Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by DanielSchorrLives

High Fuel Prices Drive Up Trucking Costs

Sorry, but the math on this article simply does not add up to the conclusions someone is trying to lead the listeners to. Some of it is simply sloppy, the magnitude of the inconsistencies are relatively minor and the numbers are stated so anyone can check them and find the errors.
However, the hidden big fib here is implying that these increases necessarily mean higher prices on other goods. Here no math is presented and here's why: Using the numbers presented, it's easy enough to figure out that an 18 wheeler uses 50 gallons to get to LA and back, plus or minus a couple. Now, let's say that diesel goes to $12/gallon- making a round trip $600! An average big rig can easily handle 40,000 pounds of cargo- each way. $600/80000=$0.0075 per pound.
So, while technically gas price increases do increase prices of goods, the magnitude is extremely tiny- less than a penny a pound if the gas price triples from here. Your new jeans would cost 3cents more, a head of lettuce maybe a penny- if gas is at $12!
Who is forcing NPR to present reports that lead consumers to expect noticeable price increases using completely fatuous reasons? Where is the double-checking that should back up responsible reporting?

March 10, 2011 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Whitman Breaks Spending Record, Faces Tough Crowd In San Francisco

Whitman's statement “You can’t underestimate the union spending," is patently silly. Thing 1: She then states the amount they have spent. Thing 2: She conveniently omits the fact that she is outspending them by more than 7-fold. Why don't reporters like this one point out that obvious nonsequitur? Casual listeners don't have the math in front of them and come away with the mistaken impression that union spending somehow makes her an underdog.

September 20, 2010 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

SD Council Member Wants To Link Proposed Sales Tax Increase To Financial Reform

Please try to phrase things more neutrally- your on-air version said that Donna Frye killed the measure and then "reversed course". That gives an incorrect impression- she voted against the first bill because it was done poorly and then introduced a version that made sense. Painting it as some sort of flip-flop is deceptive.

The online version above says that she killed it and now is resurrecting it with conditions. That gives in incorrect impression-that there are some strings attached (read "special interests").

Both versions imply that she alone was responsible for the bill not going forward, when there were other persons voting against it as well (they are not named). She is the only person who has proposed a modified bill, which would suggest of those voting against it, she is the only one so far who has worked to create something worth passing. Quite a different picture than the spin on your article paints.

To give you an example how how a more neutral tone could be struck:

"San Diego council member Donna Frye, who with several others voted on Monday to defeat a proposed sales tax increase has now proposed a modified measure that links a five-year half-cent sales tax increase to a list of financial reforms."

See the difference?

July 28, 2010 at 7:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )