The right to vote is a central incident of citizenship, that and the right to serve on a jury. There is a movement afoot to grant the right to vote in local elections, but you know it won't stop there, to non-citizens. I could not be more opposed.

The NY Times covered this issue this morning, in a typical NY Times friendly way.

The arguments advanced in support of this position in the article fall into three groups: one, they pay taxes; two, history permitted it; and three, diversity requires it. These arguments are all garbage.

Argument One:

"It will happen,'' said Tamrat Medhin, a civic activist from Ethiopia who lives here. "Don't you believe that if people are working in the community and paying taxes, don't you agree that they deserve the opportunity to vote?''

Calling for "democracy for all," immigrants are increasingly pressing for the right to vote in municipal elections. In Washington, the proposed bill, introduced in July, would allow permanent residents to vote for the mayor and members of the school board and City Council.

Actually, no, I don't believe that. Simply put, I believe that voting is a right best restricted to: those who have agreed to be bound by our shared system of beliefs and interests; to those who have foresworn allegiance to a foreign monarch or state; those who are committed enough to this society that they choose freely to take an oath to defend it and support it and sustain it; and, finally, those who intend to stay here and live out there lives here as fellow citizens. I don't want and don't believe it is in the best interests of our society to have people vote on important issues who might just pack it in and go back to their native Ethiopia, for instance, when it comes to retirement. Are these people who may have no intention of residing here long term going to be able to be counted on to make hard decisions about local bonds and borrowing? Are they going to say, don't matter to me none, I'm not going to be here in 20 years when that bond comes due?

You want a voice, take the oath. Simple as that.

Argument Two:

They also note that the United States has a long history of allowing noncitizens to vote. Twenty-two states and federal territories at various times allowed noncitizens to vote - even as blacks and women were barred from the ballot box - in the 1800's and 1900's.

Concerns about the radicalism of immigrants arriving from southern and Eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led states to restrict such voting rights. By 1928, voting at every level had been restricted to United States citizens. Today, some argue, those rights should be restored to noncitizens.

"They're paying taxes, they're working, they're contributing to our prosperity,'' said Jim Graham, the councilman who introduced the bill here. "And yet they're not able to exercise the franchise. "This is part of our history. A lot of people don't know what the history of this nation is in terms of immigrant voting; they don't understand even that localities can determine this issue. It's a very healthy discussion.''

Jimbo, you ain't reaching far enough back in terms of history to understand the importance of the decision of restricting the franchise to those who vote. Let's reach back a little farther and consider the public debates held during the period when the Constitution was adopted, from 1774 and on.

The debate, as best as I can recall it, centered on the issue of property ownership. One side wanted to restrict the right to vote to those citizens who held a certain amount of property. It was felt that these citizens would likely be less inclined to approve flighty measures and more inclined to support the long term good of society because of their stake in it. The other side disagreed. The other side, obviously, won. However, it took years and at no time was it thought that the right to vote should be extended to those who have no formal stake in society. I will have to go back and re-read some of the debates, it's been 20 years since I looked at this, but they were fascinating.

If you go back far enough, it was clear that the right to vote was meant to be given only to citizens.

Moreover, let's consider, at least anecdotally, the change in character of immigrants. Immigrants who came to this country in the period Jimbo is talking about came to stay, to make new lives in a better place. They were not going back. First, travel was difficult and expensive. Second, the places they left were not very free or nice. All that has changed. My impression, and I don't have the time to do any research to back this up, is that the character of immigration has changed from those looking to make a life long change to those looking to stay for several years and then return, richer, to their countries of origin to retire, aided by greater ease of travel, among other things. So, why would it be desirable to give these economic, short-term immigrants the right to vote? I could see how a long time immigrant might have the stake in society we would want to see, but a short termer who may lack the long term horizon and point of view? This is not your grandfather's immigrant.

In my view, history does not provide the justification they are looking for.

Argument Three:

"A lot of communities are not represented by representatives who reflect the diversity in their communities and are responsive to their needs,'' said Ron Hayduk, a professor of political science at the Borough of Manhattan Community College and an advocate for immigrant voting rights. "It raises basic fundamental questions about democracy.''

Ron, you are wrong on so many levels. First, diversity is not a constitutionally enshrined right. It is not a requirement that a representative "reflect the diversity" of his or her constituents. It is asinine to suggest that it is a requirement. You want a voice in the selection of your representative? Take the oath. Otherwise, assume that your representative will represent your community's concerns as a whole. If not, form a lobbying group or a neighborhood association and go to the representative. Tocqueville stresses this as one of the great strengths of American democracy. Second, Ron, we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The difference is that in a republic we are one step removed from the legislative process by way of legislators who we elect as opposed to all citizens directly voting on every law. Third, basic and fundamental are kind of the same thing. Just cause you say it twice, doesn't make it so.

The right to vote is a precious thing. It is a bright-line test, too. Are you a citizen? Were you born a citizen or did you take the oath? If not, no vote. Can you imagine the administrative nightmare it will be to figure out who among the non-citizens should be permitted to register to vote? I shudder at the thought. No, this whole proposal is misguided.

You want to vote? Join me in my citizenship, there's plenty of room.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:58 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1231 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Hmmmm...I think we disagree here, dearie. When I lived in Sweden, as a tax-paying resident, I was allowed to vote. Not in their massive national elections, but in the usual community type things. Raise taxes to pay for a bridge? Pay a toll? Vote for the Euro? And the thing is, I wasn't a Swedish citizen, but as a Swedish resident, with a home and a job and a vested interest, I voted for what I felt was best for Sweden. I wasn't trying to sabotage the government or trash the culture, and I imagine most who would vote aren't interested in it-they have a vested interest, too. Getting citizenship and taking an oath-in any country-isn't easy. It requires years of residence. Proof of income. Proof of being a "normal citizen" (pay your utilities. Speak the language. I voted in Swedish for Swedish issues. Nothing wrong with that). I think it's the same for the U.S. People live in an area, pay their taxes, maybe want to be a citizen but can't and yet they have a voice. By allowing people to vote, you are showing that you respect their opinion and are aware that they too want what's best for the country. It takes a lot to vote-even for the citizens!-so someone that WANTS to vote clearly has interest, likely has read up, and wants to support their new country. Exclude them from the presidential election, if need be, but by all means, local elections affect them too. Let their voice be heard. I did, when I voted to support the best for Sweden and the Swedes. Let's trust others.

Posted by: Helen at August 09, 2004 10:13 AM (R4iEo)

2 Well, that's ok if we disagree. That's healthy and I never started this blog to only attract people to agree with me. But, the thing is, it isn't about trusting others. It's about a privilege that others have died for, both to obtain and to defend. It's about the "other", as you put it, taking an affirmative step in our direction to join our community. To become part of us. As I said, there's plenty of room, but not for transients. Finally, I don't know how relevant your Swedish experience is. Sweden is part of the EU which has been moving Europe generally in the direction of making national voting less relevant as, one, more of the important decisions are taken in Brussels or Strasbourg, and two, the freedom of movement of people allows for transnational voting of some kind or another. We don't have that to the same extent. There are so many differences that it becomes harder to compare the two systems. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful comments, Helen, even where we disagree.

Posted by: RP at August 09, 2004 10:31 AM (LlPKh)

3 Ah, but you can't define a transient, can you? I never planned on being one-I planned on living there indefinitely, on being a citizen, on remaining there ad infinitum. It was only that life threw a monkey wrench in my works, so I couldn't get that chance. I can agree that national elections should be sacred, and for the citizens. But I still maintain that local elections should serve the people that the constituency is comprised of, for the good of the community. I too respect that people died for the right to vote in my country-but it was over 250 years ago, and oddly all of my family came along to the U.S. a long time after that. You know I love ya' anyway. You're my big blog brother, after all. I have to

Posted by: Helen at August 09, 2004 11:07 AM (R4iEo)

4 Actually, when I was talking about people dying I was not thinking of 250 years ago. I was thinking of the most powerful oral argument I ever heard. It was about 10 years ago, in the Second Circuit appellate court from a pro se litigant on an appeal from a voter registration requirement from the State of Connecticut. The litigant argued the case himself. He told the panel, by way of introduction, that when he was in the US Army, he came off the line after fighting in the Battle of the Bulge to discover that his absentee ballot was lost and he would not be able to vote in that election. He said that he stood there, cold and tired, and he vowed that he would never let anyone abridge his right to vote again. You could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom. That is what I'm talking about by people defending my right as a citizen to vote. As for local elections, I'm still opposed. There are issues of critical importance, sometimes even national implications, that are decided. It has been said that all politics are local in the US. And you know I love you.

Posted by: RP at August 09, 2004 11:18 AM (LlPKh)

5 It's an interesting argument, I must admit. I can see both sides of the coin. I knew several mexicans in California who crossed the border to the US every year, worked for six months and then returned to Mexico to collect unemployment. They milked the system for all its worth. But I've also known many hard working individuals who contribute vastly to the well being of their communities, and they can't seem to get approved for citizenship. Their only mistake is not having been born here. I would have to give such a measure some serious thought before choosing sides.

Posted by: Mick at August 09, 2004 12:45 PM (VhRca)

6 Actually, Mexicans present an interesting challenge. As you may know, their government has permitted them, recently, to retain their Mexican citizenship if they become US citizens and is encouraging them to take dual nationality. I think that the aim is clear -- to be able to influence US domestic politics. And I can't blame them in the slightest, no matter how much I might resent the intrustion into our system.

Posted by: rp at August 09, 2004 01:41 PM (LlPKh)

7 I fundamentally agree with you, RP, but I also feel that Helen's point about permanent residents' being able to vote in local/community elections is reasonable and fair. The problem it creates, of course, is a slippery slope: where do you draw the line between local and national elections? Should one really not "do the right thing" because of possible slippery-slope'iness?

Posted by: GrammarQueen at August 09, 2004 04:35 PM (gDEwS)

8 I have to agree with Mick and Helen. Though the decision is not be taken lightly, it is one the merits serious consideration. How many citizens have taken an oath to defend, support and sustain the U.S.? While it's true there are those immigrants that work for a few months and then leave, there are many, many more who come to the U.S. to stay. They come to work, have children and stay to live out their lives working and living in the U.S. And really, how many of the citizens that can vote don't? Why not let those who have a vested interest and the will to vote, vote? Sure, you don't want non-citizens voting on who a Senator or President should be, but I strongly believe they have a right to be able to say who is going to protect or lead or plan out their future livelihood. I also think that the fastest growing group in the military are the children of immigrants, many of whom are still trying to become legal residents.

Posted by: Jester at August 09, 2004 10:45 PM (yS8Mo)

9 As much as I see your point, I have to delurk to say I agree with Mick and Helen. I'm thinking specifically of school elections. Parents who pay school taxes ought to have a voice in school budget and school board elections. The children, who may be citizens, after all, should have their interests represented.

Posted by: Terri at August 10, 2004 04:54 AM (SIz+V)

10 First off... you keep saying "take the oath" but I don't think it's that simple. I have the idea that it is fairly difficult to get American citizenship as well as the fact that some people don't want to give up their original nationality. For example, I'm not allowed to vote in any elections here, local or national. But I do follow the politics to a certain point, because I'm sort of active in student rights and such. To be able to vote, I'd have to give up my American passport and get a Dutch one... I have to find a way to get a dual nationality! Anyway... you make such a cut and clear case of this - I think there are more issues than you've named, like the one that I named above. On the other hand, I agree with you that residents shouldn't vote, only citizens. It makes sense...

Posted by: Hannah at August 12, 2004 01:58 AM (MMJNM)

11 It's a difficult issue, I agree.

Posted by: RP at August 13, 2004 04:46 PM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I may have met a new candidate for the next blind date for my co-worker. If you need some background on this story, and my part as a yenta, click on the "Blind Date" category over on the left.

She was working at a local fruit and vegetable stand. I stopped to see what was fresh. By the way, I found some wonderful local blueberries and luscious ripe figs. Anyway, she is very cute, blonde, 32, and looking. Or so she told me. I honestly don't know what it is about me that inspires women to confide in me about their romantic histories and hopes, but it never fails. It may be because I am a safe flirt.

In fact, she did flirt with me. She said, as I fumbled with opening a plastic bag and she took it from me, that she was surprised I was married since I seemed to lack the "magic touch". I told her, I am chagrinned to admit, that she didn't know what she was talking about since I wasn't using my tongue to open the bag. She laughed.

I gave her my card and told her all about my co-worker. We'll see if she calls. She was cute and funny.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 04:54 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't know many people who like going to hospitals, either for themselves or to visit others. I do not, certainly. I have had the leisure to reaquaint myself with my dislike of hospitals this weekend as I have spent the better part of each weekend day visiting my mother, who has been hospitalized with a serious infection in the bone of her foot. Bone infections are very bad. I think, and more importantly her doctors seem to think, that she is going to be just fine and that no surgery will be required to remove any of the bone. This is a relief.

The thing about hospitals is that they are a self-contained 24 hour a day universe, with rules and social conventions unto themselves. I think that the 24 hour thing, plus the odd casino type lighting used, is one reason why you leave a visit to a hospital totally exhausted. I just spent a couple of hours each day this weekend and I am kind of thrashed. Still, easier for me than it is for my mother.

It was funny, while I had to wait in the hallway for a few minutes, to watch one of the new interns flirt with a pretty young nurse. One of my cousins just finished his residency and he told me a lot of stories concerning the sexual hijinks everyone got up to at his hospital. I gather that is common.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 04:38 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 1 kb.

Kiwi Bob, at Silent Running, has posted the photographs he took at the main Jewish cemetary in Wellington, New Zealand after some as of yet unidentified brave individuals struck a blow for freedom, or something, and burned down the small chapel and desecrated 80-100 graves by knocking over the headstones.

Here is the burned out chapel:

Here are some of the toppled headstones:

It is a chilling collection of photographs. My heart goes out to the Jewish community of New Zealand and to the families who have to go out and repair the graves of their ancestors.

As it is written on one of the headstones: "Lest We Forget".

Such courage, striking at the dead.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

If this works, we should all be seeing a great photo of the old Penn Station in NYC.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 03:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

I think about AIDS a lot. I have no personal connection to this disease. I know no one who has it or has died from it, to the best of my knowledge. So, that's not why I care. No, generally, I am concerned about the impact AIDS has on developing societies. I am fascinated by how this modern day plague is devastating the African Continent, how social norms appear to be in the process of being rewritten as a result, how prevention and treatment are advanced and thwarted, how Asia is responding in general and China in particular, and how this might effect the world beyond the borders of those countries and continents most particularly affected. Whole generations are being more than decimated and the impact of such a reordering of population norms may not be felt for years.

However, I never really thought much about the impact on US society in the same way, since it seems like the US has AIDS under much better control. I guess I was wrong, at least with respect to the black community here. And, if it concerns such an important segment of our society as a whole, it ought to concern everyone.

The NY Times today had an article on the spread of AIDS in the black community in small, Southern cities: Links Between Prison and AIDS Affecting Blacks Inside and Out. Again, as is my wont, I'll extract some of the statistics that caused my mouth to drop open on the train today:

*Blacks now account for more than half of all new H.I.V. infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Black women account for 72 percent of all new cases among women. During the decades that the AIDS epidemic has spread, the number of people incarcerated has also soared, to nearly 2.1 million, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of that total, more than 40 percent are black.

*In North Carolina, African-Americans make up more than 70 percent of all existing H.I.V. and AIDS cases, and about 60 percent of the state's roughly 35,000 prisoners.

*The prevalence of confirmed AIDS cases in prisons is three times as high as it is in the general population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. H.I.V. cases are harder to count, because only 19 states conduct mandatory H.I.V. testing of inmates. But many researchers believe the number of prisoners with H.I.V. to be far higher than the 1.9 percent most recently documented by the justice agency.

I'll put the rest of my observations below in the extended entry section. more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:36 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1166 words, total size 7 kb.

I was sitting here listening to the live broadcast from WWOZ New Orleans (Jazz and Blues) when I heard the following song about, well, alternatives to pharmaceutical intervention for a man who finds himself with performance issues, and in the spirit of public mindedness, I thought I'd share the advice contained within the song title:

"If I can't cut the mustard, well, I can still lick around the jar."

Bill Coday

Hope this helps someone out there.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 04:34 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 good advice.

Posted by: kbear at August 05, 2004 11:50 PM (IAJcf)

2 I'll be printing those up on posters and distributing them on all telephone poles. Important lesson for all men to learn, here...

Posted by: Helen at August 06, 2004 04:18 AM (StHmy)

3 I feel as if I have done a great public good in putting it here, but, posters? That is the next step, I suppose. If we get enough people involved, we'll have this problem licked, so to speak.

Posted by: RP at August 06, 2004 08:13 AM (LlPKh)

4 Okay, sometimes I'm a little slow. When I saw this yesterday I'd assumed "performance issues" referred to musical performance, and I had no idea what that quote meant. I guess I was just wrong-headed about it *ahem*.

Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 06, 2004 12:53 PM (X89ZI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Erin O'Connor, over at Critical Mass, has a very interesting post about the Conferedate prison camp at Andersonville. I found it to be a fascinating article, written with Erin's customary erudition. Erin writes about the horrors of Andersonville as follows (go visit Erin's site for all the cool links she included in the text below and for the rest of her great post):

Andersonville was designed to hold about 10,000 men. But by the time it was itself closed down later that summer, it held 30,000. Many were nearly naked (the Confederates did not supply clothing), all were nearly starved (what little food was rationed to the prisoners was often rotten or, in the case of corn bread, so thick with jagged pieces of unground cob that the men could not eat it for fear of the damage it would do to their already bleeding intestines). Those who had shelter of any kind slept under "shebangs," makeshift tents comprised of clothing and blankets draped over short wooden poles. The stench of the place could be smelled for miles. The death rate, from starvation, scurvy, gangrene (which could arise from even the smallest scratch), dysentery, and so on, was astronomical--nearly one third of the men confined there died there. The death rate was also, tragically, avoidable--what the Confederate officers lacked in the way of resources and basic compassion the local Georgians did not. They attempted on more than one occasion to bring food and clothing to the prisoners in the stockade, often robbing their own closets and tables to do so. But they were turned away at the gate.

Horrific.

It reminded me that I had gone to see, sometime in the summer of 2000, with my father in law, an exhibit at the New York Historical Society concerning Andersonville and, with a little digging on the web, I unearth it for you here: Eye of the Storm. It has, in addition to the below, links to photgraphs by Matthew Brady, including: a bird's eye view of Andersonville; a shot of ration distribution; and a shot of the privies.

Union Private and map-maker Knox Sneden (out of NY, by the way) produced some five hundred watercolor drawings and maps about his experiences fighting for the Union and then later as a prisoner of war. He also wrote a journal. The scholars at the NYHS considered the drawings and journal to "constitute one of the most important Civil War documents ever produced". The interview with the historian who first realized the importance of these documents makes for fascinating reading as well. If you click on the above link for the Eye of the Storm, go to journal entries to read moving extracts such as the following concerning Sneden's captivity in Andersonville. Sneden's watercolors are associated with each panel of the Journal. If you want to read directly about Andersonville, go straight to panel #15. I am putting the quotations from the Journal in the extended entry below. Go read them there, they will move you.
more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 04:21 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1087 words, total size 7 kb.

I got home late last night after a client dinner sprinkled with liberal amounts of bourbon, but not too much because I have to be in Court this morning and judges don't like it if they can smell the booze you're sweating.

The girl child called to me from her room. It was about 9:30 and, after I had gotten out of my suit, I went in and crawled into bed with her. We chatted for a minute and then had the following conversation, which amused me so I share it here:

Me: Did you have fun at camp today?

Her: No

Me: Well, was anyone mean to you?

Her: No

Me: Did anyone hit you? (part of the fantasy world of a 3.5 year old)

Her: No

Me: Did you hit anyone?

Her: No

Me: Did you get put in time out again? (Never happened, again fantasy from her)

Her: No

Me: Did you put anyone in time out?

Her: No

Me: Well, did you eat anything fun today?

Her: You mean, at camp?

Me: Sure. Do they feed you at camp?

Her: Yes. They gave us chocolate chip cookies AGAIN! [Said in tone of exasperation along with hand waved rigidly for emphasis]

Me: You didn't want chocolate chip cookies?

Her: No!

Me: What did you want?

Her: Bananas with whipped cream. (Which I believe she has never eaten in combination before).

Me: Did you tell them you wanted that?

Her: No.

Me: They were just supposed to know?

Her: Yes [emphatically].

Me: Sweetheart, I love you.

Her: Why?

Me: Well, there are too many reasons for me to give tonight since you really should be asleep.

Her: Ok, tell me one now and you can tell me the rest tomorrow.

Me: Ok, one reason is because you are my daughter.

Her: Hmpf. Tell me THREE and the rest tomorrow.

Me: Because you're wonderful and special, too. Now, who's the smartest, nicest, prettiest little girl in the whole world*?

Her: There are two. Mamma and me. Now I have a question for you.

Me: Ok.

Her: Who is the smartest and goodest boy in the whole world?

Me: Your brother?

Her: And who else? Pappa!

At which point kisses were exchanged and she went off to sleep.

I feel constrained to point out that she omitted any reference to my looks.

*Maybe we overthink this, but whenever I ask her this question, I put the pretty at the end because the last thing I want to do is make her image conscious, which all girls are at some point, and to let her know that I rank other things above her physical appearance. My wife and I discuss these things. You do have to pay careful attention to what and how you talk to a child, I think. You send messages all the time. I want her to be secure that she is attractive, because it is foolish to say it is not important, but I don't want her to obsess over it. Again, maybe we're overthinking this too much!

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:54 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 505 words, total size 3 kb.

Today's Time Suck of the Day is brought to you by the busy little archivists at the Library of Congress where they have, online, all 65,000 documents in the complete George Washington Papers collection. This means you can go and read George's correspondence written in his own hand. It's fascinating and he had really nice handwriting.

Actually, the whole Online Collection in American Memory is mind blowing.

You will possibly well and truly disappear down the rabbit hole of time suckitude if you follow these links. Don't say I didn't warn ya!

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 102 words, total size 1 kb.

I was reading this morning an article from the New Yorker online about the bombings in Madrid and found the following observation very interesting. It just sort of jumped off the page at me:

The case broke open in the middle of the night, when a young police officer, sorting through belongings recovered from the trains, opened a sports bag and discovered twenty-two pounds of Goma-2, surrounded by nails and screws. Two wires ran from a blue mobile phone to a detonator. It wasnÂ’t clear why the bomb had failed to explode.

Police officers realized that a chip inside the phone would contain a record of recently dialled numbers. By tracing these calls, they were quickly able to map out a network of young Arab immigrants, many of whom were known to Spanish intelligence. Data stored on the chip revealed that a calling plan had been set up at a small telephone and copy shop in Lavapiés, a working-class neighborhood near the Atocha station. The store was owned by Jamal Zougam, a Moroccan who had previously been under surveillance because of alleged connections to Al Qaeda. He was soon arrested.

I recommend going to read the whole article. It deals extensively with the political developments and consequences that the Jihadi movement expected would eventuate from a bombing in Madrid near the election. We have to ask ourselves what will happen here closer to November. Of course, I suppose that even if there is a bombing here, nothing would change for the US in terms of policy. There is no choice here between socialists and right wingers as there was in Spain.

The article is chilling.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:08 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 2 kb.

A comment left by Ensie got me to thinking about Costco. Ensie, in commenting on my first post about Costco, said:

Actually, the Costco "Executive Membership" involves a cash back feature. I just signed up for my first Costco membership last week and had to tell three Costco employees, "NO, I DO NOT WANT TO UPGRADE. PLEASE STOP ASKING ME!" You're absolutely right that you won't save any money, unless you're spending millions at Costco each year. Which is pretty unlikely.

This got me to thinking about the actual impact of membership fees on Costco's revenue stream, so I followed the link I posted before back to their annual report for fiscal year 2002, and I poked around a bit. Annual reports can be fascinating reading and this one was no different.

First of all, membership has been growing for Costco at something like 2 million members a year at the most basic level. Sales increased 11%, to $38 billion, and earnings increased 16%, to $700 million, during FY2002. Those are some pretty big numbers and it is clear that membership statistics are an important component of earnings for Costco because they break out the membership fees as a separate item on their revenue breakdowns.

Executive members make up 1.75 million of their membership base. These people pay $100 for access to all sorts of useless stuff. Do the math, that's $175 million in fees alone each year for access to the right to spend more money on services. That is a hefty portion of the net earnings of 700 million right there (I have no way to subtract out the costs they attribute to executive level membership so I attribute none and that's probably artificial and wrong). There is a cash back feature of 2% of your purchases. But as Ensie points out, you have to spend a lot. How much? Well, you are limited, according to the report, to a maximum refund of $500. $500 is 2% of $25,000*. That's right, to get the max payback you'd have to shell out $25,000 yearly. And then they'd cut you off.

Costco had total revenue of $38,762,499 (that's billion) of which membership fees accounted for $769,406 (million). There was an increase from FY2001 of 17%, which is partially attributable to an increase in membership fees. The membership fees generally are 2.03% of sales. So, I was right to say that there must be some cost they assign to the membership fees, even if I can't find it. I mean, it stands to reason right? If membership fees accounted for $769,406 (million) and there were net earnings of $700 million, then clearly not all of the membership fees are straight profit. There must be some cost associated with the membership fees, like the salary for employees who do the sign ups, or the cost of printing up the cards, or other things I can't think of. They must lump it in under "selling, general, administrative" expenses which, for FY2002 was a hefty $3,575,536 (billion), but they don't seem to break it out enough for us to see what the membership program costs them, although they do note that this includes salary, health insurance and workers comp. Of course, they also don't break out how much more the executive level membership class pays for goods and services over the basic level, so we can't figure out if the class has a greater impact on the bottom line beyond simply the expanded fee.

So, what's the upshot? Well, seems to me that membership fee income is very important to Costco, which explains why that guy was soliciting people in line to upgrade, and that Ensie was right, you have to spend a lot of money to make any program like this worthwhile.

Oh, and Helen, the annual report claims to have had three openings in England. Looks like there could be a 20 gallon of jiffy in your future after all.

Let me add a small disclaimer, because while it seems obvious, you never know: nothing herein should be considered investment advice or a recommendation to purchase or sell securities. I am not qualified to make investment recommendations and I ain't doing so here. If you're taking investment advice from me, you're worse off than you might think!

*Math mistake caught by Mick. Thanks, Mick!

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:36 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Dang. I was just about to call my broker until I read that last line. ;-)

Posted by: Jim at August 04, 2004 10:05 AM (IOwam)

2 Phew! That was a close one, Jim. I'm glad I put that disclaimer in!

Posted by: rp at August 04, 2004 10:09 AM (LlPKh)

3 *ahem* I've been going to Costco for what must be ten years by now. For the first 8 years, I paid $45 every year for the privilege of shopping in bulk and getting good deals on various items. But for the last two years, we've been excecutive members. I now get a check once a year between $50-$100, depending on how much we spent that year. Regular membership: $45.00 Executive membership: $100.00 As you can see, if I get a check for *anything* above the $45.00 I pay anyway, I've saved on my annual membership fee. So I end up either getting my entire yearly membership paid for, if I get back $100, or at least I get my fee partially paid for. Before, I was just out the $45.00 every year. Plus, Executive membership hours are different. I can get in and shop before the vast unwashed hordes (read: you regular card holders *g*) are allowed to sully the premises. ;-P So, it completely depends on how much you spend a year at Costco as to whether or not it would make sense for a family to get the Exec card or not. Obviously, if you don't spend several thousand a year there, it doesn't make sense. We buy: all our paper products, including office products, all meat, bread, olive oil, soda, beer, fresh vegetables, DVDs, most Christmas gifts, wrapping paper, tuna, pasta, detergent, milk products, towels, socks, sheets, pharmaceuticals, outdoor furniture, appliances, books, etc., etc., at Costco whenever possible. Oh, and gas for our two gas-guzzling cars, which is much cheaper than anywhere else. FYI: did you know that the prices for meds at Costco are cheaper than most medical insurance companies have to offer? So, before you write off the Exec card, make sure you don't buy enough anually to make it a pretty good idea. :-)

Posted by: Amber at August 04, 2004 01:54 PM (zQE5D)

4 That's a great analysis, Amber, however, I don't agree with you that all you have to earn back is the $45. You're out the $45 regardless. Now, you're out an additional $55. To earn back that $100 fee you just spent to get that card, you'd have to spend $5,000 a year there, or $416 a month. That is probably a trip there almost every week. We don't have gas available at the ones near us in NY, which would help push that total up and are, perhaps, not as committed as you are in shopping there. For instance, I don't really care for the meat they sell and we find a much broader range of beverage options at our local supermarket. For someone like you, it probably makes a lot of sense. For someone who shops there the way I do, it probably doesn't. Thanks for taking the time to leave such a detailed comment.

Posted by: RP at August 04, 2004 02:12 PM (LlPKh)

5 $500 is 2% of $25,000. But it's still an outrageous amount of money to spend there, even if you're a business owner.

Posted by: Mick at August 04, 2004 03:21 PM (VhRca)

6 Thanks, Mick. I corrected it on the post itself, giving you credit!

Posted by: RP at August 04, 2004 03:49 PM (LlPKh)

7 I hear you, Random. :-) Like I said, if you don't go a LOT, it doesn't make sense. Btw, we don't go every week; we go once a month, it's a pill of a trip *grins* and we don't like doing it, but the prices are so good, we just can't pass it up. Btw, just to clarify for anyone reading and thinking of joining, the check can be used ONLY at Costco; it's not cash in your pocket. Also, Costco gasoline does NOT count towards the total; only merchandise from the store. The 1st year we paid the $100 *total* annual fee, there are no more fees than that, that's it. We received a check at the end of that year for $57.17 towards our next Costco trip. So that year, we ended up paying $42.83 total for our dues. A savings of $2.17 But the 2nd year we made a bigger effort to go strictly to Costco. We received $93.47 towards our next Costco trip a the end of that year. So we paid $6.53 in total dues for that year. So, instead of spending $90 in membership dues over the past two years we've only spent $49.36 for two years. That's why we do it. :-) However, we're probably in the minority. A lot of people don't go enough to make a difference, so you're right; in that case, they'd be out the extra money for nothing. And that's what they are hoping for, of course. Like gyms who hope you join and then "forget" to go. :-)

Posted by: Amber at August 04, 2004 07:48 PM (zQE5D)

8 You're on the right track with that one, Amber. It's like mail-in rebates: the manufacturers count on most people not sending in the rebates. A very low percentage of customers actually do. That's depressing, because most of us only buy certain products because they come with a mail-in rebate. Personally, I go to Sam's Club. I signed the company up for a business membership, they give me and the owner's wife free cards and the employees can purchase two cards each for $30. They don't have the same variety Costco does but they don't have the same lines either. Regardless, I can still buy 3 months worth of toilet paper and enough paper towels to wallpaper my house. *smiles*

Posted by: Mick at August 04, 2004 11:41 PM (C1v6m)

9 Regular membership: $45.00 Executive membership: $100.00 20 gallon jar of Jiffy: Priceless.

Posted by: Helen at August 05, 2004 04:45 AM (UU5+s)

10 Just for your information, I spoke with a Costco service representative and she noted that gasoline purchases and cigarette purchases do not count towards the Executive membership rebate calculation.

Posted by: Ernie at February 12, 2005 10:52 PM (ZCUrE)

11 Up here in Canada, Costco has not yet invented a way to ask you just once if you would like to be an executive member (I don't). The assistant manager told me that perhaps by next year they'll work out a way not to give you the high pressure treatment every time you set foot in the store. Any innovative ideas out there on how to fight this garbage?

Posted by: zack at April 09, 2005 11:03 PM (IIppg)

12 Just got the Costco check in the mail. Only it's NO LONGER A CHECK! It's a coupon now! It can't even been used towards next year's membership payment! (sorry for the exclamation points, but this is just wrong) Actually, there are several things the "check" cannot be used for when shopping at Costco. What a joke. I tbink the Consumer Rights Agencies need to be contacted. To enlist members under the guise of a 2% cashback rebate and then change the terms is bait and switch, it's also fraud. The proper slogan for Costco to use, in my opinion, would be "2% coupon back on all purchases". Lol, somehow doesn't have the same ring. By the way, one additional shoppig "privilege" of the executive membership card is you can shop earlier in the day and avoid the longer lines. But without actually getting the cash back feature, this card is now a joke and I'll probably cancel my executive membership.

Posted by: A. A. at May 26, 2005 01:15 PM (Xp4ia)

13 Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about! Just talked to someone from Costco who says the executive program hasn't changed at all. As long as the check can be used towards renewal, I'll be satisfied.

Posted by: A.A. at May 26, 2005 01:30 PM (Xp4ia)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

This search came from Google UK.

It was: "lycra shorts fashion disasters".

It came from a United Kingdom government server.

Why?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 11:55 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Maybe they are preparing to spend in a search and rescue team?

Posted by: Mia at August 04, 2004 02:32 AM (RSSVL)

2 It's not a surprise - it's very hard to think of any lycra shorts fashion successes.

Posted by: Simon at August 04, 2004 06:02 AM (OyeEA)

3 Both comments are true, but which Ministry would be responsible for overseeing this kind of thing?

Posted by: RP at August 04, 2004 08:07 AM (LlPKh)

4 The Ministry of funny walks obviously

Posted by: Mia at August 04, 2004 08:15 AM (RSSVL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Our newest “look behind the curtain” subject is Le Marquis de Mores, a Frenchman who came to America, married well, moved West in the late 1800's and broke his teeth trying to compete with the meat packers by introducing ranching and meat packing at the source, challenged (maybe) Theodore Roosevelt to a duel, and moved back to France. I will show you how we go from cattle ranching in the Badlands to the Dreyfus Affair in France. After all, that's why I initially found him interesting.

I also found this guy to be fascinating because, after doing a little research, it appears that his story has been sanitized in English sources, including on US Government websites. This is an example of historical revisionism at work where the unsavory bits of this guyÂ’s story have been swept under the rug so as not to scare the children or the animals. Seriously, this fellow may look normal enough for those times on the surface, but when you probe a little deeper, you find a real whack job, lacking only the certification from the professionals to be official and to compete for a world ranking. I elucidate below. more...

Posted by: Random Penseur at 10:39 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1169 words, total size 7 kb.

Does anyone really doubt that television is evil and will suck the soul right out of your body, feed on it, and discard what remains, leaving you only an empty husk of a shell? It is totally soul destroying, imagination killing, attention span reducing, devil spawn. Unless, of course, it's showing something good, like baseball, or opera, or ballet, or, football, or the Olympics, or some of the really nasty HBO programming that I like so much. But for kids, it sucks.

This cannot be a shock to anyone. Let's review basic television economics, shall we? TV exists as a medium to sell stuff. TV, public broadcasting and viewer supported broadcasting aside, is supported by the sale of advertising. If the shows are not pulling the viewers, then the advertisers pull the plug on the show and that's that. The writers may tell you different, they may tell you that they are creating art or cutting edge programming, or some other nonsense. Don't believe them. Content is paid for and driven by money spent to advertise. Children's TV is the worst, of course because they are selling directly to minds incapable of making critical distinctions between competing claims.

So, we don't let our children watch television, except with us and generally just some sports or dance programs. The girl child gets to watch one Disney video a week and that's usually that. No TV at all for the boy child because, at 1.5, he's simply too young. We took this decision a long time ago and certainly before reading this article today in the NY Times entitled: "TV's Toll on Young Minds and Bodies".

This article was frightening to me. I will pull out some of the scarier findings for your consideration. Just bear in mind that I've not looked at any of the studies referenced herein and can't vouch for their rigor.

*The average young child in this country watches about four hours of television a day and each year sees tens of thousands of commercials, often for high-fat, high-sugar or high-salt snacks and foods; thousands of episodes of violence; and countless instances of alcohol use and inappropriate sexual activity. By the time American children finish high school, they have spent nearly twice as many hours in front of the television set as in the classroom.

*Nearly 60 percent of children aged 8 to 16 have a TV in their bedroom.

*A child glued to the tube is sitting still, using the fewest calories of any activity except sleeping. Such children get less exercise than those who watch less television, and they see many more commercials for unhealthful foods and beverages. They also have more opportunity to consume such foods than do children who are out playing. It is no surprise, then, that the percentage of American children who are seriously overweight has risen to more than 15 percent today, from 5 percent in 1964.

*Studies have found that children who watch 10 or more hours of TV a week have lower reading scores and perform less well academically than comparable youngsters who spend less time watching television. Long-term studies suggest several reasons.

*One study of 2,500 children conducted at Children's Hospital in Seattle and published in April in the journal Pediatrics found that the more TV watched by toddlers aged 1 to 3, the greater their risk of attention problems at age 7. For each hour watched a day, the risk of developing attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder increased by nearly 10 percent. Children with this problem find it hard to concentrate, have difficulty organizing and exhibit impulsive behavior.

*Studies of brain function show evidence of direct harm to the brains of young children who watch television for two or more hours a day. Watching television fosters development of brain circuits, or "habits of mind," that result in increased aggressiveness, lower tolerance levels and decreased attention span, in lieu of developing language circuits in the brain's left hemisphere.

*Other problems associated with excessive television viewing are poor sleep quality and a greater likelihood of taking up smoking. A study two years ago by the Center for Child Health Outcomes in San Diego found that children aged 10 to 15 who watched five or more hours of television a day were six times as likely to start smoking as those who watched less than two hours a day.

To borrow from Animal House, fat, hopped up on sugar, and stupid is no way to go through life.

The article gives a website for appropriate child videos and I'm going to check it out later. What are some classic videos any of you recall watching as a child?

Posted by: Random Penseur at 09:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 782 words, total size 5 kb.

Last night I got home from work and I was cranky and overheated. Cranky because work was less than fulfilling yesterday and overheated because dear, OLD, Metro North had no air conditioning on its train cars last night, at least on my train.

I walked in and was greeted by my daughter gleefully telling me: "I was a pill today, an absolute pill." That set her tone for the remainder of the evening. My wife gave the baths but, due to poor listening skills by my daughter, had to tag out. We do that, the two of us. When it gets to the point where you feel like you are going to lose your patience, you can call out to the other parent, "I'm tagging out" or "you need to tag in" and, like in wrestling, the other parent steps into the ring. It has kept us from losing our minds, this little game. The problem will be when the kids figure it out and start to game us on purpose. But, that's another day, I hope.

After the baths was story time. Story time is a critical time of the day for my daughter. We lead up to it with negotiations concerning the number of stories, the mix of stories (if shorter ones are chosen, can we read more of them), and the selection themselves (because I insist on new ones from time to time). Usually, the boy child could not care less about story time. He has shown no interest in sitting on my lap while I read and when I try, he loudly demands to be set free. Last night was different, though.

The girl child selected three books: "There's a Wocket in my Pocket"; Cecil's Garden" and "Kiss Good Night". I pulled the boy child up since he was within reach and we began with the wocket book. He lasted all of two pages before wanting to get down. So I let him down and continued reading to the girl while keeping watch on the boy with my peripheral vision. He picked up the stethoscope from the girl child's doctor kit, put it around his neck and then, seemingly content, came back and held his arms out to be picked up again. Whereupon he rejoined us for the remainder of the wocket book and seemed to pay close attention to the last two books as well. He didn't reach for them or try to turn or crumple the pages, he just sat there happily as I read with, I must admit, greater animation than usual. I gave a different voice to each character and tried every oratorical flourish I could think of to keep his interest and get him hooked on the experience.

After we finished the three books, I began to rock in the glider chair and he slipped down a little in my lap to lay his little head in the crook of my arm. He was obviously very tired. I told the girl child that her brother was tired and she leaned forward a bit to take a look and then promptly lay down herself across my lap and put her head on his little chest and shoulder.

And we rocked in total peace and tranquility and I didn't want that moment to end for anything. I'd rather be home with them now, honestly, even if the girl child is being a pill.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:36 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 3 kb.

I was reading the profile this morning of a senior official at the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration and this line about JFK Airport in NYC just jumped out at me:

In the last year, Transportation Security Administration screeners have intercepted more than seven million prohibited items. Typically, it's knives, guns and scissors. But you would not believe how many recreational handcuffs I have seen in property rooms at airports around the country. I don't want to single out J.F.K., but the ones I've seen there were lined in everything from suede to fake fur.

It's like I've been telling you, NY is more fun.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 07:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Funny, I went through an airport security with a pair of them last autumn. No one tried to take them from me, and that's a good thing, since I love my recreational handcuffs

Posted by: Helen at August 03, 2004 08:34 AM (pS7+B)

2 You must have been travelling through some of those "sophisticated" European airports, Helen!

Posted by: RP at August 03, 2004 09:02 AM (LlPKh)

3 Sorry, RP-it was in San Francisco. I blogged about it, too (not trying to pimp my blog here, just FYI) http://everydaystranger.mu.nu/archives/005396.php

Posted by: Helen at August 03, 2004 09:14 AM (pS7+B)

4 SF? Might as well have been Europe. They're pretty "sophisticated" in SF, too. Not like us simple folk here in NY. I'll go check out the link. It ain't pimping, Helen, unless you're dressed for it and all macked out. Besides, I already have you as one of my "good reads".

Posted by: RP at August 03, 2004 09:20 AM (LlPKh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I was packed off to Costco by my wife yesterday, while the children were napping, in order to replenish supplies. It was pretty crowded and I had a little time to look around. Here are some of the random observations that stuck with me.

*I am surprised by the number of luxury cars in the parking lot. I shouldn't be, really. Their average "ring" at the cash register is over several hundred dollars. Their most recent available annual report (pdf file) is actually really interesting reading and I was particularly interested to see how rapidly they have grown.

*Part of that growth has to come from idiots who accept the solicitation to upgrade their memberships from the base level, ours, to the executive level, more expensive but with some kind of discount attached. I was standing in line to pay and some guy came over and said, "how'd you like to save some money today because I can help you do that". I was instantly put in mind of Guys and Dolls. I felt like if I told him I was interested in him saving me money, I'd be like Marlon Brando saying, "Daddy, I've got cider in my ear". But it's such an effective sales technique. What are you going to say, "no, I don't want to save any money". But really, it seems clear that you are not going to save any money.

*I walked out behind two obese men in tight shorts which pushed at their bodies in such a way as to cause bulges where there shouldn't have been. The bulges were easy to look at because they were wearing these sleeveless t-shirts with huge arm holes so just about everything could hang out the sides. They were perspiring profusely and I felt it was a gift to humanity at large that these two gentlemen had included within their shopping the generous economy packages of Irish Spring bath soap -- 12 bars, I had time to count the bars as I was trapped behind them.

*Free samples will attract hordes like flies on a horse. If you have any hope of moving quickly through the crowds, plan your foray to avoid the sample stands. I actually got close enough to ask one unhappy sample lady what was an offer at her table and she told me to look at the sign. I asked, what sign and she said it was on the front of the table. It would have been quicker for her just to say pork but maybe she was just doing her part to demonstrate the importance of adult literacy. Or maybe not.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:55 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

I was reflecting on summer this weekend. It was, by the way, a glorious Saturday. We had some friends come out from the City and we whisked them away to the beach and the kiddie pool. The weather was perfect, the rum punch from the bar was sublime, the water was warm and free from jellyfish, the children made sand castles and hunted for the prettiest mussel shells, and the young women in their bikinis were as attractive as they were unattainable. Actually, the young women made me feel tired just by looking at them -- that's how I know I am getting old, they are no longer objects of desire! It was really as close to a perfect day as I have passed this summer.

But it got me to thinking about childhood summers past and those summers past included, without fail, a trip to one of the last old fashioned soda fountains in the county. It was in a pharmacy on Main Street and it was a long gleaming counter with round stools which spun around. It was always cool in there without being cold. And there were polished chrome things everywhere you looked behind the counter. I would order the same thing every time -- the root beer float, perhaps one of the most felicitous combinations every dreamt up, even better than peanut butter and chocolate. By the time I was old enough to go there, there was no soda jerk anymore, just the elderly pharmacist. He would come over and take our orders. Then I would watch him squirt the syrup into the glass and mix it with soda water. The ice cream would come next and I'd get a long spoon and a straw. The glass itself was tall and fit into a special metal glass holder contraption and the condensation would bead on the glass and the metal would get very cold. It was special because I went with my father, just him and me and because the making of the float seemed to be conducted with such special ceremony in a hushed place.

The pharmacy closed eventually, I don't remember when exactly. But I do miss it still. I'd like to take my children to one. If I hit the road with them, I'll see if I can swing by any of these recommendations. Or, if I get to Kansas, they have a statewide list.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 08:35 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 2 kb.

This morning, it was just me and the girl child for breakfast. The boy and the wife slept in. The girl awoke by coming in and climbing in for a wordless cuddle. We took the show downstairs because I needed coffee and she needed food. As I served her, she passed gas and I asked her, "did you just toot?" and she replied, laconically, "yup". So, now bear with me because the rest of the conversation took place in Norwegian, I asked her, "er du en tootie pike?" and then I said, "well, det var ikke norsk", because toot and any variation is not a Norwegian word. Meaning: "Are you a farty girl, well, that wasn't Norwegian". And she replied: "Jeg er norsk og det var en norsk fis!" Translation: I am Norwegian and that was a Norwegian fart."

So there.

Posted by: Random Penseur at 04:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.