Excessive Packaging

Maybe the toy companies are in kahoots. My son got a bunch of toys for his birthday the other day, and there is perhaps more packaging material than actual toy in there. Some of the packaging material is even moulded (is that the British spellling?) to look like something real, such that I still have it because I somehow feel bad getting rid of it.

Now, looking at it objectively from the outside, I would think that as a toy company owner, I would want as little packaging as possible. Not just because it saves room in landfills, but for many selfish and pragmatic reasons.

1) You can fit more smaller packages in the same volume of shipping container (e.g. truck).
2) You can fit more smaller packages in the same amount of shelf space
3) Less packaging materials means less cost of goods sold
4) Less packaging materials could mean one fewer stations on the assembly line
5) You could promote your packaging reduction campaign as a green move for your company

I mean, in case you don't have kids that get highly-packaged toys, here's an example. There are many toys that are tied down in the box. But some toys are tied down in literally ten places. And this is not a big toy, like a 6" action figure or doll type of thing. The cardboard box is folded into an elaborate shape which depicts a scene native to the toy. This box is taped about 50 times (exaggerating, but literally five or more places). Then the toy is tied to the box by what are essentially insulated wire - a metal core with a rubber casing. This tie is wrapped around a limb of the toy, and then behind the box, it is tied to itself, and often taped over the tie in the back. Some toys have about two or three ties, but as I said, some have like ten of them. Some toys even have a screw holding it into the packaging. It always just makes me think, "they must really be afraid someone's going to steal this from the box."

So to all in the toy industry: reduce the packaging, please!

Global Economy is Here to Stay!

I hear a lot about people from various parts of the red states compaining about how all the manufacturing jobs are leaving this country, and everyone wants to bring them back.

Guess what, folks... the US is no longer a manufacturing superpower. Get used to it. With all the insurance and high wage requirements and all, we just aren't competitive. The only way we will be is if we put tariffs on imports from the mean giants (I'm looking at you, China) to offset the lower cost of biz over there.

On the other hand, maybe if our domestic international companies who had all the stuff (such as toys) made in China were accountable for quality issues (now I'm looking at you Mattel) we would move the manufacturing back here.

Sometimes I can't tell if I'm lefty or righty. (But then I remember I'm not a fundamentalist Christian, so I must be lefty)

Veterans' Benefits

I heard a story the other day on NPR about something where they said there was like a new bill or something proposing veterans' benefits of a 150 foot radius "no protest" zone around veterans' funerals. This is so disturbing to me, my only comment is "WHO THE HELL PROTESTS A FUNERAL?!!!!??!"

I am all for protests, but to protest a funeral is beyond despicable. I try to avoid negativity, but damn, who would do that? Sure, protest a speech by the president at your local college, but a vet's funeral - do you have no heart or soul? Maybe you should be a GOP...

Sub Prime Mortgages for Sale!

So everyone knows about the subprime mortgage meltdown (as it's been called). I heard a show on NPR the other day, and a man called in from NACA, sort of just to plug his own organization. But he had a great idea. He said that they give prime loans to subprime applicants, and then they become prime applicants.

In other words, you have these subprime applicants. They have poor credit, and maybe not the highest incomes. Most lenders will charge them a premium to get at their money, in the form of subprime loans, given at higher interest rates, with tricks to make the true cost of the loan seem not that bad. These tricks include interest-only payments.

Whereas when you have a prime applicant with good credit and they get a normal loan at a favorable rate that doesn't require interest-only payments to seem reasonable. So the underqualified person is set up to fail by being lent money on really bad terms, while the qualified person gets their money cheaper. Makes sense from a risk perspective on behalf of the lenders, but not so much from a consumer perspective.

So this NACA believes that subprime borrowers still deserve prime loans. In fact, this guy on the radio (he was the CEO or something) said that they feel it is the only way to do it. So NACA gives the underqualified people good loans that they will have a chance to be able to pay, because it is reasonably priced money. That way, they are set up to succeed. They aren't given a free ride, but if they budgeted appropriately when they determined how much house they could afford, they should be all set.

In fact, now with these big mortgage companies losing all their assets to foreclosure, NACA even works with the big lenders and the in-over-their-heads borrowers to come up with something that the borrowers can work with. This basically means the borrowers decide how much they can afford each month, and the bank gives them an interest rate (and maybe longer term?) that makes it work for them. The lender is able to continue getting paid each month on the mortgage, and the borrower keeps their home. Sounds like a win-win doesn't it?

The biggest obstacle to a full roll out of this is the fact that most lenders don't hold their loans. They are infamously packaged into a variety of investment vehicles, which sort of removes any incentives to work with borrowers. We'll just have to see how it all pans out.

Universal Preschool - No Thanks!

So I am mostly a liberal person, generally voting party line (i.e. all Democrats) but now I am hearing things I don't like from the Dems. Hillary (and probably all of them) are talking about universal preschool. Ugh! See my other unschooling blog for more info, but more school is not the answer. Only for those kids whose parents' vocabulary barely tops their own, would this be a good idea. For most of us, who are somewhat educated, universal compulsory preschool is BAD NEWS. I guess it is better than day care, somehow, but really in my mind they are the same. Since learning is always happening, whether there is a "teacher" participating or not. But this is all part of the work of Mr. Unschool, so I will leave it at that.

Protesting Lawyers?

So you probably already know that the government in Pakistan is in turmoil. The main leader, President Musharraf, who is also the head General, was re-elected a few weeks ago. It is apparently against the Pakistani Constitution for the President to also be the head General. So Musharraf promises to step down as General, but hasn't done it yet. Then the Pakistani Supreme Court was to vote on whether or not Musharraf's re-election was legal, and reportedly, were going to rule it wasn't on Sunday. But on Saturday, Musharraf declared a "state of emergency" and fired half the Supreme Court Justices. Immediately, international and domestic outrage began. Protestors took to the street and thousands have been arrested. TV has all been turned off except for Government-run news channels, and internet and cell phone access has been on and off.

This is clearly a terrible situation for Pakistan, and it could have big global implications, since there are a lot of delicate political situations involving Pakistan. For example, nukes vs. India. Or Afghanistan issues.

But I managed to find something humerous about this when I first heard about it, and it still remains funny to me. That is the image of lawyers protesting. In America, I think of street protest as the realm of the hippie (or post-hippie these days). On the other hand, I picture a lawyer kind of like an anti-hippie - the most straight-laced person around. So to me it is just funny to think of a bunch of lawyers as protesting hippies, or even hippies as lawyers. I guess it just goes to show how all countries have their own unique cultures.

Big Bad Pharma

Big Pharma is a bunch of crooks. It is perhaps the most crooked industry in America.

We in America come up with a million different diseases that we all need a cure for. At first it seemed believable enough. There was ADHD and depression. OK those are real, I’ll go for it. Then the allergy pill commercials all the time. OK still seems not so bad. Then all the boner pill ads. OK going a little too far? Then I saw ads for drugs where it wasn’t clear, or even somewhat evident that the alleged ailment was. All I could tell from the TV ads was that I’d be dancing in fields of flowers after I had these pills. Maybe allergy pills? Maybe arthritis pain relief? Who knows. Finally the last straw was a few years ago when I saw an ad for some new dry eye syndrome drug, and suddenly felt as if my eyes were dry, and maybe I should ask my doctor…

There were some problematic products. They started not blatantly evil. Oxycontin: OK it was just misused by some people. Things like that happen. Then there were these drugs recently (whose names I can’t remember) that were found to kill people, while treating them for like blood pressure or something. And it wasn’t clear how rigorous the pre-market trials were, and it seemed like maybe the manufacturers might have thought there was some sort of risk of death, but the product still went to market. Hmm… what was that oath again? Some nonsense about doing no harm?

Then just the other day, I learned that we are the nation with the most depression and who takes the most depression medication. Now if the medication were effective, we should have lower rates of depression due to medication alleviating symptoms of depression. But apparently not. And then it turns out that one of the side effects of the depression meds like Prozac is depression. WHAT! What good does it do to take a medicine which causes the thing it is meant to fight. This basically means that it doesn’t fight what it is supposed to. I guess that just because it helps serotonin, doesn’t mean it solves depression. Logically thinking, lifestyle change and good old talking about it is probably more likely to cure depression.

So the overall story is that big pharma makes drugs to fight diseases, and sometimes they are good. But a lot of times, they are maybe not as effective, and even can be harmful. I didn’t even go into Ritalin for kids, or Prozac for kids (or dogs!), but something’s going on. I am not saying that people who use these things are in the wrong. If you have a problem, you want to solve it. But I am saying that we need to make sure we are treating the right things when we use medication. Sometimes the “quick fix” solution of medication is not really an effective or long term solution. But until drug companies get out of physicians’ beds, it will be hard for us to get non-medicinal solutions to our medical ailments.

"Beer Track" Voters

I just posted about this over on My Life With Beer, but I need to continue on a different angle over here.

The overview: beer track voters are supposedly poor democrats who care about unions and making ends meet, while wine track voters are supposedly rich democrats who care about global peace and more cerebral issues. This really pisses me off. I am a beer lover, but I would fit into their wine track.

This differentiation just shows how wrong stereotypes can be, and how it can really turn off people you don't want to turn away. It also is a way that the entire government itself works to promote the interests of huge companies, such as Budweiser. It is clearly Bud Miller Coors fans that are the beer track voters for the most part. It's like they don't even know about craft beer, which is up to 5% of the market now, and growing about ten times faster than the overall beer market.

It reminds me of the NASCAR Dad's thing from last time. I am a NASCAR fan, a dad, but I am NOT A republican who wants to go to war, like the NASCAR dads were supposed to be. Sometimes it seems that the so-called lberal media is more regressive since they constantly play off old stereotypes. Furthering these things in such a public way works to suppress any difference from the stereotype. In other words, as a NASCAR fan who is a liberal, I was sort of put in a state of limbo by the promotion of that stereotype of NASCAR Dad. It worked to alienate me from politics and NASCAR. Although I have recovered ;)

Now beer track voters alienate me from politics and beer. Although I will sooner discard politics than beer. I think I need to find acceptance of broad generalizations that must be made by people in the position of presidential candidates or media organizations. But then again, blogging is all about fighting stereotypes and getting the voice of the little guy out there. So here I am.

"wine track" beer entrepreneur
liberal anti-war "NASCAR Dad"

FEMA in San Diego

These terrible fires that are ravaging the San Diego have displaced many thousands of people, and destroyed countless homes and businesses. The life of many in the area will never be the same.

This reminds me of Katrina a few years ago in New Orleans, especially using the sports arena for a shelter. FEMA claims to have "learned from its mistakes on Katrina" and says they're doing better this time. Like Katrina was the first big catastrophe that they ever had to deal with? Last time, Chertoff didn't even know there was a hurricane. Now, he's there in Qualcomm staduim.

I just can't help but think that it's different this time not because FEMA is somehow more prepared, or that they're somehow better at working with state and local officials. I think it has more to do with the socio-economic profiles of the victims of this tragedy. This isn't a bunch of poor people living in trailer parks, this is a bunch of (at least) middle class people living in (at least) half million dollar homes. Everyone knows the real estate market in that area is inflated, and it follows that you need to be doing pretty good for yourself to be able to live in that area. True, not everyone there is a celebrity living in Malibu, but there probably aren't a lot of welfare recipients living in trailer parks either.

So I am glad that people that need help are getting it there in California, but I just wish that everyone in need of help would get it, no matter what they look like, what they do for work, where they live, or how much money they have.

Middle School Birth Control

I can see how this school in Maine that is "giving birth contol pills to 11-year old girls without requiring parental consent" is alarming to many people. I read an article from Bill O'Reilly on it. Big surprise, he hates it. But even NPR had a story today (that I haven't listened to yet - not sure which show it was) basically asking "is this really okay for them to do?"

I think it is really important for girls of all ages to have access to birth control and good information about sex education. That is not to say that I want my daughter to be having sex at eleven years old, but if she were to be doing it, I'd MUCH rather she was on the pill than have her get pregnant.

The thing that really gets me about this is that the right will not allow these girls to get birth control pills (they would probably not even want the boys with condoms), and then if the kids get pregnant, they won't let them get an abortion (they say give it up for adoption - I have two kids, and I don't know how anyone could carry a baby for nine months and then just give it up for adoption - you become quite attached to that future baby). In fact, they are probably the first ones to provide judgement and unsupport to pregnant teens (and pre-teens in this case). On top of all this, they are the ones against sex education in the classroom (although even if I was going to send my kids to school, I still wouldn't rely on the sex ed they provide in there.)

Think about it this way. If a kid is having sex at eleven years old, there might be some sort of a deeper problem there. Could be anything from run-of-the-mill low self esteem all the way up to abuse. But something isn't right, and there's a good chance there's a parental rift involved there. So to require parental consent is just like putting up a big wall, and to require it would be to essentially prevent practically all of its intended utility (which I'm assuming is to reduce unwanted teen pregnancies.)

There's nothing wrong with sex. It is totally natural. Anyone who's ever had it can tell you that it is enjoyable, and they probably thought about it a lot before they had it for the first time, and possibly even more after they had it for the first time. Again, not that I want my eleven year old doing it necessarily, but at the same time, I don't think we should be viewing it in a shameful way that it seems to be protrayed most of the time.

If you want to act like there's no sex, and kids don't want to have it, then you do that on your own turf, but don't prevent my kid from getting essential tools for dealing with real life consequences of sex in a mature way.

Responsible Spending? HA!

It just amazes me how much money goes into campaign spending, even just running for the nomination. This just seems crazy to me.

It really hit home when Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize the other day, and speculation about "maybe he'll run for President now" were dismissed for, among other reasons, the fact that he'd be "way behind in fund raising".

Now why would he need so much money? Everyone already knows who he is. What do they spend that money on? Maybe it's just because I live in CT, where nobody really bothers to do any hometown campaigining that I don't see what the big expense is.

Sure, I can see spending a few days around each big city in a state, doing big public functions, and that could cost a bit, but hundreds of millions of dollars?? Something is wrong when you need to have hundreds of millions of dollars behind you before you can be considered a viable candidate for President.

I do not like Joe Lieberman

Every time I hear Joe Lieberman speak now I get so angry and feel sick.

He is just so wrong. I thought it was odd when he went to run for VP, but at the same time it was cool to have a guy from CT to run for that high office.

Then this past election, was where the crap really started. When he didn't win the Democratic nomination, he decided to run as an Independent instead. This totally undermines the system that we have in place. To make matters worse, he went and won. This shows that his support comes from the right, the people who can't vote in the Democratic primary. He's just a Republican in disguise. He is pro war, and votes with the GOP on war issues, such as troop reduction, etc.

I am not categorically against politicians who don't always go with their party line. For example, I really like John McCain (for a Republican). He is the classic Republican who wants to reach across the aisle to get important things done. Lieberman has sort of the same MO, but he has done it in a really sneaky way. If he wants to vote GOP, then run GOP. He could have won on the GOP ticket, but instead he tried to go for the Democratic nomination, didn't get it, but decided to bypass the system and play anyway.

On top of all this, I just can't stand to listen to him. He always sounds like he's about to cry, or like he just woke up from a nap. Then he's spinning all the war stats more than Bush does. He just needs to join the GOP where he belongs.

Bush Speaks

I hate to say it, but I believe part of what Dubya is saying today. He's talking about how congress isn't doing anything really productive. To me, this is a part of the extended extended campaign season for presidency. Congress is using its Democratic majority to keep anything from getting done. Partly this makes Bush look bad because nothing's happening, but at the same time it makes the Dems look bad because they're blocking things from happening in their passive-aggressive way.

But I actually like the way Bush is using his press address power to call out congress in their attempts to hold up meaningful work.

Now it is possible that he's just spinning the situation, and that there have been meaningful bills passed. If you can inform me of some progress made this session by congress, please set me straight. I would much rather feel that Democratic congress is good.

And now of course in the Q&A he is getting really defensive and impatient. I like it when that happens. The press keeps trying to trick him into commenting on something, and he keeps saying "you're trying to trick me", then he ends up frustrated.

Happy Wooden Anniversary!

Today is the fifth anniversary of the day that Bush authorized the war in Iraq.

Wow. I guess this is what he meant when he said "hard work". It's hard work not restoring electricity or water to the people. It's hard work trying to fight every battle in the world. It's hard work getting your name in the history books. It's hard work knocking down regimes we created in the first place.

Armenian Genocide

Keep in mind that I am against the war, and always vote for Democrats.

Speaker Peolsi seems to think that now is a good time to alienate a necessary ally of ours in the Middle East, Turkey. Apparently in 1915, the old Ottoman Turkish Empire killed millions of Armenians in an act of genocide as an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Sort of like the Nazis did to the Jews and like several other countries have done at various times in history. The Ottomans were overthrown by what is now the ruling group. But the current powers that be in Turkey reject the notion that there was a Genocide. They say it was a war. So I don't get why they don't just say "yeah, it was a genocide, that's why we kicked those other guys out". But OK they deny it. This is clearly wrong, and they ought to take the high road like Germany and admit the past is true and move on to the future. Nobody wants to hold anything against Turkey now for what they've done. We just want to call a spade a spade.

But now? Turkey has said that they'd get really mad at us if we do this. They have made it sound as though they might even go so far as to kick us out of their coutnry, which we're using as a stopping point on the way to the "War on Terror". I think people are even saying that they'll increase aggression on Kurds in Iraq if we do this to them. But Pelosi says "let's do it now". I heard in passing that she made some sort of promise that if it got past committee that she'd move forward with it. So maybe she's just stuck in a promise. Now wouldn't that be nice? A Politician keeping a promise that is hard to keep.

But still this seems to be another way the Dems are trying to be passive-agressive at stopping the war. First was the thing saying that troops had to either limit their tour length, or have a minimum off-tour interval (I can't remember which), which was clearly a way to force a drawdown of troops. Now this - if we can't work out of Turkey, it could threaten our Iraq operations and even create another front of conflict. (I actually heard someone call it a "second front" but I think we already have about 32 fronts going at once).

So while I want to call it a Genocide, do we really have to pass a resolution to make it official right now? But at the same time, if you can do something now, why not do it now? And if Pelosi promised she would, then she should also hold that promise. I just don't want to put at risk the lives of soldiers over politics. But I guess that's what Bush did when he started this war.

Barack vs. Hillary

So it is primary season, in case you have been hiding under a rock for the last 54 months. Unfortunately I am registered as Independent, so I don’t get a chance to vote in the upcoming primary elections. But I am always interested to follow the primaries so I get to see which Democrat I’ll get to vote for in the General Elections.

For a while I liked Hillary Clinton. After all, she IS a Clinton, and that’s just cool. Plus she’s a woman, which would be a good step forward for our country. As far as I can tell, she seems to have good policies. The only problem is that she is a bit of a statue when it comes to public speaking. I never have heard her talk and gotten a good feeling that she is a real person. She always seems so uncomfortable.

Then I got a chance to hear Barack Obama speak on a clip of news on the radio. Now here’s a guy that can speak! He was really energizing to listen to. That’s what this country needs, after so many years of Mr. same-inflection-for-every-occasion Bush. And as far as I can tell, he’s about the same as Hillary on the policies. In the end they all have to obey the party. Only problem with Barack is that he’s Black, and that may not go over too well with some of our less tolerant, confederate flag waving neighbors. Plus he is pretty inexperienced, which we have had a bit too much of with Bush Jr.

I guess there’s also Edwards, but I still don’t get what made him think he had a chance last time. I mean, who ever heard of him? But at the same time, Mitt Romney, who I had never heard of until last year (even though I live one state away in CT) is right up there in the Republican camp. I guess it goes to show money rules.

Definition of Torture

I am sick of all this torture nonsense. It is so obvious that the we (the US) use torture to extract information. Even though Bush says we don't do torture, we have memos authorizing humiliation tactics, stress positions, and other crazy interrogation techniques. In fact, it turns out that the things we saw in photos at Abu Ghraib weren't just the work of a few rebels. They were actually what the soldiers were told were OK to do. They were commonplace at our prisons all over the world (maybe not here in the US). But Bush said that "this isn't how we do it" and "we're going to get to the bottom of it". But then the memos show that the photos showed the normal behavior.

Now I am not so sure that scaring people with dogs, or parading them around naked is really that bad of a treatment that it should be outrageous and considered torture. But I do think it is a really dumb way to try to get information. I think it is more of a retaliation, or vengance from the soldiers and even our whole government to get back at this enemy that we can't quite pin down. HOWEVER, Bush came out and said "wow, that's not right" while all along, it was what the administration was specifically authorizing. In other words, our government was instructing our interrogation officers to act in a way that it did not believe was the right way. When discovered, lies were used to act as if that isn't the way that we do it.

I thought Bush was supposed to be this great religious guy. Now I am not a religous expert, but it seems to me that acting in a way that you believe to be wrong is not the most direct way for a Christian to "get to heaven". (A side note, I don't buy the vengeful God thing, and I don't think you need to do anything special to get to heaven, except for die)

Now finally, the point from the title. Amidst all these memos, and "we don't do torture" talk, the right has done a pretty good job of shifting the debate to the "definition of torture". That's just a bunch of BS! It is a tactic that the administration is using in other areas of its policy. It is a redirection strategy. Just like offering a baby his pacifier when he's crying about something else, the administration is leading us away from the thing it doesn't want us to think about. It is like when you do two bad things - one really bad and one not as bad - then you admit to the less bad one, and get off the hook for the really bad one. (I wish I had a good example - maybe I can think of one later and edit this post).

Some retired General that used to do all the interrogation said it best on the radio the other day. (I'm paraphrasing) "If in the old days you would have told us that we should use force to extract information, it would have been a big joke. We relied on our wits and knowledge of psychology to get information." Now that is something that makes sense. Too bad we lost our wits and knowledge of psychology once we became obsessed with TV 97 hours a day. Or maybe it was using Doom to train soldiers that got us a bit over violent.