The terrorists won, thanks to our help.

“Never forget.” That’s what they are saying today. To be frank, I don’t think a single person who had attained consciousness and self awareness by 9/11/01 will ever forget that day. I won’t. But rather than go into the usual diatribes on where I was or any of that drivel, I wish to focus not just on how they in fact have won, but how they were aided by those claiming to protect us.

Terrorism isn’t blowing up a building. It’s not gassing a subway, shooting up a school. No, terrorism is about fear. The terrorists blow up a building, and now you fear being in tall buildings. They gas the subway, you start taking the bus. They shoot up a school, you start homeschooling your kids. It isn’t the death, it’s the fear, upsetting the status quo for the negative.

Shortly after the towers fell, then President George W Bush spoke to the nation about the importance of returning to normal. This would have been the best course of action. A return to normal shows a lack of intimidation and fear.

But we didn’t. Instead, a terrorist alert system was set up, constantly reminding us we could be blown up any minute. People were no longer permitted into airport terminals unless they were flying, since apparently only terrorists want to go past the gates to see their family off. Searches became more thorough and time consuming, though no more effective; serving only to remind you that someone out there wants to blow up your plane. The news became full of every little perceived threat; light brights with the moonanites became “hoax bombs.” The government and the media made active efforts to keep the population in fear.

On top of that, rights were taken away in the form of the Patriot Act. An unending “War on Terror” was started, leading us into places such as Iraq with no connections to the attacks. Eventually, we managed to reach a point where the was is almost indistinguishable from a Holy War on Islam; a war which has become a much more effective recruiting tool for terrorists than any propaganda the actual terrorists could have spread.

So on this day, the ninth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, while honoring those innocents who lost their lives that day, take time to remember just how far we’ve fallen at the hands of the true terrorists; not the ones who brought down the towers, but the ones who each and every day perpetuate fear.

S. 2877: The CLEAR Act

I intially dismissed the CLEAR act as yet another cap-and-trade bill, but upon reading the writeup on the Tiny Ouroboros and watching the silly promo video, I decided to give its much touted 39 pages a read, as it sounded to go directly towards energy producers rather than other manufacturers. And I must say, for a mere 39 pages, it was full of some of the thickest legalese I have seen in quite some time.

First thing I found interesting, with the press this has been getting of late, is that it was introduced in December of last year. So it’s been in committee awhile. It appears at this point, no revisions have been made. Onto the content:

First thing that strikes me is the acronym. “The Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act.” Rule of thumb, don’t trust any legislation with a cute acronym.

First thing I noticed was the lengthy definitions section. Even the lengthiest of bills seldom have a definitions section of this length. Reason it seems this section is so long is the bill is full of the terms defined here, making it near impossible to read without frequently cross referencing the definitions.

So to summarize the bill here’s what happens:

“First Sellers,” anyone who produces or imports fossil fuels, bid on “carbon shares,” the right to sell fuel with the equivalent of 1 ton of carbon dioxide, from the Secretary of the Treasury. The initial number of shares starts with the estimated need, and is gradually reduced.

A portion of the proceeds are distributed in terms of dividends. The video says 75% of the proceeds will go towards that, but I found no such figure in the bill.

25% of the proceeds (and I did indeed find this figure), is distributed in loans and grants towards a whole bunch of environmental stuff.

On the surface, it doesn’t seem like a bad idea to get the U.S. off fossil fuels. And here’s where I speculate the problems.

The first problem comes in the bidding process. While there is a limit on the carbon shares initially sold, if the maximum bid price is reached, more are made available:

(B) SAFETY VALVE SHARES- If the safety valve price is reached in any 1 auction conducted under paragraph (1), the number of available carbon shares may be increased to exceed the aggregate quantity described in subsection (a)(2) to ensure that all legal bids at the safety valve price can be accommodated for the 1 auction.

So what does this mean? It means that if the big producers collude, they will realize that by bidding the price up to the safety valve price, they can make it too expensive for their smaller competitors to compete, thus eliminating them from the competition, as well as making more carbon shares for them to use, accomplishing nothing in reducing usage and emissions, and increasing the price of energy. This, of course, will be passed on to the customer.

Fuel sold without shares imposes a fine of five times the cost of the shares necessary to cover the fuel, thus creating another way to continue selling, affordable to the big companies but unaffordable to the smaller ones, further killing the small companies and achieving nothing in reduction of emissions:

5) PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE-

(A) IN GENERAL- Any first seller that fails to surrender a sufficient number of carbon shares for the fossil carbon that the first seller introduced to the United States market by not later than 2 years after the date on which the fossil carbon becomes covered fossil carbon shall be liable for payment to the Secretary of a penalty in the amount described in subparagraph (B).

(B) AMOUNT- The amount of a penalty required to be paid under subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the product obtained by multiplying–

(i) the number of carbon shares that the owner failed to surrender by the deadline; by

(ii) 5 times the carbon share price set at an auction described in subsection (b), the date of which is closest to that of the sale of the fossil carbon subject to a noncompliance penalty.

Now this is supposed to be negated by the dividends and grants, but it is uncertain whether or not the size of these dividends and grants will be sufficient to cover the increase in cost. I am no economist, so I cannot say.

Now the good news in this is that a portion of those dividends and grants go towards green energy and the like. However, which individuals and companies that get that money seems to be decided by the Clean Energy Deployment Administration, whoever that is.

In the end, it seems to me this bill has enough loopholes that the only people who will benefit are the large fossil fuel producers.

H.R. 5741: Universal National Service Act – followup

So yesterday I did something I try not to do. I read a bill, full text, and posted about it without doing any other homework. Admittedly it is a terrifying bill. However, upon further research it appears this bill has been introduced four times before, by the same Representative. The press release regarding this bill can be viewed here.

So while this bill is doomed to failure, this bring up another interesting thought. Representative Charles Rangel has been the New Your District 15 Representative for sixteen years. He first introduced this bill in 2003, thus he has been re-elected three times since first introducing that bill. So I have to ask, does this represent his constituency? And if not, why do they keep electing him, and why does he keep wasting time and resources submitting it? Is his constituency that ignorant? Is this representative of the ignorance of the nation at large?

The implications of his continued re-election are just as frightening as the bill itself.

H.R. 5741: Universal National Service Act

So in cruising political news, I came upon this little gem of a bill today. H.R. 5741: Universal National Service Act (sponsors and bill progress here, full text here).

Now since most people aren’t the types to read bills, and I am, I figured I’d highlight a few snippits from the bill.

First off, the summary:

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

Yeah, it’s essentially the draft, but with a few bonuses. For one, the age limit is extended from 25 up to 42. It’s no longer guys only, and there is now a civilian service. Not to mention that scary “other purposes.”

Section 102

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either–

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

First word. Obligation. So much for “land of the free.” Second, this describes, or moreso doesn’t describe, the civilian service. It simply states “as determined by the President.” Such vague wording isn’t exactly comforting.

Continuing through the bill, there are a good number of limitations and provisions regarding military service, very in line with the draft legislation during the Vietnam war. However, there is very little regarding the civilian service.

Section 105

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

(b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person’s national service obligation under this title.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

In short, pretty much everything regarding the obligated civilian service, that’s the President’s call.

Continuing, it mentions exemptions for the military aspect, including conscientious objection, but not exemptions for the civilian aspect.

It further modifies current Selective Service registration to include females.

Now the good news is that at the time of this post, the bill has only one sponsor, no cosponsors, and is only in committee. Most bills never make it out. None the less, the content of this one is rather frightening, and even more frightening is how few people are aware of it.

Edit: Apparently Representative Charles Rangel has introduced this very bill several times with no success. His press release can be read here.

The Post Hoc Logical Fallacy and the Importance of Control Groups

Going to be doing a couple more logical fallacy posts.

One of the more common logical fallacies is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc, or “after this, therefore because of this” fallacy. It’s not difficult to understand this one; You do something, something else happens, therefore a causal relationship is assumed. I drank orange juice and got over my cold, therefore orange juice fights a cold. I shaved, and it came back darker and thicker, therefore shaving darkens and thickens your hair.

This falls nicely in line with the human tendency to search out patterns. Pattern recognition is a large evolutionary advantage; the creature that recognizes patterns, whether it be the look of a poisonous or non-poisonous plant, or recognize the roar of a lion and connect it to the lion being near, is more likely to survive than the creature unable to do so. This accounts for such phenomena as paredolia, as well as the post hoc logical fallacy.

However, just because a pattern is seen doesn’t mean it is always there. Consider the obvious non-causal example of crossing your fingers. It is common practice to cross one’s fingers when hoping for something, however, very few people actually believe crossing your fingers actually improves the likelihood of the desired outcome. However, if the desired outcome is achieved after crossing one’s fingers, it could be erroneously concluded that it did have an effect.

And speaking of errors, those two examples I mentioned at the beginning. Neither of those are actually true. Both common ideas often “confirmed” by post hoc rationale. Studies have shown no statistical link between vitamin C and reduction in severity or length of a cold. The illusion of darker, thicker hair can be attirbuted both to cutting off the hair’s natural taper, thus only showing the thick base, and the fact that people generally begin shaving around the time hair is starting to grow in, often around puberty. As time passes, the hair grows thicker and darker, regardless of whether or not it is shaved off. However, since it was lighter and thinner when most people start, they attribute the shaving to the thickening in darkening, when in fact, there is no link between shaving and hair growth.

Now how do we avoid this error in the future? Control groups. Whenever an experiment is performed to determine the effectiveness of something, there should always be an experimental group that does not receive the treatment or procedure. This group is the control group. A common example is the use of placebos in medical studies. One group is administered the actual experimental treatment, while the other is administered a placebo, an identical looking treatment that does nothing. This could be in the form of a sugar pill as opposed to the actual drug, a saline injection as opposed to an active injection, or any other treatment that appears the same as the actual. This allows the experimenter to compare the results from both the experimental group, group receiving the active treatment and the control group, the group receiving the placebo. If the experimental group shows significant improvement over the placebo group, than there is a definite effect, while if they stay the same, there is no actual effect.

Science vs Science Reporting

From Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal:

There is a sad truth to this. Science news and reporting is garbage.

First, consider how the news cycle works. News thrives on breaking stories, big changes, sensational headlines. Things move fast, then it’s one to the next thing. Science is much the opposite. Things move slow in science. Ideas are proposed, funding is allocated. Preliminary experiments are done with small samples to determine if there is enough substance to even go on to a large scale experiment. Papers are written and peer reviewed. If all goes well, things move on to large scale experiments. More papers and more peer review. If it manages to get past all this, then the scientific community will accept it. The results are generally incremental improvements in our technology or understanding, seldom are they they breakthroughs.

So what happens when the slow paced science hits the fast paced media? We get news reports that are about as similar to the actual science as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was to the events it was supposedly based on.

At times, the small scale preliminary studies are reported as definitive discoveries. At times, reports are completely opposite of what is reported. Rebecca Watson of skepchick gives a more thourogh rundown of this one.

This is far from uncommon. Worse still, look at any science news article (or political article for that matter) and try to find the original study or paper (or bill or resolution) from it. I wish you luck. Often when I find something like this, it is not uncommon for me to spend upwards of a few hours attempting to find the original source, sometimes in vain.

In the end, be skeptical of what you read in the paper or see on the news, especially if they don’t cite back to the original source material, or worse yet, don’t mention the source material at all.

The Barbra Streisand Effect

In 2003, Kenneth Adelman placed an aerial photograph of Barbra Streisand’s mansion in a publicly available collection of California coastline photos. Wanting this photo removed from the collection, Streisand attempted to sue both the photographer, and the archive site, Pictopia.com. The ensuing legal battle ended up drawing more attention to the photo rather than diverting attention, thus achieving the opposite effect. This phenomena, attempting to censor something and in the process raising awareness and spreading it instead of hiding it, has become known as the Streisand Effect.

It astounds me just how many people, companies, etc. just don’t get it.

Virtually any attempt at censorship will result in this very thing. Trying to keep vulgar or politically incorrect language out of our vocabulary simple gives power to the words and makes them more appealing. Trying to protect the children from violent video games simply serves as additional advertising for the games.

Strangely, it seems the best way to keep information from spreading is to let it spread. Those with interest will read it, and before long it will be lost in the news cycle, rather than remaining a staple part of it.

PC Part II: Political Correctness is Retarded

So I have already touched on the topic of political correctness. In short, I’m not a fan. However, during a somewhat recent conversation, I finally realized what it was about political correctness than annoys me.

When talking with a child, it is not uncommon to use small words so as not to confuse them and to avoid hurtful words so as not to harm their precious little self-esteem. We substitute some words for others and avoid some all together. Sound familiar?

Further still, when two adults discuss this matter, even in a discussion as to the meaning and nature of the terms in question, they still often bring themselves to use silly substitutions, especially when using racially charged words. I’m a mature adult here, and I assume you are too. There’s no need to resort to silly, childish terms like “the n-word.” Such terms bring back memories of childhood; “Ooooooh, you said the d-word! I’m telling Mom!”

Another funny thing about it, some terms get ranked higher than others when it comes to keeping it politically correct. I could call someone something that would put George Carlin’s linguistic ability to shame and I’ll be considered foul-mouthed, but not too bad. But the moment I drop the term “nigger,” (there, I said it,) all bets are off.

Anyhow, I used the term “retarded” in the title of this post, simply because amongst the PC crowd, “retarded” is quickly rising to the top of the offensive terms list, which I find, well, retarded.

When was the last time you heard the term “retard” as anything but an insult (music and aviation don’t count)? The word has pretty much left the medical industry, and now is used near exclusively as an insult. Yes, it is meant to offend, but it no longer applies to the mentally handicapped.

Consider the term “lame.” Much like the term “retard,” it gained traction as a term to describe a medical condition, in this case concerning impaired or unusable limbs.  When was the last time you heard “lame” used in such a sense? I can’t recall one. It has always, in my experience, been used to describe something undesirable, uncool, and, well, lame. “Retarded” is quickly entering the same linguistic area that “lame” has.

So in the end, all this worry about keeping things PC is insulting and retarded.

I Don’t Want to Rape You or Your Kid, Nor Does That Guy, or That Guy…

I was browsing reddit today, and came across this story about a 14 year old boy being charged with unlawful imprisonment for trying to help a lost 3 year old in a department store find her mother. I advise anyone to read the comments on that story, as they paint an accurate portrayal of society’s view of adult males.

Turn on the TV, watch Oprah, watch Nancy Grace, watch the six o’clock news.  They make it rather clear that every guy out there wants nothing more than to rape and kill you and your kids. Be afraid.

I cannot count the women I know who have bought into this, who won’t go outside after dark, won’t go to the mall alone, who live their lives in fear and hiding because if they don’t they’ll be raped and murdered.

I cannot count the number of parents I know who won’t let their kid play in the driveway by themselves, won’t let their kids ride their bikes down the street, won’t take photos of their kids lest they end up on the internet, because if they do their kid is going to get kidnapped and raped and murdered.

I also cannot count the number of men who will cross the street if there is a woman walking by herself on the same side of the road, who will act as though they didn’t see the lost child alone in the mall, who will not stop to help the stranded female motorist, because if they do, there’s a chance they’ll get in legal trouble, as the paranoid society will have him convicted in a his word vs her word situation. I, regrettably, am amongst those men.

I cannot count the number of women who have quickened their pace and clutched their purse as I caught up to them walking down the street. I cannot count the number of dirty looks I have gotten from mothers because their child walked up to me.

Now this is a travesty, especially when you realize the odds are far better of being murdered, raped, or kidnapped by someone you know and trust than a stranger.

So here’s the deal. If you really want to “think of the children” or to empower women, stop treating every single male out there as though they are a murderous pedophile rapist. Otherwise, expect things like this to play out again and again.

Employment Tests

Something else I forgot to rant about in last week’s rant on “Corporate Logic.” Employment tests. I’m not talking about tests designed to gauge your ability for the job you are applying for; it is good to make sure the workers can do their job. But that’s the only test that should be considered. Can you do the job.

Most major food and retail chains seem to think otherwise.

Now there are two major types of tests I’m going to gripe about here. Personality tests and drug/alcohol tests.

First and foremost, if you’ve applied at any major retail or food chain in the past few years, you are probably familiar with the Unicru personality test. Now I usually try to refrain from using this type of language here, but I fucking hate that god forsaken mother fucking worthless ass piece of shit test and whoever came up with that damned thing should kindly go die in a chemical fire.

Ok, now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, about that test. The test itself is looking for super happy, sociable, extroverted people, because someone out there is under the delusion that these are the best retail and food service people. It is a 100 question Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree test. For the record, this test, despite nothing but stellar reviews from previous employers, prevents me from getting called back unless the place is desperate for employees.  Now let’s take a look at some of the questions, as well as their answers according to that answer key I linked.

It is maddening when the court lets guilty criminals go free (answer:  Strongly Agree)

Unless I’m being recruted for jury duty, this question has no relevancy at all

You chat with people you don’t know (Answer: Strongly Agree)

Ok, I can see this one, it means you are comfortable talking with the customer. It also seems to me to mean you are comfortable getting carried away talking with the customer to the point you don’t get your work done.

You got mostly good grades in high school (Answer: Strongly Agree)

Most tests already ask your high school GPA, not to mention grades tend to be a bit irrelevant in retail and food work.

You have no big regrets about your past (Answer: Strongly Agree)

Irrelevant, not to mention a bit intrusive.

You work best at a slow but steady speed (Answer: Strongly Agree)

I find myself wondering if this one should be strongly agree. Slow and steady may win the race, but retail and food are fast and hectic.

You get mad at yourself when you make mistakes (Answer: Strongly Disagree)

This question always confused me. “Mad” is rather subjective. Getting mad at mistakes could mean you get upset enough to genuinely want to fix the problem and prevent it from happening in the future, or it could mean going ballistic. Not getting mad could mean staying calm enough to fix the problem, or it could mean not caring enough to bother with it.

Going on an anecdote here, a former coworker of mine is a former Walmart manager. He was responsible for hiring of new employees. In his time there, he did a bit of an experiment. Now it was completely unscientific, with no blinding and a small sample set, but he found that the people who failed the unicru test were consistently better workers than those that passed. Now this may initially be surprising, but think about it.

To pass the test honestly, you have to be a rather emotionally reactive extrovert.  The type who wears their feelings on their sleeve (when they’re having a good day, you know. When they’re having a bad day, you know). The type who talks non-stop to anyone (and probably doesn’t get their work done because of it). The kind that is likely to tell off a customer or their boss and get fired. In order for a person who would honestly pass the test to be a good worker, they’d have to suppress their extroversion to an extent, still be able to wear their fake retail happy. The “perfect fit” is far from a perfect fit.

Otherwise, to pass you have to lie. And if you’re like me, you have to cheat too. Seems to me that liars and cheaters probably aren’t the best pick either.

The people it leaves out? Those who answer honestly and aren’t happy, bubbly, extroverted people. Of course, that says nothing about how well they can do the job, and how well they can wear their fake retail happy. In fact, the introvert on the job might do it better, seeing as they won’t get distracted by small talk, can better grit their teeth and bear it when the customers or the management treat them like garbage, and in the end will get their work done.

I cannot conclude this segment with kind words, as they cannot describe the unicru test. So to unicru and anyone who puts faith in that test, kindly go fuck yourselves.

Ok, moving on, drug tests. Seems a good portion of retail and food service places have it right on the door.  “We test for illegal drugs, if you do drugs, don’t apply.” You get hired, first thing you have to do is pee in a cup.

Now I can understand the reasoning behind this, no company wants someone to come to work drunk or stoned. However, it is possible to use most drugs responsibly, and most users won’t go about showing up to work anything but sober. Alcohol passes out of the system pretty quickly, so unless they perform a screening on site, there won’t be a problem there. However, other drugs have traces that remain in the system for weeks or months, so that one joint you had at that party several weeks ago will get you blacklisted. Not to mention those poppyseed bagels you had for breakfast.

Funny thing is, when you get to “real jobs,” drug tests seem to disappear. When I worked at a big-box hardware store, I was tested twice. Once when I was hired, and once when I dropped a load off the forklift. When I worked in the in-circuit test industry, I had beer with the boss a time or two, and was more than one person suspected I smoked pot (for the record, I did not). None the less, no drug test, and no personality test either. The only test was “can you do the job.” This is rather common amongst these “real jobs,” and I have heard other anecdotes detailing harder drugs used by higher ups. Why? They can afford them, they aren’t tested for them, and they can use them responsibly and do their job.

So let the worker have their fun on their day off (they need it with the company and the customers treating them like garbage as they do), and also fuck unicru.