Palm Sunday

 with Kiki Passo:

BusinessGhana: Palm tree fellers cry for material support to facilitate their work

Palm tree fellers in the Kadjebi District of the Oti Region have appealed to the government to support them with a subsidised modern tools to facilitate their work and keep them in business. They said the provision of such modern machinery, which could uproot a palm tree within 5-7 minutes would keep them in business as the use of the age-old tool, the axe, is time consuming. They said the axe took them between 20-25 minutes in uprooting one palm tree, which was time-consuming and waste of energy.

Mr Francis Quarshie Najombe, a 30-year-old palm tree feller told Ghana News Agency (GNA) that though palm tree felling was a lucrative venture, the over-reliance on the axe to uproot the tree was robbing them of more revenue as human needs today far outweighs the olden days.  Mr. Najombe, who started palm tree felling at age 13, said currently he charged GHC15 per tree, while others charged GHC20 per tree. He said if the weather permits; he could fell 10 palm trees per day, but on odd days five. He said though it was a good job, most youth are leaving work, because of the old device being used.

Mr Njombe, who has been in the business for the past 17 years, said the designing of a new tool to replace the axe they presently used for the work could bring more people to the work. “Pastor” Kwame, another palm tree feller, told the GNA in an interview that climate change is affecting their work nowadays as soil texture at some places does not permit felling easily. He said instead of using between 15-20 minutes to uproot a tree, it takes one close to 40 minutes to do so because of the soil texture there

At the current exchange rate of about 8 US cents per GHC. Mr. Najombe is charging about $1.25 per tree. I have some trees I'd like to have taken down for $1.25. Since they're hardwoods and not palms, I'd double his rate to $2.50 a tree.

Linked at The Pirate's Cove in the weekly Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup and links. 

It's Always the Last Place You Look

Metal detector finds ancient treasure in Rhode Island tied to famous pirate

On Sept. 7, 1695, the pirate ship Fancy, commanded by Every, ambushed and captured the Ganj-i-Sawai, a royal vessel owned by Indian emperor Aurangzeb, then one of the world’s most powerful men. Aboard were not only the worshipers returning from their pilgrimage, but tens of millions of dollars’ worth of gold and silver.

What followed was one of the most lucrative and heinous robberies of all time.

Historical accounts say his band tortured and killed the men aboard the Indian ship and raped the women before escaping to the Bahamas, a haven for pirates. But word quickly spread of their crimes, and English King William III — under enormous pressure from a scandalized India and the East India Company trading giant — put a large bounty on their heads.

“If you Google ‘first worldwide manhunt,’ it comes up as Every,” Bailey said. “Everybody was looking for these guys.”

Until now, historians only knew that Every eventually sailed to Ireland in 1696, where the trail went cold. But Bailey says the coins he and others have found are evidence the notorious pirate first made his way to the American colonies, where he and his crew used the plunder for day-to-day expenses while on the run.

The first complete coin surfaced in 2014 at Sweet Berry Farm in Middletown, a spot that had piqued Bailey’s curiosity two years earlier after he found old colonial coins, an 18th-century shoe buckle and some musket balls.

Waving a metal detector over the soil, he got a signal, dug down and hit literal paydirt: a darkened, dime-sized silver coin he initially assumed was either Spanish or money minted by the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Peering closer, the Arabic text on the coin got his pulse racing. “I thought, ‘Oh my God,’” he said.

Research confirmed the exotic coin was minted in 1693 in Yemen. That immediately raised questions, Bailey said, since there’s no evidence that American colonists struggling to eke out a living in the New World traveled to anywhere in the Middle East to trade until decades later.

 

Since then, other detectorists have unearthed 15 additional Arabian coins from the same era — 10 in Massachusetts, three in Rhode Island and two in Connecticut. Another was found in North Carolina, where records show some of Every’s men first came ashore.

“It seems like some of his crew were able to settle in New England and integrate,” said Sarah Sportman, state archaeologist for Connecticut, where one of the coins was found in 2018 at the ongoing excavation of a 17th-century farm site.

Chesapeake Bay was well known to pirates of that era, and occasionally used as a refuge. It's not impossible that pirate treasure could show up on our shores as well. 

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Hane Ame ready and waiting at the The Other McCain.

Beach Report 1/9/21 - A Quarter for Your Thoughts

A chilly day at the beach. 35 F, and blowing 15-20 NW, not enough N to give us any protection. But it was at least clear and sunny, where the sun reached the beach. 

A helicopter of unknown origin flew over pretty low again.

Georgia and Skye in the shadows on the way back.

We ran into Whitey at one of the groins along the way, the closest to Charlies steps. I hope he's finding enough to eat.

That is one tall bird, at least 4 ft. He let us get by with out flying away, although Skye clearly make him nervous. 

And teeth. A tough day, between the high tide and the high waves, with Georgia in the lead 4-3, with the larger tooth, a Snaggletooth, and with the quarter, suitably corroded by the brackish water. 

Following the Money Migration on Chesapeake Bay

Following the money spent on Chesapeake Bay an elusive pursuit

At least $15 billion.

That’s how much federal, state and non-governmental organizations in Maryland have spent to restore the Chesapeake Bay, an analysis by The Capital found.

But when asked recently how much has been spent since plans were hatched to save the bay, a range of experts and officials said they just don’t know. That includes the head of the Chesapeake Bay Program, now coordinating federal work on the bay.

And the results are equally elusive:

Since 1985, the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus flowing into the bay has decreased. But officials have missed several restoration deadlines and fallen short of goals.

As has been documented here many times.

Tens of millions have been spent on programs critics consider nearly ineffectual, including a state and federal effort to recover the bay’s oyster industry.

As has also been documented here many times.

And since 2009, the state has transferred at least $135 million designated for bay cleanup to the general fund.

Former MD Governor Martin O'Malley

It was an old favorite Maryland trick, a special tax for a particular purpose, repurposed for the state's bottom line.

But the hits outweigh the misses, said Gov. Martin O’Malley. “It is a total bull... cop-out to say we’ve spent money there and it didn’t work,” Gov. Martin O’Malley said. “(The) hell it didn’t. (The bay is) still alive. But we can get smarter, we can get more effective.”

I'm seeing signs that the Bay is getting better. But their elusive, much like the money. At least it's not getting much worse, currently. Certainly some has been spent to good effect, but I'm pretty sure that a lot has gone off to the great administrative black hole, and given to friendly non-profits for work of dubious value.

As Good As Gold?

Canada gives up gold for the US dollar - Canada Has Just 77 Ounces of Gold—or Less as Canadian government sells off reserves

The US holds about 8,133 metric tons of gold. That's 8,133 more than Canada, according to newly released data. The Canadian government sold off 21,851 ounces of gold in February, leaving it with just 77 ounces at most, reports Bloomberg. Those 77 ounces are worth about $100,000, but the official value of Canada's gold reserves is $0 because asset valuations are rounded to the nearest $1 million. That goose egg is actually a good thing in the government's perspective. Canada hoarded some 1,000 metric tons of gold in the 1960s but has been slowly selling it and stashing other countries' currencies instead. Canada holds $48.6 billion in US dollars and $22.5 billion in other currencies, reports the Globe and Mail.

I'm going to guess that 77 ounces is rounding error, or has been stolen, and can't really be accounted for.

"The government has a long-standing policy of diversifying its portfolio by selling physical commodities (such as gold) and instead investing in financial assets that are easily tradable and that have deep markets of buyers and sellers," a Finance Department rep tells the CBC. A former finance official adds that holding onto gold isn't economical because it hasn't had a good rate of return over the years and is costly to store. Clearly not everyone agrees: Russia, India, and China, are shoring up their reserves. Still, one professor suggests the only reason the US Federal Reserve isn't selling its gold is because "it knows it would get attacked in Congress." Indeed, Ted Cruz is a big fan and has suggested the US return to the gold standard, notes the Globe and Mail. (There's $10 million in gold and silver hidden in Utah.)

Gold is a funny thing; aside from jewelry, and a few industrial uses, for which a small amount usually suffices, it has no intrinsic value. And yet countries and wealthy people hoard it far in excess of the amounts needed for those functions, because to people it has become the symbol of wealth. When the money goes to pot (and it usually does after a long period, because politicians are fickle about paying their bills), gold still retains its value. And that is the reason to hoard gold.

In the short run, Canada has probably made a reasonable choice. If worst comes to worst, and it usually does in the long run, they may regret it.

It's a little ironic that Canada has given up owning gold, but is willing to sell gold coins.

Who's On the Money?

To help the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the administration recently announced it's plans to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill with A Woman To Be Named Later (AWTBNL). You have to wonder about how well thought out a plan it is if they can't really identify the woman they want to honor yet. It sort of makes you think confirms that it's strictly a political ploy

Sacajawea?

Semi-serious recommendations for choices of AWTBNL have been failed coin images Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea, or Harriet Tubman, mistress of the Underground Railroad. While I have no great objection to any of these, the first two are rather severe in appearance, and Sacajawea's appearance is not well known, although most representations of her are fairly flattering.

Another suggestion, made by the Washington Free Beacon, is Kate Upton:

Kate Upton is a true triple threat and emblematic of the best America has to offer. Obviously, she deserves a place on some item of American currency. Why not the ten?

But, frankly, this doesn’t go far enough. If we’re monkeying around with the currency, why not make some real changes? Why settle for such a little portrait?
. . .
Don’t f—k this up, Obama Administration.

I particularly appreciate this  suggestion if they use a holographic "moving picture image". There are several I might suggest.

However, it is generally recognized that one of the requirements for being considered appropriate fodder for having their image on currency is that they be dead. This is to prevent cat fights between Nancy Pelosi, Michele Obama and Hillary Clinton. Fortunately for us, and Kate Upton, she also fails miserably on this count.

But I do have a candidate in mind that I have not seen suggested who I think would be both attractive, and appropriate - Hedy Lamarr:

At the beginning of the war, she was told that she could better help the war effort by using her celebrity status to sell War Bonds, which she did with great success. But she wanted to do more, particularly by using her interest in science to aid in the defeat of Nazism. This desire only intensified as Hitler continued his relentless attacks on Europe. When German submarines began torpedoing passenger liners, she said at one point, "I've got to invent something that will put a stop to that." This desire would give rise to the invention for which she would become famous many years later.

That picture would be just perfect, don't you think?

On 11 August 1942, U.S. Patent 2,292,387 was granted to Hedy Kiesler Markey, Lamarr's married name at the time, and George Antheil. This early version of frequency hopping, although novel, soon was met with opposition from the U.S. Navy and was not adopted. The idea was not implemented in the U.S. until 1962, when it was used by U.S. military ships during a blockade of Cuba after the patent had expired. Lamarr's work was honored in 1997, when the Electronic Frontier Foundation gave her a belated award for her contributions. In 1998, an Ottawa wireless technology developer, Wi-LAN Inc., acquired a 49% claim to the patent from Lamarr for an undisclosed amount of stock.

Lamarr's and Antheil's frequency-hopping idea served as a basis for modern spread-spectrum communication technology, such as Bluetooth, COFDM (used in Wi-Fi network connections), and CDMA (used in some cordless and wireless telephones). Blackwell, Martin, and Vernam's 1920 patent seems to lay the communications groundwork for Lamarr and Antheil's patent, which employed the techniques in the autonomous control of torpedoes.

The rest of her life was even more incredible:

In the late 1920s, Lamarr was discovered as an actress and brought to Berlin by producer Max Reinhardt. Following her training in the theater, she returned to Vienna where she began to work in the film industry, first as a script girl, and soon as an actress.

In early 1933, at age 18, she starred in Gustav Machatý's film, Ecstasy (Extase in German and Czech), which was filmed in Prague, Czechoslovakia. Lamarr’s role was that of a neglected young wife married to an indifferent older man. The film became notorious for showing Lamarr's face in the throes of orgasm as well as close-up and brief nude scenes in which she is seen swimming and running through the woods.

 So she helped invent soft core porn too!

In 1933 she married Friedrich Mandl, a wealthy Austrian military arms merchant. He objected to what he felt was exploitation of his wife and "the expression on her face" during the simulated orgasm. He purportedly bought up as many copies ofEcstasy as he could find in an attempt to restrict its public viewing. In her autobiography, she insists that all sexual activity in the film was simulated, and the orgasm was achieved using "method acting reality". The authenticity of passion was attained by the film director's off-screen manipulation of a safety pin strategically poking her bottom. Lamarr had married Mandl at the age of 19 on 10 August 1933.

And method acting!

Reputed to be the third richest man in Austria, Mandl was a munitions manufacturer. In her autobiography Ecstasy and Me, Lamarr described Mandl as extremely controlling, preventing her from pursuing her acting career and keeping her a virtual prisoner, confined to their castle home, Schloss Schwarzenau. Although half-Jewish himself, Mandl had close social and business ties to the fascist governments of Italy and Nazi Germany, selling munitions to Mussolini.

Lamarr wrote that Mussolini and Hitler had attended lavish parties hosted at the Mandl home. Mandl had her accompany him to business meetings, where he conferred with scientists and other professionals involved in military technology. These conferences were her introduction to the field of applied science and the ground that nurtured her latent talent in science.

Lamarr's marriage to Mandl eventually became unbearable, and she decided to separate herself from both him and her country. She wrote in her autobiography that she disguised herself as her maid and fled to Paris. However, rumors claimed that Lamarr persuaded Mandl to let her wear all of her jewelry for a dinner, then disappeared.

Germany's loss was our gain. She was an immigrant, but became a naturalized citizen in 1953 at age 38. But then, Alexander Hamilton was also an immigrant from the Caribbean.

Wombat-socho checks in with "Rule 5 Sunday: Force It".

Scientist Worries About Influence of Money

Actually, scientists love money, it lets them do the work they want to do, but the Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine, Marcia Nutt recently penned this missive of how she fears that private money could dilute or even counter the effects of federal funding of science:

From behind the paywall: The New Patrons of Research

The news is not all bad on the science funding front. Despite the fact that many U.S. researchers face increasing competition in chasing after federal support that has not kept pace with inflation (see the News special section on p. 24), private support is on the rise. Of course, such investments are not a new phenomenon: Nobel, Carnegie, and many others attached their names to major gifts to science more than a century ago. Today, a growing number of billionaires are likewise investing in scientific research as their personal philanthropy, choosing areas that reflect their deeply held passions. These patrons of science bring a refreshing new perspective to the projects they support, because they are typically unafraid to take risks, abhor bureaucracy, and nimbly cross disciplinary boundaries. Many are directly involved in the foundations they support, putting their personal imprimatur on the direction and operation of the ventures that bear their names. With all of this good news, it is somewhat surprising that this influx of private money has been viewed with some skepticism.

I remember reading, as a lowly post doc, back in the 1980s, a book on the history of science, which showed that since Copernicus' time the number of people engaged in science has grown faster than population growth, and that this century is when the trend must end (that which cannot be sustained, won't).  It has been interesting times, to be sure.

One of the biggest concerns is that private funding for science could be viewed as a replacement for federal funding. However, unlike the federal portfolio, private support is not coordinated. Without adequate federal support, gaps of all kinds can develop—in the balance of exploratory, basic, applied, and translational research; in the support of scientific talent at different levels of training; and in the support of different types of institutions. For example, there are very different long-term impacts on science between a private investment in an institution devoted to basic research and a private investment targeted to globally eradicating a disease, although both are worthy endeavors. Even with new foundations entering the funding scene, the private share remains a small fraction overall and cannot compensate for substantial losses in federal dollars. For these reasons, it is important that scientists and philanthropists make the case to political leadership that private funding does not replace public support for research.

I would not call the federal scientific support "coordinated", it's just too big for the various agencies to do much more than check bases with each other over coffee and bagels at various meetings.  But they do have some interests in common. You won't get any money for promising to overthrow or even threatening the idea of global warming climate change. Don't think of researching something that might make them look bad.

There is a real problem with the growth of a web of governmental support. It has become commonplace for even governmental scientific agencies from local, state and federal levels to rely on government "grants" for a significant fraction of their funding.  For example Maryland Department of the Environment and Department of Natural Resources rely on Federal grants, even competitive grants for a some of their funding.  At some point, those grants begin to feel like entitlements, because no one like having to fire a subordinate because the grant money didn't come this year.  And the grants to other governmental agencies squeeze out funds to schools and other non-profits.  The demand on federal dollars always exceeds the available supply.

Once the government itself develops a taste for the "free" grant money, a bureaucracy within the government grows up to catch and exploit that money.

Another drawback is that some private foundations do not honor the federally negotiated overhead rates for academic institutions, because they want all of their funding to go “directly to science.” The result is that only institutions with other sources of private support (such as unrestricted gifts and/or an endowment) that can cover the utilities, maintenance, etc., can accept awards that are restricted to research alone. The upshot is that well-endowed institutions can benefit from private research dollars, whereas those without flexible funds cannot, thus placing even more emphasis on the importance of large capital campaigns. But even well-endowed institutions may have a difficult time soliciting gifts to support the indirect costs of another donor's program. Scientists who serve on advisory bodies for these foundations can help by making the case that indirect costs are also legitimate costs of doing research.

And the institution are free to turn down, or not apply, for such funds, But you might be shocked at how often the institutions will find a work around for the problem of the low or non "overhead" provisions of private grants. Often they will simply waive the overhead "requirement", figuring that some money is better than no money.  Other times they will also turn things normally covered by overhead funds (lab space, power, some administrative services) into fees that are tacked on to the grant.  And many institutions actually charge some private grants (usually from business interests) higher overhead rates than they do to grants from governmental sources.

A potentially sticky issue is that private funders want to set their own rules, and given the general frustration all around with the number and inflexibility of rules associated with federal funding, private funders generally choose to be more lenient. Following the more lax rules can be acceptable except when issues such as safety or scientific integrity are involved. For example, scientists should follow the standards of their field in terms of data sharing and other aspects of being a responsible citizen, even if not specifically spelled out by the supporting agent.

One point of contention is data freedom.  Governmental grants generally require freedom to share the data with the public, and now, in many cases, a process in place to do so.  Often, however, private grants from business interests (usually technically called contracts, because, they are, in fact contracts) often require data secrecy of some level, either clearance from the sponsor for publication or release of the data, or even forbidding it in rare case.  Most institutions are reluctant to take money with such strings.

Private funding is, and always has been, a huge boon to the scientific enterprise. Universities and researchers have a long history of successfully merging public and private support to profit from the advantages of each funding source, accelerate scientific discovery, and benefit humanity. Given the many causes that could engage the attention of these philanthropists, we are fortunate that so many have chosen to give back to society through science.

 So we'll take your money, but we can't promise anything.

True, But That's a Feature, Not a Bug

It Costs $200B to Manage $500B In Federal Grants

It’s really easy to point out and decry waste in the government. Virtually all governments have waste. The Federal government is a monumental waste machine when it comes to money. The tab is $200 Billion just to manage all the grant money it remits each year. (Office of Management and Budget figures, 39% of spend on grants is for administration)

That pays for paperwork, salaries, benefits, offices, pensions, supplies and all the other costs of having an administrative staff oversee everything...

I'm not quite sure how they got these numbers, but they sound reasonable, if not conservative even.  Are they counting the costs of the Federal government to write the RFPs, evaluate the proposals, and administer the fund as well as the overhead at the grant receiving end?   I do know a lot about the latter, having been in soft-money science for more years than I care to recount.

The various entities that receive federal grant funds, which includes private and public college, NGOs, governments from all levels up to and including other federal agencies (funny how that works), can set their own overhead rates in conjunction with the granting agencies, and charge overhead. 

At the last institution I worked at, overhead was divided into three separate line items applied to different parts of a projects budget (including other overhead lines). Then 4% was added to the project as so-called "development funds", which were not supposed to considered overhead, but went to the top administration of the institution for... development?  Begging for more federal money.

As a result of the complicated formulas, it was annoying to calculate overhead when budgeting, but as a rule of thumb, if I expected to spend $1,000 in salaries, supplies, and equipment, the final budget would come almost exactly $1,500.  The administration fiddled with the rates annually, but rarely did the overall rate of overhead decline. 

A large bureaucracy has grown up in with relatively easy federal money, and the overhead from grants has fueled that growth.  And like any under-accounted streams of funds, a culture of abuse has grown up around it.

How Non-Profits Profited from Hurricane Sandy

Schneiderman: some nonprofits holding storm donations

...Within days of Superstorm Sandy making landfall in October 2012, a number of charitable organizations started collecting donations from kindhearted souls freely giving their monies to help with Sandy relief efforts or so they thought.
...
Schneiderman's office found that 89 charities raised more than half a billion dollars. By April, only 57 percent of that had been given in sandy relief, leaving at least $238 million still in the hands of those nonprofits and not in the hands of Sandy victims.

Good job; get your money for nothing, and forget to send out the checks.  Probably need to throw a big party for favorite donors, and big salaries for the charity administration.

Honey, I Blew the Wad

From the Other McCain by way of his other gig at Viralread

Famous Tech Entrepreneur Halsey Minor Declares Bankruptcy 

How easy is it to blow $200 million? Just ask high-tech mogul Halsey Minor, who went from dot-com multimillionaire to flat broke in less than five years. Fifteen years ago, Minor was featured on the cover of Forbes magazine as one of the Internet entrepreneurs the magazine called “Masters of the New Universe.” In 1999, Fortune magazine’s list of “40 Richest Americans Under 40″ had Minor at No. 31 with an estimated net worth of $354.1 million. He divorced his first wife in 2006 and quickly re-married to the ex-wife of Hollywood producer Marc Gurvitz. A 2008 profile showed Minor with the blonde second wife, Shannon, leaning on his shoulder and called him “The Baddest Boy in Silicon Valley.”

Does your going bankrupt mean your adoring 26 year old (or thereabouts) blonde, slim trophy wife turns into a nagging, dumpy, dingy brunette 45 year old?  That would be like, totally appropriate!

In 2008, Minor sold the company he founded, CNET, to CBS in a deal valued at $1.8 billion, from which Minor’s haul was reportedly $200 million. Minor then went on a spending spree — he called it “investment” — that looked an awful lot like a mid-life crisis. He bought hotels and mansions and race horses. He also frequently found himself in legal disputes over unpaid bills, hassles that included losing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit to Sotheby’s auction house. It was reported last year that he and his new blonde wife owed the state of California more than $10 million in unpaid income taxes. This week, Minor finally declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy in California, estimating his debts as high as $100 million and his assets at less than $50 million.

Back in the good old days, it was usually the third generation that wasted the fortune.  Things move so fast these days. 

"There are but three generations in America from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves. Under such conditions an aristocracy of wealth is impossible." - Andrew Carnegie

Reign of Pain Update

Obama cancels free tours of White House, citing staff cuts due to sequestration.

The White House announced Tuesday that it was canceling all public tours of the president’s home because of the sequester spending cuts.

“Due to staffing reductions resulting from sequestration, we regret to inform you that White House Tours will be canceled effective Saturday, March 9, 2013 until further notice. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours,” the White House said in an email.

Continues to sell access to donors of $500,000 or more.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that Organizing for Action--the Obama for America presidential campaign structure recently re-organized as a 501 c 4 tax-exempt "issues advocacy" non-profit--is offering access to President Obama to any donors (individuals or corporations) who contribute $500,000 to the group. According to the Times, such contributions place "donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and [gives them] the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.

White House "suggests"  Dept. of Ag official maintain cuts in plant inspections rather than shift resources to continue service:

“We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that ‘APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs.’ So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be,” Mr. Brown, in the internal email, said his superiors told him.

Who said they weren't ready for the sequestration; TSA signed orders for $1000 uniforms on Sequester Eve, oh, and by the way, service is getting worse ASAP.  But at least they can wear the natty uniforms while they're sitting at home.

The impending sequester did not prevent the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from acting in late February to seal a $50-million deal to purchase new uniforms for its agents--uniforms that will be partly manufactured in Mexico.

Soon after this new investment in TSA uniforms, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned Americans that the lines are already lengthening at airports due to the sequester.

"We are already seeing the effect on the ports of entry, the big airports for example," Napolitano told Politico on Monday. "Some of them had very long lines this weekend."

ICE is planning another illegal immigrant dump.

“An internal document obtained by the House Judiciary Committee shows that Administration officials at ICE prepared cold calculations to release thousands of criminal aliens onto the streets and did not demonstrate any consideration of the impact this decision would have on the safety of Americans,” committee chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., announced.

The ICE document contains a table that proposes “reduc[ing] invoiced daily population by 1,000 weekly.” Between February 22 and March 31st, this plan would drop the number of detainees from 30,748 to 25,748.

Speaking of Trillion Dollar Coins...

You may be aware of a recent semi-serious proposal for the Administration to get around the looming debt ceiling by coining a platinum coin labeled $1,000,000,000,000 (it has to be a pretty big coin for all that to fit), deposit in the Federal treasury, presumably under heavy guard (a dragon might be enough) and to continue to spend money like a drunken sailor, with apologies to drunken sailors, who at least spend their own money.  The trick "works" only if the coin is platinum, because laws allowing the platinum coinage for collectors are slightly different than those for gold and silver, the other bullion metals. The administration has just recently ruled out the maneuver as way to deal with the debt bomb.

Possibly as a result of all the publicity around the as yet hypothetical trillion dollar coin, and having a bit of spare time at hand, Georgia and I decided to dig into our coin collection, which has been collecting tarnish for the last 50 years or so, while being shipped around the country.  My portion of the collection dates back to my early years; my mother's father Charles was a banker, and often sent me odd foreign coins, and at some point my father and I started to organize the collection, with American coins going into the familiar blue books, and foreign coins being either loose or pinned into a card with a transparent sleeve (approximately equal numbers, I think).  I lost interest in it somewhere before high school.  Georgia also received a number of the "blue books" from her mother, as well as a random collection of "wheat back" pennies.  Finally, at some point in the last 30 years, a beloved aunt and uncle, Marie and Ace, dumped an envelope of random foreign coins on us, rather than give them to their own kids who lived inconveniently far away.

My first task was to try to find anything of value, and I set out on that path by looking for coins with enough silver in them that they might have bullion value.  It turned out, in addition to the old silver US dimes, quarters and half dollars, that we had a few more foreign coins made of silver that would retain the bullion value in addition to the whatever numismatic value they have.  While I didn't suddenly find any new major addition to our retirement, I did find some interesting specimens. A few examples below (Click to embiggen):

From left to right and top to bottom:

1) Austria Maria Theresa Thaler Trade Coinage Restrike 1780:  "The original Theresa Thalers were issued in the Austrian State of Burgau in 1780. The originals look essentially identical to your restruck coin except for a few minor variations. But, starting in 1781, the exact same coin, even with the exact same date, was struck by Austrian and other mints and this continues to this day. The coins are used as 'Trade Coinage' in locations where local coins are not available. One of my catalogs estimates that 800 million of these coins have been struck." 83.3% silver.  The word dollar derives from the thaler.

2) 1868 Un Sol from Peru. A lovely coin. 25 grams and 90% silver, with a patina that enhances the visibility of the designs.

3) Your guess is as good or better than mine.  I can't read anything, on either side. But it is clearly about 30 grams of decent silver.

4) 1957 Mexican Hidalgo 5 Peso:  Only 72% silver.  From the period prior to the immense devaluation of the peso in 1993, in which 1000 "old" pesos became one "new" peso.  Silver is still silver.

5) 1962 Mexican Un (one) Peso:  Nearly as big as the 5 Peso above, it only contains 10% silver.  Like a lot of Mexican products, it's not as good as it looks.  I once bought a 12 string guitar in Ensenada that didn't even make it home to Oregon.

6) 1921 Philippine 10 Centavos: Basically a silver dime from the Philippine Islands.  At the time the islands were a "protectorate" of the United States, and their coins were minted in the U.S.  Two grams of 75% silver.

7) 1860 French 20 Cent:  "The decimal "franc" was established as the national currency by the French Revolutionary Convention in 1795 as a decimal unit (1 franc = 10 decimes = 100 centimes) of 4.5 g of fine silver. This was slightly less than the livre of 4.505 g but the franc was set in 1796 at 1.0125 livres (1 livre, 3 deniers), reflecting in part the past minting of sub-standard coins."  1 gram of 90% silver.  Also the smallest coin in the lot.

8) 1927 Mexican 10 Centavos: 2 grams of 72% silver.  An old Mexican dime.

9) 1939 Irish Florin (2 Shillings):  Interesting in that it has a goldish cast.  References say it is 75% silver and 25% copper.

10) 1944 Philippine 50 Centavos.  I threw you a curve here by showing the back side, which says the United States.  The Philippines were granted independence in 1946, after WWII.  The front side has the same lady as the 1921 Philippine 10 centavos above.  This coin is in gorgeous shape, with no wear and most of it's original shine.  It might become a nice piece of jewelry.  Also 75% silver.

I Guess You Really Can't Take it With You...

... or this guy would have.

$7 Million In Gold Bars Found In Reclusive Man’s Home Month After He Died

A Carson City recluse whose body was found in his home at least a month after he died left only $200 in his bank account.

But as Walter Samaszko Jr.’s house was being cleared for sale, officials made a surprise discovery: gold bars and coins valued at $7 million.

“Nobody had any clue he was hoarding the gold,” Carson City Clerk-Recorder Alan Glover told the Las Vegas Sun, adding it was found stored in boxes in the house and garage.

Gold in Carson City?  I would have thought that silver would be more appropriate.Incidentally, that's almost 250 lbs of gold at today's prices ($1770 per ounce).

Neighbors told authorities they knew little about Samaszko other than he was quiet and not a problem.

Samaszko was “anti-government,” Carson City’s Nevada Appeal reported, and a few conspiracy theory books were found in the home along with several guns. “He never went to a doctor,” Glover told the newspaper. “He was obsessed with getting diseases from shots.”

Samaszko also had stock accounts of more than $165,000 and another $12,000 in cash at the house.

Glover said he wants to start selling off the gold as soon as possible. The IRS wants a share of the total, he said, and the case is relatively simple other than the agency’s involvement.

I am agnostic when it comes to gold as a standard reservoir of value.  It's rare, relatively indestructible, pretty and makes good jewelry, but the same can be said of any number of other elements, only some of which are held in similar esteem (platinum and silver for example).  On the other hand, I'm becoming more convinced that the US government will be forced to inflate it debt away eventually, and if it's possible, and legal, holding gold is some protection from that.  While I may not regard gold as the ultimate standard for value, others do, and that's probably sufficient.

Britain to Cut Gurka Troops

Last we checked Gurkhas were being honored for defeating 40 bandits using his khukri (knife) or fighting off 30 Taliban singlehanded.  Now in a budget move, Britain aims to cut the Gurkha force:

MoD redundancies: Gurkhas heaviest hit by Army cuts:

A total of 2,600 serving members of the Armed Forces will be axed over the next six months, including 150 of the 3,500 strong Gurkha brigade.

The government was accused on Monday of "double standards" after it was emerged that front-line Gurkha soldiers are to lose their jobs while infantry in the rest of the army will be protected from the cuts.

Tikendra Dewan, Chairman of the British Gurkha Welfare society, said: "It is unfair, we are supposed to be on an equal footing and yet they are applying one criteria to the rest of the army and another to the Gurkhas.

"Gurkha soldiers are among the fiercest and most loyal in the army, this is double standards. We are not special but we should be treated the same."

In total 1,000 serving members of the Armed Forces and 1,600 Royal Navy personnel are to be made redundant, including navy personnel taking part in the Libyan intervention and members of the Army serving in Afghanistan.

I think of this as the library effect.  When the local government is threatened with budget cuts they always mention the library, and never the building department, since the former has greater approval among the voters...

The Inflated Millionaire

U.S. millionaires say $7 million not enough to be rich

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A million dollars ain't what it used to be.

More than four out of ten American millionaires say they do not feel rich. Indeed many would need to have at least $7.5 million in order to feel they were truly rich, according to a Fidelity Investments survey.

Some 42 percent of the more than 1,000 millionaires surveyed by Fidelity said they did not feel wealthy. Respondents had at least $1 million in investable assets, excluding any real estate or retirement accounts.

"Every person in the survey is wealthy," said Sanjiv Mirchandani, president of National Financial, a unit of Fidelity. "But they are still worried about outliving their assets."

The average age of respondents was 56 years old with a mean of $3.5 million of investable assets. The threshold for "rich" rose with age...

Why am I not shocked that everybody would feel better with twice the amount of money they currently have?