The Tin Lizard

The Power-Outage Gourmet: Twinkies And Spam?

We weren't terribly hard-hit, in the Washington area, by Hurricane Irene, but nevertheless, when people hear that a category-3 hurricane is headed their way, they do tend to prepare a bit. 

We naturally assume the power will go out during such storms.  Oddly, it didn't, this time, but normally it takes little more than the breeze stirred by a butterfly's wing to knock out our power around here. Nevertheless, the frequency of being without electricity for days has created a whole new branch of cuisine as we all try to plan for having a several meals without having to open the fridge. 

Sausage (to be grilled outdoors), potato salad, the makings of a chicken sandwich, all in the cooler?  Sure.  But we also make sure we have some of the stuff that doesn't need cooking:  Canned tuna, peanut butter, hard-boiled eggs, ham, canned soup (which can be heated on the grill if you're persnickety), crackers and such.  I believe I could probably live for a week on potato chips - but that's just me.  These things are generally around the house, so we don't usually race out to the grocery store to stock up.

This article offers a somewhat tongue-in-cheek look at the things people buy.  Most of the snack foods mentioned here don't appeal much (pop tarts? no thanks!) though the mention of Twinkies elicits a slight sniffle of childhood nostalgia -- a favorite then, but I haven't eaten one in probably over 50 years, not even a deep fried one.  On the other hand, I recommend Spam as the perfect food for the "powerless."  It needs no refrigeration and you can do almost anything with it:  cold from the can with a spoon, sliced on crackers or in a sandwich, cooked on a grill, tie it in a knot/tie it in a bow... you name it.  Unfortunately my wife, whom I love dearly but in a very few minor matters suffers from blind spots, turns up her nose at the thought of Spam, so I don't buy it.  A power-outage food that not everyone in the house will eat isn't very practical.

Another useful point that I was reminded of in the storm:  So much of the bottled food we buy - condiments, salad dressings, and the like - come with reminders to "refrigerate after opening."  I was astounded to find that legend on a bottle of rice vinegar I bought just the other day.  Vinegar?  C'mon, now!  I suppose mayonnaise still should be kept chilled (though I suspect the commercial version these days has enough preservatives to choke a horse) but otherwise I think back to days of yore, when I can clearly recall my mother never kept such stuff as salad dressing in the refrigerator.  We kept only mustard there, because my dad thought mustard tasted better cold (same with his bottled picked pigs' feet).  Even today, we still don't keep ketchup, chili sauce, or hot sauces under refrigeration.  A lot of these items, loaded with salt and other preservatives, seem to do just fine on the shelf.     

Subscribers Please Note:

Due to some changes beyond our control, readers of this blog who subscribe, either by e-mail or feed, may need to re-subscribe (top of the right-hand column), to continue receiving The Tin Lizard.                                                      2FEFC44HVS8X

Air Travel And Surgery - Are There Differences?

It popped into my head just now that air travel, which has become increasingly unpleasant over the past couple of decades, is now very similar to having surgery.  I'm not currently planning either of these "adventures" for myself, but I note that both experiences:

• have an end benefit that's a bit uncertain: arrival at a destination, or a state of better health; you need to have hope, you can't be certain!
• include an element of danger - it makes no sense to travel by air or to have surgery if it isn't essential
• are priced similarly, i.e., by accretion:  Want an extra bag? That'll be extra.  Want the anaesthesia?  That, and the anaesthesiologist, will be separate on your bill.
• have a long lead-up that takes longer than the process itself, and is generally more unpleasant -- consider hospital check-in forms, restricted diet, and prep for surgery, or getting to the airport and making your way through security.

I think air travel probably has a somewhat better survival rate than surgery but even if that's not the case, if I were facing both experiences, I'd always do the air travel first.  A flight that goes wrong might eliminate the need for surgery, but even a surgery that goes right can't eliminate the need for truly necessary travel.

School Without Walls

A smile-provoking little irony ensuing from the Virginia earthquake two days ago:  One of the buildings in the DC area that's been reported as damaged -- besides the National Cathedral, Washington Monument, and Smithsonian Castle -- is something called the "School Without Walls."  You'd think they'd be impervious to most kinds of natural disaster!  Or is it just that they had walls before, but don't have them now?

East Coast Earthquake

Yesterday afternoon we had an R-5.8 earthquake centered about 90 miles from here, in Mineral, Virginia.  Not too much damage occurred, apparently, beyond cracks in a few buildings (and the Washington Monument).  At home, a bit of stuff dropped off shelves and broke.  I expected all the drywall cracks that were filled in when we had the place painted in June would open up again, but that didn't happen.

On the eastern seaboard, earthquakes are rare, and our buildings generally haven't been designed to withstand shaking, so we have to educate ourselves about them.  I was at home at the time, and got outdoors (by the time I did the quake was over), and I was puzzled that none of my neighbors appeared to have sense enough to get out of the house.  But I can imagine there's a run on insurance companies this morning from people inquiring about adding an earthquake clause to their policies!

Still, for Californians who scoff that 5.8 is "nothing," I must note that it's the third strongest ever recorded in the eastern third of the country.  More interesting is that  while California's tectonic plates are in relatively small pieces, much of the Eastern U.S. sits on one huge plate, so the potential destructive force of an earthquake here is considerably greater in extent.  (That's why this medium-sized quake was felt from Georgia to Massachusetts to Illinois.)  Who knew? 

I've noticed that people tend to get accustomed to the kinds of violent weather in their own areas, but can be terrorized by relatively minor manifestations of meteorological phenomena that aren't familiar to them.  When I was in college in Kansas, a Croatian woman I knew was terrified of tornadoes, though these were so common at some times of year that anyone who'd lived in the area for a couple of years took them as routine events, often even going outside to watch them approaching.  Yet she wasn't a bit perturbed about earthquakes, which she had experienced since childhood on the Adriatic coast.  Floridians board up their houses routinely every other year against hurricanes, but they might be panicked by a tsunami.

In the mid-Atlantic part of the U.S., it seems we're having to get accustomed to more kinds of natural disaster than we knew in the past.  Earthquakes, to my knowledge, can't be blamed on climate change or on human activity, but most of the weather extremes we've been seeing -- winter blizzards, more frequent and violent summer storms, flooding, even tornadoes which were rare in our area before -- are the predicted consequence of the world's changing climate.

The Set-Top Box

I'm pleased that someone besides me has begun to point out the tyranny (and the nothing-for-something" pricing structure) that the cable and satellite television companies, much to their profit, conveniently instituted a year or two ago:  Suddenly, we were being charged "rent" in perpetuity for a device -- the set-top box -- that at current rates, would easily be paid for within a year or two.   

Further, the device is completely unnecessary, except to provide a continuing flow of unearned profit to the likes of Verizon and Comcast.  It's as if automobile producers would only sell us a car if we agreed to take their brand of tires, and pay rent on them forever.

Although cable companies have long insisted that you have a "box" to control your TV, it was, until recently, still possible to turn down the STB and just hook your cable directly to your TV, which can perform exactly the same functions.  That's what we did.  Besides, the box was inconvenient, and ugly, but they didn't charge rent on it, it was a part of the service (though of course factored into the price you paid).  Why isn't it factored into prices now?  Because by charging separately for it, they can charge more and boost profits. 

The change in the costing of set-top boxes was introduced at a point when the service providers hoped it wouldn't be noticed -- when the country was switching from one broadcast standard to another to (a) catch up with the Europeans, who had had essentially the same thing for years and (b) to solve an issue involving the allocation of broadcast frequencies.  The deal for part (b), which involved giving the television "suppliers" a public good for use in their profit-making enterprise, ought to have forbidden the added insult of gouging the public for something they don't need.

May we hope that one day all this profit might make it possible for them to supply us a picture that isn't squashed, distorted, or clipped at the edges?  How about allowing us to select and pay for only the channels we want? 

 

The Donald's Inconsistencies - Can You Trump This?

A few days ago the country's best-known large investor, Warren Buffett, made a splash by saying it is inherently unfair that he should pay only about 17% in taxes on his huge income, while his executive assistant might pay nearly twice that amount.  Well, who could disagree with that, really?

Answer:  Donald Trump. Really?  Yep, really!  But that's only one of the inconsistencies evident in ABC-News/Good Morning America gossip-monger George Stephanopoulos's interview with Trump this morning.  The interview doesn't seem to be available online yet except as snippets more focused on meaningless points; such is the state of "news" these days.  But look for the transcript later.

On Buffett's pronouncement regarding tax rates, Trump says there a "many different views" on that question.  Later on, he claims that he would be prepared to pay higher taxes, but other rich guys wouldn't.

News flash: Trump believes job creation is the key to economic recovery!  Now, he says (defending Texas Governor Perry's record of creating lots of menial jobs in his state), we're so desperate that it doesn't matter if we create good jobs - any kind of jobs will do.

And he's noticed that American jobs have gone to India and China!  That's very astute. But he omits to say how that happened, or who made the decisions to shift those jobs.  Though he can't bring himself to name the disease (Let's say it for him:  "corporate execs")  he knows the cure:  it's lower taxes on business.  Business will move offshore to flee taxes because corporations are "business machines" and can't be expected to be "patriotic."  

So, doesn't Trump share the views of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and the GOP faithful everywhere, that corporations are "people," individuals who have rights like free speech, which enable them to spend freely on political advertising?  Apparently not.  If he did, he would certainly also expect them to be patriotic, and possibly even ethical.  The "answer" to this inconsistency is, of course, that corporations are people when it suits them to be, and not at other times.  (Is anyone hearing echoes about now?  It may be the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, shouting in the distance.)

Trump is handy as the poster child of the business genius whose smarts don't serve him so well in other areas.  That makes it easy to take potshots at him.   But he's just the messenger of a much more widely held flawed view of corporate responsibility.

Proper Attire For Old Folks' Music

I was curious when one of MSN's "most visited" tabs today was "Pianist Dress," so I clicked on it, and found a surprising little piece about a little red dress.  It seems that piano soloist Yuja Wang strolled onstage to perform in a short, tight mini-dress that later evoked comment from one reviewer of the performance.  In a sense the reviewer may have been doing Wang a favor by raising her media profile in the classical music world, though Midgett's article focuses on the equally valid question of whether it's appropriate for a music reviewer to critique the performer's clothes. 

Still, I can't see that this is very controversial.  Let Wang wear what she wants.  Soloists - women soloists, anyway - have long been distinguishing themselves by attire in various ways -- fancy gowns, peacock (not peahen) colors, or low and slinky cuts that probably are just as revealing as Wang's mini.  The classical music audience isn't getting any younger, but if an occasional performer chooses to dress in a younger style, it might help break the genre's well-deserved reputation for stuffiness.

This incident reminds me of something else I've long meant to write about, though.  My wife and I go to classical music concerts regularly.  We have noticed that many orchestras seem to dictate the usual formal dress for men, but give women much more leeway in choosing what to wear.   Most still seem to require black, but beyond that, anything goes.   Often it produces a confused and distracting jumble of styles:  long, short, net or not, shiny and matte, skirts or slacks, different shades/values of black, etc.  Problem:  While soloists can and do "stand out" on stage, members of the orchestra should not.  They are members of a team; the whole concept is harmony. 

I think it helps if their dress reflects that.  Probably the best arrangement is one we've seen in a couple of European orchestras; the women wear black tie (jacket and slacks) just as the men do. If that's considered too draconian, a different dress code could be developed, but one that all the orchestra's female members should adhere to.   At the other extreme, we might argue that if women are allowed to wear whatever they want, as long as it's black, then the same privilege should be accorded the male musicians... tux, black shirt and trousers, black turtleneck and black shorts with black hiking boots?  The mind boggles, really.  Discord in attire creates the psychological impression of discord in the music.     

When Is A Phone Not A Phone?

Consumer Reports may seem a little old-fashioned in these days when you can go online and get many different sites offering "ratings" and "reviews" of consumer products.  Those online places are OK, and may alert you to a certain problem, or something that turns up in everyday use that you might not have realized otherwise.  On the other hand, I think there's still a place for the more systematic, rigorous comparison of products performance, and price for which CR is deservedly well known.  (I have banned the word "iconic" from my writing as overused and nonsensical, but others might use it to describe the magazine's position in this kind of endeavor.)

So: Consumer Reports?  Still useful.  Get yourself a subscription, the real magazine or the online access, at www.consumerreports.org.   It turns out, for example, that they just did a fairly comprehensive review/comparison of currently available smart phones.  And that's my subject today.

That report, which covers no fewer than 27 phones from four major carriers and six makers, has the usual rating chart, in which each smart phone is rated "excellent," "very good," "good," "fair," or "poor" in several different categories.  Often, there aren't huge differences between brands and types in high-tech products, and these phones are no different.  Nearly all garner "excellent" ratings in many categories, and "very good" in most of the others.

With one exception:  "voice quality."  In that one category, NOT A SINGLE PHONE has better than "good."  How odd.  The name of this product is "phone," no matter how smart it is, so shouldn't we expect that some of them could muster better performance than a middling "good?"  And personally, I think it's pretty clear that "good" isn't good at all, not if my experience with several different phones is any guide. 

My first cell phone was a Qualcomm.  I can't recall the model number (840 sticks in my mind for some reason, but that's irrelevant).  I recall doing a little research and this phone was singled out as among the first to operate on a 900-MHz band.  That's probably zero-G, in today's terms, or maybe 1G.  And indeed, the clarity of the sound was impressive -- no fuzziness, no garbles, every word understandable (though of course there were dropouts in those days when cell towers were still miles apart). 

Qualcomm quickly stopped producing actual phones.  I've owned several phones since then, and it seems to me sound quality has deteriorated with each successive generation.  My latest, which I acquired just last month, despite its braininess, often delivers fuzzy, broken-up voice quality.  

My guess is that neither manufacturers nor carriers are especially concerned about the quality of transmitted sound any longer.  People are using their telephones less and less as telephones.  Phones are just as obsolete as desktop computers, music CDs, and e-mail.  This occurred even as telephone conversation essentially became a free good, with the cost of calls dropping like a stone; and concurrently as the cell phone brought mobility and convenience to the market. 

But "phones" aren't really for calling anymore.  They're for a hundred other purposes, some really useful and some fanciful, but "calling" is way down on the list.  HIgher on the list is texting, which is a good deal more profitable for the phone companies.  Did poor sound accelerate the migration to texting, or did the social/technological advantages of texting result in the deemphasis on sound quality?  

We may never know the answer to this modern chicken-or-the-egg quandary, but no matter which came first, they are related.    

Trust And The Internet

I am sometimes amazed by the touching degree of trust people seem to have in the internet.  Naivete is understandable when you're a 13-year old and parents seem to understand they need to protect their kids - if they can - from some of the dangers that may lurk.

Yet the parents themselves show a lack of appreciation for the dangers to which they may expose themselves by the things they do on the web.  Online purchases? Banking?  Most understand that where there's money, there's a risk, yet that risk is mitigated by multiple layers of security, frequent changes of your password, and various other safeguards.  Nevertheless, it seems nearly every month there's another report of a massive compromise of people's credit card data, and identity theft remains a big twenty-first century headache.

How much worse is it then, to put your main asset - your home - up for grabs to strangers?  Various online schemes for house-swapping, or room exchanges, seem to be gaining traction.  Personally, I just can't imagine making a decision to walk off for a week and leave the house in the possession of someone I knew nothing about, and whom I had never met more than a few days or hours beforehand.  I suppose it depends on your view of human nature.  I do think most of us believe that most people are good, responsible, well-intentioned, honest ... in short, "like us."  

That may be true, yet it takes only one bad apple to create serious unpleasantness or worse.  Consider the recent problems faced by at least one participant in "Airbnb," an outfit that tries to match up people who want to rent out a room or a house with would-be renters.  We can sympathize with crime victim "EJ," who tells us that Airbnb's site led her to think renters had been screened somehow.  But we also have to ask, "how could you" have considered getting into this deal?  Evidently there are a lot of trusting souls out there like EJ, because the company is going public and is considered a hot prospect.  I suppose the same people whose judgment is clouded enough to extend full trust to a total stranger may also think a company whose business could evaporate after one or two more such stories would be a good investment.   

Ronald Reagan had it right in his approach to the Soviet Union on arms control:  "Trust but verify."  Even verification, however, can be meaningless on the internet, where almost anything can be faked.