Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, and New York family law


I’m not sure why Anthony Weiner’s electronic persona remains front-page news, but apparently the New York Times thinks that he merits it, e.g., “Anthony Weiner’s Latest Sexting Scandal: Here’s What We Know”. This sparked a Facebook discussion about a Boston Globe Story: “Huma Abedin separating from Anthony Weiner after scandal”. Here’s what one Facebooker said about this: “I’m guessing the reason she has not left him before now is that she could end up paying alimony and child support since he has been a stay at home dad, and he could end up with most of the custody. Now with the child in one of his creepy pictures she has more leverage.”

Under New York family law, a judge would try to pick a winner parent and park the cash-yielding child with the winner for approximately 83 percent of the time. The loser parent would babysit every other weekend and pay all of the bills for both the child and the winner parent. Thus Huma Abedin would be at risk of losing one third of her after-tax income, in addition to her status as an actual parent, in the event that Weiner won the “I was a stay-at-home dad and want to continue the voluntary arrangement via court order” sweepstakes.

I’m not sure what to make of this. Even before the latest scandal broke it didn’t seem likely that Weiner could have prevailed in the winner-take-all battle that New York law sets up for separating parents. What’s more interesting to me is that these two are apparently about the best that American society can produce, one having been elected to Congress and the other being a top aide to the spouse of the former leader. Weiner can’t find discreet sexual partners in New York City. Huma Abedin apparently can’t be involved with Islam without also being involved with supporters of jihad against the West (source).

Readers: Reading the Facebook posting above from a friend of a friend, do you think that her argument has merit? Or is it just the “two strikes you’re out rule” being applied?

Cost of a measles infection


I’m listening to Medical School for Everyone, Grand Rounds Cases. There are some interesting points regarding what happens when you have an illness that is hard to diagnose. If you go to Specialist X you will probably be diagnosed with a disease within that specialist’s area, regardless of the disease that you might actually have. If the specialists truly are stumped then they fall back on the all-purpose “It is all in your head” and send you to the psychiatrist who gives you pills that you’ll eventually stop taking because they aren’t helpful.

One lecture concerns an unvaccinated American child who contracts measles while on a trip to France. He comes into contact with about 110 other people while contagious. One of them (his unvaccinated brother) falls ill. The rest are hunted down by public health officials who check vaccine status, administer boosters and other prophylactics. The lecturer says that the cost to the local public health agency was over $300,000 and that didn’t count a couple of weeks of hospitalization in a room with negative air pressure for the two children who actually became ill.

Burning Man versus College


Burning Man will be starting today without me. A friend recently asked whether I would be going again:

  • me: I would be most enthusiastic about returning if one of my kids wanted to see it
  • him: Would you really want your daughter to see Burning Man?
  • me: Why not? It is a lot less debauched than the average college campus.

To readers who are attending the event this year: Enjoy!


How old can the kids of a “single mother” be?


“‘It’s a catastrophe’: low-income workers get priced out of California beach city” (Guardian) interests me for the linguistic angle:

At first, Jamie Kahn tried ignoring the repeated knocks on her front door. It was September 2015, and the 52-year-old Santa Cruz woman had recently faced an unexpected 40% rent increase that she could not afford.

After missing a rent payment, her new landlords in the northern California beach city quickly moved to evict the single mother and her two children. Kahn thought that if she refused to open the door and accept a summons, she could bide some time to fight the increase from $1,400 to $2,000 a month. She was wrong.

Court records show that a process server repeatedly showed up, and the Kahns ultimately had no choice but to vacate their home of six years.

A sad tale, certainly. Helpless and blameless children are now on the street. But exactly how old are the helpless children?

Her 22-year-old daughter subsequently moved into a small back porch room in a neighboring city. Her 19-year-old son crashed on couches.

Linguistically this could have been described as potentially a three-income household containing three working-age adults. But apparently in 2016 it is still mom and two kids who can’t work. (If the mother didn’t herself work, but instead perhaps had been living on child support profits (that 19-year-old would have just recently aged out of the California system; the mom would have been in better shape if she had sex in Massachusetts where the cashflow continues until the subject of the litigation turns 23), the fact that the children also didn’t or couldn’t work would have been predicted by The Son Also Rises.)

Readers: What do you think? Can a person still be described as a “single mother” once the offspring have become adults?

General aviation safety: in a holding pattern


The latest AOPA Nall Report has been released (PDF) and it shows (page 6) a decade of essentially flat accident rates for every kind of general aviation (flights other than scheduled airlines). That’s kind of sad considering all of the technology advances that we’ve enjoyed over the past 10 years, including glass cockpits for new aircraft, retrofit glass cockpits for legacy aircraft, synthetic terrain (“flight simulator”) displays, and advanced software for drones.

Who went to Oshkosh this year? Based on the press releases it seemed as though hardly any interesting new products were announced or released.

Can someone explain why Hillary Clinton and her fans are upset about the EpiPen price?


My Facebook feed is alive with Hillary Clinton fans complaining about the price of an EpiPen and also about the high income of the CEO of the company that makes the EpiPen. Here are some samples:

It’s one thing for a new experimental drug to be expensive to pay for all the failed attempts. Makes perfect sense. But buying up long established technology that by all rights should have come off patent by now and price gouging consumers is just hideous and I don’t think you want to be defending that kind of behavior? The original epipen patent is from 1977. Patent lengthening is one of many games pharma companies play to extend their monopolies as long as possible. As for regulation preventing competitors, safety matters, otherwise any snake oil salesman could sell you a would be epipen (see e.g opioid epidemic). So making blanket claims against regulation doesn’t really help here. This is a specific example of this problem and it could be solved by the government treating it as an unfair monopoly and forcing them to break it up by e.g. licensing their remaining patents to competitors.

[after a commenter pointed out that competitors couldn’t get FDA approval for their devices] Maybe, but we still have anti-trust laws. Whether the market or government regulations prevent competition is irrelevant. At some point the greater good requires the destruction of the monopoly.

[after a question about why there isn’t competition] Various alternatives have been tried but none have passed regulatory muster. Free-market zealots like to depict this sequence of events as “government regulations killed the competition.” Consumer safety advocates might use a different spin on the same phenomenon: “government regulators prevented inferior and potentially unsafe alternatives from hurting consumers.” Who’s right? Who cares? If there is a monopoly, and if the current product is the only version deemed safe and effective, nothing prevents the government from forcing the monopoly to break apart. Two companies selling the identical product could still drive down prices, just as is the case with e.g. automobiles (is a Honda Accord really that different form a Toyota Camri?). The original patent expired long ago, but follow-on patents allow the monopoly to artificially continue. The drug itself is dirt cheap but a rapid and safe delivery mechanism is critical to efficacy.

Monopoly is defined by pricing power. In this case the company happens to be abusing the patent system. But that’s irrelevant. The evidence is not that they have a patent, the evidence is that they are price gouging, and that no reasonable competition exists or can come into existence quickly enough to prevent them from price gouging. The government is under no obligation to protect your monopoly just because you have a patent. The government can decide that you have recouped your investment and profit and are now just exploiting the patent system at the expense of consumers.

Friends who love to complain that women don’t get paid as much as men (i.e., that you could make near-infinite money by starting a company that hired only women) then began to complain about Heather Bresch, the CEO of Mylan, getting paid $19 million in one year. Yet their complaint was not that, like virtually all other American women, underpaid. Apparently, despite having successfully moved Mylan to the low-tax Netherlands via an inversion, Bresch was overpaid.

[Given her family connections to the rich and powerful, could she have made more money without working at all? Wikipedia says that she has four children so let’s assume she wanted four children and had each of those kids with a different father, thus maximizing child support profits. Assuming that she keeps $10 million after taxes each year, she needs to get $2.5 million from each father in order to match her Mylan income. If she could have had sex with four men, each earning $14.7 million per year, in Wisconsin, for example (child support is 17 percent of gross income, without limit), she could have matched her most recent Mylan compensation.]

Hillary Clinton says “I am calling on Mylan to immediately reduce the price of EpiPens.” (statement)

How can we explain this? The same folks who want The Great Father in Washington to regulate drugs are now objecting to a company being compensated for navigating the regulatory labyrinth? People who think The Great Father in Washington should give out monopolies via patents object to whatever particular monopoly enables the EpiPen to sell at a high price? So an official such as Hillary Clinton should decide which patents should have economic value and which should not?

Readers: Why is it that Mylan can charge a high price for these EpiPens? Why aren’t there profits sufficient to attract competitors competent to romance the FDA bureaucrats into approving a substitute?

What equipment does a leading architectural photographer need these days?


One of the pleasures of flying helicopters at East Coast Aero Club is that sometimes I get to fly aerial photographers (the alternative is flying with a student at the controls!).

On a flight this summer the photographer was one of Boston’s leading architectural photographers. I asked him what he was using for his day-to-day work. A view camera with a digital back? An SLR with a bunch of perspective correction lenses? He responded with “I’ve got 14 view camera lenses that are beautiful paperweights at this point. I do almost everything with a Nikon D810 and the 14-24mm zoom lens.” Perspective distortions are then fixed (by him) in Photoshop.

Good explanation of Olympic Games economics


This interview with Andrew Zimbalist, an economist who studies the cash bonfires that cities stage for athletic events, has some interesting points:

when the tally is accurately made we’ll find that Rio has spent somewhere in the order of US$20 billion to host the games this year, they’ll receive back something around $3 billion in revenue, so there’s a deficit there of $17 billion. … What was previously seen by many people around the world as a city of immense natural beauty and great partying and a fun-loving lifestyle I think is now seen as a city that is severely troubled with water pollution and water shortages, with violence, with economic recession, with corruption in business and with political instability. So it’s more likely that the Games will have a negative impact in the long run than a positive impact, in addition to the short-run deficit.

[Where does the $3 billion in revenue come from?] They’ll receive about $1.2 billion from corporate sponsorships, domestic and international. They’ll receive about $1 billion from international television money. They’ll receive $300 million or $400 million from ticket sales and then there will be some miscellaneous revenues.

Now when the typical tourist doesn’t come and they are replaced by the Olympic tourist the Olympic tourist goes home and tells his friends, relatives and neighbours that he saw some wonderful competitions but the Olympic tourist doesn’t go to the typical tourist sites. When a normal tourist goes, if a normal tourist goes to London they go to Piccadilly Circus, they go to the theatre, they go to the museums and they come home and they tell their friends, neighbours and relatives about what a lovely place London is to go. So you get a word-of-mouth effect, which according to studies in tourism is the most important way to grow tourism. You get a word-of-mouth effect from the typical tourist that you don’t get from the Olympic tourist. So not only does the number of tourists not grow typically when you host a mega event, and sometimes even falls, but you lose the word-of-mouth benefit from promoting tourism.


Data on the Guantánamo prison


“Why Obama has failed to close Guantánamo” is a New Yorker article interesting for some of the data presented. (You can probably guess the conclusion regarding the title question: it turns out not to be President Obama’s fault; Donald Trump will be a dictator with unlimited power, but Obama’s hands have been tied by bureaucrats and Congress.)

There are 76 prisoners and it costs taxpayers $445 million per year (can this accounting be correct? how does one separate the cost of the prison from the surrounding naval base?). That’s almost $6 million per prisoner per year.

Generally foreign governments seem to have a keener grasp of the obvious than do we:

In February, 2009, the U.S. Ambassador, Deborah Jones, met with Kuwait’s Minister of the Interior and, according to State Department cables, warned him that Kuwait had to “show its seriousness in changing and controlling the behaviors of extremists within its society.”

The minister responded, “You know better than I that we cannot deal with these people. If I take their passports, they will sue to get them back.” He added, “If they are rotten, they are rotten, and the best thing to do is get rid of them. You picked them up in Afghanistan; you should drop them off in Afghanistan, in the middle of the war zone.”


What do folks think of the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV?


Canon has announced the fourth version of the 5D (dpreview first impressions), a camera that was literally awesome in its first incarnation and that has fallen ever deeper into the shade of the Sony sensors with each succeeding version.

Here’s what dpreview said about what has been the biggest Canon weakness:

The 30.4MP chip offers a decent jump in resolution over the 22.3MP chip in 5D III. And judging from the improved dynamic range in Canon’s other recent DSLRs (the 80D and 1D X II), we expect Raw dynamic range in the IV to be much improved over its predecessor, which had some of the worst shadow noise and banding we’d seen in a modern full-frame digital camera. The improvement is thanks to the recent move to a design that uses on-chip analog to-digital-conversion, resulting in lower downstream read noise and therefore less shadow noise and better overall dynamic range at lower ISOs.

There doesn’t seem to be any promise that this $3500 camera will offer image quality competitive with what you get from a $1000 Sony body or any of the Nikon bodies that incorporate Sony sensors.

Disturbingly it seems that the autofocus system may not be that great except in Live View (at which point why aren’t you just using a Samsung phone?):

In terms of AF, the increased coverage area is definitely a big deal: after all, its the exact same AF system found in the company’s flagship sports camera. The 150,000-pixel RGB-IR metering sensor, which feeds scene information to the AF system, is borrowed from the original 1D X, bringing enhanced subject identification (including faces) and tracking (‘iTR’), as well as improved metering and flicker detection. Unfortunately, we’ve found iTR to be too situation dependent to be generally relied upon, and our initial impressions from our brief time with the Mark IV leave us similarly unimpressed at the camera’s ability to automatically shift AF points to stick to your specified subject.

Readers: What have you gleaned from the Canon press releases, etc.? Are you ready to buy this camera?

Log in