It is Friday night at about 10:15 right now and my kids are asleep. I am just plain beat from my first week of summer schedule at work, and my body wants to quit on me. But there is something that has been bugging me lots recently, and I want to get it out.
There is a buttload of money at stake in the simple decisions of everyday folks like myself to make purchases as either debit transactions or credit. The same card is capable of both, and there is big money on both sides that want desperately to get all of us to side with them. Retailers pay less to credit card companies for debit transactions than they do for credit transactions, so they don't want you choosing credit. But your card issuer does. They get a kickback from the credit card company every time you do, and the credit card company in turn gets a higher fee.
As an individual, I pay a higher price for my gasoline, milk, aspirin, or whatever whether I select the debit option or not. Retailers pass the credit card fee on to us, remember. So the major problem for both parties is that there is nothing in it for me whether I select debit or credit. But a few years ago, the banks started splitting the kickbacks with consumers to convince us to choose the credit option. And it works. My wife and I got something like $500 back last year by never choosing debit unless we were actually getting cash back. A lot of banks have these gimmicks that actually work for you, so you should definitely contact your bank about it if you are not already in one of these programs. I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. it makes sense.
But the retailers are not without their own methods. Every time I swipe my debit card at a retailer that has the capability to process a debit transaction I have to fight with their interface to figure out how to use my card for a straight credit transaction. Without exception, every store or gas station hides the credit option in the interface with deceitful menu options and unnecessary extra steps to get to the credit function. Go ahead and look for this. It is quite obvious once you expect it. And if your bank rewards you for it, find the credit option. I have to lie to a stupid gas pump by telling it I am not using a debit card when prompted, just so that it will not treat the transaction as a withdrawal. You can't even get cash from the pump. How can it be a withdrawal? Luckily, the clerks are apparently completely oblivious to the war going on over these fees, and they have all been willing to help me navigate my way to it when asked.
We are all constantly being corralled into sending our money to gigantic companies which got that way by doing a very good job of it. It is not just with these crap-ass machines. I paid close attention to the employee behind the register at McDonalds a few days ago, and I noticed a tone in her voice that was not right. I had experienced this before at two other fast food joints recently, so I was listening for it. When she said, "Would you like to make that medium or large?" her inflection very clearly made it sound as if those were the only options, rather than making a suggestion to upsize.
And then there are ambiguous sizes on 12" medium pizzas, 14" large, and 16" extra large. There is no small any more, and 16" used to be large.What the hell is that?
56.5 ounce ice cream boxes that used to be an even half-gallon.
58 ounce orange juice cartons that are masquerading amongst the 64s.
Hollowed out bottoms on peanut butter and mayonnaise jars.
Microsoft points that only exist to misdirect your attention away from how much money you are spending on your credit card.
Intentionally misleading menu items at Boston Market.
...and so on.
Arrrr!!! Damned scoundrels.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Category: flaws of western culture
If there is money at work to sculpt this, I have not found it. But there is a strand of western culture that is creeping up on my scoundrel nerve. You see, I have been exercising regularly for about four years now. Treadmill and various sports...sometimes, but mostly lifting weights these days. As you might guess, I am in pretty good shape as a result. But I am never going to be hyper-muscular like some of the regulars at the gym. When I see a guy of about 19 or 20 with ripped guns, my gut reaction is typically one of respect. This is a guy who works hard when he is at the gym, closely watches his diet, and has stuck with it for years.
What? Years? Four days a week since he was what, 12?
Please. After looking into this and asking lots of questions, I know that just about every guy of that size is using steroids heavily. There is literature on this. I have my own experiences with muscle growth to draw from, and those of some close friends. And in some cases, the big guys themselves have told me that this is the case. What gets me though, is that I still initially react that same way even though I know that these are people who have chosen to screw up their body chemistry to pursue this look. It is dangerous, and some of these guys are going to die young from this decision. It speaks about a certain degree of personality flaw that a person is willing to do this. The problem is that our society does not condemn guys for making this choice. We revere them. Our culture has largely turned a blind eye to this issue. There is a ceiling preventing me from ever achieving the kind of look that I am being told I should aspire to unless I am willing to take steroids myself. I was feeling cooked about this until a friend of mine mentioned that women have been dealing with this for years with airbrushed beauty magazine covers, plastic surgery, and runway models who are chosen not because they are typical of who the clothes are designed for, but because the clothing looks better on a waif than on a normal person.
As a side note, I take every opportunity to insert a notion in my kids that the people they see on television are not appropriate role models when it comes to looks. I hope that it is brewing in their heads right next to "advertisements are lies that only exist to trick you out of your money" and "politicians have to be disingenous, duplicitous invertibrates to get jobs". Well, not in those words, but you know what I mean.
What? Years? Four days a week since he was what, 12?
Please. After looking into this and asking lots of questions, I know that just about every guy of that size is using steroids heavily. There is literature on this. I have my own experiences with muscle growth to draw from, and those of some close friends. And in some cases, the big guys themselves have told me that this is the case. What gets me though, is that I still initially react that same way even though I know that these are people who have chosen to screw up their body chemistry to pursue this look. It is dangerous, and some of these guys are going to die young from this decision. It speaks about a certain degree of personality flaw that a person is willing to do this. The problem is that our society does not condemn guys for making this choice. We revere them. Our culture has largely turned a blind eye to this issue. There is a ceiling preventing me from ever achieving the kind of look that I am being told I should aspire to unless I am willing to take steroids myself. I was feeling cooked about this until a friend of mine mentioned that women have been dealing with this for years with airbrushed beauty magazine covers, plastic surgery, and runway models who are chosen not because they are typical of who the clothes are designed for, but because the clothing looks better on a waif than on a normal person.
As a side note, I take every opportunity to insert a notion in my kids that the people they see on television are not appropriate role models when it comes to looks. I hope that it is brewing in their heads right next to "advertisements are lies that only exist to trick you out of your money" and "politicians have to be disingenous, duplicitous invertibrates to get jobs". Well, not in those words, but you know what I mean.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Category: advertising
Advertisers are dried turds with little pieces of corn and peanuts.
Ever hear of Nutella? The product calls itself a hazelnut spread. When you taste it, and especially when you smell it, you can tell that it is not just chocolate. But honestly, it is mostly palm oil and sugar. It is more like sweet margarine spread than any kind of nut. But to see the advertisements, you would think it was a health food. I am certain that this company gets plenty of return on that tactic too. It is unfamiliar enough to Americans that we can be forgiven for not knowing that it is really bad for your body. The advertisers working for the company also know that. If the TV spot is your only source of information, you are going to be fooled.
On a related note, you would have to be living under a rock to not know that ketchup has lycopene in it, and that this is an antioxidant. The industry has paid millions to ensure that you do, and it is plastered over every bottle on the shelf. Of course, the stuff is mostly made of corn syrup. Make no mistake - ketchup is junk food that happens to have a single healthy ingredient in it.
I have a bag of bread in the kitchen right now that has "No Cholesterol!" in the corner of the label in bold print. News Flash: Cholesterol is an animal byproduct. For a loaf of bread to have cholesterol, it would have to be injected with it. They could just as accurately advertise "No Shards of Broken Glass!" or "No Rat Turds!"
The news right now is all on about how coffee reduced the risk of some kinds of cancer in a study. I give a month before the entire industry is deep into efforts to rebrand the stuff as health food. This is the same stuff that has oodles of caffeine - a psychoactive stimulant known to have related health risks so severe that there is a political lobby to have it regulated. None of this has changed, and yet I bet you that our kids will believe otherwise from the effects of advertising.
Damned scoundrels.
Ever hear of Nutella? The product calls itself a hazelnut spread. When you taste it, and especially when you smell it, you can tell that it is not just chocolate. But honestly, it is mostly palm oil and sugar. It is more like sweet margarine spread than any kind of nut. But to see the advertisements, you would think it was a health food. I am certain that this company gets plenty of return on that tactic too. It is unfamiliar enough to Americans that we can be forgiven for not knowing that it is really bad for your body. The advertisers working for the company also know that. If the TV spot is your only source of information, you are going to be fooled.
On a related note, you would have to be living under a rock to not know that ketchup has lycopene in it, and that this is an antioxidant. The industry has paid millions to ensure that you do, and it is plastered over every bottle on the shelf. Of course, the stuff is mostly made of corn syrup. Make no mistake - ketchup is junk food that happens to have a single healthy ingredient in it.
I have a bag of bread in the kitchen right now that has "No Cholesterol!" in the corner of the label in bold print. News Flash: Cholesterol is an animal byproduct. For a loaf of bread to have cholesterol, it would have to be injected with it. They could just as accurately advertise "No Shards of Broken Glass!" or "No Rat Turds!"
The news right now is all on about how coffee reduced the risk of some kinds of cancer in a study. I give a month before the entire industry is deep into efforts to rebrand the stuff as health food. This is the same stuff that has oodles of caffeine - a psychoactive stimulant known to have related health risks so severe that there is a political lobby to have it regulated. None of this has changed, and yet I bet you that our kids will believe otherwise from the effects of advertising.
Damned scoundrels.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Category: Strange Behavior
This weekend, I am taking a trip for a guy weekend. It's sort of a weekend anyway. I am leaving after work on Saturday evening (tonight) and returning on Sunday night, so it's more like a guy 24 hours This is an exceedingly rare event for me, and I cherish it. I have been planning it for about four months, and looking forward to it with great anticipation.
The planning of it was not too difficult, but one big issue had to be overcome. Somebody had to stay with my children while my wife works. She works overnight so it is kind of a tall order to fill. Luckily, one of my wife's friends agreed to stay with them! Back when I was deliberating whether or not the trip would be possible, this was like a godsend. We spoke about it several times in the intervening months to hammer out the details, and I was very thankful.
But then about three days ago, when my wife mentioned it to her she essentially backed out. I don't get this behavior at all. She allowed herself to forget and apparently planned something else. Lemme tell you something about forgetting. Nobody has a worse memory than me and my bloodline. But not this. We talked about it many times. And besides, you just don't do that to a friend. I am still going though. To my wife's credit, she never asked me to cancel. She is cobbling together a solution that involves her being late for work tonight and then not sleeping on Sunday. I owe you one, babe.
I suppose there are all kinds of people out there, but wtf? How does a person's sense of self permit this kind scoundrelous behavior? How does it get rationalized?
The planning of it was not too difficult, but one big issue had to be overcome. Somebody had to stay with my children while my wife works. She works overnight so it is kind of a tall order to fill. Luckily, one of my wife's friends agreed to stay with them! Back when I was deliberating whether or not the trip would be possible, this was like a godsend. We spoke about it several times in the intervening months to hammer out the details, and I was very thankful.
But then about three days ago, when my wife mentioned it to her she essentially backed out. I don't get this behavior at all. She allowed herself to forget and apparently planned something else. Lemme tell you something about forgetting. Nobody has a worse memory than me and my bloodline. But not this. We talked about it many times. And besides, you just don't do that to a friend. I am still going though. To my wife's credit, she never asked me to cancel. She is cobbling together a solution that involves her being late for work tonight and then not sleeping on Sunday. I owe you one, babe.
I suppose there are all kinds of people out there, but wtf? How does a person's sense of self permit this kind scoundrelous behavior? How does it get rationalized?
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Category: misc
This is going to be a brief one. I just have a thought that I want to get out. Oh, and it is not particularly well-developed by my standards. Enough with the disclaimer...
Evolution as a theory of survival of the fittest and such, I have to admit, is something that can not be proven by current science, though I am confident that it is a fact of nature. The process of evolution is so firmly ingrained into my understanding of the world that it seems unfathomable, no matter how deep your faith, that it could possibly not exist.
Baseball experiences evolution. As the game progresses, it the strategies and quality of players is constantly improving to meet the increased demands that are placed upon them. They are chasing a moving target though. Perfection is unattainable because its definition is always changing. This is the essence of how Charles Darwin describes the process of natural selection in living things.
Politics and political strategies evolve in much the same way. A savvy move of yesteryear is seen as old hat these days. And yet, there is always room to improve because our aim gets higher and higher. Education is the same. We try to cram extra information into the brains of our children before their 18th birthday and it does not work. College is no longer an option to give a person a more worldly view. It is necessary to complete the education process. Same with everything concerning computers. And vacuum cleaners. And fake sugar products. And baby strollers. And genetically modified foods. And, well, everything else too.
Evolution is not just a theory of natural selection. It is a fact of life. It is clearly present in everything else. How could it not be the driving engine behind nature?
Evolution as a theory of survival of the fittest and such, I have to admit, is something that can not be proven by current science, though I am confident that it is a fact of nature. The process of evolution is so firmly ingrained into my understanding of the world that it seems unfathomable, no matter how deep your faith, that it could possibly not exist.
Baseball experiences evolution. As the game progresses, it the strategies and quality of players is constantly improving to meet the increased demands that are placed upon them. They are chasing a moving target though. Perfection is unattainable because its definition is always changing. This is the essence of how Charles Darwin describes the process of natural selection in living things.
Politics and political strategies evolve in much the same way. A savvy move of yesteryear is seen as old hat these days. And yet, there is always room to improve because our aim gets higher and higher. Education is the same. We try to cram extra information into the brains of our children before their 18th birthday and it does not work. College is no longer an option to give a person a more worldly view. It is necessary to complete the education process. Same with everything concerning computers. And vacuum cleaners. And fake sugar products. And baby strollers. And genetically modified foods. And, well, everything else too.
Evolution is not just a theory of natural selection. It is a fact of life. It is clearly present in everything else. How could it not be the driving engine behind nature?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Category: duh
I was driving with my whole family this afternoon when I saw an electronic sign on the side of the road that warned of the dangers of texting while driving. And I understand that it is a huge problem right up there with driving while on cocaine, mescaline, and Jolt cola all at the same time. Here's what I see as the problem. I want to know what was sent to me and then politely say "I'm driving. This conversation is important to me. For safety reasons, I will respond as soon as I arrive at my destination." I want a huge button on the phone that sends this message. Better yet, I want the phone to detect that I am in my car and automatically send this response. No, no. I want to be able to say "Text to audio." and have the car translate the text into audio then send that polite response when I say "safe mode" or something. This can be done with today's technology. Hell, there may be apps for it for all I know. But I don't want to bother figuring it all out. This is very important and I should not have to be 19 to know how to do it. The brains of the industry need to get on with this feature like last week. Duh!
Until then my wife intelligently pointed out that we need a code that can be sent as simply as possible to accomplish this. Dear friends, coworkers, and family. If you see the text...
v v v
...or some variation of that, I'm driving. This conversation is important to me. For safety reasons, I will respond as soon as I arrive at my destination."
Pass this message on.
Until then my wife intelligently pointed out that we need a code that can be sent as simply as possible to accomplish this. Dear friends, coworkers, and family. If you see the text...
v v v
...or some variation of that, I'm driving. This conversation is important to me. For safety reasons, I will respond as soon as I arrive at my destination."
Pass this message on.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Category: capitalism and climate change
Man I get tired of hearing free market enthusiasts cry foul every time someone proposes laws to restrict some highly profitable industry from business as usual. Defending laws that protect free markets at the expense of some social injustice or climate problem is only a reasonable position if free market capitalism is a perfect system. They treat laissez-faire as a sacred cow. Well, it ain't. There are far worse economic regimes than capitalism, don't get me wrong. But capitalism is the driving force behind a variety of the world's worst problems. At the top of the list is climate change. It is the child of free market action by way of the Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale. This principle states that multiple individuals acting logically and of their own self interest will completely deplete a resource that they all share and depend on even though they are aware that it is happening. The classic example is that of a pasture shared by local herders overgrazing because the benefits of adding an animal to your herd is enjoyed by only its owner while the incremental depletion of the quality of the pasture is shared by all, dooming the pasture and all the herds to destruction. It is human nature to get into this mess and not be able to get out just as cats get stuck in trees. Climate change is a gigantic tragedy that capitalism got us into.
The turds who are successfully holding up carbon trading in congress are taking this same principle to a new level though. We should all know by now that carbon trading is far and away the most promising solution to climate change. Capping and trading of carbon is the idea that pollution costs us all something and it should be charged to the polluters. Those who figure out more efficient ways to combat their own pollution issues will be successful and increase profits while those who are not as effective will be have to pay fees or buy carbon credits, either of which will cut into their profits. The lower polluters are the ones to sell their carbon credits as commodities to the companies who can't manage their own carbon as effectively, further increasing their profits. It forces the deep pockets of industry to use the same principles of free market that got us into this mess to get us out. It is an actual solution to the Tragedy of the Commons and these guys are intentionally holding it up as long as possible to avoid having to figure out how to control their polluting problems. Considering how much sense it makes, it seems unfathomable that we have never actually had any holistic system to monitor pollution from the world's polluters. Well, here it is. We desperately need it. And yet the anti-"cap and tax" lobby (this is what they call it - notice that it does not actually have any taxes involved and does not have any net increase in expense to businesses, but it sure sounds a lot less attractive with that pejorative) is holding up this legislation because they fear that it will cut into their profits in the short term. Well, it will if you suck at innovation. It is supposed to, damnit! That is exactly the point of it. But paying lobbyists is cheaper than having to innovate, I suppose. There are fewer unknowns that way, and money likes predictability. So they continue to profit now and we all suffer the tragedy later.
The turds who are successfully holding up carbon trading in congress are taking this same principle to a new level though. We should all know by now that carbon trading is far and away the most promising solution to climate change. Capping and trading of carbon is the idea that pollution costs us all something and it should be charged to the polluters. Those who figure out more efficient ways to combat their own pollution issues will be successful and increase profits while those who are not as effective will be have to pay fees or buy carbon credits, either of which will cut into their profits. The lower polluters are the ones to sell their carbon credits as commodities to the companies who can't manage their own carbon as effectively, further increasing their profits. It forces the deep pockets of industry to use the same principles of free market that got us into this mess to get us out. It is an actual solution to the Tragedy of the Commons and these guys are intentionally holding it up as long as possible to avoid having to figure out how to control their polluting problems. Considering how much sense it makes, it seems unfathomable that we have never actually had any holistic system to monitor pollution from the world's polluters. Well, here it is. We desperately need it. And yet the anti-"cap and tax" lobby (this is what they call it - notice that it does not actually have any taxes involved and does not have any net increase in expense to businesses, but it sure sounds a lot less attractive with that pejorative) is holding up this legislation because they fear that it will cut into their profits in the short term. Well, it will if you suck at innovation. It is supposed to, damnit! That is exactly the point of it. But paying lobbyists is cheaper than having to innovate, I suppose. There are fewer unknowns that way, and money likes predictability. So they continue to profit now and we all suffer the tragedy later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)