The Tin Lizard

Your Friendly Electric Company

I got my electric bill today.  If your company is like mine, nearly every month, along with your bill, you get some kind of an offer of some other service. 

Some are just radically off-the-wall -- my company offers, for an extra fifty or sixty dollars a year, a kind of insurance plan covering the eventuality that you might have to replace the sewer line between the house and the street.  Let's see:  sewers, electricity... electricity, sewers...no, it doesn't compute.  Why would my electric utility be offering sewer repairs?  And what may be next?  Perhaps an offer to sell me my next new car, or discount prescriptions?

Another interesting one is the offer to supply only "green"-produced energy to your household - for an extra monthly fee, of course.  I guess it's ok for the electric company to try to make a buck off people who are addled over alternative energy, but I have my suspicions.  Energy is pretty fungible.  How would I know if the electricity I get really comes from alternative sources? 

The offers that really irk me, though, are two others that I commonly receive.  One is for a big, expensive stand-alone backup generator (several thousand dollars) in the event of a lengthy power outage.  These generators are noisy, ecologically unsound, inefficient (compared to centrally distributed power) but worst of all, they should be unnecessary if the power grid were as reliable as it used to be. (In response to an inquiry, the company said these are offered mostly for businesses, though that fails to explain why the offer is stuffed into residential bills.)

There's another in the same vein - for only five dollars a month, you can get a power surge protector installed that will protect all your appliances with motors (not computers) from getting zapped by a power spike. 

(Note that this come-on also makes use of the concept that's so popular now, the monthly fee for a one-time service or product.  Pay in perpetuity for a device that they'll come and install once and only once.  What a rip-off!  What would you think if the cable company tried "leasing" you its converter box instead of just putting it in as part of the service?  What's that you say?  They already DO?  Oh yeah, I forgot.)

But back to the electric company.  The common feature of the last two "offers" above is that the company can make profit from failing to perform the function we pay for: reliable electric power.  Power failures and surges ought to be far less common than they are.  I believe state regulators ought to forbid utility companies from offering services/devices that produce profit from poor performance.  Otherwise, aren't we incentivizing them to do the wrong thing?

Heroism

The term "hero" is endemically overused these days, and often in absurd ways.  Recent news offers us a couple of good examples:

Unhero:  Joseph Stack, the nut case who flew his airplane into a building in Texas.  It's not surprising, I guess, that his daughter thinks he's a hero -- aren't daddies always heroes to their little girls?  Looking past the Oedipal implications of that, though, to call this guy a hero is more than a little misguided.  By that measure. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the September 11 terrorist actions in the U.S., is also a hero to some.  Stack and KSM, heroes together in a political sense, but not otherwise.  Real heroism is universally recognized, not just by a coterie of people with a cause.

An interesting sidelight to this event is that the daughter lives in Norway because she gets better medical care there, so the Stack story is a two-edged sword for his "supporters," who appear to dislike paying taxes but believe U.S. healthcare doesn't need fixing.

Hero: David Benke, the teacher at that middle school in Colorado who tackled the fellow who was starting to shoot students.  He would have been more of a hero if he'd made sure the shooter happened to crack his head wide open on the edge of a step, but still, Benke fulfills the requirements - an act of courage in the face of danger.  Not foolhardy, in this case (he saw that the bolt-action rifle gave him a chance to go for it), yet a brave effort that prevented a bad outcome, and that most bystanders would not have attempted.

Customer Service Reps

I'm an inveterate writer of letters (in olden days) and e-mails (in more modern times)to companies.  When they make a decision that makes their product less useful, or tasty, or likable, I let them know.  These letters go to people called "customer service representatives," or something similar; seldom do they reach the people who really ought to see them (do you suppose someone ever wrote Toyota about an odd experience they'd had with their accelerator, perhaps?). 

Judging from the kinds of responses I get, evidently these reps aren't too well paid; and in my estimation, they're seldom worth what pay they get.  Another case of "you get what you pay for." 

Not long ago, I wrote in this space about some size/quality changes in Evercare lint-rollers and mentioned that apparently a 60-sheet roll had replaced a 70-sheet roll at the same price.  I said as far as I could tell, the 70-sheet roll wasn't available any more.  Now, I retract that statement: in fact, these rolls are available in more sizes and types than you'd want to know, but to find them, you have to go to the kinds of places they like to hang out. 

(Hint: They seem to like to hang out at Target stores, where you can find them in several different aisles, in 60, 70, or 100-sheet sizes; sticky and stickier; professional and amateur, easy-pull and not-so-easy; special ones for pet hair -- the mind boggles.)

But my statement was an honest mistake.  When we mentioned on the company website that we didn't like the less-sticky, 60-sheet rolls we found, they sent us some free samples -- of the product we didn't like!  Wouldn't you think they would have mentioned that the ones we did like were still available, and maybe even send those?  

I suspect they don't even read the letters in most cases.  We also told Unilever on line that we had a bottle of their mayonnaise where the seal on the jar lid didn't seem quite right.  Was this dangerous?, we asked.  We thought it was curious we heard nothing back...until about 10 days later, when we got a snail mail letter in response to our e-mail inquiry.  It contained a check for $5, but no answer to the question of food safety.  We might be dead or sickened by food poisoning, but hey, at least we got a check!

Unfortunately some of these customer service types seem to graduate into jobs as Congressional staffers.  Last year when I wrote to my two Senators about passage of a certain bill, I got a reasonably focused answer from one, but the other seemed to think I was for, rather than against, the legislation and boasted about how he was serving my interests.

We're supposed to accept nowadays that people in low-paying jobs won't perform very well.  There was a time when people thought that doing a bad job well could lead to a better job; there was even a time when people in low-level service jobs would do the work well as a matter of pride.  But now, like a dimestore barbecue tool whose shank bends cartoonishly under the weight of a steak, customer service reps don't really seem to be fulfilling the function they exist for.  Companies may as well not spend the money.  (And in fact, some don't.)  

(Re)Designer Hot Dogs

It's all over the news.  Kids might choke on hot dogs, so (pediatricians to the rescue) the answer is to REDESIGN the hot dog ?  Of course.  It's just part and parcel of the tendency in our culture to overprotect kids. 

A few weeks ago there was a big flap over certain types of window blinds, on the cords of which children might choke.  The solution turned out to be a major recall, rather than the commonsense one: move the crib away or tie up the cord.  It's no longer to be expected that parents should have brains enough to recognize that a dangling cord hanging too near a baby's crib just might be a problem.  

Writ even larger, the trend leads to the nonsensical concept of "childproofing" houses; reengineering and/or padding corners and edges to avert any possible injury.  No doubt someone is going to "discover" before long that falling down stairs can cause injury, and we'll all need to rebuild into one-story dwellings. 

Yes, some problems can be avoided by redesign; for example, in cribs, bars so widely spaced a child can stick his head through have been altered.  But please, let's try to exercise enough judgment to know the difference between what makes sense, and what doesn't.  We should keep the hot dog the way it is (it has worked well enough for generations of Americans and Europeans before them).  Let's redesign the concept that every conceivable accident can be avoided. 

Fun At The Office

I've always thought the best job was one that had a serious purpose, but could be fun, too.  A little NCIS-style light-hearted banter as the work gets done?  No problem.

That's what Virginia's legislators appear to be doing down in Richmond these days, as this report by Frederick Kunkle indicates.  Just a little fun with a freshman lawmaker, as he introduces a bill to...make it legal to possess antlers shed naturally by deer!  Again, I insist, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but on the other hand, the kind of friendly razzing taking place here seems more appropriate to a fraternity house or a Rotary meeting -- places where no serious business has to get done -- than to a state (or commonwealth) House of Delegates. 

The problem, for anyone who bothers to consider at all what goes on in the House of Delegates, is that this simple rule-making bill, uncontroversial in the extreme, ought to have absorbed about three minutes of the House's time but seems to have taken up most of a morning (or was it afternoon? - who's watching the clock anyway?).  

It's an interesting contrast to the serious issues the Assembly needs to deal with: budget problems, or perhaps even closer to voters' hearts, the removal of snow.  For, in this weird state where local services like snow removal are not a county or city responsibility, but a state duty, two weeks after our record snowstorm, roads and streets are still covered in piles of ice and snow; but the state highway department has announced that it has "completed its work." 

Meantime, though, when the deputies aren't worrying about deer antlers, they've devoted themselves instead to liberalizing gun laws.  (A law limiting gun buyers to one handgun per month, for example, seems to face certain repeal at the hands of these fun-loving lawmakers.)  So maybe we'd better just leave them to their fun and hope they don't get around to any "serious" stuff.

True Tree Huggers

I have always marveled at trees - their beauty, their majesty, their functionality in our global climate, and even their utility as lumber.  (Except perhaps my neighbor's 8 or 10 scraggly white pines, which reach 100 feet or more toward the heavens, but are planted right on the property line, and in any storm deliver a hellish deluge of telephone-pole sized limbs that destroy smaller trees, shrubbery and potentially, the house.)

But back to the good stuff - today's news brings a great story about Jess Parker, who's been measuring tree trunks for more than 20 years and recently published a report on his findings.  This sounds like a fun job, tromping around in the woods and tallying tree-trunks' bust measurements, but it's serious work, too.  The conclusion of Parker's research is that trees in temperate zones seem to be growing faster in recent years than they have historically done.

That's an interesting finding, and something that adds a bit more evidence that our climate is slowly changing (leaving aside the question of whether that's completely man-caused).  On the other hand, I think somebody is overreaching with statements like this:

"The danger of that, of course, is that this can't go on forever," said Kenneth Feeley, a professor at Florida International University. He meant that, even if there was enough carbon dioxide to support more fast growth, the trees would eventually run out of water or plant food. Their growth would slow down, and they would stop absorbing so much carbon.

Too touchy, Feeley!  Not every consequence of climate change is an apocalypse.  Won't trees that run out of water or food first die off, leaving more water and food for others?  And haven't trees always followed this pattern?  Sorry, the data does tell us something but it doesn't forecast a disaster.    

Tiger, Tiger, Burning Dim

Are you kidding me?  Tiger Woods's "confession," "apology," or whatever it may be called, is the news of the day?  Attracting eyeballs?  Featured on 20/20? 

First, we should remember that "golfer" isn't very far removed from "gofer."  Should we really care about Tiger's problems?  I don't. 

Second, the actual statement (you couldn't have possibly avoided it) was uninspired, self-serving, and incredible (literally). 

The only thing the Tiger seemed really sorry about was his loss of income.  I don't mind if he gets back to golf and continues to win tournaments; even the product endorsements, if sponsors are in the mood.  But as for his personal life, it's of no interest.  Politicians, in this case, generally do it better.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch Again

Thanks to the Washington Post for republishing, and thereby calling my attention to, a very good piece by Nina Shen Rastogi about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It appeared originally in a regular column (The Green Lantern) on Slate.  An excellent followup to my earlier post on this subject.

Snow Removal - Is There A Better Way?

In my little corner of the world near Washington, D.C., last week we broke a snow record set 111 years ago.  Different localities got anywhere from 25 to near 50 inches of snow in the space of about 10 days, in an area where we normally think of 4-5 inches as a big snow.  No one doubts that this unprecedented deluge of the white stuff is an occasion for flexibility, for understanding, and for coping with predictable disruptions of normal life. 

On the other hand, it has been a week now since the last significant snow fell.  The bright spot is that local utilities did pretty well in restoring lost power after the storm.  Beyond that, though, not only are things a mess, but there is little sense that recovery is progressing.  Main roads are clear, but heavily traveled secondaries are still only one lane instead of two, and many residential streets (like mine, left, at 3 pm today) remain completely untouched by plow or chemical - any clearing has been done by residents, by hand. And sidewalks? Forget sidewalks.  On Monday, local authorities appealed to parents, school kids and any civic-minded citizens to get out and help clear sidewalks near schools and school bus stops in neighborhoods. 

Postal service stopped for at least four days; bus service for a week; subway service ran at about 50% because above-ground stops could not be served; and schools have been closed for more than a week, some restarting today, others tomorrow.

Naturally, the complaints and recriminations have begun.  Some opine that today, the first day most schools are restarting and the federal government is fully open for business, is a "test," and that if things don't go smoothly (I can tell you, they won't) it's a disgrace.  Others note how politicians in many cities have been voted out by voters angry after a big snowstorm.  I think it's still too early for that kind of stuff; it's ridiculous to suppose that cities can be ready every year just in case the snow of the century comes along.

On the other hand, I think there a couple of ideas that could be implemented to help us along the next time a big storm hits.

First, the question of priorities.  Understandably, local jurisdictions advise that they will clear main roads first; but a really big storm like this one might require a different way of operating.  This time, leaving secondary streets untouched for several days after the snow stopped while they dealt exclusively with main roads (not completely successfully, either) meant that fallen, movable snow hardened into immovable caked snow with ice underneath and people got locked into their neighborhoods for days if they didn't dig themselves out. 

In these conditions, we need a two-tiered approach; some teams, a majority, including all the heaviest equipment, can deal with those main roads, but not necessarily hoping to achieve the perfection of a totally snow-free surface.  (After all, the main roads clear themselves by traffic, spray, and sun once the bulk of loose snow is removed.)  Other teams need to get busy on secondary and neighborhood streets - again, not with the idea of clearing everything right down to bare pavement, but at least to shove away the bulk of the snow.  (I also like the idea I read somewhere, of including all public bus routes in the mix early, so that public transport can get up and running again.)

A second thought:  Local governments had used up most or all of their snow removal budgets before Christmas this year, before we got the additional 20-30 inches in February.  Yet we don't get snow frequently or in large quantities.  Why shouldn't governments take a running average of several years of snow removal costs, sequester those funds, and carry them over from year to year if unspent?  Lean years would create a bit of cushion for the times when Mother Nature is more bountiful. 

The Theory And Practice Of Valentine's Day

Today is Valentine's Day.  What's the day mean to you? 

At best, it's a nice little nod to romance, a little bright spot in the dreary drabness of February.  (Which reminds me that It's about now, every year, that our witch hazel blooms, always the first and very regular harbinger of spring). 

At worst, Valentine's Day is a commercially-originated way of selling greeting cards, chocolates, and flowers; it's a big business day for restaurants, too. 

My wife and I have some unusual traditions in our marriage;  one of them is that we don't do anything in particular to observe Valentine's Day.  We might get each other a card (or we might not) and we've been known to crack open a bottle of champagne some years, but that's about the extent of it.   No dinner out (egad, the worst night of the year for that!) and we don't get gifts. 

I confess, it's my fault.  When we met and married thirty-five years ago, I suggested minimizing this momentous annual occasion. I just felt that acknowledging our feeling for each other, confirming our love, was something that should be much more than a once-a-year proposition.  In fact, it ought to be a daily thing and even after all these years, it really pretty much is. 

So, Happy Valentine's Day, honey... I love you!  (But don't hold your breath for that gift.)