The Air Force shocked the entire defense procurement world today when it chose the Northrup Grumman/EADS partnership over Boeing. NG/EADS won the $30-$40 billion aerial refueling tanker replacement program. Boeing was the favorite to win because it had supplied and maintained the Air Force’s current fleet for the last 50-something years. Plus I think we all assumed economic nationalism was at play. I know I did. Boeing is a purely American company. Northrup Grumman is American too, but EADS is European. Would the crew cuts at the Air Force actually be willing to rely on a foreign company for our military supplies?

I’m glad to be wrong. It’s refreshing to see suppliers in defense procurement, which has long been a backdoor way for government to hand out fat checks to US companies, actually be evaluated fairly. But were they really? In 2003 Boeing won this same contract. It was cancelled when news surfaced that an Air Force procurement officer was promised a job with Boeing after the tanker contract was approved. It was the worst possible story because it seemed to confirm everyone’s suspicion about how defense contract negotiations operated. Perhaps this time the Air Force felt they needed to do the opposite to try and repair their reputation.

Officially the Air Force said little about the reasons for picking NG/EADS over Boeing. General Arthur Lichte said the larger size of the NG/EADS aircraft was key. NG/EADS will modify the Airbus A300. Boeing would have used the 767. Since they didn’t win this contract Boeing will likely end production of the 767 and convert its assembly plant in Everett, WA to produce the new 787 Dreamliner. Since this tanker replacement contract is only the first of three will Boeing come back next time with a tanker based on the 787?

Pork politics quickly reared its head after this announcement. Todd Tiahrt, a Wichita, Kansas Congressman, denounced the deal and promised he would get the Pentagon to re-evaluate it.

We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs.

Oh yeah and coincidentally Boeing has a large facility near Wichita that would have done most of the construction work on these new tankers. Don’t you just love Congress?

Puerto Rico has long been assumed to be the 51st state in waiting, but there are actually alternatives. One such is the hypothetical State of Jefferson. In the general sense the new state would be made from counties in extreme Northern California and southern Oregon. The exact counties have varied through the years, but that just shows this idea has been around for a long time.

1852 began it all. In that year a bill proposed creating a State of Shasta from much of Northern California. Two years later, another bill proposed a State of Klamath composed of parts of Northern California and Southern Oregon. Similar secession bills would pop up every couple of years. The counties included may have changed from time to time, but in general the idea to split off that northern third of the state is an old one.

The boldest effort, although not necessarily the most serious, took place in 1941. Residents of the counties along the California-Oregon border decided to declare their own state. Gilbert Gable, the mayor of Port Orford, Oregon, started the movement with the hope that the effort would get the state governments to spend more on roads in the region. But Gable’s separatist idea got others excited in California. A group of men brandishing rifles stopped traffic on US 99, south of Yreka, CA, to hand out leaflets declaring the State of Jefferson was in rebellion against California and Oregon. Jefferson would “secede each Thursday until further notice.” A governor and legislature was chosen, and Yreka was declared the state capital. The movement was getting a lot of media attention until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. With the start of the war the separatist fervor petered out.

The idea of separate state didn’t die out completely though. Shasta was resurrected for a time in the 1950s during a dispute over water rights. Shasta died out quickly again and Jefferson returned as the nebulous dream of a new state free from Sacramento and Salem. Today Jefferson remains as an incomplete thought. Novelty signs are placed on roads welcoming people to the State of Jefferson. There’s a network of radio stations that calls itself Jefferson Public Radio. There’s a jazz band named for the stillborn state. As far as I can tell though there is no solid political support. No mayor or state representative has taken it upon themselves to organize the movement into something serious.

I think that is a damn shame because this region needs serious politicians. California’s extreme north and Oregon’s south are both economic backwaters. Unemployment usually runs double the statewide average, at least in north California, and incomes are lower there too. Government needs to create an environment that’s conducive to business, but that can’t happen in this situation. The region is too underpopulated to get any attention at all from their capitals. Sacramento is only aware of the coastal strip from LA to San Diego, the Bay Area, and the Central Valley. The rest of the state doesn’t exist. I’m sure it’s the same deal in Salem, Oregon. I suspect nothing south of Eugene gets noticed in that capital. The region should govern itself because the residents are the only ones paying attention to their problems.

The slashed line area you see in the center is the 1941 State of Jefferson. The whole green area roughly includes the counties that correspond to modern plans for Jefferson. I say “roughly” because my map includes the entire Upstate California economic development zone. Upstate California was a name given to that region in an attempt to differentiate it from “Northern California” which most people associate with the Bay Area. Other State of Jefferson proposals don’t go as far south as mine does, but I think if these counties can be included in the same economic association, they can also be included in a new state. They share the same problems and have a similar rural lifestyle. I think it would be to their advantage to go with Jefferson.

I do see a problem with my plan though. California would never agree to give up Lake Tahoe. El Dorado and Placer counties will probably have to remain.

I really wonder what sort of state it would be. I haven’t lived there so I can’t say for sure, but from what I’ve read the chief grievances are economic. The infrastructure is too poor to support economic growth and statewide policies discourage business growth. If Jefferson really did become self-governing, they could tackle these issues directly. The Jefferson state government could build all the roads and bridges it can afford. I would expect a generous tax policy too. The 1941 movement declared there would be no sales tax, no income tax, no property tax and no liquor tax. The state would get funded from taxes on resource extraction companies. Is that fiscally possible today? I have my doubts even with today’s high commodity prices, especially if Jefferson’s residents still want a big road-building program. Still though the new state government could halve California’s tax rates and become a very attractive place to do business. The place is timber rich and, I think, still has copper mines. Perhaps Jeffersonians may permit oil companies to explore coastal drilling sites, although I’m not sure the likelihood of a find in that region. I thought the offshore oil was down in LA.

Then again a lot of things have changed since the mid-20th century. Do Jeffersonians still want economic development as they once did? Perhaps the residents would prefer to turn their entire state into a nature preserve. The place is a hinterland and they may want to keep it that way. Maybe they’re all treehuggers up there. I don’t know. What I do know is that Sacramento and Salem don’t know either. This region has always been neglected. Leaving it to stand on its own would be the best way to solve its problems.

Jefferson would have a quick start. It already has a state flag and state seal. Presumably Yreka would remain as the capital. For the fun of it I’d like to talk about my quibbles with these. Actually it’s only one thing. I’m just not thrilled about naming a Pacific state after Thomas Jefferson. It feels strange to me because I don’t identify him with the history of this region. I think Shasta makes a nice name, as would Fremont for John C. Fremont. Klamath sounds more like a monster than a state, but since it is a major river there is a logic to naming the state after it. I considered Carson for Kit Carson, but he seems more of a southwestern hero. Plus I think most Americans today would actually think the state was named for Johnny Carson.

I really like the flag and seal. I wouldn’t touch the seal at all. The double cross has great symbolism to it and adopting it would be a fun lesson in history for the future. The green field flag is a very good idea. The region has huge swathes of forest so green is a natural color to use. I don’t like to use words on flags though. This is a common practice with state flags but I never cared for it.

But this symbolism talk is just for fun. I don’t care about the name of the state or the flag colors, as much as I would like to see any new state formed there. If the Jeffersonians ever get down to business, they would have my support.

If you’re a regular Jalopnik reader you’re aware they have a feature where they show 80′s car commercials. Usually everyone has a good laugh at the cheesiness of the Reagan era. Today Jalopnik posted another installment of that feature, but I could not laugh. The choice of commercial left me feeling far too somber.

That video overwhelms me. It’s the perfect summary of 80′s pop culture. The clothes, the dance moves, that screeching vocal – it’s 80′s to the max! And look how serious this commercial takes itself. It’s not a parody that’s poking fun at those ridiculous styles. It’s the real thing. When that commercial was created all that stuff was actually cool. And here we are today mercilessly mocking it.

I think that’s what’s bothering me. Today we all agree those 80′s trends were ridiculous, but if we could go back in time and get into the heads of the people in this commercial, they wouldn’t agree. For them the 80s were a time of progress and modernity. Those IBM desktop computers were amazing, and a neon mesh tanktop looked good. Now here we are rolling our eyes as we look back and compare that time with our own. Yet I know in 20 years, we’ll be looking back at 2008 as a simple, quaint period. Today’s iPhone will become the clunky brick cell phone of the 80′s. It leaves me wistful because now I’m old enough to notice time slipping by. I never had these sorts of thoughts when I was 15 or 20 or 25. It’s a little disturbing when you first realize you’re old.

By the way, isn’t the effort put into this car commercial amazing? The ad agency wrote a whole song about the Plymouth Duster. It isn’t even a crappy song. That could be played on any 80′s radio station and most people probably wouldn’t realize it was an ad. Car commercials just don’t put in that kind of work anymore.

Oh yeah, one more thing. The girl who sings directly into the camera at 1 minute, 13 seconds is actually very hot, even for an 80′s girl.

5PM Yeah, Bears Always Know When It’s Time to Eat
Office worker #1: It’s four o’clock! [Later] It’s four-thirty!
Office worker #2: Thanks, Big Ben.
Office worker #1: [Blank stare.]
Office worker #2: You know what Big Ben is, right?
Office worker #1: Oh, yeah, that old TV show [raises arms and growls like a bear].

Highway 85
Madisonville, Kentucky

Overheard by: will1966
via Overheard in the Office, Feb 26, 2008

I love this quote because I can easily imagine someone in my office growling and making those arm motions.

Quietly, Turkey has sponsored a group of religious scholars who are working to reinterpret the tenets of Islam to make it more relevant to today’s world. I am simply amazed this has been going on. Here in the Western world we have this view of Islam as this harsh and unchanging religion. It would be stunning to hear someone in the Middle East propose this, let alone find out that it’s already being worked on.

These scholars are focused on the Hadith. This is the collection of sayings from Mohammed. They’re using critical reasoning and philosophic techniques long used by Christian scholars in their debates about the Bible. This process should weed out bogus hadiths that were added years, even centuries, after Mohammed died. Not only will they remove fake ones, but these scholars will also reinterpret the authentic hadiths. One example the BBC article cited was the hadith that forbade women from traveling alone for more than three days without their husband’s permission. As Prof. Mehmet Gormez explained, that prohibition wasn’t made out of some obscure religious command. It was done because in the 7th century it was quite dangerous for women to travel on their own. That logic no longer applies to today’s situation so these scholars will reinterpret it and include that historical relevance.

Unfortunately the BBC article did not explain when Turkey would make this work public but it is apparently expected to come out soon. I know I sound like I’m gushing with praise for it, but it’s only because I’m so shocked this project is actually going forward. It’s a fascinating attempt to meld an ancient religion with the different society we live in today. Turkey has been the vanguard for Muslims trying to live a modern lifestyle, so it’s natural that this project would begin there. It’s really quite heartening too because the media has recently been running some scare stories about Turkey’s AK Party trying to inch the government away from secularism. To see that instead this government has been working on melding religion with the freedoms we expect today, well…it just gives me hope. Let me get overly optimistic here and say perhaps this concept can be exported to the less radical Islamic countries like Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia, etc. Yeah the Islamic world still has political problems that need to be tackled, but with Turkey’s project to reform the Hadith, perhaps the recent wave of religious tension has crested.

I am in a quandary. Living in California there is very little incentive for me to vote since the state always gives its electoral votes to the Democrats, and the Congressional Districts are so well gerrymandered they never change party hands. My vote certainly would never have mattered, so there’s no reason for me to bother. Plus I was always worried about being picked for jury duty. I know the state claims to pick jurors from both the registered voter list and DMV records, but doesn’t that just mean if I stay off the voter list, my odds of being picked for jury duty are cut in half?

Well for once there is an issue coming up this June that I actually care about, but I don’t want to risk jury duty by registering. Proposition 98 is up for a vote in the next election. Prop 98 is focused on real estate issues, but what excites me is one section that would ban rent control in the entire state of California. As the Legislative Analyst’s Office helpfully explains…

The measure generally prohibits government from limiting the price property owners may charge others to purchase, occupy, or use their land or buildings. This provision would affect local rent control measures. Specifically, government could not enact new rent control measures, and any rent control measure enacted after January 1, 2007 would end. Other rent control measures (those enacted before January 1, 2007) would be phased out on a unit-by-unit basis after an apartment unit or mobile home park space is vacated. Once a tenant left an apartment or mobile home space, property owners could charge market rate rents, and that apartment unit or mobile home space would not be subject to rent control again.

So it’s not as if everyone would be tossed out on their ass the day after the election. If Prop 98 passed, no units would come under rent control again and those regulations would slowly drift away into history.

If you’re on the liberal side of things, you’re probably outraged that I oppose rent control. So here’s why I dislike it. To start with I am a libertarian so just philosophically I dislike having the government insinuate itself into the real estate market. Practically though I oppose rent control because I find it perverse that the government sets up incentives for landlords to let their property decay. By restricting what landlords can charge in rent, they are capping profits. So the landlord needs to find profit elsewhere. Skimping on building maintenance is only natural. It’s an easy way to save money, plus it increases the odds that your long term tenants will leave. You don’t have to worry about maintaining a nice building to attract new tenants because under a rent control regime, virtually all buildings are left to rot so all renters expect a level of dilapidation.

Rent control penalizes renters who move frequently. Now why should the government do that? Usually people move because of their jobs. Why would the government want to penalize people who try to pursue better opportunities? The way I see it, rent control belongs to an earlier era. In the olden days people didn’t move from apartment to apartment in search of a better deal. You lived in your parents’ home until you were ready to move out and start your own household. There you remained until death. The only time you would move is if things became dire. The mobility we take for granted today just didn’t exist. Rent control existed for that society. Today rent control punishes regular people who move for reasons like getting a new job, living closer to their job, putting their kids into a better school district. I don’t think it’s fair to punish those people so others can live in the same place for decades.

I also think rent control has a damaging affect on the people who take advantage of it. I don’t mean “take advantage” as in gaming the system. I mean the people who remain in the same apartment for decades because the rent they’re paying is ridiculously cheap. Rent control creates an entitlement mentality. The people who most use this system begin to think cheap housing is a right. Finding a home moves from your responsibility to the responsibility of the government. Even worse than this sort of thinking, is that people can become trapped by rent control. If you stay long enough in the same apartment, you can’t ever leave because you can’t justify abandoning your super cheap rent. It’s there that your life stops and you focus your energy not on improving your lot, but keeping the status quo.

Not to mention it’s just a violation of property rights. The government should not be involved in how I treat my property as long as my decision isn’t going to physically harm others. What I choose to charge for rent affects no one but me and any renter I have.

*WHEW* That was a much longer rant than I intended at the start. It just goes to show you how much rent control bothers me. Now I have a chance to at least put action behind my belief and vote for Prop 98. However I have the nagging feeling that voting on this would be pointless. This is California after all. With its reputation I rather expect anything against rent control would lose by at least a 30% margin. Plus, as I said, I don’t want to risk jury duty. Although if I did get summons in the mail, I guess I could always throw it away.

Britain’s Trades Union Congress is fighting the good fight and helping you, the average person, to stop using your brain. TUC is demanding that Lonely Planet, the Bible of European backpackers, stop printing a guidebook for travel in Myanmar (or “Burma” if you’re stubborn). We the people are to boycott all Lonely Planet books until they obey. The union has spoken!

It seems that TUC, along with its allies Tourism Concern, Burma Campaign UK and the New Internationalist, claim that the existence of a travel guide only encourages people to visit the country. So that book must be snuffed out of existence.

I am nothing but disgusted by these people. Instead of persuading travelers themselves to make other travel choices, they’ve decided they need to coerce Lonely Planet into following their agenda. Silly me for thinking people should be free to choose as they like. If someone, who knows why, wants to vacation in Myanmar, what business is it of anyone else? People shouldn’t be forced into following one group’s demands. I have a right not to care about Myanmar’s oppressive government. I guess next on the list is a boycott of all the airlines that fly there. Heaven forbid people are permitted to decide for themselves.

Awhile back I mentioned how pundits have tagged Obama as left of Hillary, but I didn’t see much of anything concrete to those accusations. Well a few hints have come out.

There is a bill sitting in Congress named the Global Poverty Act. If passed this bill would require the president, whoever they are, to develop and implement a plan to achieve the UN’s Millennium Development Goal of cutting the proportion of people who live on a $1 a day in half. Conservatives are enraged at thought that US law will somehow be linked to a UN agenda. There are cries of “loss of sovereignty” and lots of red faced rage all around. I have no problem with this bill from a sovereignty angle. We don’t lose control of our republic by copying someone else’s agenda. If we pass a law this year that says we will implement the UN Millennium Development Goals, there is nothing to stop us from passing another law next year that says, “Global Poverty Act repealed/Screw the UN”.

My complaint is that this bill risks committing the US to an enormous rise in our foreign aid budget. This problem stems from a UN resolution we, along with other industrialized nations, agreed to in 1970 to contribute 0.7% of our GNP to foreign aid. This goal reared its head at the UN over and over again. Here it is in 1988. When the Millennium Development Goals were cooked up, the UN slapped everyone in the face again with this old commitment. I’ve seen a lot of people write that the Global Poverty Act would force the US to follow this commitment. As it turns out, that’s just not true. No part of the Millennium Development Goals requires nations to hand over 0.7% of GNP. It’s just another reminder that we pledged this years ago. It’s really more of a guilt trip.

So even though the conservative fury is wrong, I still don’t like this. Neither the Global Poverty Act nor Millennium Development Goals have a specific price tag attached, but the extra cost is implied. If you require the president to solve worldwide poverty, he’s just going to send more tax money overseas. Will it be 0.7% of GNP (or today’s more commonly used GDP)? I don’t know, but it will cost more. I don’t understand why anyone would support this. If your employer said it was going to garnish your wages to give money to charity, wouldn’t you complain? So why be happy when the government says it will do the same? Tax money is your money after all.

By the way while I’m on the topic of the Global Poverty Act, I should debunk another misconception. Some people are saying the Global Poverty Act requires the implementation of all the Millennium Development Goals. The gun crowd is particularly freaked that it would force the US to ban all guns. That’s plain ol’ wrong. The Global Poverty Act only references the one goal of reducing the number of people living on a $1 a day.

I’m much less impressed with Obama now. Before, I felt lukewarm towards him. I wasn’t worried he would ruin the country. I just figured he would be mediocre. However his support for the Global Poverty Act, not to mention his idea for a national infrastructure bank and handouts for “green jobs”, shows he’s going to be a spendthrift. After Bush has pissed away so much money, we don’t need another president to do the same.

Whenever I run out of cold cuts at home and I can’t bring a sandwich to work, I drop by the Jack in the Box that’s just a block away. On my last trip I gave the new Sirloin Steak Melt a try. I had high hopes. I’ve eaten those Sirloin burgers already and I hold them in high regard.

As an idea the Sirloin Steak Melt hits a lot of the right buttons. Jack’s ad campaign has already placed “sirloin” as a sort of premium cut of meat, somehow set above standard burger fare. “Steak” didn’t need an ad to get people thinking it’s good. Saying that you’re eating steak in your meal already gives it a premium feel. Finally that “melt”, at least in my mind, harkens back to the diners of the 1950s. That’s the golden age of this fatty food and by recalling that period people will think this burger is somehow authentic to that period.

So as I said I had high hopes when I bought this. The reality was downright shocking. I understand a melt, by definition, is swimming in melted cheese, but there wasn’t enough steak in my melt to bind it all together. The meat-to-cheese proportion was off. When I picked it up, it was a soupy concoction that was impossible to keep stable in my hands. To eat it I had to hunch over my desk, take a quick bite and immediately place the melt down on the wrapper so the cheese wouldn’t leak out. An even bigger flaw is the choice of bread. Those thin slices cannot handle the melted cheese and steak grease. Even after I was so careful, the melt still fell apart. I had to scrape the remains off my wrapper to eat.

But the messiness isn’t even the worst part of it. The Sirloin Steak Melt just didn’t taste all that good. There was just too much grease. This would be vastly improved if the cooks let the meat drip on a rack for 30 seconds after taking it off the griddle. Plus the steak pieces were tough and rubbery. We’ve all had bad steak at some point. No one wants to put up with that. Anything else at Jack in the Box is better. I’ve had this once and will not again.

Barack Obama is just brimming with ideas lately. This time he unveiled a plan to reward companies who keep jobs in the US. Actually that’s a poor choice of words. This idea is at least as old as August 2007 because that’s when the Patriot Employers Act was introduced in the Senate. Yet according to the Financial Times, Obama presented the idea as his own during a rally of Ohio blue-collar workers. That seems a tad disingenuous to me. When a presidential candidate presents a policy on the campaign trail, I expect this policy is something we can expect to get if they are elected president. This “Patriot Employers” idea is something we could have now under President Bush if the Congress acted on it. But that’s a piddling thing. Let’s discuss the merits of this idea.

In a nutshell, if the government declares a company to be a “Patriot Employer” it gets a tax credit equal to 1% of its taxable income. You get the awesome title of Patriot Employer if you:

1. Maintain your headquarters in the US (if you have ever had your headquarters in the US)
2. Pay at least 60% of each employee’s health care premium
3. Maintain neutrality during attempts to unionize your workforce

If you have more than 50 employees…

• Maintain or increase the ratio of full time workers in the US to those outside the US
• Pay each employee a minimum hourly salary that is at least equal to the Federal poverty level for a family of three
• Provide insurance and full salary differential for employees in the National Guard and Reserve
• Provide a pension plan (employer must contribute minimum 5% of employee’s salary) or 401(k) (employer must contribute minimum 5% of salary in non-elective programs, or fully match employee contributions in elective programs provided that the match does not exceed maximum percentage specified by plan)

If you have 50 or fewer employees…

• Pay each employee a minimum hourly salary that is at least equal to the Federal poverty level for a family of three
• Provide a pension plan (employer must contribute minimum 5% of employee’s salary) or 401(k) (employer must contribute minimum 5% of salary in non-elective programs, or fully match employee contributions in elective programs provided that the match does not exceed maximum percentage specified by plan)

*WHEW* That’s a lot to chew over. Is a 1% tax credit really worth all these extra expenses? If my company made $1 million, I would get a $10,000 tax credit. This would be a credit towards the $340,000 my company would pay on its 34% tax rate. So $1 million minus the tax credit is $990,000 but that is still in the 34% bracket. My tax would then cost $336,600. Somehow I doubt this provides much of an incentive. This seems like a program that will be used by companies that already happen to follow these guidelines. I’m thinking a lot of midsize companies, places with 100 to 200 employees, would qualify. A company that size usually provides some kind of retirement benefits already. Depending on the industry that salary level requirement is probably met already. Usually a midsize company doesn’t have the need for transferring many positions overseas. By the time they do, they’ve become a large company.

Another thought that occurred to me is wouldn’t the program encourage companies to sell off their overseas subsidiaries? If they let these companies become independent then the employees would no longer be counted against the US company and that ratio would improve. At the same time the US company could just sign a contract with their former subsidiary (or any foreign company for that matter) to produce whatever widgets they need from them. So the US company still gets its product or supplies produced cheaply overseas and gets a small tax credit. This just discourages US companies from owning foreign assets.

Or maybe they could be a little creative with their employees. Maybe your company doesn’t need to sell off its subsidiaries. The ratio only counts full time workers, so why not use more part time labor? Another idea is to hire no one directly. Couldn’t you just hire a local staffing company to fill your office with “temps”? They would officially be employees of the staffing firm, not the US company, and the US company would simply be paying that local company for a service. Couldn’t you do that without screwing up the labor ratio?

I could say that this is a terrible law that will only discourage US companies from competing in world markets. I won’t say that though because the benefit of being a Patriot Employer is so tiny no company is going to bother pursuing it. The only negative here is that if this law is passed the government will then spend more money on staff who determine what companies qualify for this tax credit. So I can guess we can chalk this plan up to hot air from politicians who want to curry favor with bitter blue-collar workers.