The Tin Lizard

Presidential Grammy Awards

2012-02-12T17:08:05-05:00

With the Grammy awards broadcast due to air this evening, this seems an appropriate time to remark on a recent musical trend. It appears that serious candidates for President must now have their own playlist of campaign songs, to be released to the public so that we can make our political decisions based on the really important stuff. Obama and Romney have both put out their lists; Gingrich probably won't win another Republican primary until he does, too.

What's next? Will each candidate list the brands of clothes he'll wear, or the tie colors?

Maybe playlists do say something, though. Obama's seems fairly harmless, if sappy. Romney's seems designed to deliver one message even as his words may be delivering another, and the message in the music isn't especially benign. Predictably but sadly, neither collection of songs takes us in the direction of uniting us, or making us feel good about ourselves or our future. Where is the modern equivalent of "Happy Days Are Here Again," that rousing, positive, future-oriented anthem that helped F.D.R. get elected?

My vote isn't likely to be influenced by the audio accompaniment. I don't recognize more than a small handful of these song titles from either list!

Lip Service To The Environment

2012-02-08T08:18:00-05:00

In the recycling game, there are those who play seriously and those who give only lip service to the reduce-reuse-recycle mantra.

Amazon.com, for example, can be complimented for the packaging of their Kindle e-readers, consisting of minimal bulk and a 100% recyclable cardboard package.

Then there is the package below, a fairly typical bubble-pack-in-a-card arrangement. This thing is about 9x14 inches; the content was a bluetooth telephone headset and a recharger. It could be smaller, though the charger part is fairly bulky and admittedly, people do like to see the product they are buying.

Worse is trying to extract the product from its prison: There are two separate compartments that need to be cut into, and both need to be sliced from both sides of the package to get the goods out. It's one of those exercises in frustration.

When it comes to recycling, it gets worse. The package labeling - "Enviroshell" packaging by "Winterborne Inc." - coyly advises you to recycle. And all you have to do is separate the cardboard from the PET plastic. Aha. This is an extremely heavy cardboard - at least the thickness of an average shipping carton, but denser (very little corrugation) and slick-surfaced. You can't just grab it and tear it open; you might try to separate the two layers of cardboard with a knife, and if you're careful, you may not slice up your fingers.

I announce proudly that I did separate the two different recyclable substances successfully. But then, I habitually remove the plastic dispenser flap from an empty Kleenex box so I can recycle the box itself; and I always strip the steel cutting strip off an empty aluminum foil box, again so the box can be recycled. I suspect I'm a little bit unusual in that regard. How many people would really do that, and how many would ever take the trouble to separate Motorola's/Winterborne's heavy, slick board from the several plastic windows it encloses? Few, no doubt.

This is recycling in name only. Thanks to the package design, very few people will ever bother to see it recycled. "Enviroshell" is recyclable, maybe, in the same way an old car is: All the materials can be recycled if you can just separate them from one another. But who does that? Who could?

Superbowl Moves The Ho-Hum

2012-02-07T11:45:32-05:00

We watched the Superbowl. That in itself is worth mentioning, since my wife and I otherwise have little interest in watching sports on TV. But a few years ago we decided to get in synch with the quintessentially American phenomenon by watching one; we decided on champagne and popcorn as the "fare," and actually found it was kind of fun to watch one game - supposedly the best one - a year. Years have gone by (that first one was so long ago it was in January, not February; and also was before people started to watch the 'bowl "for the commercials"); and we've changed the menu a little (now it's champagne, chips and guacamole) but we have kept that tradition ever since, gradually falling into the rut of a usually-boring game, a mediocre half-time show, and some occasionally humorous ads.

What struck me about the 46th iteration this year was that, in contrast to most recent years, the game itself was the attention-getter, with a close match between the Boston and New York that went right down to the wire. Those famous expensive commercials this year became the bore, demonstrating far less originality than in the past, as many of them stuck to the same old shticks - polar bears, bimbos, talking babies, and the like. The half-time show looked to be one of those things for which you "had to be there" - if you saw it in person you might get caught up in the moment, but watching at home, it's just a lot of noise and flashing lights; you can kind of watch the money being burned.

The other point I found interesting was the tendency for politics to creep in. Some saw politics in Clint Eastwood's message. I watched his soliloquy, and thought it might be political, probably because it was just a talking head; yet listening to it, I didn't detect anything overtly political. I've heard some reports that it was actually a commercial for Chrysler (?) but I never heard Chrysler mentioned, so I assume not. If Eastwood meant it to be political, he cleverly made it fuzzy enough that it might be taken as positive by either major party.

On the other hand, the mayors of New York and Boston did a joint appearance to brief their take on the second Amendment to the Constitution and its public-safety ramifications. That shouldn't be political, either, but it is these days, and I thought they made the most of the exposure. Will this camel's nose of liberal consciousness edge farther into the tent of NASCAR America, or will there be a move next year to ban overtly political messages? Curiously, I haven't seen anyone comment publicly on this spot. It's very possible it didn't even register with a lot of people.

Poor Mileage? Blame Your Driving

2012-02-02T21:32:16-05:00

A woman in California sued Honda in small claims court because her Honda didn't get the mileage claimed in the EPA standards. A judge has appeared to take the claim seriously enough to rule -- depending on which source you choose -- that Honda should pay some inflated price for the gas the car owner didn't save...

SCR-I-I-I-I-T-C-C-H !! (Remember the days of long-play vinyl records when the needle would jump its track and skid across the record surface?) What's wrong with this picture?

It's hard to believe any judge in the land would take this claim even halfway seriously. Only in California, maybe. There IS a limit to caveat emptor, but there's also a limit to how uninformed a consumer ought to be.

What, Ms. Carowner didn't realize (?) that EPA mileage estimates are just that - estimates? Did she not notice the disclaimer on all those car-window stickers, that actual driving mileage may vary? Or did anyone guarantee her a certain mpg? Well, surely not, since any idiot should know that the mileage you get is going to depend on how you drive, as much as what you drive. Not to mention weather conditions, terrain, tires, whether you're running the a/c, and a host of other conditons.

Honda says it will appeal a decision that goes against them. And well they should, as it's hard to imagine it wouldn't be overturned. Consumers need common sense and a basic wariness about advertising claims; they need to inform themselves.

Does Penney's Have It Right?

2012-01-27T10:42:17-05:00

The venerable J.C. Penney department store chain, according to its new CEO and its advertisements in my morning paper, is going to try a new tack with regard to "sales." The idea isn't too well explained in print, but a television version makes it a little clearer. Rather than having constant daily, weekly, and seasonal sales as certain other stores tend to do, Penney's is, they say, going to just put everything at its lowest price (40% off) all the time.

It sounds as if it could make sense, but even leaving aside the question I'm always suspicious of (40% off of what, exactly?), the new scheme already seems to offer some confusing variations. They've said, for example, that there will be three different types of tags - the regular tag shows that 40%-off "rock bottom" price, but a second color of tag would indicate even lower prices on certain clearance items, while yet a third color tag would show prices on items that are offered on "seasonal" sales. The seasonal part, in particular, would appear to put us right back in the frequent-sales game.

Time will tell. One place where Penney's may make inroads is if all merchandise really is discounted. One of the enervating experiences of shopping in some other department stores (competitor Macy's comes to mind) is that the discount coupon you got in the mail or online has such a long list of fine-print exceptions on brands and types of merchandise that it's really difficult to figure out what's truly on sale. (Usually, not much!) If Penney's can rid us of this practice, they will have done consumers a favor.

Food Costs Through The Roof

2012-01-17T14:38:45-05:00

I had a surprise today, reviewing what we spent in various categories of ordinary household expenses last year. The last time we conducted the same review was on expenses for 2005.

Shocker! Our ordinary food costs, excluding meals out, and excluding wine/beer, were about fifty percent - 50% - higher in 2011 than in 2005. This increase occurred even though, as we age, we tend to eat less (smaller portions and fewer big meals), consistently shop price, and seldom buy anything that isn't "on sale." One might be tempted to think there was a miscalculation somewhere, but I really doubted that; we have very good, thorough data for this in our financial software.

So, looking a bit farther, I ended up at the FAO website (via the intermediary of "ThinkProgress.org"). The FAO publishes a monthly index of world food prices. It's worth a look. It confirms not just that prices have gone up, but actually by far more than just 50%; comparing the average index number for 2005 (117) to that for 2011 (about 225) in fact, the FAO index suggests that costs have gone up by over 100%. I guess we can congratulate ourselves on keeping costs down as much as we have!

Food costs have increased more than any other category that we consider. A related category for dining out shows an uncannily similar increase - about 50% - even though we consciously go out less often than we used to. And while the media love to stir us up with almost daily reports that the cost of gasoline is up another penny or two, it's interesting to note that we paid only about 26% more for gas in 2011 than we did in 2005, for the same amount of driving. These data suggest we ought to be paying more attention to those occasional reports about food increases, and less to those almost daily ones about gasoline.

Still, as retirees, we have felt the effects of these rising food costs in the form of feeling frequently pinched, without consciously discerning to what to attribute it. Other expenses has risen too, and far more quickly than our retirement income (even though the latter is somewhat buffered by cost-of-living increases).

This insidious cost creep affects everyone, but it's particularly serious for seniors, and more so for seniors at marginal income levels. It has some clear implications for the future of social security and current talk about altering its cost-of-living calculations downward.

Reducing Clutter

2012-01-14T17:49:14-05:00

I'm no fan of clutter, but I have to admit it's easy to let unused junk pile up around the house. For most of my life, childhood to retirement, clutter was seldom a problem because I moved on average every couple of years, and each move meant scrapping anything that didn't absolutely have to be packed up. More recently, though, after a decade or more in the same house, it was clear something needed to be done to reduce the bulk of unwanted objects. So last week we started.

Throughout the year, but especially around the New Year, you can read or view dozens of advice columns on how to get rid of your junk. Usually, they boil down to one basic principle: If you don't need it and don't use it, get rid of it. I don't need that advice. I know the drill, but if you don't I would warn you that the phrase "get rid of it" trips too blithely off the tongues of these organization experts.

The trouble is that deciding what to throw out is only part of the task, and perhaps the easiest part. Then you have to figure out how you want to get rid of it. I suppose if you're willing, you can just put everything out for the garage truck, especially if all you're discarding is broken toys and worn-out clothing. But if you want to toss things responsibly, effectively, and with maximum positive effect, there's lots more to it.

Prep the trash? If it's really trash, sure, you'll pitch it. But what about those old half-full cans of latex paint? In our jurisdiction you are supposed to set them somewhere, remove their lids, and let them dry out completely; then they're eligible for the landfill. Believe me, it takes a while - you may be able to discard them in two or three months.

Want to recycle? Personally, I'll even take stuff apart to recycle it (separate the old snow shovel blade from its handle, break the old lawn mower down into metal and other materials). Things need sorting, in many jurisdictions: paper, plastic, metal, hazardous materials, large bulky items. Some are picked up at your curb, others need to be taken somewhere, and still others require you to schedule somebody to pick them up.

Hate to throw out usable items? Maybe you know someone who would really use one or two of those items. Otherwise, many charities actually call regularly seeking donations of clothes and common household goods, and many of them will pick up things from your doorstep, but you'll need to bundle them in bags or boxes somehow and arrange a pickup, which may be weeks away.

Get cash for your trash? Some people hold yard sales, which is a good deal of work. Then there are the online auction systems, though we reserve this treatment for stuff that may really be worth something because we've found the description, photographing, listing, selling, and shipping progress can be pretty onerous too.

Find some items you aren't sure about? The old but high-quality stereo system you put away, thinking to replace the amplifier with a functional used one to make it whole again; the slide-out drawer from a cabinet that should be put back but needs a special hinge mount. Maybe you'll resolve to get those little chores done -- which of course will cost you more time.

Even when all that is done, and all the junk is out of the house, we found we needed to clean up the shelves or closets where all those castoff goods used to sit; and also reorganize whatever is left.

The upshot was that we made decisions about what to "get rid of" in a total of about two hours. Ten days later, we've spent an estimated 10-12 hours on the followup; much (not all) of the junk is finally gone but some of the selling and repair jobs remain to be done. That simple phrase "get rid of it" is something like an iceberg, with big (but not Titanic) implications. It can be done!

Dumb And Dumber

2012-01-06T14:49:35-05:00

At Christmas, an in-law and reader of this blog gave me the "Stupidest Things Ever Said" calendar. At first I thought it might be a bunch of stuff he had personally culled from my two blogs - my mistaken political predictions, or my half-baked ideas about what makes good marketing, and what doesn't. Much to my relief, however, it was "stupidest things" that other people had said. So now I look forward to exploring its daily revelations, some of which may even spark some bloggish intervention right here on The Tin Lizard.

MEANTIME, however, I find the daily news is also a source of plenty of humorous idiocy. Just within the past day or two, I see the following items that may appear in next year's calendar:

College Rankings: Lists of one thing or another seem always to be popular. Now, after many serious attempts to rank universities and colleges such as the most-cited one from U.S. News & World Report, apparently various other media have searched for other ways to rank colleges, from "hairiest," to "most Harry-Potterish." And as the item says, what possible use could rankings on these scales have? I guess the article provides its own answer. Yes, indeed, it seems as if:

"...anyone anywhere can rank anything using any information — and student newspapers will write about how their schools fared while national media outlets will blog it as news." (My emphasis.)

Columbia Gem Of The Oshin: A runaway teenager from Texas ended up in custody and falsely claimed to be an illegal immigrant from Colombia, in South America. Smart move! Accordingly, she was deported there. She's now being returned. Her mother is complaining, but why should she? It's a weird case because both the U.S. ICE, and Colombian consulate representatives in the U.S. evidently believed her story, even though - according to a facsimile of a form I saw on the TV version of this story - she misspelled the name of the country she claimed to be from.

A Mitt By Any Other Name: Last and possibly least, I reference Al Kamen's regular "In the Loop" column in the Washington Post, and specifically the last paragraph of it. Since Kamen's column is long and deals with a number of other subjects, and the part I want was spotted only by my sharp-eyed better half, I'll just quote it here for convenience:

Fits like a glove

In one of the most meaningful polls of the Republican presidential contest thus far, it seems that a full 2 percent of voters think that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s full first name is . . . Mittens.

Another 2 percent, according to the poll by “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair, thought it was Gromit, 8 percent thought Milton and 18 percent figured on Mitchell.

Silly electorate. Of course, everyone knows it’s Mitterrand, right?

Silly electorate, indeed. They think his name is "Mittens?" And silly serious news media; who would spend time doing such a poll anyway? Actually, I did a little research and found that Romney is using an alias. Mitt is his middle name; his real name is Willard. Wow, if that gets out, he'll be out of the Presidential race in a heartbeat (though we did once elect a "Millard"). And if Wikipedia can be believed, Mitt is his full middle name; he was named after a relative whose name was "Milton" (but was affectionately known as Mitt).

Paper Or Plastic?

2012-01-02T08:20:36-05:00

These days, that question -- "paper or plastic?" -- makes us think of shopping bags. There was a time when we might have thought it applied to how you were going to pay for your purchases. However you pay, basic shopping is increasingly costing consumers a few extra cents or dollars, as more and more jurisdictions are imposing a tax for each bag. The latest seems to be Montgomery County Maryland, DC's close-in, well-off, and eco-trendy suburb. The District of Columbia slapped a tax on bags a year ago, but it includes only grocery and liquor stores; Montgomery's applies to any bag, any time.

I understand the reasons for attempting to reduce bag use: Those plastic bags flying around everywhere (I picked up two out of my front yard this morning), ending up forever snagged in trees, adding to the ugliness of our surroundings. And despite claims by their makers, the plastic bags aren't really biodegradable in any useful sense, particularly as most of them never make it into landfills. Paper bags, on the other hand, not only hold more but are reused with much more frequency, and ARE degradable (you can even shred them onto your compost pile).

Hence I conclude that the true target of bag taxes should be plastic bags only. The fact they target all bags instead is something I attribute to a doctrine I'll call "misguided fairness." Makers of plastic film would whine and scream if their bags were singled out, and that would just be a hassle for local governments, so they consciously choose to do the wrong thing. (And besides, an extra nickel per paper bag won't hurt the county's bottom line, either.) If we must use tax policy to engineer society (and I'm not certain that we must) it would be better, though more difficult, to recognize that not all bags are created equal, and to be realistic about the problem we're trying to solve. Misguided fairness won't ever push plastic bag-makers to better solutions.

Now that the law is in place effective January 1, by the way, I'd suggest those who are acquiring reusable bags get cloth or canvas, rather than those made of all those synthetics and plastics, because you're going to want to wash these bags occasionally, and because eventually, they'll need to be recycled too.

Fire Hot

2011-12-31T10:43:37-05:00

No doubt everyone has heard or seen some news clip about the Christmas fire in Connecticut that killed five members of one family. It seems to have attracted a little more attention than the numerous fatal fires that occur across the country nearly every day, I suppose because it happened in a large, expensive house in a fancy neighborhood.

Reports concerning the origin of the fire soon surfaced:

"a family friend who had worked on the home as a contractor ... according to firefighters, is believed to have placed the ashes in or outside an entryway, near the trash."

This is of course a huge tragedy, and I don't mean to disparage the sorrow of the woman whose parents and three children died, or the undoubted guilt being experienced by the "family friend," but geezo-peezo, I'm really bowled over by how dumb this guy - a contractor, no less - must be. Mistakes can happen, and many people wander through life unconscious, but even a caveman should know better: "Hey, Unggh, dis red stuff hot! Make fire!" I guess it's a caution for us all. But seldom do we learn from other people's mistakes.