Amazon Has Ruined Online Delivery for Every Other Company in the World

You know how you get on a Saturday when it gets dark, it’s snowing out and, well, it’s Saturday?

As something of a hermit, I tend to get all settled in a bit earlier than normal people, so I was well settled watching one of the 8 million college football bowl games that’ll be airing over the next 10 days, when there was  knock at the door.

Now who in the heck would be here on a snowy Saturday? (Remember that hermits don’t get a lot of visitors.) It’s the FedEx guy. It’s 5:30 Saturday evening and he’s delivering the case of cat food I ordered from Amazon earlier in the week (Thursday to be exact). Ok I used a coupon and I get a ton of stuff from Amazon, so as the overseer and inheritor of three rather unsocial cats, I need cat food. Don’t judge.

Two things hit me: One, it sucks to be a FedEx guy on a Saturday when it’s snowing out and some idiot wants food for his cats and, two, Amazon has ruined home delivery for nearly every other company on earth.

With Amazon Prime, I get “free” delivery two-day delivery from Amazon. Of course nothing is free . . . Prime costs around $80 a year, and includes a few other perks, like streaming videos.

Some other companies offer free delivery on most stuff, like LL Beans, but a bunch offer not much and still, in the face of Amazon’s delivery (which is often free regardless of Prime, but not as fast). Companies like Harry and David’s offer free delivery on some items, but continues to peg delivery costs to the final price of the order. And while I understand it costs companies money to pick, pack and ship, charging the shipping and handling add-on based on the price of the goods purchased creates an apples and oranges problem for potential customers. When shipping can add 20 or 30 percent to an order, customers look elsewhere. To its credit, Harry and David’s does offer free shipping on many more items than it used to . . . so you can get those great pears without paying a shipping premium.

By offering fixed-rate shipping, many companies pass on the costs at a reasonable rate. Lucero, my favorite olive oil producer, offers flat rate shipping for $8.95, and free shipping on orders over $100. That works just fine for me.

Yep, Amazon has spoiled me, and no doubt has spoiled millions of other online shoppers as well. It has also hurt smaller businesses unable to cut huge deals with FedEx, UPS or the Postal Service and can’t afford to compete on shipping costs.

So thanks to the people who slug through the snow and the companies who keep those delivery trucks full of all kinds of goodies . . . even if it’s for unsocial cats.

The NRA Misses a Chance to Join the Mainstream

Let’s say you were the face of the National Rifle Association and had to give a press conference a few days after a massacre in a school in which 20 kids and six teachers were killed. Thought about it a minute? Ok . . . could you have possibly given speech worse or less insightful than that given by NRA Vice Executive President Wayne LaPierre?

Look, there are all kinds of arguments for owning or not owning guns, but LaPierre blew it. Given the chance to either not offer any “solutions,” or perhaps offering a token gesture about “taking a look” at gun regulations, LaPierre continued the NRA’s often paranoid stance that any change is bad change, and while understanding slippery slopes exist all over the place on these politically charged issues, LaPierre fumbled the moment.

The NRA, which has long offered a variety of gun safety courses for all types of people, has now lost that good message. The NRA is now perceived by many as a group of wild-eyed crazies ranting about government confiscation of guns, a group advocating stock piling weapons for self-defense and the protection of our children, a group urging everyone to pack a pistol “just in case.” And on and on.

LaPierre to me sounded like a man completely closed to any sound but his. No discussion is needed for LaPierre because he can’t hear. By waving the flag over the 2^nd amendment, the NRA continually brings the NRA base into the fold by feeding the paranoia that the government is coming for your guns, that unless you carry a weapon bad things could happen to you, or that the only way to stop school massacres is to make sure a cop is in each and every school .

Lapierre had a chance to say, “I look forward to talking to legislators about meaningful gun controls.” He didn’t say anything like that, and he has continued to say that any restrictions won’t work and are merely an effort to take away every American’s patriotic right to own a gun.

The one thing Lapierre has gotten right is that the information about certain guns, notably assault rifles, is often wrong. They’re not automatic weapons or machine guns, they are not military weapons, they do not fire higher power bullets than other weapons (the .223 Bushmaster used in the Sandy Hook shooting is a visual copy of a military rifle, but is a semi-automatic weapon and its ammo, though thought to be among the widest used rifle caliber in the U.S. is largely used as a target round and is considered an unsuitable caliber for anything other than “varmit” hunting, though it has obviously been used with devastating  effect otherwise).

But besides blaming everyone from the media to video games for this violence, Lapierre declines to even hint that guns themselves are part of the issue. It sounds good to say the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun. Sure that might work, but let’s also think that it might not . . . There were two armed guards (off-duty cops) at Columbine, both of which shot at one of the shooters, and there were armed security officers on the Virginia Tech campus.

Even well trained good guys don’t necessarily hit everything at which they shoot. Bullets miss, they fragment and they go through doors and walls. I’m thinking those aren’t good things, no matter how “good a guy” is when he’s shooting at a bad guy, who probably isn’t standing still and is shooting back and may be mixed into a crowd. One merely needs to look at records of police shootings . . . number of shots fired, missed etc. . . . to see that not everything aimed at gets hit. So now imagine an armed security guard trying to bring down a shooter running down a hallway lined with kid-filled classrooms. It all sounds great until a guard shoots a teacher. No offense, but these aren’t highly trained combat Delta Force guys.

All kinds of politically driven rhetoric will be flying through the air on this one. The questions remains: Are there reasonable legislative steps that might be taken to reduce (or possibly reduce) misuse of guns?

Close the gun-buying  loopholes, make sure the “can’t buy” lists include everyone who should be either mentally or legally (felons etc.) disqualified. Develop a rapid background check system. Limit extended round ammo clips. Enforce current laws. While our awareness, as well as policies and procedures, have changed dramatically since the Columbine shooting, clearly something more needs to be done. (Mental  health concerns have again popped up after Sandy Hook. The failures at Columbine, including the failure of law enforcement to pursue reported warnings about the shooters as well as to act on specific threats about one of the shooters (including carrying out a search warrant) raised the debate, but Sandy Hook should raise it again on multiple levels.

It’s a start, and the discussion needs to begin. Not on high-flying patriotic issues, but embracing practical and reasonable laws that have a chance of lowering gun violence and serve to preserve the rights of lawful gun owners. The NRA is on the wrong side of the wave, embracing its most radical members. The discussion will go on without them.

ESPN's Parker Digs a Deep Racist Pit for Himself

ESPN’s Rob Parker’s rant about the “blackness” of Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III was a disgusting, racist rant about something that may be a seldom outwardly spoken issue, but, frankly, one that I find appalling.

By questioning the rookie quarterback’s “blackness” Parker threw himself into the pit of racist rants everywhere . . . white or black. Can you imagine some white guy saying a bunch of other white guys aren’t “white” enough? Holy crap. The guy would be shredded in the press. He’d be encouraging white people to ignore everything else around them and act “whiter,” I suppose by throwing aside other cultural influences and only embracing that white is “white.” Maybe unbleached flour, segregation, white-only restaurants, ambrosia?

Who knows? Parker, of course, doesn’t get the fast and furious reaction to his comments, including, one supposes, his suspension by ESPN. He called his critics “uneducated” and “silly.”

"Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother?" Parker asked.

"He's not real. OK, he's black, he kind of does the thing, but he's not really down with the cause. He's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really, like, the guy you want to hang out with because he's off to something else.

"We all know he has a white fiancée. There was all this talk about how he's a Republican ... Tiger Woods was like, 'I've got black skin, but don't call me black.'"

Wow. Unbelieveable. So now Griffin III isn’t only not black enough but, oh my God, he’s going to marry a white girl. So Parker, digging his racist butt even deeper, is against interracial marriage. Damn. T really can’t get any worse. Again, reverse the people talking, change their races in your head and imagine the same words. (“Sure he’s white, but he’s not white enough. After all, he’s marrying some black girl.”) Just appalling.

Why aren’t we past the point where we are supposed to live up to someone else’s narrow expectations for us? So not black enough . . . what’s next? Not gay enough? Not woman enough? Not man enough? Parker took a tumble down a path that makes my blood boil. I hope he stays in that pit he dug for himself. ESPN needs to cut the cord permanently. 

Let's Try to Find Some Middle Ground in the Gun Control Debate

A football player’s apparent murder/suicide in Kansas City has once again thrust guns and gun controls back into the spotlight.

And just as quickly, gun opponents and gun advocates jumped on the bandwagon. Bob Costas called for more controls of guns during Sunday night’s football game, and faded rocker Ted Nuggent called Costas a dope and “only fools blame the tools.” Unfortunately, two people are dead, for whatever reason, and Costas was right in saying they might not be if there wasn’t a gun lying around. The tragedy is that a 3-month-old kid now has no parents.

Look, I don’t want to take your guns, just make some regulations a touch more reasonable before you buy them. And while guns will be used by people in bad ways, it seems to me a few sensible regulations might limit that.

While the press frequently confuses the “automatic” vs. “semi-automatic” issue (automatic, hold the trigger and the weapon keeps firing . . . semi-automatic and each trigger pull fires the weapon), legal automatic weapons are not really the issue . . . you need a federal license to get one, and you ain’t gonna be able to get that.

So the issue generally falls to gun shops and gun shows, and to sensible laws that allow people to buy guns, but perhaps eliminates some of the fringe ammunition and gun designs.

Four ideas:

Limit magazine capacity. There no reason for a person to carry a weapon that boasts a 100-plus round magazine. Ok, it may be cool, but there’s no real-world reason for it. Buy two smaller clips, you cheap bastard.

Eliminate large ammunition purchases. Do you really need 10,000 rounds of ammo?

Eliminate body-armor-piercing bullets. Seems simple and logical, but it’s something the National Rifle Association has fought. Special hardened metal alloys were initially designed for police use to increase penetration of cars and windshields etc. since regular lead tend to deflect and fragment (note the people injured by police bullets in a recent New York City shooting). This ammo shouldn’t be available to civilians. Why on earth would anyone need ammo like this unless it’s to kill cops?

Mandate background checks at shops and gun shows. The gaps here are gun shows, where background checks are often not run. It takes but a few minutes, so why not? Make it a federal regulation. Cops run a check when they pull you over, or you go to get a driver’s license. Why should buying a gun be any different?

We can argue the Constitutional right (or not) to own guns until the cows come home and everyone will continue to agree to disagree. But limiting some types of guns or accessories has little to do with the Constitution  . . .

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said there’s a constitutional right to buy high-capacity clips and magazines. Others have made the same arguments. “You simply can't keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm. And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedom," he argued recently on Fox News.

I’ll argue that freedom does not depend on 100-round magazines. I’ll also argue that at the time the Constitution was written, guns were a single-shot thing . . . reload . . . maybe four shots a minute.

Politicians of all types cringe when the NRA starts barking. But some polls have shown that that bark may actually be less than the ultimate bite. Hunters and other gun owners have said that some additional controls make sense. And many are starting to walk away from the NRA’s extreme positions. There should be common ground once each side stops yelling at each other.

In an excellent New York Times op-ed piece (April 2012 “I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for me), Lily Raff McCaulou notes that while the NRA boasts 4 million members, some 90 percent of gun owners aren’t members. And as a gun owner and sportswoman, she owns guns, but argues against many of the NRA’s political positions and posturing.

There will always be sick and demented people who may wind up killing people, but let’s tighten a few of the loopholes a touch and make sure we make people, even good ones, responsible for their actions and their gun purchases. It shouldn’t be easier to get a gun than get a driver’s license.

Retail Employees Will Never Improve Their Lot As Long As You Want Really Cheap Stuff and Big Sales

It is interesting that the left-leaning Huffington Post breathlessly rages against Walmart and others for long hours, underpaid workers and what they say are bad health care offerings, and yet also tells readers (almost as breathlessly) where to find the cheapest prices on a wide variety of goods . . . turkeys, Christmas decorations, electronics and the like.

So . . . umm . . . anyone see an issue with this?

Simply, if we want the lowest possible prices, how can we expect workers to be better paid, have better company-sponsored health insurance and not work holidays (when millions of people push away from the table and storm the big boxes for ground-breaking deals)?

It can’t work that way.

That $899 big screen TV you bought last week was a great deal. Nobody had a better price. You checked. You don’t care if the store that sold it to you made any money because you got a great deal. But you saw the same TV on sale at another store for $988, still a good deal, but not the best. Like everyone else, it’s the pre-holiday bargain that counts.

In the end, you really don’t care too much about what store workers make, whether or not they are full-time or part-time or whether they have health insurance. You want the best prices before you spend your own hard-earned money.  And millions of shoppers agree with you.

But if you give workers a $2-an hour raise and pay for at least part of their health insurance, that $899 TV disappears. It may now be a $950 TV, and if another store has a better price, you’re going there.

If the average Walmart employee makes somewhere just north of $9 an hour, and let’s say there are 1.4 million workers, a $2 an hour raise for everyone would equal some $2.8 million a day in wage increases, and around $12 million or so each week (assuming five working days) and $624 million in increased wages a year.

So how can a Walmart (which, as the country’s largest employer, is the biggest target for such discussions . . . no pun intended), add those costs while still maintaining its “low price guarantee?” You tell me. And we haven’t even added health care costs, overtime, or ongoing raises. I also just threw out the $2 an hour increase. I’m sure that would be considered a low number by many, given that $11 an hour certainly doesn’t seem to be a huge improvement over the $9 base, though I’m also sure such a bump would be more than welcomed by those currently struggling to make end meet.

While I haven’t seen any real info on what the bottom line number is on the “we want better pay” scale, I also haven’t seen anyone write about how retail outlets can maintain their pricing edge while boosting employee pay and benefits. Trust me, if one company increases its costs, another one will undercut it somehow.

It’s all well and good to rant about how companies only care about making money, and not about employees, that really doesn’t say much. Of course companies are in business to make money. Of course retail can suck. And maybe smaller businesses that do well are better able to recycle those profits back into the business as well as improved employee pay and benefits.

But until someone shows me how, on a large scale, a retail company like Walmart, Target, Sears or Kmart can keep the rock bottom prices you want while at the same time increasing employee costs, I’m at a loss, as are millions of hard working American workers.

GOP Stung by Romney Loss and the Second-Guessing Has Begun

We can frame the election, and the failure of Mitt Romney to capture the flag, a number of different ways, but most Republican pundits are getting it wrong, targeting the “pandering” of the Dems to a variety of voting blocks and special interest groups and creating a divisive campaign that sharpened a class war between, in essence, those who work and those who want government freebies.

They couldn’t be more off the mark.

Let me note that I’m a white heterosexual guy just a few years short of 60 years old. I grew up in a wealthy town, went to private schools, worked as a reporter and editor for a small daily newspaper, worked on Wall Street as a marketing guy then a product manager and owned a small business. I own a house and a very large 12-year-old SUV. I’m a father, consider myself a political moderate and a capitalist.

Romney should have had me at hello. He shoulda, coulda and woulda won if he and his party eliminated the stupid mistakes, kept on the old Romney’s more moderate positions and embraced the idea that America isn’t made up of old white guys like me.

Instead of outlining specific ideas on how he would put America and its business back on track, in the face of unemployment topping out above 10 percent and falling by election time to around 8 percent (and probably significantly higher since a chunk of people stopped bothering to look for work), he followed a “no information” policy that seemed offered no new ideas, boldness or, in the end, leadership.

He and his advisers seemed to take every opportunity to trip themselves up. Whether it was the long talk about not releasing his tax returns, flip-flops on key issues like health care, abortion, the auto industry or outsourcing jobs, Romney presented himself as a moving target even for those who supported him. And while that support was often lukewarm, thanks in large part to GOP hardliners who continually questioned his “conservativeness,” he did end up with the Republican flag and a chance for the big prize.

Even the most Democratic observer would have to admit that at the start, President Obama looked fabulously vulnerable. But Romney was done in by his party’s far right turn and his willingness to chuck the supposedly “moderate” Romney for the far-right one. 

The fact that he wasn’t very good on his political feet added to a growing sense that this thing was slipping away. And in dramatic fashion . . . despite the high rate of unemployment, rising debt, virulent hate for Obama and a mystifying (and I’d argue non-existent) war on religion . . . the Republicans lost, and Romney was turned into just another guy who couldn’t close the deal.

Anderson Cooper, Art Smith and Anne Burrell Are Gay . . . And I Don't Care

Anderson Cooper is gay. And I don’t care.

That he felt it was important for him to come out was his business, but I just really don’t care. Should I like him more or less because he’s gay? Is he better at his job because he’s gay? Nicer? Less serious? Better looking? I’m thinking none of the above. Bottom line is that it just doesn’t matter to me at all if a person’s gay or not gay.

Chefs Art Smith and Anne Burrell are gay. Does that make them better chefs? Do I want to try their food because they’re gay.  No. I want to try their food because they’re good chefs.

And the list goes on and one, and since it’s campaign season, this is why I think Republicans are completely on the wrong side of this. A lot of people just don’t care, and see politicians as denying gays of the rights non-gays have. Marriage, healthcare, property rights, employment rights, estate rights. And sooner or later, it’ll bite the GOP on the ass.

Because people get pissed when their friends are denied rights just because they are gay.

I’m old and happen not to be gay, and if I don’t care if someone’s gay or not gay, then what about the wave of younger people? They’ll vote on these social issues. And they don’t want the clock rolled back . . . they want it moving ever forward. And that means the same rights for everyone. If someone wants to come out, great, but for me, it doesn’t change the game.

Republicans are riding the wrong wave . . . the  “anti” wave may over time kill the party, or leave it to old white guys who just love having their heads buried in the sand. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt your marriage. Loving same-sex couples don’t hurt your household. Gay parents don’t hurt you or your kids or how you raise your kids. While some rage that same-sex marriage imperil the “institution of marriage,” I don’t quite get that. You can be well married without a religious ceremony and I’m not sure the marriage track record is all that great in some respects . . . kids still get abused, people still get divorced, etc. etc. So I take those rages as just that . . . rages against something that some people don’t like. But the issue is bigger than that, nd much bigger than the ragers.

When I was a kid, there were no gay people (of course there were, but who knew?). Nobody was out, nobody talked about gay people . . . Times have changed. It’s easier for gays to come out. The social “stigma” is ending. That’s a good thing. Not a bad thing. It’s a civil rights issue, and denying gays equal rights is wrong. I don’t want to deny anyone the rights I have. And while Republicans say they want less government, they seem more than happy to monitor and regulate what goes on in the bedroom (and between you and your doctor, but we’ll deal with that another time).

Keep an eye out . . . Republicans have ruled the political playground in the past, but rolling the clock back is the wrong move for them. They would do well to roll back their extreme social positions and draw more people into their tent. Otherwise, they’ll self destruct.

There's No Kick Ass in This Presidential Campaign

Apparently the Three Stooges are running the Romney campaign. Battered for months over his business experience, something the campaign had touted as a competitive advantage against the Obama economic morass, Romney has found himself trying to fight off the ropes and regain the upper hand as the negatively heated battle enters its final three months.

Unfortunately for the GOP nominee, there’s only one guy who could continually fight off the ropes and win, and that’s Muhammad Ali . . . and, Mitt, you’re no Muhammad Ali. Romney should be pounding Obama, but stumbles, non-specific answers, no public blueprinting of policies, an almost desperate clinging to “no tax cuts for the rich,” and an upstream fight on many social issues ad the Republicans are gasping for air.

There’s no kick ass on either side, and with just a few weeks to go, both campaigns are bordering on boring with an massive overdose of inaccurate ads, misleading speeches and, in the case of Republicans, stomping on Obama for policies they voted for in years past.

It didn’t have to be this way for Romney. Clearly the plan was to hammer Obama on the lousy economy, high unemployment rate and spiraling deficit. If only that were true . . . Romney has stumbled, bumbled and  flopped at nearly every turn.  While the negatives ads have landed body blows, Romney isn’t very good on his feet and his verbal gaffs, not the least of which was insulting the London Olympic organizers during his first overseas as the then-presumptive GOP nominee.

Mitt, just smile and say you are really looking forward to watching the games in “this great city.” Sheesh, how tough is that? They’re our allies, Mitt.

Now both convention love fests are behind us (thank goodness), and the race begins in earnest. Well, maybe not in earnest since this is politics, after all. The Dems seemed to come out of their convention a bit better off, since they didn’t have an actor going way off script. The big talk about the GOP convention has turned out to be Eastwood’s speech, even though Ann Romney tried her best to convince us her husband is a really nice guy. Michelle Obama played the “Obama is you” card  . . . so now we’re supposed to love these guys as much as their dedicated and loving wives do. Not quite.

We’ll see if the Republicans can term their campaign ship around. I have my doubts. I think the Republicans are on the wrong side of nearly every social issue one can think of, and one has to wonder how big a deal that will be come election day. It happens to be a biggie for me.

Romney should be pummeling Obama in the polls, but with the two neck and neck, with various battleground states leaning a bit towards Obama, it’s a toss-up now and probably will be in November. The GOP will get its base out, but the Dems may struggle to get the young voters they nabbed four years ago. Hold on, and keep the remote handy, because those damn ads are only going to get worse.

Ann Curry Takes the Bullet for NBC's Today . . . Ok Bullets

Getting fired sucks. Getting hung out to dry by your employer in front of tens of millions of people really sucks. Poor Ann Curry. She took the bullet for some faltering of the Today Show brand amid ABC’s Good Morning America’s ratings rise.

Nevermind that the rumor mill was churning for some time before her bosses made sure we all knew she in trouble . . . called too earnest during the fluff segments of the multi-hour show . . . said not to get along all that well with the recently re-signed (for a reportedly $25 million a year) Matt Lauer . . . I don’t really get that part, since they’d worked together for years, and it does take two to tango.

Curry’s career flopped about in the high-profile rating’s game as every real news outlet and “celebrity” news outlet guessed at who would replace her. Let’s not forget that Curry, too, was part of the multi-year team that kept Today on top of the ratings heap. And is it not possible that Good Morning America has improved in recent months?

So the other day, after a few minutes of really awkward and tearful goodbyes, Curry was gone . . . poof. So after 15 years at the Today show, and seven Emmys for her reporting, Curry was booted.

Savannah Guthrie, continuing her meteoric rise within the network, was named Curry’s replacement (though Friday’s show aired without the usual lead-in host names on screen or audio). Guthrie certainly seems to have the chops to make it as a co-host, but who knows. Viewers may put some of their heat on Guthrie, though I’m guessing NBC’s malicious and inept handling of Curry’s axing will take most of it.

Steve Capus, head of NBC News, apparently couldn’t wait to get one more kick in when he told The Hollywood Reporter, that NBC had “given her a year to prove herself.”

“We gave her a year to prove herself, and ultimately we came to the conclusion that she had played at the highest level she could," he said. "When you’re in the major leagues of our profession, you’ve got to continue to be at peak performance in order to stay there."

While he went on to say Curry had good hard news chops yadda yadda, if I were Curry, I would have appreciated it if my employer could have shown some restraint and his boots off my neck in public. All that said, the rumors and leaks came from somewhere . . . my vote’s from inside the NBC ivory tower.

So now Curry will wander the land doing interviews and stories as Today anchor-at-large (whatever the heck that is).

She’s a good news interviewer, perhaps overly earnest at times, and I look forward to seeing more of her work.

The takeaways? Business is tough . . . rating are all that really counts . . . never trust your employer . . . no job is forever . . . and keep a Kevlar vest handy . . .

Suspending Common Sense as Volume Increases Over Fracking Risks

Sometimes politicians seem confused by their jobs, and, thus, fail to do their jobs. They are elected to represent “the people,” not just some of the people and certainly not business before people.

Such is the case with “fracking.”

This is one of those “do the right thing issues.” Fracking is the process of injecting water and various chemicals deep underground under high pressure to drive gas and other petroleum products out of the ground into pumping stations.

The problem is that this process seems to pollute the ground and water in the ground, hence the drinking water of those in relative proximity to fracking. The industry and many politicians dispute this, but there is growing evidence groundwater pollution is a major issue and will become even more of an issue as the process spreads to more areas. There are other issues, such as huge amounts of water used (up to 5 million gallons per well), radioactive wastewater and fracturing underground formations.

For some reason, Republicans are again on the wrong side of an issue. But since they in general oppose the EPA and many regulatory constrictions, fracking has become another political sticking point between the GOP and those who think slower is better.

This type of stance by Republicans reinforces the public view that they are bought and paid for by special interest groups. (A perception that people have of most all politicians, regardless of party.) In this case, the oil and gas industry, which continues, along with much political assistance, to push for more fracking and fewer regulations.

Now to my way of thinking, this is the kind of thing we should make sure is safe before we expand it. Just makes sense, since pumping chemicals into the ground would seem to be a risking proposition as far as pollution goes. So the “do the right thing” stand should be let’s make sure this is safe first.

Some politicians, money blinding their clear, or sensible sight, disagree, saying energy and more jobs are a priority. I’d argue that making sure you aren’t poisoning people is a primary priority. And while I understand over-regulation can crimp business, this is why the government, on a federal level needs to mandate moratorium on fracking until independent studies show it is safe.

In some cases, politicians have passed legislation banning the disclosure of chemicals and other ingredients companies inject into their wells. And in Pennsylvania, doctors are allowed to see a list of chemicals used, but are forbidden to discuss them with patients. How is this possible? Another example of politicians stepping between a doctor and his or her patient. Outrageous.

Bitch about regulation if you want, but in the long run sensible regulations save us money we might later spend on cleanup. (BP and the Gulf mean anything?) And, frankly, I wouldn’t want any gas company fracking in my back yard . . . I’m guessing narrow-minded politicians wouldn’t either. Maybe they should spend some time with a family whose water smells like chemicals and burns like gas before they decide to allow unfettered fracking over the growing protests of their constituents. 

Fox Studio Taken Over by Muppets as Pundits Call for Rescue by Transformers

BREAKING NEWS: Police in New York have just reported that Fox News studios have been taken over by a group of rabid Muppets, at least 50 first-graders and assorted characters from the movie Lorax.

According to police, the attack on Fox was prompted by recent comments by Fox commentators about the Muppets and Lorax.

On Tuesday, host Lou Dobbs railed against "The Lorax," along with the Japanese children's film, "The Secret World of Arrietty. "Hollywood is once again trying to indoctrinate our children," he warned. He claimed that the movies were "demonizing the 1% and espousing green energy policies."


Dobbs said "The Lorax" was about "a woodland creature that speaks for the trees and fights rampant industrialism." He replayed a clip of the Lorax demanding to know who chopped down a Truffula Tree.
"The President's liberal friends in Hollywood targeting a younger demographic using animated movies to sell their agenda to children," he alleged.


Previously, the Muppets came under fire from a Fox face for brainwashing young children with a liberal agenda.

Police reported that Fox personnel had sent out a call to the Transformers to rescue them. Although some Fox executives suggested such a call was not needed, and noted that the Transformers are illegal aliens. They added that clearly the kids and the characters are an even bigger threat than the Decepticons.

Late today there was no word from the studio other than the Muppets saying they were trying to talk with the Fox pundits, but they were too stupid to understand the difference between reality and puppets. The Muppets and kids are demanding an apology from Fox.

Self-Inflicted Wounds Have Republicans Bleeding in the Political Waters

The water is getting bloodier and bloodier as Republicans continue to bleed more and more from self-inflicted political wounds for which, in the end, they will have only themselves to blame.

Continually rising from the muck are politicians who want nothing more than to stand between women and their doctors, women and their health care and women and their right to determine for themselves what is in their best health interests. And for many, that fight has centered on birth control, and other contraception, and who should pay for it. While some religious leaders, as well as a slew of opportunistic politicians have tried to frame this as an assault on religious freedom, it really isn’t.

It’s an assault on women and families and others who happen to believe that contraception is an important part of any health care program.

As I’ve said before, Catholic bishops have no place in this debate. They condemn, on moral grounds, all forms of contraception. And Rick Santorum, darling of narrow-minded conservatives across the country, has said he thinks all forms of birth control should be outlawed. While I will agree that religious organizations probably shouldn’t be “forced” to offer insurance that includes things they are morally opposed to, I would narrowly focus that on churches and not any organization that somehow feels opposed to any aspect of limiting insurance coverage. Thankfully, the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed any employer to limit any coverage for any reason was defeated in the Senate. Blunt has promised to try again.

So here we are more than 40 years from Roe v Wade and politicians are suddenly proposing legislation that mandates trans-vaginal ultrasounds and other unnecessary medical procedures for women contemplating abortions. Politicians have therefore said they are more important than doctors and know more about caring for patients than doctors do. That is, of course, absurd. Politicians know little about anything and these legislative jabs at women are merely political. Any proposed legislation that puts political agenda between any patient her (or his) doctors should be viewed as an outrage. Forget religious freedom, let’s talk about medical freedom. Free from politics.

Without a strong GOP leader, the party has let this debate spin out of control. And not only will it hurt the party, but it continues to provide and easy wedge between them and the Democrats as the election approaches. Women’s health care will continue to be a major issue in the campaign.

It’s an issue that became major because Republicans felt they needed to pander to their most base right. But they need women if they’re to win in the fall. And they will lose women across a broad cross section of the political spectrum. Someone better stand up and end this assault soon, or the Grand Old Party will end up bleeding out over an issue that shouldn’t be one.

Time for the GOP to Get the Hell Out of Our Pants

Why are politicians suddenly all in our pants? I mean, really, birth control, gay sex, abstinence-only sex education.

Get the hell out of there. Government’s got no business being there and, despite GOP wrangling over all these “important” social issues, thankfully most voters are pushing back. Aren’t Republicans supposed to be against more government rules? What the hell?

Then get out of our pants. Shut up about how I should act, what my doctor should tell me, who I should like or dislike, why my gay friends are evil, why girls shouldn’t use birth control, why men should be irresponsible about birth control and why the heck a group of Catholic Bishops is anywhere near a discussion about contraception.

Bishops oppose any form of contraception. These are guys who don’t have sex, folks, and endorse a Medieval policy of unprotected sex that fully encourages the unsheathed penis to wander across the land impregnating unprotected females from sea to shining sea. Read their rules.

Let’s ignore for the time being that most Catholic women have ignored the “unprotected” edict this battle over birth control has little to do with religion and more to do with who controls a woman’s uterus. The church says they should control it . . . With all due respect, I disagree.

Get out of our pants, or I’m going to start asking if you ever had pre-marital sex, if your wife uses or has ever used birth control or if you think your daughters will follow your narrow-minded view of her health care.

You opened the door, so don’t be surprised if people get pissed you’re in their pants and slam it in your face.

Death of the Printed Word

The printed word is dying . . . a slow and lingering death perhaps, but dying nevertheless.

This pains me. I worked for my college newspaper, then a local daily paper. After selling out, as my newspaper friends teased, I spent years in financial marketing, creating, developing and managing everything from client and broker newsletters, sales pieces, marketing packages and new-issue investment offerings. All printed. Some expensive and glossy and some one- or two-color weekly quickies.

I loved the fast pace of a daily newspaper, at least one or two news articles a day when I was a reporter and a few feature pieces every week. There was no better writing and reporting place in the world. And later there was no better editing place in the world. The sheer speed and volume of work was exhilarating. At an interview at Time magazine the very bright guy who interviewed me said I should go to grad school before landing full-time at some to-be-decided publication. He was probably right, but I wanted to get my hands in the ink somewhere . . . and newly married, the local paper, the Greenwich Time,  was the place. I’d worked there for a summer as an intern, so I figured it was the place to start.

When I started, the paper was printed a few short steps from where the editorial room was, reporters and editors rushing to make deadline. It was an afternoon paper then, and watching that day’s paper roll off the press was a regular routine. The printing operation was moved up to our sister paper, the Stamford Advocate, after they were purchased Times-Mirror, and we became a morning paper.

Not to date myself too much, but back then the only way to get the news was to read a daily paper. Now just about everyone has at least one computer, a smart phone or some other device on which they can get the latest headlines in seconds.

Even in the beginning, the decline was fast, smaller papers were soaked up by bigger ones, newspaper costs kept rising and circulations started falling, news was more available online, and online advertising cut into newspaper advertising. The classified ad market changed completely with the creation of outlets like Craigslist, and since classifieds provided a huge revenue stream for papers, they couldn’t generate growing profits.

Soon bigger papers were merged with other bigger papers, but circulation continued to fall and papers started to fail. Even papers like The New York Times (which I’ll argue remains the country’s best paper), were pulled into the death spiral. The digital age was fully upon us. And newspaper, magazine and book owners and publishers, not to mention writers, editors and other staff, are scrambling to catch up. Often not very successfully.

The vaulted New York Times continues to struggle, floundering to work its online product with its printed product. Deep staff cuts and changes at the top of the Times and other papers makes one wonder whether the depth and breadth of news coverage is a thing of the past. Even the better non-newspaper online news sources cover just bigger stories and often have daily gaps in features.

Of course, creating online content is cheaper than heating and maintaining the high-cost, centrally located buildings and printing facilities many newspapers have had for years. And since there’s no printing needed, capital costs are slashed.

So most papers today have an online presence, and many offer their full editorial content online. Often that content is free to readers. What remains to be seen is whether or not readers will pay for that content (and if so, how much?).

And while printed marketing materials will probably always be produced (salesmen like to hand things to potential customers), online marketing is a must for nearly every business.

The book business is suffering the same fate. E-readers are everywhere and Amazon’s new Kindle Fire has already hooked customers even deeper into the Amazon pipeline. While printed books continue to sell, the writing, as it were, is on the wall, though some of us remain attached to the feel and hominess of printed books, the simple fact is that for many people the Kindle, and other e-readers are convenient. Going on a trip? Download a few books and you don’t have to figure out how to fit them into your luggage. Notepads, computers and even smart phones are packed with books, magazines and newspapers.

And though sharing is limited and donating them to a good cause can’t be done, millions of books are available as e-books (and some as just e-books). I don’t really understand the price structure since many e-books are only a couple of dollars cheaper than the printed version, it seems to me that pricing as well as improved e-reader and better file sharing will continue to grow that end of the business at the expense of hard copies. All your entertainment in one easy device.

I loved the noise, speed and smell and of the printing process . . . not to mention the thrill of seeing a finished newspaper coming off the press. Soon that whole process will go the way of the vinyl record and turntable. I enjoy reading news stories and features on my computer, but books and magazines still warm me. . . and a generation from now, newspapers and newspaper stands will be things that kids learn about in history class.

To the Left and to the Right, Beware the Radicals

Beware the radicals, for they shall destroy the world.

Take a look around . . . I mean way around . . . and you’ll see radicals everywhere . .  on the left and on the right. Now these people, of course, don’t consider themselves radicals, but it seems to me that if we apply our reasonable eye to them and their beliefs, they fit that radical bill.

Whether it’s Orthodox Jews throwing rocks and spitting at a school girl in Israel, a Palestinian walking on to a bus and blowing himself up, a whacko blowing up a women’s clinic, or a man gunning down dozens of kids at a camp in Norway, they believe they are the arbiters of right and wrong . . . and of life and death.

I know it may not be fair to apply our sense of reasonableness to other countries or regions, but what the heck . . . we live in a place where we can voice our views and opinions without getting thrown in jail. It’s a freedom we too often take for granted.

We take for granted cartoonists can mock whomever they please, or comedians can step over lines most of us dare not tread, or some idiot can stand up and declare the end of the world is coming next week. We take for granted that women can wear whatever they wish and not get beaten on the street by religious thugs, or that we can peacefully protest without being shot.

Sure there are plenty of things that may bug us . . . who is paying for those Occupy protests around the country? . . . why does an artist create a sculpture of Christ with elephant dung? . . . And we may get pissed off. But what makes us great, the core of our country, is to allow those types of protests and conflicts and even defend people’s rights to voice those views, no matter how much we disagree.

That’s a view lost on our current crop of politicians occupying our buildings down in Washington D.C. They forgot those buildings don’t belong just to them. They forgot we pay them a lot of money to run the government . . . and even run it well (if such a thing is possible). They forgot there are people starving in this country and people unable to pay for their medicine or put gas in their cars.

And they forgot, in this election year, that turning themselves into radicals serves no purpose other than to fool people into voting for them. It’s a great argument for limiting the number of times they can run for office. Somewhere there is a middle . . . a balance between too much or too little government . . . a balance between too many regulations and too few . .  sit down and work it out.

So take a hard look at them. Radicals? Indeed some are . . . they may not be out in the streets beating people, but their proposals and speeches peel back that veil of reasonableness and exposes them for who they are . . . panderers to the most narrow-minded of their supporters, and haters of those who differ from them . . on both sides of aisle.

In the long run, it won’t work of course. We see what we see and hear what you say . . . and you are just as much a coward as that thug overseas beating women because they aren’t covered head-to-toe.

Somehow the Hot Chick with a Gun Slipped My Mind When the Feds Came Knocking

I was cooking a beautiful strip steak last night when there was a knock at the door. I looked out and three black Suburbans, blue and red lights flashing, sat facing the house and four obviously armed men in suits were standing at my door. A woman, also in a suit, was standing behind them, her right hand on a compact 9 mm Sig Sauer laser-sight P290 (I watch a lot of cop shows).

I turned off the stove and opened the door, being sure to show them my hands were empty. The woman eased her hand off the butt of her gun.

“Mr. Brophy . . . It’s been reported to us that you have well beyond the legal limit of salt in your house,” said the extraordinarily large fellow to the right.

“Well,” I stammered, “I have some salt, but I don’t think I’m over the limit.

“We tracked a purchase you made yesterday of a pound of Diamond Crystal kosher salt, and that, according to our records, put you over the limit. We need to check your kitchen and pantry.”

He handed me a folded piece of paper . . . “Food Warrant” headlined the large type at the top of the page.

I pushed the storm door open and they came in.

Quickly opening cabinet doors and going through my tall stand-alone pantry cabinet, they poked and prodded boxes and bags, pulling all sorts of spices into the open and placing them on the kitchen table. Now I’ve always had a soft-spot for an attractive woman packing a 9mm on her hip, but, please, rounding up my salt oversupply was a bit much even for me.

They were done in a few minutes . . . and separated the salt variety gift I received from the Kosher salt . . . then the flavored salts I’d purchased. All in all, two pounds of Kosher salt and one pound of grey salt and one pound of sea salt. Busted.

“Mr. Brophy, you’re two pounds over your monthly salt allotment,” said Gigantor in a suit.

I argued a bit, but knew that there was no real arguing with the Food Police. He handed me a ticket . . . then headed for the door. Gun girl turned and wished me a “nice day.” Really? Nice day?

As they reached the door, the big guy turned and said, “I see you have a couple of boxes of Frosted Flakes there on top of the refrigerator,” Mr. Brophy. “Be careful not to add to that this month . . .  and watch your OJ purchases, too . . . sugar’s bad for you, you know.”

And with that they were gone. I put the salt back where it belonged, watching the black Suburbans head out the driveway.

Damn, I’ve got to remember to buy that stuff with cash. Reminding myself that the Food Police can track anything, and come knocking at the door when I least expect it . . . and end up screwing up my now-well-done steak.

Santorum Still Riding the Hate Bus into New Hampshire

You notice the other day that Rick Santorum would annul gay marriages should he be elected President?

If you’re smart, you might have moved to Canada or perhaps Australia before he took office, but I do find it interesting, that, still stirring his anti-gay campaign, he would annul gay marriages. Of course, annulling marriages is nothing new to Catholics. “Oh no . . . never happened” goes the annulment mantra. So if Santorum became President, he would end with a wave of his pen (fortunately it isn’t that easy) thousands of marriages. Think about that . . . people that might have been married for years, children in families now broken apart by government mandate, tens of thousands of people who, when married could share benefits etc. now unable to.

Always seemed rather ridiculous to me. After all, either you were married or not. But in Santorum’s world, of course, annulment would probably be a major thing. It is ironic that, while waving his pen to end tens of thousands of marriages, Santorum argues that marriage is a key to the strength of America. And in his America, some people are more equal than others.

Of course Santorum means marriage between a man and a woman . . . not same-sex marriages, which he apparently views as beneath him. And thus continues his hate campaign, couched in his conservative views and air of conservative sensibilities, but a hate campaign nevertheless. When you campaign against a group of people, that’s hate. And Santorum’s comparison to anything other than gay marriage . . . like polygamy or sex with animals or whatever . . . is a fear tactic again meant to play to a homophobic narrow-minded minority.

Should the government be in the business of regulating what consenting adults do behind closed doors?

So as Santorum drives his hate stake deep into the heart of the radical right, one cannot help but observe that another alleged conservative wants to change the Constitution, pile on new laws and social regulations, and mandate social behavior. All to fit his idea of a perfect world.

Wouldn’t we be better served if he spent the same effort speaking out against his church’s pedophilia problem and subsequent cover-ups? His is a world where he would end access to birth control, limit women’s access to healthcare, send judges to Guam and annul tens of thousands of legal marriages.

That’s not my idea of a perfect world (is such a thing possible anyway?). These candidates need to get over the sex stuff (an issue with which they seem fabulously uncomfortable and uneducated) and start focusing on how they’re going to move the country forward, not back into the Stone Age. Stop pandering and give us solutions. Jobs, the deficit, trade deficit, immigration, building business, fixing healthcare . . . where are you? Tell me.

Now Santorum has left the cozy Iowa playground and is finding his audience isn’t as friendly. So while Santorum continues to wage his war embracing government-sanctioned discrimination, and other social doctrines he feels are important, the dialogue about what will move this country forward will hopefully change.. The socially conservative pandering will not move us forward. It stalls intelligent discussion.

Don’t tell me why you are anti-gay and anti-women, move into this world, get off those stale busses and get on to the ones most of us care about.

Grow some onions and say all people are equal, now let’s try to make this country a place where we embrace that and turn this ship around and get it moving again. Focus on the real issues. Voters will begin to shred you if you don’t.

Ron Paul Adding Some Spice to an Otherwise Bland Primary Season

Suppose they held a GOP cage war and Ron Paul won?

Wow. Wouldn’t that shake up the political landscape? Say one thing about Ron Paul, he’s unique. But he seems to have tapped something. I’m not quite sure what yet, and the Republican primary season has just begun (thankfully that means all the run-up to it is done), but Paul is hitting a nerve with a fairly large group of voters. More than half of those voting for him in the Iowa caucuses were young voters.

I’m going to assume at this point that Mitt Romney will win the delegates and be the one to battle Barack Obama in the fall. Although Rick Santorum came within a hair of taking Iowa, his strong evangelical support won’t carry through upcoming primaries, where the majority of voters are more moderate and less inclined to support his socially conservative views. Bachman’s out. Perry will be out before New Hampshire. Gingrich will probably be out after New Hampshire, as will Huntsman (who has spent weeks politicking here). 

So Ron Paul, who hasn’t flip-flopped, pandered or moderated his views in years. How refreshing is that? I’ll concede he would probably be trounced in an election contest with Obama, but his out-there, government hands-off philosophy is drawing attention and could draw voters. Americans are tired of war, government handouts and tax dollars headed overseas in the form of foreign aid. They are tired of government bungling the budget, the deficit, job growth, tax policy and healthcare reform.

Paul stands as the anti-government guy. And like his views or not, one can’t help but whisper that a lot of what he says hits a chord. It’s all about the money, so if Paul can afford to stay in the race, he will . . . twisting the knife in the side of the GOP through the winter and spring.

In the end it may be a question of just how fed up voters are. Paul’s support will build if people see him as a way to chuck the current suits in Washington and stand the establishment of both parties on their collective heads. And if he can continue to draw young people into his tent, his campaign will, at least, be fun to watch.

Romney may be leading the pack right now, but remember that he drew only 25 percent of the Iowa vote. That means 75 percent of the voters liked someone better. The primary season is a long, drawn out, mostly boring process, but watching Ron Paul may add a little more excitement than usual this year.