Transit Takebacks

Seriously, this MVET shit is fucking pissing me off.

For those of you who either aren't local to the Puget Sound area, or are but somehow haven't heard about this: in November, the regional transit authority, Sound Transit, ran a huge measure ($54 billion) known as ST3 on the ballot to expand the light rail system (and some other things), funded by increases in the sales tax, property tax, and Motor Vehicle Exise Tax (MVET), commonly know as "car tabs".

The package passed by a solid margin, and everything looked great.  But then the MVET bills started coming in in February, and people started freaking the fuck out.

See, nominally, all the package did was bump the existing MVET (for Sound Transit) from 0.3% of your car's value to 1.1%.  The so-called problem is that the way the value is determined is essentially a linear depreciation from 85% of the MSRP, rather than the inverse-exponential type curve of "true" depreciation (if you go by KBB, for example).

This resulted in people with newer cars (the crossing point between this system and a KBB value is around 10 years old) being taxed for a higher value of their car than it was really worth, which is, like, so fucking unfair and shit.

But here's the thing: people are either fucking idiots or fucking assholes.

First of all, most people didn't know about the valuation system initially.  They just starting crying because their car tabs were way more expensive than the last year.  Well, no shit, that's what happens when a significant percentage of the total increases by almost 4x.  But it was only after they ran shrieking to the DOL that they realized that the tax percentage was on a higher value than it supposedly should be.  And then the fucking meltdown really happened.

But you know what? That goddamn valuation system has been around for the entire fucking life of Sound Transit.  It didn't fucking change at ST3.  And do you know why it was being used?  Because they got it from the goddamn motherfucking Legislature, that's fucking why.

That's right!  Up until 2006, this is the exact same valuation system that was used by the goddamn State of Washington.  Not only that, the enabling legislation for ST3, which came from, y'know, the goddamn Legislature, specifically stated to use this valuation system, not the 2006 one that's closer to "true".

So no, assholes.  Sound Transit didn't fucking lie to you; this is the same damn system they've been using the whole time.  You just weren't fucking paying attention, or even worse, you're cynically using this to peddle your same old bullshit.

And that means that everyone bawling their fucking heads off about this and making a goddamn nuisance of themselves to their legislators doesn't have a motherfucking leg to stand on.

If you didn't vote for ST3 in the first place, this is nothing but a cheap-ass effort to damage a vote you didn't like the result of, based on nothing but lies and bullshit, and you're a goddamn asshole.  And if you did vote for ST3, then either (a) you figured that the taxes were worth it, in which case shut the hell up, or (b) you didn't do your homework ahead of time, in which case shut the hell up.

And can we cut the goddamn fuckmuppetry about "fairness"?  First of all, life isn't fucking fair, as I'm sure I've heard sometime before once or twice in my life.  Second, just because people didn't do their fucking homework or didn't like the result doesn't make it unfair.  I'm pretty sure we all learned that fucking lesson back in kindergarten.  If you don't do the work, you don't get to complain about the result.  And sometimes the group does things you don't like, and you get to suck it the hell up, because we live in a goddamn society and not every fucking person gets their fucking way all the fucking time.

Third, the MVET valuation schedule wasn't ever fucking supposed to be "true"; it was supposed to be a standard, predictable way of assessing a car to level taxes for standard, predictable results, because surprise surprise, things run better with standard, predictable funding sources.  I get that that's a technical argument, but you know what?  I don't give a fuck.  Just because something doesn't meet your goddamn expectations doesn't mean it's not fair.  Just because something isn't "common sense" or in line with your gut doesn't make it unfair, because most of the time, people's "common sense" and guts are worth precisely shit.  Not to mention, if they'd used the newer schedule from the beginning, they just would have raised the tax rate to get the same amount of money!

Fourth, switching to the newer, KBB-like system actually penalizes people with older cars.  That's right!  Remember up above where I said that the "crossover" point was around 10 years?  I actually meant that literally: For cars younger than 10 years, the old system is more expensive.  For cars older than 10 years, the new system is more expensive!  So everyone clamoring to go to the new system is actually arguing to give tax breaks to people with newer, more expensive cars, and levy higher taxes on people who either can't afford newer cars or are doing the responsible thing by continuing to drive older cars.  How exactly is that result "fair"?  Please, I beg you, explain this to me.  It's sure as shit regressive, no question there.

So yeah.  The "fairness" argument here is bullshit on a whole bunch of levels.

Fortunately (for an extremely fucking loose definition of "fortunate"), the latest "solution" (yeah, that's a fucking loose definition, too) is to give people refunds to cover the difference between the two systems.  How much money will that cost Sound Transit?  We don't actually know for sure, because the Legislature didn't bother to do an assessment before passing this through the House!  How goddamn responsible of them.  The best estimate, at any rate, is a hit of $780 million dollars immediately, for a long-term cost of somewhere around $2 billion, due to the need to issue more bonds now, rather than having that cash.

And by the way, don't be deceived by the $54 billion total figure at the top; that's in year-of-expenditure dollars, which accounts for expected inflation.  In other words, money now is way more valuable than money at the end of the 35-year lifespan of the project.  In  other other words, because people are either disingenuous assholes or fucking clueless idiots, Sound Transit loses a non-negligible portion of the funds for ST3.

The Democrats are on board because they're fucking spineless cowards who can't articulate and stand up for a principle to save their goddamn miserable lives, and they're afraid of taking an electoral hit from a selfish, short-sighted, clueless populace that probably would refuse to be educated on this issue even if the Democrats would fucking try, because ERMAHGERHD TERXERS!  And the Republicans are leveraging this because they're vindictive, myopic, amoral, ignorant motherfuckers with their heads up their asses, and they aren't afraid to cynically use this issue to go after Democrats even though the Puget Sound region desperately needs all the transit it can get.  Not to mention, why the fuck do Republicans who don't even live in the Puget Sound area give a damn?  Why in motherfucking hell do we have to get approval from fucking Curtis King, say, to just hold a goddamn vote to see whether or not we want to tax ourselves?

See, here's the thing.  The Seattle area is currently adding roughly 1,000 people a WEEK.  If you assume that half of them have cars, that's 500 cars per week, or 26,000 cars per year.  For a comparison, in 2007, there were 126,000 daily trips on I-5 through SODO.  I suspect that's only increased.  Even if only a fraction of the newcomers actually travel through that corridor, that's still an significant increase in the number of trips.  And the freeway's already at a standstill half the time.

Bottom line: it is not possible to build your way out of congestion, especially in something as geographically limited as Seattle.  Even if you could keep up with new cars, you still have induced demand.  And where the fuck are you going to put all the lanes, exactly?

For a metro area the size of Seattle's, you have to have an effective transit system.  There's just no other way to move people around effectively.  But we Americans are so goddamned attached to our fucking cars, and so goddamned good at living (or forcing people to live, thanks to selfish, destructive, short-sighted land-use policies) stupid-ass places where we absolutely need them, that we cling desperately to the roads we have.  For fuck's sake, the roads package that was passed at the same time didn't have to get voter approval.  Where are all the people bitching about the 12 cent gas tax increase?  (And let's not even get into the shenanigans that stole money from ST3 to pay for making parts of the roads package tax-exempt.)

And no, a transit system can't go everywhere, even if it's well designed (and you can certainly question whether the spine is really the best design for the light rail system, but this sort of half-assed design is what happens when you let fucking city politicians have the biggest say in how your system develops).  For some people, it simply won't be possible to serve them with transit.

But you know what?  THEY STILL BENEFIT FROM THE FUCKING TRANSIT SYSTEM.  Want to drive somewhere?  Gee, it's a whole lot easier when a decent transit system has removed an assload of cars from the road, isn't it?  People get so goddamn wrapped up in the simple, direct effects they can see that they forget to consider the system effects.

So when you have politicians constantly sabotaging our efforts at actually being able to move people around the fucking area, for no other reason than sheer bloody-mindedness, and to the goddamn motherfucking detriment of the goddamn people they're supposed to be serving, half the time with the encouragement of those same goddamn people who apparently like punching themselves in the fucking face, it's hard not to get a little frustrated.

So shut up, pay your goddamn taxes like a member of a goddamn society that solidly voted for them, and let us build the fucking transit system we should have started 40 years ago.

Negligent Sexism

This story has to do with Twitter.

But probably not the way you immediately thought, given the title. 

(Not that Twitter the platform doesn’t have a massive problem with sexism, of course, but that’s really a far more active and aggressive version.  “Negligent” could really only be applicable to the way Twitter the company handles issues on Twitter the platform.  Anyways…)

I’ve noted that journalists have gradually been using Twitter more and more, and I figured that keeping tabs on a few of them would be a good way to see articles I might not otherwise, keep up on breaking news, etc.

Play That Song

The one you learned as a

Six-year-old

The one that everyone

Can play

Making it a pop song

Is hard, I’m sure…

Okay, not my best effort.  But if you’ve been listening to pop radio at all lately, you’ve probably heard Train’s latest (and ever so creatively named) song, “Play that Song”.  And if you didn’t immediately recognize it, you probably thought it was really familiar.

The Power and Peril of Stories

Stories are how we relate to the world.

There’s a reason I usually wind up starting my blog posts with stories.  They make things relatable; they set the stage for the point I’m going to (attempt to?  hopefully? You tell me) make by providing a framework that people can latch onto for understanding.

Stories do the whole “show, don’t tell” thing we all learn about in English class.  (Heck, they’re a main reason for English class.)  They’re why we do story problems in math (and are usually the answer to “When am I ever going to use this?”).  They’re how we learn about other people and the world.

Humans are built to understand stories.  They’re a mnemonic, and a framework for understanding concepts, connections, context.  They take something out of our experience and sometimes even ability to understand, and make it so that we can grasp at least the essence of the issue and come away with a better understanding than we had before by relying on the sharing of someone else’s experience.

Consider the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode “Darmok”.

The Trolley Problem

For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, this, the trolley problem is a rather famous thought experiment that goes as follows:

Suppose there is an out-of-control trolley barreling down the tracks.  Ahead of it are five people who, for whatever reason, are unable to move out of its way, and will be killed when struck by the trolley.  You are standing next to a switch that can shunt the trolley onto a different track, where one person is will be killed.

Do you throw the switch?

The Lines of 'If'

In the Foreword to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien addresses some feedback, comments and critiques he’s gotten over the prior years.  At one point, he talks about the theory that LOTR is an allegory, or an analogue, for WWI, saying:

"The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion.  If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied.  Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self styled Ruler of Middle-earth."

I don’t know about you, but I want to read that book.

(Well, aside from the bit I didn't quote about how both sides would have promptly exterminated the hobbits.)

I've always been fascinated by stories, or at least the idea of them, where the villain wins.  And I have to qualify that with "the idea of" because the villain never gets to win!  Not long-term anyways.  Either you start off with the villain in charge, and the story essentially follows the scrappy underdogs as they overthrow the villain and his/her/its dastardly rule, or they stop him/her/it before he/she/it can even get started.

(I’m not necessarily trying to make an argument for grimdark here, by the way.  While that particular genre does indeed have the villains winning more often (aSoIaF, anyone?), and I do enjoy at least some of it, I don’t think the two absolutely have to be connected.  I think it’s possible to tell a lighter story with a villain victorious, too.)

And I get why that is, of course; practically speaking, a book where the villain actually wins and there's no foreseeable hope of deposing him/her/it would probably be found rather depressing by most people (and therefore not sell well).  People want hope!  And plot-wise, while "oft evil will shall evil mar" is just a phrase, there's usually some measure of truth to it.  It's usually hard for evil to get out of its own way.  Then again, you can also say that of "nobody is a villain in their own story".

But so often the victory of the heroes hangs by a thread, and it would be so easy for things to happen differently.  Imagine Star Wars where the first R2 unit doesn't have a bad motivator, and Luke never winds up with R2-D2.  You can argue that every other narrow escape is achieved by skill or planning, or endemic non-OSHA-compliant design (seriously, what do people have against handrails?  Especially when the design aesthetic apparently runs to "giant bottomless holes everywhere!"), or other in-universe reasons, but that one is sheer dumb luck (or divine intervention). 

(For the record, I don’t have anything against divine intervention, as long as it’s essentially an “in-universe reason”.  Deus ex machina is fine with me if there are at least hints of dei and machinis in the story before the end.  If you’re telling a story, I’ll play by your rules if you do.)

Of course, I see the romance in the heroes, the desperate last stands, the all-or-nothing gambles; there's a reason that those make up so much of European mythology (and maybe elsewhere, but I'm not familiar enough with them to know).  Everybody likes a winner, or at least someone who goes down swinging.  And if they're an underdog, so much the better.  There's not all that much drama when Good is the overpowering force, after all.

It’s just that every so often, I'd like to see a villain have the breaks go his/her/its way in a story.  Or for their evil plan to actually be well-thought-out and well-executed and succeed. And it just doesn't happen (again, at least long-term), even though it could.

This is probably why I'm a Slytherin.

For reasons like that Star Wars example, where the entire story hangs on a single decision or event, I’ve also always been fascinated by the “What If?”s and the “If Only”s.  I know that’s only human nature, to some extent, but for most people it only seems to apply to their own lives.  "What if I'd handled this event differently?"  "If only my team had just made this play...", etc.

Alternate histories and alternate versions of stories are very much the domain of sci-fi (and less commonly, fantasy); that's pretty much definitional.  It's pretty much a staple in any sort of sci-fi TV show to have a time travel episode, and most of them are of the "change the past and screw something up in the present" type, and even if no time travel is involved, they'll often have fun changing something in the past and seeing what happens.

Those butterfly effects are what I find most interesting, because it requires a logical, intensive look at chains of causality and the effects of small changes.  (Unfortunately, the story I linked there is actually a terrible example of the actual phenomenon.  So is my previous sentence outside this parenthetical.  Such are the effects of pop culture and self-reference.) It’s easy enough to invent your own alternate history based on an alien invasion in WWII or dragons in the Napoleonic wars.  Those are fun, but they’re essentially invented worlds; they’re something that never could have happened.  (Yeah, yeah, you can’t prove a negative, but “had a vanishingly small chance of happening” just doesn’t pop on the page here.)

To take one example from a book I’m (finally) finishing, Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton (wow, this book was good, but it took forever to get through), the author observes that Hamilton backing a different gubernatorial candidate for the state of New York at one point might have changed the political dynamics years later, preventing (or at least postponing) the election of Jefferson.  Who knows what the country might have looked like had that happened?  And it so easily could have, except maybe not, because it would have required the people involved to be slightly different, and who knows what effects THAT would have...

This is probably why I should never, ever have a time machine.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd do my best to use my powers for good, but it would be oh-so-tempting to use them for awesome.  And surely if there's anything we've learned over the years from this sort of story, it's that meddling even with the best of intentions oft goes awry...

Exercisional Elements

It's a new year!  And that means it's time to pretend like we'll all be better about exercising now!

Thanks to some creative rearrangements of scheduling, I should actually have time to go running after work (everyone's favorite time, right?) this year, which means I'll do it more reliably than "if the vanpool gets me home in time before I have to make dinner", or "if I want to get even less sleep than I usually do by getting up at 4:30 in the morning to squeeze it in before work", or "if I feel like it when I get up on weekend mornings rather than sitting in a chair by the fire with a blanket, a book, a mug (or two) (or three) of hot tea and everyone else asleep".