The Tin Lizard

Tree Lore

I like trees, so it's not surprising my eye was caught recently by yet another tree book.  It's Lives of the Trees: An Uncommon History, by Diana Wells.  You can buy it from amazon.com by clicking the icon on the right margin.

What's different about this one is that it's not just another coffee-table book full of lushly reproduced photos of magnificent trees, nor is it a field guide to identifying trees.  Instead, though are many nice line drawings by Heather Lovett to admire, it's the text that attracts. 

The book tells us nothing about its author except (by inference from a couple of other works she's published) that she is a compiler of data on a theme. Here, she provides fascinating short profiles of a wide variety of types of trees, each only 3-4 pages long, organized alphabetically from "Acacia" to "Yew." 

Each vignette may include myths about the given tree, its place in literature and history, its fruit or the practical uses of its wood, its geographic origin or the etymology of its name -- an altogether fascinating, even spellbinding, narrative for anyone who admires trees.  For example, that the holly's light wood has been used in cabinetry, that the "apple" Eve ate might not have been an apple at all but some other fruit; or that the sassafras tree's leaves, bark, and root were all variously thought to heal so many ailments that it became known as the "universal tree."

The only drawback is the jumbled, sometimes breathless, style (there's a lot to be presented in a short space, after all); and for the tree purist perhaps, the slight drawback that the source and veracity of these tidbits is unclear.  But overall, a very entertaining, fun, readable, and recommendable book.  

The Humorous Side of Politics?

In today's highly charged political atmosphere of rabid partisanship, anything that looks at the lighter side of politics is welcome.

One such is this item, a column by Dana Milbank recording some impressions from his look at the Republican Party's new website.  This is the site you may have heard about, intended as a Republican outreach for ideas on what issues the party ought to campaign on.  People are invited to visit the site and record their ideas.

And what ideas they are!  The wackiness - and just plain ignorance - that crops up is a laugh riot.  A few of these entries outdo anything Rand Paul or Sarah Palin could have conceived (unless...is it possible that they're posting things themselves?)  

The caveats:  Milbank is an unabashed Democrat, so he's picked the best bits and his sampling can't be assumed to be representative.  Also, wackiness and ignorance are not the sole province of Republicans; if there were an equivalent Democratic Party site, I'm sure we'd see equally off-the-wall comments.  In fact, let's assume that some of the posted comments may have been put there by liberals or lib-symps.  And no doubt the GOP is getting at least a few serious and well-thought suggestions that may help it come up with a platform for this fall. 

Still, take it for what it is.  Enjoy it.

By the way, if you'd like to look at the site yourself (I always encourage readers to go to the source, rather than relying on all the unsubstantiated junk you can find on the web), here's the link to America Speaking Out.   

Register Your Product

"Congratulations!"  That's the first thing you see in whatever paperwork comes with any new product you buy.  It's marketing 101, of course.  It tells you you're smart, you're with it, you're among the elite hundred thousand other people who bought the same thing.  It reinforces your good feeling about your purchase, and may help counteract any "buyer's remorse" you might be feeling.

But right after that, you'll get the plea to "register" your product.  And that, of course, is mostly about marketing too.  That's why they ask those 99 questions about all sorts of things unrelated to what you just bought.  Legally you don't need to register to obtain whatever pitiful warranty comes with your buy, so the only real reason for the consumer to register, in the 21st century, is to get notices of recalls and upgrades.  With electronic products and computers, registering may also make it a little easier for you to get technical support when you need it.  (Or not.)

The main point is that you should be able to register without answering all those intrusive questions about your contact information, your income, your family, and your "interests."  And you could, back in the days of mail-in forms. (Those hoary days of yore when we consumers could be excused for wondering, if they really want all this information about us and our buying habits, why don't they at least pay the postage? - but I digress.)

Now, though, we have the option of registering online.  Easy. Cheap.  But there's a tradeoff.  Some websites will refuse to accept the registration if you haven't answered all their questions.  (I hasten to emphasize "some," not all - and I don't claim that LG, pictured above, is one of them -- I haven't been to their site yet.)  If that's the case, what's the poor purchaser to do? 

Personally, I find it can be entertaining to make up some random responses, or create a wholly new persona for yourself. Try it! You'll like it. 

Brazen

Several times recently I've heard our enemies' attacks on our forces, or on civilians, in Afghanistan described as "brazen," spoken as if that one little word were itself a marker for evil.

According to several dictionaries I've consulted, "brazen," when it doesn't mean simply "made of brass," denotes a combination of bold, defiant, and even contemptuous.  So really, shouldn't we expect that actions of the Taliban, against whom we have said for years we're conducting a war, would be "brazen?" 

To say that an armed group of Islamic radicals conducted a "brazen" attack, ambush, or bombing against us or the Afghan government is to tell us nothing.  It's redundant at best, like saying they carried off a "hostile" attack.

News announcers, why not brazenly throw "brazen" overboard?  It's a brazen misuse of the language.

Bike To Work Week

It's "Bike To Work Week."  Who knew?  Bicyclists, perhaps.  I haven't noticed any flood of new bicycle riders out on the roads, but there is a spate of articles and spots online, in the press, and in social media.

The articles have tended to focus on the problems cyclists face, competing with automobile traffic in U.S. urban areas.  The dangers -- and they are very real -- range from active hostility on the part of some drivers to inattention on the part of others.  American drivers aren't used to dealing with bicycles on the roads. 

The other half of the equation gets less focus:  drivers have gripes about the two-wheelers, sometimes for petty reasons (e.g. they're too slow and might hold you up for a moment), sometimes for legitimate ones. 

In the latter category, of course, is the number of cyclists who feel it's their right to ignore the traffic rules they're supposed to follow.  They swoop on and off sidewalks when it suits them, run red lights, dart in and out of traffic.  It's OK to put themselves in danger if they want but not if they're going to complain when they get creamed doing something stupid.  And they will. (Do something stupid.) (Great creamed.) (And complain.) 

Just a few days ago, before bicycle week, I was driving along a thoroughfare in my neighborhood when a bicyclist approached from the right.  It's a merge lane where traffic coming in yields to traffic on the main road.   He didn't yield, didn't slow down, as near as I can tell, didn't even look, just pulled right in front of me about 50 feet ahead.  He's not dead, and (it must have been one of my more mellow days) I didn't even honk.  The article above says "some" bicyclists do such stunts and give all bicyclists a bad name; I would say, unfortunately, that nearly every bicyclist I encounter is doing something he/she shouldn't be.  This needs to be fixed.

But I'm happy for those who have the fortitude to get to work on their bicycles, especially if they do so day after day and in all weathers.  It's a nice "green" thing to do, and it's good exercise.  Another advantage is that it encourages people to live closer to their work; bicycle fans I know may ride five miles or more one way, but it's unlikely they'll choose to live 30 or 40 miles from their work, as too many people do these days.

I don't think the frustrations of bicycle-riders or automobile drivers will really be solved until bicycles reach critical mass.  Right now, there are too few of them to be much of anything but a nuisance.   If there were more people out there on bikes -- take the Netherlands as an example -- bicycles could stay on the roads; there would be enough of them to make a nice lane-wide clump in the right lane at stoplights; as a group they'd be more noticeable and drivers would learn to tend toward the left lane to avoid them.

Unfortunately I have not seen much growth.  Here in Arlington, Virginia, bike paths were laid out nearly ten years ago on most major streets wide enough to accommodate them.  Even today, you will seldom see more than a half-dozen bikers using them in the course of a typical rush-hour trip into DC (about 7 miles).  Until we get well beyond that low-intensity mode, the problems are likely to remain unsolved.

Bag That Lettuce

I was surprised to see the following headline in the newspaper yesterday:

"Pre-Cut Greens Raise Questions of Safety"

Surprising, because I have always assumed that, so it wasn't news to me.  I know that people do buy this stuff because it's quick, convenient, and can provide the varied mix of different greens that makes a nice salad. 

But it just doesn't make sense to me.  It's bad enough that most of our supermarket lettuce is transported all the way across the country, probably about three days between picking and purchase.  And any produce, even if grown locally, may contain dirt, germs, or even a few insects. 

But add to that the problems of trimming it in the field, washing it, precutting it, putting it into bags -- and common sense suggests you've got an exponential potential for introducing germs and reducing freshness at each step of the process:  where does the rinse water come from, and how often is it reused? ... doesn't cutting just open edges to more and quicker damage?...how much does the bag inhibit drying?.. will it maybe taste a little moldy, like those "baby" carrots that turn up so often these days on vegetable trays?  

The companies that package these products, I know, make every effort to keep their product clean and fresh.  Given how popular the product has become, the relatively few problems of disease we've had reported is a testimonial to their efforts.  Besides,  the easy availability of bagged greens probably induces a lot of people to add salads to their diet when they might not otherwise. 

We've used it once in a while (usually spinach, when it's not available fresh), often with good results, but we've also had experiences that have borne out our cautiousness - the leaves on the bottom that are turning a little slimy or black, for example. Yes, a head of lettuce or a clump of spinach can also deteriorate quickly, but less quickly - and it's not sold at a premium price.  So given a choice*, we inevitably choose the real stuff. 

*Those who don't want bags will have to hope that stores will continue to give them a choice.  Grocery stores don't really want to sell groceries any more, and I've noticed that more and more of produce sections are being taken over by bagged greens, which offer advantages for the retailers:  easier handling, high demand because of the convenience factor, possibly (?) less waste, effortless dumping into salad bars, and above all, a higher margin.   

Water, Water, Everywhere, BUT

Water - more specifically, the clean, fresh water on which our lives depend in so many ways - is finally getting growing attention, more commensurate with its importance and its scarcity.  

Concerning broader problems of water usage, availability, and shortage worldwide, I recommend a look at the Worldwatch Institute, which did a lot of pioneer work two and three decades ago on the subject and has helped to bring attention to problems.  Also, the National Geographic Magazine published a special issue on water in April.

Today, though, I am more parochially focused on my own corner of the world, Arlington, Virginia, and its water supply.  We are directly across the river from the District of Columbia.  In fact, Arlington's territory is most of what Virginia originally ceded to the nation as part of its federal district (D.C.) but which was transferred back to Virginia in the early nineteenth century. 

Could that be why we share a water system with the District?  Well, the fact is that our water is provided via a large aqueduct that brings it from a reservoir in the District and, though I don't think our water system dates back quite to the early 1800s, it's certainly antiquated.  But that hasn't been an issue except for a recent break in the main.

My gripe?  Our water is putrid, a total turn-off.  Fine for washing the dishes or watering plants, maybe even for making drinks like coffee whose flavor can mask the water itself.  But drink a glass of it?  Not if you have a sense of taste or smell. Right now, the situation is a little worse than normal, thanks to a "temporary" (February through May) change in which the water contains extra-strong doses of chlorine.  As an item by Caroline Butler in today's Washington Post ("Bridging the Water Divide") points out, a glass of water here reminds you of a swimming pool (and I may add, you can smell it from 20 feet away). 

The District will end this temporary situation soon, but only to revert to its "normal" water treatment, the chemical chloramine.  Chloramine differs from chlorine in that it has a different, but still strong and unpleasant, taste and odor; instead of tasting like chemicals, the water will taste sort of flat and dirty, like someone already ran a load of laundry in it.  Further, the bad taste and smell of chlorine will dissipate if the water is left to stand for a while; but no such luck with chloramine, which maintains its foulness unto death (presumably, ours). 

We receive water reports from our county indicating that the water meets all the (federal and state?) specifications, with less than X parts-per-million of this contaminant or that.  All very nice.  I understand that chemicals are a necessary evil to keep our water from becoming the carrier of nasty diseases, and I don't doubt that our water is as safe as any (though perhaps not as pure as we'd like - see Ms. Butler's article again), but the problem our fancy government reports don't address is its taste or drinkability. 

OK, the water may be "safe" to drink, but let's remember that on the Bataan Death March, captive soldiers drank each other's urine without serious ill effects.  Those of us who aren't veterans of that chapter of WWII look for something a little better.  The suggested answer is various types of water filters, but we researched that and found that the cost of replacing filters exceeds the cost of bottled water.  So ... we buy bottled.  Either way, we pay higher and higher prices for water from the tap, but have to spend still more to get something that fulfills water's main purpose in our diet.   

As with our electric utility, which can't seem to deliver power anymore without constant interruptions and surges, our water utilities (mine, anyway) seem to fail us in providing water that's truly potable.   

Catching Up On Ketchup News

Heinz, that prodigious producer and purveyor of pickles, that solid, seasoned seller of sauces, has decided to climb on the low-salt bandwagon, announcing recently that it will reduce the sodium in one of its flagship products, tomato ketchup, by about 15%.

Actually, though there have been a lot of reports on this "decision," it's hard to confirm.  A visit to Heinz's website will turn up nothing on the subject, although you can learn there about other versions, including no-salt and low sugar, which I'm guessing would be hard to find in most stores. 

Whatever the source, the press is already setting up its strawman, suggesting that loyal customers may reject this change to a product brand that hasn't altered significantly in 40 years.  And consumers are responding, getting all heated up on Facebook over something that hasn't happened yet.  For many, of course, it's political:  Heinz is adopting the socialist agenda by this move toward what's generally conceded to be better nutritional practice. (They're presumably the ones that had no problem with the Reagan administration's definition of ketchup as a "vegetable" for school lunches.) 

Others just don't like to contemplate any change in a product they love.  And it's clear from the company's Facebook page that people do love it - a random visit to the "ketchup love" section today revealed the tale of a couple that gave away small bottles of the stuff as favors to guests at their wedding.  (No, really! I'm not making this up.)

In my household, a bottle (even a mere 16 oz.) of ketchup can last up to a year, so I don't see the change as a big worry.  But for those who do, the company says consumers won't notice the change, so why not wait and see how it tastes to decide whether it will become the next "classic Coke."  I'm keeping fingers crossed that they don't "fix" it by adding more sugar. 

Meanwhile, the fact is that a "serving" of ketchup contains 190 mg of sodium.  That doesn't sound like a lot until you see that a "serving" is only one tablespoon -- probably less than you use on your fries -- and that tablespoon will give you 8% of your recommended daily salt intake.  A little reduction in that probably couldn't hurt, right?

There's more that could be said about ketchup (like how dumb those upside-down bottles are, or what ever happened to the green ketchup they were marketing a couple years ago?) but I have to stop now -- I'm off to make a fried egg sandwich with ketchup on it.

Losing Lizards

The Tin Lizard, for obvious reasons, is especially concerned about recent reports that lizards are now disappearing at a rapid rate, with clear evidence that global warming is a cause.

It seems counterintuitive, really.  Lizards are cold-blooded and depend on the sun and/or ambient air temperatures to warm them enough to go about their activities.  So shouldn't they thrive if desert temperatures go up a degree or two?  Well, yes and no.  It turns out it's not the heat that gets them.  Not directly.

 

Lizards can get fatally overheated by strong sun so they do have enough instinct to seek shade as temperatures rise above what's tolerable.  But according to studies done in Mexico (link above), it appears that higher daytime temperatures now prevail for longer periods during the day.  The result is that the reptiles remain in their burrows and crevices longer, leaving them insufficient time to forage for food and build strength.  For females especially, the ability to reproduce is then negatively affected.

Just another example of how small changes can trigger unforeseen consequences that may not become known until they've progressed too far to be altered.

(Photo: At left, curly-tailed lizards in the Bahamas)  

Too Much Super At The Supermarket

The grocery business has always been a low-margin operation; less than 1%, as I recall, is not atypical.  It's no wonder that for at least three decades, grocery stores and supermarkets have been trying to increase their take by introducing new categories of goods for sale, and even new services. 

In its early days, the trend kicked off with the inclusion of new departments (maybe a bakery, a deli, or a seafood case) as well as the addition of new categories (drugstore items like nonprescription medicines and toothbrushes, for example).  To some degree, those adaptations seemed to succeed.  The addition of special "departments" helped bring about a broadening of the products available, since a seafood department had to have more to offer than just the few packages of prefrozen perch that might have been the store's only seafood offering up to that time.  And people gradually got used to buying their aspirin and corn plasters along with their food; after all, it was more convenient to make one stop than two, even if the prices on those goods were (and still are) generally higher than at the drugstore.

But it's gone too far, 'way too far -- amidst all the effort to turn these stores into purveyors of anything a consumer could want, groceries have been deemphasized to a ridiculous degree.  As major and minor supermarkets rush to make sure you can buy a cup of coffee, get cash from your bank, leave off your drycleaning, and pick up a bouquet of flowers under their roofs, food takes a back seat. 

In supermarkets my wife and I visit regularly, changes we've seen over the past five years include extensive expansions and remodeling of stores to include some of these new services, and despite increased space, the alterations inevitably lead to less space for actual food, which in turn means less variety as managers pare back choices to fit their merchandise into smaller space.  That one brand of crackers you especially liked is gone; fresh fruit is great, and better than canned or than fruit juice; yet all the canned fruit disappears from the store, those canned sour cherries (not pie filling, but actual cherries) you rely on from September to June to bake that cherry pie are sorely missed.

It's especially noticeable if you buy fresh food and cook it yourself, rather than prefabircated meals. The supermarket "improvements" we've seen in our area have consistently engineered in reduced space for meats and produce so more non-grocery products and services can be featured.  The one good, fairly large store we've relied on lately for our supermarket shopping is busy reducing its produce section by half in order to accommodate huge volumes of mediocre cheese.

Not that the typical supermarket is a great place to buy most produce anyway.  But in part that's because they so obviously don't care about the produce they're offering.  We head for a farmers' market in season or for Whole Foods, which so far remains a step above in quality, selection, and as is well known, also in price.  But (speaking of convenience) it isn't really very handy to shop in three or four different places every week just for basic groceries; we would buy more produce in supermarkets if there were more.

My other objection to the current fad is that I don't, and won't, use many of those extra services they're putting in.  I don't think other people do either.  The fancy coffee bar they put in two years ago at one place never has any customers; often, there's no one behind the counter, so if you did want coffee, you'd presumably have to wait until somebody noticed and came running over from some other department.  But the store's response to this obvious failure was been to provide people still more adjunct services that they won't use either.

After all, what are the odds that these add-on services are any good? If you're completely indifferent to the quality of the dry cleaner you use, of if you believe that the manager of a bank branch located in your supermarket is the best person to work with to get a mortgage, then by all means, use them.  But I think most - or many - of us choose these services differently, so odds are that the ones tucked into that corner over there by the frozen foods aisles aren't the ones we want.

So please, grocery chains of America, let's call a halt to a trend that's run its course, and put food back on the menu in our supermarkets.