Happy Birthday

Author’s Note: After I sent this, I promptly received a call from an intelligent and competent woman who advised me that their ATMs had been told not to wish me a happy birthday anymore. I could not have been happier with how my concerns were addressed.

To Whom It May Concern,

I made an ATM withdrawal yesterday, as I often do. Before I describe what happened, let me say that your ATMs are the best I have used. The ability to select my most common transaction immediately upon keying my PIN is smart user interface design and the machines’ check scanning feature is slick. Good job.

Yesterday while my withdrawal was being processed, the ATM wished me a happy birthday. My reaction, and the reaction from everyone with whom I’ve shared this was, “Well, that’s creepy.”

I do not find it unreasonable that you know my date of birth. I have multiple accounts with you, including my mortgage. I also get that asking for my date of birth is a useful part of verifying my identity when I call.

I have two problems with your ATM wishing me a happy birthday:

1) Again, creepy. It had absolutely nothing to do with the transaction at hand so it felt uncomfortably out of place. Some things just don’t go together, like flying a kite at night or eating a meatball sandwich on the toilet. If the intent behind this was to create a little warmth or goodwill toward your company then it had the opposite effect. You want to generate some goodwill? Have your machine wish me a happy birthday and then slip me an extra 20 bucks.

2) I immediately thought, “What else are they doing with my data? I wonder if they are using it as indiscriminately as they are demonstrating now.” You proved the maxim “Non-existent data cannot be abused. Data that exists will eventually be abused or used for something other than the originally stated purpose for its collection.”

With data that’s just lying around, sometimes the question isn’t “What can I do to leverage this further?” but instead “Do I have the sense not to?”

Ask the bereaved who gets a supermarket mailer addressed to the departed that says, “We haven’t seen you in a while. We’d like you back as a customer.”

Ask the woman who, as a result of her purchasing prenatal vitamins, later receives direct mail offering congratulations and coupons for baby formula…after the miscarriage.

I am interested to know if you had the forethought to create a means for the unamused to opt out of receiving these sorts of messages or if I must simply resign myself to cursing you annually.

Best regards,
MrPikes, Crank

The Timely Pedant

With the completion of another pointless Daylight Saving Time cycle upon us, I offer two more time-related gaffes (previously) that make me want to kick a goddamn puppy.

The first I usually see in business correspondence during the summer months. In an attempt to convey the time at which something will occur, the writer states something like, “the server will be rebooted at 4:00 A.M. EST.” Provided that it is not a career limiting move, my invariable and unswerving policy is to reply, “You meant ‘EDT’ (Eastern Daylight Time), jackass.” Confident that I have now obtained the offender’s attention (like using a koan), I go on to recommend simply using “ET” all year long and be done with it.

On to:

“4:00 A.M. in the morning.”

This also acts like a koan, but instead of enlightenment I get an aneurysm. I do not even attempt to educate the utterer, just as I would not think to coach a donkey on its braying. I instead take the opportunity to sit back and quietly muse over how a person who could say something so monumentally stupid somehow managed the hat trick of getting clothed, fed and into the office that morning. I envision things like shoes on hands, yogurt in the toaster, head caught in the steering wheel, etc.

When you’re a friendless, pedantic asshole, you have to make your own fun.

Kaine vs Allen Debates

I humbly offer former Governor Tim Kaine the following strategy to employ in his remaining debates with former Governor George Allen for the open Virginia U.S. Senate seat. I propose that Mr. Kaine responds to every single topic in this way:

ALLEN: I do not support the proposal to install tolls on the southern stretch of I-95. Southern Virginia already faces significant economic challenges and these tolls could disadvantage job-creating businesses in the region, and the hardworking Virginia families already suffering from skyrocketing fuel costs.

MODERATOR: Governor Kaine?

KAINE: Macaca. I cede the rest of my time.

The Helpful Pedant

Comparing my fellow persons’ command of the English language to the earnest efforts of a fifteen-year-old boy fumbling to unclasp a brassiere swollen with promise and, um, tits, is great fun and all, but the voices in my head keep insisting that conveying criticism without offering compensating guidance makes me a dick. *

Therefore, today’s and future roundups of linguistic sins will come with handy mnemonic cues, lovingly crafted to aid my bretheren and sisteren in our mutual quest to communicate clearly and competently.

Here goes:

Think of “nauseous” as a cause. Something that is nauseous has the effect of being nauseating. If you say “I feel nauseous,” you are stating that you have the effect of nauseating others. Fine and well if true (perhaps it’s time to rethink the spandex?), but be sure that’s what you mean. An easy way to keep this straight is to substitute “noxious” (as in “noxious fumes”) for “nauseous” in your skull before opening your fool mouth.

See? Helpful.

Healthy versus healthful. Exercising is healthy. Nutritious foods are healthful. Therefore, stating that a carrot is healthy implies that it is watching what it eats and that it works out at the gym while doing its best to ignore you staring at its butt. I don’t really have a handy mnemonic for this one other than proferring the image of trying not to get caught staring at a carrot’s butt. Make it your own.

Compliment versus complement. I am reluctant even to bring this one up because people getting it wrong never fails to make me smile. “Compliment” means “to express praise,” whereas “complement” means “to enhance or complete.” So, it’s fine to say, “This wine complements the meal,” or “Asif complimented my dècolletage before ejaculating enthusiastically upon it.” To get this right, I offer this joke:

A man walks into an empty bar. While drinking his beer and munching on bar snacks, he hears a little voice say, “Nice tie.” Initially startled, he dismisses it as drifting noise, perhaps from a radio in the back. A short while later another voice says, “Love your haircut,” to which he replies, “What the hell is going on here?” The bartender comes out and asks, “Is there are problem?” The patron says, “Yeah, there’s a problem. I keep hearing little voices and they’re saying, um, nice things to me!” The bartender says, “Oh. That’s the pretzels. They’re complimentary.”

* I don’t want the voices to think I’m a dick. **

** I don’t care what you think.

I Am Such a Child

Although it makes not one bit of difference to anyone with widely available wardriving tools, as a matter of practice I do not broadcast my Wi-Fi network’s SSID. Recently, however, I decided to turn it up and present the neighborhood soccer moms and investment bankers with this one:

8===D

Nobody Likes a Goddamn Pedant

It’s been a while since I bled off some of the bile that periodically threatens to bubble over as a result of the seemingling enthusiastic and willful dumbing down of the English language that assaults me on a constant basis. Today being my favorite occasion, Daylight Saving Time (not * savings time, you inbred mouthbreathers), I thought I would focus on some time-related boners that really chap my ass.

Ah, that ever elusive mistress the apostrophe. For fuck’s sake, it’s ’70s, not * 70’s. The apostrophe serves two purposes, truncation and possession (and never pluralization). “Can’t” is the truncation of “cannot.” “Bob’s” indicates that Bob possesses something, like a sombrero. “It’s” is a bit tricky. It’s (see what I did there?) a truncation of “it is”, while “its” indicates possession.

So, ’70s is a truncation of (usually) 1970s. One is lopping off the reference to the century to save time (see what I did there?), presumably to focus on hassling Muslims in airports. Writing 70’s indicates that the decade possesses something, which, like wearing bellbottom trousers or sporting collars large enough to be capable of generating lift, is very silly.

Intermission: “past experience.” A bit like “male sperm,” i.e., yes, as opposed to what other kind?

Finally, “within the hour.” People say this because it sounds fancier than “within an hour.” The two, however, do not mean the same thing, unless the time is at the top of the hour, which is actually a handy mnemonic to avoid sounding like a knuckle-dragging hominid putting on airs. Back in olden times when few people had watches and relied instead on the chimes of clocks and clock towers to keep track of time, “within the hour” was used to indicate that something would occur before the bell indicating the top of the next hour rung. So, if it’s 11:54 and one says that something will occur “within the hour” one is indicating that occurrence will be within six minutes. However, since it is time-consuming (see what I did there?) and potentially insulting to inquire whether or not the person speaking is a knuckle-dragging hominid putting on airs (unless it is of immediate concern or funny) every time someone says “within the hour,” it’s probably simpler if everyone ceases using the phrase entirely.

And that reminds me of what a shame it is that Michael Jackson is dead. I’ve had to mothball the joke, “How do you know it’s bedtime at the Neverland Ranch? When the big hand touches the little hand.”

A Win for the Fourth Amendment. Meh.

I’ve been yelling at the radio about this more loudly and more often recently, since the press coverage has increased in The Supremes’ current term.

The issue is whether or not it is constitutionally cool for law enforcement to attach a GPS device to a vehicle without a warrant and then surveil that vehicle indefinitely.

It seems like such a softball question. OF COURSE YOU NEED A FUCKING WARRANT! WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?

And this is how my mornings with the radio have gone.

Radio Personality: …argued that no warrant would have been required to follow Antoine Jones using human beings.

Me: 24 HOURS A DAY? FOR A MONTH? HOW MUCH WOULD THAT HAVE COST? AND JUSTIFIED ON WHAT BASIS?

Radio Personality: …arguing that, in instances where law enforcement did not have the requisite probable cause to get a warrant, the GPS surveillance could be used to help obtain that probable cause.

Me: THE SURVEILLANCE IS TO GET THE PROBABLE CAUSE? WHAT THE FUCK? ARE WE LIVING IN RAND MCNALLY, WHERE THEY WEAR HATS ON THEIR FEET AND HAMBURGERS EAT PEOPLE?

Radio Personality: …Dreeben, representing the Department of Justice, cited Katz, the ruling that people have no reasonable expectation to privacy on public roadways.

Me: BUT DUDE, IT’S MY CAR! YOU CAN’T JUST START ATTACHING SHIT TO MY CAR! DO I HAVE NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT YOU WILL NOT ATTACH STUFF TO MY PANTS BECAUSE I BROUGHT THEM WITH ME INTO PUBLIC?

Radio Personality: No.

And so on.

Today, The Supremes ruled unanimously that the installation of GPS devices did, in fact, require a warrant (full opinion, PDF). And they did so in basically the narrowest, most tepid way possible. Justice Scalia, representing the majority, basically said that the act of trespass that occurs in the device’s installation constitutes a “search,” which is why it falls afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

If this ruling were an erection, Scalia would be saying, “This has never happened to me, baby. I guess I shouldn’t have eaten that second piece of pie.”

Justice Alito, in more tumescent counterpoint, wrote:

The court’s reasoning largely disregards what is really important (the use of a GPS for the purpose of long-term tracking) and instead attaches great significance to something that most would view as relatively minor (attaching to the bottom of a car a small, light object that does not interfere in any way with the car’s operation).

And I could not agree with Justice Alito more. While law enforcement attaching stuff to my car pisses me off, the physical surveillance mechanism is the least problematic part of the practice. Alito continues:

“…physical intrusion is now unnecessary to many forms of surveillance. With increasing regularity, the Government will be capable of duplicating the monitoring undertaken in this case by enlisting factory- or owner-installed vehicle tracking devices or GPS-enabled smartphones.

Per Justice Scalia, though, spectacularly and willfully kicking the can down the road, “The present case does not require us to answer that question.”

National Motto

While I was yelling at the radio this morning, I heard a piece that NPR did on a non-binding resolution sponsored by House Representative Randy Forbes (Religion-VA), reaffirming “In God We Trust” as our national motto. Setting aside questions about this being the best use of the House’s time, this resolution is important because the last time that the motto was reaffirmed was in the Senate in 2006 (apparently mottos have low self-esteem and require frequent reaffirmation).

Forbes was quoted as stating:

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will have the same opportunity to reaffirm our national motto and directly confront a disturbing trend of inaccuracies and omissions, misunderstandings of church and state, rogue court challenges, and efforts to remove God from the public domain by unelected bureaucrats. As our nation faces challenging times, it is appropriate for Members of Congress and our nation – like our predecessors – to firmly declare our trust in God, believing that it will sustain us for generations to come.

Whew, well that should put the matter to rest.

One disturbing example that Representative Forbes cited was a speech President Obama delivered at the University of Indonesia in which he stated that our national motto was E Pluribus Unum, which set some sphincters a’twitching on Capitol Hill.

What got me cackling was that NPR closed the piece by stating that the national motto may be offensive to those who do not, in fact, trust in God. I’ve got to use that line. “It’s not that I don’t believe in God, I just don’t trust the bastard.”