Conflicts of Interest

David:
I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more over the next 2 months about the Clinton Foundation.

Doug:
I'm sure we'll be reading a lot more from you over the next 2 months about the Clinton Foundation. And rightly so! It has done many good things, and has received high marks from CharityWatch. It is nice to shine a bright light on those organizations that do good.

David:
Of course, doing something good does not outweigh breaking the law. If I rob a bank, and give $20 to a homeless person as I walk to my getaway car, it doesn't excuse my robbing the bank, or using the stolen money to do "good".

Doug:
You have learned well, little brother. But we're talking about Conflicts of Interest right now.

David:
There are many instances where we see people in powerful positions securing more power or huge deals that enrich them by what most of us would call "Conflicts of Interest"(COI). One such example appears to be Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and her husband.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp

While there is no direct evidence that she intimidated the Postal Service into using her husband's company to sell off their properties, it would seem that ethical rules would preclude her husband's company from making the deal because of the COI.

Doug:
Strange that you would pick an example of Conflicts of Interest that has no evidence. Don't you think you could find a nice example of Conflicts of Interest with evidence? Perhaps when Judge Scalia was getting free travel and boarding from someone that won a favorable ruling from the supreme court?

David:
That would be a perfect example. Anytime someone in power exchanges some benefit in exchange for cash or more power is wrong. Like receiving sexual favors from an intern...

Doug:
How is having is having sex with an intern getting "cash or more power"? I don't see having sex with an intern as a Conflict of Interest issue. I do see it as an abuse of power. A very large abuse of power.

Other examples of Conflict of Interests: someone like Trump being president? Or Governor Chris Christie's office shutting down a bridge as political retribution? Or just the plain rules of congress?

David:
Well, now you've lost me. How does Donald Trump being president equal a COI?  And what in the world are you talking about the "rules of Congress"?

Doug:
Oh, sorry! I should explain how these little link things work. You have to click on them to follow the link. The first one leads to an article subtitled "Conflict-of-interest question would loom large if the Republican is elected". The second link (you have to click it!) leads to an article titled "Lucky for Congress, Blatant Conflict of Interest Is Still Perfectly Legal". Does that help?

David:
I'm asking you to explain how you think this works. Apparently, no successful businessman can be President? Ah, that's why you believe Obama and Clinton are perfect for the job: they are not successful business people.

Doug:
No president has ever been a successful president in the way that Trump is "successful" if that is what you mean.

David:
I believe the Christie scenario has the same problem about of evidence as the Clinton Foundation scandal.  No charges filed.

Doug:
No, you are wrong about that: this is very different. First, if you are going to call something a "scandal" then, for all of our sakes, please have some evidence. Any evidence. The evidence in Bridgegate is quite explicit: again, you have to click on the link to see that it says:

Kelly [Christie's Chief of Staff] had emailed Wildstein advising him that it was "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee". She was fired by Christie, who said she had lied to him about her involvement. Renna [director of intergovernmental affairs] had previously written a phone text to a colleague saying that if some of her boss’s emails were discovered they would prove that he had “flat-out lied” about his role in the plot.

No one is arguing that there is no evidence. The only question is: how many people will be indicted? Clearly having political operatives making decisions on traffic is a Conflict of Interest. But that is New Jersey. I think they invented "conflict of interest."

David:
I believe his cohorts did something wrong. I don't believe there is any evidence tying Christie to any of that. As you mentioned, he fired people who were responsible. I have not heard that anyone in the justice department is looking any further into this at all, despite your "only question". There may be some investigation of the Clinton Foundation, however. It's the appearance of impropriety that causes the problem, and leads to frustration among the populace.

Doug:
As I said, it was Chris Christie's office. The trial for bridgegate is set for September 12, 2016. There is no investigation into the Clinton Foundation except in your mind.

David:
Back to the discussion. I think that Donald Trump is now where he is because of this corrupt COI, money for favors, Washington corruption. Bernie Sanders railed against Clinton's Wall Street ties, until he rolled over and endorsed her. People are tired of this type of behavior, and Freedom of Information lawsuits may finally expose some of it.

Doug:
I think all presidential candidates should show their income tax reports, to show any conflicts of interest.

David:
Income tax returns don't illustrate all of your business dealings. Re-read your link regarding Congressional rules (which are different from Congressional ethics). Most of those issues would not appear in a tax return.

Doug:
Tax returns would not reveal all possible conflicts. Are you arguing for more transparency, but at the same time supporting the candidate that refuses to do the standard of showing his tax returns?

David:
I'd like to see his tax returns. And Hillary's medical records.

A different problem that arises is that we want people with special knowledge of a particular field to write the legislation for that field. For example, if you were a congressman, I would trust that you would be an important contributor to a discussion of legislation regarding the internet, cyber security, or other issues related to the field of computer technology. If I were a legislator, I'd expect to be consulted when dealing with matters of health care, insurance, and issues related to medicine.

Doug:
No, I think you are wrong again. Having knowledge of a discipline is a first step, but that is not enough.

David:
Sometimes it can be a fine line between improving the field you work in, and having that improvement also help you yourself, even though that was not the intention. As we have seen too often, the ethical line is crossed when elected officials use that position to directly enrich themselves. That was really the point I was trying to make here, before we were so easily distracted.

Doug:
Perhaps you can just say that, rather than mentioning things that have nothing to do with your point, like the Clinton Foundation, or having sex with interns, or stealing money from a bank.

David:
Surely we can agree that this type of behavior should not be allowed, and should be rooted out of Washington. As Truman said, " You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook". Look around at how many elected officials are getting rich on the job.

Doug:
And you have to ask yourself: why would a business person want to be involved in politics at all? To help people? But yes, we could hope that congress would make Conflicts of Interests against the law. I think you are arguing for a change in congress. Luckily we have an election soon. 

Science, Freedom, and the Greater Good

Doug:

Here is a common sentiment found on social media, like Facebook:

"Scientists want to run our lives. They want to control how much we can eat, how much we are allowed to drive, the temperature in our homes, how much water we use, and many other aspects of our lives. The so-called "scientists" think that they know everything, and now want to create laws that force us to obey their wacky ideas. This is really a question of freedom: should they be able to limit our freedom in the name of "science"? No! They are just trying to bully us into obeying them, like any tyrant."

What do you think about this view?

Dr. Jemison is an astronaut and advocates strongly in favor of science education and getting minority students interested in science. She sees science and technology as being very much a part of society.

David:

You need to screen your friends better. All of my friends place blame where it is due, on politicians. Scientists don't regulate the way we live, or strip us of our rights and cash. That all happens in Washington DC, and if Hillary gets elected, she’s already promised more of the same.

Doug:

Luckily, the post wasn't from a friend, or even from anyone that I know. But shouldn't politicians listen to scientists? Shouldn't politicians put on their scientist's hat when making decisions? Shouldn't  "freedoms" sometimes be limited by the impact that science identifies? Isn't there a cost to ignoring science's best practices?

David:

There is science, and then there is the idea of putting science into practice. Those aren't always the same thing, and there is sometimes a difference of opinion as to what the science should mean. All science is not amenable to even being in the realm of government.

Now, if politicians are trying to tackle a specific issue or problem, then certainly lawmakers should consult any science that may be available to solve that specific problem. At the Indiana Statehouse, lawmakers will invite experts to testify at hearings to come up with the best legislation. But these “experts” may just be people with strong opinions about the science. The best expert witness can sway legislators in the same way a jury can be swayed by a convincing witness. And, they have to listen to all of the lobbyists, who usually have compelling, if one-sided, reasons for or against legislation.

It isn't a simple process, and sometimes differing sciences may find themselves at odds. In my opinion, it's usually better for the government to butt out, and let people use the science to improve all of our lives without bureaucratic meddling. Science itself will better our lives, especially if the government doesn't inhibit it with regulations.

Doug:

I guess I am asking about a slightly different issue: when the science is clear, but it has an impact on our lives (described as "freedoms" in the above-quoted rant) should those restrictions be supported/imposed? For example, driving gasoline-powered cars has an impact on the environment. Water usage has an impact on the environment. Not getting vaccinated can have an impact on the community. All of these concerns can be mediated by limiting choices (or encouraging limitations on choice), and rightly we should limit such "freedoms." For example, one should not be allowed to use up all of the water in a region, even if one pays for the water. After all, we don't want to make water only available to the wealthy, but we want to limit consumption. How does government balance individual freedom with the good of all of the people?

David:

It's never quite so simple. Each of those issues has many factors involved, that would need to be evaluated over a long period of time. I choose freedom as the automatic default, except in extreme circumstances.

Doug:

Clever! All you have to do is label a circumstance as "extreme" or not and then you can easily move from one point to the other.

David:

Driving gasoline-powered cars affects the environment, to some degree, but a majority of people depend on their cars for transportation. Freedom to travel and to get to work is very important for people. Freedom to use water for your crops is important. The government has withheld water usage to an entire region in California, and all of those farmers are now out of business and out of work. That was a bad decision that stripped them of their ability to earn a livelihood. Parents have the freedom to refuse to vaccinate their children, but they also have the freedom to make that choice. It’s a non-scientific, stupid decision for most diseases, but it’s still their choice. Freedom.

The more government expands, the fewer freedoms we have.

Doug:

One of the most important roles of the government is to weigh the pros and cons of these uses. Are the farmers' uses more important that the uses of the people in the cities? Or can farming be done in other regions of the country where there are more resources. The problem of looking at any compromise as a limitation of freedoms is that it doesn't properly weigh the benefits of cooperation. These are not fewer freedoms, but merely reasonable constraints.

David:

Unless it’s your farm that is deprived of water and shut down, to benefit farmers in another region. Then it becomes the Big Government picking and choosing winners and losers.

Doug:

But that is an inherent risk with anyone that represents you. Your only recourse is to find someone better to represent you, and everyone.

Usually, when a group of scientists or engineers identify an issue (ozone, endangered species, threat of drought, etc.), then there may need to be some compromise. But, often for the greater good. When does "greater good" ever enter into the equation?

David:

Again, it isn't so clear, politically speaking. Whose “greater good” are you speaking of? You must remember that legislators are elected to represent their constituents. Let’s say you got elected to office, and you have plans to improve your district for the benefit of your constituents. Now, let’s say the issue of irrigation comes into a proposed bill. If scientists say that the water should be diverted elsewhere to benefit a small fish that is endangered, but all of your constituents are against the idea, and call you to demand that you represent them and vote against diverting the water, what would you do?

Doug:

The government (local, regional, and federal) must be smarter than just leaving the decision to a vote of the masses. Otherwise, we wouldn't need elected officials, and we could leave everything to a vote, and the tyranny of the masses.

David:

What if you knew that your vote might be the deciding vote in new computer or internet regulations that will be presented after the next elections? Would you save the fish, put many of your constituents out of work and destroy your district, and not be around to help format regulations and laws to benefit everyone with a computer, because you didn’t get re-elected over this one issue? When Hillary says she will put coal miners out of work, that may be good news for her pet companies like Solyndra, but it definitely isn't good for coal miners or the people who rely on the cheap electricity that comes from coal.

Doug:

Fish needing the internet? I got lost in your analogy. Coal mining, like other outdated jobs, can't be saved by making bad legislation. It isn't about "coal miners vs my pet company" but about the future. There is a cost to using coal (including environment and health) and that must be balanced with the greater good. Let's call it the "extreme" greater good, just so it is easy for you to see the issue.

David:

The other real problem that exists is scientists usually don’t have lobbyists, but corporations that the science threatens do. In politics, money talks. Hillary is on track to raise a Billion dollars for this election. That alone, if you follow statistics, guarantees her a victory in November. Whomever raises the most cash, always wins in politics, with very few exceptions.

Doug:

The problem with money in politics is something that we can agree on! Now, what are we (all) going to do about it?

Clinton vs. Trump vs. Economics in the Real World

David:

Both presidential candidates laid out their economic plans this past week. Both followed some party-line ideals, and both veered from reality now and then. I thought we might take a look at these plans, as well as some economic evaluations, and see what ideas are feasible, and which are not, and which messages  resonate with us.

Doug:

Sure, we could pretend that this is a normal presidential election, and that we could discuss the pros and cons of each candidate's policies. Get us started!

David:

Both of them have taken a turn from Obama's policies on free trade. This is somewhat ironic in that it was one of the few points of bipartisanship that came out of the last few years. Obama and Congress both approved of moving the Pacific Partnership ahead. Now, both Clinton and Trump are ready to trash the deal and start at the beginning. This is most surprising from Clinton, who, as Secretary of State helped to negotiate that very same trade deal.  Since Trump's message of protecting American jobs has resonated with blue-collar workers and union members, she likely felt compelled to change her mind to pander to those voters.

Doug:

That was a long story to get to the idea of "Clinton panders". I thought maybe you would end with "Clinton thought about the idea, and came around to a reasonable position." But pandering? Watch this, and then tell me who is the king of pandering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

Maybe you can let us know what are some of Trump's policies, because I haven't heard any.

David:

Let me know when you’re ready to participate. It’s only a discussion if you actually discuss something. In the meantime, I’ll keep outlining where I see their hits and misses.

Clinton had said the Pacific Trade Deal was the “gold standard” for trade deals, until Bernie Sanders showed up. She changed her position to try to grab some of his thunder, which was also the message Trump was, well, shouting. Now she’s against free trade. Until she’s elected and she no longer is against it.

Doug:

If we are talking about policy (rather than your spin of the issue) then I think you can simply say that Clinton is against the TPP. She has said that the details matter, and she is not against all free trade agreements. But maybe you can tell us some about Trump's policies?

David:

Both Clinton and Trump have declared war on any company that wants to move out of America.

Doug:

Declaring war! Sounds so exciting when you tell us stories! Continue!

David:

Clinton will fine them with an “exit tax”, while Trump will place a tariff on goods those companies try to import into the country. The correct answer is not to punish companies, but to create an environment where companies want to locate within the US, along with all the jobs they create. Lowering the costs of running a business, rather than raising taxes (which are already some of the highest in the world), we should lower them.

Doug:

Are you running for president? Whose policies are you discussing? It sounds like Clinton vs. Trump vs. Blank.

David:

Another place where Clinton falls short is in stimulating growth. Even Larry Summers, a progressive economist states that all of their progressive policies depend on growth of 4-6%.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-plans-growth-deficit-1470957720

Doug:

I would not describe Larry Summers as a "progressive economist." But what are Trump's plans for stimulation?

David:

You’d like to change the subject, rather than talk about Hillary’s policies? At least you aren’t trying to say Hillary is going to stimulate growth. I consider that a small victory.

Doug:

That is the difference between you and me: I don't see politics as winning or losing, but trying to make the country better. If Trump was running as a Democrat (see above video) against, say, Paul Ryan (or pretty much any Republican in congress), I would vote for the other person. Why? Because Trump is crazy. I do not trust him, and for good reason. I have no idea what his real agenda or policies are. I think Clinton's policies are well known, and obvious. And I agree with most of them.

David:

Trump’s policies will certainly create growth, according to analysts, but with an increase in debt. How much debt? It’s hard to tell, because it depends completely on how much growth develops. Clinton’s plans will, at best, maintain the growth at the current 1-2%. If she enacts further regulations, economists doubt we’ll see any increase in growth throughout her proposed presidency.

Doug:

You are certain that Clinton's policies will have a low growth rate (even though you are argue that this is a continuation of Obama's plans, which have worked out very well.)

David:

Obama’s economic growth is the worst since the Great Depression. Do you pay any attention at all to economics?

Doug:

Yes. And you are certain that Trump will have high growth, even though we don't know what his policy would be. You can see anything in anything. But rather than bloviating about what Trump's policies would do, maybe you can tell us what they are?

David:

I have been. Apparently only one of us will be discussing policy in this blog. I’m still waiting for you to join me. But it’s not just me who says Trump’s policies will stimulate the economy better than Clinton’s.

Both Clinton and Trump plan to spend more on infrastructure. But that’s what every president since Reagan has said, and they’re still spouting that economic solution. Nothing ever happens. Remember when Obama was going to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs? Turned out there were not any of those types of projects available, and due to all of the red tape, those projects are still not available. Hillary has said she will “cut red tape”, but doesn’t say how she will do that, or even what that vague statement means. Will she shut down the EPA? Will she tell the Bureau of Land Management to allow roads to be built on government land? Will she eliminate review processes, that now can take decades? Doubt it. Trump says he will put a moratorium on regulations. That should allow projects to actually progress and create construction jobs. It should also provide a sense of confidence in the marketplace for small businesses to feel like they can expand.

Doug:

"Moratorium on regulations" is not a policy nor even something he can do. Presidents don't make laws.

David:

Regulations are not laws, my dear brother. Regulations are rules spelled out by the Executive Branch’s various agencies. Agencies may be authorized by legislators to enact certain legislative goals through regulations, but the actual regulations are developed by those specific agencies. The President can certainly put a hold on further regulations.

Doug:

You sound as vague as Trump.

David:

Now, back to the topic. Neither candidate plans to address Social Security, which spends more than it takes in (a recipe for insolvency within the next 20 years). Clinton actually want to expand benefits. Neither candidate has plans to address Medicare either,  which will be bankrupt by 2028.

Doug:

No it won't.

David:

Perhaps we need to discuss addition, subtraction, and other simple math before we move on to economics. When you spend more than you take in, you lose money. If you have one dollar, you can’t spend two dollars, without making up that extra dollar. When a program spends more than it takes in, it runs out of money.  If you only have one dollar, you can’t spend two. When a country spends more than it brings in, year after year, and it's growth stagnates (som taxes fall short), it can no longer pay out the benefits it promised.

Doug:

I suspect that at some time between now and 2028 we will have a Democratic congress and President, and they will be able to raise enough money to pay for all of our spending. Perhaps it will be as early as the next few sessions, thanks to Trump.

David:

I can sum up Hillary’s plans using the words she used in a single speech 2 months ago: She said she will make day-care more affordable, and yet in the same speech she also said she would make sure day-care workers get paid more. She’s a typical politician; She makes promises out of both sides of her mouth that just can’t both be true.

Trump on the other hand, changes his mind frequently. Too frequently for my taste. At least he’s started to give some speeches with more concrete ideas, and he’s begun to stick with those ideas in follow up interviews. But, time is running out for him to sell those ideas.

Doug:

Trump has no policies. But I agree that he is running out of time. Most reasonable people will agree that a plan is better than no plan. And Clinton has some amazing plans. The best plans. You are going to love her plans.

David:

Both of their plans fall short for me. Neither has a plan to address the deficit. According to many economists, Trump’s plan has the best chance to increase growth, and that seems to be the right road to take. Clinton follows a long tradition of Democratic economic plans: Tax more and spend more. A lot more. Not good.

The New World Order

David:
My, how time flies.

Doug:
I have to agree with you on that! I can't believe that I have been at Bryn Mawr College for 15 years.

David:
And I finished medical school 25 years ago.

I remember a clinical rotation I had as a 4th-year medical student. I was working with a nationally-renowned ophthalmologist in Denver, CO. During the rotation, I noticed a young woman who was always in the office, and went to the ER with us when we were called for emergencies. She went to lunch with us, and even waited outside the operating suite when we did surgeries. But, for the life of me, I couldn't see that she actually performed any job. Nothing.

The ophthalmologist also worked a few days a month at a Native-American reservation, and on the way there, we stopped for lunch at a diner. While we were eating, I finally found out what her job was. The phone rang.

Not just any phone, mind you. It was a satellite phone. The great big ones that came with a twenty pound battery pack that you carried like a suitcase with a shoulder strap. This ophthalmologist had the first portable phone I had ever seen, and his assistant's job was to lug it around so he never missed a call. That was her only job.

Doug:
You couldn't get a job these days for carrying someone's phone. Well, maybe you could for a Kardashian.

David:
She had a great sense of humor.

Doug:
Kim? Khloe? Kourtney? Or, you mean the assistant had a great sense of humor. I see.

David:
Just a few years ago, we saw the advent of a new world. We are now surrounded by amazing science-fiction technology that didn't exist even ten years ago, but now we can't live without. Most of us can't even begin to think what it would be like without having our phone with us at all times, or being able to surf the web at any time. For many, it's a form of addiction.

Ten years ago, the top corporations in the world were mainly big oil companies. Now, they have been replaced with technology corporations. What do you think this means in the big picture, and how will this affect the world moving forward?

Doug:
It isn't just that phones have gotten smaller---they aren't phones any more! They are computers. Computers that can act as your phone, camera, and all of the other things that computers can do. Cell phones are so much more powerful than desktop computers just a decade ago.

David:
The average cell phone today has more computing  power than all of NASA did in 1969, when they sent men to the moon. That's why I have trouble understanding why NASA has such trouble reproducing that act today.

Doug:
Getting a person on the Moon was an amazing feat. But I suspect that the computation played a smaller role than compared to the rest of the systems. No doubt, it was a lot of code (written in assembly, a low-level language), written by just a few people, and was an amazingly difficult task. But today, on the other hand, computation is responsible for so much more. The more lines of code you have (and the more systems and people), the more chances for errors. I suspect that much of the difficulty today is between systems and subsystems.

You can actually see the Apollo 11 code: https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11 and here is a picture of it and the lead software engineer, Margaret Hamilton:

David:
Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon (number 4 on the list), has been using his billions to advance the course of space travel with his Space X program. Now that NASA has become a bloated, bureaucratic, government agency, private investment may be the way to return us to the stars.

Doug:
I doubt private companies are going to fill our space needs for one simple fact: there is little money to be made. This is exploratory science.

David:
Unless you charge money, like the Russians.  Then it's a business.

Doug:
Of course, as a computer scientist, I am not surprised to see tech companies move to the top of the corporation list, replacing oil and energy companies. But the mobile computer revolution (as opposed to the computer revolution) is just getting underway. Much of the programming for mobile computers hasn't been focused on productivity. But as mobile computers begin to completely replace your desktop and laptop computers, you'll begin to see them do more.

Combined with cameras and geographical awareness (such as location and gyroscopic movements) these new mobile computers will be able to become a part of our lives unlike desktop or laptops ever could. You ain't seen nothing yet.

David:
How long until we see a virtual screen similar to the movie Minority Report, or billboards around town that are tailored to you as you walk by?

Doug:
Not long, unfortunately. Advertising is already targeting you as an individual, probably more than you know. Most of the technology is already in place, in one form or another. Face recognition can work, if you don't shave your mustache.

Of course I worry about security and privacy, and what Big Business could do with this our information against our better judgement. I don't think our laws have caught up with the technology, which isn't surprising. Computer speeds have grown at an exponential rate (doubling every year or two). We don't have too much experience with such growth curves. This is going to be an exciting (and possibly scary) time.

David:
You worry about what Big Business will do with the information, while I worry what Big Government will do....in the name of "helping people",  no doubt.

In looking over the list of corporations, I also note that with Amazon, Google (Alphabet), and Facebook, many people have absolutely no reason to leave their homes. You can order food from the grocery, and have it delivered. You can spend countless (mainly unproductive) hours surfing the web, and numerous studies have indicated that Facebook and Twitter are eroding our humanity and culture. While new capabilities, like having every piece of information available at a keystroke, have the promise of making us better and more knowledgeable, the reverse appears to be happening.

Doug:
You should listen to yourself... you sound like a grumpy grandfather! Eroding our humanity? No wonder you think we need to make America great again... you think the world is falling apart because it is different from the way that you grew up. On the contrary, I meet new people every week from all around the world because of technology like Facebook and Twitter. And I leave my home more often because of new technology too. Mapping and podcast software makes traveling much better, for example.

David:
Sure, things are so much better than they were in the past, and technology plays the driving role in our lives now. Can you imagine trying to get around without GPS and Google Maps? However,  numerous studies show that the social media aspects of using that technology are making people dumber, more racist, less optimistic, more anxious, and even contributing to mental illness.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/275361.php

Doug:
Medical News Today says social media is bad? I think you might want to take a closer look at such studies.

David:
You probably shouldn't argue with me about medical studies. I'll give you the nod when it comes to computer information.

And as computers and automation continue to replace workers, what will the populace be doing to earn money in the future? We may have a lot of neat stuff, that only Mark Zuckerberg can purchase.

Doug:
Yes, the same old worries throughout time. What will the Pony Express riders do? What will the lumberjacks do? What will the factory workers do? There are always new jobs available. Until the robots and the artificial intelligence programs are in place, but we'll save that discussion for another week.

David:
I'll have to give you that point.

Some of these mega-tech corporations are run by a very few individuals. In the past, big oil was demonized for their lobbying efforts. I don't see that big-tech will be any different. A few individuals could manage what information we see, and what news is available to us.

Doug:
Big tech is not any different in terms of lobbying to get what they want. They are different in that they need a lot of employees, and they generally don't care about conservative social issues. They want all of their employees to be happy, wherever they live. That includes LBGTQ employees. On the other hand, they will spend big bucks to attempt to sway congress on technological issues (such as net neutrality). But if you want to have a huge impact as an individual, become CEO of a television group like Roger Ailes did. It sure is good to see him out of the loop. I think he has done more damage to the world than any single person ever has.

David: 
That is just my point. A great deal of control in the hands of a single individual, who controls news and media, as well as advertising that is tailored just to you, is a bad thing. You only see FoxNews as bad, because you disagree with conservatism. But there are multiple other liberal news sites to compete with it.

Doug:
No, I see FoxNews as bad because everything they "report" on has a non-truth-based spin to it. I like my news un-spun. I don't know of any other news agency that has given so much control to their CEO.

David:
Funny, but I'd give the same analysis to just about all of the rest of the Main-Stream Media. Why do you think that FoxNews has the best ratings of all news channels? Perhaps you aren't familiar with Jeff Zucker, CEO of CNN, who has the same abilities at that network that Ailes did at FN.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/02/cnn-craves-fox-newss-conservative-viewers/?utm_term=.1ed17be33c71

The corporations that are now leading the "biggest corporations" list are all under control of a very few individuals, with little competition, and little oversight. Oil companies didn't have brain-washing Americans, and the rest of the world, as part of their agenda. I've  spent much less time on FB after it was revealed that they were manipulating posts to control the thinking of their "customers", and manipulating the news feed to eliminate conservative views.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html?_r=0

Doug:
Well, you should stay home, close the curtains, and turn off all devices if you want to avoid being manipulated. Or just be aware of it coming from all directions.

David:
I don't ascribe to a view that the government needs to intervene in some way, however. But there needs to be the same transparency in these mega-corporations that other corporations have had to endure at the government's hands in the past.  That's where a conservative news organization becomes valuable; To make sure when a mega-corporation engages in bad behavior, the public has a way to learn about it.

Doug:
I think that was a NYTimes article you linked to above about Facebook, not FoxNews. But I do agree that we need a strong Fourth Estate. Our freedom depends on it. Support your local news, especially! We need people to investigate these issues everywhere and everyday, and citizen journalism can only do so much.

David:
Which brings up a different question. How is it that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are not promising to confiscate all of the money that Bezos, Zuckerberg, and the other liberal multi-billionaires are making? Instead of Bill Gates putting his cash in a liberal foundation, he should be sending it to Washington for them to spend. Bezos shouldn't be spending money to develop space travel. He should be sending it all to Washington so they can do great and wondrous things with it. After all, isn't that what you and Clinton have been saying all along?  Or is the goal only to increase taxes on successful business people like the (conservative) Koch brothers?

Doug:
You live in a sad little bubble. Now, go try to catch some Pokemon! Gotta catch em all!

David: 
Apparently, only one of us lives in reality. Have fun with your make-believe friends in your make-believe world. Maybe your Pokemon can balance a Federal Budget? 

The Olympics, Russia, and Performance Enhancing Drugs

David:
Next week, the Olympic Games will be in full swing, with roughly 200 countries participating. One nation, Russia, will be sending a much reduced squad , because of doping their athletes with performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).

The modern Olympic Games  are based on the games that occurred in Olympia, Greece from the 8th through the 4th centuries. The modern Olympics were revived in 1894, making this the 119th  Games. (The Games were not held during the war years of 1916, 1940, and 1944.) As the years have progressed, money, politics, and big corporate media have moved in on the nature of the original, amateur Games. The Olympics of 1980 and 1984 saw limited involvement due to cold-war political maneuvers, and the 1972 Games were marred by the tragic terrorist attack in which  Jewish  athletes were murdered by Palestinians in Munich, Germany.

Doug:
They weren't so much "Jewish athletes" as they were athletes representing Israel. Also, a German police officer was killed. The terrorists appear to mostly have come from Palestinians, but may also have come from other countries as well. But, yes this was a horrific event still remembered by many people alive at the time.

David:
All reports available on the web indicate all of the Israeli athletes were Jewish. All of the Terrorists were members of the PLO. I'm not sure why you have to make some special distinction that neither of these things are true. There was political motivation for this heinous crime, which used the Olympic venue to get the world's attention. My point is that the Olympics has become one of the largest world-wide media events.

Doug:
I'm just trying to be precise. Rather than "Jews versus Palestinians" it seems more correct as "Israeli athletes versus terrorists".

David:
Terrorists from Palestine.....

Doug:
Sure, as long as we are consistent.

David:
Anyway, as TV viewership has expanded, and more and more revenue has developed around the games, we have seen an increasing competition between countries for the prestige of hosting the games, and a  push for athletes to win both their events, and the lucrative endorsement deals that go with victory.

Should athletes be able to use PEDs to make them stronger, faster, or have more endurance?

Doug:
This is perhaps surprisingly more complex to answer than one might think. What qualifies as a performance-enhancing drug? Also, some countries go to extremes to develop competitive people. How far can that go before it is abuse? And what about athletes with prosthetics?

David:
It is complex. Which is just why this topic warrants a discussion on Blank Versus Blank!

The libertarian in me would like to say athletes should be able to use whatever means are necessary to improve their ability to compete and win. But these athletes do not function within a vacuum.

Doug:
Unlike other things we discuss that do operate within a vacuum. Wait, nothing we ever discuss operates in a vacuum. But I'm glad you see the nuances in this! Please continue.

David:
Young athletes do emulate what they see their heroes doing. Setting up some rules for drug use becomes part of the rules of the game. But where does it stop? Some athletes have used oxygen tents to sleep in at night to simulate competing at high altitudes. This is now banned as a PED. But you can move to Colorado and train at high altitudes, and that's okay. Is there really a difference?

Doug:
There is a difference. But I don't think you could find a "principled difference" between them.

David:
Tennis player Maria Sharapova has been banned for 2 years for using a legal drug that she has been taking for years for medical conditions. The drug,  Meldonium, was added to the list of banned substances in January. Should you be able to get a medical waiver?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/sports/tennis/maria-sharapova-doping-suspension.html?_r=0

A recent review of urine samples from prior Games, using better analyzing technology, estimates that as many as 40% of athletes were using some form of banned substances to enhance their performances. It appears that you would put yourself at a distinct disadvantage when so many are so easily cheating.

Doug:
I think the principled issue is that athletes participate on equal ground. But things are never equal. So, what is the answer? The libertarian "anything goes", or something with limitations? Note that prosthetics are about to get very different. Imagine enhanced brain circuitry. What about gene manipulation? Can you even have Olympics when some of the players are so different from the others? What is it that is actually competing? Science? Or the abilities of specific humans in the country. And what if they leave one country for another?

David:
Right. What is the definition of an "enhancement"?

http://www.livescience.com/5230-performance-enhancement-common-sports.html

Although I think the goal is to try to keep the playing field as equal as possible, we've seen that wealthy countries will continue to dominate the Games through better training and equipment, and, in the case of the Russians, better clandestine pharmacology. As tech moves into a brave, new world, things will likely only become grayer and cloudier.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/23/will-genetic-cyber-athletes-come-to-dominate-sports/

Can you imagine what the Jamaican bobsled team could have done with a training facility and the  technology that's available to the US, Russia, or China?

Doug:
On a related topic, do you think that college athletes should be paid?

David:
Is a free education with free room and board not enough? The average cost of college these days is between $10-35,000.

Doug:
Whether it is enough or not may not be the question. When the school and television channels make millions of dollars, is it fair to not pay the athletes anything more than tuition?

David:
Not all schools make that kind of money, just a few elite ones with long traditions of sporting excellence. So far, they've been able to maintain their degree of high quality, because excellent athletes desire to play for these programs, with only a scholarship as payment. If you begin paying athletes, would you pay a Notre Dame or Michigan quarterback more than a lineman from Augustana (IL)? The "same-pay-for-the-same-job" mantra would seem to demand a small college pay players the same, which would likely bankrupt a non-televised school conference. "Fair" is a word without meaning.

Are the players going to be taxed? If so, then we'll need to start including the value of their scholarships as income. They could actually end up making less (after taxes) than they're receiving now.

http://time.com/money/4241077/why-we-shouldnt-pay-college-athletes/

Like PEDs, paying athletes is not a simple discussion.

Doug:
Nothing ever is. Welcome to the complex world in which we live!