Steve Kass

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

Words that identify forward-looking statements, from various web sites:

• “may,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “seek,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan” and similar expressions.
• “strategy,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “will,” “continues,” “estimates,” “intends,” “projects,” “goals,” “targets” and other words of similar meaning.
• “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “strategy,” “intend,” “plan,” “target” and “believe” or the negative of those terms or other variations or comparable terminology.
• “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “should,” “will,” and “would” or similar words.
• “expects,” “intends,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “guides,” “provides guidance” and other similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “should,” “would” and “could”.
• “designed to,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “plans,” “predicts,” “projects,” “will likely result,” “intended to” or similar expressions.
• “aims,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “hopes,” “intends,” “may,” “plans,” “projects,” “seeks,” “should” and variations of these words and similar expressions.
• “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “initiative,” “objective,” “plan,” “goal,” “project,” “outlook,” “priorities,” “target,” “intend,” “when,” “evaluate,” “pursue,” “seek,” “may,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “believe,” “potential,” “continue,” “designed,” “impact” or the negative of any of those words or similar expressions.
• “expect,” “fully expect,” “expected,” “appears,” “believe,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “would,” “goal,” “potential,” “potentially,” “range,” “pursuit,” “run rate,” “stronger,” “preliminarily,” etc.
• “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “future,” “moving toward” and similar expressions.
• “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “project,” “will” and similar expressions.
• “may,” “assume,” “forecast,” “position,” “predict,” “strategy,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “project,” “budget,” “potential,” or “continue,” and similar expressions.
• “anticipates,” “believes,” “expects,” “intends” and similar expressions.
• “estimate,” “project,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “plan,” “predict,” “may,” “should,” “will,” the negative of these words or such other variations thereon or comparable terminology.
• “may,” “will,” “should,” “plan,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “believe,” “intend,” “project,” “goal” or “target” or the negative of these words or other variations on these words or comparable terminology.
• “expects,” “estimates,” “believes,” “plans,” “anticipates” or similar language.
• “may,” “will,” “can” “anticipate,” “assume,” “should,” “indicate,” “would,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “expect,” “seek,” “estimate,” “continue,” “plan,” “point to,” “project,” “predict,” “could,” “intend,” “target,” “potential,” and other similar words and expressions of the future.
• “believe,” “demonstrate,” “expect,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “should” and “likely” and similar expressions.
• “project,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “expect,” “estimate,” “intend,” “should,” “would,” “could,” “will,” “may” or other words that convey uncertainty of future events or outcomes.
• “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential” or “continue,” the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology.
• “will,” “expect,” “seek,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “plan,” “estimate,” “expect,” and “intend” and statements that an event or result “may,” “will,” “can,” “should,” “could,” or “might” occur or be achieved and other similar expressions.

Here’s the path of US Airways flight 1549 today, according to the track log at FlightAware, drawn on Google Earth. Amazing work by the pilots.

Other flight tracking sites were buggy, like this one (admittedly in beta):

Today President-Elect Obama talked about dialogue and disagreement. That should remind me that as President, he’ll stay committed to bridging differences through understanding and respect.

His inauguration party ought to include people whose viewpoints differ from Obama’s on issues that divide Americans, issues like abortion and the scope of civil rights. It reflects the sincerity of his commitment. Obama should invite people who have the same sincere commitment.

Unfortunately, Obama extended an invitation to Rick Warren, who, in televised and recorded remarks as recently as this week, has roundly and repeatedly dismissed and marginalized gay Americans. In addition, he probably offended millions of Americans committed to extending the civil right of marriage to gay Americans.

Mr. Warren had every right to support Proposition 8. He also had the right to support it just as he did: disrespectfully and dismissively, and without any gesture towards bridging differences or attempting to understand.

The way he supported it (not simply that he did) should have disqualified him from the inauguration ceremony.

Mr. Warren’s offense was neither acceptable nor trivial, but Obama’s invitation means he considered it one or the other, if not both. Mr. Warren dismissed gay relationships as shallow at best, having more in common with incest and pedophilia than with marriage. He swiftly dismissed tens of thousands of gay Americans who have married without fanfare (not to mention millions of civil rights supporters) by saying gay Americans really seek public approval, not marriage rights. And he ignorantly and cruelly characterized the struggle as one between a 5000 year old tradition identical in every religion and culture (even if it weren’t a wild fiction, it wouldn’t be a coherent argument) and the need to "appease" a tiny minority of Americans (where do I begin?)
Dear Mr. Obama,

Please listen to those who’ve taken issue with your choice. Respect us, understand us better, and replace Mr. Warren with someone else, perhaps someone who shares Warren’s viewpoints, but whose behavior has earned him or her the honor and prestige your invitation accords.

Sincerely yours,

Steve Kass
Madison, NJ

I’ve often been puzzled by the contradictory statistics about lifespan and smoking.

According to many reports, smoking shortens lifespan by 13.2 years for men and 14.5 years for women. (Google smoking 13.2 14.5)

Studies of smoking and life expectancy, however, tend to find that non-smokers can expect to live only about five years longer than smokers.

What’s going on?

According to standard life expectancy tables, a living 70-year-old has a remaining life expectancy of about 14 years. An 80-year-old can expect to live about 8 or 9 more years. At any age, there’s an actuarial estimate for remaining life expectancy, and it’s always a positive number.

I haven’t done the calculation, but my guess is that Americans die, on average, with an average remaining life expectancy of about 10 years.

Does this mean that "death shortens lifespan by 10 years"? No.

Consider skydivers. Death by skydiving is likely to occur at a relatively young age. Say the average age of skydivers in fatal skydiving accidents is 40. Since 40-year-olds have an average life expectancy of 39 years, is it reasonable to say that "skydiving shortens lifespan by 39 years"?

Consider (any) surgery on 75-year-olds. Some of them die from the surgery, and the life expectancy of a 75-year-old is about 11 years. Does geriatric surgery shorten lifespan by 11 years? No. Not for those who don’t die, and not for those who do, either, since on average they were probably less healthy than average to begin with.

Consider being born prematurely. The average actuarial life expectancy of a 0-year-old is about 77 years. Some premature babies die (77 years earlier than the actuarial estimate). Does being born prematurely shorten lifespan by 77 years? Not for those who live.

The often-quoted 13.2 and 14.5 year figures follow this methodology. Those numbers are the average (for men and women respectively) actuarial life expectancy estimates for people who die from a disease directly attributable to their smoking.

Since death alone, by this logic, shortens lifespan by about 10 years, death by smoking probably only knocks of a few years, not 13 or 14. And if you don’t die from smoking, who knows – maybe your death only shortens your life expectancy by 8 or 10 years.

Go figure.

A lot of people are racking their brains trying to explain some wrong numbers that two Harvard School of Public Health researchers graphed. The real explanation of the surprising result is that the authors got their crosstabs backwards. They were looking for these numbers (the ones circled in green), which show the percentage of self-identified strong Democrats who say they are in poor health (9.1%), and the percentage of self-identified strong Republicans say they are in poor health (5.0%).

Unfortunately, they graphed these numbers (the ones circled in red) which represent something else:

Among many other places, the wrong results (which contained several other wrong numbers caused by the same mistake) were reported here, here, and here, except that it was reported as surprising research, not wrong research. These reports have generated lively discussions about why Democrats are in such poor health. Except they aren’t. With luck, many of the people reading about this will eventually find the answer here.