Wheel clamping – cowboy justice reigns

Wheel clampers in New Zealand are cowboys allowed to operate in any manner they see fit. Something has to change before the wild west gets wilder.

The New Zealand Herald has highlighted recently a few high profile cases of people who have run into wheel clampers with obviously nothing better to do than terrorise unsuspecting motorists.

Clampers can operate anywhere at any time with no signage and they thrive on the ambiguity around parking areas – what parking is designated and what isn’t. They can make up the offense and offer no evidence/documentation. They therefore can make up the times and exploit a situation with an unwary motorist and bully them into paying exorbitant fines.

Contrast that with legitimate parking enforcement. In Auckland City (as I’m sure elsewhere in the country and the world) – parking officers are dressed in uniform, carry electronic ticketing machines which indicate the time a ticket is issued and what the offense is for. Officers take photos to confirm the vehicle and this issues another time stamp on the ticket. In a pay and display area, this is valuable.

Further, we can dispute parking tickets – there is a process in place for grievances and we still have the use of our car.

My near miss

I had a brush with wheel clamping that left me a bit stunned and a bit furious. This story does have a happy ending though (by sheer luck).

It started with a routine drive down to a local car park adjacent a roundabout here in Auckland. I have parked there for years and never had an incident. I trundled off to get coffee but thought I’d pop into the TAB to place a sports bet. Little did I know, this ticket would save my bacon.

The clampers obviously saw me then go offsite to get a coffee, which apparently is a violation because I wasn’t visiting the premises my particular car park was designated for. So my wheel was clamped and there was a sticker on my window stating why I had been clamped. Needless to say, I freaked out a bit when I saw the $150 fine on the ticket.

The clamper came over and explained I had parked in the space for the bar and the went and then went offsite. I presented my TAB ticket and asked, “isn’t the TAB part of the bar?” Luckily it was, and he removed the clamp forthwith.

It was sheer luck I parked in that car park (who honestly looks at what store it is designated for when they’re only there for 10 minutes). It was sheer luck I went to the TAB and thus had proof I had visited the bar.

There were no signs saying that there were clampers around – which I find a bit dishonest, especially for those of us who routinely use that carpark without a care.

I won’t park there again, which decreases my likelihood of visiting the stores there – clamping could therefore be bad for businesses.

Wheel clamping – at least the New Zealand version, is organised theft in many cases. Clamping itself seems a violation of private property also. Sure, parking illegally should not be let go, but exploiting vague and often non-signage is sheer dishonesty.

Answers?

Legislation is badly needed to curb cowboy wheel clampers who answer to no one. They can claim whatever they want with no supporting evidence. Their fines aren’t constrained and are often ridiculously high.

My concern is that soon an elderly person, who perhaps is unaware of some small sign indicating parking allocation is going to get shafted by one of these cowboy clampers. What if someone is unable to pay straight away? What about if the supposed “offense” happened at 11.30pm?

I suspect someone will get hurt before this is all settled by the powers that be. Clampers are in a confrontational game by nature and they don’t have public sympathy. At least parking infringement officers from Auckland Transport are doing a job that we are all aware of and there is no ambiguity (don’t park on yellow lines; don’t park longer than the allocated times etc…).

We may not like parking fines but at least in those cases we don’t feel like we’ve been “headed off at the pass” by cowboys with clamps attached to their belts.

Evidenced-based politics – imagine that!

Emotions often (lets say 99% of the time) over-rule rational thought so it is hardly surprising politics is seldom an exercise in reason. However, politicians turn their backs on reason to the detriment of all of us.

Politics is about values right? This is true – people interpret the world in different, incompatible ways and the result is a popularity contest (or a good old fashioned mud wrestle to the death).

If it is true that values tend to trump reason and evidence in political discourse, what role is there for science and reason in politics? What should the role of science and reason be in politics?

Science and reason – informed politics

One the basic tenets of the recent Reason Rally in Washington DC and a sure fire way to keep our politicians honest (which is what we all want right?) is to demand that policy be based on facts and evidence.

There is always a political dimension to science. The determination that one thing is true and something isn’t often conflicts with what group or another deems to be ‘heretical’ in some sense. This, I believe, is one of the prime reasons people tend to deny science and engage in motivated reasoning.

If a scientific finding conflicts with political mental model then which caves? Political thinking seems to emanate from the core of the human personality, probably because such thinking is very good at organising simple/complementary core ideals. It is therefore unlikely a new, conflicting idea will integrate into a person’s belief model simply.

If one doesn’t wish to look stupid then one shouldn’t say stupid things

Ultimately, a politician/party that resorts to overt irrationality in making political decisions will face a number of pressures.

Firstly, a sufficiently strident irrational viewpoint will tend to fall under the weight of evidence over time.

Secondly, in recognition of this failure to catch up with reality, external forces from media, opposition parties and voters will pile on the criticism.

The point that goes missing when debating political issues is the fact that we are not free to make up our own facts. We can have a position relative to the facts but so often political discussions descend into personal attacks, conspiracy theories and denial of sound science.

The honourable position is never to hold steadfastly onto falsehoods and spread misinformation. Instead, the courageous and honourable position is to say you’re wrong when you’re wrong and admit that you at least could be wrong. The reason it is courageous and honourable is because admitting one is wrong juts right up against the human tendency to blame, justify and explain away.

When values collide with reality

The reasonable position – update your beliefs in the face of new information – is seen as a weakness in political discussions and debates.

Intrinsically, the acquisition of beliefs is not worthy of an award. In fact, not developing beliefs is often a more honourable position.

What does it say about a person’s values and beliefs when it becomes a necessity to create alternative history, deny science and declare their own ideas as reality despite objective evidence to the contrary?

What does it say about a policy position that is based on anti-intellectual ideas?

It is unsurprising that the person who takes the reasonable position – that this is what I stand for but if new facts enter the fray I will change my mind – will not get very far in politics. This also explains in part why, at present, Republican candidates have resorted to pandering to the Conservative Christians and Mitt Romney (the least extreme of an extreme bunch of candidates) has been labelled “Moderate Mitt” (not as a term of endearment).

My next post will look at some of the research that has gone into the psychology and cognitive factors that lead people to their political persuasion.

Church makes outrageous healthcare claims, highlights need for clear thinking

Church billboards can say a variety of things, good and bad, but “Jesus heals cancer” is ridiculous. So what can we learn from this outrageous pronouncement by a Napier Church?

File this one under the ‘very odd’ category but the billboard put up by Napier’s Equippers Church has attracted a lot of attention, which I suspect is the main reason it was erected.

First I’ll say what the media should say about this issue, but lacks the balls: We know the reasons the church offers for such incredible claims are false.

The NZ Herald reported that at least one family was appalled by the billboard’s cancer claim and that the matter has been submitted to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Even Steve Novella, prominent skeptic and author of the Neurologica blog has added his weight behind the issue, essentially saying religious freedom is one thing but protecting the public from misleading health claims is another.

The trouble with outrageous claims on billboards, websites etc… is that you never know how an individual will respond to them. If one person in a hundred buys the message and forgoes proper medical treatment then we have a problem. Misinformation about medicine and health is always a bad idea for this reason.

Beware! Magical thinking lurks

Appeals to magic, and prayer is such an appeal, can be treated with extreme skepticism from the outset just as sacrificing goats should be.

It raises some important points about how we know something is true and also prompts one to ask: “Does prayer actually work?” and “Why do people make claims like this?”

The church billboard is irresponsible, as Steven Novella points out. Even if people sincerely believe they are doing the right thing by advertising such messages, the truth of the matter is their efforts can only subvert truth and cause harm.

Good questions expose pseudoscience

Belief-based ideas about what constitutes a medical treatment are simply worthless. Human cultures operated on ignorance of the facts for millennia before some bright spark said, “I wonder if any of this is true”.

Using scientific thinking, we can get to the heart of medical claims. We can ask questions like:

• What exactly was healed?
• How do you know X cured this ailment?
• How would you know if X didn’t cure it? (exposes criteria)
• What about Y? How do you know whether Y had no effect on the cure?

The Pastor admits the people who were claimed to be healed of cancer completed their medical treatments. So I ask, how does he then claim that it was Jesus that cured them? What criteria did he use to eliminate other influences, like medical scientific interventions?

Someone’s self report of what cured them of ailment X is riddled with problems and is worthless in terms of determining fact for the following reasons:

• Motivated reasoning
  Given a set of data, a person will concoct an interpretation based purely on their beliefs and worldview. Other people will construct different interpretations.
• Confirmation bias
  Given a set of data, a person will unconsciously filter out evidence that falsifies their conclusion while endorsing only that which confirms their prior beliefs (this is the default setting of the brain).

Sloppy thinking and the inadequacy of prayer

A great illustration of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias can be seen in the way that people interpret experiences, first as spiritual, then as solely in terms of their spiritual/religious beliefs.

Buddhists have experiences they interpret in Buddhist terms, Mormons in Mormon terms and so forth. Research shows conclusively that people experiencing the same stimuli inside the brain will self-report those experiences purely terms of their spiritual worldview.

Furthermore, every controlled test of prayer has been negative (shows prayer doesn’t work) and it does not matter which deity one prays to. The practice of prayer shows how motivated reasoning and confirmation bias/ad hoc reasoning work to produce and reinforce beliefs.

Scenario: Heads I win, tails I win!
For instance, if we pray to a deity with a vague request (help with our finances), this leaves the door wide open for interpretations and therefore we can never know if the prayer worked at all. If we pray for a specific goal, (say $1000 by March 3) then we run the risk of falsifying our prayer.

Confirmation bias will come to our rescue. If we find $50 on the street, hey presto – God/Jesus answered our prayer, not completely but who are we to question God? If our finances do not improve, we can reason that God heard our prayer, but God chose not to grant it because he has a plan.

Ergo – If God has a plan, and he’s going to stick to it regardless, what is the point of asking? It is this kind of not making sense that leaves us non-believers scratching our heads

Conclusion – not just a religious problem

Rightly, many people are outraged by the sheer audacity of the false claim that ‘Jesus heals cancer’. However, I suspect some of those people also believe equally ridiculous ideas about what can cure cancer.

Selective skepticism such as this is a constant reminder of why we need objective studies to confirm the reality of any treatment/modality.

Skepticism and scientific reasoning has to be applied across all healthcare claims if we truly care about doing no harm.

The fact is, cancer is not one disease but a class of diseases that emerge and behave in a wide variety of ways. For this reason, one “cure all” panacea for cancer simply holds no basis in reality.

The church has the right to make whatever claims they want on their billboards, but we too can point out that it is ridiculous and irresponsible and hopefully limit any damage such magical thinking can inspire.

Garth George and the art of polluting reasonable discussions about society and ethics

New Zealand Herald columnist Garth George is at his vitriolic worst again. His witch hunt this time – the Green party and their “dangerous” agenda [insert gut laugh here].

It is fair to say Garth George is on a personal crusade to change New Zealand society, which he sees as sick and depraved. An outspoken critic of abortion rights (or as George puts it “murdering babies”) he has clearly left the path of sanity in his latest rant against the Green party here in New Zealand.

One commenter to this article stated that the his entire piece could have been summarised by: ”I don’t like the Greens because they are anti-fundamentalist Christian”.

I would say that is true and Garth George’s diatribe highlights why some religious perspectives on morality are deeply flawed, bigoted and therefore relegated to the scrapheap of bad ideas. Take it away George:

The Greens are dangerous. They are more than a polite group of tree-huggers, slug-savers and water samplers but you rarely, if ever, hear of the more sinister planks of their policy, which are frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters.

“… Frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters”. Aside from noticing the extreme condescension dolled out against opponents of his views, the question is, what exactly is it that “really matters”?

George wastes no time telling us exactly what issues are most important: abortion (sanctity of life); same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption (sanctity of marriage); “an education system which teaches that homosexuality is normal”; euthanasia (right to life of every person from conception to natural death).

Where have I heard that list before? Straight out of the religious fundamentalists handbook of intolerance and bigotry.

Not even moral

As is often the case with religious intrusion into moral debate, many of the arguments Garth George advances aren’t even moral in nature. Religious moral claims tend to come with the appeal to God, which means they are arbitrary and not necessarily based on any real effects in the world.

In reality, how do we evaluate what is moral? I submit that a civil and humane society in the 21st century bases its morality on innate, hard wired concern for the suffering and welfare of sentient beings.

A moral argument, therefore, has nothing to do with morality or is immoral if:

• It is based on an appeal to authority. This is by definition a bad argument. Authorities that are the arbiters of morality can and do make immoral pronouncements. In this case morality is arbitrary and solely dependent on the wishes of the authority in question, be that God, the Bible or a national dictator.
• It is based on “thought crime”. A distinction must be made between thought (no harm to others) and actions (actual harm to others). Religious morality, based on a totalitarian impulse to control, often condemns the mere thinking of something (e.g. sex, anger).
• It condemns actions that reduce suffering or do no intrinsic harm to others. Such condemnations are immoral.
• It condemns people for who they are and not what they do. For instance, homosexuals are persecuted for being who they are. This too is without moral foundation.

The humanistic tenet that George seems incensed by is the idea that human morality ought be centered around reducing harm and suffering and maximising wellbeing.

Homosexuality
Given this, it is clear that homosexuality is not a moral issue. Sure there are people who find it repulsive but repulsion is not a sound basis for a moral argument. I find eating cat repulsive but that is not a reason for me to denounce cat eating as immoral.

Homosexuality is “normal” in the sense that there is a clear biological and neurological basis for homosexual preferences and homosexual behaviour is witnessed throughout the animal kingdom.

Gay marriage
Gay marriage is also not immoral and does not affect the “sanctity” of marriage. Again, religion poisons the argument by saying that marriage has been somehow ordained by God as the union of one women and one man. Have they not read their Bibles? The Bible contains countless examples of men with multiple wives.

From a sacred covenant to a purley a legal arrangement for tax and property purposes… The definition of a marriage has changed constantly over the ages. The modern definition of marriage that has been “sanctified” by Christians is merely the latest incarnation. Opposition to civil unions of same sex couples amounts to denying some people rights that the rest of us have purely because of who they are. Bigotry anyone?

Euthanasia
Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is an issue that is often polluted by the Garth George and his ilk by making unjustified slippery slope arguments such as : “But if we allow voluntary euthanasia then that will lead to voluntary euthanasia and murder.” Cased closed they say. But not only is the preceeding assertion false it also denies the fact that there are certain situations where euthanasia would reduce months and possibly years of needless suffering.

Allowing horrendous suffering to continue despite no hope of improvement could be argued as positively immoral.

Polluting a legitimate ethical debate about abortion

There is an ethical debate that can be had around the issue of abortion. However, denouncing abortion as “murdering babies” is poisoning the well. No rational discussion be had thereafter, even though there are legitimate reasons for an abortion (the birth will likely result in the death of the mother, the baby or both for example).

The argument goes that even an early term foetus is a potential human being. But so is an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell. If we are concerned about potential human beings then it seems obvious we should mourn the loss of billions of sperm cells and millions of eggs.

Where personhood is granted is not a scientific question and is the subject of debate (although science can inform the debate).

I do agree, however, that abortion should be avoided where possible but it is not my place to dictate to a women what she can and can’t do with her body.

Further, Christians generally and the Catholic Church specifically increase the number of abortions by also condemning the use of contraceptives and actively discouraging sex education.

The control of sex is one area the church as had to regress from because a person’s sexual practices is none of their business. 

Overpopulation and concern for the environment

Interestingly, George is quoting a pro-life “mate” in making these comments instead of point blank making these himself. In any case, he clearly agrees with the claims of his buddy, including this doozy:

“We should recognise that the long-term objective of the Greens is to reduce the world’s population, creating a world in which nature is the dominant ‘right’ with humanity subservient to that ‘deity’.”

Here, George could well have been quoting someone from the 15th century. The concern for overpopulation and the ensuing environmental decay, pollution and pushing other species to extinction is hardly raising nature to the status of ‘deity’.

The notion that “God gave humans dominion of the Earth” is an extension of human self-importance and vanity and it has had dire consequences on our planet. Is it not morally reprehensible to act in ways that solely suits us at the expense of other forms of life?

Besides, if we accept his premise that concern for overpopulation is deifying nature we can at least say our deity actually exists.

Green supporters are guilty of labelling others as dangerous and evil (dogmatic opposition to genetic modification springs to mind) but I would hardly call their humanisitic agenda “dangerous” in the sense Garth George has. Abolishing oppression and prejudice is a sign of healthy progress in moral reasoning.

Flawed pricing – what Adidas and Borders NZ have in common

The hotly anticipated 2011 Adidas All Blacks jersey turned sour for fans when they realised they would have to fork out $220 kiwi dollars for it. This flawed pricing strategy is not unique in New Zealand.

Consumers have no obligations to buy a rugby jersey at double the price they can get it online from UK and US stores. Adidas are dreaming if they think NZ consumers are dumb enough to pay exorbitant prices for a jersey they can buy for a price somewhat less than than their rent for the week.

Just ask the owners who led Whitcoulls and Borders into financial strife. I have only ever bought a book from Borders in New Zealand when it was heavily reduced in price. I refuse to buy an average sized book for more than $30. Many new release books are $40+. I’m quite happy to wait a few more days and get the same book from Amazon for $15-$20. With exchange rates in our favour, why wouldn’t consumers look online first?

Rugbystore.co.uk lists the 2011 All Blacks jersey at £64.99, which works out to be $NZ126 at the time of writing. Worldrugbyshop.com has it at $US89.99 (about $NZ105). Throw in a bit extra for shipping and you have your jersey at around 50% discount to what you can buy it here.

“If we continue to encourage people to purchase products overseas all that’s going to happen is New Zealand retailing will fall apart.” – David Hugget, Adidas NZ (NZ Herald)

The idea that we, the consumers would be somehow responsible for a decline in NZ retailing because we are unwilling to pay ridiculous prices for products, is simply flabergasting. If YOU – Adidas – price a jersey at excessive prices don’t blame us for buying from abroad and “causing NZ retailing to fall apart”.

I’ve never been to a store and paid more for a product out of some gesture of charity to a retailer. And I bet the owners of those retail outlets don’t buy from importers and suppliers that are going to charge them more than the guy 50m down the docks.

I do feel for retailers like Rebel Sport. They are at the end of the supply chain and so have to absorb all the costs along the way. The final price of the jersey, however, makes one wonder whether they’re made from super-strength carbon nano-fibres.

I admit there are a number of factors at play here – 15% GST, exchange rate volatility and higher fuel prices. But this price creep in All Blacks merchandise has been gradually getting worse over the past few years and I doubt that can all be attributed to external factors (some of which are favourable to importers). All Blacks training jersies I took a shine to last year were priced at about $NZ175.

Adidas – in true corporate spirit worsened their greedy image by revealing that the company is seeking to block cheap imports wherever it can. Wait a go guys – don’t cut the price to a more reasonable level for the average consumer – put it further out of reach.

I listened to Rebel Sport managing director Rod Duke on Radio ZB express his dismay at the unenvious position Rebel Sport and other retailers have been forced into by Adidas over the price of the ABs jersey. Duke says he will be holding some tough conversations with Adidas about pricing, where he will ask – “What the F@#k?” or something to that effect.

Whitcoulls, Borders, Adidas (I’m sure there are others) have perplexing pricing strategies. JB Hi-Fi singlehandedly killed DVD and CD sales in Borders on Auckland’s Queen Street and online stores are attracting armies of followers. Such is the evolution arms race in market economics – evolve or die and leave the excessive greed to the Gordon Geckos of the world.

Kahui book hubbub – Moral outcry or madness?

Ian Wishart’s book - Breaking Silence: The Kahui Case - has spurred some retailers to not stock the book. All I ask is, what are people afraid of?

I agree with Wishart

I never thought I’d say that I agree with Ian Wishart but I support his position that free speech is the loser in the debacle surrounding his book on the Kahui twins.

I am as insulted as any decent human being that no one has been formally punished for what appears to be the murder of two defenseless children. However, if we are to get to the bottom of this and justice is to be served, we should encourage all sides to be heard. At the moment we’ve heard nada.

Wishart’s book, Breaking the Silence – The Kahui Case is a tell-all from the perspective of Macsyna King, the twins’ mother. The ensuing public outcry is based in part on the claim that Mrs King will profit from the tragedy, a claim Wishart denies. He says Mrs King will not receive any of the royalties from the book.

Let’s hear what someone has to say. The knee-jerk “how dare you profit from the death of the twins” emotional appeals achieve nothing of value. 

Capitulation to the mob

Perhaps the worst aspect to this hubbub is the refusal of Paper Plus and the Warehouse to stock the book. This appears to be an act of utter cowardice and capitulation to a loud and angry group of Facebook users.

Why should some people decide what can or cannot be sold in a book store? What right do they have to deny others the choice?

I noted with amazement the statement in the NZ Herald by Warehouse representative Nick Tuck:

We have received significant comment from our customers today both directly and online with regards to this book. Overwhelmingly, they have told us that they do not wish to buy it or see it on the shelves.

This is where the disconnect with reason occurs and why Ian Wishart is correct in saying:

It’s a sad day for the New Zealand media because if we can’t tell stories by going to both sides and getting people to speak up because it offends various groups in the community, then freedom of speech is being seriously threatened. And also the rights of New Zealanders to buy books.

At the time of writing, Whitcoulls hadn’t made a call on whether to sell the book, though one feels that with the companies recent woes the phrase “beggers can’t be choosers” is appropriate.

Thankfully, one retailer - Booksellers NZ has maintained its integrity by not only choosing to stock the book, but they also stated: “We have never and will never ask or tell any of our members not to stock a particular title. The titles they stock are their choice as individual business owners.”

Conclusion

Disagreeing with the content of a publication is NOT a reason to demand it be suppressed. There is a reason free speech is cherished in democratic societies and why it is despised in authoritarian and ideologically driven ones.

As much as I disagree with Wishart’s  climate change denial and find his religious views somewhat puzzling, I support his right to make these claims and let the arguments stand or fall on their own weight.

It seems everyone loves free speech when it is their views being represented. Demanding our views be heard while expecting others to shut up when we don’t like what they have to say is the height of hypocrisy.