Junk Mail

Do you know how many trees account for all junk mail sent in the US per year? 100 million. 44% of this is thrown away unopened. We might as well cut 44 million trees each year and take them directly to the nearest landfill. The environmental impact is staggering. The greenhouse gases created each year for the production of junk mail are the equivalent of 2.4 million cars idling 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

More than 100 billion pieces of junk mail are sent out each year in the US, and you will spend an average of 8 months of your life dealing with it. If companies know this, why do they continue to produce it? Because an 0.25% response rate is considered good. If 2 out of every 1000 recipients bite, the other 998 wasted letters were worth the cost.

Like telemarketing, junk mail is an unwelcome intrusion that wastes our time. Unlike telemarketing, there is no do-not-mail registry for junk mail. And it destroys the environment. The only way to minimise the time we waste handling it is to throw it away unopened.

Even if your conscience feels uneasy about it, what are you to do? The web is flooded with thousands of petitions to stop junk mail. There are products you can buy and online services that promise to stop it for you. But who thinks that petitions work? And who wants to pay $19.95 rather than just toss the mail?

I used to receive preapproved credit cards from the same companies every month. You buy a jacket from REI, and then you get monthly catalogues from LL Bean, Patagonia and Eastern Mountain Sports. Banks, magazines, colleges, department stores and car warranties all knocking on my door, shouting for my attention. But now I'm junk-mail free. I didn't sign a petition, and it didn't cost me anything but a few minutes of my time. You can do it too:

When you get a piece of junk mail, don't throw it away. Open it and look for two pieces of information: a toll free number and a printed code. It might be labelled as a customer code, or some other random number, usually near your name. On glossy product catalogs, both are usually at the back. Don't worry if you can't find the code though.

Dial the number. You will rarely have to wait, because this is a line dedicated for new business. Companies never let new customers wait; only existing ones. The operator may expect you to get straight to business, but here's your magical response:

"Actually I'd like to be put on your do-not-mail list for catalogues/preapproved credit cards/convenience checks/special offers/everything please"

Amazingly, as if trained to anticipate this request, they will know what to do. There is always a do-not-mail list in their computer systems; you just never hear about it. They will ask you for your name and address or just the printed code. A few audible taps at their keyboard and you're all set! It can take several weeks for the mailings to stop, but do this for every piece of unwanted mail you get, and a few months down the road your mail volume will noticeably drop. Who will send out mail to someone who has explicitly told them it's a waste of their money?

All it takes is that small investment in time to pick up the phone. I say investment because you're spending something now so you can get more of it back later. The trees will thank you.

The Discrimination Trap

Complying with societal norms against certain forms of discrimination is a no-brainer. Anyone openly discriminating against women, ethnic minorities or the disabled is seen as behaving anti-socially. This sentiment of disapproval is subconscious. Most people were likely indoctrinated against discrimination before they had a chance to think about it for themselves.

When tracing the roots of a particular liberation movement that is no longer controversial, such as women's voting rights, it is easy to forget the magnitude of the struggle, because it requires you to imagine a reality that seems absurd. This has an unfortunate consequence. By discounting the success of past rights movements as inevitable, we lose a sense of the struggle, the resistance, the backlash, the resentment, the witch hunts, the disinformation, the rationalizations, the appeals to morality. By conflating the old reality with the new, we mistakenly assume that the rise of the downtrodden restored a natural order. This is a trap.

By extension, we make the implicit assumption that the success of causes that are yet to be won today would appear inevitable. But the truth is the exact opposite.

Ask yourself this. What do you think is the next group of people to escape persecution 50 years from now? Not a group that is already in a visible struggle, but one which we have yet to acknowledge as worthy of a struggle. Where do you sense a systematic and unquestioned injustice?

One thing is for sure. If you can't think of one, you've already fallen into the trap.

Your Amazon Footprint

So you've just discovered a great new album on Amazon by Manu Chao and you want the CD. Or some other physical medium that isn't on the verge of extinction. You could buy it new, but the list of used copies is so large, and the competition so intense, that you can get it at a bargain, even when you take shipping costs into account. What are you most likely to do?

1. Buy it new anyway. You can't trust private sellers.
2. Buy the absolute cheapest used copy. It costs less than a cup of coffee!
3. Buy the cheapest one that satisfies a minimum standard of user rating and product condition.
4. Other

I used to opt for #3 until I started to pay attention to the seller's location. I began to face choices between ordering from a seller in my own state, or ordering from the opposite corner of the country to save 15 cents.

It felt wrong, although the magnitude of the difference wasn't easy to visualise, especially because the shipping cost is the same. It would be nice if Amazon presented the transportation's impact alongside the seller's location. Perhaps then you would go for option #4. Until they do, I ran my own calculations.

A modern tractor-trailer truck that will carry your package does an average of 6 mpg. The distance between the two US coasts is about 2,800 miles (4,500 km). That's 467 gallons of fuel. Assuming a local seller is no more than 200 miles away from you, a truck of the same size would consume only 33 gallons of fuel. The difference is enough to fill up your car's tank 31 times, which would cost about $1,300. Your car could travel 13,000 miles on it. You could cross the US or Europe 4 times.

Granted, the truck isn't just carrying your package, but nonetheless you are consuming 14 times more fuel under similar package load conditions. To save 15 cents. Think about that next time you buy something used on Amazon.

Sugar Rush

An occasional practice of friends of mine in college was to eat a snickers bar, or anything sweet, for its "sugar rush" before class. The idea being that the short burst of energy it provides would help them stay awake and focus on the lecture.

In several episodes of the FOX reality show, Nanny 911, the super-nannies will often be seen advising parents to control their childrens' hyperactivity by limiting their sugar intake. Sugar rushes, it seems, are sometimes good and sometimes bad.

Except for one small detail. They don't exist.

Sugar is not Red Bull. It does not provide a boost in energy, and there is no scientific explanation why it would. There is no research to support it. But it exists in our minds because we have a term for it. So powerful is this linguistic unit, that it dominates our cognition and interferes with reasoning. Despite evidence to the contrary, this myth looks impossible to beat.

What is it about the mere existence of words or phrases that lends so much validity to the concept?

As best I can

If the title phrase doesn't make you cringe, perhaps it's a good time to have your cringe reflex examined. Worse still, if you're guilty of having used it, it's time you did bester than that.

What happened to "as well as I can" or "I'll do my best"? Are those out of fashion too now? Not only is this noxious mutant of a phrase oblivious to the comparative form of "well", but it's also missing a second "as".

Next time you find yourself on the verge of regurgitating it, remember to take it outside and shoot it. Aim as bestly as you can.

Why is Phelps sorry?

Why has Michael Phelps felt compelled to apologise to his fans for his bong picture? Clearly he couldn't actually feel devastated, so it's unlikely to be genuine remorse. It must've been public pressure. But by whom? I haven't heard of any fans demanding one. It's not like he's been a vocal opponent of marijuana either. His sponsors have publicly stated that it is a non-issue and will continue to sponsor him. So where did the pressure to apologise come from?

There are some mumblings about role models. Where does Michael's contract state he has to be Mr. Perfect? The expectations we have from him are for athletic achievement. He didn't ask to be your dad.

I suppose it's the wrong message to send. If Michael Phelps smokes pot, then it must be OK. Which of course it is not, because we all know pot will make you irresponsible, inert and too lazy to pursue your ambitions. Like it did to Michael.

So remember kids, you can rise above it. Don't be like Michael Phelps. If you must smoke, have a cigarette.

Chinese Advantage

The global outsourcing of manufacturing to China is made possible by three things.

1. Cheap labour
2. Oil prices
3. The undervalued Yuan

Despite the added transportation costs, it is still cheaper to produce goods in China and have them shipped over than to produce them locally. A chicken farm in California will even ship its chickens to China for processing and packaging, then have them shipped back for sale in the US! Not only is this absurd, it is unsustainable. Yet companies are frantically moving production facilities to China as if the advantage is permanent.

All three of these factors are already under pressure. As China's economy grows with strong inflationary pressures, wages will have to rise. While oil reserves dwindle, global demand for it is rising, which will inevitably raise its price. And China cannot continue to grow and compete with the world with an undervalued currency. It will eventually have to let it float.

It would appear that it won't be too long before importing from China is no longer cheaper than producing locally. What then? Are companies going to bring production home again?

Where is the outrage?

Am I alone or is anyone else disturbed by the acquiescence of the American public to the draconian viciousness of their laws and their enforcement?

In 2004, Julie Amero, a pregnant substitute teacher with apparently no computer skills became yet another victim of popup spyware. We've all been there. The PC randomly and continuously launches popups to sites that are mostly online gambling or porn. Usually something a quick Adaware or Spybot scan will fix. It's happened to you and it's happened to me. The unfortunate circumstances in Julie's case, however, were the place it happened: in class, with 7th graders.

So a few kids noticed and poked fun at her while the poor embarrassed woman frantically tried to close the windows, which, as we know, is just a trigger that spawns more popups. Definitely not one of your best days at work. She went home, glad the day was over.

Stop here. What do you think happened next? What do you think should happen? Try to play the event in your head. Put yourself in her shoes. Put yourself in the kids' shoes. How do you feel about the whole thing? Think about it for a minute.

So what did happen? Julie was arrested and prosecuted for 4.5 years, facing 40 years (four decades) in prison, charged with "risk of injury to a minor". In the process, she lost her baby and suffered a heart attack. She was convicted. She was rescued by a group of computer security experts, who volunteered to demonstrate that spyware was the culprit, something that somehow slipped from the original trial.

Forty years? Risk of injury to a minor? Really? Injury? Forty years?? What planet is this?

And that's not even my point. On trial here is ABC news. Watch the video report. Where is the outrage at the viciousness of the system? She lost her baby and almost died! Everybody strategically skirts around the question of the law's or the prosecution's heavy handedness, like a faithful murder victim's family who let the perpetrator off by attributing it to God's will.

The newspaper journalist, Rick Green, opines that it is "a fascinating glimpse into what can happen to you if you are wrongfully arrested". No, Rick, Windows 7 Beta is a fascinating glimpse. A disgusting disregard for human dignity and civil liberty is a better way to put it.

What scares me most is the overall lack of sense, emotion and critical mindedness in all parties. It resembles the kind of numb resignation and avoidance of real critique you would adopt when talking to a State Trooper that has unfairly pulled you over. You paradoxically muster the self-control to hide your seething anger, forget about it even, under a blanket of excessive politeness for fear of consequences. It's doublethink.

The interviewer is emotionally confounded, as she struggles to decide what sort of emotion she's supposed to pull out of her hat for this one. She settles on a form of disengaged compassion, after presumably ruling out anger, outrage or sincere compassion, lest she show sympathy for a criminal.

But even Julie's own account is the most frightening in its unemotional passivity and self blame. She says a big part of the problem is her poor computer skills. Of course the journalist responds, "well what about the legal system itself? Do you feel that it too is part of the problem?". I'm kidding of course, she said no such thing. When asked what she learned from her ordeal and what advice she has for others, it was to know how to use a computer!

In a brief flash of chilling truth that sums up our current state of submission, she proclaims that "everybody out there should be afraid". Did you get that? Are you ok with it?

So has the State apologised? Compensated her? Is she suing the State back for damages? Is the law being re-examined? Is anyone wondering what kind of "injury" she was charged for? If a 7th grader seeing lewd images is "injury" worthy of 40 year imprisonment, then what is Julie's baby's miscarriage worthy of, and are they being prosecuted for it? Nope. Answering yes to any of those questions would have put the unquestioned authority of the law into question. This is no country for questioning the law.

Password Inanity

If you can tell me right now how many passwords you have to remember, how many times you have to enter one a day, how many of them are unique, or how many are the same, then you probably live in North Korea.

It seems like every website and its dog wants to know your life story (and your dog's) before you can do anything meaningful. Another endless questionnaire to fill in, another unique username to pick, and yet another password to go with it. Passwords are clever and practical if you're in the military or belong to a secret society, because you're unlikely to belong to more than one of them. Imagine if every shop you walked into for the first time asked you to create a username and a password. Why are we putting up with this madness online?

Under the barrage of our daily password requests, our most common coping mechanism is surely to reuse them. If we were truly free to pick our own passwords then the drama would end here. But that would be too easy. We're also told how our passwords should look, by some invisible authority, who has decided that a password without a number is weak. No wait! Two numbers. Do I hear 3? The gentleman in the back with the Top Gun sunglasses. How about 4? Arabic letters? Hieroglyphics?

Can the gentleman with the Top Gun sunglasses please remove them so I can smack him with a shoe? I write this, of course, because for yet another in a myriad times, I encounter a site for which my password isn't good enough. I present a montage of 3 password forms, each with their own arbitrary password restrictions. Can you come up with a usable password that will work for all three and still be memorable?

Packaged Beliefs

What is the point of political parties? I don't think I can envision how a democratic system would fail if all politicians ran on their independent philosophy, rather than a subscribed party platform. Party membership allows us to lump a group of diverse individuals into a rigid set of ideological principles, making them all look alike. It makes it easier for us to stamp complex individuals with black or white labels before they even speak.

How is that good?

Politicians who want party support often find themselves having to conform by disavowing principles that may deviate from the platform package. And thus we have these silly bundles of ideology that we can take or leave. So if you're against abortion, then you must also like guns. If you're for gay marriage, then you are pro taxes. If you're a fiscal conservative, then you must also be a social conservative. Besides the word "conservative", what is the connection between spending restraint and nostalgia for old fashioned traditions? How does this make sense? Parties dictate your beliefs as much as your beliefs dictate your party.

What would happen if all members of Congress were independents in mind and title? Wouldn't public discourse actually be a reasoned debate in the absence of a party line to stand behind?

Is sugar really that bad?

If you can’t taste the difference between Coke and Diet Coke, or don’t care, why would you drink regular Coke? Why buy sugar-full gum when you can get sugar-free gum?

If the word Aspartame is unfamiliar to you, it is the artificial sweetener behind almost every “Diet” or “Sugar-Free” product in the world. Originally marketed as NutraSweet and the ingredient behind Equal today, it is 180 times sweeter than sugar and was initially approved by the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the 1980’s. Since its accidental discovery in 1965 by the Searle pharmaceutical company, scientists have expressed concerns about its connection with brain tumors, brain lesions and lymphoma.

The official story is that no connection has been proven and that it is safe for consumption. The problem is that the official story is being told by the sweetener and food and beverage industries. Both the FDA and the EFSA approval processes are mired in politics and controversy, involving conflicts of interest and industry-backed studies. Jere Goyan, the head of the FDA, refused to approve it in 1980 citing its cancer connection in rats. When the new president Reagan replaced the FDA head with Arthur Hayes in 1981, aspartame was approved before the year was over. Hayes later joined Searle’s PR firm as a medical adviser.

The topic is so controversial that it has been investigated by almost every major health organization worldwide. It is one of the most tested food additives on the market. Yet for every study that finds a link, there is an opposite one to cancel it out. So where does that leave us? Let’s see.

Of 74 studies funded by Searle, NutraSweet or International Life Sciences (an organization representing hundreds of food and beverage corporations that was banned by the WHO from direct involvement) between 1976 and 1995, 74 found aspartame to be safe. Zero found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/industry.html

Of 92 studies conducted by universities and independent organizations worldwide (including MIT, Washington University, the National Institute of Health and many more) between 1970 and 1998, 7 found aspartame to be safe, 6 of which were funded by the FDA. A stunning 85 found adverse reactions. http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

Surprised? Me neither. If the first page of a Google search on “aspartame” or a review of related YouTube videos aren’t enough to scare you, it should at least make you question the validity of the FDA and EFSA’s claims of safety. Throw Donald Rumsfeld in the mix (CEO of Searle in 1981 when the FDA approved it) and the scales of public safety vs. politics just tipped. Rumsfeld personally lobbied for aspartame directly to president Reagan, who had the uncooperative FDA chief replaced.

At which point, you have to ask yourself: is sugar really that bad?

The Word Guardian

I think it crept in when I began to skip the space in "anymore". I have a tendency to spell "eachother" as one word too. It's wrong. But if I spelled it thus here or anywhere else, nobody would have told me so. And I would have continued to think it was acceptable. Except when I type it in Word. Like a diligent parent, it leaves other important tasks like auto saving my work and ironing my towels, to gently point out the error. It doesn't chastise me; it gets back to the ironing, keeping one eye out for me. I dutifully make the correction and move on. It does this to me every time, until I stop doing it. It's teaching me.

Word doesn't have to do this. If it failed to print my paper, I might complain. But this is beyond its responsibilities. It's altruistic.

Not everyone is a well mannered child though. Others see spelling, grammar and structure as an oppressive force. One contrary to American ideals of freedom and self-determination. Like those who "invited Debby and I to the party" because "me" is out of fashion. Descriptivists may balk at Word's presumptuous declarations of fault, but so does every misbehaving teenager in response to parental intervention. Few of us could deny that rules exist for a reason, and that if not obeyed, parents should at least be heeded carefully, for they wish to apply experience and wisdom you don't have to your benefit. As this fact settles in as budding adults, we open ourselves up to criticism as a path to self improvement.

I submit that when an unfortunate soul happens to mention that his "wardrobe is comprised of a dozen raver pants", he is not marching to the beat of a proletarian uprising, asserting his democratic right to participate in raves and deface the English language. He is simply unaware of his mistake. A good parent would point this out (and ask before ironing those pants).

Perhaps when every attempt to misuse "comprise" or "it's", or even use "in regards to" or "as per" or "exact same thing" elicits a protest from your loved ones, the abuse might no longer be seen as an implicit right, but as the celery in your teeth that only those closest to you would care enough to tell you about. This subtle message has the power to restore dignity to us and our language, and effect (or control) change at a massive scale. I therefore suggest that perhaps the only hope left to stem the daily assault on our language comprising redundancies, overused apostrophes, gratuitous commas and fatigued clichés is the benevolent guardian within our desktops and laptops: Microsoft Word.

Word somehow has a level of authority that peers don't. Perhaps because its suggestions are made in private, there is no ego play. In the interest of cultural decency, I therefore call for an expansion of the Microsoft Word grammar dictionary to cover abusive trends and expose mistakes for what they are. A friend did point me to this site, which seems well on its way along these lines. Try checking the culprits mentioned above. If only Microsoft would follow suit.
http://spellcheckplus.com/

Three

That's how many simultaneous layers of commentary NBC managed to stack on top of their live coverage of Yves Rossy's pioneering flight across the English channel with nothing but a strap-on jet-powered wing. It is also the longest pause in seconds I was able to detect from Matt Lauer and associates on the Today Show coverage.

Watching the video, I presume Layer 1 was the British film crew and engineering team. Layer 2 would be the National Geographic (NG) commentator, followed by our friends on the Today Show on Layer 3 (TS), who felt they could add more value to the conversation by drivelling, interrupting one another, and repeating what they (and the viewer) had just heard from Layer 2.

You can only enjoy watching this magnificent feat of flight if you focus your energy tuning everyone out. Here's a gem taken from 2:53 onwards.

TS: "...obviously they didn't put a camera on the, uh, device..."
NG: "...there's also a camera mounted on his wing..."
TS: "that's his helmet camera"
TS: "there's his helmet camera in the upper left hand corner"
NG: "...in the upper left of your screen. That is the view from the wing"
TS: "..oh it's from the wing"
TS: "the wing yea"
TS: "is it a view of his face or the horizon?"
TS: "i think it's the horizon"

If ever there was a moment to consider the wisdom of judicious silence...
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=8f17bf95-205b-45e5-b162-d39267a3a197&fg=rss&from=im_m_25-34

Why are you paying for ads?

There was a time when commercial television was free, entirely subsidised by advertising revenue. Generations of viewers were raised in the latter part of last century with a mutual understanding of the implicit TV contract: in exchange for free programming, you will accept interruptions for commercial advertising.

Then along came Cable, which introduced a fee for the privilege of clear reception and other premium services. Yet the ads did not relent. In fact, the ad-to-programming ratio steadily rose to record heights. Some measures estimate this today at an average of 74%. This means that for every 10 minutes of programming, you get 7.4 minutes of ads. Not to mention the 93% increase in cable rates since 1995.

So why is it that in return for a hefty charge, the TV viewer gets rewarded with more ads rather than fewer? The TV portion of my cable bill comes to $104.82 per month, or $1,257.84 per year. Is this not enough to cover programming costs?

Grammar Police fined to unfix sign

A pair of grammar vigilantes, who have been traveling the country correcting bad grammar on government signs, have just been fined $3,035 for removing an extraneous apostrophe and adding a comma to a sign at the Grand Canyon. The age of the 60-year old sign apparently graced these errors with historical significance.

Rather than rewarding these modern heroes with an Amazon.com gift certificate for saving their government from the embarrassment of linguistic ineptitude, the court ordered the fine to “repair the sign”. One would’ve thought that this is exactly what they did. I have to conclude that the money will be spent to reinstate the offending apostrophe and remove the comma.

When your government goes from passive disinterest in bad grammar to actively investing in it, you need to be worried. Lynne Truss, this country needs you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26351328/

Roundabouts Rule

People close to me know that I am a huge proponent of roundabouts. They are safer and more efficient than traffic lights, yet they are few and far between in MA or the US in general. Instead, we see traffic lights popping up like mushrooms.

I found a refreshing review of roundabouts here:

http://www.rrstar.com/opinions/columnists/x1341946663/For-safety-efficiency-it-s-time-to-consider-roundabouts

A few key points:

• How many times have you sat at a red light, waiting for nobody to cross the intersection? The light is blind to actual traffic. That doesn't happen at roundabouts.
• The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety has found that converting traffic signals or stop signs to roundabouts reduced injury crashes by 80% and all crashes by 40%
• Roundabouts conserve petrol because there is no idling and hard stop/starts. Vehicle emissions are reduced by 21% - 42%
• More cars go through a roundabout intersection per minute than a traffic light

"Comprise" is becoming a weed

Before you read on, use the word "comprise" in a sentence...

I've noticed an accelerating trend of abuse of the word "comprise" lately. It was ok when the word was raped by the fringes, but the poison is penetrating unofficial linguistic authorities, like book publishers and the media.

A Harvard Business School case that I read recently was the latest such instance. Case # 9-701-132 by Giovanni Gavetti is about the story of Ducati motorbikes. The author's first usage goes: "Their typical distribution systems comprised two types of agents". Great, I thought. I'm happy to see Harvard upholding the lexical standard of a word under siege. Perhaps a reader or two will use this model of a sentence to correct an unconscious mistake of their own. I would not expect any less of Harvard.

But then came the sting: "The accessories and apparel business was comprised of three categories". Giovanni..... Why? Harvard, where were you when this happened? Oh look, what's this word gathering dust behind an unwanted pizza crust? It appears to be "composed". You poor homeless thing, why doesn't anyone love you any more? Were you not hip enough?

How did your own sentence do? When A is made up of B and C, then:

• A comprises B and C
• A is composed of B and C
• A consists of B and C
• B and C constitute A

• A is not comprised of B and C, just like
• A doesn't compose B and C
• A isn't consisted of B and C
• B and C aren't constituted of A

If you got your sentence right, treat yourself to a Wheat Thin™. If you didn't, bookmark this page for reference. You don't have to correct anyone else, though that would be wonderful. Just try to get it right yourself.

How are Somerville and Tylenol™ related?

You'll know if you've ever tried to drive in Somerville, MA. Setting out to purchase yet another piece of DJ equipment from craigslist, I briskly glanced over the google maps directions to this place and naively set out to drive there from memory. According to Google, it was a 15 minute drive.

An hour and ten minutes later, I am still aimlessly wandering around the sign-less spaghetti of streets that scream at all outsiders to leave, if they can, and never come back. And then I found myself trapped in the middle of this intersection. How many Tylenols™ do you need to just look at this picture?