post on 1/20/2015 to reflect some of the unfair criticism sent Mr. Carpenter's way. I think the most important thing to remember is that Mr. Carpenter is committed to getting the homeless into housing, even if others might disagree with his approach. Also, Mr. Carpenter has extensive first hand experience helping and working with the homeless, and is not just ignorantly "shooting from the hip".
Let's look at Mr. Carpenter's main points in the article. I provide commentary where clarification may be needed:
(1) 10 Year Homeless Plan Not Working: Agreed. 7 years in, and there are more homeless people than ever. Why do I appear to be the only one who is upset about the lack of progress? Should somebody be fired for not "carrying out the plan?" Apparently, this was not a real goal that anyone expected to meet. How sad.
(2) Housing First is the Best Approach: Agreed. The new "50 Now" program is currently doing this, but its just not enough. As of this writing, only about 14 to 17 of the 50 in the program have housing. Why, you ask? I am told that it is because there is none available for the program - there is no "affordable housing" out there for anybody.
(3) We Should Not Build the New Homeless Services Center (HSC): Mixed. As I have said all along, I would prefer it be built than not be built, but I agree with Mr. Carpenter that I would rather put the funds to other uses serving the homeless, including "Housing First" programs. First, I don't believe the new shelter will stay within budget, at least not if the drawings and artistic renderings are any indication of the degree of construction difficulty. To see what I am referring to, go to this link: New SLO Homeless Services Center.
Concerns about the new HSC:
1) Construction cost overruns (above).
2) Restricted operations after opening due to citizen complaints.
3) Loss of faith-based volunteers when the overflow program ends.
4) Lack of operational funds (larger facility serving more clients means higher operational costs and overhead); if operational funds are lacking now - what will happen when the utility bills and number of homeless clients served increases?
5) Building a "taj mahal" to the homeless, when a "down and dirty" facility is "the right tool for the job". The homeless are used to the grit of the street - who are we trying to impress with the new HSC that looks more like an art museum or a fancy library? The design better serves those who give tours of the facility, rather than the homeless, who are just "trying to get in out of the rain".
Main Benefit of HSC: As I have said many times over, the main benefit to the new HSC is that all homeless services will be combined under one roof - a huge operational and services upgrade.
Within a few days, there was a backlash to Mr. Carpenter's article, much of which distorted what he was saying. I updated this post on 1/20/2015 to reflect some of the unfair criticism sent Mr. Carpenter's way. I think the most important thing to remember is that Mr. Carpenter is committed to getting the homeless into housing, even if others might disagree with his approach. Also, Mr. Carpenter has extensive first hand experience helping and working with the homeless, and is not just ignorantly "shooting from the hip".
Let's look at Mr. Carpenter's main points in the article. I provide commentary where clarification may be needed:
(1) 10 Year Homeless Plan Not Working: Agreed. 7 years in, and there are more homeless people than ever. Why do I appear to be the only one who is upset about the lack of progress? Should somebody be fired for not "carrying out the plan?" Apparently, this was not a real goal that anyone expected to meet. How sad.
(2) Housing First is the Best Approach: Agreed. The new "50 Now" program is currently doing this, but its just not enough. As of this writing, only about 14 to 17 of the 50 in the program have housing. Why, you ask? I am told that it is because there is none available for the program - there is no "affordable housing" out there for anybody.
(3) We Should Not Build the New Homeless Services Center (HSC): Mixed. As I have said all along, I would prefer it be built than not be built, but I agree with Mr. Carpenter that I would rather put the funds to other uses serving the homeless, including "Housing First" programs. First, I don't believe the new shelter will stay within budget, at least not if the drawings and artistic renderings are any indication of the degree of construction difficulty. To see what I am referring to, go to this link: New SLO Homeless Services Center.
Concerns about the new HSC:
1) Construction cost overruns (above).
2) Restricted operations after opening due to citizen complaints.
3) Loss of faith-based volunteers when the overflow program ends.
4) Lack of operational funds (larger facility serving more clients means higher operational costs and overhead); if operational funds are lacking now - what will happen when the utility bills and number of homeless clients served increases?
5) Building a "taj mahal" to the homeless, when a "down and dirty" facility is "the right tool for the job". The homeless are used to the grit of the street - who are we trying to impress with the new HSC that looks more like an art museum or a fancy library? The design better serves those who give tours of the facility, rather than the homeless, who are just "trying to get in out of the rain".
Main Benefit of HSC: As I have said many times over, the main benefit to the new HSC is that all homeless services will be combined under one roof - a huge operational and services upgrade.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
INTERNATIONAL: Radical Islam is Winning - Show Me the Cartoons!
*****UPDATE 1/15/2015: A few days ago, the magazine "Charlie Hebdo" came out with a new edition, and instead of printing their usual 60,000 copies, they printed 3,000,000 (three million) and they sold out instantly. Good for them. Note: I've never read "Charlie Hebdo" magazine, and I don't believe in making fun of religions or anything else, but I do believe that "freedom of expression" trumps "you're not allowed to use words to say things that upset people".
You can read about this post-slaughter edition by clicking here.
*****ORIGINAL POST 1/8/2015: On 1/7/2015, Islamic killers executed 12 and injured 11 in a horrifying terrorist attach against satirical cartoonists at the office of the French magazine "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris. Despite having 1st amendment rights, not a single TV, cable show, or newspaper (that I am aware of) in our own United States is willing to show the offensive cartoons - not for 1 second. I still have not seen them. Not in the Wall Street Journal - not CNN - not on the Fox News web site - not anywhere. If the Islamic terrorists have not flat out won on this front, they are certainly winning.
*****ORIGINAL POST 1/8/2015: On 1/7/2015, Islamic killers executed 12 and injured 11 in a horrifying terrorist attach against satirical cartoonists at the office of the French magazine "Charlie Hebdo" in Paris. Despite having 1st amendment rights, not a single TV, cable show, or newspaper (that I am aware of) in our own United States is willing to show the offensive cartoons - not for 1 second. I still have not seen them. Not in the Wall Street Journal - not CNN - not on the Fox News web site - not anywhere. If the Islamic terrorists have not flat out won on this front, they are certainly winning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)