I don't know if I'm the stupid one in this tale, but I thought I'd relay my shopping experience of yesterday.
Cinda, Clarisse, and I headed out to Sarah's with our ice cream maker, batter, etc. We had everything but the ice (2 bags needed) which we planned to pick up at the last minute to minimizing melting in transit. Stopped at a BP station, Cinda parks, I get two bags of ice and then wait in line to check out. "$3.00" says the clerk. I hand her my credit card. "Credit or debit?" says the clerk. "Credit," says I. "We have a $5.00 minimum," says the clerk. "Then debit," says I. "We have a $5.00 minimum," she says again. I check my wallet for cash as a line is forming up behind me; I have a single dollar bill. "I only have a dollar," says I as I show her this fact. She gives me deer-in-the-headlight eyes; "We have a $5.00 minimum." Now clearly, I am supposed to go find another $2.00 worth of purchases and then get back at the end of the line (which is now about five people long). Instead I gave her the two bags of ice and walked out. I bought my ice two blocks down the road at the grocery store for $0.25 less a bag.
Cinda tells me she could have gotten gas and doesn't seem to understand my insistence that I will not be coerced into spending almost twice as much by some store clerk and her policy. Especially after she has already accepted the card and asked me "credit or debit?". There was no notice of this minimum charge policy either; I looked.
I understand that, with the way the charge companies work, it might be desirable to have minimum charge policies. And, as I did in law school, I do change my shopping habits to avoid spending money in places with minimum charge policies. As long as they save more money avoiding less than the minimum charge than I would spend their they made the right call. but I am not a sheep and I can, and do, express my opinion with where I take my business. In the circumstance at BP, with the line piling up and having already taken the card for the $3.00 purchase, the clerk should have either 1) run the card anyway or 2) taken the dollar in cash and be done with it and on to serving the next customer, especially when ice is cheaper just down the street.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
The Supreme Court may have gotten something right
Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a discrimination case where some city in Conn. had administered a written test for promotion in its fire department and then, when the results failed to qualify enough minority fire fighters, decided to toss out the test results. The Supremes said 5-4 that you can't do that.
I caution that I have not read the decision.
But it strikes me from what I have read that it makes a certain amount of sense to say that you can't discriminate solely on the basis of race, which seems to be what the city did. They got back test results and discovered that only one Hispanic and no African Americans had passed the test. If, on that basis ALONE, they threw out the test, then the Supreme Court is probably correct. The reason I think the Sc might have gotten that one right is because the city failed to probe further into why the test results were so unequal; they just assumed and threw out the test. This means they threw out the test results on the basis of RACE ALONE; not because of differences in test administration or some provable bias in the test itself. Moreover their argument seem to be that the unequal results prove the unfair bias, almost arguing that using a written test biases the results. That argument assumes the desired result; a species of post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy. I have, and I suspect the majority of Justices would have, no problem tossing out the test if the city had bothered to establish HOW the test was discriminatory beyond the fact that it achieved a politically undesirable result.
At the end of the day, the law must be applied equally as well; and had the result been that not enough Caucasians qualified and the city then tried to throw out the results on that basis, I think quite clearly this lawsuit would have gone against the city. Moreover, I think the question begged here is why are we doing this kind of analysis anyway? Are we to decide the validity of any (and every) test or hiring result based on whether or not the results from that activity exactly match the racial distributions of the population? Oddly enough, random chance rarely produces results exactly on the numbers; it almost always produces some variation and must be allowed to generate results at the ends of the bell curve some time. In this case, you could achieve randomization by randomly selecting names form a hat for promotion or by going strictly on seniority, but those systems would not tend to necessarily put the most competent candidate in the position. Still, if the goal is "fairness" over competence, that would work.
I caution that I have not read the decision.
But it strikes me from what I have read that it makes a certain amount of sense to say that you can't discriminate solely on the basis of race, which seems to be what the city did. They got back test results and discovered that only one Hispanic and no African Americans had passed the test. If, on that basis ALONE, they threw out the test, then the Supreme Court is probably correct. The reason I think the Sc might have gotten that one right is because the city failed to probe further into why the test results were so unequal; they just assumed and threw out the test. This means they threw out the test results on the basis of RACE ALONE; not because of differences in test administration or some provable bias in the test itself. Moreover their argument seem to be that the unequal results prove the unfair bias, almost arguing that using a written test biases the results. That argument assumes the desired result; a species of post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy. I have, and I suspect the majority of Justices would have, no problem tossing out the test if the city had bothered to establish HOW the test was discriminatory beyond the fact that it achieved a politically undesirable result.
At the end of the day, the law must be applied equally as well; and had the result been that not enough Caucasians qualified and the city then tried to throw out the results on that basis, I think quite clearly this lawsuit would have gone against the city. Moreover, I think the question begged here is why are we doing this kind of analysis anyway? Are we to decide the validity of any (and every) test or hiring result based on whether or not the results from that activity exactly match the racial distributions of the population? Oddly enough, random chance rarely produces results exactly on the numbers; it almost always produces some variation and must be allowed to generate results at the ends of the bell curve some time. In this case, you could achieve randomization by randomly selecting names form a hat for promotion or by going strictly on seniority, but those systems would not tend to necessarily put the most competent candidate in the position. Still, if the goal is "fairness" over competence, that would work.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Socialized medicine
I have heard much discussion about how people are not able to agree on the new Health Care System details. Specifically some won't vote for it unless it has a public insurance option while others will only vote if it doesn't.
I fail to see how any for-profit (private) insurance company can compete with a government sponsored not-for-profit insurance company. Won't the latter always be cheaper? So it seems to me that, in a free market, adding a government health care provider will drive all the private companies out of business.
So the question to me seems to be: Is that what we want?
I fail to see how any for-profit (private) insurance company can compete with a government sponsored not-for-profit insurance company. Won't the latter always be cheaper? So it seems to me that, in a free market, adding a government health care provider will drive all the private companies out of business.
So the question to me seems to be: Is that what we want?
Iran
Much news about Iran lately. Elections, riots, etc. Dire predictions about how that regime has ruined forevermore its legitimacy in the eyes of its populace. Much criticism of the President for NOT making stronger statements.
No country can sustain a democracy whose citizens are not driven to demand it, even at the risk of death.
Should Obama encourage the protesters too much, then he would probably get a bunch of them killed and legitimize, in the eyes of the Iranian people, the claims of interference made by the Iranian government. Moreover, unless the U.S. is willing to put troops on the ground to protect these rioters and to create a democracy (and we all know how well that worked in Iraq), we would be simply setting up those most able to drive the change we would prefer for failure and execution. If Iran is to succeed in becoming a democracy, it must do so through the will, blood, sweat, and tears of its own people. Otherwise, I don't see how that democracy can be sustained once we pull our troops out.
So far, I think Obama's approach is a wise one.
No country can sustain a democracy whose citizens are not driven to demand it, even at the risk of death.
Should Obama encourage the protesters too much, then he would probably get a bunch of them killed and legitimize, in the eyes of the Iranian people, the claims of interference made by the Iranian government. Moreover, unless the U.S. is willing to put troops on the ground to protect these rioters and to create a democracy (and we all know how well that worked in Iraq), we would be simply setting up those most able to drive the change we would prefer for failure and execution. If Iran is to succeed in becoming a democracy, it must do so through the will, blood, sweat, and tears of its own people. Otherwise, I don't see how that democracy can be sustained once we pull our troops out.
So far, I think Obama's approach is a wise one.
The Crazy Left
I've heard a bunch lately about how the "gay community" is upset with the Obama Administration because it filed a brief supporting a Defense of Marriage Act in a case. I even heard one activist saying that they realized that the Administration was obligated to defend the act, but that they did not think it needed to do so as enthusiastically as it did.
I note that the attorney involved on behalf of the government has the obligation to file the best brief he can. If he softballs it, he is behaving in a manner which, in the perfect world, would earn him disciplinary action from whatever bars he belongs to.
Second there seems to be a larger picture problem. The radical, strike that, crazy left seems to be acting like spoiled children on several issues. Having had "their candidate" elected, they wanted all their radical changes made immediately, now, right away, instantly, and overnight. When that hasn't occurred, they are now throwing the equivalent of a political temper tantrum -- they are threatening to take their money and their votes an walk away from Obama. Boy that'll teach him! If enough do that, he won't get elected next time. And then we can have another King George W. or some other conservative crackpot. I'm sure that forcing that result will really make the liberal crazies happy. That'll teach those moderate Democrats.
Same comment for the Crazy Liberals and their demands for the health care package.
'Course the Radical Left voted for Kerry and Gore before him so we know their political worth. Obama won because he carried the middle. And the middle is not necessarily supportive of the Radical Left's agenda. So, in essence, the Left is saying that we know we need those guys, but now that we are elected, fuck 'em. I can't think of a faster way to get a Republican Congress or a Republican in the White House.
And Obama is smart enough to understand it. He talked all through his campaign about healing the divide etc. You don't heal a divide by pursuing the agenda of one extreme. He may get to it eventually, but all the Left is doing right now is making it harder to pursue their agenda. Face it, in view of the economy, nuclear-bio-terrorism, and the extinction level threat from climate change, whether or not Ralph and Roger can get married to each other and then enroll in socialized health care is pretty irrelevant.
I note that the attorney involved on behalf of the government has the obligation to file the best brief he can. If he softballs it, he is behaving in a manner which, in the perfect world, would earn him disciplinary action from whatever bars he belongs to.
Second there seems to be a larger picture problem. The radical, strike that, crazy left seems to be acting like spoiled children on several issues. Having had "their candidate" elected, they wanted all their radical changes made immediately, now, right away, instantly, and overnight. When that hasn't occurred, they are now throwing the equivalent of a political temper tantrum -- they are threatening to take their money and their votes an walk away from Obama. Boy that'll teach him! If enough do that, he won't get elected next time. And then we can have another King George W. or some other conservative crackpot. I'm sure that forcing that result will really make the liberal crazies happy. That'll teach those moderate Democrats.
Same comment for the Crazy Liberals and their demands for the health care package.
'Course the Radical Left voted for Kerry and Gore before him so we know their political worth. Obama won because he carried the middle. And the middle is not necessarily supportive of the Radical Left's agenda. So, in essence, the Left is saying that we know we need those guys, but now that we are elected, fuck 'em. I can't think of a faster way to get a Republican Congress or a Republican in the White House.
And Obama is smart enough to understand it. He talked all through his campaign about healing the divide etc. You don't heal a divide by pursuing the agenda of one extreme. He may get to it eventually, but all the Left is doing right now is making it harder to pursue their agenda. Face it, in view of the economy, nuclear-bio-terrorism, and the extinction level threat from climate change, whether or not Ralph and Roger can get married to each other and then enroll in socialized health care is pretty irrelevant.
Monday, June 22, 2009
The House of Commons
I've had lots I've been meaning to write about in the last week or two, but I haven't gotten around to it for one reason or another. Things like commenting in response to the proposal that the government would limit doctor bills, that the government also then needs to step in and set a limit on the cost of medical school. And law school while they are at it. But that's not today's topic.
In case it didn't catch your radar, the Speaker of the House of Commons had to resign last week. I heard today on NPR that this is the first time a Speaker has had to resign in over 300 years.
My country is younger than that. Just for some perspective on this.
In case it didn't catch your radar, the Speaker of the House of Commons had to resign last week. I heard today on NPR that this is the first time a Speaker has had to resign in over 300 years.
My country is younger than that. Just for some perspective on this.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Political stupidity from NPR OP ED
Last Monday, on the way to the MINI dealership with a flat tire, NPR had a story on the use of behavior psych applied to economics. They were discussing how human beings will take inherently illogical actions which are not always in their best interests. Standard economic models assume the perfectly logical decision maker and therefore are wrong. The conclusion was that government can and will be able to make the good long term choices for people, that those people would not make for themselves and might not even want. Thus, government SHOULD be doing more of that sort of thing. It's CLASSIC capital-L Liberalism.
I'm just curious if anyone else sees the big logical jumps they made?
First, they ASSUME that government WILL make better choices. The obvious first point is that government is made of people. The answer to refute this came from proof provided by the advocate being interviewed was that the British government, realizing that many tourists were being hit by cars every year because they were looking the wrong way on the streets, put up big signs to look to the right. It worked, ergo government will make smart choices. 1) The people would probably acknowledge this was in their best interest. 2) Looking left instead of right was a matter of habit and training; not exactly the sort of complex issues where minds may differ. 3) This is argument by analogy which is inherently a weak argument. For starters, you can always, as I have done in point 2 previously, show how the analogy does not fit. More importantly, for every example where government has done something smart like telling people to look right, I can probably come up with an example where government has done something colossally stupid like failing to check the seals on rockets it was suing to launch the space shuttle into orbit. The "look right" argument does not address the criticism that government decisions are still made by people, and if the problem is that people can be dumb, it applies to government. Worse, MOBS (a group of people) can often be dumber than a single person.
Second, the position advocated assumes that if government CAN make smarter decisions then it SHOULD and has the MORAL RIGHT to do so. I fail to follow that premise. Do we live in a society where being smarter gives someone a moral right to dominate the will of the less intelligent? Even if government can make a better decision than I can about something, do I want it to? This Orwellian road leads to tyranny. We can't trust you to pick the right kind of car, so we, the government, shall pick for you. Ignore what you want; we shall do what is best. We only need one kind of car anyway. (Ignore the kickback to the guy deciding what kind of car you should drive; he's smarter than you.) You don't want that job; you'd hate it. We shall decide what job you do. We shall decide where you shall live. We don't think you are raising your child in the smartest way so we, the government, shall raise the child for you.
What a Brave New World that would be.
I'm just curious if anyone else sees the big logical jumps they made?
First, they ASSUME that government WILL make better choices. The obvious first point is that government is made of people. The answer to refute this came from proof provided by the advocate being interviewed was that the British government, realizing that many tourists were being hit by cars every year because they were looking the wrong way on the streets, put up big signs to look to the right. It worked, ergo government will make smart choices. 1) The people would probably acknowledge this was in their best interest. 2) Looking left instead of right was a matter of habit and training; not exactly the sort of complex issues where minds may differ. 3) This is argument by analogy which is inherently a weak argument. For starters, you can always, as I have done in point 2 previously, show how the analogy does not fit. More importantly, for every example where government has done something smart like telling people to look right, I can probably come up with an example where government has done something colossally stupid like failing to check the seals on rockets it was suing to launch the space shuttle into orbit. The "look right" argument does not address the criticism that government decisions are still made by people, and if the problem is that people can be dumb, it applies to government. Worse, MOBS (a group of people) can often be dumber than a single person.
Second, the position advocated assumes that if government CAN make smarter decisions then it SHOULD and has the MORAL RIGHT to do so. I fail to follow that premise. Do we live in a society where being smarter gives someone a moral right to dominate the will of the less intelligent? Even if government can make a better decision than I can about something, do I want it to? This Orwellian road leads to tyranny. We can't trust you to pick the right kind of car, so we, the government, shall pick for you. Ignore what you want; we shall do what is best. We only need one kind of car anyway. (Ignore the kickback to the guy deciding what kind of car you should drive; he's smarter than you.) You don't want that job; you'd hate it. We shall decide what job you do. We shall decide where you shall live. We don't think you are raising your child in the smartest way so we, the government, shall raise the child for you.
What a Brave New World that would be.
Stupidity from NPR caller
A comment from a caller on an NPR show last week (paraphrased as close as I can to the original):
"The purpose of Democracy is to prevent the rich from being able to run everything."
Huh? Here I thought that democracy was to prevent anyone from being able to run everything. Stop tyranny of any sort. All basic freedoms. (By the way, contrary to popular view of many similar callers, freedom to do something does not mean exactly the same thing as a right. EX: Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. You have a freedom to be gainfully employed as you wish but not a right to any particular job.)
In fact, it sticks in my mind that the founders of our democracy (which is a republic by the way, not a democracy), limited the right to vote to white, male, property owners. Those were the rich of their day. Why? Because they did not believe that non-caucasian, non-males were educated or smart enough to vote and that only property owners had enough "stake" in events to be worth counting. One wonders how the men who invented such an elitest, sexist, and even racist systems could have believed they were creating a system whose purpose is to prevent the rich from running everything.
Perhaps the caller was inserting his own paradigm into the minds of the founding fathers.
Or maybe he meant the Greeks. ... I wonder if he realizes he doesn't live in a democracy.
"The purpose of Democracy is to prevent the rich from being able to run everything."
Huh? Here I thought that democracy was to prevent anyone from being able to run everything. Stop tyranny of any sort. All basic freedoms. (By the way, contrary to popular view of many similar callers, freedom to do something does not mean exactly the same thing as a right. EX: Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. You have a freedom to be gainfully employed as you wish but not a right to any particular job.)
In fact, it sticks in my mind that the founders of our democracy (which is a republic by the way, not a democracy), limited the right to vote to white, male, property owners. Those were the rich of their day. Why? Because they did not believe that non-caucasian, non-males were educated or smart enough to vote and that only property owners had enough "stake" in events to be worth counting. One wonders how the men who invented such an elitest, sexist, and even racist systems could have believed they were creating a system whose purpose is to prevent the rich from running everything.
Perhaps the caller was inserting his own paradigm into the minds of the founding fathers.
Or maybe he meant the Greeks. ... I wonder if he realizes he doesn't live in a democracy.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The saga of Black Kate
Dateline 8 June, 2009
At 5:00 I came out of work and climbed in Black Kate. Put my key fob in the socket (she doesn't have a proper key) and pushed the start button. Kate fired up and dinged that I needed to fasten my seat belt which I was doing. Then she tossed a funny little trill in at the end of her song causing me to look around. New cars are like that; they occasionally surprise you. I noted the low tire pressure light was one. Then I noticed it was RED. Now the low pressure light comes in two flavors: red and yellow. Yellow means low. Red means flat. Oh damn.
My first assumption was that I had somehow mis-re-calibrated the sensor when I was working through the instruction book Saturday. So I drove across the street to Motomart where there is free air. Now you may be wondering why didn't he just look at the tires? Remember, Kate has run-flats so you can't SEE a flat tire. Checked pressure on the driver's front and it was fine. Checked the driver's rear and it was fine. Checked the passenger front and it was flat. Found a large bolt/screw in the tire. Frak! Car is less than 48 hours old and I have a flat. But I bought the extended tire warranty and my tire's are covered against this for the first 50K miles or some such. I call the MINI dealer (sales) to advise them of the situation. Why sales? Well, they still had my paperwork on the warranty I bought and I had their number. I was told to bring the car right in and not to pull out the whatever it was. So off I go across town in Rush Hour with a flat tire (meaning no more than 50 mph) to the MINI dealer. I arrive at 6:05.
I then find out that service closed at 6:00. Moreover, service is at a different building about 4 blocks away. While I was told when we bought the car that they had 30 or so loaner MINI's to lend to people during service, those are controlled exclusively by the service department; sales cannot give me one. So I'm stuck at the MINI dealer 40+ minutes from home, still with a flat tire, and no way to fix it until tomorrow. Moreover, because this is a run-flat, it will probably require replacement, not repair. Sales guy tries to get his boss to give me a demo, but there are none to be given or permission is refused. I call my wife and asked her to drive 40 minutes to come get me while i cool my heels at the MINI dealership. The salesman suggests that the only thing he can think of is that I could drive my MINI home and once I got there, I can call the Roadside Assistance (which is free while the car is under warranty) who will come to my house and either tow Kate back to the dealer or put the spare tire on for me. This seems silly so I drive her to the service department and the salesman drive me back to wait for Cinda. Cinda arrives. Car fixed by 10:15 the next morning. If it hadn't been that would have been a WHOLE new issue. No problems since then.
At 5:00 I came out of work and climbed in Black Kate. Put my key fob in the socket (she doesn't have a proper key) and pushed the start button. Kate fired up and dinged that I needed to fasten my seat belt which I was doing. Then she tossed a funny little trill in at the end of her song causing me to look around. New cars are like that; they occasionally surprise you. I noted the low tire pressure light was one. Then I noticed it was RED. Now the low pressure light comes in two flavors: red and yellow. Yellow means low. Red means flat. Oh damn.
My first assumption was that I had somehow mis-re-calibrated the sensor when I was working through the instruction book Saturday. So I drove across the street to Motomart where there is free air. Now you may be wondering why didn't he just look at the tires? Remember, Kate has run-flats so you can't SEE a flat tire. Checked pressure on the driver's front and it was fine. Checked the driver's rear and it was fine. Checked the passenger front and it was flat. Found a large bolt/screw in the tire. Frak! Car is less than 48 hours old and I have a flat. But I bought the extended tire warranty and my tire's are covered against this for the first 50K miles or some such. I call the MINI dealer (sales) to advise them of the situation. Why sales? Well, they still had my paperwork on the warranty I bought and I had their number. I was told to bring the car right in and not to pull out the whatever it was. So off I go across town in Rush Hour with a flat tire (meaning no more than 50 mph) to the MINI dealer. I arrive at 6:05.
I then find out that service closed at 6:00. Moreover, service is at a different building about 4 blocks away. While I was told when we bought the car that they had 30 or so loaner MINI's to lend to people during service, those are controlled exclusively by the service department; sales cannot give me one. So I'm stuck at the MINI dealer 40+ minutes from home, still with a flat tire, and no way to fix it until tomorrow. Moreover, because this is a run-flat, it will probably require replacement, not repair. Sales guy tries to get his boss to give me a demo, but there are none to be given or permission is refused. I call my wife and asked her to drive 40 minutes to come get me while i cool my heels at the MINI dealership. The salesman suggests that the only thing he can think of is that I could drive my MINI home and once I got there, I can call the Roadside Assistance (which is free while the car is under warranty) who will come to my house and either tow Kate back to the dealer or put the spare tire on for me. This seems silly so I drive her to the service department and the salesman drive me back to wait for Cinda. Cinda arrives. Car fixed by 10:15 the next morning. If it hadn't been that would have been a WHOLE new issue. No problems since then.
Friday, June 5, 2009
ARRRRGHH! Thar be Black Kate!
Dateline 5 June, 2009
Black Kate, my new MINI Cooper arrived today. She’s a sophisticated little thing with beige leather interior, black body, white roof, and chrome trim bits. We even got the black and silver union jack side scuttle because Cinda liked the idea of a Pirate themed car and seemed to think the “Black Jack” scuttle was pirate themed. I don’t have white sport stripes because she threatened to call it Pepe’ because it looked like a skink. Likewise, I was not able to get yellow because then it “looked like a taxi” or “looked like a school bus.” I was also prevented from sky blue. Cinda probably would have gone with hunter green (“British Racing Green”) which would have looked sharp with the beige leather, but Green is a very common color of MINI and I wanted to avoid that. I’m also leery that green might lower resale. Red was way to common and I don’t favor pure metallic colors (silver, gold, etc.). The white wasn’t white; it was sort of a cream color. Went with a base Cooper because those still have spare tires but I upgraded to the 16 inch wheels which come with run-flats because there are more replacement options for the 16 inch size when the time comes. Because I had run-flats though, I opted for buying the tire maintenance warranty --- more on that later. Anyway, here she is … Black Kate. 2009 MINI Cooper Hardtop. Midnight Black with a white roof and chrome line package. Tuscan Leather interior with Piano Black trim. 6 speed manual transmission on a 1.6L engine putting out 118 horsepower and lots of torque. Automatic climate control, xenon headlights, front and rear fog lights, and 16” white bridgestone wheels. More pictures here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)