Let the Presidential Race Begin

Posted on January 27, 2011 by tom

Sometime later this year I’ll begin tracking candidates for the 2012 Presidential election. If you remember from the 2008 election, I did two things: I kept track of the delegate count in the Democratic and Republican primaries and I had links to the web pages of 3rd party and independent candidates. I didn’t keep delegate counts for the 3rd party candidates because most of them weren’t really races.

We’re 22 months from the next election but already some Americans are announcing that they’re running. While we were on our trip to Yosemite I read an article in USA Today about people who have already announced their candidacy. What can I say? We stayed at a hotel that dropped a copy of McPaper out our door.

It’s actually pretty easy to run for President. According to the U.S. Constitution, you only need be born in the United States and be 35 years old. For the next election you have to have been born here before January 20, 1978. Federal law says candidates are not official until they raise $5,000 but anyone can file a “statement of candidacy” at any time.

I don’t normally count someone as a candidate unless he or she has a web page, but USA Today claims 76 people have filed paperwork to start raising money, but they list only these candidates:

Rutherford B. Hayes (no relation to the 19th President)
Randy Crow of North Carolina
Dennis Crill of Arizona, who actually has a web page

Keep posted, I’ll find more candidates.

Yosemite 2011

Posted on January 26, 2011 by tom

If you’ve been reading this post, or if you get our Christmas newsletter, you know that every year we spend a week at Yosemite National Park. They have a program where they bring in chefs from gourmet restaurants who do cooking demonstrations and cook a magnificent feast; it’s called Chef’s Holidays. This year was no different, and we recommend this for anyone who wants to see a truly magnificent park in the winter and loves cooking/eating.

Because of the length of the trip we rent a van, and we’ve settled on Enterprise Rent-a-Car. Last year we got a Toyota Sienna and loved it. Alas, this year we got a Dodge Caravan; it was a good vehicle but not as good as the Sienna. Maybe next year.

Last year we got caught in a snowstorm and had a hard time getting out of the park. It was a winter wonderland, and except for the exit it was wonderful. This year it was warmer and drier, not as beautiful but not as eventful. We’ll see what 2012 looks like.

Autism and Vaccines: Scaring Parents for Fun and Profit

Posted on January 9, 2011 by tom

For the past 12 years a former physician from England, Andrew Wakefield has been on a campaign to convince parents that there is a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and autism. The vaccine is normally given once at 12 to 15 months, with another dose before entering school (age 4 or 5). In 1998 Wakefield published a study in the British Medical Journal The Lancet claiming that a child who receives the vaccine has an increased risk of developing autism. In the first few years after the article, vaccine rates plummeted as parents of young children suddenly had to worry that they were trading protection against these diseases for a lifetime of autism.

Normally when a study of this importance is published, other scientists attempt to replicate it. This makes sense as anything true should be able to be replicated. But here’s where it started to unravel. Nobody who used Wakefield’s methodology came up with his results. Wakefield, being Wakefield, offered this theory: anyone who disagrees with me must be in the pockets of the drug companies who will lose money if their vaccines are shown to be harmful.

In 2004 Brian Deer, a journalist for the Sunday Times of London found that there’s more to the story than Wakefield is telling.

Wakefield claims this is about money and he’s been targeted by the drug companies. But the truth is very different. Wakefield has received $674,000 from lawyers who represented the parents of children with autism. At this point I strongly recommend that everyone buy and read a book called Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure by Paul Offit, MD. Dr. Offit shows that Wakefield was approached by lawyers who represented parents of children with autism. They were looking for a reason their children had autism and Wakefield began to look for a reason. Simply put, he couldn’t find one so he made one up.

He set to work falsifying the data. The study was conducted on only 12 children and he claimed 8 of them developed autism shortly after receiving the vaccine. Of the 12, it has since been shown that 5 of them showed symptoms of autism before the vaccine, and three of them never had autism. When these facts came out 10 of the coauthors on the study had their names removed. In February of 2010 the Lancet retracted the article and three months later Andrew Wakefield’s medical license was revoked. He now lives in the United States but does not have a license to practice medicine here.

There is an excellent CNN article on this. The British Journal BMJ has an article that claims this was not just bad science or histrionics, it is fraud.

In short, Wakefield was not mistaken or careless, he was fraudulent. He scares parents for fun and profit.

What If I'm a Christian and There's No Parable For This?

Posted on January 4, 2011 by tom

If you survey Christians and ask how we decide between right and wrong, many of us will point to our faith. I’m happy about that, but what do we do when people of the same faith come to different views of the same issue and both claim to be right?

It’s happening in many places with many issues, but a story in the Los Angeles Times on Friday struck my interest. The story is about immigration, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), Stephen Sandstrom and Tony Yapias.

Both live in Utah, both are Mormon, both look to their faith to decide moral issues, and they disagree on immigration. Mr. Sandstrom was born in Orem, Utah (and is a citizen by birth). He believes that being a Christian means following the rules and obeying the laws. Someone who enters this country outside of the law violates this and should be deported. As a state legislator he introduced a bill, patterned after a similar bill in Arizona, which requires the police to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect may be undocumented. He is quoted in the LA Times story: “This country is the greatest nation on Earth because God had a hand in its formation. A lot of that is because . . . we obey the rule of law. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration jeopardizes the rule of law.”

Tony Yapias was born in Peru and when he was a child his father came to the U.S. to forge a better life for his family. Tony and the rest of his family were able to join his father when Tony was 14 but the strain of the separation was too much for his parents’ marriage. As an adult Tony joined the LDS church in part because of their emphasis on family.

Which one is right? The issue of immigration has divided many groups, but most Christian groups support immigrants and oppose laws like the one Mr. Sandstrom advances. But most Christian groups aren’t like the Mormons. They are hesitant to view any law as wrong. In the LA Times article it talks about how they are Pro-Life, but discourage anything that protests legal abortions. They counsel their people who live in Communist countries to obey the laws, even the ones they disagree with.

This is one reason I’m not a Mormon. I don’t see God’s hand in many of our laws. I don’t think God is present in Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson and I think there is a strong case to be made that our government continues to need the voices of our prophets. I believe the prophets answered Dred Scott with the 14th Amendment and Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education. If you’ve read a previous post you know where I stand on homophobia.

I believe it’s more important to be faithful than obedient, and I believe it’s more important to follow my conscience than my intellect. I am many things: I am a married man, I am an American, I am an inhabitant of Earth, and I am a Child of God. The fact that I’m bound by God matters more to me than my connection to the United States (whose 14th Amendment tells me we who were born here are all citizens). If someone born 40 miles south of where I live wants to make a better life for his children, I get it. My grandparents moved south (from Canada to Massachusetts) to make a better life and I benefit from that. If they cleaned hotel rooms and carried luggage so I can be who I am, I am grateful.

And I refuse to deny that to the next generation from now. The next man, woman, or child I meet may well have a hard time speaking to me in English. That’s OK because my grandparents had a hard time with English too. If that person is cleaning my house, mowing my lawn, or waiting for work outside a hardware store, I admire hm (her) for making a better life for his/her children. And I pray that his/her descendants are grateful.

And with respect to Mr. Stanstrom, I think he’s wrong.

The Money Chronichles, Volume 4: And I'm Supposed to Trust These Guys With My Credit?

Posted on December 20, 2010 by tom

Today both Nancy and I received offers for a credit card. It’s not unusual, we shred the equivalent of a small forest of these things each year. Today’s had a funny twist.

For the record, both of these offers (in separate envelopes) came from Capital One (they are the “What’s in your wallet” guys). But when I opened the envelope addressed to Nancy, the return card was addressed to me. When I opened my envelope it was addressed to one of my neighbors. Presumably my neighbor has the one addressed to me. Or it could be a massive mix up where dozens of us are getting each others’ offers.

These offers succeed to the extent that they convince me to use their card. Suffice it to say they didn’t impress me and I have no desire to do business with them.

It Just Doesn't Pay to be Homophobic Anymore

Posted on December 16, 2010 by tom

You can probably guess my bias from the title of this blog, but I’ve been following 2 current issues with great interest: Proposition 8 and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (the current policy on gays serving in the US military).” It appears to me that equal rights for the gay population is only a matter of time.

Proposition 8 was a ballot measure here in California to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. There is some background to this: in March of 2000 California voted to prohibit same sex marriage by state law with Propsition 22. This law was overturned on May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court who ruled 4-3 that Prop 22 is unconstitutional.

People who oppose gay marriage then decided that the best way to combat this was to pass another proposition that amends the state constitution. After all, the constitution can’t be unconstitutional. Backed by big bucks from the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) and the Knights of Columbus, Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of the vote. Supporters thought they were done.

They weren’t. On May 26, 2009 the California Supreme Court determined that Proposition 8 was constitutional, but opponents of Prop 8 then went to federal court on January 11, 2009, arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional of the Federal Constitution. The plaintiffs, Kristen Kelly and Sandra Steir, filed because they were denied a marriage license. The defendant was Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger by virtue of being governor. In a funny twist, neither Governor Schwartzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown chose to actively defend Prop 8. Instead, the defense of Prop 8 fell to a group called Protect Marriage.

The case came before Judge John Walker. This appeared to be good news for the defendants as he ruled in a previous case that “Gay Olympics” was a copyright violation against the U.S. Olympic Committee and they had to change their name to the Gay Games. He had also been appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush. On August 4, 2010 Judge Walker surprised most of us by finding for the plaintiffs, deciding that Proposition 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment. It’s now on appeal but it’s funny to see that all the people who liked John Walker before his decision have now decided that he’s gay (since he’s never been married) and the decision has no merit. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Meanwhile, in the military, they are still trying to decide what to do with men and women who are willing to fight and die for our freedom who happen to be gay. When President Clinton was running in 1992 there was pressure from the gay community to remove the ban on gays serving in the military. During the campaign he essentially promised to repeal the ban. Alas, once in office he faced more opposition than he expected and he bowed to that pressure. In 1993 Congress passed a bill called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and President Clinton signed it. Simply put, it legislated that nobody is allowed to ask if a service member is gay, and a gay servicemember is required to keep his/her orientation a secret. If (s)he says or does anything to indicate his/her gay orientation, (s)he can be immediately discharged from the service. Since passage 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged for being gay. In the gay community, DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) has been seen as open season on the gay population.

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the debate began again. As I write this the bill to repeal DADT is moving through Congress. The House has already voted to repeal it, and it’s stuck in the Senate. It’s interesting to see what’s being said. My most interesting person is Senator John McCain. At first blush you’d think he’d be the “go to” guy on this issue given his background. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and was a pilot during Vietnam. He was shot down and spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam. If ever there was a case where a group needed unit cohesion, it would be here. He has opposed DADT and it was easy to do this when the the leaders of the military opposed it. In fact, in 1986 he said this: “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”

He probably never expected this to happen, but it has. On December 2, 2010 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen said this:

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I am convinced that repeal of the law governing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the right thing to do. Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.
And so what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led. And families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service in droves.

He made this statement against the backdrop of a study released by the Pentagon on November 30, 2010. The survey reviewed the beliefs of 115,000 active duty members of the military and 44,200 military spouses. About 70% of them indicated they had no problem with the idea of allowing gays to serve. Those in uniform lead those out of uniform: only 58% of all Americans favor this. Interestingly, the majority of both groups favor repealing DADT. And the 115,000? Well, 69% report that they have already worked with a gay servicemember and 92% of them said it had a positive impact or no impact on their working relationship.

So here we are: the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support the repeal of DADT. And Senator McCain? He has abandoned his previous statement and now says: “This was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency.” At no point does he admit he abandoned his earlier promise. Then again, he’s the guy who ran with Sarah Palin.

Of the people who still oppose DADT, they all pretty much respect Barry Goldwater who said this in 1993:

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing – but it’s pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn’t true. Then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so. In fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense under President Bush, called it “a bit of an old chestnut”

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act – not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows? (they say) perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that’s just stupid.

Years ago I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential, period. That seems ridiculous now – as it should. Now each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man, our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has and despite those who feared the worst – I among them – we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight, but we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy, like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That compromise doesn’t deal with the issue, it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least, and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it no American able to serve should be allowed – much less given an excuse – to not serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

Thank you Senator Goldwater (or, as your license plate said, AuH20).

Oh, and by the say, my favorite quotation from the report is this:

As one special operations force warfighter told us, ‘We have a gay guy (in the unit). He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay,’

Nowhere have I found a quotation that said: “I served with a homosexual and it hurt us as a unit.” Let me know if you have.

Welcome to San Diego (Where Even Santa Claus Shakes You Down)

Posted on December 6, 2010 by tom

On Saturday Nancy and I went down to Balboa Park for the annual celebration of December Nights. While there we saw this sign. It’s a Christmas tradition that young children sit on Santa’s lap, but most of us don’t remember paying for this joy. But then again, I didn’t spend my Santa years in San Diego.

It’s a new, cynical, and expensive world. At least here in San Diego

Is the Pope Becoming Pastoral?

Posted on November 29, 2010 by tom

Last week we read some surprising news coming out of the Vatican: there might be some movement on the condom front (sorry, I couldn’t resist). Pope Benedict XVI, in the course of speaking with a German journalist, seemed to indicate that there are times when the use of a condom is permissible.

Peter Seewald interviewed the Pope in anticipation of publishing a book: Light of the World: The Pope, the World and Signs of the Times. They had collaborated on two previous books: The Ratzinger Report and Salt of the Earth. In the course of the interviews the Pope indicated that there may be times when it is permissible for someone to use a condom. He illustrated this by talking about a male prostitute who is HIV positive. He wishes to change his life but isn’t ready yet, and he doesn’t wish to spread the virus any further. The Pope feels that in this case it would be permissible for him to use a condom as a way of not spreading the virus while he continues to reform his life.

This has caused a great deal of confusion in the Catholic world given the historic (and histrionic) view toward condoms and other forms of birth control. Before we learned about AIDS and the role of HIV, condoms were almost exclusively used as birth control for heterosexual couples. Since the Catholic Church condemns all forms of birth control, condom use was always prohibited. In the 1980s gay men began to use condoms as a way to prevent the spread of AIDS, and it widened to include any couple who wished to practice “safe sex.” Unfortunately many groups (the Vatican included) responded to this by incorrectly claiming that condoms aren’t effective in stopping the virus. As recently as March, 2009 the Pope claimed that condoms could “aggravate” the spread of AIDS.

So what gives? The Catholic blogosphere is on fire with the question: “Has the Catholic Church changed its teaching?” The Vatican has gone to great lengths to claim it hasn’t, and in the final analysis, they’re right.

But it’s more complicated than that.

The Catholic Church still prohibits artificial birth control among married couples and any sexual activity among unmarried couples. Since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage, this includes all gay couples. The change has been not one of doctrine or teaching, but pastoral application.

In the past the Church has appeared (at least to me) to draw a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Simply put, if you are committing a sin you need to stop. If you are practicing birth control or cheating your employees, there is no middle ground: stop and stop now. The Pope’s remarks appear to acknowledge that in the struggle to change our behavior, we sometimes need to take intermediate steps. I applaud this step and encourage the Pope to continue doing what he’s doing.

I mentioned earlier that this has created some activity in the Catholic blogosphere. Several writers are getting it right, but many are getting it wrong. My favorite is a string on the Catholic Answers forum.

My final word on this (and I get the final word because it’s my blog) is my hope that this increased interest in pastoral applications will lead the Pope and the Vatican to examine again some of their doctrines. The birth control stuff doesn’t bother me because most Catholic couples already cheerfully ignore this anyway. But I do hope that this leads to a sense of conversion (an intermediate step, if you will) to look again at Church stands that discriminate against women, homosexuals, and other members of our Church. We’ll see.

Decision 2010: It's going to be a long night

Posted on November 2, 2010 by tom

6:00PM Pacific Time, 9:00PM Eastern Time, 0200 GMT: It’s time for my semi-annual night to follow the national elections. We’re halfway through the 1st Barack Obama administration. Historically a new President looses seats in the election two years into his first term. The smart money today is that the Democratic Party will lose control of the House and may lose control of the Senate.

Before I begin, let me say (by way of my soapbox) that I write this as a grateful American. If you look at our world, we are blessed to live in a country that allows us to vote for our leaders. It’s pretty amazing that I can criticize and even make fun of those in government and nobody can arrest or prosecute me.

And now, onto the races. Here in California we had two huge races that are probably all but decided. The race for governor to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger has been headlines for months, but it appears from recent polling that Jerry Brown will beat Meg Whitman by a considerable number. It appears that many California voters are not thrilled for another Brown administration (he was governor from 1975-1983) but don’t like the fact that Meg has spent over $150,000,000 of her own money in an attempt to buy the election.

The headlines in this election center around the Tea Party. The party stands for “Taxed Enough Already” and believes that the Republican Party has abandoned its platform of lower taxes and smaller government. So far tonight it’s been mixed. In Kentucky it appears that Rand Paul won the Senate seat. He’s famous for questioning the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation. Paul believes that if you own a business you should be able to hire or do business with anyone you choose, and the government cannot force you into a decision.

On the other hand, the Tea Party candidate in Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, lost big. Also, in New York Carl Palodino has lost. He’s famous for promising to take a baseball bat to (state capital) Albany. I guess New Yorkers prefer bats in the hands of the Yankees and Mets.

7:30PM Pacific Time, 10:30PM Eastern Time, 0330 GMT: CNN is projecting that the Republicans will take back the House of Representatives. If that’s true, it will be a repeat of 1994 when the Democrats lost the House led by Newt Gingrich. It appears that the American people once again like divided government.

The House basically runs on majority rule: There are 435 members and anytime you get 217 votes, the bill passes. But that’s the easiest part of this. The Senate is made up of 100 members, and they also run on majority rule, but not as easily. If there is a bill being debated, any Senator can filibuster (that is, get up to speak and not yield that position). If that happens the Senator cannot be removed from the microphone without a vote of “cloture.” Cloture means that 60 Senators vote to end the debate, or in other words, 41 Senators can block any legislation. Famously, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond filibustered on August 29, 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes to oppose the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

If a bill gets a majority vote in the House, has the support of at least 60 Senators, it then goes to the President who can sign or veto the bill. If the President vetoes the bill, then a 2/3 majority of both chambers (291 House members and 67 Senators) must vote to override the veto.

Clearly the framers of the Constitution wished to make change difficult. It’s been 223 years since the Constitution was ratified and this electorate appears to agree with them. More to come: the polls close here in California in a few minutes.

8:00PM Pacific Time, 11:00PM Eastern Time, 0400 GMT: The polls have just closed here in California, and based on exit polls it appears that Jerry Brown has defeated Meg Whitman and Barbara Boxer has defeated Carly Fiorina. I’m always mistrustful of exit polls, and I refuse to participate in them, but I hope they’re right. I’ve never been a fan of wealthy people running for office based on their checkbooks and the belief that anyone can govern. The reality is that there really is a skill set for public servants and the fact that you can (or can’t, in the case of Carly) run a company doesn’t make you competent for office.

9:00PM Pacific Time, 12:00AM Eastern Time, 0500 GMT: As of a few minutes ago, CNN projected that Barbara Boxer will be re-elected to the Senate and that means that the Democrats will retain a majority. As I’ve stated, a party needs more than a 60-40 majority to control the Senate, and in that sense it doesn’t make all that much difference, but as a Californian I’m happy to see Barbara continue to represent us.

The surprise for me is Nevada. Harry Reid has been fighting for his life, and as I write this, he’s ahead 52% to 44% with 59% of the districts reporting. That’s a bigger lead than I expected. Nobody is predicting this race yet, and the night is long ahead, but I’m pleased to see Harry so far ahead.

It’s now 9:12PM and CNN has projected Jerry Brown the new governor. As I said, I’m not crazy about Jerry, but I’m relieved that it’s not Meg. I’m not impressed with her EBay experience, and I’m really not impressed that she’s running on the same platform as Arnold Schwarzenegger (“I have no idea how to do this job, so vote for me.”).

It’s now 9:40 and CNN is projecting Harry Reid as the winner in the Nevada Senate race. I know he’s a polarizing figure, but I’m glad he won.

10:00PM Pacific Time, 1:00AM Eastern Time, 0600 GMT: The night is winding down and it looks like it’s going to be a good night for the Republican Party. John Boehner will probably be House Speaker in January, though Harry Reid will remain the Senate Majority Leader. This means the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate and the Republicans have the House. I only hope that this helps the groups work together.

Here in California, the story is often as much about ballot propositions as anything else. I think it’s a flaw in the state Constitution, but it’s fairly easy to put a proposition on the ballot. It appears that Prop 19 will go down (it allows us to grow and smoke marijuana) and I’m happy about that. I don’t expect to know much more about the other propositions until morning.

Good night for now.

The Money Chronicles, Volume 3: Great Moments at the Cash Register

Posted on October 16, 2010 by tom

I ran a simple errand today: I needed to get a wallet and drove to my local department store. I expected to pay about $30 and get something that will last a few years. As I walked up to the Macy’s at the University Town Center I saw there was a table near the entrance. Fortunately it wasn’t someone looking for my support for a candidate or ballot measure: it was the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and they were collecting money to end breast cancer. I cheerfully gave them $5.00 and I was given a coupon that I could use at the store. Here is a copy of the coupon:

I know it’s hard to read, but bear with me (I’m sure there was no intent to make it confusing). The coupon grants discounts of 10%, 20%, or 25% depending on what you buy. I intended to buy a man’s wallet. The discount would be 25% if it was a “single regular, sale or clearance fashion item for the entire family including accessories, plus selections for your home.” The discount would be 20% if I’m buying a “sale & clearance and select regular priced women’s [sic], men’s [sic] and kids’ apparel and accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, frames, bed & bath items, housewares, luggage, and china.” The 10% discount appears to apply only for “all sale & clearance and select regular-priced furniture, mattresses, area rugs, electrics and electronics.” Any idea where my wallet fits? Me neither.

I walked into the store and found the mens’ wallet display. There were three tables: one table announced that everything on the table is on sale for 20% off. The second table had a sign that all wallets there were 30% off. The third table had a sign that was covered up. You make the call. As you might expect, my first question was whether I could combine the two discounts: the sale price on the wallet and the coupon. I found a suitable wallet (manufactured by Geoffrey Beane if that matters to you). The list price was $36, the upper level of what I wanted to pay. But wait: it’s on the 30% off table and I have a coupon for either 20% or 25%. How much is the wallet now? Good question. The first salesperson I asked read the coupon and said that I have to have a Macy’s credit card to use the coupon. I asked where he sees that on the coupon and he called another salesperson over. This person seemed to think I could combine the two, but he wasn’t sure (that’s what the cash register was for). We walked over to the cash register and he suggested that I apply for a Macy’s credit card which would give me an additional 25% off of this purchase. That would have been fun, but I declined. At this point I’m still not sure what I’m going to pay.

OK, drum roll: the 2nd salesperson rang me up and the total price was $21.92. I can’t complain, and I bought the wallet. Now, here’s the question: how did it go from $36 to $21.92? I started writing the Money Chronicles because of experiences like this. We’re often bombarded by offers of discounts and sales, and more often than not we have no idea how much we’re going to pay. The 30% off table looked enticing, and being able to save an additional 10%, 20%, or 25% sounded even better. But neither I nor the cashier knew how much I would be charged until the cash register told us.

One thing I knew right away was that I wouldn’t get 55% off (30% plus 25%). But let’s start with the 30%. The list price of the wallet was $36.00 and 30% of that is $10.80. Subtract the $10.80 and the wallet should be $25.20. So far so good. Now for the second part: it appears that my wallet is catagorized as “sale & clearance and select regular priced women’s [sic], men’s [sic] and kids’ apparel and accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, frames, bed & bath items, housewares, luggage, and china” as I was given the 20% discount. I guess the wallet is an accessory. Too bad it doesn’t qualify as “for the entire family” as I would have gotten 25% off. In any case, I got 20% off the $25.20. That’s $5.04, bringing the total down to $20.16. Add the 8.75% sales tax of $1.76 and it brings the total to $21.92.

In the end, I was discounted $14.08, which was 39%. But I wonder how many people would have thought I’d have gotten 50% off (30% plus 20%). Each discount made the next one less valuable, and I have to wonder this: if I had applied for a Macy’s credit card, where would that discount have come? I’m guessing it would have been after the 30% and before the 20%. That being the case, it would have gone like this: Start with $36.00, minus the 30% ($25.20). Now take the credit card 25% ($6.30) and that gets me down to $18.90. Now the 20% coupon gives me another $3.78 off, bringing the total down to $15.12. Add on sales tax and we’re back up to $16.44. It gives me a new credit card with (likely) a high interest rate, and it would have saved me $5.48. Doing the math makes it seem less valuable.

The Thoughts and Musings of Tom Allain

Enter at Your Own Risk

Author Archives: tom