Friday, May 22, 2015

My GolfNow Complaint

GolfNow's customer service is horrible, but at least it represents the company accurately. I booked a tee time for the wrong date because of the way the golf course's website refreshes to a different date than the one I initially selected. I attempted to reschedule the tee time or get some sort of credit for a later date. The course had no problem with it, but referred me to GolfNow, as that particular tee time was booked through you.

Your people it seems, are trained to be as unhelpful as possible. They said there was nothing they could do, as it is GolfNow's policy not to refund missed tee times. The problem is I never could have made that tee time, I never intended to book that tee time, and I was never told the booking was non-refundable. Even the boilerplate terms of service on the Chehalem Glenn website do not say there is a no-refund or no-rescheduling policy. I don't care what GolfNow's internal policies are with regards to refunds. They aren't posted on the website where I booked, and I didn't agree to them.

What you are doing is dishonest. If you are booking totally nonrefundable, nontransferable tee times, it needs to say so explicitly before the tee time is booked. It does not. Springing these term after the fact on a phone call is bushleague and dishonest.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

What Is Your Purpose? - NYTimes.com

What Is Your Purpose? - NYTimes.com: "Public debate is now undermoralized and overpoliticized. We have many shows where people argue about fiscal policy but not so many on how to find a vocation or how to measure the worth of your life. In fact, we now hash out our moral disagreement indirectly, under the pretense that we’re talking about politics, which is why arguments about things like tax policy come to resemble holy wars."



'via Blog this'



I'm not sure whether the arguments are getting more intense. I do think that we are fighting our our moral philosophies under the guise of public policy.

Monday, May 4, 2015

PunditFact: A Case Study In Fact-Free Hackery

PunditFact: A Case Study In Fact-Free Hackery: "The problem here is not one of facts or accuracy, but ideology. Jacobson simply doesn’t like the implications of the fact that the Clinton Foundation spent less than 10 percent of its budgets on charitable grants in 2013. He doesn’t like the fact that the two single largest “charitable” initiatives of the Clinton Foundation — by its own admission — are the Clinton Presidential Library, which exists solely to put a positive spin on the 42nd president’s term in office, and the Clinton Global Initiative, which the New York Times characterized as a “glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.” If hanging out with celebrities at glitzy dinners is the height of charity, then it’s time to beatify the Kardashian sisters."



'via Blog this'

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Happy Mirth Day «

Happy Mirth Day «: "On this Earth Day I share with you one of my favorite illustrations of the mirthiness that an uncritical and political assessment of environmental economic conditions has become. It’s from a few years ago but it ages well. Here the Mackinac Center finds, by simply adding up all of the subsidies that GM gets directly for producing the Volt and for he subsidies that its suppliers get, and so on. The numbers indicated that each Volt sold (I suppose with economies of scale this would fall) came equipped with a quarter million dollar of benefits from the taxpayers. Nice!"



'via Blog this'

Monday, April 20, 2015

Instapundit

Instapundit: "Today, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is holding long-awaited oral arguments to decide whether the secret prosecutions should be halted under Wisconsin law.  The arguments are not open to the public, to protect the identities of the targets.  Frankly, it’s shocking that it’s taken over 5 years to get a hearing from the Wisconsin Supreme Court–5 years of abuse of free speech and association rights is too much."



'via Blog this'



With this prosecution and the lawsuit by Abraham, Wisconsin's "justice" system has become a laughing stock.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners

Kirsten Powers: Gay marriage debate's sore winners: "Here's the thing: I didn't support the original Indiana law. I am both a Christian who doesn't believe the Bible prohibits serving a same-sex wedding and a vocal LGBT rights supporter who has blasted laws similar to Indiana's for fear that they could provide legal protection to those who discriminate against gay people.



But I'm starting to wonder: who needs the protection here?



 What happened in Indiana is reminiscent of the bullying that led to the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich exactly this time last year. Eich was harangued for a six-year-old donation supporting an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative, but ultimately purged for refusing to recant his beliefs about marriage."



'via Blog this'

I Switched to a Standing Desk, So Now You Should, Too - The New Yorker

I Switched to a Standing Desk, So Now You Should, Too - The New Yorker: "Still need convincing? Consider this: in the nineteenth century, everyone used standing desks. In case you don’t know your history, the nineteenth century was a great century that didn’t have any problems. It wasn’t until the modern era that the tyranny of sitting was imposed upon us by nefarious corporate forces. That’s right, I’m talking about Big Office Chair. Day in, day out, chair factories pump pollution into the air and water, just to manufacture sedentary death machines. With a standing desk, you don’t even need a chair. That’s better for the environment, which is another thing you can be smug about."



'via Blog this'

I Switched to a Standing Desk, So Now You Should, Too - The New Yorker

I Switched to a Standing Desk, So Now You Should, Too - The New Yorker: "Indeed, sitting has been called the new smoking. The only difference is that smoking looks cool and is a great way to meet people and isn’t actually that bad for you. (I smoke.) Sitting, on the other hand, looks ridiculous and shameful—like you’re afraid to admit exactly how tall you are—and is terrible for you. The human body simply wasn’t meant to be folded up for long stretches, like a sad pretzel. It was meant to be held ramrod-straight at all times, like a noble pretzel stick."



'via Blog this'

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Althouse

Althouse: "My criticism of the article is that it didn't do what the headline made me think it would do and get into a topic I've been concerned with for years. What if, over time, with perfect reproductive freedom, the choice to avoid childbirth is far more popular than we'd ever imagined? One solution would be to back off from women's freedom and equality, and I don't like that. So the thought experiment is: Assume women will continue to have the power to avoid childbirth and complete freedom to exercise that power. Assume we agree that the birthrate must be increased. What can we do?
"



'via Blog this'

The Runaway Prosecutor Who Almost Lost Iraq

The Runaway Prosecutor Who Almost Lost Iraq: "Yet every part of that testimony was false, and Fitzgerald knew it. He had withheld from Miller a crucial fact: that Plame had once worked undercover as an employee of the State Department, which, unlike the CIA, is divided into bureaus. Fitzgerald also withheld that same vital information from Libby’s lawyers — an unforgivable breach of ethics as well as the law."



'via Blog this'



I wonder what Tina Fey has to say about this? (Context here.)

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Why Law Professor Douglas Laycock Supports Same-Sex Marriage and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law | Religion & Politics

Why Law Professor Douglas Laycock Supports Same-Sex Marriage and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law | Religion & Politics: "So I would exempt the very small businesses in the wedding industry, provided that some other reasonably convenient business nearby is available to provide the same goods and services. The gay rights side is unwilling to even think about that. They don’t see that weddings are a religious context; they don’t distinguish declining to do a wedding from simply refusing to serve gays."



'via Blog this'

Why Law Professor Douglas Laycock Supports Same-Sex Marriage and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law | Religion & Politics

Why Law Professor Douglas Laycock Supports Same-Sex Marriage and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law | Religion & Politics: "I would exempt counselors from doing marriage counseling or relationship counseling for same-sex couples. It is in no one’s interest to force a counselor to work with a couple, or subject the couple to working with a counselor, if the counselor thinks the couple’s relationship is fundamentally wrong in its very existence. But the gay rights side will not concede even that; important forces want to drive all these conservative religious folks from the helping professions. The principal battleground has been efforts to force graduate students out of their degree programs."



'via Blog this'

Why Law Professor Douglas Laycock Supports Same-Sex Marriage and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law | Religion & Politics

Why Law Professor Douglas Laycock Supports Same-Sex Marriage and Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law | Religion & Politics: "Churches and religious organizations, which generally understand marriage to be an inherently religious relationship, should be allowed to retain their religious definitions of marriage. And for purposes of conducting the work of the church, they should not be required to recognize same-sex civil marriages that are simply not marriages on their religious understanding. This is the most important thing from the religious liberty perspective: inside the religious organization should be an enclave where religious rules control. The gay rights side has been unwilling to concede even that."



'via Blog this'

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Some Thoughts on Indiana

Some Thoughts on Indiana: "1. Why is it okay for Apple to refuse to facilitate, or associate with, a view of marriage that it rejects but not okay for a local florist (or photographer or baker) to do so?"



'via Blog this'

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The War on the Private Mind

The War on the Private Mind: "here are two easy ways to get a Republican to roll over and put his paws up in the air: The first is to write him a check, which is the political version of scratching his belly, and the second is to call him a bigot. In both cases, it helps if you have a great deal of money behind you."



'via Blog this'



Just found this.