Escaping to Greener Pastures

Too many people think they can escape to some "greener" pastures by going to live in another country. While that may be true, most everyplace has plenty of positives and negatives. It is easy to take the positives of where you are for granted and ignore the negatives you don't face (until you move).

Getting out is great. But don't expect greener pastures to make everything wonderful. There are certain traits of you and the place that can make getting out the best idea - I don't like cold, other than that I think I would enjoy Banff (mentioned in the post) a great deal.

Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

While there are conflicts between you as a person and where you are not that make people want out - I think often it is a frustration with those negatives you have been dealing with. Some people love the new experiences - so getting out is often close to ideal. But if you don't really figure out what will make you happy wherever you are getting out often just changes one set of frustrations for another.

Political frustrations I think are this time a whole bunch. While your government is likely doing tons of totally annoying and lame stuff. Finding a government anywhere that isn't doing tons of that is very hard (there are a couple, from my perspective, that I find better than most but they tend to be in very cold places - which I don't like). Often you don't care about the lame things done elsewhere until you are stuck directly inside of the consequences. I think getting out with this as a big reason is fine, it just seems lots of these people are frustrated with the new location after a fairly short time.

Thoughts after reading: How to Love Where You Live – Treat it Like a Travel Destination

Related: Living Abroad - Living in Malaysia - Quick Thoughts on the Risks of Violence while Traveling

Government Intruding Where it Doesn't Belong

This seems like a matter the government should not be involved in, U.S. Targets Buyers of China-Bound Luxury Cars:

The domestic divisions of Mercedes-Benz and BMW say the clampdown by federal authorities is a legitimate attempt to regulate trade and to ensure that American consumers who want to own a car for personal use are not deprived of a chance to buy one. “The BMW Group has been working closely with federal authorities for almost two years to stop illegal exports of our vehicles from the U.S.,” said Kenn Sparks, a spokesman for BMW of North America. “Illegal exports deny legitimate customers here in the U.S. the popular vehicles, which are in high demand.”

I can imagine legitimate reasons for government to be involved (avoiding taxes…). But the inability of companies to match supply to demand is an absolutely stupid reason for the government to be involved. I can see it as the right of companies to make life difficult for customers if they want. So if HP wants to break their products based on where someone tries to use them maybe that should be allowed. If BMW wanted to make getting service on a car purchased and shipped elsewhere maybe that should be allowed. And if China wanted to prevent import for some sensible reasons (maybe imported cars don't meet some safety standards, or they are attempting to avoid taxes). And I would even support government having visibility of transportation across boarders if crime prevention was an issue (lots of stolen cars…). But the heavy handed insertion of government into enforcing silly demands of companies shouldn't be tolerated - even if those companies have purchased the legislators we elect. Related: Protect Yourself from 11 Car Dealer Tricks - Customer Service is Important - Customer Un-service by Automakers - If You Create a System That Includes The Perfect Conditions for Scandals, Expect Scandals to Happen - Bad Customer Service - Leading Economic Freedom: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland

USA Encouraging Governments Worldwide to Spy and Hack Globally is Very Dangerous

I think as bad as just the USA governments global spying and actions shredding the US constitution are the even greater damage is the encouragement the USA government policy gives for every other country to spy on every person, business and government across the globe.

I do believe the USA government is unlikely to have a huge amount of criminal information security spun off their massive spying efforts. But you can just look at all the examples of TSA agents (and others - that have been cleared by the TSA to work jobs inside the "security bubble") stealing from people forced to go through security theatre to see it is certainly possible for the USA governments actions are aid criminal enterprises including those by USA government employees.

Those risks are real. They will lead to damage to USA citizens. But they are small, I believe, compared to the damage USA citizens will suffer due to the mass increase in the global surveillance culture the USA has spearheaded the last 10+ years. Granted few countries have government so rich that they can afford to spend so much money on global internet surveillance and hacking (as the USA has done).

But there are at least 10 that have money and or resources that can do a huge amount of damage if they follow the USA's lead (lets just list a few China, UK, Germany, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India, Russia, Turkey, Taiwan). Some countries have more cash, some have large hacking (not just criminal hacking or government sponsored hacking but just software hacking talent in general wether for good, questionable good and/or questionably legal or downright bad definitely illegal) talent pools, some have large experience with large scale surveillance operations. and/or Certainly the USA has no justification to argue that any country can't do what the USA claims it not wrong for it to do. And the number of countries that could do a huge amount of damage with focused global surveillance and hacking is very large indeed and will grow going forward.

The result of the risks to everyone globally, including those in the USA, to the practice of massive government intrusion into private communications, internet activity, etc. of everyone is extremely damaging.

Related: Watching the Watchmen - Disregard for the Rule of Law by Government - NSA Spying on Apps Shows Perils of Google+, ‘Candy Crush’ - Little Watchmen - Freedom Increasingly at Risk

Politicians Playing Special Interests and Visa Versa

President Obama gave his State of the Union speech today (I didn't watch it but saw lots of tweets about it).

Politicians attempt to use speeches to show as many special interests as they can that they politicians cares about them and will help them.

Special interest professionals know what matters is results, not talk. Getting results from politicians is much harder.

Certain special interests care about mentions because they use those mentions as political pressure. If you don't mention NRA issues they will take action. If you mention your support of the NRA they then hold you to that in every word on every piece of legislation they seek to bend to their special interest. They are extremely effective at getting politicians to do what they want.

If you are a special interest you would love to have the same power the NRA (National Rifle Association) does to dictate to politicians the wording of bills and regulations and political appointments and demands to be publicly recognized.

Many special interests are much better at getting public support from politicians but don't get results. This is a sign of a weak lobby. These are often less well off groups - poor kids, for example. But the NRA, while it has developed lots a rich infrastructure for cash really has not natural leaning toward having lots of cash to but political action (they really were an effective special interest lobby that realized they needed cash and then built that aspect of their organization).

There are also special interests that don't care what politicians say, they care about results. This is normally an interest that knows they have no political leg to stand on, they just want cash to buy what they need in the back rooms. They are perfectly happy for politicians to say all sorts of stuff about how they are against too-big-too-fail banks for example as long as they pass legislation, write regulation and appoint regulators that all advance all the interests too-big-too-fail banks want. Other example of this type of special interest is trust fund babies, hedge fund "managers" (or non-managers) that get ludicrous tax advantages... Those knowing there is no rational or political support for the benefits their special interest takes they are perfectly happy for politicians to feign dislike of the benefits the government heaps on them as long as the government keeps piling on the cash to their special interest.

You can see what type of special interest is involved based on whether politicians get away with just meaningless mentions (poor kids, small business, education, punishment of crime [strong words required, safer communities not required], environment), wether there is a some combination of mentions and delivering that is required (farmers - must use words about family farmers but instead of crafting legislation that protects them without heaping benefits on corporate farming they mainly give lip service to family farms and gear benefits to reward factory farms), wether the politicians have to say the words the special interests demand (unions, different sides of abortion/choice), wether the politicians have to do what the special interests demand (too big to fail banks, big business - often with words about small business and policies suited to big business pushed by the likes of the Chamber of Commerce) or whether the politicians have to say the words and do what the special interests demand (NRA, copyright cartel).

Most special interests fall into the the first group - they get words and some token action (usually whatever doesn't interfere in any significant way with a special interest that actual has power). But most of the lobbying that matters, that takes hundreds of billions of dollars a year and redistributes it to specific special interests (or provides non-monetary rewards) and that is where special interest politics really matters. That is where we lose and special interests gain.

And occasionally that is where we will and special interests win against other special interests (but that is rare). An example is when the special interest in support of air bags finally pushed through rules to require them against the objections of car manufacturers. This has been a big benefit to society. But those types of special interest wins that happen to aid society are not the norm.

One of the structural weaknesses is benefits to special interests are often large (for manipulating the system in their favor) the costs to society are often large but spread out in such a way it isn't very painful for most people. So the special interest can pay or cajole politicians to give them a benefit that helps them a lot (they can pay the politician a portion of their benefit and still have a huge gain) while society loses no one loses enough to care enough to try and pay or cajole politicians to save society from a big loss.

When two (and really it will often been numerous) special interests are facing off on issues the loss to society is often limited (because those facing losses are going to be pained enough that it is worth their will to object to sweetheart deals to other special interests). Sometimes these conflicting issues are actually resolved fairly sensible as you have competing interests fighting to limit damage (while it might be possible for the groups to figure out how to have them share a big gain at the expense of society this often isn't so easy - the reason this issue ended up in this pile is that the costs were concentrated in a way that a special interest was motivated to protect itself).

Sadly there is little evidence politicians in the USA today play a role that would be natural/good: seeking to optimize the benefits to the society by listening to special interests and having as their primary mission benefiting the county. Instead they seek to maximize the cash they are given, the cash they and their staffs will be given (jobs and speaking engagements) and perks (private plane trips to exotic vacation sports with some transparent excuse to claim as legitimate, seats in the luxury box at sporting events, etc.). And they also seek not angering any special interest that has power enough (cash and/or political influence) in their constituency to throw them out of office.

Related: Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare - Estate Tax Repeal (basically a kickback to the 1% for cash payments to politicians) - General Air Travel Taxes Subsidizing Private Plane Airports

Update, this article posted the day after I made this blog post provides an example of what good lobbyists get you versus nearly no lobbyists (the poor), food stamps for the poor cut, subsidies to famers increased (as usually they hide to the maximum extent they can how large the benefits to rich (often absent "farmers") farmers and corporate farms. Congress axes $8.6bn from food stamps in farm bill adds $5.7bn government handouts to farmers

The cuts to federal food stamps come on top of a $5bn cut in November and will reduce payments to 1.7 million of the poorest Americans by an estimated $90 a month.

Republicans had sought even higher cuts but a two-year tussle with Democrats was brought to an end after a compromise was agreed that also included increasing a cap for the maximum subsidy payments that can be awarded to individual farmers from $50,000 to $125,000.

The measures will also add $5.7bn to the cost of a 50% subsidy on premiums for crop insurance and extend a loophole allowing multiple people to claim government subsidies for one farm.

Though helping many poorer farmers too, critics of the bill claimed it disproportionately benefited those with large farms, including several dozen unnamed landowners who are thought to receive more than $1m a year in total support.

What Principles Does the USA Government Still Honor?

When government's hide policy behind secrecy how are we to know what they will do. The SUA seems pretty clear that they will break international law intentionally and in secret (spying on private communications of heads of allied countries, hacking devices of others…). The extent to which the USA has chosen to secretly and very intrusively spy on billions of private communications is shocking.

The hypocrisy of that same government denouncing other governments for doing the same thing (supposedly spying on the USA, spying on businesses communications, hacking business and government computers) makes the actions by the USA government even more unacceptable. Blaming others for behaving unethically, immorally and illegally while you do the exact same thing is pitiful behavior.

In the past I felt it was reasonable to assume mainly the USA government attempted to do things like uphold the constitution, support liberty, support privacy, etc.. While knowing there were plenty of examples of this behavior being violated it was largely confined to extremes that could hide their actions from view (and so the bad behavior was not so much accepted but allowed because the huge government has weaknesses and those allowed bad actors to take bad actions). Now even beyond that there has always been lots of corruption and malfeasance by extremely powerful actors (Watergate, J. Edgar Hoover, …).

So while far from perfect I figured when crazy stuff like Iran-Contra debacle went on it was a sign of bad government not a sign that the government no longer cared about the rule of law if it was inconvenient. But the disaster of the last 15 years where the constitution seems to have been thrown away for the convince of those with power I no longer have confidence I have a clue about what the core principles of the USA government are.

The last 2 administration have responded to the shredding of the constitution in the same way the Nixon Administration did to Watergate. They have put the force of their administrations behind hiding their actions and in defending the governments behavior. None made more than token comments about addressing the rot at the core of government. Instead they seek to silence those exposing the bad behavior of their government.

While industrial sabotage (at least of allies - which for the USA really means puppet states of the USA - UK, Germany, Canada, Japan, etc.) would certainly be something beyond crazy in my expectations of how badly the USA government would behave. I don't have nearly as much confidence for that belief. While I still think that idea is crazy I no longer think the government would avoid such behavior because it is just clearly wrong. They are doing so much now that is clearly wrong (and trying to hide that behavior from the public view) without any sensible explanation that how are we to know what else they no longer feel obligated to do?

Those destroying the idea of the rule of law for the USA government are not complete idiots. They have done well to make classify their actions as "classified" in order to prevent the public from knowing what they are doing. They have a crop of talking heads on TV that are able to spout talking points and fail to address the issues that should be addressed. I find it hard to believe these people would think they could use industrial sabotage and industrial spying to directly benefit specific companies, in coordination with those companies without that leaking and doing enormously more damage than has already been done. I suppose their hubris could be greater than my estimate. I sure hope not.

This article doesn't support the tile (as far as I can see) but does raise the question of what seem to be one of the few remaining lines that have not yet for the USA government to consciously and intentionally dismantle the idea of the rule of law, German TV: Edward Snowden says NSA is involved in industrial sabotage. It is very dangerous for the USA to act as though what matters if might makes right and the rule of law is only enforced on those without enough might.

It seems to be the principle the USA government cares about is might makes right. After that it is hard to see what principles the government values enough to actually follow itself.

Related: Liberty and Support or Control and Hate - I Can Spy on You, But You Can't Spy on Me - Disregard for the Rule of Law by Government - Living Through Your Society Becoming a Police State

Investment Risk at the Portfolio Level Trumps That at the Individual Position Level

The risk related investment mistake that I think costs people the most money is thinking of risk as an isolated quality of an individual investment. What should matter to investors is the risk of their portfolio, not individual investment risk.

I don't accept that the sensible way to look at USA treasury bill risk is the same if I have 90% invested in treasury bills and am looking at what to do with the last 10% of my portfolio (or if I have 60% in USA index funds, 20% in REITs and 10% in global index fund). Putting that 10% in treasury bills in the first example is likely riskier than putting it in USA index fund, while in the 2nd example is likely a very good move to reduce risk.

Comment on: Risk doesn't get as much attention as it deserves in investing

Related: Looking for Dividend Stocks in the Current Extremely Low Interest Rate Environment - 401(k) Options, Seek Low Expenses - Disability Insurance is Very Important

Black Swans Body Surfing

Great video showing black swans body surfing in Gold Coast, Australia.

One way the internet has succeeded is with lots of fun videos showing the wide range of activities animals enjoy :-)

More awesome animal videos: Crow Skiing (sledding) - Friday Fun: Gibbon Plays with Tiger Cubs - Bird Using Bread as Bait to Catch Fish - Kitten’s Curiosity Gets it Stuck and Mom Comes to Help - Capuchin Monkeys Don’t Like Being Paid Less - Friday Fun: Monkey and Kitten Playing - Video of Kittens Being Rescued by Their Mother After Taking a Slide - Backyard Wildlife: Mountain Lion - Nice Interaction with a Group of Wild Mountain Gorillas Strolling Through Camp

Don't Let the Need to Blame Prevent Safety Improvements

Reaction to - Motor Mouth: Who’s liable when a self-driving car crashes?

While I agree we need to come up with an answer within the context of our legal system, I really see the bigger problem as the false responsibility claims our legal system encourages.

Many times there are negative results that should not result in wasteful legal proceedings but our system is so focused on pining the blame on someone to write a check that it accepts blaming x person because there isn't anyone else to blame. Often that is a bad outcome. I would welcome us examining the assumptions about everything needing to be blamed on specific parties.

I do agree there is a benefit to accessing pentalites to culpable parties. I think our current system needs to accept that complex systems often have bad results that should not be handled the way we do now. The whole issue is very complex but I think there is a need for much better decisions about blame being made in our legal system. It requires much more understanding of science, engineering, statistics etc.. And less overly simplistic blaming based on over simplified models.

My father was a professor of statistics/industrial engineering/chemical engineering and worked some trying to get a better understanding of cause and effect into the legal system decades ago, for example: Statistics, Science, Law and the Environment (The American Statistician, 1983). I think we need to do much better in this area.

Another question this raises is if 20,000 lives a year could be saved by self-driving cars and people didn't use that safety advantage are they liable for choosing a dangerous option (person driven car) even if they were not specifically negligent as far as the facts of the specific case are concerned. If we know drunk driving is more dangerous we pass laws and you can't drive drunk. Even without any proof your actions were at fault your state of being drunk makes you liable. Well, if drive less cars are much safer what is the difference, logically (I realize given the current laws there is a legal difference)?

Related: Blame the Road, Not the Driver - Separated Bike Lanes Reduced Injuries by 45% and Increased Retail Sales 49% (for nearby stores) - TPP Transparency Confirms the Worst: USA Government Still Trying to Strip Away Rights of Citizens in USA and Elsewhere - Traffic Congestion and a Non-Solution - System Improvement to Respond to the Dynamics of Crowd Disasters

Article looks at insurance companies reaction and predicts insurance rates could decline 60% with improved safety of autonomous cars.

Current Crop of Kleptocrat CEOs

My comment on Reddit: Professor Explains Economic Illiteracy He makes some decent points. Then he makes crazy claims about overpaid executives being good but non-economists failing to understand value of paying for success.

People that criticize executives taking huge amounts from corporate treasuries are not failing to understand paying for value. They just understand executives taking what they don't deserve is not what apologists claim. Executives treating corporations like a kleptocrat treats a country has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with some people taking whatever they can when they have power (and a whole slew of people willing to help them do so for a slice of the plunder).

Related: Executives Again Treating Corporate Treasuries as Their Money - Don't Excuse Immoral Looters - Massively Unjust Executive Compensation Damages Companies and Investments - Losses Covered Up to Protect Bonuses - Obscene CEO Pay (level of pay reached kleptocrat levels in the executive suite at the turn of the century - Warren Buffett "Too often, executive compensation in the U.S. is ridiculously out of line with performance."

Senior executive pay is 30, 60, 100... times what it should be today because:

• the conspiracy of collaborators splitting up the spoils (boards, other executives, compensation apologists getting huge checks for making excuses for ludicrous pay packages, professors getting funding for making ludicrous excuses for pay packages...)
• paying for failure - golden parachutes etc.
• paying for failure with "repriced" options, new share giveaways, etc. when results are poor
• paying for good markets - when every single too-big-to-fail bank gets gifts worth tens of billions in profit it is pretty hard to fail to make huge profits no matter how poorly you are managed, but what happens for market performance at these kleptocrat run companies? Millions in bonuses all around.
• taking huge risks (including excessive leverage), when they work, claim leadership credit and take a huge paycheck (if they don't make other excuses or take your golden parachute)

Senior executives should be paid well. Doing so would require cutting pay by over 40% for many senior executives and 80% for many CEOs at companies that have been overrun by kleptocrats the last 15 years.

Liberty and Support or Control and Hate

I hold these truths as worthy of support

• all people have the right to life and liberty
• we are better led by those that aspire to love than those that feed on hate and fear
• we are better led by those that seek to support than those that seek to control
• people that can abuse power far too often do so, creating systems that ignore this is dangerous
• societies are built and held together by communities cooperating and being bound by social conventions
• those with authority should have that authority limited, challenges to those in authority should be supported and encouraged
• communities that are built on fear and hate are dangerous and should be challenged

Those granted wisdom, health and/or wealth should seek to help others wherever those people live.

National boundaries matter, we are still having a great deal of trouble building nations that are not corrupted by those abusing authority to control others and enrich themselves. But the worth of people is not defined by their passport. Those that seek to gain support through promoting the hate and fear of others should be challenged and rejected.

Those of us in rich countries are far too concerned with our own material wealth and far too unconcerned with corrupt leaders (politicians, business leaders and others with power) and those less fortunate than us.

We should expect that people everywhere have the right to food, clean water and basic health care.

Implementing solutions based on broad principle is very hard. It isn't surprising that we struggle doing so. But that we fail so utterly far before we get to such difficulties disappointing.

Related: Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - Preaching False Ideas to Men Known to be Idiots - Living Through Your Society Becoming a Police State - Security Theatre Thinking is Damaging the USA - The Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress

Quick Thoughts on the Risks of Violence while Traveling

Just a quick response I posted on Reddit that I am also sharing here (to Defending yourself abroad):

Not getting drunk at bars likely proactively addresses a significant portion of issues.

Second, if you are coming from the USA or many other fairly high personal crime countries there are many places you are much safer while traveling. If you are coming from Japan, Singapore, Scandinavia you probably are much more likely to be the victim of crime than at home.

If you are not drunk the most likely crime is theft, while not good, it is much better than being attacked in my opinion (at least much better than being attacked by someone who is the equivalent of your still ineffective kid brother :-)

The biggest concern in a new environment is that you don't pick up on the clues of danger that you would in your home environment. This means to be safe you are wise to try and develop the ability to be more skeptical and more attuned to what is going on around you. You may also be the target as you may be more visible, may be seen as rich, may be seen as a jerk (often being drunk helps boost this impression).

There is danger everywhere. But we often exaggerate the danger of new place (new to us). Being careful makes sense, but the dangers away from home are often statistically less though are unfamiliarity may lead us to be less aware and able to avoid situations we find in unfamiliar surroundings. Also, being on your own (instead of in a city with lots of friends that help keep you in line, give you protection in numbers in some situations...) can increase the risk to you, especially again in unfamiliar surroundings.

I doubt learning fighting skills makes much sense. Outside of drunken brawls most places are not that violet and if they are many times it is guns and such things (though most often that level of violence is aimed at other criminals or family and friends).

There is other violence (between people) of course and it is sad and something to avoid. I would be amazed if car and bus deaths (of travelers) and injury don't exceed by a long way any person on person violence against travelers.

Related: Curious Cat Travel Destinations - Travel Photos blog - A Tourist in Singapore - Curious Cat Australia Travel -

Historic PageRank and MozPageAuthority for Various Sites - Updated December 2013

Google pagerank is a measure of the number and importance of pages that are linking to the page (with the public page rank lowered by Google if they don't like some things the site/page does). One measure obviously has huge limitations for capture the nature or value of any page (for more info see previous post). Even with the limitation I still find it fun to look at the pagerank values - except when they go down for my sites :-(  Now I also track the similar Moz Page Authority and can take some solace if the MozPA goes up :-)
Google is downplaying pagerank and only updated the public rankings twice this year (they update the real page rank that they use themselves in real time). The only reason they updated it now (they say) is because they needed to make another coding change and it was easiest to update the public pagerank view rather than keep the old values during the code update.
** [5.0]

Site	Dec 2013 [MozPA]	Feb 2013	Oct 2011	Dec 2010	Dec 2008
PageRank 5 and MozPA > 4
Curious Cat Management Blog	5 [6.1]	5 [6.3]	5 [5.5]	4	3
Curious Cat Engineering and Science Blog	5 [5.8]	5 [6.1]	6 [5.3]	4	5
The W. Edwards Deming Institute Blog	5 [5.5]	4 [5.2]	-	-	-
John Hunter	5 [5.0]	5 [5.3]	4 [5.4]	4	4
CSS 4 Free	5 [4.7]	4 [4.9]	4 [5.4]	4	5
PageRank 4 and MozPA > 5
Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog	4 [5.7]	4 [5.9]	4 [5.3]	3	4
Curious Cat Management Improvement Connections*	** [3.3]	4 [5.4]	5 [5.5]	4	3
Curious Cat Travel Photo Blog	4 [5.0]	4 [5.1]	3 [4.9]	-
PageRank 4 and MozPA > 4
The Future is Engineering*	4 [4.3]	4 [4.6]	4 [4.7]
The Engineer That Made Your Cat a Photographer*	3 [4.1]	4 [4.4]	4 [4.7]	4	3
Curious Cat Code (programming)	4 [4.1]	4 [4.3]	4 [4.2]	-
Curious Cat Gadgets	4 [4.1]	4 [4.3]
Living in Singapore	4 [4.1]	4 [4.3]	3 [4.0]
Multi Site PageRank Checker	4 [4.1]	3 [4.1]	3 [4.7]	2	1
PageRank 4 and MozPA > 3
externs.com - internship directory	4 [4.0]	4 [4.4]	4 [5.2]	4	4
Life and Legacy of William Hunter (my father)	4 [4.0]	4 [4.1]	4 [4.5]	4	4
Living in Malaysia	4 [4.0]	4 [4.2]	3 [4.1]
Statistics for Experimenters	4 [3.9]	4 [3.9]	3 [4.5]	3	4
Hexawise Software Testing Blog	4 [3.8]	3 [4.0]
Management Matters (my book)*	4 [3.8]	4 [3.5]	-	-
Management and Leadership Quotes	4 [3.7]	4 [4.0]	2 [5.2]	2
PageRank 3 and MozRank > 3
Good Process Improvement Practices*	3 [4.0]	3 [4.1]	3 [4.1]
Architecture and home design inspiration	3 [4.0]	4 [4.2]	-
Management Articles*	3 [3.9]	4 [4.3]
Curious Cat Management Comments	3 [3.9]	3 [4.3]	3 [4.5]
Curious Cat Comments (this blog)	3 [3.9]	3 [4.0]	- [3.8]	3	3
Curious Cat Travel Destinations	3 [3.4]	3 [3.2]	-	-	-
Management Improvement Resources	3 [3.1]	3 [3.4]	3 [3.8]	3	3
PageRank 2 and MozRank > 2
Curious Cat Web Directory	2 [3.3]	4 [3.6]	4 [4.7]	3	4
Johor Bahru Real Estate	2 [3.0]	2 [3.2]	-
Curious Cat Travel Destinations: Marina Bay Sands (Singapore)	2 [2.9]	2 [3.0]	-	-
Hexawise.tv	2 [2.8]	2 [2.9]	-	-
PageRank 1 and MozRank > 3
CuriousCat Wordpress	1 [3.5]	u [3.6]	-	-	-
urls changed since the old data Google is using, so no pagerank
Curiouscat.com	**	4 [5.4]	4 [5.6]	3	3
Management Dictionary*	** [2.6]	5 [5.2]	5 [5.4]	4	3
Public Sector Continuous Improvement Site*	4 [5.1]	5 [5.0]	4
Deming's Management Method*	** [4.9]	3 [5.0]	4 [4.5]	4
Six Sigma Management Resources*	** [4.9]	4 [5.0]	4
Investment Dictionary*	** [4.8]	4 [5.0]	4 [5.2]
No PageRank
My Kiva page	u [5.8]	u [6.2]	u [4.0]	3
Economic Strength Through Technology Leadership***	u [4.2]	u [4.5]	4 [4.7]	4	4
Justin Hunter (my brother)	u [3.4]	u [3.4]	2 [2.9]	2	2
Curious Cat Travel Destinations: France	u [1.3]	u [1.9]	-	-	-
Curious Cat Travel Destinations: Australia	u [1.3]	u [1.8]	-	-	-

* internal pages
** new url, old url forwarded
- didn't exist yet
u unranked
[blank] I don't know what the pagerank was, sometimes the site didn't exist yet.

***I have noticed my high pagerank blog posts can be at PR of 4 for years and then have no page rank at all. Meanwhile MozPA doesn't seem to disappear the authority of those page. The PageRank can often reappear in another update (I even think they may come back in between updates but I might be mistaken).

Related: PageRank Moz PageAuthority for Various Sites (February 2013) - Google Page Rank Updates for November 2012 - Google Toolbar PageRank Update December 2008

It Seems to be Confirmed That the USA Government Has Been Ignoring the Rule of Law

I figured the USA had abandoned the practice of concern for the rule of law when it wasn't convent for the government. Of course, choosing to support the rule of law only when you find the laws personally useful and ignoring it otherwise pretty much makes the rule of a law a farce.

update: it appears Norway did the spying on its own citizens that is then shared with the USA. That would appear to satisfy the legal requirements in this example. I still question the legality of many actions by the USA - it just seems likely violations of laws of other countries are frequent. We can't violate other's laws and they expect them to obey the laws we want them to. NSA logged 33m calls in Nato ally Norway

Torstein Olsen, head of Norway's telecoms regulator, said that it was illegal for anyone apart from telecommunications companies to collect such data. "If Dagbladet's information is correct that 33 million mobile phone calls in Norway were registered by someone other than the telecommunication companies, that would be a crime under Norwegian law," he said.

Also the USA government was I believe successful in preventing USA citizens and companies from using encryption that was safe while knowingly encouraging other governments to spy using the advantage of poor encryption. Given the continuing stream of evidence on bad practices the USA government tried to hide from public condemnation the USA government has effectively given cart blanche to every sovereign state to spy electronically as much as they want to.

So it seems the USA government has sold out the ability of its citizens to protect themselves from not just spying from its own government but all other governments spying on all personal, business and political activities in the USA (based on the actions the USA has taken they certainly can't expect other governments to be less intrusive than the USA has been to their citizens and political leaders - and at this point we would certainly have to assume businesses also).

The repeated, crushing blows to the rule of law, respect for the right of people and honorable behavior by the USA the last 15 years is extremely disheartening. The USA it seems to me fell far short of the standards it should have set the last 50 years but at least the USA seemed to have some credibility when attempting to encourage others to behave in accordance with the rule of law which would make the world a better place. Now I can't imagine what country is more consistently and aggressively flaunting their disrespect for the rule of law. The USA currently seems to have only one justification for their actions: might makes right. We can do whatever we want because you can't stop us militarily and we can crush you economically if you don't do whatever we tell you to do.

Choosing to follow some laws and then expecting other countries to follow all the laws you care about is not sensible behavior.

I seriously hope we can recover from the disastrous behavior of our government the last 15 years. We recovered from McCarthyism and Watergate but this behavior seems much worse to me (and those were very bad).

It has gotten so some of the most far fetched "conspiracy theory" claims are superseded by what the USA government actually does. That is a very bad state of affairs.

Related: I Can Spy on You, But You Can't Spy on Me (isn't a sensible expectation) - Watching the Watchmen - Librarians Standing Up to the Madness - Freedom Increasingly at Risk

Two Time Zones for the USA

I agreed with this post a read a little while back suggesting the USA get rid of "daylight savings time" and adopt just 2 time zones (for the continental USA). I never thought of reducing the time zones before but it seems like a good idea. I doubt we will do it before I die anyway (but it is possible - heck we might even adopt the metric system).

I saw this today showing China has only 1 time zone.

TPP Transparency Confirms the Worst: USA Government Still Trying to Strip Away Rights of Citizens in USA and Elsewhere

TPP Leak Confirms the Worst: US Negotiators Still Trying to Trade Away Internet Freedoms by the EFF

The leaked text, from August 2013, confirms long-standing suspicions about the harm the agreement could do to users’ rights and a free and open Internet. From locking in excessive copyright term limits to further entrenching failed policies that give legal teeth to Digital Rights Management (DRM) tools, the TPP text we’ve seen today reflects a terrible but unsurprising truth: an agreement negotiated in near-total secrecy, including corporations but excluding the public, comes out as an anti-user wish list of industry-friendly policies.

The anti-liberty policies of those we elect continues. They continue to sell out basic rights to provide favors for those giving them lots of cash. The extent to which our elected officials go to hide their actions from public scrutiny is despicable. But the real damage is the consistent march to reduce liberty while providing favors for those providing politicians cash. The damage to society by this consistent pattern is enormous.

It was easy to predict the massive effort to stop SOPA would only temporarily delay the politicians anti-liberty policies. And sadly that prediction has proven accurate (not just TPP but many attempts, some successful already, to pass SOPA's provisions when the public isn't shining the light on the terrible actions congress and the administration are pursuing). They merely keep trying to implement SOPA, SOPA-like and even much worse policies than even were in SOPA over and over. TPP is just one of the most egregious examples of anti-liberty policies and the governments attempts to hide their actions from the public.

Related: Society is being shaped for us while we are busy making other plans - We Continue to Vote for Those that Sell Out the Country for Cash Gifts - Good Journalism Aids Society by Shining the Light on Corruption (and government trying to hide their policies from public debate) - Cash for votes subreddit (links to politicians sellout out their country for cash)

Continued Refusal to Address Abuse of the Constitution by Government

McCain: If you believe that Mr. Snowden didn't give the Russians information that he has, then you believe that pigs can fly.

From: UK spies continue “quantum insert” attack via LinkedIn, Slashdot pages

If you believe the political and government administration leadership in the USA are not abusing the constitution and making false statements to cover up that behavior and ignoring evidence that has been made public of such abuses then you believe pigs can fly.

It is pitiful how far our political leaders and talking heads have fallen (the exceptions are few, sadly). They would have been cheering on the House committee on un-American activities. It is so incredibly sad what is happening to our country.

Related: Disregard for the Rule of Law by Government - The People We Elect Recently Are Dramatically Falling Us - Living Through Your Society Becoming a Police State - Security Theatre Thinking is Damaging the USA - Freedom Increasingly at Risk (2008), the abuses have been apparent for quite a long time

Disregard for the Rule of Law by Government

I have trouble with the violation of international and other country's laws when it suits your purpose while claiming to support the rule of law.

The USA has done many things wrong in spying on its citizens and others around the world. The main defense seems to be to

1) make people fearful (essentially they are copying what the house committee on "un-american activities" did)

2) lie

3) hide extremely bad policy (and most likely lots of illegal activity) behind claims of "national security"

4) say we are no worse at breaking laws than others are

One is bad, but at least not illegal. Still it is the type of behavior we shouldn't tolerate but we have been. Openly debating policy is what should be done. When we allow government to hide their bad policy from even being debated the extremes to which that bad policy goes very quickly becomes horrible (based on our past, and current, experience).

I don't know of an exception to following laws that amounts to -- lots of people kill people so what if I do. But that is the USA spying defense. Yes, we tapped the phones or leaders of Western democracies (and did an unbelievably long list of other violation of laws) but all countries violate laws all the time, so don't worry about it. Why do we bother having laws if the USA doesn't believe they should be followed whenever the USA government doesn't feel like following them?

The whole idea of the rule of law is that everyone has to follow the law not just those who are less powerful than those enforcing the law. The USA government seems to think it is perfectly ok to break laws if other people do (well about every single law is broken by other people) and you are more powerful than the law enforcer - this seems like a bad idea, and it certainly isn't the "rule of law" it is just "might makes right."

It seems like the last 2 adminstrations have just decided laws dont' matter for them. They can jsut do whatever they want because of fear and might makes right. I think the trampling of liberty that has been apparent for a decade and we get a worse and worse picture of as the attempts to hide extremely bad policy from the public view is reduced.

We need people shedding the light on behaviors of the government that are shredding the liberty of people across the globe and shredding the concept of the rule of law. Using the types of tactics that fit only with an organization like the House Un-American Activities Committee is something we should have stopped accepted over half a century ago.

I am very surprised and disappointed to be living through the type of behavior by our government I thought had disappeared with my Grandparents. I realized we would have small type corruption, scandals of very bad behavior by senior government officials, etc.. But the long term commitment to suppress the truth and using extra legal force of government to attack those seeking to expose government wrong doing is extremely disappointing.

Playing games with "classification" to hide the policies that are extremely anti-constitutional and then "un-classifying" (or even just leaking without un-classifying) little bits to attack those that seek to expose the un-constitutional behavior of government is despicable. Never addressing any of the illegal behavior the government has, and continues to pursue, while attacking those that seek to expose government abuse with extra legal might of the federal government is something that shouldn't be tolerated.

A government has the power to take away liberty from individuals. Hopefully that is done when it is necessary for the best interests of society (imprisoning murders etc.). That power however is enormous. The rule of law much protect the people. When the government decides it doesn't need to obey the rule of law that is a very dangerous situation. We have been living through it for more than a decade now and things seem to just be getting worse and worse. That isn't surprising as the abuse of the the rule of law is tolerated those who get away with doing so will likely keep increasing how far from the rule of law they will go.

We have seen over and over how this works in countries. And we are seeing it the last decade plus in the USA. The path we are on, is very scary.

I have always known the USA government did plenty of stuff wrong. But I also did believe we were helping make the world a better place. I am very disappointed now. I think we are not making the world a better place. And sadly, there are not good options to counteract the abandonment of advocacy for the rule of law and liberty that the USA used to promote. We never were perfect at doing so, but we did push those causes more than we pushed against them. Now we clearly are pushing against them much more than we are aiding efforts to promote liberty and the rule of law; both in the USA and globally.

Related: Living Through Your Society Becoming a Police State - The People We Elect Recently Are Dramatically Falling Us - Freedom Increasingly at Risk (2008) - Security Theatre Thinking is Damaging the USA

The People We Elect Recently Are Dramatically Falling Us

Bill Moyers is a great journalist. He has done a great job, for decades, doing what great journalists do to help a country - shining the light on our society and what our politicians are doing. We desperately need more people like him and more institutions that promote real journalism.

Sadly we elect politicians that then let special interest and crazy extremists in their party dictate everything that is done. And sadly we watch special interest produced pabulum like Fox. As Bill Moyers states this stuff is consistently so full of lies and falsehoods no sensible person could consider it even up to the standard worthy of contempt. It isn't good enough to even be contemptible. It is a very sad commentary on how foolish many of our are that Fox is actually tolerated. The other mainstream news is bad but Fox isn't even in the same galaxy. That a country has a news source with more than 1% market share (having crazy extremists is normal and isn't a bad commentary on a country) even remotely as bad as Fox is an extremely bad commentary on that country.

I find both parties very disappointing. But the Republicans have become so bad so apposed to debate, discourse, thought, solutions, science, liberty, society, working together... that I am close to losing faith in the entire party.

None of them seem willing to stand up for the country. They are all either the fools pumping what some lobbyist tells them or the cynical politician unwilling to stand up for their country because they care more about pleasing their most extreme elements in their party than the country. I understand that standing up to extremists can be challenging. It is one of those traits that is necessary for political leaders though. They need to be willing to stand up for the country even if that means making their friends and colleagues unhappy. Even if those people threaten to make their lives difficult if they stand up for what they believe.

I understand most politicians will just take the easy way out. We don't elect many thoughtful, courageous, leaders. We can't expect thoughtful, courage, actions from most of them. But for a party to be completely missing any of them who have any clout is a serious problem, as I see it. The Republicans have let extremists dictate so much for so long that they created a much more difficult climate. To stand up to the crazy extremist actions now requires much more than would be required if you hadn't let them run wild for more than a decade.

I think the extreme elements can play a vital role when the sensible center is called out for just implementing what the lobbyists pay both parties for. But the extreme on the Republican side for about the last 15 years has been dictating policy and implementing whatever the lobbyists tell them to.

A few years of cowardly behavior by an entire party is frustrating but, given the low quality of leaders we elect, isn't surprising. Over a decade of such behavior though is very close to an unforgivable sin.

The Democrats are not doing well, in fact they are doing horribly. But compared to the Republicans for the last 15 years the Democrats look almost tolerable. The overriding problem, as I have seen it, has been that both parties together have been doing an extremely lousy job for the last 30 years. But the Republicans have become so unhinged from reality and unwilling to govern that it is getting close to the point where the main problem is going to be them, if that hasn't already happened.

It is a very sad state of affairs.

Related: We Continue to Vote for Those that Sell Out the Country for Cash Gifts - Living Through Your Society Becoming a Police State - Security Theatre Thinking is Damaging the USA - Real Journalism Exposes Bail Bond Corruption - Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren - Money Is Corrupting Our Political Process - Anti Liberty Sentiment in Congress

Poor Web Site User Experience (Ux)

Financial website universally (at least those I use) do a very poor job at some very simple things. It is confusing for non-professional investors to keep track of what markets are open when.

It is really lame that huge sites (Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, CNN, Marketwatch...) can't easily show what markets are closed. Instead they show changes (which imply changes today) that are often for the previous day. So half an hour before a market opens the display indicates it has returned whatever it returned yesterday. And if the market is closed that day, all day long the display acts as though it has the return it did that last day it was open.

Display on Bloomberg. But actually the Hong Kong market is closed today, bad Ux :-(

This feeble usability failure should have been fixed years ago. Yet as far as I can tell all the sites continue to fail to take sensible steps to make it clear what the real data for today is.

From Marketwatch, you have to look at the graph, see it isn't yet 2 PM in Hong Kong and then deduce the Hong Kong market isn't open today, bad Ux

On a much more minor point, eliminating tiny decimal places is better (as Marketwatch does but Bloomberg doesn't). 100% (99.999% rounded up :-) of users don't want to see the Nikkei is at 14,788.80 it is better to display 14,789. Similarly don't display fractions of a cent for stock quotes.

Related: Bad Visual Controls, Software - Customer Focus and Internet Travel Search - 6 years Later Goolge Acts To Let Me Block Sites I don't want to see (2011, then Google removed this useful feature so again lots of lousy sites clutter the results) - Understanding Technology and Programing is Vital - Gobbledygook (bad password usability)

We Continue to Vote for Those that Sell Out the Country for Cash Gifts

We continue to re-elect the bums that give favors for cash gifts (and those favors in turn harm our society). Sadly, I don't see us as likely to start throwing people out that sell out the state or country given our track record. Too bad.

At the federal level the cash for votes problem is bad (probably not quite as bad as at the state level). Cash buys votes but within some constraints. Issues take a bit different shape at the federal level.

At the federal level lots more cash is needed to pay for for trade barriers at the state level (which is what auto dealers have bought from those supposedly meant to represent the citizens) and likely the issue (of laws meant to transfer cash from the public to dealers) would fall the other way (over time) at the federal level. Another issue that is very similar (restraint of trade to benefit those giving politicians cash at the expense of the citizens) - is funeral services.

Trying to get a federal band aid for the auto dealers having bought state legislators may work (it will be a huge struggle with lots of cash given to politicians to buy them for each side). The system fix is to stop voting for people that sell you out to those giving them cash. But we have shown no interest in doing so. Both parties do it and barely even have a tilt in the way they do it.

Republicans don't do much for unions so don't get that cash (but that is the exception, not the rule). Most special interest groups have bought both parties - it is just a matter of which benefits they have bought that will be push stronger depending on which party has the power. The huge benefits the special interest buy are actions not words. The words of parties and politicians may well lead you to think they stand against the corruptions special interest want. The words don't matter.

What matters is the benefits granted to the special interests most of which are done with full cooperation of both parties leadership. The verbal sparing on most issues special interests care about are a side show that have little to do with what matters. Votes rarely matter. The behind the scenes favors to special interests are many multiples more important (killing any votes, putting in often incomprehensible language that lavishes favors on those giving cash, stopping regulations, creating regulations...).

Democrats get tons of cash from most any financial special interest you can name (including any people think the Democrats appose in some way). Look at things like too big to fail institutions. Those huge companies that broke the global economy were allowed to do so by Democrats and Republicans that were bought by the too big to fail crowd. As can be seen those elected officials are still bought and paid for and we continue to put them back in office to sell out the USA for those that give them the most cash.

Neither party has any philosophical reason to support the too big to fail crowd. Some can argue the big business Republicans may (that may be true but the big business Republicans really are just a descriptions of bought and paid for Republicans there isn't a philosophy that supports creating anti-competitives monopolistic companies to reap monopoly rents from the favors granted by congress). Both parties have just been bought and paid for by the too big to fail crowd and until we dump those that are bought and paid for they will continue to undermine the country. Even when the parties are bought and paid for individuals hold out. Elizabeth Warren (D) and Rand Paul (R) for example are not bought and paid for by the too big to fail crowd.

Related: Anti Competitive Lobbying (2006) - Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren (2007) - Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare (2008) - Congress Eases Bank Laws in 1999 at the request of their sponsors (setting the stage for too big too fail disaster) - Ethanol: Science Based Solution or Special Interest Welfare (2007) - Sugar Industry Taxes Consumers via Their Bought and Paid for Politicians (2005)