There are more signs of an economic crisis among the airlines these days. Delta Air is the latest U.S. airline to announce a desperate scheme to increase revenues. This one involves the common practice of airline passenger overbooking. Already for many years, the airlines have been reducing the number of flights while overbooking on the planes that do fly in order to counter the practice in which consumers change flights or cancel reservations. It's infuriating to be bumped but then, fliers are just as inconsiderate to the airlines by switching reservations at the last hours before flights.
But now Delta will start an online auction for seats with travelers bidding for seats that are currently occupied. If a flight is overbooked, travelers checking in at an airport kiosk or online will see a screen asking them if they'd like to submit a bid for the value of a travel voucher they would take to be bumped. Customers enter a dollar amount, and Delta accepts lower bids first. it seems to me more on the order of chaos than anything else. Supposedly, the other airlines will do the same if the Delta system cuts Delta expenses....and the flier be damned...again.
So no more of those announcements at the boarding gate in which the airline asks for volunteers to be bumped in exchange for a smaller cash amount and a rescheduled flight. By allowing would-be volunteers to submit their names via the bidding process, the airline hopes that will free up time for gate agents since they won't have to seek out volunteers and the agents won't have to work on additional compensation, such as hotel vouchers. If the auction doesn't work then the airline will follow the current bumping rules and regulations in place.
The new plan is simply a hope on the airline's part that it can reduce the expense of bumping passengers. But it will also be another aspect to flying that annoys the passengers and makes loyalty to a particular airline less likely. If Delta was concerned about taking care of passengers they would offer options other than these kinds of gimmick. For instance, t free premier status or free club membership for a period of time. These are things that don't cost the airline as much of anything yet could be seen as positive and a perk by some fliers. The sad scenario of bumping will continue in one form or another because consumers have manipulated the system to anticipate so many flight changes and cancellations.
Already charges for preferred seating, to book round-trip ticket by phone, for priority boarding, ticket change fees, fees to change flight to the same destination on the a same day, and baggage fees, curbside bag check, meal and beverage fees, headset/pillow/blanket fees, pet carrying fees, and unaccompanied minor fees are standard and are already alienating passengers.
Twenty years ago most or none were used by any airline. Rumor has it the next one to become standard may be the one to cause a revolt. The airlines are seriously considering charging a carry-on bag fee (by weight) and a body weight fee.
Now that's enough to make anyone jump out of a plane.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Congresswoman Shooting
The shooting of the American Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by an apparent deranged lone gunman is firing off more than bullets in the media. We are hearing theories that it's proof that our open democratic society leads to violence, theories that the bitter partisan politics in the United States has encouraged some to commit acts of violence against those with whom they disagree (The left wing blames Sarah Palin and other right wing celebrities for their rhetoric that allegedly motivates violent acts.
The right wing blames liberalism for creating an entitlement age in which people have no self control), and we are hearing theories that society is somehow more violent today than in the past. There was even a claim by a Russian media person at apress conference with the White House Press Secretary that the shooting proves Russia has real freedoms and America only anarchy. Go figure. That outrageous claim comes from a representative of the Russian dictatorship, one with few individual freedoms and a long history of political violence, including the present day regime.
I think all those claims are wrong. Rather, the shooting was an emotional and perverted act by one crazy who acted out as so many have in the past here in America and in every other nation on earth. Political assassinations are not unique to this time. One need only read history of the U.S. or another nation for that matters to find many such crazed shootings.
One might even argue that the fact that the shooter is seriously mentally ill (his background is illustrative of that) rather than a political opportunist (as in Muslim fanaticism or a dictator overthrowing a nation's legal government) confirms that the political climate here, the society's mores and folkways, the media and all the rest of the demons some point to are not what critics say are the fault.
Whipping up hysteria after a tragic incident like the shooting is what mediums do to sell their information. But this is not the first of a series of political assassinations by people seeking a new type of government. It's just one crazy shooter acting out his paranoia. They should decribe the incident and leave the analysis to their readers.
The right wing blames liberalism for creating an entitlement age in which people have no self control), and we are hearing theories that society is somehow more violent today than in the past. There was even a claim by a Russian media person at apress conference with the White House Press Secretary that the shooting proves Russia has real freedoms and America only anarchy. Go figure. That outrageous claim comes from a representative of the Russian dictatorship, one with few individual freedoms and a long history of political violence, including the present day regime.
I think all those claims are wrong. Rather, the shooting was an emotional and perverted act by one crazy who acted out as so many have in the past here in America and in every other nation on earth. Political assassinations are not unique to this time. One need only read history of the U.S. or another nation for that matters to find many such crazed shootings.
One might even argue that the fact that the shooter is seriously mentally ill (his background is illustrative of that) rather than a political opportunist (as in Muslim fanaticism or a dictator overthrowing a nation's legal government) confirms that the political climate here, the society's mores and folkways, the media and all the rest of the demons some point to are not what critics say are the fault.
Whipping up hysteria after a tragic incident like the shooting is what mediums do to sell their information. But this is not the first of a series of political assassinations by people seeking a new type of government. It's just one crazy shooter acting out his paranoia. They should decribe the incident and leave the analysis to their readers.
Think India
Recently the accountant who handles my investments told me that I should sell some of the American stocks I hold and buy foreign ones. He mentioned those hot Chinese company stocks people have been gravitating toward, but also Brazilian and Indian stocks. It made me curious as to just how advanced Indian business has become. I knew that India is one of the hot places in which western businesses have relocated, but I was surprised when researching the Indian economy that India, not China, is now the most attractive foreign relocation places for The U.S. and Canadian businesses.
I recently a book, Think India, which makes that case. It is impressive one. The fact that India has the advantages of English language skills, management and IT education (India has several generations of it's elite trained in western business practices), a democratic government (The Chinese government can order a factory to increase its production but it can not order it to innovate) that does not inhibit western business, has a free media, no internal disputes (in particular, no ethnic disputes) and the innovation found in Indian business makes it more likely that India will replace China as the darling for western businesses.
India is far ahead of China today in total production, but the gap is closing and India is already, as I mentioned above, the number one relocation choice for western businesses today. It will be interesting to see if the authoritative regime of China winds up as the cause of halting the Chinese economic miracle as more and more Chinese citizens ask for more freedom. This happened in Russia in the early 90's after the collapse of the Soviet regime. And today, Russia is far behind both India and China in business productivity. Too, Russia seems in disarray politically which makes business run from it. I wonder if China could have the same fate as Russia.
I see also that the U.S. and Japan are backers of India, because they feel that India could be a stabilizing force in Asia as opposed to the Chinese threat to it. The support India has from western business and western governments is making it the more attractive alternative to China. It is said that already, because of the huge population in India, that the brightest 25% of India already outnumber the entire population of the United States. It seems we may soon have to get used to reading "Made in India" on the goodies we love to buy and consume.
I recently a book, Think India, which makes that case. It is impressive one. The fact that India has the advantages of English language skills, management and IT education (India has several generations of it's elite trained in western business practices), a democratic government (The Chinese government can order a factory to increase its production but it can not order it to innovate) that does not inhibit western business, has a free media, no internal disputes (in particular, no ethnic disputes) and the innovation found in Indian business makes it more likely that India will replace China as the darling for western businesses.
India is far ahead of China today in total production, but the gap is closing and India is already, as I mentioned above, the number one relocation choice for western businesses today. It will be interesting to see if the authoritative regime of China winds up as the cause of halting the Chinese economic miracle as more and more Chinese citizens ask for more freedom. This happened in Russia in the early 90's after the collapse of the Soviet regime. And today, Russia is far behind both India and China in business productivity. Too, Russia seems in disarray politically which makes business run from it. I wonder if China could have the same fate as Russia.
I see also that the U.S. and Japan are backers of India, because they feel that India could be a stabilizing force in Asia as opposed to the Chinese threat to it. The support India has from western business and western governments is making it the more attractive alternative to China. It is said that already, because of the huge population in India, that the brightest 25% of India already outnumber the entire population of the United States. It seems we may soon have to get used to reading "Made in India" on the goodies we love to buy and consume.
Labeling Claims
I went grocery shopping today, so get my observations, free of charge...no coupons needed. Not that it was an eventful trip, but I had plenty of time to shop. This led me to look and analyze the state of product displays. What I found is that the items are not offered as much on the basis of the tried and true consumer desire, that of price. Instead, most food items are now advertised on the basis of "healthy" value.
It seems every product alludes to how "healthy and natural" it is. This is curious because Americans keep getting fatter and sicker every year. I think those "healthy" foods are not holding up their end of the bargain. Take cereals for instance. No matter they be dry cereals (the kind with all that sugar inside) or grains like oatmeal and grits (polenta). Every one claims to be the healthiest, yet never gives a specific explanation beyond citing one attribute like " high fiber" or "all natural ingredients".
On a more intense glance at the labels on those cereals one comes to a conclusion. It is that that they are all about the same, and the only product differentiation is the many claims each make for itself apart form the others. The federal Food and Drug Administration is supposed to enforce truth in the package advertising, but time and again manufacturers lie or mislead without consequences. This is why I ignore all 'healthy" claims and buy whatever tastes best. Clogged arteries are not a bad thing if you enjoy clogging them along the way.
However, if an educated consumer looks behind the headline labeling and reads the required label giving ingredient and nutritional content, he or she a can understand better the claims made on the packaging. But here are some of the more ridiculous claims made that have been very successful in selling the products with these clams.
* "Supports brain development and the immune system"- One has to wonder if the "vitamin water" with that label is a drug or a leisure soda. Too, what does "support" mean. How much constitutes support? Drinking water surely supports the body but does it really develop the brain?
* "No trans fats" - Trans fats are to food what CO2 is to "global warming" wackos. They are both said to be lethal. But any product labeled as having no trans fats will probably have saturated fats that are just as hard on the body as the trans fats.
* All natural- it is said to mean there are no artificial ingredients whatsoever in the product. this is impossible because shelf life will not allow it. Too, "natural" isn't necessarily healthy. Nature has thousands of natural products that can kill one rapidly if ingested.
* "Light"- in reality, light means the product has water added to think it out and also has artificial sugars to make it taste better without upping the caloric count. At any rate, light products are often very unhealthy ones to eat.
* "Fresher"- I hate this term because it is completely subjective. The Subway Sandwich fast food chain has been suing that claim falsely for years and consumers have been sucked in by it in enormous numbers. In fact Subway is uses no fresher ingredients than any of the other fast food chains. Distribution and shelf life make all of the chain fast food sandwich shops the same as to freshness of ingredients used.
Those are few of the phony claims that will hit you hard when you enter a market to buy food. But looking on the blank faces of the shoppers in that store today I doubt any of them even want to know whether the claims are true or false. It's because the biggest lie of all would be to claim "educated consumers here".
It seems every product alludes to how "healthy and natural" it is. This is curious because Americans keep getting fatter and sicker every year. I think those "healthy" foods are not holding up their end of the bargain. Take cereals for instance. No matter they be dry cereals (the kind with all that sugar inside) or grains like oatmeal and grits (polenta). Every one claims to be the healthiest, yet never gives a specific explanation beyond citing one attribute like " high fiber" or "all natural ingredients".
On a more intense glance at the labels on those cereals one comes to a conclusion. It is that that they are all about the same, and the only product differentiation is the many claims each make for itself apart form the others. The federal Food and Drug Administration is supposed to enforce truth in the package advertising, but time and again manufacturers lie or mislead without consequences. This is why I ignore all 'healthy" claims and buy whatever tastes best. Clogged arteries are not a bad thing if you enjoy clogging them along the way.
However, if an educated consumer looks behind the headline labeling and reads the required label giving ingredient and nutritional content, he or she a can understand better the claims made on the packaging. But here are some of the more ridiculous claims made that have been very successful in selling the products with these clams.
* "Supports brain development and the immune system"- One has to wonder if the "vitamin water" with that label is a drug or a leisure soda. Too, what does "support" mean. How much constitutes support? Drinking water surely supports the body but does it really develop the brain?
* "No trans fats" - Trans fats are to food what CO2 is to "global warming" wackos. They are both said to be lethal. But any product labeled as having no trans fats will probably have saturated fats that are just as hard on the body as the trans fats.
* All natural- it is said to mean there are no artificial ingredients whatsoever in the product. this is impossible because shelf life will not allow it. Too, "natural" isn't necessarily healthy. Nature has thousands of natural products that can kill one rapidly if ingested.
* "Light"- in reality, light means the product has water added to think it out and also has artificial sugars to make it taste better without upping the caloric count. At any rate, light products are often very unhealthy ones to eat.
* "Fresher"- I hate this term because it is completely subjective. The Subway Sandwich fast food chain has been suing that claim falsely for years and consumers have been sucked in by it in enormous numbers. In fact Subway is uses no fresher ingredients than any of the other fast food chains. Distribution and shelf life make all of the chain fast food sandwich shops the same as to freshness of ingredients used.
Those are few of the phony claims that will hit you hard when you enter a market to buy food. But looking on the blank faces of the shoppers in that store today I doubt any of them even want to know whether the claims are true or false. It's because the biggest lie of all would be to claim "educated consumers here".
Word OF The Year
It's time for the word of the year report. And for 2010 the "Word of the Year", as selected each year by the American Dialect Society, is "app". Don't you just hate that word? Is it not used way too much? "nom, nom, nom, nom", the grunt by The Cookie Monster as he lovingly eats his latest cookie treat finished second to app this year. Selecting these two rather inane words as winners does indicate the depths to which U.S. culture has sunk.
Members of ADS who voted app number one claim that 2010 was the year the word became omnipresent, so they hate to pick it first. At least the winner isn't "like" or "you know". Nom" supporters simply liked it's cheeriness. "Tweet" and "Google" were last year's "Word of the Year" and "Word of the Decade." I think this year's choice is far less annoying. The words or phrases chosen as the winner do not have to be brand-new, but they have to be newly prominent or notable in the past year.
In addition to picking the word of the year, the ADS had category winners too. For example in the "most useful' category included "junk" and "fat-finger". The "most outrageous " word category included "gate rape" (term for those pat downs at security airport gates) and "terror baby" (a baby born to a terrorists family on U.S. soil in order to establish U.S. citizenship). There were ten categories, but I will spare you a review of each.
What's good about these kind of fun lists (I am sure the society of linguists who make these selections mean it only as a fun concept) is that it reminds us the power of English, how English more than any other language, is accepting of new vocabulary, even nonsensical words and phrases. It is proof that English is a living language and is an adaptable one. That might be why we can all understand the Paris Hilton's of the world when they utter "That's Hot!" or whatever else they grunt when they speak.A language is only as good as its lowest level of use and vocabulary. I think English has produced some delightful low level uttering to contrast to its more serious use.
Uh....for details of that nadir just read any of my writing here...
Members of ADS who voted app number one claim that 2010 was the year the word became omnipresent, so they hate to pick it first. At least the winner isn't "like" or "you know". Nom" supporters simply liked it's cheeriness. "Tweet" and "Google" were last year's "Word of the Year" and "Word of the Decade." I think this year's choice is far less annoying. The words or phrases chosen as the winner do not have to be brand-new, but they have to be newly prominent or notable in the past year.
In addition to picking the word of the year, the ADS had category winners too. For example in the "most useful' category included "junk" and "fat-finger". The "most outrageous " word category included "gate rape" (term for those pat downs at security airport gates) and "terror baby" (a baby born to a terrorists family on U.S. soil in order to establish U.S. citizenship). There were ten categories, but I will spare you a review of each.
What's good about these kind of fun lists (I am sure the society of linguists who make these selections mean it only as a fun concept) is that it reminds us the power of English, how English more than any other language, is accepting of new vocabulary, even nonsensical words and phrases. It is proof that English is a living language and is an adaptable one. That might be why we can all understand the Paris Hilton's of the world when they utter "That's Hot!" or whatever else they grunt when they speak.A language is only as good as its lowest level of use and vocabulary. I think English has produced some delightful low level uttering to contrast to its more serious use.
Uh....for details of that nadir just read any of my writing here...
Monday, January 10, 2011
Coyote Invasion
Do you ever see any coyotes there? I have seen coyotes on my street in this mountainside subdivision at night twice since I have been here. But it seems that is more common than I thought. The local newspaper had an article about coyote sightings which indicate they are now a frequent sight even in daylight hours.
Originally Coyotes were confined mostly to the Pacific northwest area of the U.S and parts of western Canada. But now they are being commonly spotted everywhere from Los Angeles to Dallas to some places in Florida. They are one of the few populations of animals that are increasing in number rather than decreasing.
Anyway, the article said that in Oregon people have taken to the idea of seeing coyotes run in their neighborhood because they are quite majestic to look at and offer very little threat to human safety. Because Coyotes like pet food (and will sometimes eat dogs and cats and even breed with dogs), some of the locals are putting dog food out which is attracting the coyotes into neighborhoods in daylight hours. Coyote, by nature never like to appear in the open urban in daylight.
Normally, coyotes eat mice, rats. insects rabbits and other small wild animals. This is good for an urban area. Feeding them dog food though makes them less afraid of humans and more likely to establish a habitat with humans. I think the coyotes I have seen on my street live along the side of this mountain. In a nearby subdivision it is said that animal safety patrols caught a woman actually breast feeding a coyote cub.
At another the whole neighborhood had organized a "feed the coyote" activity to attract the coyotes to their streets. It was so successful that coyotes are said to infest the entire neighborhood. I have dealt with alligators and nutria in Louisiana, but the coyote is a different kind of wild animal invader. It is less a harmful and quite beautiful to see as it lopes through a street, as a speed of as much as 40 kl per hour. I did see a raccoon run along the side of my house when I exited out of the front door one day, and any coyote that would like to eat it for lunch is welcome to graze for it.
Hmmmm I suppose you wish it would eat me instead. No chance of that. I am more than mouthful even for a pack of coyotes, and indigestion is not doubt side effect of eating me as a Coyote Happy Meal.
Originally Coyotes were confined mostly to the Pacific northwest area of the U.S and parts of western Canada. But now they are being commonly spotted everywhere from Los Angeles to Dallas to some places in Florida. They are one of the few populations of animals that are increasing in number rather than decreasing.
Anyway, the article said that in Oregon people have taken to the idea of seeing coyotes run in their neighborhood because they are quite majestic to look at and offer very little threat to human safety. Because Coyotes like pet food (and will sometimes eat dogs and cats and even breed with dogs), some of the locals are putting dog food out which is attracting the coyotes into neighborhoods in daylight hours. Coyote, by nature never like to appear in the open urban in daylight.
Normally, coyotes eat mice, rats. insects rabbits and other small wild animals. This is good for an urban area. Feeding them dog food though makes them less afraid of humans and more likely to establish a habitat with humans. I think the coyotes I have seen on my street live along the side of this mountain. In a nearby subdivision it is said that animal safety patrols caught a woman actually breast feeding a coyote cub.
At another the whole neighborhood had organized a "feed the coyote" activity to attract the coyotes to their streets. It was so successful that coyotes are said to infest the entire neighborhood. I have dealt with alligators and nutria in Louisiana, but the coyote is a different kind of wild animal invader. It is less a harmful and quite beautiful to see as it lopes through a street, as a speed of as much as 40 kl per hour. I did see a raccoon run along the side of my house when I exited out of the front door one day, and any coyote that would like to eat it for lunch is welcome to graze for it.
Hmmmm I suppose you wish it would eat me instead. No chance of that. I am more than mouthful even for a pack of coyotes, and indigestion is not doubt side effect of eating me as a Coyote Happy Meal.
How To Get Out Of jail....Without All Of Your Organs
Did you see the story about the kidney transplant/prison release? The governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, agreed to release two sisters who were serving life sentences in prison for leading two men into an ambush in Mississippi in 1993, on the condition that one of them Gladys, 36, donates a kidney to her sister Jamie (who will continue expensive dialysis the state of Mississippi has to pay for without the new kidney) within one year. Having spent 16 years in jail and facing a life in prison sentence, they took the offer. This kind of governmental action is most odd. The sisters have now been released, but there is currently no date set for the kidney transplant.
Organ donor trading is illegal everywhere and this offer borders on that. At the very least it is organ extortion. Even though sister Gladys came up with the idea for the deal, that a sitting governor of a U.S. state would approve of it is shocking. Governor Barber was a big wig in the Bush administration and is considered a leading a candidate for the Republican nominee to opposes Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. I can't imagine how trading organs for parole will help in that quest. But then what voters respond to today is hard to figure.
Obviously, there is great pressure on a prisoner to "donate" an organ if he or she is given release from prison in return. It is hardly a decision based on free will and sets a bad precedent for others in jail and as away for government to coerce citizens to do things it wants them to do. I remember a few years ago one politician proposed sterilizing welfare payment recipients in return for a guarantee to continue the many cash payment and other entitlements one gets here when she chooses not to work and instead live off taxpayer funding. The idea was it would be cheaper for the states to pay off the welfare ladies than to let them keep producing more babies (stats show that people on welfare have many more kids than those not on it) that require even more entitlement payments.
That idea was shot down quickly on the basis of it being coercive and as "racist" (due to the high percentage of blacks on welfare and having illegitimate babies). No doubt in this situation many will also protest it on the basis that it is coercive. I wonder if other states will copy this and release hardened criminals in order to save money, as is being done in this case. How does that put citizens in jeopardy from further crimes from those released? Too, the bigger question is whether government should become involved in private decisions about organ transplants, even if it is the payee (as in this case) for the treatment of the organ disease.
Finally, what other organizations or individuals might try to trade for organs given the example given by the state of Mississippi, a legal governmental entity that seems to endorse such policies? But I expect opposition to this kind of action to be so great that this one may be an exception rather than a new trend.
Organ donor trading is illegal everywhere and this offer borders on that. At the very least it is organ extortion. Even though sister Gladys came up with the idea for the deal, that a sitting governor of a U.S. state would approve of it is shocking. Governor Barber was a big wig in the Bush administration and is considered a leading a candidate for the Republican nominee to opposes Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. I can't imagine how trading organs for parole will help in that quest. But then what voters respond to today is hard to figure.
Obviously, there is great pressure on a prisoner to "donate" an organ if he or she is given release from prison in return. It is hardly a decision based on free will and sets a bad precedent for others in jail and as away for government to coerce citizens to do things it wants them to do. I remember a few years ago one politician proposed sterilizing welfare payment recipients in return for a guarantee to continue the many cash payment and other entitlements one gets here when she chooses not to work and instead live off taxpayer funding. The idea was it would be cheaper for the states to pay off the welfare ladies than to let them keep producing more babies (stats show that people on welfare have many more kids than those not on it) that require even more entitlement payments.
That idea was shot down quickly on the basis of it being coercive and as "racist" (due to the high percentage of blacks on welfare and having illegitimate babies). No doubt in this situation many will also protest it on the basis that it is coercive. I wonder if other states will copy this and release hardened criminals in order to save money, as is being done in this case. How does that put citizens in jeopardy from further crimes from those released? Too, the bigger question is whether government should become involved in private decisions about organ transplants, even if it is the payee (as in this case) for the treatment of the organ disease.
Finally, what other organizations or individuals might try to trade for organs given the example given by the state of Mississippi, a legal governmental entity that seems to endorse such policies? But I expect opposition to this kind of action to be so great that this one may be an exception rather than a new trend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)