Steve Kass

In today’s online edition, BBC News published “Faulty 20p coins ‘worth £50 each’”. A Coin Factfile sidebar to the article notes that

British coins do not carry the name of the country of issue - neither do those of the USA

Coins of the USA, of course, do carry the name of the country of issue. Instead of sending the BBC feedback (which I did), maybe I should have offered to sell them my collection of “faulty” US coins on which the words United States of America appear. I’d have taken a mere £20 a piece.

At least BBC News attributed their “factfile” facts. They came from the London Mint Office. Despite its august name, the London Mint Office isn’t the Royal Mint. It’s more like a British Franklin Mint, I think. According to their web page, the London Mint Office is

a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of Europe’s most successful direct marketing organisations’, the Samlerhuset Group.

How the London Mint Office qualified for a .org domain beats me. Not to mention how any of this qualifies as news.

What do you call it if someone commits a crime in an attempt to prove they were right that the crime rate is increasing? Last year, Martin Bernheimer wrote about the sorry state of arts criticism in the country:

Many US papers have abandoned thoughtful, detailed reviews altogether. Publishers, editors and, presumably, readers want instant evaluations and newsbites, preferably with flashy pictures. It is Zagat-think, simplicity for the simple-minded.

Today, Martin Bernheimer reviewed the New York Philharmonic’s performance of Mahler’s Eighth Symphony. You can guess where I’m going with this. (Disclosure: I sang in the chorus.) The Financial Times as an organization may or may not have abandoned thoughtful, detailed reviews, but Bernheimer nonetheless gave them the kind of review he said many US papers want. Nope, I won’t be filing his review under “thoughtful and detailed.” The date of the concert, the names of the soloists, and the row in which Bernheimer unhappily sat unfortunately don’t pass the bar for detail. And nothing in his mostly weasely review fits the thoughtful category. Not to omit detail myself, I’ll mention a couple of things Bernheimer got wrong: Joseph Flummerfelt didn’t prepare all three choirs, and Anthony Dean Griffey wasn’t motley. Admittedly, the hypothesis that Bernheimer is writing bad reviews to support his claim that there are too many bad reviews is hard to support. If that were the point, wouldn’t he write the bad reviews using a pseudonym? So here’s another hypothesis about what’s wrong with the guy. He reported today that Avery Fisher Hall

distorted the inherent complexities virtually beyond recognition. Echoes abounded, balances went awry, attacks blurred. Some voices disappeared in the muddle, others boomed as if electronically amplified. It was ugly.

I think one of the abounding echoes was that of his own voice in his own head, because last month, he had this to say about Boulez’s performance of Mahler’s Eighth in Carnegie:

Balances went askew. Melodic details got buried in textural muddles.

Next time someone pays for Bernheimer to sit in a chair, an audiologist’s office might be the right venue. Welcome to my new sarcastic and bitter category. My excuse for being sarcastic and bitter? None, but I’ll point out that I’m not claiming to be a real critic, nor am I getting paid to write this. I promise to post something warm and fuzzy soon. Related reading: Shut up, Martin Bernheimer (Einstein on the A Train, April 23, 2008) Related hearing (only through July 10, 2009): tonight’s performance of the concert, which was broadcast live. I think you’ll love it.

I wanted an adjectival form of hysteron proteron today, and I decided not to write hysteroproteronic, if you know what I mean (or ass-backwards).  I guess if there were one, there’d only be a single word (like zeugma, though of course it wouldn’t be zeugma) for hysteron proteron, and the idea of printing proteron hysteron on a T-shirt wouldn’t even exist. Which got me thinking. How many other funny things don’t exist for reasons like this?

On a happier note, I’m not a stand-up comic and I have an appropriate blog category for this post.

I’m singing Mahler’s Eighth with the New York Philharmonic this week. It’s a phenomenal experience, not to mention a spectacular piece of music, performed by one of the world’s best orchestras and some amazing soloists. All backed up by 170 adult and 40 children choristers, of which I’m one (of the adults).

On August 25, 2009, the New York Philharmonic will release a recording of our performance through iTunes, Amazon and other retailers. If you don’t have tickets and don’t want to wait until August, you can listen to tomorrow night’s performance live on WQXR 96.3FM in the New York area or on WQXR.com, and possibly on the NY Phil’s web site for a couple of weeks after that.

Shameless subplug: You can also hear me in this Dutoit/Montreal recording of Fauré’s Requiem and Pavane (the version with silly words - of the Pavane, that is), and in this Dessoff recording of choral works (good stuff you probably haven’t heard) by Corigliano, Rorem, Moravec, and Convery.

The Mathematics Genealogy Project now traces my mathematical genealogy back to Galileo, passing through Benkart, Jacobson, Chrystal, Maxwell, Hopkins, Sedgwick, Jones, Cranke, Postlethwaite, Whisson, Taylor (Walter, not Brook), Smith, Cotes, Newton, Barrow, de Roberval, and Viviani along the way. Cool.

If you squint, you’ll see my name in tiny print under Itzik’s. He wrote most of the book, but I contributed two chapters and did most of the technical review. Click on the image to visit the book’s Barnes and Noble page.

.

.

.

.

.

As part of the 2009 federal stimulus package, over $2,600,000,000 in formula grants is available to U.S. municipalities under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (link). That’s a little over $8.50 per person on average.

How much will your city get? It depends on your city’s population. To be exact, it depends on the weighted average of your city’s resident (weight 0.7) and daytime (weight 0.3) populations. Oh, and it also depends—in a big way—on whether your city is an eligible unit of local government—alternative 1, an eligible unit of local government—alternative 2, neither, or both. Yes, both, even though these terms are called alternatives.

Each eligible unit of local government—alternative 1 gets an allocation of about $4.00 per person.

Each eligible unit of local government—alternative 2 gets an allocation of about $6.00 per person.

The cool thing (cool if you live in an eligible unit of local government—alternative 2) is that every eligible unit of local government—alternative 2 is also an eligible unit of local government—alternative 1, so eligible unit of local government—alternative 2s get both allocations. Ka-ching—$10.00 per person!

So how do you get to be an eligible unit of local government—alternative 2? All you need is 50,000 people (if you’re a city) or 200,000 people (if you’re a county). If you’re a city, but only have 35,000 people or more, or have a population that “causes the city to be 1 of the 10 highest populated cities of the State in which the city is located” (that’s an exact quote), you only qualify to be an eligible unit of local government—alternative 1. (Smaller municipalities in smaller counties not in their state’s top 10 will get some funds from other sources, I’m told.)

Confused? Here’s an example: Palm Desert, California (population 50,907) is an eligible unit of local government—alternative 2 and also an eligible unit of local government—alternative 1. It gets both allocations, for a total of $529,000. Its neighbor a few miles to the northwest, Palm Springs (population 47,251) is only an eligible unit of local government—alternative 1, so it only gets one of the allocations, and the smaller one at that, for a total of $225,600. Sorry, Palm Springs. Just a few thousand more people and you would have gotten an extra $300,000 in EECBG stimulus money.

Where did the strange definitions come from? The 2009 stimulus bill allocation formula got the terms it bases its allocations on from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The bottom line is that cities with populations between 35,000 and 50,000 slipped through the cracks. Or someone pushed them through. If you know how this situation came about, I’d love to hear from you.

Sources:
Wikipedia article on the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (link)
California City and County Population Estimates (link to Excel file):

The Director of Public Relations for Affinia Hotels responded personally to my email and previous blog post today. She completely understood the issue and handled it thoughtfully, professionally, and fairly. I couldn’t be happier, and I’m looking forward to my upcoming stay more than ever. Here’s what she had to say:

I recently read your blog and the experience that you had with our recent offer of $50 credit to create a My Affinia profile.  Because of your comments on 1/23, we took a closer look at the offer and restrictions and have since made some adjustments to the offer.  Our goal was to encourage trial of our new My Affinia customization program and to encourage people to use that program during the first quarter, and not to create an offer that is not clear or up-front.  Based on your comments, we will be honoring the Internet Only rate with the $50 credit which can be applied to your additional amenities during your stay (not applicable to room rate).  Please just bring the $50 credit certificate that you received and the property will honor that with your current “internet only rate” that you booked.

We thank you for bringing this to our attention and I apologize for any inconvenience.  If you have any questions or further comments, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly.  My direct line is XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Thanks, Affinia!

[Update: Affinia responded and came through brilliantly. See my next blog entry for details. Thanks, Affinia!]

Hi there,

I stayed at the Affinia 50 for the first time last summer, and earlier today I reserved the same hotel for an upcoming stay. I called 1-866-AFFINIA with a question about the reservation, and the gentleman who took my call advised me to email you.

Let me skip to the chase: Your “My Affinia” program is a grand deception, or at least it appears to be. Affinia has an amazing Public Relations director. When there’s a problem, Affinia takes care of it. [Updated February 3, 2009]

Whether or not you are in fact being deceptive, I’m sure you don’t want it to appear that way. I enjoyed your hotel last year, and I hope I’ve misunderstood something, that you’ll appreciate my feedback, and that you’ll explain.

Here’s why the “My Affinia” program seems deceptive to me:

The “My Affinia” program lures customers into using the promo code FIFTY to get a $50 coupon. Using the code hides the special internet rate, which costs hundreds of dollars less than any rate available with the code FIFTY.

Here’s why I believe this. I did things in this order today:

1. Saw the “Get a $50 activity credit” offer in your Valentine’s Day email.
2. Completed the My Affinia profile so I could get the $50 activity credit.
3. Made a reservation at affinia.com for the Affinia 50 (without using the promo code FIFTY, which I didn’t know about yet). I booked my room at the lowest no-cancellation-penalty rate, which you call the “special internet rate.”
4. Received the email “My Affinia Activity Credit Enclosed.” I found out from this email that the $50 credit is only available for reservations made with the promo code FIFTY.
5. Returned to your web site to add the promo code FIFTY to my reservation.
6. Discovered that when the promo code FIFTY is entered, the “special internet rate” is not available, and only the higher (!) “best available rate” is available.

Bottom line: You’ll give me a $50 coupon if I enter FIFTY when I reserve. In exchange, you’ll hide the lowest refundable rate from me, increasing the cost of my 4-night stay by over $400.

Needless to say, this is horrible and insulting. Unfortunately, it seems true. In fact, the activity credit I printed indicates that the credit is only valid if I reserve at the “best available rate.” That rate is not the best available rate; instead, it’s apparently the best available rate?. For my four-night reservation, it’s $400 more than the “special internet rate,” which is unavailable when the FIFTY code is entered. (The FIFTY code also hides the even lower non-refundable rate, but I wasn’t interested in that rate.)

As you can see from my reservation, I didn’t book the cheapest room: I’m willing to pay more to get more. However, I’m not someone who takes kindly to being cheated into paying hundreds of dollars more for nothing!

Can you please explain?

Thanks for your time,

Steve Kass