Gas stations and card fees

As you've probably noticed, many gas stations have started charging different prices for cash and credit/debit. Up until 2010, gas stations that accepted credit cards were prohibited from charging a lower rate for cash customers. (Reason: Mastercard and Visa rule the country.) After a court ruled against the two credit giants, stations started listing two different prices.

As a warm-up to what might be more intensive posting during my Korea trip (yes, I'm going!), I decided to document my observations locally. I don't have a gas card, and I don't have much brand loyalty. Consequently, I've got a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that there's some standardization across stations of a specific brand, and that not all brands treat the card fees equally.]

Note: most of my direct experience is with debit card purchases. However, debit cards are generally treated the same as credit cards, even though debit transactions typically have lower merchant fees associated with them. I'll note places where debit is treated differently than credit.

Arco:

As the article above mentioned, Arco didn't take cards until quite recently. They currently apply a $0.35 charge for debit-card customers, but that appears to be a flat fee. I don't know precisely what the merchant fees are (I'll update the post later), but a good estimate is 3%. If that's true, then Arco is not passing on the full cost of a card transaction to the customer.

Mobil:

Mobil is often one of the pricier brands of gas in this area. Perhaps as a consequence, they don't charge a different rate for cash and credit/debit. This appears consistent over the handful of Mobil stations I explored in the San Gabriel Valley.

Chevron:

Chevron tends to add about 10 cents a gallon for credit and debit transactions, which translates into about 2.5% at current gas prices in Southern California. This means they're passing on the full price.

76:

76 stations seem to exhibit a bit more variability than the others. I don't know why -- maybe the franchisees generally have more freedom to set rates. I've seen some that list the same price for cash as credit/debit, but I think a majority charge about 10 cents more per gallon.

Shell:

Ugh. The Shell closest to my house charges 20 cents a gallon more for card transactions. This is about 5%, or well above what they should reasonably expect to have to pay in merchant fees. Another one a bit farther away is a bit more reasonable, and charges *only* 10 cents a gallon more for card purchases.

Valero:

These stations tend to be less common, and, honestly, they have the feel of an independent station. The one closest to my house charges 4 cents more per gallon for credit purchases, but charges the same as cash for debit purchases. This might have to do with the difference in fees between credit/debit, as mentioned above.


Other notes:

Of all the stations I've tried, I haven't noticed a major hold placed on my card by any of them. The policies may have changed at some point -- previously, a hold, often of more than the amount of gas purchased ($75 in some ridiculous cases) was placed on the card. This could be Very Bad Indeed, and lead to overdrafts or cards being declined if one flirted too closely with a zero balance. It's a welcome development, but I'd need to investigate further as to when this changed and why, if it is, in fact, a real change.

Update: it appears debit card PIN transactions aren't subject to holds. Not sure why that would be true, but that credit cards would be subject to holds. Fraud? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Maybe there's a different clearing mechanism for credit and debit purchases with a PIN.

Armed force, fear, and ambiguous circumstances

For those of you who don't know, there is a massive manhunt underway in Southern California for Christopher Dorner, an ex-LAPD officer and ex-Navy reservist wanted for three murders in the past week. CNN, among others, has posted updates as well as a summary of the story so far.

It's already getting political and nutty in response to this. HuffPo reports Facebook groups in support of Dorner are popping up, and the comments on the HuffPo article indicate there's enough conspiracy-theorizing and law enforcement hatred to indicate that there isn't the universal desire to see him apprehended that I might have naively expected. I am certain that some conservatives with more passion than sense or taste are making hay of the fact that Dorner's manifesto appeared to praise President Obama and support an assault weapons ban, suggesting, in an odd bit of self-referential writing, that people like him wouldn't be able to commit mayhem like this with such a ban.

Things are very fluid, and this sad and scary story, unfortunately, has the potential to get a lot sadder and scarier. I do hope my cop friends and acquaintances -- and obviously everyone else -- stays safe.

Because of the potential for raw nerves now, and because more details will emerge, I'm going to try to tread lightly here. Arguably, I shouldn't even try to bring this up -- hence why I've buried the lede a bit.

Three people were shot at in Torrance this morning by police because they were driving a similar truck to Dorner's and were near the home of one of the officers designated for protection. Two women were actually shot, one seriously. The women shot were LA Times paper deliverypeople.

More details will come after the investigation, but it appears these might have contributed to why the officer's shot at this particular truck:

1. The truck appeared to be a gray Nissan Titan like Dorner's.
1. The truck was driving with its lights off.
2. The truck was driving slowly, making stops near the officer's house.

Key points:

1. One of the residents knows that the deliverypeople keep their lights off to avoid disturbing sleeping residents.

2 The truck they were in was blue, not gray.

The second incident happened nearby about 20 minutes later, and while this story doesn't state it, I did hear in the KPCC coverage that the officers might have been responding to reports of shots fired in the first incident. This truck was black.

What are we to make of this?

The law enforcement officers hunting for Dorner are stressed, possibly tired -- especially those kept beyond their shift, and emotionally invested. Because Dorner is alleged to have killed not only police officers, but the children of police officers, it is intensely personal.

The situation that presented itself in Torrance was ambiguous, and the officers might well be cleared of wrongdoing (though the department will probably be sued).

And so, despite tremendous amounts of training with firearms and stressful situations, police officers, in two incidents this morning, opened fire, and we don't yet know fully whether they were justified in doing so.

Needless to say, this case in general, and perhaps this part in particular, has significant relevance to debates concerning the "castle doctrine" (aka "stand your ground" laws), gun ownership, and acceptable use of force by law enforcement.

Malcolm Gladwell mentioned in his book, Blink, that studies have found that an officer-involved shooting is less likely to happen if the officer is alone on patrol. (I can't find the excerpt, but related content is on the book's website.) This somewhat paradoxical bit appears to be due to the fact that, being alone and without backup, the officer is more likely to proceed more cautiously and have time to better process the situation. "When police officers are by themselves, they slow things down; with a partner, they speed things up."
Evidently, that part, located on pages 222-224, draws upon Into the Kill Zone: A Cop's Eye View of Deadly Force, by David Kinger. It'd be nice to hear from anyone who has read that book.

In other words, police officers are people -- highly trained, generally good people with guns. But, being people, we need both training and the time necessary to use that training to process information and arrive at optimal conclusions. In other words, Blink is a deceptive title -- we need a few blinks of the eye, a few seconds, to cognitively evaluate situations in the best of circumstances.

I have only a brief anecdote about high emotions among law enforcement after tragedy. In 2004, a CHP officer was shot right outside of the Pomona courthouse. I happened to be part of a group that brought lunch to the homeless on Saturdays in the civic center plaza, a couple hundred yards away from the courthouse. One of the leaders of the group -- a generally wise, thoughtful, and, in case you're wondering, a sober man -- mentioned that things got much more tense in the wake of the shooting. Although the police had not been particularly hostile to the homeless there in the past, he and others had been shouted at and had guns drawn on them in the days following the shooting.

Again, the officers involved in the shootings may well be exonerated -- the luxury of time just might not have been there, depending on the specific circumstances. And thank goodness no one died.

This is not about excessive use of force by law enforcement. This is about how even good, well-trained people might react in a poor manner to ambiguous circumstances when under high stress.

We have to regard our ability to react correctly in ambiguous situations with a bit of humility. The evidence behind that -- from our own, honest recollections as well as aggregated data -- demonstrate that an idealized view of individual liberty, individual responsibility, and individual conscience might not work, even among the best-trained of us. And that has to inform our policies. It's not just a cop problem -- go look up Yoshihiro Hattori. For an example more recent -- ten days ago -- go read about Rodrigo Diaz.

That's all I have to say.

Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts of America

CNN: Gay Scout's request for Eagle rank rejected

These cases are often more complicated than first appears, so I'm willing to accept that the BSA may have rejected an application for other reasons. So I will tread very carefully here.

I attended an Eagle Scout induction recently. It was impressive; I am told that not all can be expected to be like this, as parental involvement plays a huge role in the scope and majesty of the induction ceremony. It did strike me as a bit more martial than I expected, which was a bit unnerving. And the Scoutmaster's Minute was clearly delivered by someone who was on the wrong side of the election and sounded overly apocalyptic about how this scout was part of the "last line of defense" against American collapse. 

But it was impressive to meet a host of young men -- based on names, many of them Muslim -- with a variety of accomplishments. All the boys, to a one, were unfailingly polite and helpful. And I gained a new respect for this young man, who I honestly did not know as well as I thought I did. To be an Eagle, you have to complete, among other things, something like 120 (or 180?) nights of camping, a major service project, and a host of other things.

The BSA have, of course, been rocked by the scandal involving pedophilia and their internal database on reported cases. And the gay issue is not new. What may be new is that a majority of Americans might support either a change in policy, or the creation of a more open version of the BSA-- maybe one that enables young women to rise to the equivalent of eagle scout.

I don't think reform would happen anytime soon. I doubt it would effectively come from outside pressure; all that could happen is sufficient numbers of lawsuits could cause funding problems and the closing of some or all of the organization, which would be a huge waste. Reform would have to be grass-roots, and involve some rather precocious organizing by teenage boys, not particularly known for their autonomous political activism. (Somehow, I don't see it as coming from the parents, and definitely not from the scoutmasters.) 

Perhaps the coming out of prominent men who are also eagle scouts would help-- imagine the impact of a Jim Lovell coming out and encouraging the BSA to change its policies.

A side note: the induction ceremony I attended took place in a UCC church. The first thing one would notice, even before walking through the front doors, was a big table draped with a rainbow flag with some LGBT material. I thought it was fitting, somehow, that everyone in attendance would register at some level an awareness that the troop was a guest in God's house, and, in this house, the LGBT community was not just welcomed and embraced as fully equal-- they're family, family worth fighting for.

The first and last post about the UCLA-USC rivalry

First, I don't care. To use an incredibly tasteless football-related metaphor, I don't have a dog in this fight.

I went to a private school that wasn't USC, and, quite frankly, I took glee that we outranked the USC-like member of our consortium in national rankings of liberal arts colleges, even though we were a science and engineering school. I didn't even think about going to UCLA, though I got in. I was so certain I didn't even visit the campus, even though it was about 20 miles away.

BUT

I have to share an observation I made during a previous big UCLA-USC game.

A couple years ago, I was on a metrolink train heading toward Los Angeles, where, apparently, there was a big matchup. I couldn't tell you what sport.

I observed that the USC fans were on their smartphones or chatting casually with each other. Many were older, and were clearly not undergraduates. It's possible some weren't even alums, but I have no way of telling who is an alum and who is not. (Even the license plate border test might be flawed.)

The UCLA fans tended to be college-age, and were all studying textbooks. I peeked, and noticed that they were chemistry texts. They had their faces painted, etc., but apparently they had a test coming up.



Now, I'm not saying that UCLA students are more studious than the USC students. I didn't quite see what the USC fans were doing on their phones. Maybe they had already studied for the day.

I'm not saying that UCLA has a narrower fan base, confined to its students, while USC fans span the gamut of Southern Californian fauna. Presumably, those UCLA alums are doing something worthwhile to advance society, like working in hospitals, or public service, or becoming captains of industry.

I happen to know one Republican mayor of a Southern Californian city that, because of his connections, morphs from a stalwart conservative to the biggest supporter of a state-sponsored, left-leaning, Prop 30 tax gorging institution.

I'm also not saying that, to my knowledge, USC hasn't produced a titanic coaching legend like John Wooden, is overpriced, or exhibits the traits of defensiveness, arrogance, and hyperbole indicative of a significant inferiority complex vis a vis its cross-town rival and its East Coast competition.

I'm not saying anything, really. Just observing. :)

Innocence of Muslims and Vietnamese video stores

The recent arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the alleged creator of the inflammatory film, Innocence of Muslims, reminds me of something that happened about 13 years ago. I don't remember if it received national or international coverage, but I thought it worth mentioning, as it was a big deal at my high school.

In 1999, Truong Van Tran operated Hi-Tek, a video rental store in Westminster, California. Westminster goes by the nickname "Little Saigon" because of its sizable Vietnamese population. Most were refugees fleeing from the Communists, and many were ex-ARVN. As you can imagine, the vast majority absolutely hated Ho Chi Minh. Memories of "reeducation" were fresh in that community.

The community erupted around the holiday season of Tet when Tran put up a picture of Ho Chi Minh and the Communist Vietnamese flag in his store. The number of protesters reached 10,000, with many chanting, singing patriotic songs, and waving South Vietnamese flags. I don't recall that the protests ever turned violent, but they got close a few times.

The story resonated at my high school because there was a number of Vietnamese in the student body (and one somewhat eccentric history teacher, named Mr. Dong). Perhaps differently from those in Little Saigon, many emigrated from Vietnam long after the Vietnam War. It's not obvious whether that made them more or less likely to hate the Communist regime. I know that my friend emigrated in the 1990s, and that his father, a former South Vietnamese government official, had been "reeducated". There may have been others with similar stories.

Eventually, Tran was arrested for video piracy, documented by news cameras that showed lots of bootleg videos in his store.

Similarly, Nakoula was arrested for parole violations, something unrelated to his film.

Now there are important differences. The Westminster protests in 1999 were largely localized and largely peaceful, and directly affected a relatively small group. By contrast, the protests over Innocence of Muslims is global (around 1 billion Muslims and counting) and violent.

But both provide a window into the sometimes conflicting goals of free speech and public order in America.

Some critics would argue that both cases were the result of government and interested parties finding a convenient excuse to make a problem go away. Others would argue that anyone under such high scrutiny would probably be shown to have broken some law. And, finally, it has to be acknowledged that anyone willing to do things that are so mind-numbingly stupid might be more likely to run afoul of social norms and the legal system. (Remember folks, just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean that you should, and it definitely doesn't guarantee it's smart.)

The truth is, all of these factors were probably operating. There is a gulf between our ideals, whether free speech or otherwise, and the extent to which our society reflects them.

We'll see what happens with this guy. Based on the Tran case study, Nakoula probably won't go away -- Tran protested Garden Grove's resolution to make it harder for Vietnamese government officials to pay visits.

We'll also see how this gets reported in the Muslim world, and if this does anything to stem the violent protests.

I'm running for office, again!

My fellow Americans.
As none of you may know, I have, in anticipation of a recall election, decided to run for the highest office in the land – I want to be your next mayor of San Gabriel. While Mr. Hwang reinforces existing negative stereotypes about Asians’ singleminded focus on money and dangerous driving, I promise to give you completely new reasons to regard us with scorn and horror.

Some voices in my head have asked, “Ryan, why would you want to run for mayor?” To answer this, let me tell you a story. A few years ago, I was a lowly graduate student in an obscure school, studying something involving very high things. A guest, Dr. Janna Levin, had a pizza lunch with me and my fellow peons. One particularly interesting question asked was, “If you could be anything except an astronomer, what would you be?” I recall that my answer was “local public official, because it combines the best combination of power and lack of accountability”.

It was then that I realized that in four years, after I grew tired of mooching off my parents, I would embark upon this glorious crusade to ensure an absolute lack of change in how things are done.

This election, we have heard candidates from the left and the right promise change, bemoan the status quo, and spend so much money on television advertisements that I’m actually starting to miss the stupid Geico crying pig commercials.

I am here to reassure you that, as mayor, I won’t change a damn thing. All these candidates who promise change never ask you, the voter, you, the ATM machine, whether you really want change. We (weeeeeeeeeeee!) do not ask ourselves that question enough – though my personal record is 834 times in a day.

If things changed for the better, what would we complain about? Who would be blame for our own failings? Most importantly, who would we feel smarter than? We need our current dysfunctional state of government because it salves our ego, absolves us of personal responsibility, and provides an economic stimulus to the nationally vital late night comedian industry.
And, of course, things could always change for the worse. We could have zombies roaming the streets, the result of an experiment involving so-called “health care”. We could have translucent golems prowling our neighborhoods, scaring our children, the result of so-called “recycling plastic bottles”. We could realize that we are bankrupt, thanks to so-called “transparency” and “standard accounting practices”, rather than live in the only mildly uncomfortable state of suspecting, but not knowing, that we’re all going to have to work until we’re dead.

Remember that it can always get worse. Remember that, and let it infect your dreams. Let it dominate your waking thoughts. For this is what these “change” people offer.

Friends, Bro-mans, and Country Chickeners, lend me your fears!

I promise to reinforce the status quo as vigorously as any 19th century Austrian diplomat. I promise that local government will continue to muck around, displaying no initiative or creativity. I definitely will guarantee no attempts to improve schools – after all, children are the cheap labor of the future, and you can’t have their heads filled with arithmetic, or questions, or, God forbid, ANSWERS. It’s how the Greatest Generation dealt with the Boomers, and it’s how we’ll maintain an 18th century standard of living.

In closing, let me just say that, as mayor, I will be exactly what you expect from local officials – corrupt, incompetent, and crazy. (Shut up.) Who’s talking during my speech? (You are, idiot.) No you’re an idiot.

Anyway, vote for me. Remember – a vote for me isn’t a vote against hope; it’s a vote for fear.

Kitchen table discussion on the drug cartels in Mexico

Today I had a kitchen table discussion with Mom and Roy about immigration. Lately, I’ve been trying to avoid these, mostly because I feel like there’s not much actual exchange of information and insight, but tons of entrenched positions. This discussion, however, was reasonably good and provided some interesting thoughts.


Some highlights:

I think one of the reasons why immigration has gotten A LOT harder to talk about is because it has been conflated with national security. Specifically, Americans are scared of the drug violence in Mexico. So I think that needs ot be tackled before immigration policy becomes politically tractable.

CA-29 election flyer targets Asian-Americans

Updated 14:22 PDT: I uploaded low-resolution copies of the entire flyer. Some of the text is illegible. But given that there's nothing especially controversial in the flyer, I think the low-res images still convey the interesting approach taken in these political direct mailings. Let me know if you want high-resolution copies.

Interesting - Adam Schiff (D-CA 29th) just sent an update that contained Chinese characters and stated that he was "proud to represent such a large and vibrant Asian community". It also shows Schiff standing with an Asian-American winner of an art competition.

I wonder if the 34% of Whites and 26% of Hispanics (both larger fractions of the population, according to 2000 Census/Wikipedia) received the same flier.

Why is California cutting Adult Education in the middle of a recession/jobless recovery?

It’s sad, but it’s possible that the most important thing I took away from today’s job fair was a news story. The Bassett Adult School rep – incredibly knowledgeable and competent, especially compared to a lot of other reps – informed me that California adult education programs are being cut across the state. Orders aren’t coming from Sacramento – instead, K-12 districts are making the choice.

Previously, adult education was a “categorical program” – a program funded separately from a district’s general fund. This system made sense, especially if some of that money came from the Feds with specific provisions.

Summary of DWP research findings

Might not write that report on DWP after all, since I focus too much on unpaid work. Suffice it to say the following:

(1) the Mayor's opponents will attack his leadership of Solar LA - this will have an unknown impact on Villaraigosa's plans for higher office
(2) Controller Greuel's audit, due in a couple months, will either be buried or blown out of proportion. I suspect it will indicate that Solar LA is too ambitious at current levels of revenue, and recommend either a rate hike, scaling back of solar projects, and/or divestment of some "green energy" projects.
(3) if LA eventually takes over DWP, and LA eventually files bankruptcy, Roy's pension will possibly be toast given McManus's rulings on Vallejo, which filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Vallejo ended up not touching pension terms with currently retired individuals, but did change terms for new hires.
(4) a smart private company will scoop up the inevitable solar divestment by DWP, provided they receive tax credits/incentives. If Edison International or Pacific Gas & Electric aren't looking into this, they should be. I will bring it up in a hiring interview if it comes to that.
(5) Board of Water and Power commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council, and especially the Mayor. The last 20-30 years has seen a steady erosion in their independence, reflecting a trend toward accountability and away from autonomy. Don't expect independent oversight. Do expect continued unanimous decisions.
(6) Related to (5) - the DWP was a political punching bag, and willingly took one for the team. This will, unfortunately, help let the mayor and the city council off the hook. You can criticize DWP for a lot of things, but they appear to have been deliberately made the villain. After all, they are the only ones not facing elections.

Preliminary thoughts on the Power Politics at LA DWP/City Council

1. I still hate the general style and substance of LA Times articles, but they are good for highlighting specific points that might otherwise be missed. For example, the LA Times reminds us that the Mayor's office sent out a memo (later leaked) that made the transfer to the general fund contingent on a rate increase.

2. With his personal life, I don't know how Antonio Villaraigosa stays awake, much less effective. Oh, and his Wikipedia entry details lots of less than stellar qualities. Anybody fail the bar four times?

2a. I will being using a litmus test consisting of (1) homeliness, (2) presence of a homely companion, and (3) happily, boringly married. Not sure it would've avoided Sanford, but it would've helped for a long list of names.

3. There are serious governance and accountability issues that stem from the relationships and responsibilities of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners, the Mayor's office, the City Council, and the District Attorney. These problems are chronic and systemic, but there is no easy fix - they represent a trend that reflected a set of preferences regarding accountability and independence.

4. RAND continues to put out good reports, but I'm itching to get a copy of the PA Consulting report. There's a Youtube video that appears to be a presentation to DWP on the report, but I want to get the actual document.

5. It seems that the green energy agenda will not survive the results of the audit. It was a nice sentiment, and Villaraigosa appeared to have staked a significant portion of his political capital on it, but DWP isn't, and maybe ought not, be an R&D outfit/first adopter of these technologies.

6. Wendy Greuel's Wikipedia entry does read like a political advert. I'll need to dig into the archives to see whether her relatively nuanced and careful position as of late is calculated or actually an indication of good temperament and sound judgment. (She was previously a member of City Council, where, no doubt, she had more political leeway to be a bit more aggressive.)

7. This looks like a battle between the Mayor and City Council. However, I'm open to the possibility that Freeman and others at DWP have something to gain from this.

Time to nap and/or chug more Theraflu. Just scratching the surface of this dirty drama.