Saturday, August 31, 2013
Oh The Hubris, The Hubris
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sports Heroes
Next month will mark the 40th anniversary of the "Battle of the Sexes" between Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King, and there is apparently a new allegation that Riggs threw the match, with long odds in his favor, to pay off his mafia gambling debts.
These allegations have surfaced before, although I guess the current story involves a person who has come forward for the first time, and I don't care much one way or the other about the speculation. It is still all hearsay. Also, I feel kind of dirty getting my news from Yahoo.com. There was one little item that caught my eye, which was supposedly included as support for the new allegations, but had the exact opposite effect with me. Serena Williams was quoted, completely irrelevantly, as saying that she would lose to Andy Murray 6-0, 6-0. Well, hell, Andy Murray is a top tennis player. Bobby Riggs was already a has been in 1973. His 1939 Wimbledon win was 34 years in the past.
Whether Riggs threw the match or not, comparing Williams-Murray to King-Riggs is absurd. For some reason, it reminds me of a recent interview given by one of my two all-time favorite sports stars, Bill Russell (the other is Muhammad Ali). The interviewer asked Russell how he thought he would do against today's NBA players. How many points per game did he think he would average? Russell said probably about 10 points. The interviewer, no doubt expecting more braggadocio, was shocked. What?! Only ten points? "Well," said Russell, you have to remember that I'm almost seventy-nine years old."
old."
Always Trying to Be Fair
It´s about time I said something good about Brazil, so I will tell you of an area where I think they are ahead of the U.S.
ATM machines in Brazil have scanners, and every bill/invoice you receive has a bar code. I have never sent a payment through the mails in all the time I´ve been in Brazil; I just go to my nearest ATM. If you don´t like using those impersonal ATMs, you can pay your bills at the teller´s window. Better yet, you can apparently pay your bills at virtually any place that can read bar codes. I´ve seen people paying bills at the supermarket (which is really irritating if you select a line because someone´s cart is virtually empty only to have them pull a stack of invoices out of their purse) and at the department store.
I don´t know how long this system has been in place. The possible irony is that the U.S. simply bypassed this phase and went directly to internet banking. Also, this system may have developed here because Brazil´s postal service is much less user friendly than the one in the U.S. The Brazilian PO is dependable and reliable in terms of making deliveries, but it is much less friendly when you want to mail something (like a payment). There are no drop boxes around town and the postage rates, as near as I can tell, are not set in any way that would allow you to slap a stamp on an envelope and feel comfortable sliding it into a mail slot.
To be fair, on-line banking is available in Brazil for making payments, but it is not quite as easy to set up as it is in the U.S., or at least as it was in the U.S. way back when I started using it. Heitor uses it and one of these days I need to get his help in getting me set up too.
What prompted this post was the recent experience of having my U.S. credit card declined at a pharmacy website where I have used it for five years. I have had the experience in the past with other on-line retailers of having my U.S. card refused for on-line purchases, but having it accepted for the same purchase when made in the store. While all this is frustrating when it happens, it reflects an internet security consciousness one is loathe to criticize.
When my credit card was disallowed for the pharmacy purchase, I discovered one of those things that has been right in front of my eyes for years. Many, perhaps most, on-line retailers allow you to print out an invoice with a bar code and trot over to the bank (a five minute trot for me) and pay it. This seems to me an option that, if it were available in the U.S., would appeal to many people who have a lurking fear of making credit card purchases on the internet. We hear stories of the horrible hassles people have had to endure because of credit card fraud and/or identity theft and we worry that sooner or later it is in store for all of us.
My Brazilian bank´s debit card would also function as a credit card if I just went through the process of setting it up. But I wouldn´t have discovered this ability to print out an invoice if my U.S. card hadn´t been declined.
ATM machines in Brazil have scanners, and every bill/invoice you receive has a bar code. I have never sent a payment through the mails in all the time I´ve been in Brazil; I just go to my nearest ATM. If you don´t like using those impersonal ATMs, you can pay your bills at the teller´s window. Better yet, you can apparently pay your bills at virtually any place that can read bar codes. I´ve seen people paying bills at the supermarket (which is really irritating if you select a line because someone´s cart is virtually empty only to have them pull a stack of invoices out of their purse) and at the department store.
I don´t know how long this system has been in place. The possible irony is that the U.S. simply bypassed this phase and went directly to internet banking. Also, this system may have developed here because Brazil´s postal service is much less user friendly than the one in the U.S. The Brazilian PO is dependable and reliable in terms of making deliveries, but it is much less friendly when you want to mail something (like a payment). There are no drop boxes around town and the postage rates, as near as I can tell, are not set in any way that would allow you to slap a stamp on an envelope and feel comfortable sliding it into a mail slot.
To be fair, on-line banking is available in Brazil for making payments, but it is not quite as easy to set up as it is in the U.S., or at least as it was in the U.S. way back when I started using it. Heitor uses it and one of these days I need to get his help in getting me set up too.
What prompted this post was the recent experience of having my U.S. credit card declined at a pharmacy website where I have used it for five years. I have had the experience in the past with other on-line retailers of having my U.S. card refused for on-line purchases, but having it accepted for the same purchase when made in the store. While all this is frustrating when it happens, it reflects an internet security consciousness one is loathe to criticize.
When my credit card was disallowed for the pharmacy purchase, I discovered one of those things that has been right in front of my eyes for years. Many, perhaps most, on-line retailers allow you to print out an invoice with a bar code and trot over to the bank (a five minute trot for me) and pay it. This seems to me an option that, if it were available in the U.S., would appeal to many people who have a lurking fear of making credit card purchases on the internet. We hear stories of the horrible hassles people have had to endure because of credit card fraud and/or identity theft and we worry that sooner or later it is in store for all of us.
My Brazilian bank´s debit card would also function as a credit card if I just went through the process of setting it up. But I wouldn´t have discovered this ability to print out an invoice if my U.S. card hadn´t been declined.
Is It Any Wonder People Cheat?
It doesn't pay to follow the rules. Heitor and I recently made a purchase (not books) on Amazon and had the order shipped directly to us here in São Paulo because we were under the impression there is no import tax on values of less that US $50.
In this case, the cost of the product was $15.49 and shipping was $11.72. The total of $27.21 was calculated by Brazilian customs to be the equivalent of R$ 65.15 (using a better exchange rate than I get, I should point out).
On this purchase, we paid an import tax of R$63.41. The tax was calculated, either from stupidity in the customs office or because of the law, on both the cost of the product and the cost of the freight and came to virtually 100%., to state the obvious.
For a $15.49 product, we ended up paying $53.70.
On the bright side, it was just what we wanted...priceless
In this case, the cost of the product was $15.49 and shipping was $11.72. The total of $27.21 was calculated by Brazilian customs to be the equivalent of R$ 65.15 (using a better exchange rate than I get, I should point out).
On this purchase, we paid an import tax of R$63.41. The tax was calculated, either from stupidity in the customs office or because of the law, on both the cost of the product and the cost of the freight and came to virtually 100%., to state the obvious.
For a $15.49 product, we ended up paying $53.70.
On the bright side, it was just what we wanted...priceless
Saturday, August 24, 2013
The United States of ALEC
I wish everyone could see the Bill Moyers show called "The United States of ALEC." The program is several months old, but nothing has happened since it was shown to make it less relevant. Perhaps it is available if you check on the PBS or Bill Moyers websites. I downloaded it illegally, but without guilt; I'm reasonably sure that doing so doesn't take bread out of the mouths of either babes or old guys like Moyers. On the contrary, I'm confident they would be happy to see it being distributed.
The main trouble with the ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, which happens to be celebrating its 40th anniversary right about now, is not that it exists (although I think the connection between legislators and moneyed interests is anti-democratic) but that the organization enjoys tax-free status (now there's an IRS scandal for those who want one) and does not have to register as a lobbying group.
As Steve Farley, the minority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives put it, while arguing for his proposed ALEC Accountability Act which would have required legislators to disclose their ALEC membership:
The main trouble with the ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, which happens to be celebrating its 40th anniversary right about now, is not that it exists (although I think the connection between legislators and moneyed interests is anti-democratic) but that the organization enjoys tax-free status (now there's an IRS scandal for those who want one) and does not have to register as a lobbying group.
As Steve Farley, the minority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives put it, while arguing for his proposed ALEC Accountability Act which would have required legislators to disclose their ALEC membership:
I just want to emphasize it’s fine for corporations to be involved in the process. Corporations have the right to present their arguments, but they don’t have the right to do it secretly. They don’t have the right to lobby people and not register as lobbyists. They don’t have the right to take people away on trips, convince them of it, send them back here, and then nobody has seen what’s gone on and how that legislator had gotten that idea and where is it coming from. All I’m asking... is to make sure that all of those expenses are reported as if they are lobbying expenses and all those gifts that legislators received are reported as if they’re receiving gifts from lobbyists. So the public can find out and make up their own minds about who is influencing what.He's the minority leader and his proposal went nowhere, of course.
Wasting Time
To Protect and Serve
I am not an absolutist on many things,believe it or not, but I am as close to one as is possible when it comes to the 4th amendment. Absolutely nobody should be subject to having his or her property seized unless as the result of a conviction in court.
It is easy and attractive to start cutting corners with forfeiture laws because you only want to ignore the constitution to go after bad guys, like drug king pins and organized crime figures. Seems reasonable; it is easy to conclude that these scumbags don't deserve any constitutional considerations.
But, first, there is no disclaimer that the constitution does not apply to scumbags and assholes (either presumed or proven). Second, the police make mistakes in the identification of scumbags and assholes (just as they make mistakes in the identification of terrorists). And, finally, anytime you give this kind of discretionary power to the police, it will be abused in totally unforeseen ways, guaranteed.
Also absolutely nobody should have their person violated at the discretionary whim of an officer who has to pass no higher hurdle than to say he thought he smelled marijuana.
This video is tough to watch, but it is indicative of the way in which the 4th amendment, that prevents unlawful search, is taking a beating these days. This happens to be from Texas again. There are other video examples of similar activities in Texas. Yes, there have been lawsuits filed. Some of the officers involved have been fired and/or suspended. At least one has been reinstated. That isn't the point. Police need to know without a doubt (period, paragraph!) that this is not acceptable policy.
You might note in this video that the officers who supposedly smelled marijuana did not appear to make much of a search in the car itself. Apparently Texas police assume recreational pot smokers always put their unused stash up their asses or vaginas.
You will also note that the officer conducting the search did not change gloves between women or between body orifices.
The settlement in this lawsuit should bust the freaking state budget as far as I'm concerned.
It is easy and attractive to start cutting corners with forfeiture laws because you only want to ignore the constitution to go after bad guys, like drug king pins and organized crime figures. Seems reasonable; it is easy to conclude that these scumbags don't deserve any constitutional considerations.
But, first, there is no disclaimer that the constitution does not apply to scumbags and assholes (either presumed or proven). Second, the police make mistakes in the identification of scumbags and assholes (just as they make mistakes in the identification of terrorists). And, finally, anytime you give this kind of discretionary power to the police, it will be abused in totally unforeseen ways, guaranteed.
Also absolutely nobody should have their person violated at the discretionary whim of an officer who has to pass no higher hurdle than to say he thought he smelled marijuana.
This video is tough to watch, but it is indicative of the way in which the 4th amendment, that prevents unlawful search, is taking a beating these days. This happens to be from Texas again. There are other video examples of similar activities in Texas. Yes, there have been lawsuits filed. Some of the officers involved have been fired and/or suspended. At least one has been reinstated. That isn't the point. Police need to know without a doubt (period, paragraph!) that this is not acceptable policy.
You might note in this video that the officers who supposedly smelled marijuana did not appear to make much of a search in the car itself. Apparently Texas police assume recreational pot smokers always put their unused stash up their asses or vaginas.
You will also note that the officer conducting the search did not change gloves between women or between body orifices.
The settlement in this lawsuit should bust the freaking state budget as far as I'm concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)