"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Bad Arguments: "But What about That?"
Awesome quote from Johann Hari on bad arguments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-a_b_185787.html
There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web. It is known as "what-aboutery."
When you have lost an argument -- when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?" You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it -- hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.
Or, as my friend Slawek says, "Just 'cause you punched someone in the face, it means you should kick him in the b*lls too?" In other words, mentioning something unrelated to the specific issue cannot make your proposal okay by default. In fact, that kind of discourse is a mere distraction, like, "Sure, California is going bankrupt, but those drug dealers down the street are really terrible." My immediate mental response to this kind of "argument" is, "Sigh...yet another person who needs a symbolic logic course."
Anyway, below is an example of "what-aboutery," from an ordinarily very smart and witty person. I make a comment that government workers, including teachers, should view furlough days as necessary to prevent state employee layoffs. A state employee (and very well-respected former law school classmate) responds:
Teachers are not the culprits during these tough times, nor are government employees – except on the same level that all citizens of this nation are culpable for our years of willful ignorance.
Reflect on how we got into this mess. While you may consider anyone working outside the private sector as suckling at the public teat, your ire is misdirected: the biggest galactophages are those considered 'too big to fail.' How ironic that their peculiar form of 'socialism' is meant not to help the poor, but those who make Croesus appear the pauper. One wonders, how many teachers could have been paid a living wage out of the thinnest slice of that $700 billion wheel of government cheese?
The function of this government is not to drop and gobble when Wall Street snaps its fat fingers; to pay the rich and hope they pass the gristle down in the form of job creation and loans. (And Wall Street has shown it will not share: it has stopped lending, raised interest rates or retracted credit, and rewarded the destroyers for continuing the destruction.)
Properly, the function of this government is to allow its citizens the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education is the singular cornerstone upon which these rights of self-determination are built.
To place this in your terms, think of how many self-propelled and self-augmented small business owners could arise from all that learnin' those teachers would provide – should they be given the proper resources. You should encourage those having an employment that serves the people to do just that: serve the people; as opposed to your stance that some are suffering, ergo, all* must suffer. (*read, excepting Wall Street).
Here's my response:
Listen, I don't like Wall Street's excesses any more than you do--but I am not going to excuse out-of-control gov spending (80% increase in the past 10 yrs!) and unusual public sector benefits just because someone says, "What about Wall Street?"
You say that education is the cornerstone of fundamental rights. But no one is trying to separate children from an adequate education. (This is called a "straw man" argument.) In fact, California's Constitution requires that school coffers receive first crack at the largess:
"From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education."
Instead, we are questioning why certain workers have guaranteed benefits while others do not. We are questioning why state workers have access to $201.9 billion in pension assets while 12% of the state is unemployed. [And far more people lack any substantial retirement plan beyond Social Security.] We are questioning why state spending has increased 80% in the past ten years without a concomitant increase in liberty, life expectancy, and happiness. We are questioning why state workers--such as yourself--are complaining about furlough days when such days are necessary to prevent layoffs.
We want government workers to be on the same level as the people who pay their salaries and benefits. Is that too much to ask?
His rebuttal:
I question why you think a government worker has no right to express frustration at the present situation. It does not serve the state of California to furlough revenue collecting agency employees: save $60 million, but lose out on $600 million in uncollected revenue.
But this discussion is about a teacher furlough. Yet you shortchange a student by giving him or her only 92% of the days to learn 100% of the curriculum and then send them off to compete on standardized tests against students from other states without the furlough.
My response to his rebuttal:
Finally, someone pulls out the "Think of the children!" rhetoric. You are assuming that children who receive seventeen fewer days of instruction will end up worse off. Quality matters more than quantity. Think about it--17 extra days with a crappy teacher will harm a child, not help him.
Also, parents and their expectations matter far more in establishing academic success than any particular teacher or length of instruction. There are exceptions, of course. For example, see The Hobart Shakespeareans. Note, however, that one reason this program works is b/c it is non-traditional and isolates highly motivated students. Unfortunately, such programs are rare exceptions, in part due to pushback from unions and public school teachers, who fail to advocate innovation and who refuse to accept competition from charter schools.
Bottom line: any gov worker who complains about furlough days either fails to understand basic finance (i.e., if an employer doesn't have money, it can't pay its workers) or prefers state employee layoffs.
I don't question gov workers' right to complain, but I wish gov employees could see the frustration in the private sector now that unemployment benefits are expiring. When 12% of Californians--almost all of them non-gov employees--are in danger of losing their homes and don't know whether they can feed their kids, complaining about an 8% to 14% pay cut seems obscene.
Quite frankly, gov unions should have volunteered for higher pay cuts instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Unfortunately, the Republicans/rich and the Democrats/gov unions put their own interests above the poor, the weak, and the disabled when they passed the budget. So much for public service.
His response:
What do you want? Everybody is frustrated. Should our employment go away, we are all in danger of losing our homes. Government unions did offer concessions, the contract did not pass the governor's desk. So rather than putting all on equal footing, the State has balanced the budget by targeting some state workers, as well as social service programs for the poor and underserved.
You speak of equal footing. How does working for the government place one on unequal footing? Should government workers to be allowed to accept gifts? Should they be allowed to invest, without disclosure, in any company they see fit? Should their salaries be made private and not published in the newspaper? Should they be allowed profit sharing and bonuses in good times? Make partner? Matching fund 401K plans? Should they go away on weekend 'team-building' retreats to Napa?
What do you want?
After ending the discussion by citing a Simpsons quote on unions, I sent him a message addressing his questions. Basically, I want a middle class (and a third viable political party).
Bonus: if you scroll down this post, you will find a discussion on the tragic Fort Hood shootings, where one person compares the shootings to 9/11, and I promptly expose her lack of reasoning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/how-to-spot-a-lame-lame-a_b_185787.html
There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web. It is known as "what-aboutery."
When you have lost an argument -- when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?" You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it -- hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.
Or, as my friend Slawek says, "Just 'cause you punched someone in the face, it means you should kick him in the b*lls too?" In other words, mentioning something unrelated to the specific issue cannot make your proposal okay by default. In fact, that kind of discourse is a mere distraction, like, "Sure, California is going bankrupt, but those drug dealers down the street are really terrible." My immediate mental response to this kind of "argument" is, "Sigh...yet another person who needs a symbolic logic course."
Anyway, below is an example of "what-aboutery," from an ordinarily very smart and witty person. I make a comment that government workers, including teachers, should view furlough days as necessary to prevent state employee layoffs. A state employee (and very well-respected former law school classmate) responds:
Teachers are not the culprits during these tough times, nor are government employees – except on the same level that all citizens of this nation are culpable for our years of willful ignorance.
Reflect on how we got into this mess. While you may consider anyone working outside the private sector as suckling at the public teat, your ire is misdirected: the biggest galactophages are those considered 'too big to fail.' How ironic that their peculiar form of 'socialism' is meant not to help the poor, but those who make Croesus appear the pauper. One wonders, how many teachers could have been paid a living wage out of the thinnest slice of that $700 billion wheel of government cheese?
The function of this government is not to drop and gobble when Wall Street snaps its fat fingers; to pay the rich and hope they pass the gristle down in the form of job creation and loans. (And Wall Street has shown it will not share: it has stopped lending, raised interest rates or retracted credit, and rewarded the destroyers for continuing the destruction.)
Properly, the function of this government is to allow its citizens the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Education is the singular cornerstone upon which these rights of self-determination are built.
To place this in your terms, think of how many self-propelled and self-augmented small business owners could arise from all that learnin' those teachers would provide – should they be given the proper resources. You should encourage those having an employment that serves the people to do just that: serve the people; as opposed to your stance that some are suffering, ergo, all* must suffer. (*read, excepting Wall Street).
Here's my response:
Listen, I don't like Wall Street's excesses any more than you do--but I am not going to excuse out-of-control gov spending (80% increase in the past 10 yrs!) and unusual public sector benefits just because someone says, "What about Wall Street?"
You say that education is the cornerstone of fundamental rights. But no one is trying to separate children from an adequate education. (This is called a "straw man" argument.) In fact, California's Constitution requires that school coffers receive first crack at the largess:
"From all state revenues there shall first be set apart the moneys to be applied by the State for support of the public school system and public institutions of higher education."
Instead, we are questioning why certain workers have guaranteed benefits while others do not. We are questioning why state workers have access to $201.9 billion in pension assets while 12% of the state is unemployed. [And far more people lack any substantial retirement plan beyond Social Security.] We are questioning why state spending has increased 80% in the past ten years without a concomitant increase in liberty, life expectancy, and happiness. We are questioning why state workers--such as yourself--are complaining about furlough days when such days are necessary to prevent layoffs.
We want government workers to be on the same level as the people who pay their salaries and benefits. Is that too much to ask?
His rebuttal:
I question why you think a government worker has no right to express frustration at the present situation. It does not serve the state of California to furlough revenue collecting agency employees: save $60 million, but lose out on $600 million in uncollected revenue.
But this discussion is about a teacher furlough. Yet you shortchange a student by giving him or her only 92% of the days to learn 100% of the curriculum and then send them off to compete on standardized tests against students from other states without the furlough.
My response to his rebuttal:
Finally, someone pulls out the "Think of the children!" rhetoric. You are assuming that children who receive seventeen fewer days of instruction will end up worse off. Quality matters more than quantity. Think about it--17 extra days with a crappy teacher will harm a child, not help him.
Also, parents and their expectations matter far more in establishing academic success than any particular teacher or length of instruction. There are exceptions, of course. For example, see The Hobart Shakespeareans. Note, however, that one reason this program works is b/c it is non-traditional and isolates highly motivated students. Unfortunately, such programs are rare exceptions, in part due to pushback from unions and public school teachers, who fail to advocate innovation and who refuse to accept competition from charter schools.
Bottom line: any gov worker who complains about furlough days either fails to understand basic finance (i.e., if an employer doesn't have money, it can't pay its workers) or prefers state employee layoffs.
I don't question gov workers' right to complain, but I wish gov employees could see the frustration in the private sector now that unemployment benefits are expiring. When 12% of Californians--almost all of them non-gov employees--are in danger of losing their homes and don't know whether they can feed their kids, complaining about an 8% to 14% pay cut seems obscene.
Quite frankly, gov unions should have volunteered for higher pay cuts instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor. Unfortunately, the Republicans/rich and the Democrats/gov unions put their own interests above the poor, the weak, and the disabled when they passed the budget. So much for public service.
His response:
What do you want? Everybody is frustrated. Should our employment go away, we are all in danger of losing our homes. Government unions did offer concessions, the contract did not pass the governor's desk. So rather than putting all on equal footing, the State has balanced the budget by targeting some state workers, as well as social service programs for the poor and underserved.
You speak of equal footing. How does working for the government place one on unequal footing? Should government workers to be allowed to accept gifts? Should they be allowed to invest, without disclosure, in any company they see fit? Should their salaries be made private and not published in the newspaper? Should they be allowed profit sharing and bonuses in good times? Make partner? Matching fund 401K plans? Should they go away on weekend 'team-building' retreats to Napa?
What do you want?
After ending the discussion by citing a Simpsons quote on unions, I sent him a message addressing his questions. Basically, I want a middle class (and a third viable political party).
Bonus: if you scroll down this post, you will find a discussion on the tragic Fort Hood shootings, where one person compares the shootings to 9/11, and I promptly expose her lack of reasoning.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Furlough Days = No Mass Layoff Days
"Furlough" days would be a lot more popular if we called them by their proper name, i.e. "Thank God We Didn't Lay Off Thousands of Government Employee" Days. The state doesn't have the money to pay all of its bills, including employee salaries. When a business runs into this problem, they lay off workers. California, on the other hand, gives its workers three day weekends and avoids mass layoffs. Somehow, government workers find reasons to complain.
When California discovers a money tree that pays 100% of everyone's salaries regardless of the state's fiscal condition, let me know. Until then, hooray for furlough--I mean, no mass layoff days!
In the meantime, let's keep looking for the special government-salary-and-benefits-tree, where money drops out of out thin air, unrelated to the state's economy and actual tax revenue.
When California discovers a money tree that pays 100% of everyone's salaries regardless of the state's fiscal condition, let me know. Until then, hooray for furlough--I mean, no mass layoff days!
In the meantime, let's keep looking for the special government-salary-and-benefits-tree, where money drops out of out thin air, unrelated to the state's economy and actual tax revenue.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
To Be a Muslim is to Be Jewish and Christian Also
Interesting article on European Muslims here.
If you call yourself a Muslim, I believe you must also consider yourself Jewish and Christian. The Prophet Mohammad has said that the three Abrahamic religions are essentially the same:
Abu Hurairah reported Allah's Messenger as saying, "I am the nearest of kin to Jesus, son of Mary, in this world and the next. The prophets are brothers, sons of one father by co-wives. Their mothers are different but their religion is one. There has been no prophet between us."
After the Prophet Mohammad died, non-progressive governments took over the religion and instituted practices inconsistent with the Prophet's vision. The Prophet's battle against non-progressive governments has existed from the day he received his vision. For more, see the 1976 Anthony Quinn film, The Message.
More here.
Bonus: from PBS: "Muhammad once came upon a group of Muslims arguing about which religion had primacy over all others. This was the occasion for one of the Qur'an's most often quoted revelations: 'If God had so willed, He would have made all of you one community, but he has not done so, in order that he may test you according to what he has given you; so compete in goodness. To God shall you all return, and He will tell you the truth about what you have been disputing.'" (Qur'an: 5:48.)
If you call yourself a Muslim, I believe you must also consider yourself Jewish and Christian. The Prophet Mohammad has said that the three Abrahamic religions are essentially the same:
Abu Hurairah reported Allah's Messenger as saying, "I am the nearest of kin to Jesus, son of Mary, in this world and the next. The prophets are brothers, sons of one father by co-wives. Their mothers are different but their religion is one. There has been no prophet between us."
After the Prophet Mohammad died, non-progressive governments took over the religion and instituted practices inconsistent with the Prophet's vision. The Prophet's battle against non-progressive governments has existed from the day he received his vision. For more, see the 1976 Anthony Quinn film, The Message.
More here.
Bonus: from PBS: "Muhammad once came upon a group of Muslims arguing about which religion had primacy over all others. This was the occasion for one of the Qur'an's most often quoted revelations: 'If God had so willed, He would have made all of you one community, but he has not done so, in order that he may test you according to what he has given you; so compete in goodness. To God shall you all return, and He will tell you the truth about what you have been disputing.'" (Qur'an: 5:48.)
Bonus: "Those who believe [in the Koran], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day [of Judgment], and who work righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." -- Qur'an, Al-Baqarah, 2:62
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Credit Freeze: a Cold Day for Consumer Protection?
A security credit freeze is one way to achieve peace of mind instead of worrying about identity theft. I just tried to extend a credit freeze and replace a lost PIN. I forgot my PIN, so I needed a new one in case I wanted new credit. I contacted all three credit bureaus--Equifax (EFX), Transunion, and Experian--to request new PINs.
I learned in California, a credit freeze is indefinite, so I didn't need to worry about "extending" my freeze. (In less consumer-friendly states, a freeze may be limited to seven years unless extended by the consumer.) If you are a victim of identity theft, you may receive a credit freeze without charge. If you are not a victim of identity theft, you may have to pay a fee to activate a credit freeze and to unfreeze your account later. When you apply, you are given a PIN that allows you to temporarily deactivate the freeze.
It appears each company protects and allows access to consumer information in different ways. I am now convinced Congress and a few good law firms need to extend their influence over credit bureaus to better protect consumers' personal data.
Transunion: I had a good experience with Transunion, which provided me a new PIN over the phone. An agent who spoke perfect English answered my call. She walked me through the process perfectly. I had to give her my SS# and basic information over the phone. She confirmed other personal information also, and I had to provide a credit card limit and the issuing bank to get a replacement PIN. It felt good to see so many different levels of security questions before Transunion would reset my PIN. When I checked to see whether I was listed as an identity theft victim, the representative told me I was not listed as such. After confirming more information, she told me she had fixed the issue. I was pleased with Transunion's professionalism.
Equifax: I had a harder time with Equifax. The agent gave me a different mailing address than the one listed on Equifax's own website, so I got worried. When I asked to talk to a manager, it took several minutes before I was connected to him, and he didn't seem to think there would be a difference between the two PO Box addresses.
In addition, Equifax (EFX) just wanted basic information--full name, SS#, date of birth, and address. This information isn't extremely difficult to get, so I was surprised. Smart identity thieves could probably reset my PIN and potentially open my credit to abuse. I asked if more information was needed (like a copy of my driver's license). The manager said no information beyond the basic information was necessary, and he provided me with a confirmation number to assist the transaction when I sent Equifax the information over snail mail. Overall, I did not get a good feeling about Equifax's commitment to protecting consumer information.
Experian: These guys are geniuses...when it comes to avoiding phone calls. Unless you have a specific code of some sort, you can't get through to a live representative. I tried every trick I could, including hitting zero and random numbers, and the system terminated my call each time.
At the same time, I couldn't help but appreciate Experian's method. Unlike Equifax and Transunion, I didn't see any information on Experian's website specifically about a replacement PIN. Experian's snail-mail process creates one significant upside: the company has more stringent requirements before it allows you to re-set your PIN. Experian requires a copy of your driver's license and recent telephone record before issuing a PIN. I sent the information over the mail. We'll see how quickly Experian responds.
Overall, I am surprised at the differences between the three companies. Laws relating to personal information ought to be more uniform and more stringent. As my experience shows, we have a long way to go in terms of protecting ourselves.
Disclosures: I do not currently own any Equifax (EFX).
I learned in California, a credit freeze is indefinite, so I didn't need to worry about "extending" my freeze. (In less consumer-friendly states, a freeze may be limited to seven years unless extended by the consumer.) If you are a victim of identity theft, you may receive a credit freeze without charge. If you are not a victim of identity theft, you may have to pay a fee to activate a credit freeze and to unfreeze your account later. When you apply, you are given a PIN that allows you to temporarily deactivate the freeze.
It appears each company protects and allows access to consumer information in different ways. I am now convinced Congress and a few good law firms need to extend their influence over credit bureaus to better protect consumers' personal data.
Transunion: I had a good experience with Transunion, which provided me a new PIN over the phone. An agent who spoke perfect English answered my call. She walked me through the process perfectly. I had to give her my SS# and basic information over the phone. She confirmed other personal information also, and I had to provide a credit card limit and the issuing bank to get a replacement PIN. It felt good to see so many different levels of security questions before Transunion would reset my PIN. When I checked to see whether I was listed as an identity theft victim, the representative told me I was not listed as such. After confirming more information, she told me she had fixed the issue. I was pleased with Transunion's professionalism.
Equifax: I had a harder time with Equifax. The agent gave me a different mailing address than the one listed on Equifax's own website, so I got worried. When I asked to talk to a manager, it took several minutes before I was connected to him, and he didn't seem to think there would be a difference between the two PO Box addresses.
In addition, Equifax (EFX) just wanted basic information--full name, SS#, date of birth, and address. This information isn't extremely difficult to get, so I was surprised. Smart identity thieves could probably reset my PIN and potentially open my credit to abuse. I asked if more information was needed (like a copy of my driver's license). The manager said no information beyond the basic information was necessary, and he provided me with a confirmation number to assist the transaction when I sent Equifax the information over snail mail. Overall, I did not get a good feeling about Equifax's commitment to protecting consumer information.
Experian: These guys are geniuses...when it comes to avoiding phone calls. Unless you have a specific code of some sort, you can't get through to a live representative. I tried every trick I could, including hitting zero and random numbers, and the system terminated my call each time.
At the same time, I couldn't help but appreciate Experian's method. Unlike Equifax and Transunion, I didn't see any information on Experian's website specifically about a replacement PIN. Experian's snail-mail process creates one significant upside: the company has more stringent requirements before it allows you to re-set your PIN. Experian requires a copy of your driver's license and recent telephone record before issuing a PIN. I sent the information over the mail. We'll see how quickly Experian responds.
Overall, I am surprised at the differences between the three companies. Laws relating to personal information ought to be more uniform and more stringent. As my experience shows, we have a long way to go in terms of protecting ourselves.
Disclosures: I do not currently own any Equifax (EFX).
Monday, October 19, 2009
eBay's Founder (2009)
Pierre Omidyar at eBay's 2009 shareholder meeting. Bonus points if you can correctly guess the ethnicity and birthplace of these two men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)