BlakeBlog

One of Those Days

Earlier today I got an email from my bank telling me that the USPS had returned my rent check as undeliverable. Now, this is the same USPS that's been delivering my rent check for over half a year without a problem, so I'm mystified. The bank tells me they tried to call the leasing office to confirm the address, but they couldn't reach anyone at the 1-800 number. Sadly, the leasing office doesn't have a 1-800 number, and the bank couldn't provide an explanation for where they came up with the one they were calling, as it wasn't the number I provided for the leasing office when I setup the automatic payments.

So now I'm officially "in arrears" with the leasing agency. My father was a collections attorney, so if there's one thing in this world that strikes mortal fear into me, it's being in arrears to someone. Shortly after I got the bank's email I walked over to the leasing office with a copy of the email and my checkbook in hand. "No, we're very sorry, but you're in arrears, sir. We cannot accept a personal check from you, and we cannot waive the late fee. You must now pay by money order or cashier's check, and there's a $30 late fee. But, you should check with your bank because they may cover the late fee if it turns out to be a banking error."

Damnit.

So now I have to go to Walmart and buy a money order. But, since I'm out and about, I decide to swing by Summit Racing to pick up some Redline differential fluid for my truck. See, a few months ago I had the dealer replace the diff covers with stiffer, oversized aluminum ones from Nitro Gear & Axle. The extra rigidity and capacity are always nice, but most importantly they have easy to access drain and fill ports which the OEM covers lacked entirely. The ports make fluid changes a snap¹, and with the amount of offroading I like to do I need to change the fluid every year or two. ("Lifetime" fluids are for suckers!)

When the dealer did the work, they called me to confirm that they should add Ford's friction modifier to the rear for my limited slip diff. Without really thinking about it, I said "yes." It turns out that Redline is slippery enough by itself that it usually doesn't need any additional friction modifier. I later emailed Redline about it, and they said it wouldn't do any harm to have the additional friction modifier in there, but that the rear end might not lock up like it should. I decided to play it by ear and see how it performed.

Fast forward to last weekend when California had one of its first good rains of the winter season. I was in Sacramento for the NCPPRC's monthly rifle rifle shoot, and every time I'd try to start from a dead stop I was spinning the rear wheel on that wet pavement like a hooligan. Now, it was some enjoyable (albeit juvenile) fun for a bit, but it simply wouldn't do long term—especially since I plan to spend a good amount of time in the snowing/icy mountains around Lake Tahoe this winter. So, I needed to dump $60 worth of virtually new fluid and replace it, this time without adding any friction modifier.

The folks at the Big O Tires a couple blocks from me have been great at servicing my truck, so after I left Summit Racing I headed there to have them change the rear diff fluid. This Big O is owned by a guy who's competed (and won!) multiple times in the Baja 1000, and they guys that work there are pretty cool and knowledgeable, so even though I hate having someone else do work on my truck that I could do myself, these guys have been great so far. (The drawback of living in an apartment is that I can't work on my truck very easily.)

I tell the guys what I need done, and they say no problem. After I get comfortable in the waiting area the tech comes out and asks me to follow him into the service bay. He points out where the RTV on the rear diff cover is leaking, and asks if I want to do anything about it now. Heck yeah! So I ask them to pull the cover and create a new gasket.

An hour goes by, and the front desk guy comes back to the waiting area to tell my my truck's ready to go. I pay, and as I start walking out the front where they've pulled the truck around to, another employee asks if there's a reset procedure that needs to be done after the truck is put up on a lift. Huh?

It turns out that the truck is throwing a "hill descent control" error, an "AdvanceTrac" error, and an ABS error. Gah! No, sorry, that's not normal. They hook my truck up to a scanner and get an error code from the passenger rear ABS sensor. It turns out that the cable from that sensor routes up and over the rear diff, and the tech accidentally pinched that cable when re-installing the diff cover. Now the truck needs a new ABS sensor at that corner.

They order a new one from the local parts store and have it couriered over. That takes about an hour, so I sit and watch Fox News some more in the waiting room. Unfortunately, the part that is sent over is the wrong part and it doesn't fit. It turns out the parts store doesn't have the right part in stock, but they can have it by Tuesday morning. So, I'm stuck without ABS (and dealing with multiple flashing warnings on the dash) until Tuesday morning when I'll take my truck back in to get the new sensor installed.

I'm not mad at the guys at Big O. Sometimes mistakes happen, and they're doing a reasonable job of fixing their fuck-up. They've been very apologetic, so I'm being understanding. But, damn! What a day.

(1) Without those drain and fill ports you have to remove the entire diff cover to change the fluid. When you do that you break the seal of the RTV gasket, so you have to scrape the mating surfaces clean of all the old RTV and apply new RTV to create a new gasket. Then you have to wait a while for the RTV to setup before you refill the diff. It's a PITA for folks who actually maintain their trucks so that they'll last longer than the warranty, which is why aftermarket diff covers with drain and fill ports are pretty popular accessories.

Reconciling the Vote for Both Minimum Wage Increases and Republicans

Quite a few pundits are trying to analyze why the propositions to increase state-level minimum wages passed in the same election that was a Republican landslide. So I tweeted "People voted 4 min wage increase b/c they think the game is rigged, want some assurance of immed. imprvmnt + long term regulatory imprvmnt."

To expand that thought beyond 140 characters, most low information voters¹ don't understand the problems with increasing the minimum wage (the Republicans/Libertarians can't articulate them well enough to connect with the Average Man), so it sounds like a good idea on its face. They way it gets covered by the mainstream media, it sounds like a vote for increasing the minimum wage will help tough luck folks trying to work, trying eke out a living—and most importantly, not loafing around on the dole.

However, they're pissed at the direction the country's been going for at least the last six years (if not longer), so they want to throw out the party in charge. Thus the Democrats have got to go, even though they've merely continued (or expanded upon) much of the crony capitalism that came before them.

Folks realize, though, that even a landslide of new, motivated Republicans² in office can't change Washington overnight. Putting the two sentiments together, you get votes in favor of both increasing the minimum wage for it's short-term effect, and for replacing the incumbent party for the long-term effect.

This election wasn't a mandate for Republican policy. It was a protest against the status quo, constrained by a two-party framework.

(1) I don't use this term disparagingly. I use it to refer to folks who are busy holding down jobs and raising families, who surf the headlines and maybe occasionally catch the news on TV/radio/the newspaper. They aren't geeking out on political issues.

(2) If such a thing exists. I remain unconvinced that even the new crop of Republicans will be able to roll back the devastating policies of the last six years, nor tackle the entrenched corruption of crony capitalism. I'd love to be surprised, however.

OK, Who's Hoarding the Beef?

Owing to a freezer well-stocked with crockpot-quality cuts of beef, I haven't been shopping for steaks in a while. I've grown a bit tired of crockpot meals of tongues, ribs, and shanks, though, so while at my local "cheap" grocery store today I thought I'd give their steaks a try.

Holy mackerel!

Rib eyes and sirlion steaks were around $12/pound, easily a 50% increase from the "cheap" prices I remember from the last time I was shopping for steaks. That's just shy of the prices I used to pay for grassfed beef from Whole Paycheck Foods!

So, who the hell is hoarding all the beef? First it's the AR rifles and components, then it's ammo, and now it's beef? "Where's the beef?"

ETA: OK, OK, it seems to be that demand's at an all-time high while dry weather has hit stocks hard.

Emerging through the Other End of the Customer Service Black Hole

Previously I whined, today I'll praise.

First: I buy my coffee via mail order from Tonx. Every two weeks I get a new bag of single origin coffee that was roasted just the day before. It comes with tasting notes and background on the grower, and each bag has been consistently enjoyable. One very nice feature is that they give you great control over the frequency and amount you get. Since I travel a lot I typically get just a small amount, but when I'm going to be home for an extended stretch I "boost" my next order, getting an additional 6 oz of beans in my next shipment. (Try it yourself!)

Tonx has recently merged with Blue Bottle Coffee, another excellent roaster in the SF Bay area, and their new, merged website doesn't offer the "boost" option. I dropped them a quick email asking about it, and within just a couple of hours (well after normal business hours) I got an email response letting me know they were working to add that feature, apologizing that it wasn't there yet, and in the meantime they'd go ahead and manually boost my next shipment. Perfect!

Second: I've been going round and round with doctors, insurance companies, and medical supply companies trying to get a replacement for my dead CPAP machine. Yesterday I finally got a call from the local branch of the medical supply house that sold me my original machine. I spoke with a wonderfully helpful lady who invited me the office so that she could help me out. She confirmed my old machine was dead and took it so she could send it back to the manufacturer for a repair estimate. In the meantime, she gave me a free loaner machine until I can get an appointment with my new primary care physician. As a result, last night I got a good night's sleep and I really think it's helped me kick whatever illness I've been fighting.

Customer Service Black Hole

Last week I ordered a new battery for my motorcycle. I was told it would arrive by Monday. It's now Wednesday and the battery still hasn't arrived, so I called the store to see what was up. "Oh, sorry about that. We'll ship it today." No other explanation.

Saturday night my CPAP machine died in the middle of the night. My equipment provider wasn't open until Monday, so I called first thing Monday morning and was told a tech would contact me by end of day Monday, maybe early Tuesday at the latest. Again, it's now Wednesday and no contact from a tech. I call the company and it seems they messed up my record in their system so the order for a tech never was sent. "We'll have a tech call you by end of day today at the latest. Sorry!"

Meanwhile, I've developed some sort of illness with fever and chest congestion and would desparately love to get a good night's sleep, but without that CPAP machine I can't. And because I've developed this illness I've had to postpone an important business trip, which never makes anyone happy.

All of this to say I'm sick, tired, and grumpy. How's your day?

Money Matters

I was reading the further coverage of the Newtown anniversary, amazed at how the media likes to glorify psycho killers and spur copycats, when I read:

 

"New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has spent roughly $15 million this year on advertising to influence the debate."

 

I recalled the stats from yesterday's Washington Post article:

 

"In the first half of 2013, the NRA and other gun rights groups outspent gun-control organizations on federal lobbying, $12.2 million to $1.6 million, according to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation."

 

So, Bloomberg spent $15 million last year, but only $1.6 million (from all anti-gun sources) was spent on lobbying in the first half? Makes sense when you consider Bloomberg spent a lot of advertising money trying to sway State-level elections in November, but that certainly doesn't support the WaPo's narrative that "the NRA" massively outspent the anti's.

 

The distinction between lobbying money and advertising money becomes more clear in light of an article in Advertising Age that notes the anti's outspent pro-gun groups seven to one on TV:

 

"In the year after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., gun-control groups spent $14.1 million on TV advertising. According to Kantar Media's CMAG, that gave such groups a seven to one advantage over gun-rights organizations, which only spent $1.9 million.

 

"At the same time, gun-rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, spent about $6.2 million on lobbying instead of advertising, according to a study by the Sunlight Foundation.

 

"The gun-rights groups may have had the better tactic -- especially in a quiet election year. [...]

 

"'The return on the investment has been very weak,' said Elizabeth Wilner of Kantar Media. 'When you are doing advocacy advertising you are looking for Congress to pass something.'"

 

If you add all these numbers up, the pro-gun folks spent about $8M on lobbying, while the anti's spent about $2M. When it comes to advertising, though, the pro-gun folks spent only $2M and the anti's spent over $14M. Add the both figures up, and the pro-gun folks spent about $10M while the anti's spent around $16M. Once again, we've been significantly outspent.

 

Don't be disappointed by this, though! Look at our successes, especially at the Federal level, and you can see that we focused our money where it would have the most influence and we were able to avoid any major legislation in the aftermath of Newtown. What this means is that our opponents spent more money, on less-effective channels, and still wound up with nothing to show for it.

 

That, my friends, is smart fighting.

The NSSF and US Firearms Sue Sunnyvale!

We warned the city of Sunnyvale that they were opening themselves up to lawsuits with their misguided efforts to pass local gun control in the form of Measure C. They didn't listen. In fact, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence both counseled the city that the lawsuit threat was a bluff, and they even offered to provide pro bono (free) legal support in case a suit happened.

Well, it has! You can read the entire filing here:

http://nssf.org/PDF/NSSF_Sunnyvale-Suit.pdf

 The National Shooting Sports Foundation, as you recall, is the true lobby for gun manufacturers and retailers (not the NRA, as the anti's like to erroneously claim). And since part of Measure C directly affects one of Sunnyvale's firearms retailers—U.S. Firearms—both organizations have jointly filed suit against the city.

 

The suit primarily claims that Measure C is illegal due to State pre-emption, meaning that the State of California has a law that says cities and counties cannot pass their own gun control laws, so Measure C violates this law. The suit also argues that the requirement to collect personal information about lawful activities and report that information to the police is a violation of an individual's right to privacy.

The Run-up to the Newtown Anniversary

In the run-up to the Newtown anniversary, the gun-banners are reveling in the opportunity to display their assumed moral superiority in their struggle to stay relevant. Expect to see sympathetic stories like the following across the major media outlets:

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_24690216/oakland-after-his-sons-fatal-accident-man-fights

 

It's a tragedy that Mr. Dix's son was shot and killed by a friend who was playing with a pistol he thought was unloaded. But, it's also a logical fallacy to think that a loaded chamber indicator would have changed the killer's behavior. If the killer wasn't taught the NRA's gun safety rules, or didn't apply them, then it's extremely doubtful that a small flip-up or chamber cut-out would have changed the outcome of this tragic event.

 

Even without the requirement for loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnects, and all the other "common sense safety features" the gun banners would like to impose on free America, accidental gun deaths are at historic lows. According to the very source the article quotes to justify Mr. Dix's quest, the Centers for Disease Control, unintentional firearm deaths are at all-time lows:

 

 

Also, interestingly, I can't get the "1,900 children […] accidentally killed with a firearm" from their claimed source. Even if I generously define a child as anyone from birth to 19 years old, I only get 1,515:

 

 

If you apply a more typical age range for what we consider "children," from birth to 14 years old, the number falls to 619 over the eight-year period. Each and every one of them tragic, but a small fraction in comparison with car accidents (21,085) or drowning (7,425). (I'm still waiting for the sympathetic stories calling for the bans on allowing children to travel by car, or live in houses with swimming pools.)

 

The gun-banners lie all the time—never trust a number from the gun-banners! I thought that major media was supposed to be better than simple bloggers because of the "layers and layers" of editorial oversight, but apparently they can't even be bothered to fact-check some simple data that's freely available via the Internet.

NRA Sues San Francisco over Magazine Ban

KTVU, a local TV station, decided to cover the NRA's decision to file suit against San Francisco over their recently-signed ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. This local law ignores the State-level grandfathering of all 10+ round magazines owned before 2000, requiring their owners to dispose of them without compensation before December 8, 2013.

There's some comedy gold in this article, but it also provides a nice update at the end regarding several of the current lawsuits that the NRA is leading here in California: 

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/nra-challenges-city-ammunition-law-behalf-local-re/nbyN5/

For example, there's this gem of a statement:

"The bullet dispensers can be used with machine guns, semi-automatic rifles and some semi-automatic handguns."

Yes, "bullet dispensers." And they're interchangeable, too! Just stick 'em in whatever machine gun you've got lying around—and I'm sure you have plenty of machine guns in your possession, right? But apparently they're only useable in some semi-automatic handguns; I guess they think other semi-automatic handguns use cylinders?

 Or how about this one:

"The lawsuit cites a landmark 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the high court said the constitutional right to bear arms applies to individuals as well as state militias." 

Ah, yes, KTVU can't seem to let go of the old "the Second Amendment only applies to militias, not people" belief. (So tell me, just what exactly is a militia made up of, if not people?)

But, more importantly, here's the quick update on current lawsuits:

"In another gun rights case, the NRA has asked a federal appeals court to strike down two other San Francisco laws that regulate gun possession and ammunition sales.

 

"One measure requires gun owners other than peace officers to keep their weapons in a locked container or use trigger lock devices when they are not carrying the guns. The other prohibits gun shops in the city from selling dangerous ammunition, such as fragmenting bullets, that serves no sporting purpose.

 

"The NRA and the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association challenged those laws in a 2009 lawsuit. They appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of San Francisco declined to grant a preliminary injunction in 2012. 

A three-judge panel of the circuit court heard arguments on the appeal in San Francisco on Oct. 7 and now has the case under consideration."

Let me add an obligatory note of clarification: the ban on "fragmenting bullets" is actually a ban on the sale (but not possession) of hollow-point ammo (SPPC section 613.10(g).) As we all know, hollow-point bullets don't intentionally fragment; they're designed to expand upon impact. It appears the San Francisco doesn't want to allow its citizens to protect themselves with the same bullet technology that their own police force uses. Like the Trix cereal rabbit used to hear, "Silly citizen, self defense is for police!"

Food Stamp Math

The Mercury News posted a story headlined "Cuts to food stamps hitting millions of Californians to start Friday". Curious to find out how big the cuts would be to an already over-bloated benefits program, I found the article to be a veritible "dog's breakfast" of contradictory numbers.

The first numbers were for a family of four, who will "receive $632, or $36 less per month in federal food assistance." So, said family were getting $668 a month to feed themselves, and $36 represents about a 5.4% reduction in money.

The article then immediately follows with "That is the equivalent of losing roughly 21 individual meals per month." Huh? Assuming a 30-day month, and three meals a day, that'd be 90 meals per person, per month. For a family of four, they'd consume 360 meals. If you accept the rediculous notion that the family simply wouldn't eat a meal if it wasn't "fully funded," they'd be short 19.44 meals, not 21. And, in reality, the two kids in this family would likely be eating free or deeply subsidized breakfasts and lunches at school, but that doesn't fit with the narritive so it wasn't mentioned to the readers.

A few paragraphs later and the article asserts that the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted the food stamp program by 13.6%, but that boost is now expiring. But wait, the actual reduction is only 5.4%; where's the other 8.2%? The article doesn't say.

 This must be the "new math" I keep hearing so much about.