… but that won’t change any minds

It’s now six months since the US-Israel war on Iran began with air attacks which killed the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei as well as around 200 schoolchildren. The war has dragged on a long time. But before that surprise attack, it had appeared that the US planned to rely on naval power to coerce the Iranian regime into submission.

Early in February 2026, Trump deployed a carrier strike group (CSG) to the region, with a second arriving shortly afterwards. This show of force was described (with a striking lack of historical awareness) as an “armada”. The lead ship of that group, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is now limping home after what is generally admitted to have been a disastrous tour of duty.

As many people have pointed out to me over the years, I’m not a naval expert. But I can count. So, when the armada arrived, I checked the numbers and concluded that the threat was a hollow one.

The escorts are critical. They provide missile defence using AEGIS and Sea Sparrow systems, and once their interceptor stocks fall to low levels they must withdraw to be replaced or rearmed.

This creates an arithmetic problem. A Hobart-class destroyer has 48 blocks, each capable of carrying one AEGIS-controlled SM-2 or SM-6 interceptor. Alternatively, each block can carry four Sea Sparrows, but these are less capable.

Standard USN doctrine calls for the use of two defensive missiles against each incoming missile. On the assumption of 100 usable missiles per escort, that’s 50 defensive actions per escort or 200–250 in total. No one knows how many missiles Iran has available, but typical estimates suggest at least 3000, of which 1000 or more could be used in an anti-ship capacity. Even assuming successful air attacks on launch sites, use of aircraft against missiles, etc., hundreds of missiles will pose a threat, and at least some of them will cause enough damage to force escorts to withdraw.

A carrier-based bombing campaign couldn’t be sustained for even ten days without exhausting the carrier group’s defences and requiring the USN to “declare victory and go home”.

As it turns out, I wasn’t the only one who could count. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (a hawkish and generally navalist think tank) looked at the numbers and concluded that the available force could do some damage but not enough to produce regime change. And, pretty clearly, the US military drew the same conclusion, except for the bit about going home.

Like CSIS, I didn’t expect a massive air campaign beginning with the killing of the top Iranian leadership. But once the full-scale war began, the vast majority of the attacks were made by land-based aircraft. The carrier-based air arm fired most of its Tomahawks from a safe distance, with only modest effects. Iran responded by attacking land bases with a level of success that could have produced a catastrophe if it had been focused on the navy.

The role of the USN was reduced to its long-stated mission of keeping vital sea lanes open. When that failed, it shifted to the secondary task of imposing a blockade on Iran. Unsurprisingly, this has not produced a surrender — no naval blockade in recorded history has forced an adversary nation to surrender without the deployment of land forces.

Meanwhile, it is reported that the costs of the futile campaign have wrecked the Navy’s budget. A Navy official, quoted in the Guardian, says:

The money for payroll was robbed to pay for overseas contingencies and is being backfilled by money that hasn’t been spent. They are backfilling payroll so we get enough money in our paycheck.

More succinctly, a former official said:

They’re fucked. They shot all their weapons; they trashed all their ships; they ran out of their money.

The 2020s haven’t been a great decade for navies. The Russian invasion of Ukraine began with the destruction or capture of almost the entire Ukrainian navy. Then, despite having no navy of their own, the Ukrainians wiped out much of the mighty Black Sea Fleet, with the remnants sheltering in a Russian port as far away from Ukraine as they can get.

The Iranian war began similarly. The destruction of the Iranian Navy was rapid and complete. The most notable feature was the perfidious sinking of a ship returning from a training exercise in India, with the survivors of the initial attack being left to drown, even though their rescue would have posed no risk.

The US Navy suffered nothing more than the failures described above, but that was bad enough. Following the earlier failure to dislodge the Houthis, who now control access to the Red Sea, it is clear that naval forces cannot reliably keep trade lanes open or defeat even a low-level land-based opponent.

But having been through many rounds of this debate, I am confident that nothing will persuade navalists that their beloved flat-tops and frigates are little more than floating targets. Pirates, grey zones, reconnaissance, diplomatic visits, disaster relief and tiger-repelling rocks will all be wheeled out. Still, for any government in serious fiscal trouble (and aren’t they all), reducing the navy* to a coast guard would save a heap of money that would otherwise be wasted.

Anticipating this, I won’t reply to any comments restating points of this kind. If you have something actually new to say, go ahead.

* I haven’t talked about submarines here. The doomsday machines waiting to unleash nuclear Armageddon from the deep ocean floor are too much for me to think about. The ordinary kind, designed to sink ships from concealment, now seem like an expensive way of doing the job of a low-cost missile or drone, and even their invisibility is a depreciating asset.

We are being flooded with spam coming from fake gmail.com addresses at the moment. So, for the moment, I’ve set our spam filter to delete everything from gmail.com

If you want to post a real comment, just give a spurious address like anon.com and use your existing name/nym. Although we ask for an email address, we almost never check that it’s real. If you have trouble with that, email me at john.quiggin@icloud.com

Hopefully, we will find a way around this soon.

Also, Google is Evil.

I wrote this post a couple of weeks ago, responding to a challenge* to write about the economic aspects of Taylor Swift. Not long after that, the world lost the marvellous Dolly Parton. Parton’s lifetime income almost certainly exceeded a billion dollars, but she gave huge amounts away.

Her biggest philanthropic endeavour was the Imagination Library, which sends free books to children every month from birth to age five. There are currently 3 million children enrolled, and the program has given away over 300 million books.

That didn’t leave Parton poor. Her estate was estimated at $400 million, mostly tied up in property rights of the kind discussed below — copyrights and her theme park, Dollywood. She lived well, in a substantial house on 60-odd acres of land just outside Nashville. But lots of people have substantial houses and, at least for an Australian, 60 acres doesn’t sound like much. More notable was her ostentatious, but deliberately cheap, self-presentation — rhinestones rather than diamonds.

Now for a repeat of the Taylor Swift analysis.

The claim “Every billionaire is a policy failure” is pretty widely accepted these days, formulated most clearly in Ingrid’s case for limitarianism (a hard cap on the maximum wealth anyone can have). Looking at the Forbes list of the richest people in the world (one woman in the top 20), it’s hard to disagree. Most are thoroughly objectionable, and even those who aren’t personally appalling mostly made their money from monopoly (for example, Warren Buffett) or inheritance (members of the Walton family).

But what about the good billionaires, a category for which Taylor Swift (ranked about 2000 in the list) seems like the ideal example? Before her, there was J. K. Rowling, but look how that turned out. Swift seems to tick all the boxes. Apparently a nice person (if you ignore the promotional feuds with other celebrities), generous with her money, treats her employees well, politically progressive without being obnoxious about it, and a philanthropist, though nothing like Dolly Parton.

And she’s made her money honestly, selling records and concert tickets to people who want to buy them. Revealed preference arguments need to be treated with care (Tom Slee’s No One Makes You Shop at Walmart is the classic here), but Swifties have plenty of alternatives on offer. At the margin, a dollar spent on Swift is a dollar less for other entertainers, but that’s not a consideration we usually regard as relevant in our current system.

So, if there’s a problem with Swift’s wealth, it’s not a problem with her, but with the system that makes such massive wealth possible. For Swift, that comes about in several ways.

First, the money she makes from selling records and merchandise depends on the system of “intellectual property” (in this case, mostly copyrights and trademarks). Unlike many entertainers, she’s been highly successful in capturing this for herself rather than letting record companies grab it.

Second, her returns from ticket sales to her concerts depend on the availability of stadiums. These are sometimes explicitly subsidised by the public and always dependent on land-use regulation.

Finally, the returns she gets when she invests her wealth are higher than those available to ordinary households. This is at the core of the r > g point made by Piketty a while back.

These compounding effects would be greatly reduced by a more progressive income tax system (a top marginal rate of 70 per cent) and by wealth taxes, capturing the excess returns to high wealth. In combination, these would make it very difficult to become a billionaire by entertaining people. Other measures would be needed to deal with the massive accumulations of corporate wealth represented by the multibillionaires.

Given her dependence on the society that made her wealth possible, Swift can have no legitimate moral objection to a tax system that shares it out more evenly. But is there an economic cost here? The standard story is one about incentives and effort. But it’s hard to believe that Swift would write fewer songs, or perform fewer concerts, if the return were in the hundreds of thousands rather than millions or billions. And, as I already observed, most of the ultra-rich have made their money in actively harmful ways. Even where there is an actually useful product involved, the super-profits have come mostly from monopoly or speculation.

In summary, in a society which produces billionaires, there’s no reason to object to Taylor Swift becoming one. But we could have all the music we need or want in a society without billionaires. Indeed, with policies like a participation income or livable income guarantee, we could see a lot more people making music, some of which might turn out better than what the industry currently gives us.

* In support of my fundraising for the Brisbane to Gold Coast ride against cancer, which was hugely successful. Thanks, everyone!

Can UPS be held liable for a delivery truck crash? In Texas, quite possibly, when an employee causes a collision while performing assigned work. Even a strong claim gets harder to document once evidence disappears and deadlines pass. Much of that damage happens quietly in the week after the wreck, while a truck goes in for repair or a witness changes phone numbers.

When a delivery driver causes a wreck while on duty, the company behind the truck often shares the legal blame. Holding UPS accountable after a Dallas crash really comes down to proving two things: that the driver was actively working at the time, and that the company failed in its own duties. Establishing corporate liability takes solid proof—from dispatch logs and driving records to internal safety files.

What follows are seven avoidable mistakes, each followed by a corrective step. None of this establishes fault. This is general information about Texas claims, not legal advice about your situation, and the goal is narrower than a prediction: keeping the record accurate while the facts are still available.

Mistake 1: Failing to Photograph the Scene Safely

Scene conditions change fast. A wet lane dries. Debris gets swept aside. Your safety and any instruction from police or paramedics come first, and no image is worth standing in a live traffic lane on a Dallas arterial.

What useful photographs can document

Begin with the final resting position of each vehicle before anything moves, if it is safe to do so. Then work outward. Photograph the visible damage on both vehicles. Capture the traffic control facing your direction of travel and any skid or debris pattern on the pavement. Get the commercial markings and plate number in the same frame when possible.

Wide shots can show lane geometry, sightlines, storefronts, and light poles that may hold camera footage worth requesting later. Phones may record time and location data with each file, depending on the device settings.

Photographs preserve visible conditions. They do not necessarily explain why the crash happened.

What to do when photographs were not taken

Many people leave a scene with nothing on their phone. Some of that evidence may still be recoverable. Request any images the investigating agency collected, and write down the crash report number. Save dashcam files before the device overwrites them. Ask nearby businesses if their exterior cameras still hold footage from the relevant period, keeping in mind that a private business is not necessarily required to release footage on request.

Key evidence to retain after a collision with a UPS vehicle includes scene photos, bystander contact details, police report reference numbers, treatment records, vehicle repair bills, pictures of property damage, and correspondence with insurance adjusters.

Texas Transportation Code Chapter 550 , including Sections 550.021, 550.023, and 550.026, addresses duties to stop, provide identifying information, and render reasonable assistance after certain collisions. Those provisions do not create  a duty to take photographs .

Mistake 2: Losing Witness Names or Contact Details

An independent witness may be able to describe what the vehicles cannot: which light was green, or whether a turn signal was on. An account from someone uninvolved in the collision provides another perspective on what occurred.

A name written on the back of a receipt is of little use without a working phone number or email address. Get the person’s full name and the contact method they actually check. Add one line about what the witness reports seeing. Do not rehearse the witness or suggest an answer, because that can undermine the reliability of the account.

If the information is already gone, begin with the crash report, since investigating officers may list witnesses whose details were not shared at the scene. Then review your photographs for identifiable bystanders and check whether a nearby residence or business was positioned to record the intersection.

Mistake 3: Delaying Medical Evaluation or Describing Symptoms Inaccurately

Why timing matters

Some injuries are apparent at the scene. Others surface later as a stiff neck or a headache that will not clear. Contemporaneous records capture what you reported and what a clinician observed on a specific date.

A gap in treatment does not by itself resolve the question of causation. Cost, scheduling, and gradual symptom progression may explain a delay, but a longer gap can make the medical history harder to document.

Accuracy beats exaggeration

Describe the onset and severity of symptoms accurately. Overstating a symptom can create a contradiction if later findings do not support it; understating one can leave an incomplete record. If asked about a prior injury, answer honestly. A preexisting condition does not necessarily exclude a new injury, but concealing it can create an avoidable credibility dispute.

Follow-through should line up with medical guidance

Missed appointments and unfilled referrals can leave gaps in the treatment history that are difficult to explain later. That is not a reason to undergo care you do not need. Follow your clinician’s plan, report changes accurately, and keep copies of medical and billing records.

Mistake 4: Repairing, Altering, or Discarding Damaged Property Too Soon

Physical objects may contain information a claim file cannot recreate. A crumpled bumper can show the direction and force of an impact. So can a child safety seat that absorbed a load, or a phone mount that broke during the collision. Not every item needs to be stored indefinitely, though.

Preserve before changing

Photograph the item from several angles before altering it. Keep repair estimates and receipts, then determine whether an inspection is needed before completing repairs or discarding the item. Necessary safety repairs should not be delayed merely to preserve a claim.

Texas spoliation law is narrower than some general internet advice suggests. In Brookshire Brothers, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014), the Texas Supreme Court addressed the duty to preserve relevant evidence and the prejudice caused by its loss. Discarding a damaged item does not automatically trigger sanctions or end a case, but it may create a dispute over what the missing evidence would have shown.

Mistake 5: Giving Unsupported or Overconfident Statements

Keep communications factual

Cooperating is different from guessing. You can provide identifying information and describe what you observed without estimating the truck’s speed or making an unsupported claim about fault. Nobody expects you to diagnose your own injury at the roadside.

Before agreeing to a recorded statement, find out who is asking and which party that person represents. That does not excuse withholding information you are legally or contractually required to provide.

Comparative responsibility makes wording significant

Under Texas law governing commercial trucking cases, lawsuits against a freight company can follow a specific two-phase process. If a business admits its driver was working on the clock during a crash, direct claims against the company—such as faulty hiring, poor supervision, or inadequate training—may be limited or handled separately. Whether a plaintiff can pursue these secondary claims depends on how the case is structured and the strength of the evidence.

Mistake 6: Assuming Only the Driver Matters

Who Holds Financial Liability in a Dallas UPS Truck Accident?

Liability may reach the driver and, in some cases, UPS or another business connected to the delivery operation. The outcome hinges on the driver’s employment status, the scope of that employment, and what the evidence shows about each party’s conduct. Ownership and control of the vehicle may matter just as much.

Many injured motorists ask: can you sue UPS  directly after a Dallas delivery truck crash? The short answer is yes—provided an employee caused the collision while performing assigned duties. However, available claims remain strictly fact-specific and can shift if the driver worked for an independent contractor or acted outside the course and scope of employment.

A familiar logo does not establish every relationship in the delivery chain. A route may involve an employee or a contracted service provider, sometimes using a leased vehicle under an arrangement invisible from the road. Vehicle registration and insurance information are starting points, not final conclusions.

Can employer liability apply in a UPS crash?

Yes. Under the Texas doctrine commonly known as respondeat superior, an employer may be responsible for an employee’s negligent driving when the employee was acting within the course and scope of employment.

Texas law reshapes how commercial vehicle lawsuits move forward through the court system. If a company acknowledges that its driver was on duty during the collision, secondary claims targeting the business itself—like poor hiring, lack of supervision, or bad training—are handled differently. Whether those separate claims survive depends on how the case is pleaded and the physical evidence available.

Company records can answer what the scene cannot

Dispatch records and route assignments can help establish whether a driver was working at the time. Driver qualification materials, vehicle maintenance records, electronic vehicle data, and internal route communications may hold information unavailable at the scene.

The company usually controls these records. Preserving and obtaining them often takes an early written preservation request, followed by formal discovery if a lawsuit is filed.

Texas Transportation Code Section 522.072  prohibits an employer from knowingly permitting a person to operate a commercial motor vehicle while that person is disqualified or subject to an out-of-service order. Whether that provision applies to a particular delivery vehicle depends on the vehicle and license classifications, so not every parcel van is necessarily governed by commercial driver’s license requirements.

What happens if a UPS driver crashes?

After a UPS driver crashes, the immediate response may include emergency assistance, exchanging identifying information, and a police investigation when Texas reporting requirements apply. The later liability inquiry can examine the driver’s conduct, work assignment, employer relationship, and each party’s share of responsibility.

A collision involving another delivery company follows the same general fact-finding process. What changes is the identity of the business connected to the vehicle and the evidence needed to establish that relationship.

How many accidents does UPS have a year?

The public federal carrier record has no fixed annual UPS crash number. The FMCSA Company Snapshot for UPS, under USDOT number 21800, reports crash information over a rolling 24-month period. The total shifts as incidents enter and leave that reporting window, so review the current date range before treating half of the rolling total as a verified annual figure.

Mistake 7: Assuming the Filing Period Will Be Extended Automatically

Texas generally uses a two-year limitations period

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003  generally requires a personal injury lawsuit to be filed no later than two years after the claim accrues. That is a filing deadline, not a schedule for preserving evidence. Waiting to investigate can leave witnesses with faded memories and vehicles repaired long before the filing date arrives.

Exceptions should never be assumed

Deadline analysis can change with the defendant, claimant, and type of claim. A claimant’s age or legal disability may affect the calculation, and identifying the correct legal entity can take additional investigation. Talking with an adjuster does not by itself pause the limitations period, and continued negotiations do not necessarily extend the deadline.

Preserve Facts Before They Disappear

These mistakes point to three practical habits. Keep accurate records as close to the collision as possible. Determine who was responsible for the vehicle; the logo doesn’t tell the whole story. Pin down which deadline applies before relying on an assumed date.

Gather any remaining evidence and store it securely. Then get deadline guidance based on the actual defendant and claim type.

Photo: Feli Art via Pexels

CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT MISSION

The post Seven Mistakes That Can Weaken a Texas Delivery Truck Claim appeared first on DCReport.org.

Look for Clear, Verifiable Evidence Before Sharing Money, Identity Documents, or Personal Data

A polished website can look convincing. Reliability comes from evidence that users can check before committing money or personal data. It’s normal to shop, watch something, manage money, or play games through a website. That does not mean every site deserves personal information. If one asks for a card number, ID, or bank details, check who is actually behind it first.

Key Takeaways

• A trusted casino platform should clearly show who runs it and how it works.
• Check its online platform security before sharing personal or payment details.
• Read reviews from different sources.
• Look for clear payment options, helpful support, and a fair complaints process.
• For online casinos, check the license and company information.

Start With Security and Regulatory Information

First, identify the business behind the platform. Its legal name, contact information, terms and privacy policy should be easy to find. Where a licence or regulatory approval is claimed, check the regulator’s own register. A logo at the bottom of a webpage is not verification.

HTTPS matters, but only up to a point. The browser padlock means information is encrypted while travelling between the visitor and the site. It does not tell you whether the operator is trustworthy or whether its terms are fair.

Account protections matter too. Look for strong password requirements, two-factor authentication and recognised payment providers. Read how the business stores, shares and deletes customer information. Vague language around personal data is a reason to pause.

The stakes are especially clear in gambling. Before depositing, users should assess whether a trusted casino platform  provides licensing information, account protections, game rules and clear payment terms. The same verification habit applies to every other platform that handles money.

Look for Transparency Before You Sign Up

A platform should not make important information difficult to find until after registration. Terms, fees, and complaint routes should be available when a prospective user is still deciding whether to join.

Platform transparency is not about finding a perfect website. It is about knowing the rules before a dispute arises. A user should be able to identify cancellation conditions, refunds, account restrictions and the process for challenging a decision.

Online platform red flags  often show up in the small print. Pressure to deposit immediately, unexplained fees and broad clauses allowing an operator to change terms without notice deserve extra attention.

Check Reputation, But Look Beyond Star Ratings

Ratings are a starting point, not a verdict. A single five-star review may describe a smooth first purchase. A one-star review may reflect a user misunderstanding a published rule. The useful evidence comes from patterns.

Search several independent sources. Look for repeated complaints about account access, withdrawals, billing, cancelled orders, privacy concerns, or support that stops responding after a payment issue. Check whether the company answers those complaints clearly and whether its response addresses the actual problem.

Online platform reliability also depends on context. A late delivery complaint matters for a retailer. A blocked withdrawal matters more for a financial or gaming service. Read the criticism against the type of transaction involved.

Be cautious with reviews that are unusually similar, contain little detail, or appear in a short burst. They may not be reliable evidence of the normal customer experience.

Evaluate Payments and Customer Support

Payment procedures are where a platform’s quality becomes visible. Before making a significant purchase, find out which payment methods it accepts, whether fees apply, and how refunds or withdrawals work.

A legitimate platform should be clear about how payments move and how long they take. It should say whether a payment is instant, whether refunds return to the original method, and when identity checks might hold things up. Trouble often starts when the published timeframe reflects only the fastest possible outcome.

Customer support deserves a practical test. Send a basic question before committing funds. Ask where to find a fee policy or how a cancellation works. The answer does not need to arrive instantly. It should be clear, relevant, and easy to obtain.

A platform with good branding but poor support can become expensive when something goes wrong.

Recognise Common Warning Signs

Use caution when a site shows several of these signs:

• Guaranteed returns, prizes or outcomes
• Pressure to pay immediately
• Missing company or operator details
• Unexplained transaction fees
• Thin privacy information
• Repeated payment complaints
• No visible support process
• Licensing claims that cannot be verified

Choosing a trusted website is a process of comparison. Security, transparency, reputation and support work best as a group of checks. A familiar brand name should never end that process.

In Short

The most secure online platforms are not defined by design alone. They make ownership, rules, payments and data practices available for inspection. Verify those details before you create an account or send money.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can an HTTPS connection prove that a website is trustworthy?

No. HTTPS protects information during transmission. It does not prove that the business operating the website is legitimate, responsive or financially sound.

How can you check who owns an online platform?

Review the terms, privacy policy and company page. Search official company records or regulator databases where relevant. A legitimate operator should be identifiable beyond a brand name.

Can online reviews be trusted when evaluating a platform?

They can be useful when viewed collectively. Look for repeated, detailed reports across independent sources instead of relying on one rating.

What should you do if a platform’s licensing information cannot be verified?

Treat it as a warning sign. Do not rely on a badge or claim alone. Check directly with the named licensing authority before depositing money or sharing personal information.

Photo: Julio Lopez via Pexels

CLICK HERE TO DONATE IN SUPPORT OF DCREPORT’S NONPROFIT MISSION

The post How To Choose a Reliable Online Platform: Key Factors to Consider appeared first on DCReport.org.