Moving people cures problems

The local NPR station is currently being sponsored by AstraZeneca so, of course, they occasionally name drop the sponsor with a short sentence or two of professionally crafted sloganizing or fluff. In this case the message (and I'm paraphrasing) is something along the line of: "Two-thirds of all diabetics live in cities. AstraZeneca is dedicated to changing this statistic." Unfortunately for them, I tend to think about the things people say and, as someone who studied communication, I tend to hold professional communicators to some semblance of a standard. (See my previous post about "talking turkey".) So I have to ask what AstraZeneca thinks it is saying here. Firstly, what is the percentage of the overall population found in cities? If it is also around two-thirds, having two-thirds of all diabetics be in the city does not seem problematic to me. And even if the statistic is somehow off, I am unclear what AstraZeneca proposes to do about it. Seriously, they can't be suggesting that somehow urban diabetics deserve more of a cure or that rural diabetics need to somehow bear a greater part of the burden in the name of fairness. Or are they saying they want to encourage diabetic people to relocate? Are they implying that cities cause diabetes (and thus that the solution might be to remove cities)? Why not simply say they are dedicated to curing diabetes and leave it at that? Why focus the comment on an urban-rural divide ratio like the ratio rather than the disease is somehow the problem? Heck, you could solve a ratio problem by increasing the number of diabetics in the under-represented population. I have no doubt that AstraZeneca is working hard to find (profitable) treatments for diabetes, and that their message is intended to show how dedicated they are to fighting the disease. I also do not think that is what their professional communicators said. It's simply sloppy and lazy, and I'm calling them on it just like I called FedEx when they had trucks running around identifying the brand as being "An FedEx Company."

Patent, Antitrust, the New York Times, and the Supreme Court

Recently (June 17th), the New York Times said this in an article on a recent Supreme Court case: “The case pitted a company’s constitutional right to protect its intellectual property — through reliance on a patent that excludes competitors — against antitrust law, which holds that a company cannot unfairly exclude others from legitimately entering a business with a rival product.” This has been bothering me because the basis for U.S. patent and copyright law in the U.S. Constitution says this: “[Congress has the power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” The latter is a far cry from being a “constitutional right to protect its intellectual property.” In fact, the U.S. copyright laws specifically reject the concept of any natural right or moral right in a work (whereas France for example does have such a doctrine). Instead, as the Constitution says, we allow the protection of copyrights and patents only to promote progress and, even then, only for a limited time. This is because any such exclusive right is viewed as being against the greater good of the society as represented by the First Amendment, free trade, a competitive marketplace, etc. It is quite simply NOT A RIGHT. It is a privilege extended by the government in order to entice people to invent. By contrast, antitrust law is (theoretically) all about enabling competition, free trade, etc. It is forever, not a limited time and is always viewed as being in the public good. This is not a new tension in the law – antitrust and patent have always been at odds. Aside from the “limited time” of the exclusivity, antitrust should win.

Change

This post was triggered, like so many of my others, by an NPR story. In this case the story was how young people have become so much more mistrustful of politicians and government. It triggered several thoughts. One reason given by a student was that they had voted for Obama and then nothing changed. They seem surprised by this. First, maybe their high school civics class failed them if they think that changing the President will change the government. Or maybe they did not allow for the fact that ours is a society with multiple views and that any "change" must necessarily accommodate those views, at least if they want to keep a democracy. And when did "change" get defined to mean good. It's idiotic to believe that all change, any change must be good, yet that seems to be the simplistic view of youth if NPR is correct. I suspect youth is a bit more nuanced than NPR gave them credit for. Still, if you think about it, "change" has become the sort of meaningless god-term for the left that "family values" has for the right. The respective sides just know it's the end-all be-all of goodness, but may well discover that they don't all have the same idea of what that term encompasses. Also, many things have been "changed" in ways to leave the left wringing its hands - several Supreme Court decisions come to mind. Finally, it seems odd to me that all these change-seekers who have become so distrustful of government and politics, seek a change wherein the government is used as the implement of the policy de jour. This seems... irreconcilable. Perhaps what we need is a better class of politician or the removal of term limits or maybe we need to stop deciding that the solution to extreme partisan politics is to elect even more extreme politicians to drown out the voices on the other side. Those, however, are topics for other posts.

Shopping with Credit Cards

So, I ran by the grocery store today and got a bag of apples and a bag of bagels. At checkout the lady asked to signature verify my credit card. I have to dig it back out so she can take the card, glance at the back of it, and give it back to me. She did not ask for a photo ID. I got to thinking which is always my mistake and realized just how dumb this process is. First, the electronic signature devices produce signatures that look nothing like the one on the back of the card. In fact, the e-signatures often look nothing like writing. Second, last I checked, the people working the grocery store check-out lanes are not handwriting experts and would not know a forged signature if it came over and bit them. She is not qualified to verify anything. Third, and this is the kicker, for purchases under a certain dollar amount (which this one was), the grocery store does not require the purchaser to sign. So... what was she verifying against? The only thing this process verifies is that there is actually *some* signature on the back of the card. Of course, if there isn't, I can always sign it right then and there to make it valid. They can't really say anything about that, though granted it might then cause an ID check. Still, I think that if I were going to use a stolen card, I would look it over and if the back was unsigned, then I'd sign it before I tried using it. And if the back was signed, I'd practice that signature a few times.

Political stunts

Republicans may filabuster but Democrats flee the state.

Illinois - Genius with a "J"

So our governor, realizing that state needs to reduce its spending, and not wanting to go after any entitlements or anything like that, seems to have proposed the following cuts to education:

1) We must consolidate school districts because we have too many and having fewer will reduce costs. This will mean closing schools, of course.

2) We will cut funding to the districts for their transportation budgets. They will have to pay for that themselves.

MY ISSUE: Having grown up rural, I know that if you close schools, you will necessarily force MORE and LONGER bus routes to get the kids to schools. Thus, consolidating school districts means you will see your bus costs go up, and buses already are a huge MANDATORY expense for rural districts. This strikes me as an unfunded mandate or at least an increased mandate coupled with decreased funding. Double wammie. The school districts will have to cut program and teaching to accommodate these new costs; that or ask for tax levies.

Democratic assumptions

With all the protests in Egypt right now and the talk of democracy, I feel obliged to point out a couple of things:

We ASSUME that a democracy will provide fair, just, human right conscious government. We assume it is better than an autocracy. We assume that democracies are more friendly to the Western democracies than other governments. This is not necessarily so. A democracy with no protection for the minorities can be a terrible thing. A democracy in a place that is majority anti-West is not in our interest.

Sarah Palin

It's two years since we elected Obama and I'm still reading headlines about Sarah Palin.

Query: Why is Sarah Palin even relevant to anything anymore? She was the governor of Alaska and basically a political nobody when McCain (McCane?) picked her as his VP candidate. (My opinions on that are documents elsewhere in this blog, I believe.) Together, they went down in one of the worst Republican presidential defeats in recent memory. As a political commentator, she says nothing new, unique, or even particularly insightful. Indeed, as far as I can tell, all she has done is make periodic statements and endorse various candidates. In Alaska, where they know her best, the candidate she endorsed lost to a WRITE-IN. In two other states, Nevada and Delaware, she and the Tea Party cost their party the elections and probably control of the Senate. Who the hell cares what she thinks, says, or does? Why is she even relevant to any political discussion in America?

My own stupidity...

Just to prove I'm an equal opportunity critic, here's a bit of my own stupidity. Sometime you just don't realize how bad you sound until you read it in print.

Q (by me): Were you aware that XXXX and her husband were having marital problems?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that after he died?

A: Yes.

This just in....

Basic Civil Liberties Threaten People's Security. Details at 11. (This parody of an actual insipid headline brought to you by Common Sense.)

Because passing regulations is the solution to everything - Euro Stupidity

Heard on NPR today that the Transportation Minister of the EU is outraged at the problems being caused by the heavy snowfall across Europe. If the airports can't handle it, he wants to increase regulation.

'Cause that's the solution to everything. By God, we'll slap a regulation in that limits the amount of snow an airport can experience in any given period. That'll fix 'em.

"We compromised on eight."

"The Conservatives wanted six; the Liberals wanted four; we compromised on eight." - Winston Churchill.

I cannot swear to the exact accuracy of the previous quote, but it is more or less accurate. It has to do with the British government's internal arguments on naval spending circa 1909. The Admiralty wanted to build six battleships that year, but Churchill and Lloyd George wanted four. A crisis in the form of a scare about German naval building occurred and when the dust settled, Parliament authorized the building of eight battleships.

This quote is mentioned because it came to mind after reading that the President was going to sign the tax compromise bill this afternoon. Everyone seems to agree that the deficit is a problem and the economy is a problem. The Dems want to expand unemployment to pay benefits for a longer time, costing the tax payer money. They argue this puts money in the hands of people who will spend it and stimulates the economy. The GOP wants to keep taxes low, allowing people to keep more money and hopes they will then spend or invest it. This also costs the taxpayer's money, albeit while avoiding a tax rise that would, excuse the expression, tax the resources of many families. Note that both scheme cost the government money, and in this year of urgency about the growing debt, what do we do? We adopt both.

Doing neither would substantially raise the amount of income the government has. Doing both seems the worst possible thing, so, of course, that's what we did. And it's not the first time. Frequently, in the past, when the two major parties could not agree nor one prevail, they solve the problem by spending more while reducing the government's income at the same time. It's moronic and unsustainable.

Death of a St. Louis Icon

Yesterday marked the last day of the last broadcast of KFUO 99.1 FM, AKA Classic 99, one of the few private classic radio stations. KFUO was owned by the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, LCMS, and had been operating as a classic music station, one of the best in the country, for 62 years. Then LCMS sold it to some funko Jhesus group. (You have to put the "h" in Jesus because it's the first letter of the word "holy.") I guess they did not see it as important to their mission any longer, and I think I heard that they were loosing money on it. As my father noted, I want to hate the LCMS for this, but I wasn't contributing to keep the station going, and they can sell their property if they want to. Still, I will miss it.

So my wife and I sat in the living room last night and listened to the last hour of Classic 99. They went out, flags flying, playing Beethoven's 9th, Ode to Joy.

Conflict Metal

Here's another NPR triggered story: NPR today did a piece on conflict metals which are basically like conflict diamonds except that they are precious or industrial metals, not gems. NPR interviewed a bunch of folks who were demonstrating outside Intel in Portland, Oregon, against the use of conflict metals in computer chip manufacturing. Seems they want Congress to pass a law making companies accountable for their supply chains to make sure that no conflict metals are being used in that company's products.

I think my first question is why should a vocal minority be allowed to impose its conscience on the rest of the world?

Right behind that, my next thought was that these people were trying to impose on the company an obligation that they seemed to lazy to undertake themselves. I'll explain. At every step of the supply line, you can look back at the supply line, but that line also runs forward by which I mean the customer is also part of the process and if they sell the product to another customer, like a used car, they are now part of the chain. So, if you don't like a company's manufacturing process, then don't buy its product or even better make yourself, the consumer legally responsible for the origin of the components. And, if your answer is that you don't know if the product is made with materials that make a profit for a group you think is morally repugnant, then think about that for just a second. If you don't know, and, thus, it is not fair for you to have to be accountable for your use, why is it fair to make a company accountable for where the people they buy from get their stuff? If you can't be bothered to go find out, why should you make them do it for you?

Oh I know; I know. It's because you are morally right and true and brave and wise and anointed and all that and that GIVES you the right to create laws like this. And it means that you have the right to use the government to impose your true and noble nature on everyone else when you can't get enough people voluntarily involved in your cause that they would cease to purchase the product based on their own sense of morality. Certainly, it would NEVER mean that if you can't get enough people to voluntarily boycott the product, it is because they don't care enough to find out if it is in the class of evil products or maybe even, gasp, disagree with you. No, you have to do what's best for them. Because you know it far better then they, the poor little things. Onward, Utopia! Huzzah!

NPR

I haven't posted in a long time - Shame on me. I am really good of thinking of things to post when I'm driving too, probably because I have no way to note it down or post it. Anyway, this one I remembered.

Last Thursday (I think), Steve Innskeep or Carl Castle or someone on NPR was interviewing a Harvard MBA about an MBA code of ethics which the subject had developed. The NPR guy said something during the interview that roughly was, "the bank gives you a loan it shouldn't have, and you get foreclosed." That phrase struck me enough that I tuned out most of the rest of the interview.

I should note that the phrase was not the focus of the question at the time. Rather it was just tossed off like it was a common knowledge fact. For example, it was said in the same manner that someone might mention that if a car runs out of gas, it won't run.

What drivel! Does anyone else see a cause and effect problem there. The question implies that if the homeowner is subjected to a foreclosure, it is, inter alia, the BANK'S fault. It does not even allow for the idea that just possibly, in the ultra rare case, something other than the evil bank might be at fault when a foreclosure happens. I dunno, maybe the homeowner lost their job and couldn't make the payments. Maybe they are an addict and chose not to make the payments. Maybe the homeowner violated another term of the mortgage? Maybe the homeowner should have known better than to take out a loan like that? Maybe, the homeowner lied on the loan application. I'm sure though that someone thinks that last one is the bank's fault too; after all they should have anticipated that borrowers might lie and thus be responsible for protecting the borrower from his/her own stupidity and greed.

CAVEAT: This post should not be read to imply that I think banks are blameless - I happen to detest big banks. However, I am really tired of having John Q blame everyone, banks, government regulators, etc. EXCEPT the homeowners.

A date which will live in infamy

Washington DC,
December 8, 1941

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.

-F.D.R.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There is an ad running around here from a car dealer named suntrap Kia. In the ad, a person is asking questions to a car dealer and the dealer is only responding with turkey gobble noises. The ad then says basically that if you are tired of other dealers talking turkey to you, you should come to Suntrup Kia. The inference here being that Suntrup does not talk turkey to its customers. The ad is cutely seasonal in that it is presently around Thanksgiving.

Now, maybe I’m just a bit odd because I actually think about what an ad actually says, but I can’t help but note that to “talk turkey” means to talk honestly. That’s what I remember and that’s what thesaurus.com says. In fact, thesaurus.com (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/talk+turkey) adds that to “talk turkey” is a synonym for “get down to brass tacks, make no bones about it, mince no words.” I would think that I would WANT a car dealer to talk turkey to me, especially when the antonyms are “devious,” “dishonest,” “indirect,” and “wily.”

This also means that what the cute little seasonal Suntrap ad is saying is that if you are tired of other dealers talking honestly and directly to you, you should come to Suntrup. The inference is then that at Suntrup, they don’t talk honestly or directly when trying to sell you a car. That is about the stupidest thing a car dealer could advertise; that they are dishonest. And if they aren’t dishonest, then they are just idiots for running an ad where they don't know what they are saying. Either way, would YOU buy a car from these guys?

Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!

Gas Leak

There was a natural gas leak up the street that caused the city to decide to evacuate a six block area. When we got home from work we found two messages on the answering machine. The first message was the fire department telling us we needed to evacuate. The second was also the fire department -- telling us we could come home again.

Query: Why would you call the home you ordered evacuated to tell them they could come home?

Allstate

You may recall my previous post on Geico's stupid commercial. Well, apparently stupid advertising is not limited to Geico, because Allstate does it too. More to the point, Allstate assumes you are stupid.

A recent ad showing a lot on TV has their spokesman saying you'll be surprised by how much people save by switching to Allstate; or at least that's what they want you to come away with. But what they really say (with a slightly different emphasis) is "People who*switched* from Geico to Allstate saved" some amount of money. Query: If I wasn't going to save, why would I switch? In fact, if only 1 person in the whole world saved by using Allstate over Geico and that person switched and saved $700, the they could say that people who switched to Allstate from Geico saved an average of $700. Even if everyone else saved $1000 switching from Allstate to Geico.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who saw this too. So, hey Allstate, how about telling us what the average person pays on the same average policy between you and Geico? Or would that statistic be too useful to consumers?

Disclaimer: Author insures with Erie Ins. Co.

Being number two

On NPR today, they were interviewing Gale someone who seems to have written a book. I would assume that she is a feminist based on the topic and the questions. The host asked her if now that since in almost every college the number of women outnumber the number of men and women are 50% of the work force was feminism done?

She responded by saying it had changed and then launched out with this little gem: She observed that when there are two sexes, one will always be ahead in something and one behind. When the host asked, she concluded that it was okay to be in the top two.

Now, I understand that there is a difference in just being second and having everyone assume you are not as good and therefore second. However, saying basically that it is okay to be number two because someone has to do it, sounds distinctly contrary to the position espoused by most feminists for the last 90 years and especially the last 40 years. How would they have reacted if some male pundit on some radio show when asked why there were more men in the workplace, college, politics, etc. replied, "Someone has to be number two."