Gift Cards Suck

Gift cards are a great deal for merchants, a shitty deal for consumers.

I wrote about gift cards before.  They are a crappy deal, and like a hot potato, you should get rid of them as soon as you get one - spend it quickly.  Merchants count on you losing or forgetting about a gift card and a surprising number of them are never spent.  This is free money for the merchants.  It explains why some merchants sell gift cards for below cost, which makes no sense on its face.  But if 20% of gift cards are never spent, you can afford to sell a $25 gift card for $22.50 and still make money.

And yes, some wily folks have figured this out and bought gift cards for below face-value and ended up with a 5-10% effective discount.  Don't expect that to last!

I recounted before how I found several in a drawer somewhere that Mr. See had accumulated as gifts from friends.   When I asked him why these were tucked away, he replied that he was saving them "for special" - some ill-defined occasion when it would be appropriate to use the gift card.  That occasion, being so poorly defined, of course, never occurred.

So I forced him to go out and use the damn things, before they expired or were lost.  In some instances, these sort of things can expire, particularly "gift certificates" from restaurants or local merchants.   According to some sources, a 2009 law prevents gift cards from expiring - for five years.  But some gift card companies can charge "dormancy fees" if a gift card is not used - effectively draining away the balance over time, much as banks do with dormant bank accounts.

Again, this is free money for the gift card issuer.  Note that some States have laws that prevent gift cards from expiring, and also outlawing dormancy fees.  This does not mean a gift card is a good place to stash money.

Gift cards suck for a number of other reasons, though.

To begin with, they promote consumption. You get a gift card for $25 at your favorite restaurant (or even your least favorite restaurant), you are going to go to that restaurant and spend the card - and likely some additional cash. So the card acts as an incentive to spend, which is sort of a reverse gift.  $25 in cash can be put into the bank, if you so desire.   You need not consume it.

Compounding this is they are not easy to use.  I received a rebate from Home Depot for buying paint.  It was a $150 gift card, in this case, a debit card (which are slightly different).  In order to spend it, I had to apply the balance to another purchase at Home Depot, and this required that I know the balance on the card which required that I call in and make a balance inquiry and then enter the exact amount to be debited from the card.   I would have preferred to have just $150 off the original purchase, but again, they are hoping you don't spend all the money or just forget about the rebate.  Rebates, like gift cards, suck.

But beyond that, gift cards have acquired an odious reputation as a means of banking the unbanked, and as a party in frauds. For the very poor, gift cards are a way of paying bills and making purchases, when they don't have a bank account or a good credit rating. You can use a gift card like a credit card, in some cases, but there are often fees involved for purchasing the card, as well as for checking the balance, receiving cash from an ATM and other services. It may be convenient for the poor, but convenience comes at a cost.

In a plethora of Internet scams, such as the "IRS Tax Audit" scam, elderly people are exhorted to obtain gift cards and then send the numbers on the card - along with the scratch-off PIN number on the back - to someone overseas.   Once they have these numbers, they can cash in the value of the card at a local ATM, and it cannot be traced or recovered, ever.

Gift cards have replaced Western Union as the medium of exchange in scams, and arguably are easier to use, less costly and harder to trace than even Bitcoin.

Another scam - which is becoming less common - is where scammers pick up a gift card at a store and then go to the restroom to write down the numbers from the card - and scratch off the cover for the PIN number and write that down.  They then return the card to the rack and leave the store.  An unwitting shopper then "buys" the gift card and charges it with money.  Before they can even get home, the scammer has drained the card of cash value, as they have the card number and PIN.   Changes in packaging have alleviated this problem somewhat.  But if you buy a gift card that is laying out on a rack, be sure the PIN number was not exposed via the scratch-off cover.  If it was, the card is worthless - to you, anyway.

Since these things are involved in so many scams (just like Western Union) and they favor the merchants more than the consumer, the best bet is just to avoid them entirely.  When someone gives me a gift card or a gift certificate, figure out how to use it as quickly as possible.   Putting it "in a drawer, somewhere" until you decide the perfect moment to use it, is probably the worst idea.

And while your intentions may be good, perhaps avoid giving gift cards as gifts.  It is a left-handed gift, as the recipient now has to make the effort to spend it.  But moreover, maybe if people stopped using these cards entirely, they might eventually go away.

Let's hope!

The Internet Generation

Kids raised on the Internet have seen a lot of bad things.

I was surfing the Internet the other day and saw a discussion by a group of younger people - I guess Millenials, talking about the horrific things they saw online as kids.  The Internet - at least the part most of us see, has cleaned up its act somewhat.  Not long ago, there were actual websites showing "gore" videos - videos of gruesome accidents or people doing horrible things to one another.  The young people (and by young, I guess they are pushing 40 now) say they wished they hadn't seen such videos, but over time, they have come to grips with it and come out somewhat "normal."

I wonder.  I wonder if perhaps this gun nut culture and the increasing calls for violence and murder are a result of desensitization that occurs when  you watch too much violent content.  One of the respondents lamented that his parents "let him" play video games for hours and hours every day.  An interesting comment, as "gamers" are always quick to claim that first-person-shooter games (which are becoming more and more realistic) don't lead to desensitizing of violence or PTSD.  While most of these games are of the fantasy variety (swords and sandals) or military themes, some, such as the "Grand Theft Auto" franchise, encourage users to shoot people on the street.  Bonus points for gunning down hookers.

And we wonder why misogyny is on the rise.

I saw another posting online from someone lamenting they had "500 hours" into a video game, and hadn't reached a certain level.  500 hours?  At 40 hours a week, that is over 12 weeks of work - three months of your working life or 1/4 of a year, spend sitting on a couch, staring at a screen.  I can only imagine what his physique looks like.  The "gaming" industry (not to be confused with the gambling industry, which tries to go by the same name) has really created an addictive electronic drug!

And yet, the same people complain about how lousy their lives are.  The problem may literally be in front of them.

It is a different era.  Yea, I remember guys who got "really good" at Pac-Man, one quarter at a time.  And while we were all impressed at the time, the fame was fleeting.  Like, within a half-hour, no one gave a shit that you were the all-time high winner on an arcade machine.

But I digress.

Pornography is also rampant on the Internet, and by that, I don't mean the peek-a-boo pictures we used to see in Playboy back in the day. Yes, back in  the 1960's, kids would steal a copy of Playboy from Dad's secret stash behind the furnace and bring it to school to pass around during recess.  They usually got called to the Principal's office. But that was pretty tame compared to the fetish porn and BDSM that is freely available on the Internet.  And I'm not talking teenagers sharing this stuff - elementary school kids are passing around links to gore and hard-core porn via the ubiquitous smart phone.

The topic of discussion was parental filters - and whether they work or not.  Kids are surprisingly clever when it comes to circumventing parental rules, and not every parent is responsible enough to install such a filter.  So while you child may be "protected" that protection lasts only they go over to Dirk's house to shoot off BB guns and look at naughty things online.

Dirk actually existed in my childhood.  He was a problematic child in Kindergarten (!) always stuffing crayons in his ears and eating paste.  I went to his house once - his parents were quite wealthy.  He had a killer tree house and we went up there and he shot at birds and squirrels with his BB gun (at age 5!).  My parents didn't let me go back there, after I excitedly told them about the BB gun!

There's always a Dirk - he's the guy who swiped Dad's old copy of Playboy from behind the furnace and brought it to middle school.  Today, he is sharing links to the dark web with his playmates.  And teen and pre-teen boys, in particular, think this sort of thing is keen.  If you don't, you'll be called a "wuss" or worse yet - gay.  Peer pressure is very strong at that age.

While passing around a Playboy in middle school was against the rules, I am not sure it harmed us too much.  While the magazine was sexist and misogynist, it also presented women as unattainable objects of beauty - something to be coveted and appreciated.  You asked a girl if she would go to the sock-hop with you, and were devastated if she turned you down.

The sort of porn prevalent on the Internet today treats women like garbage cans - objects to be used and abused.  A weird message to sent to young hormonal boys. It makes me wonder whether this new misogyny and this whole stupid "incel" thing isn't triggered by these poor normative cues.

It seems that while overall crime rates are down from when I was a kid (by like half or more), but in recent years, in addition to them creeping up, people are becoming increasingly belligerent and hostile in everyday life.   Driving, for example, has gotten so much worse since the pandemic.  Everyone, it seems, is angry an in a hurry to go nowhere.  They tailgate and cut people off because they have to get somewhere - but they have all the time in the world to "brake check" a trucker or start a fist-fight by the side of the road.  I thought you were in a hurry, buddy?

OK, so I digress again.  Or did I?

Because I think there is a connection here.  The Internet has brought us all together and pushed us all apart.  We go online and instead of a "community" there are a series of cubbyholes and silos, isolating ourselves from one another, but lumping us into groups of like-minded individuals.  And some of these groups are indeed, baskets of deplorables.

Of course, this is their world now, the new normal, much as the television defined my generation (and too late, we realized we wasted half our lives - far more than 500 hours!) watching it and being influenced by it.  Only late in life do we realize we were snookered by a slick marketing machine.

And we were planted in front of the "boob tube" before we even were out of diapers.  Today, the same is true of the Internet.  I saw a lady at a Vermont campground with her baby in her lap, as the child scrolled and clicked on a laptop, surfing the net before they could even speak!  And we wonder why there are so many Autistic kids these days!

I wonder whether the new generation, born into this world of online living, realizes they are being manipulated and used.  Maybe they already do - as evidenced by the discussion above.  Maybe it is only us oldsters who are too stupid to realize half the stuff online is just lies designed to derange your brain and get you to spend money.  Look at these Qanonsense people - are any of them under the age of 40?  I think not.

So maybe the younger generation will "get it" and turn away from the carnival that is the Internet.  Or again, maybe not.  It is the youngsters who populate Twitter and Tick-Tock, responding to idiotic "challenges" and filming themselves doing jerky dances in the middle of a Costco.  It is the younger people who insist on owning an iPhone, not because it is better or cheaper (fail and fail again!) but so they won't be seen as "lame" for having a green texting bubble.

Yea, the next generation is just as stupid and superficial as we were.  And when they get to be our age, they will rail against the machine that snookered them, to the amusement of yet a new generation, who will say, "Yea, whatever, Grandpa!" and roll their eyes.

Seems like you can never win at this game of life.  By the time you figure it all out, well, it's too late!

Sirius XM, HughesNet, Iridium, DirecTV, Starlink - Why is Direct Satellite Service So Unprofitable?

Turns out, launching satellites is costly and has a narrow bandwidth.

That's a LOT of satellites!

Years ago, we bought the lake house and the local cable company wouldn't provide internet service - their last connect was a half-mile away.  We called the phone company and they said the same thing - even if we were willing to pay thousands of dollars to run a DSL line to our house (from a mile away) they wouldn't do it - they were already switching to UVERSE or something.  This was in the era of flip-phones, so I am not sure if a WiFi hotspot would have worked.  We tried a "line of sight" connection to an antenna across the lake, run by a local Mom-and-Pop service, but the service was so intermittent as to not be worthwhile.  So we went with HugesNet, which provided internet service from a geosynchronous satellite 22,000 miles in outer space.

It worked well, from a download perspective.  Upload was very slow.  But the Internet is mostly download.  You click a mouse or type a key and your upstream signal is pretty narrow.  In response, you receive pages of images, video, and other data.  The communications link is asymmetrical which is why "DSL" or "Digital Subscriber Line" was originally called ADSL or Asymmetrical Digital Subscriber Line.

And oddly enough, it was originally developed by Bell Atlantic and tested in Arlington, Virginia, as a means of streaming movies - back in the 1990s.  It failed because the test subjects were all young professionals (mostly Asian, as it turned out) and had no time for such foolishness.  Someone at Bell Atlantic thought of taking the ruins of this test and using it for Internet service - and broadband was born.

But I digress.  Hughes sold off HughesNet to Echostar.  It was always a niche service for people like me, who had no other communications choices.  Since it used geosynchronous satellites, it had a latency issue for videoconferencing.  As fiber-to-home expanded and as cell service exploded, the need to spend a thousand dollars on equipment and over $100 a month for service petered out.  We spend $25 a month on our WiFi hotspot and it streams video perfectly - and we can take it anywhere in the US, pretty much.  Cell tower antennas pepper the landscape, even in rural areas.   We no longer needed the service.

Satellite, on the other hand, has a limited "footprint" particularly for geosynchronous satellites.  If you want to stream music on SirusXM, you can't go to Alaska with it - you won't get signal.  And if you drive under trees or under a bridge or in a tunnel, well, the signal dies as well. Even a rainstorm was enough to attenuate our Hugesnet signal.  Low Earth Orbit satellites, such as used in the ill-fated "Iridium" phone system or in Starlink, solve some of the "footprint" and latency problems, but still have trouble with physical blocking of signals.  In order to make these systems work, you have to launch hundreds, if not thousands of satellites, which cost millions to launch and have to be replaced periodically.

Iridium went bankrupt this way - but was bought out of bankruptcy because the CIA and other agencies were using it.  Freed of Billions of dollars of debt they had from launching the initial satellites, they soldiered on.  But it isn't a service that many people want to use, as cell phones are pretty much workable around the world. The government bailed out Iridium by providing a huge contract and not coincidentally, the new company (now traded on the NYSE) is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.  Hmmmm.... What else is headquartered there?  Beats me!  According to one online source, their P/E ratio is -360 which means they are still hemorrhaging cash.   They have since replaced all their satellites once and are poised to do it again.  Satellites are not forever!

You may not remember this, but at one time there were two satellite radio services, Sirius and XM.  The both lost money so they merged together (you see a pattern here?).  Turns out, people didn't want to pay much for the service and since they could stream music on their cell phones (see the pattern again?) most people view XM as merely an annoying feature on their car stereo.  And since you can't drive your car into your living room, or wear it around you neck at work, satellite radio turns out to be of very limited use.  The work-from-home movement must surely piss them off!  How do you reach people during "drive time" if they don't drive!

Oddly enough, SiriusXM has a P/E ratio of 15 which is very good.  So they must be making money from someone - just not me.  I'd rather stream music from my phone in my car using Bluetooth than to pay crazy prices (and their prices are so elastic and it is annoying to unsubscribe) for the service.  Going forward, I am not sure they have a real market, but since every car maker puts an XM feature in their cars (which supposedly, SirusXM pays for, in part) they have a captive audience of the remaining commuters in the world. Hey, some people still pay money for cable, right?

SiriusXM, however, has the advantage that their system is one-way.  They stream data from satellite(s) and don't have to deal with an upstream channel.  This also means they can use fewer satellites (6 rather than hundreds) and in geosynchronous orbit, they tend to last longer.  Their bandwidth is fixed, too, so when they increase the number of subscribers or users, it doesn't degrade the service, as would happen with HugesNet or Iridium - or Starlink.

Still, SiriusXM flirted with bankruptcy once, and they stay in business today by.... streaming over the Internet. Since they have so many "big names" signed to contracts, people who desperately have to listen to sports or to Howard Stern, will pay to stream the service.  So, once again, the ubiquitous cell phone supplants the satellite.  How long before SiriusXM abandons or spins-off its satellite division?  When the existing satellites wear out, will they launch new ones?  I am sure it is a question the Board of Directors is giving serious thought to.  After all, the hardware requirements for streaming on the Internet are far less and far more profitable.

DirecTV and Dish Network are in the same position as Sirus and XM were back in the day, and there is talk the two may merge, as there isn't enough room in the market for two competitors.  We see a lot of people using satellite TV in our travels, as many older RV'ers sit in their mega-5th-wheels and watch Fox News all day long (they never go outside, unless they have an outdoor TV as well!).  Most RV parks have cable connections, although this is getting rarer and rarer as people switch to streaming over the internet or watching by satellite.  30 years ago, many RV parks had telephone connections at each site, and sometimes you still see the remains of these.  Funny how our technology becomes so obsolete so quickly!

I noted before how our neighbors would switch between cable and satellite TV on a yearly basis - taking advantage of introductory offers.  The "Cable guy" comes and runs an orange cable on the ground, and later on (weeks later, sometimes) another guy comes and buries it.  Ditto for the satellite TV guy.  No one expects you to keep the service for long, it seems, and thus the installs are haphazard at best.   Remember when homes used to be pre-wired for cable?  Those were the glory days - we thought technology was stable.

But of course, I suspect the telcos and cablecos are tired of these constant installs.  At our house, we have gone entirely wireless - we use the hotspot for telephone, internet, and streaming video.  I finally cut down the telco "drop" going to the house, as I kept hitting it with my extension ladder.  Our network interface box is now pretty useless.

Again, as with Sirius, there is no degradation of signal as you add subscribers to DirecTV or Dish Network, as you are broadcasting the same signal to everyone.  It breaks down, however, when you try to do pay-per-view or interactive streaming.  I wrote Patents on early satellite decoders and one problem we had was the "upstream channel" to communicate PPV requests.  Those early decoders had a phone link, which meant you either had to have a separate phone line, or make sure no one was on the phone while you were uploading your selection.  One big problem was that most houses didn't have a phone jack near the television.   Those were the days!  Phone jacks!  RJ-11 plugs!  Of course, I am old enough to remember the Bell System 404A that I grew up with.

All that being said, it seems that satellite systems that use geosynchronous satellites are a little more profitable than those using "constellations" of satellites that require regular launching to replenish.  So DirecTV and Dish Network, even if they have to merge, may still find a way to survive.

Which brings us to Starlink.  A recent article online claims that Starlink promised to have 20 million subscribers by 2022 and yet today, they have little over a million.  They claim to be profitable - slightly, and just starting this year.  But it remains to be seen if they can continue to get more subscribers and also whether they can afford to keep launching satellites.

Like other satellite services, it depends on niche market segments.  We see a lot of Starlink users when we travel by RV.  So-called "work from home" people are traveling the country by RV in response to the pandemic, and they need a high-bandwidth link to do Zoom meetings.  For such niche users, it may be the only choice for a reliable connection.  Then again, there is a huge gap between one million and twenty million.

And unlike Iridium, it is doubtful that the CIA will bail them out if they need money.  You can't rely on a company where one man decides the foreign policy of your country by selectively turning the system on and off at a whim.  I doubt NSA would be amused.  Which makes me wonder, whether the agency will provide Zelenskyy with Iridium receivers for their drones, so they don't have to rely on Starlink anymore.  Just a thought.

While Starlink might be useful in providing Internet to rural areas and under-serviced third-world countries, those are the types of areas where people are least willing to pay for such service.   Sure, the dictator's wife might enjoy internet access in some third-world country, but is that enough to pay for all those satellites?  Are work-from-home RV'ers enough as well?  Remember, I am typing this on a 20-year-old laptop hooked into my Walmart hotspot using poverty service at $25 a month for 100GB.  Why would I need Starlink?  Why would anyone?

(UPDATE:  The problem for Starlink is the same that Dentists face.  America has more Dentists per capita than many other countries, even wealthy countries.  Yet in many rural areas, there are a dearth of Dentists!  Why?  Well, you can't make money pulling meth teeth in West Virginia.  But you can make enough money to buy a yacht, if you do cosmetic dentistry in Boca Raton or Hollywood.  So they go where the money is, just as the telcoms go where the high-income, high-density neighborhoods are.)

In a way, this is the same "cherry-picking" phenomenon that has plagued communications since the days of the telegraph.  Jerrold company was founded by a guy in rural Pennsylvania who developed the temperature-compensated line amplifier.  To get TV service, he put an antenna on a local mountain top.  His neighbors saw this and asked to tap in.  He added more people and had to develop the hardware, including amplifiers, to increase signal strength as it degraded over the lines.  Cable television was born - as a rural service.

But by the 1980's the "wired cities" movement took hold.  Cable companies vied for lucrative concessions from cities and counties to wire the dense neighborhoods.  It was more profitable to go after dense cities than sparse rural areas.  See my comments above about trying to get Internet at the lake house.  So communications companies have always favored low-hanging fruit - dense areas with high incomes and lots of subscribers.

It is why, during the depression, the government funded efforts to bring electricity and telephone to rural areas, often using cooperatives (a friend of mine still has telephone and internet service from one such co-op - literally a Mom and Pop operation!).  The government had to step in and promote and subsidize these services as the companies didn't want to spend the capital on such a thin and poor subscriber base.

So therein lies the conundrum for Starlink.  It is a nice "gimmie" to the niche users who cannot connect any other way, but it is not going to attract a lot of rural users as they cannot afford the service.  Meanwhile, the telcos have peppered yet another water tower with 5G antennas.  Why pay for satellite anything when you can stream it through your phone or hotspot?

Starlink, like Iridium, DirecTV, HughesNet, and Sirius, will remain a niche market, not a mass-market service.   And whether it can keep making money, while still launching satellite after satellite, remains to be seen.

So what is the point of this?  Well, if they decide to "go public" with an IPO, well, think about it carefully.  Given the chequered history of direct satellite services, it seems like a long-shot bet.  And something tells me that they will find a way to show four quarters of increasing profits, before "dropping" an IPO on Wall Street.

How else are the investors going to make money?

UPDATE:  Another advantage that cellular 5G has over satellite anything, is that you need not "set up" an antenna to get a signal.  To use HughesNet, DirecTV or any other type of geosynchronous satellite service, you have to align your "dish" with a point in the sky.  This means you have to have a line-of-sight with the satellite, which often frustrates RV'ers.  Why don't they cut down all those pesky trees!  I can't watch Fucker Carlson on Fox!  Dammit!

Even Low Earth Orbit satellite systems need a line of sight and usually the antenna needs to be "set up" or at least that is what I have seen with RV'ers using Starlink.  On the other hand, my cheap-ass hotspot is plugged in to a USB port in our trailer (which has like 12 of them) and I can get WiFi in the truck as we go down the road - even under bridges and sometimes even in tunnels!  Nothing to set up, it always works!

I am typing this from a mountain top in West Virginia.  Four bars of service, too.  The cell phone network has expanded so quickly it has made satellite services redundant.  Gee, I wonder who spread all those nasty conspiracy theory rumors about 5G? You don't suppose....  Nah!

Happy Patriot Day! ( A Day Late)

I am not sure that 9/11 should be a holiday, but then again, other horrific events have served as the basis for holidays in the past.

"The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" so the saying goes, memorializes Armistice Day, which marked the end of World War I.  Today we call it Veterans Day, which Kurt Vonnegut, a veteran himself, who was born on that day, decried (more than once) in his novels:

“Oh, it’s just so damn cheap, so damn typical.” I said, “This used to be a day in honor of the dead of World War One, but the living couldn’t keep their grubby hands off of it, wanted the glory of the dead for themselves. So typical, so typical. Any time anything of real dignity appears in this country, it’s torn to shreds and thrown to the mob.”

And that is an interesting observation, as today, on 9/11 day (now called "Patriot Day") we less remember the sacrifices of those who died, but honor "first responders" who are living, even those far removed from New York City or even the State, even those who were in diapers when 9/11 happened.  Evenryone's a hero today, even if they did nothing heroic.  And this isn't up for debate, either.  Support the Blue!  Support the Red!  Even if they beat suspects to death and bankrupt entire cities!  Public servants are Gods!

Well, unless they are school teachers - fuck them!  Sadly, we have gone from the era of excessively beatifying school teachers (which I wrote about before) to kicking them under the school bus.  Something that cops and firemen should think about, as it may be their turn next on the wheel.

In fact, they have already been tossed aside - when Republicans, who are first to beat the drum of uber-Patriotism, voted down, again and again, medical relief for surviving responders, who are likely to have lifelong health issues from inhaling all that asbestos and powdered sheetrock.  Republicans prefer their patriots to be dead.  That way, they can't ask for more money.

And yes, being a fireman can be a dangerous job - and a traumatic one.  A friend of mine is a fireman, and he reports that, like an airline pilot (who we routinely throw under the plane) it is hours of boredom interrupted by moments of sheer terror.  He dreaded responding to his first grisly auto accident, and when it did happen, it was horrific.  The rest of us don't have to witness such things, unless we are gruesome enough to search the web for it.

Policemen have a tough job, too, but are more likely to be run over by a car than shot by a suspect.  In my travels, I see so many cops standing in the traffic lanes, handing out a ticket, convinced that flashing lights and a law about changing lanes will keep them safe.  Pull all the way off the road, please!  For your own safety!  No one wants to see a cop get hit by a truck.  So please be safe out there.

And yes, both Policemen and Firemen can end up doing heroic things. On the other hand, some policemen are utter cowards - running away from school shooters in Florida, or sitting outside a classroom for over an hour while a deranged gunman shoots one child after another.  Or waiting hours outside of a gay bar while patrons are finished off, one by one.  Not every cop is a hero.

Speaking of which, while we honor "the blue" maybe we should ask why the FBI dropped the ball on 9/11, along with the CIA who was tracking at least two of the terrorists.  Flight schools sent warnings to the FBI about Middle Eastern students who wanted to learn how to fly airliners - but were not interested in takeoffs and landings.  The reports sat on someone's desk and were never investigated. 

I am not tearing down law enforcement here, only pointing out that not every cop is a hero, and in fact, some are downright incompetent while others are just evil.  I live in a town where three ex-cops gunned down a black man for jogging and the local prosecutor tried to cover it up.  All of them are in jail, serving long sentences.  But that doesn't bring a young man back to life.

And yes, being a cop or a surgeon means that if you make one mistake, it may be a deadly one.  But drunkenly chasing black people and shooting them isn't some slip-up.  There is a difference - a huge difference - between negligence and malfeasance.

As for fireman, I have never heard of one running away from a fire.  But maybe we just don't hear about that as much.  On 9/11 many heroically ran to what became a certain death.  I doubt many of us could do that.

But you need not wear a uniform to be a hero. The passengers on that fourth plane, once they knew what was going on, stormed the cockpit and died trying to save the plane and fellow passengers.  They failed to save themselves, but no doubt saved the lives of people on the ground in DC.  Heroism doesn't come with the uniform, but then again, if you wear a uniform, it may be thrust upon you, at a time and place not of your choosing.

I wrote before how we were in Newfoundland during a 9/11 anniversary.  By the way, you  should visit there sometime, and spend at least a month there.  The scenery is beautiful and Newfies are swell people.  But by 9/11 you should be heading back to the ferry - it gets cold quickly.  Anyway, they had a CBC radio programme on, with a celebration of 9/11 with the children singing songs and politicians giving speeches.  From their perspective, 9/11 was the day that half the Atlantic air traffic ended up in their backyard and Newfies graciously opened up their homes to stranded travelers.  The horror of that day was not as intense for them.

And while the thought was nice, we were a little disconcerted when Newfies, upon discovering we were Americans, offered us 9/11 greetings.  Happy 9/11 Day!  I am sure Hallmark is already on this.  (Edit:  Apparently someone already has, as shown in the image above).

Of course, there is ample precedence for this.  As Vonnegut noted, November 11th turned from a "remembrance day" to a day about the living - and a vacation holiday.  Memorial day is the same way - less about parades and speeches and red-white-and-blue bunting (when I was a kid), and more about retail sales and the first day of summer.  It is just a day off from work, these days.

Even religious holidays are co-opted this way.  Christmas is all about Santa and presents - and a week off from work at the end of the year.   Easter - "celebrating" the brutal murder of Jesus - is about bunnies and candy - and a long weekend, if you are lucky.

I am sure that (if not already) within a few years, people will be talking around the water cooler about where they plan on going for 9/11 day or "Patriot Day" as it is now officially called.  "I'm taking the wife and kids to Disney for 9/11 - they put on a real good fireworks show for the holiday!  The kids just love it!  Waddya doing with your family?"  "Oh, just having the in-laws over for a barbecue.  Get a chance to relax in the backyard around the pool!"

It is hard to believe that it was over 20 years ago now.  An entire generation has been raised since this happened, and many more were just children when it occurred.  I cannot fathom how this affects their thinking.  For young people who were in school that day, I suspect it created some PTSD.  For young people who weren't born yet that day (or were mere infants or toddlers) I suspect they are tired of hearing about it.  A bunch of boomer talk to them, no doubt.

We should honor the dead - and those veterans of that day who lost co-workers and loved ones, and who themselves were injured.  We should remember.  But it should not be turned into another commercial, crass holiday, like so many others have become.

And yet, it may be too late already.  I received an e-mail on Sunday (one of the many desperate e-mails from retailers I have been receiving lately) from a company that sells RV window shades.  "We should always remember the sacrifices first responders made that day!" they crowed, "And to honor them, we are offering 9-11% off on all window awnings!  Click here to BUY NOW!"

Have they no shame?  Apparently not!

UPDATE: we drove down the Lincoln Highway today and stopped by the flight 93 memorial. It is very sobering.

What's The Point of a Spelling Bee?

Kids who win spelling bees end up going on to doing great things, like getting jobs, having a career, and retiring.

I was curious as to whether spelling bees are an indication of advanced intelligence.  I was never a fan of them as a youngster - rote memorization was never my thing, although I tended to be second or third place.  Maybe this is just sour grapes.  Perhaps.  Perhaps not.

Memorization is used in many cultures as a sign of intellect.  In Japan, kids go through grueling exams, and their entire life is determined, at an early age, based on their scores on these exams.  And one thing they test you on is vocabulary - how many kanji symbols you can memorize.  The more words you know, the smarter you are deemed to be.

But memorization and intellect are two different things, as I noted before.  And many people - even teachers (or especially so) conflate the two.  Learning history?  Memorize the names and dates!  Learning math?  Memorize tables!  Learning Science?  Memorize the names of scientists and their discoveries. 

Of course, history is more than names and dates - understanding what happened and why is more important.  And much of the "history" I learned as a kid was pretty superficial.  Columbus "discovered" America, which was empty except for a few "friendly Indians" who helped him plant corn, or as they called it, maize.   Washington told King George what for and Lincoln ended slavery.  The End.  Amen. It was more of a tribal history - hooray for our side, which is always the right side.  Not a lot of nuance. It was much like the style of teaching in North Korea - which we shame them for.  Sadly, a lot of people want to "go back" to that form of "education" - why decrying anything else as "indoctrination."  Irony alert!

And higher mathematics has nothing to do with memorization and more to do with understanding.  Calculus, Differential Equations, and Number Theory are about understanding "math" not memorizing answers. And Science?  It isn't about lauding the great inventors and scientists - indeed, Science is all about trying to disprove much of what they did, or expanding upon it.

But I digress.

I found an article that listed the "accomplishments" of National Spelling Bee winners, and while some of them had nice careers (one working for the National Spelling Bee - a feedback loop!) others are not mentioned at all (we can only guess).  None appear to be famous household names you would know.  Most of those listed are professionals who have done well in their fields, but are not famous in them.

A more recent article tells about a dark side of spelling bees - children who are pushed into them by parents who hire coaches and have the children practice with software all day long to learn new words.  It sounds a lot like child beauty pageants.  The prize - a scholarship - is a worthwhile goal, and while it may allow a poor child to attend college, chances are, the winner will be from a fairly affluent family, or at least one that values education.

In a way, I was disappointed, but not surprised.  Child prodigies end up burning out quickly, in many cases.  Even Mozart, who was writing symphonies while most of us were soiling out pants, lived a very short life.  You read about these kids graduating from Harvard at age 12 or something, and then you never hear about them again.  None seem to end up as Doogie Howser, MD.

Granted, we do end up with Pascal and Stevie Wonder, but the rest of these super-smart kids seem to flounder later in life.  And I mentioned this before, that people - decent people - who are super-smart, often have trouble adjusting to society, particularly a society where dumber brutish people dominate, through sheer force.  The "smartest people in the room" don't always come out ahead - often the CEO of the company they work for is a blithering idiot.  You do read the papers, right?

And that is a shame, not because smart people should run everything, but because it is a shame to see a nice person who has a great intellect, fall down the ladder of society due to mental health problems, drug addiction, and low-self-esteem.  There are probably more geniuses in the homeless shelter than at the country club - but that's just a theory.  And once they've fallen that far, even a genius has trouble bouncing back.

So, congratulations to this years' spelling bee winner!  Hope you have a good life.  But whether it is an indicator of success in life, well, that really hasn't been proven.

And if you didn't win the spelling bee, or weren't a child prodigy, don't sweat it. From what I can see, these super-smart kids don't end up doing much better than the rest of us, and in some cases far worse.