Explain it better…

Yesterday morning I had the opportunity to watch a morning show on Dutch TV. A lot has been going on about ‘rekeningrijden’, which can probably be best interpreted as ‘pay as you drive’. The basic idea is that we are not going to pay any taxes for owning a car anymore (at least that’s how it was presented initially), but we are going to be taxed by the distance we drive, the time of day we drive it and the location. Basically it’s nation wide toll system.

I could write pages about the possible privacy implications, and the slippery slope that is logging everywhere every car goes etc.: To start with we just look at your mileage, time and location, but i bet that in some drawers of the justice department plans are already sitting that enable police to retroactively slap you with speeding tickets, parking tickets, and the lot based on the data your car stores.

However that is not the point here… a member of parliament (Ger Koopmans – CDA) was on this morning show talking about the negative public opinion about the rekeningrijden-plan. A number of surveys indicate that most people simply don’t want it. Cost of ownership (adapting the car, administrative costs), lack of confidence in the benefits of the system and privacy concerns are the main reasons.

Her is this MP who boldly states that A. ‘everyone who looks at the proposed system for more than 2 seconds will be convinced that there are no privacy issues’, and B. that there is no pulling back; if the public opinion is bad, then the traffic minister will have to ‘explain the system better’.

The two minute interview goes to prove 2 points. First, any idiot can be an MP here. If data is stored on such a large scale it is going to leak at some point. So there is a privacy concern even if there is no other application than just logging miles and locations and times: these data are going to be out there for a fraction of the population at least. There’s no two ways about it: data-bases leak eventually. It is just that we weigh the benefits of having them against the probability and the impact of the leakage. (Besides a lot of intelligent people looked at it for more than 2 seconds and aren’t convinced.)

The other point is more serious: these politicians are so high up in their ivory tower that they can’t believe that a majority of the population can disagree with the plans they cook up, if the citizens fully understand the plans they make. ‘The plan is good and beneficial, and everyone would see that if they only understood it.’ So the politician’s solution in this case is ‘we have to explain it better’. Basically he is saying: we haven’t made it simple enough for these hicks, so we have to dumb it up and explain it better. Either that, or we have to get into conspiracy theories, and I am not willing to do that.

It’s not the first time of course… the European constitution was the first time I can remember where we had a referendum that turned out badly for the politicians… the response was: ‘we have to explain it better’, they never did, and signed the Lisbon treaty anyway.

If history can be a benchmark, rekeningrijden is not gonna be explained any better, it is gonna cost us shit loads of money in the short run, and a lot of privacy in the long run.

Getting screwed by conserving energy

Recently, I got my energy bill for the past 12 months. Over here it consists of 2 parts: one part you pay for the ‘network’, the delivery of energy, and the other part you pay for the actual purchase of gas and electricity. Part one kinda caught me by surprise because I had to pay about 70% more than the estimate (made by the energy company).

I didn’t do anything different really… nothing that drastic at least. So I checked the numbers -bear with me- and it turns out that I used a tad bit more per week than last year (2kWh/week), which comes down to about 7%. So where does the factor 10 come from?

I am fairly energy efficient: I use laptop computers, and hardly ever have more than one energy-saving light on in my house; I hardly ever use a dryer, and the largest energy hog is probably the electric oven. Anyhow I use less than half the electricity an average Dutch household does, and about 75% of the average one-person household (apparently it’s also about 15% of the average American house, and -to put things into perspective- 0.7% of Al Gore’s Mansion’s 2006 electricity usage). So by all accounts I use less than the regular amount of electricity for a citizen of a Western country.

The 70% increase turns out to be the result of a new calculation method that was introduced this year around here: The network bills by the day and by capacity, not by usage. In light of all the energy debates, the Kopenhagen conference and the drive to use energy saving devices, I as a below average user get stung by a new law that disfavors low-energy consumption households. By charging by the day, low-usage gets punished, average usage remains the same, and high usage gets rewarded!

I’d rather keep the money and spend it on something else, but it’s not that large an amount that it really bothers me. The underlying principle of punishing energy efficiency and rewarding high-usage households leaves me wondering… about who actually though this was a good idea, why on earth our socialist politicians – who worry about 20 cents for the ‘weaker members of society’ – are not up in arms, why the green parties didn’t see this coming. Maybe politicians don’t really care about energy consumption???

A Gold Glove for Jeter??

Shocking news when I woke up this morning: Derek Jeter was apparently the best defensive shortstop in the American league this last year. Apparently, he had one of his finest years defensively: only eight errors for the year. Due to where I live I ususally only watch play-off baseball, so I can speak for the whole year… but then again, neither can the voters (players and coaches).

Jeter’s defensive abilities have been debated by sabremetricians for years; consensus is that he is not a stand out at SS (or at least not anymore). On the other hand, Jeter seems to be clutch defensively: he always appears to come up with the great head-up play when it’s needed most.

Since 1996 -his first season as a full time major leaguer- Jeter made on average 15 errors a year. So his 8Es this year are definitely low. If we look slightly beyond that a look at his range factor and zone rating, they are both down from last year, and more in line with his worst defensive years (2001-2003) than with his best year. There’s only one stat that’s off for Jeter defensively, and that’s his fielding average. That’s tied with highest in his career (with 1998).

What struck me while watching the play-off, was the fact that he made so many ‘not quite on the mark’ throws on routine plays. Texeira seemed to be squatting, stretching left or right on far too many occasions after routine grounders to the left side of the infield. Texeira probably saved Jeter from getting charged one or two errors, during the play-offs.

That of course isn’t an argument against him getting a Gold Glove. However, if we just take the other shortstop wearing #2 in the ALCS, Erick Aybar, Jeters numbers seem not so great (FPCT, RF, ZR: Aybar (.983, 4.68, .841) vs Jeter (.986, 3.90, .811)). Decent enough, but not Gold Glove worthy.

The only real difference between Jeter defensively between this year and last, is the number of errors (as a matter of fact, the other indicators are down from last year). If the play offs are any indication that most of that is due to having a Gold Glove 1B playing at the other end of his throws instead of sending Jason Giambi out there for 113 games.

Damon’s Double steal

I spent most of the night up watching game 4 of the World Series. Damon’s steal of 2 and 3 on the same pitch was dubbed by the game changing play. ESPN’s Jayson Stark and Jim Caple indicated that most of the players didn’t even know how to defend it, and according to them Charlie Manuel thought the catcher should have covered third on the play.

(Short description of what happened: Damon hit a single, the Phillies’ infield shifted to right while Texeira was at bat. Damon stole second and C Ruiz threw from his knees to 3B Feliz, who was covering second in the shifted infield. Feliz moved towards the right side of the infield to catch the throw on a hop, and Damon popped up behind him and continued to the uncovered 3rd base.)

Manuel’s idea of having the catcher cover 3rd in shortsighted. Ruiz was on his knees throwing and the throw was late to the bag at second. So at the time Damon took of from second, he could have started towards 3rd as well (maybe). So Ruiz should have outran Damon to third base, handle the throw and tag him.

When the play happened the only hope was for P Lidge to cover third. He ducked for the throw and could have moved to the corner immediately after. He probably wouldn’t have been there in time to make any play if Damon still went, but him moving in that direction might have been enough to make the runner hesitate. But Lidge wasn’t aware of the danger.

The bigger problem on the play was that Feliz wasn’t aware of the danger before he got the throw… he very calmly moved towards the right side of the infield, opening the hole behind him for Damon to run through. He should have received it closer to the bag so Damon was within an arm’s reach. As a matter of fact: letting the ball get by him for SS Rollins to field behind the base would have been okay too.

You have to second guess the extreme shift Manuel had his infield in as well, and the decision by Ruiz to even make the throw on that pitch, for his knees. Covering third was not an option, but it appear three players (P, C, 3B) in the Phillies infield weren’t aware of the risk leading up to that situation. But then again, hindsight is always 20-20.