Aftermath of parking garage brick falls several floors in Boston on Beach St. in Chinatown

Sirens everywhere in Boston today, and I didn't know why until I stumbled upon this. Bricks from a parking garage facade fell on to Beach St. in downtown Chinatown, injurying on person (sent to the hospital) and smashing a car and shop windows across the street.

Solyndra headquarters during weekday, just after bankruptcy announcement

This video is of the Solyndra headquarters in Fremont, California just days after they announced that they are going bankrupt. There's three large buildings around two massive properties.

Is state sales tax on interstate commerce allowed?

Did you know that individual States cannot tax interstate commerce, as a general rule? There are some very specific exceptions, and California (and other States) have been trying to exploit extremely loose interpretations of those exceptions. Interstate commerce is any transaction, transit or business that is conducted across State borders. This includes mail order, Internet, and physically going to another State to purchase an item to bring back to your home State. Many States have taxes on their books that attempt to circumvent this law. Recently, States have been trying to exploit what they think is a loophole in the Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (91-0194), 504 U.S. 298 (1992) (backup link) Supreme Court ruling that solidified the limitations on taxation by States. In this ruling, the Supreme Court declares that States may only attempt to levy an interstate commerce tax against businesses that have a presence within their State, known as a substantial nexus. Leave it to judges to come up with a term like that. It basically means a business must have a physical presence within the State in order for its transactions to be taxed by that State. California is now ready to pass a law that will try to specifically impose the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers, even when the retailer has no physical presence within the State. They are trying to expand on a similar law passed by New York recently. The idea behind the bill is that marketing itself counts as some sort of physical presence. If that doesn’t scare everyone, I don’t know what will. It basically means that anyone with a website that is accessible within California’s territory (i.e., any website on the Internet) is subject to California taxes and law, even if they’ve never set foot in the State. This substantially contradicts the body of Quill v ND, but hey, it’s a taxation party right now! Now, the common mistake is to assume “oh, the States are just strapped for cash and are trying to find ways to soak us dry.” That might be true if politicians actual wrote the bills that become laws. As a general rule, they do not (backup link). You know who does, as a general rule? Corporate lawyers of companies that lobby our legislative bodies. Hmmm, what corporate lawyers would be in favor of raising taxes on businesses? The corporate lawyers that work for companies who would not be substantially hurt by those taxes, but whose competitors would be. Let this excerpt from a recent letter from Amazon.com tell the story.

For well over a decade, the Amazon Associates Program has worked with thousands of California residents. Unfortunately, a potential new law that may be signed by Governor Brown compels us to terminate this program for California-based participants. It specifically imposes the collection of taxes from consumers on sales by online retailers – including but not limited to those referred by California-based marketing affiliates like you – even if those retailers have no physical presence in the state. We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive. It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue.

Big-box retailers are companies like Target and Walmart. According to Amazon.com, companies like these seek to protect their businesses by fooling State governments into thinking the State will increase revenue with expanded scope on their sales taxes. Instead, this new tax (like any other tax) has a negative impact on the economy. I’m not against all taxation, but I am against any laws (taxes or otherwise) where one industry attempts to screw over another without providing any new benefit to the consumer. My website is just like any other. It does generate an extremely small amount of income from referrals (upon which I already pay income tax) via affiliate links with Amazon (please see the FTC 16 CRF Part 255 notice in the right column). Now, this law wouldn’t require me to pay any more taxes direclty, but as a customer of Amazon and other online sites, I would be forced to pay sales tax from a law that is probably unconstitutional. Laws that see to “tax the Internet” erode everyone’s rights, and threaten to hold anyone with a website accountable to the individual laws of over six thousand different taxing jurisdictions in America, according the Quill v ND ruling (linked above). Oddly enough, I no longer live in California. But, how long will it be before more States try to pass similar laws? Congress needs to act on this issue soon to prevent this economic nighmare from growing any further. I’m not making this a call to action because each person much act on their own. As such, I am going to be contacting my *new* Congress representitives about this issue very shortly. For additional reading, please see The Problems of State Taxation of Interstate Commerce and Why Congress Should Act (backup link)

2011 Silicon Valley International Auto Show and Traffic school

Allie went to traffic school this past Saturday for a ticket she earned during the Thanksgiving holiday. In the past, the real life edition of traffic school was a preferable over the online edition. However, she reported to me this time was no picnic. The class of more strict that before. She then told me several tales about her 1 day adventure in dealing with many different kinds of strange people. How do people fit that much annoying interaction into a lousy 8 hours?

So, on Sunday, I planned an in-town day trip to downtown Campbell for lunch, and also the 2011 Silicon Valley International Auto Show in downtown San Jose. This trip is notable for one very strange fact. We were actually able to take local light-rail public transit to each of our destinations. Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area are notorious for poor public transportation options. The fact that we were able to go to two enjoyable locations using light-rail is amazing.

Anyway, there were some cool vehicles this year. Here's some pictures from the show.

Free Right Turn rule in California

There are a lot of areas of confusion about some California driving laws. This was discussed in article that is part of an on-going series in the San Jose Mercury News that covers readers' questions about driving. The article supposedly provides some final answers about some very common driving questions. Since the article doesn't site many of its sources, it's tough to trust it 100%. The article does make some interesting statements.

One of the biggest questions in California is about something called free right turn. Many larger intersections have right turn lanes that are separated (channelized) from the intersection by a traffic island. These lanes rarely have signals or signs directly associated with cars in the lane. The confusion comes from how to use the lane when there is a red light in that direction. In most cases, a right turn is allowed on a red light only after a full and complete stop. However, when there is a separated lane, the car may treat it as a yield. In other words, it's OK to precede on a right turn as a yield on a red light (if safe) for separated right turn lanes.

Here's the funny part. There is no law on the books in California that actually make this declaration, as far as I know. The free right turn rules seems to come out of the same absence of law regarding the requirement for a stop on red for those lanes. It's important to note that this rule only applies if the traffic signal is after the segregation of the right turn lane (which does make sense).

Nice to have authentic burrito

One thing I miss from Salinas Valley is regular access to authentic home cooked Mexican food. There's plenty of good Mexican places in Silicon Valley, but there's something just a little bit better when eating Mexican food closer to the source. Finding places like that require a keen eye and a good memory. Since I'm not likely to get Mexican home cooking these days, I have to be mindful of where to go to find good authentic food. One place I found is Chavez Supermarket on Fair Oaks in Sunnyvale. It is not an actual supermarket. It's a small Mexican grocery store. Go in and walk to the back of the store. Order tacos, burritos or whatever. Then, enjoy.

Failed predictions by Sylvia Browne

Sylvia Browne makes a lot of predictions. Every once in awhile, she claims this or that successful prediction. In her book The Other Side and Back, Browne even boosts,

I could fill a separate book with my predictions that have come true...

She doesn't talk about her unsuccessful predictions very often, from what I've seen. I imagine she has many, indeed. I'm not going to get all high and mighty about failed predictions. I'm just going to list a few.

In the book mentioned above, Sylvia has a list of predictions for the year 2000 that did not end up happening or that where so basic that they really don't count (whether right or wrong).

Predictions:

• Three major hurricanes, with hits in Florida and Carolinas (among other regions). Fail. According to USA Today, "no hurricanes hit the USA" in 2000.
• Notable earthquake hits Niagara Falls in 2000. Fail. The last notable quake in that area occurred in 1897.
• Bill Bradley won the presidential election and there was "close competition from the Reform Party". Fail and Fail. Though that election may have been stolen with the wrong outcome, Bradley and the Reform Party were no where in sight.
• David Letterman quits his nightly show at the end of 2000. Fail. Even after the scandals of 2009, he's still running strong.
• Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston marry. Success! But is this really a prediction or something that was rather obvious? She also predicted they wouldn't last long. They didn't last, but they did last longer than many Hollywood marriages.
• In 2000, there would be a new flu strain that would start in the Eastern U.S. Asian immigrants coming into the U.S. would "help quell this flu virus". Fail. Although a new flu strain popped up in 2005 called Avian Flu, and that was actually blamed on an Asian source. So, I count this as a double and triple fail.
• In the year 2010, aliens will be seen on Earth and act as observers. She also predictions they will teach humans about the anti-gravity technology. I'll make a counter prediction. No aliens. No anti-gravity devices.

There are many other unsuccessful predictions, though the point seems to be made fully.

49ers moving to Santa Clara

On the night of the election and before the results were finalized for the Santa Clara Measure J vote, the 49ers organization put up a sign in front of the Great America overflow parking lot. The next morning, news reporters began discovering the new sign even before the paint had dried. The sign boldly declares the new site for the San Francisco 49ers future stadium in a move that makes it known they are leaving San Francisco city limits and moving into my neighborhood in Santa Clara.

It was said that the 49ers spent $4 million on the campaign to pass Measure J. With only about 11,231 yes votes (59.6% of the total votes 18,840), they spent about $356 per vote.

With this sign, the move of the 49ers to Santa Clara is about as official as it comes.

Hetch Hetchy exposed

Here's a photo of an exposed section of a southern portion of the infamous/famous Hetch Hetchy Aquaduct as it cuts through Santa Clara, CA.

49ers in Santa Clara

A measure in support of a new stadium for the 49ers in Santa Clara is going on our June ballot. There are groups against this activity. It is always easier for opposition to confuse issues in the minds of people. They are trying to do that here with rather silly points. One argument I've seen used against the stadium is that it would require more police on the day of the 49er games. Umm, of course it will. This is job creation and good for the economy!

Another thing I don't understand is the statement that projects like this shouldn't use public funds. This never made sense to me. This is America, right? Investment is the American way! If we expect to have financial gain, we should be willing to put some cash up as an investment.

The proposed stadium location is within a mile of my house (walking distance). It's near 3 freeways and right next to a mass transit station. It's going to create 2650 game day jobs and bring in an estimated $249 million dollars a year once it is built. Millions of money from taxes will be available for local programs.

If the stadium is truly state of the art, it will likely be chosen by the NFL as the sight for future Super Bowls. Just one Super Bowl in Santa Clara could bring much more money and prestige.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to just getting this dang thang built by the 2014 goal.