The Left Behinds probably want “under God” to stay, but are they calling for this, too?
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to theRepublicDemocracy for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
The water is rising in New Orleans again, which means here we go again.
“I’m sticking it out,” said Florida Richardson, who sat on her front porch in Algiers, holding her grandson on her lap. “This house is 85 years old. It’s seen a lot of tornadoes and a lot of hurricanes. You can’t run from the power of God.”
But you can drive from it. Maybe she can’t drive away; the article doesn’t make it clear. Why, though, the immediate descent into defeatism rooted in a vengeful, almighty God? I suspect I’ll never understand it.
Reports of data theft appear on the front page with increasing regularity now that technology makes it easier to swipe such data. Lax security also contributes, making consumers more vulnerable to fraud and identity theft. In response to one recent theft of Visa and MasterCard account information, this is in the news:
Testing the bounds of consumer protection laws, Visa USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. are headed for court to determine whether they are obliged to notify 264,000 customers that a computer hacker stole their account information.
The dispute to be argued Friday in San Francisco County Superior Court revolves around a highly publicized security breakdown at CardSystems Solutions Inc., one of the nation’s largest payment processors.
Although a ruling in the class-action consumer lawsuit wouldn’t have legal standing outside the state, it would increase the pressure on Visa and MasterCard to notify all affected accountholders in this and any future breaches.
I have no specific opinion about the legal aspects, but I’m intrigued by the business implications. My first inclination is that of course they should notify all affected accountholders. If Visa and MasterCard can’t protect my data sufficiently, I should know about that. More importantly, if thieves stole my information, I want to know so that I can be aware of the potential. I expect the banks holding my accounts to notify me, which leads to this:
San Francisco-based Visa and Purchase, N.Y.-based MasterCard maintain that responsibility should fall to the myriad banks that administer the accounts because neither credit card association has direct relationships with the affected customers.
I don’t specifically care how the backroom processing happens. Someone needs to notify me. If Visa and MasterCard decide that the banks should notify me, great. Negotiate it into the contracts with those banks. Visa and MasterCard are significant brands with a reputation that banks want to latch onto. Both companies have bargaining power there. But this doesn’t count as a justification:
In their legal briefs, Visa and MasterCard have argued there’s little chance any affected customer will lose a cent because of the association’s long-standing policies to reverse all charges for fraudulent transactions. The “zero liability” policy lessens the need to alert individual customers about the fraud risks, said MasterCard spokeswoman Sharon Gamsin.
In a statement, Visa also said it is comfortable with its anti-fraud measures. But both companies worry that the opposite message might be sent if they are ordered to warn individual customers.
“Such an order would harm the banks’ goodwill because some customers would certainly be confused by the notice and believe the issuing banks were somehow to blame for the security breach,” Visa’s attorneys argued in a court brief.
I’m not too stupid to understand English. Explain what happened and I’ll understand it. I’ll probably be able to decipher who’s at fault. However, perhaps they’re right that I’ll confuse the issue and blame the wrong party. That implies that Visa and MasterCard should work smarter at protecting data. If the banks don’t want to harm their goodwill, they’ll put pressure on Visa and MasterCard to improve security. They have bargaining power, too. If they think that acting as an extra line of protection for their customers won’t help their goodwill (if for no other reason than preventing loss of goodwill in cases like this), they’re stupider than I think they are.
I don’t have the market power to spank Visa or MasterCard, or even an individual bank. But a group of customers might force that pressure on a bank. The bank might then have minimal ability to change Visa and MasterCard by itself, but a group of banks most definitely has that ability. This lawsuit is proof that no one is powerless in the free market. A lawsuit may not be the best or most appropriate way to force change, but it’s usually effective. Visa and MasterCard should remember that where business refuses to regulate itself, government is more than willing to step and do the job. Me, I’d rather see self-regulation but I guess we know where Visa and MasterCard stand.
I decided a few days ago to write about the debt madness gripping President Bush and Congress, planning to explain how servicing the increasing national debt will crush us economically as the growing interest payments overwhelm our ability to pay for government with reasonable taxes. MSNBC beat me to it.
The cost of hocking ourselves to the eyeballs shows up in the line of the federal budget that says how much interest we’re paying. Interest will run about $350 billion in the current fiscal year, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It rises to $385 billion next year, $426 billion the year after and so on. This is without Katrina. Just the interest on Katrina-call it 4 percent on $200 billion-is $8 billion a year. While $8 billion is trivial in a world of $2 trillion federal budgets, it’s still $40 billion over five years. That’s more than the aforementioned $35 billion of social-spending cuts would save.
Anyone who’s ever gotten himself into credit card debt understands the basic principal behind this. Borrow a little money and the interest payments are wasteful but manageable. Borrow a little more and the trouble begins. Fail to increase income or reduce expenses and the growing interest payments become a snowball. I did this in college and it took me a decade to dig out of it. The difference between me and the federal government is that I acknowledged my recklessness and adjusted.
Remember, President Clinton and Congress balanced the budget in the mid-1990s (with help from the Social Security Trust Fraud Fund, but rigged and balanced is better than rigged and deficit). Then the electorate gave complete control to one party (the “fiscal conservatives”, no less) and the budget flailed about, spitting out money without burning its own fat or gobbling any new funds to meet the demand. Under President Clinton, tax increases enabled the balancing. I don’t support tax increases now, and even if anyone in power did, it’s not going to happen. That leaves cost-cutting. Every time Congress votes for more pork and every time the president signs that pork, know that there are real consequences. And those consequences grow every year.
Since Subway never responded to my letter, I’m happy to see this story:
It was a situation clerks have faced again and again: customers upset by the discontinuation of rewards programs at franchises. But business owners say the programs simply cannot continue.
The reason: fraud.
In a world of home laser printers and multimedia PCs, counterfeiting has become increasingly easy. With materials available at any office supply store, those with a cursory knowledge of photo-editing software can duplicate the business-card-size rewards cards once punched at Cold Stone Creamery or the stamps once given out at Subway sandwich shops.
People are counterfeiting Subway stamps? And selling them on eBay, as the article points out? Who thinks to search eBay for Subway stamps?
All of that is certainly bizarre, but perhaps it occurred to someone somewhere that maybe a little technology could fix a problem caused by technology. Perhaps Subway executives have even seen it in action in a grocery store or gas station. Those places only try to get me to sign up for their Reward/Frequent Shopper/Super Saver/Generally Swell Guy cards every single time I shop at their establishments. The thought didn’t even have to be original. Observe. It’s such a basic business technique, it’s stunning that Subway missed it. (Cold Stone Creamery is featured in the article, as well, but I don’t hate them, so I’m only picking on them in in this paranthetical aside. Though, they do sell dairy products, so maybe I should… nah, I’m not that type of vegan. Screw Subway.)
And there’s this to consider:
And while the new system’s upfront costs might be high, it may reap larger rewards for the companies in the long run. As grocery stores have learned, the market research gleaned through establishing databases while handing out discounts can turn swipe cards into a winning formula very quickly.
Which is exactly why I never sign up for those cards or give my phone number to cashiers. I understand that I’m losing out on HUGE SAVINGS, but I’ll take my chances. Except at Best Buy. Best Buy is good. Best Buy gives me gift certificates for swiping my Reward Zone card. I like gift certificates. But I hate junk mail and telemarketers and all that useless, invasive crap. I’ll pay three cents extra for my tofu, thanks. I like the capitalistic idea that they’ll give me the best price without a gimmick and I’ll give them money without hesitation. Everything else is a time-waster. How about this sign on the entrance to every store:
We won’t sell you out.
Subway won’t clean a knife before cutting a sandwich. Why would anyone think they’ll respect customers enrolled in the electronic Sub Club?
The tide is changing in Japan, too. Consider:
Phimosis is the word used to describe the condition where the foreskin can’t be pulled back over the top of the glans, and it’s long been a topic of discussion in Japan’s weeklies. Common belief here has it that the problem can easily be solved through circumcision, but growing numbers of Japanese physicians are arguing that it’s no longer necessary to inflict the “cruelest cut of all” to solve the condition.
“It’s a big mistake to have made phimosis such a problem in the first place. Medically, there’s absolutely nothing wrong at all,” Eiji Ishikawa, head of the Ishikawa Clinic and one of Japan’s most prominent urologists, tells Shukan Gendai. “Actually, phimosis is more like the natural condition and there’re more health problems involved when lopping off the foreskin. Western views on this condition have changed drastically over the past 30 years.”
Just so you know.
The Indian government is implementing a new policy to change a societal perception. Consider:
The Indian government says it will reward girls from single child families with free education and other benefits.
…Under the plan, education for such girls will be made free at secondary level. They will also be given scholarships for postgraduate study.
The government says the policy will apply to all schools and colleges, both government and privately run.
Apparently India is much like other countries in South Asia, with parents feeling strong societal pressure to have male children. Unsurprisingly, this leads to selective abortions and excessive breeding to properly shape families. As the 2001 Indian census shows, its population stands at “933 women per thousand men”. This can’t continue, so it makes sense that the government wants to try something. But I’m not sure this move will be appropriate to achieve a gender balance. It seems this will lead to more selective abortions of boys than anything else. Child-raising as lottery seems wrong-headed, at best.
Obviously, I don’t think something like this would ever work in America, but it did raise an interesting question or two. If we tried something with this level of blatant gender discrimination, how long would it hold up? Would it even pass? I doubt it, but I don’t really see how it’s different than any other legal discrimination preferences we apply to education and jobs and wherever else we’ve identified discrepancies not rooted in merit. I wonder, though, in a hypothetical America where this plan passed, how long it would take the eldest daughter in a family to sue her parents if she could no longer afford school because her free education ended when the parents conceived another child.
Anyone have any better ideas for solving a gender imbalance within a population than this Indian plan?
A few weeks ago, Danielle and I test drove a Toyota Prius. I prefer Volkswagens but gas mileage is key now that we live further out. More driving equals more fuel and the under-thirty-miles-per-gallon is no longer acceptable. Yet, there’s also the cool technological aspect of hybrids in general and the Prius specifically. I like the idea of staring at the touch-screen in the most feature-laden model, watching a graphical representation of what the engine is doing. I’m not sure I understand how the energy captured from braking recharges the battery if the car drives on the highway, across the country, but the brochures indicate that it happens. I’m a sucker for technological hype. But, again, the fuel savings is most important, which is why I’m turning against the diesel Jetta. That attention to gas mileage is probably more a side-effect of me being an earth-crunchy vegan than a capitalist, but I’m still delaying the decision because of the selfish, non-earth-crunchy vegan part of me that still wants to drive a manual transmission. Toyota doesn’t offer a manual transmission in the Prius.
Instead, they offer this:
Oh, it’s a thing of beauty, but without a clutch, it makes no sense to the untrained driver. With the Prius, the driver pushes start, followed by using that knob to shift the car into gear. When parking the car, the driver, brakes the car to a stop, pushes the park button, and pushes the off button. There is no need to involve the gear knob in the process. This makes no sense to me, of course. I’ve driven cars with manual transmissions since almost the day I received my driver’s license in July 1989. I forget to put automatic transmissions in park when I park them. I stomp the floor trying to find the clutch. The mechanisms of a manual transmission are ingrained into my knowledge of how to drive a car. Without them, I’m lost. So I think I can be forgiven my logical yet incorrect instinct to shift the car out of Drive. I would be wrong, though, for this is what I heard when I did exactly that at the end of the test drive.
No! I told you not to touch that! Hngggggggtt¹
I sat still, as stunned as a four-year-old caught playing with his toy battleships in the toilet. Did he just yell at me? Would the car blow up because I shifted the gear knob? Perhaps, I concluded. This new-fangled technology was hard, but I wouldn’t be so stupid if they’d built the car correctly, with a manual transmission and a clutch. Granted, most people interested in hybrids for fuel efficiency are too busy talking with Greenpeace on their cell phone to shift gears, but some weird folks like me have control issues, eliminating any potential joy offered by the convenience of an automatic transmission. And I hate cell phones, so the Bluetooth feature is wasteful. Less Bluetooth and more clutch next time. But I digress.
Like I said, I still haven’t decided whether or not to buy a Prius. I like the idea of it, but I’m not sure I’ll enjoy the reality of it. No manual transmission is a poor marketing tool. And don’t get me start on the lack of built-in Sirius. Throw in a snorting, yelling salesman and I don’t know that I’m willing to sign over that many dollars when there will be a greater choice in hybrids within a few years.
Did I mention that the salesman yelled at me?
¹ – Imagine excess phlegm snorted from the throat into the nose with a sound mimicking snoring. That’s what that is.
Unlike what I do here, this shows what partisanship looks like:
Give ’em hell, Harry.
Hey Dems, here’s an easy one for you: follow the leader.
I’ll pull the plug here before I’ll resort to that sort of blind, non-thinking partisanship, especially when it comes to following someone like Sen. Reid. Why? Because I have enough sense to understand that opposition for the sake of opposition is unwise. In this instance, opposing Judge Roberts because he’s a Bush nominee is counter-productive. President Bush has the votes in Congress to get Judge Roberts confirmed. History dictates that presidents deserve a high barrier to rejection for Court nominees. All that comes into play here.
I expressed reservations about Judge Roberts when President Bush nominated him, but I think he should be confirmed. I’ve seen no giant red flags that he’s going to treat the Constitution as little better than toilet paper, so what would I gain from trying to block him, or even vote against him if I were a senator? If any nominee will face opposition, the president has no incentive to compromise. Playing “follow the leader” on this only enflames the partisan war, forcing a perpetuation of the “hate President Bush” theme on the Left and the perception of that theme on the Right. All Sen. Reid is doing is encouraging President Bush to nominate an extremist to the Court to fill Justice O’Connor’s position. Democrats honestly think this will inspire voters? It may boost fund-raising at Move On, but it doesn’t win elections. I have too much sense to attach myself to symbols instead of ideas. That’s the standard I hold myself to when I write about politics.
I’ve made numerous suggestions throughout these pages, but here is a summary to accompany my bitching:
Should I go on?
When I post something that is bitching, I don’t do it because I want to score points or I’m devoid of any solutions. I bitch because I see hypocrisy in supporting everything the president or Congress or whoever says without any acknowledgement that something negative might exist. I bitch because we deserve better leaders and we can have them, but the first action is showing that the ones we have are incompetent or unwilling to fix this mess.
I’ve supported the Left in the past because I know the Right is fucking things up, which does not mean I believe the Left is better. But the Left is not in control of the government now. If they were spending us into oblivion or taxing the economy into recession or expanding the federal government as a matter of political giveaway or paternalism, I’d say so, as well.
For what it’s worth, I think they will do the same in 2006 or 2008 or whenever they return to power. but I’m not pointing out their nonsense because it’s so hysterical and lacking in leadership and common sense that it speaks for itself. That’s why I’ve advocated for having a viable third-party candidate in 2008. I want someone who will force the federal government to do what it should (national defense, legal system) and stop doing what it shouldn’t (education, censorship, general paternalism). It may not be spelled out every time I post, but there are enough statements and obvious inferences that I don’t feel the need to list them every time I bitch about some idiot politician or partisan hack.
And I’ll keep doing the same.
