Monday, October 15, 2007

Add this to the list of niggling little things I REALLY think the effin’ media should have managed to get straight by now, but obviously haven’t… (And so you just KNOW it’s going to be front page news in a blog devoted entirely to niggling little things.)

From a Canadian Press news release, October 7, about the latest political photo-op trip to Afghanistan, this time by Conservative cabinet ministers Maxime Bernier and Bev Oda:

“They hopped aboard armoured vehicles, donned
flack vests and helmets, took rides aboard an
immense twin-rotor Chinook helicopter and quizzed
soldiers about the workings of the military and its machines.”


I don’t expect the media – necessarily – to know that the word “flak” is a much-compressed rendition of the German word, Fliegerabwehrkanone, which translates literally as “air defence cannon”. But what I do expect the media to know is that the flying flurry of bits of metal from bursting anti-aircraft shells, and the word as used in that context, is “flak”.

I also expect the media to know that it is this “flak” that has since come to mean everything from those flying bits of metal that first gave it its name (hence the designation of a bulletproof vest as a “flak jacket”) to the critical tirades that appear in everything from performance appraisals to film reviews (i.e., “Ontario Conservative leader John Tory took a great deal of public and media flak over his ill-conceived advocacy of public funding for religion-based separate schools, so Ontario Conservative leader John Tory got his ass handed to him in the recent provincial election.”)

But what I would really have hoped the media to have known by now, in the near century that has passed since anti-aircraft guns first began hurling flak into the path of enemy airplanes, is that a “flack” is, most often, a sycophant, a PR person, an intermediary between celebrities and the great unwashed who seek to meet with or write about them. From time to time in fact, flacks even take flak. But a “flack vest”? If it’s a Harry Potter-like cloak of invisibility that shields you from unwanted attention from butt-kissers (or “fart-catchers”, as Frank Magazine loves to call them), sure. But if it’s the personal body armour such as is worn in Afghanistan to provide some modest protection from enemy snipers, then it is a “flak” vest.

GOT IT, MEDIA???

= = = = = = = = = =

Canada is a pretty generous country when it comes to welcoming foreign refugees. Really, you need look no farther than our major cities and the variety of immigrant communities manifest in their “Little Italy”s “Chinatown”s, “Little Vietnam”s, “Little Somalia”s and so on and on and on, to get the idea.

Recently, I was triggered into wondering just what such people must think, when they first arrive on our shores, as they begin to observe our so-called culture and priorities by way of our media. More specifically – and here is what I’m really getting at – as new arrivals to our shores look at the things we feature in our advertising, I can’t help but think that after even just a few minutes of watching what we are being sold, they must push themselves back from the printed page or the TV screen and ask themselves (in an endless variety of bodily-function based obscenities, such usually being the basis for any language’s more colourful cursing), “What the [bodily-function-adverb / bodily-function noun] is the matter with these people?!!”

The most recent "trigger" that led me to this musing was a 66-page (66... PAGE?) full-colour advertising supplement that arrived with this weekend’s New York Times Sunday edition entitled “Watch Your Time”. Astonishingly (Well, to me “astonishingly”. Maybe it’s perfectly normal to other people.) it is an entire special New York Times advertising supplement devoted to wristwatches. Not even wall clocks or decorative hourglasses or garden sundials... just... wristwatches.

Perhaps even the mighty Gray Lady was painfully aware that this one is a tad over the top, because the supplement opens with an editorial, no less, by its publisher, one wholly unpronounceable (or at least over-consonanted) Christian Llavall-Ubach. On his page, Mr Llavall-Ubach (I am tempted to address him as “Baron” solely on the strength of his hyphenated vaguely Teutonic-looking name) waxes rhapsodic about the fact that the US of A is so vast it requires no fewer than four separate time zones just to manage the continental part of the country. Adding Alaska and Hawaii to the total requires six separate temporal zones – for one country !!

Says the Baron, “The USA is a huge country, so big that it requires four main time zones just to manage the time across the continental USA.” Well golly gee willikers! For my part, when I read that, I was reminded immediately of Douglas Adams’ efforts to get us to understand the size of the universe in “A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”:

“Space is big - really big - you just won't
believe how vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly big it is.
You may think it's a long way down the road to the
chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."


But the Baron’s awe doesn’t end with a country so vast it requires six time zones. No, he is, in fact, given to ponder the weighty import of the wristwatch itself in our lives:

“A fine wristwatch helps us value precious memories
(how and when we got our watches and the things we did
while wearing them), thus making us more aware of what
we have accomplished and what is yet to be done.”


Let me just say this to you, Baron... I don’t think I want to know the kind of person who could pull me aside at a dinner party, yank up his sleeve, point to his wristwatch and ask, “Know what I was doing when I got this?”

And let me just say this to you, too, Baron... Were that ever to happen, I’m really afraid my response would be a somewhat puzzled facial expression, followed by, “Ummm... wondering what time it was, and lacking a timepiece to tell you?”

Because really, why the f%#$k else does one buy a wristwatch anyway?

As I wandered through the pages of this waste of trees, I discovered in short order that John Travolta wears a Breitling; Tiger Woods sports a TagHeuer (“chronograph with perpetual retrograde calendar!!!”... Actually, on second thought, swap those “!!!” for “???”). Friedrich Nietzsche may not have worn a watch, but via this quote: “Whatever does not destroy me makes me stronger”, he has been brought into endorsing the “muscular chassis with alveolar structure, high performance engines strengthened by anti-shock bridges...” that apparently buttress the Zenith “Defy Xtreme” line of “chronographs”... Girard Perregaux includes a photo of a bottle of Chateau Lafite-Rothschild 2000 in its ad – presumably to give you something to swill while you’re waiting for the stock market to open, because their watchface features red pointers on the hour ring to tell you when each of the world’s major stock markets opens. Nicolas Cage has joined with Montblanc to “make a joint commitment to social responsibility”. Each MontBlanc “TimeWalker” purchased will result in a “significant donation” to something called “Heal the Boy”.

And so it goes. Oh, apparently one of the Wright Brothers – we’re not told whether it was Wilbur or Orville – owned a Vacheron-Constatin Pilot’s watch. Which makes me wonder just how shrewd their marketing department must have been. “Hey boss... coupla bicycle repairmen out in North Carolina are trying to make the world”s first powered flight in a heavier-than-air flying machine. And guess what boss! The guy driving it? Apparently he’s going to be called the ‘pilot’” “Omigod! Quick, send him one of those two thousand gobblers we couldn’t get the Kaiser to endorse when he sacked Bismarck. We may yet sell these things!”

(Gosh don’t you just LOVE Baby Duck? Where else can you leap from Francis Ford Coppola’s son to one of the most famous cartoons in Punch Magazine’s long history... over a span of a mere 100 or so words?)

Where was I?

Oh yes... So there are 66 pages of this crap! Were it a bound guide to a museum exhibit about the history of personal timepieces, I could maybe see 66 pages. But a 66-page glossy full-colour magazine solely to sell the damned things?

To quote my anonymous and hypothetical new arrival friend (above), “What the [bodily-function-adverb / bodily-function noun] is the matter with these people?!!”

(Me? I wear a NeXXtech... $19.99 at The Source. It tells me what time it is. I am so NOT the “chronograph” demographic.)

= = = = = = = = = =

Meanwhile… here’s another chapter in my continuing adventures in the world o’ consumers.

We pick up our story in a large Ottawa housewares supply store – in this case, a Home Outfitters at the corner of Old Innes and Blair, right beside RONA… if you’re taking notes – where your intrepid blogger had actually gone in search of a new toaster to meet the family’s requirements of, oh you know… the ability to make toast. At a recent dinner with our in-laws, we noticed they had a really great looking model made by T-FAL, and we’d received very good reports from them about its abilities to brown everything from bread to fresh bagels. (Its appearance, admittedly, is a factor. Our toaster sits permanently on our kitchen counter beside an espresso machine and a coffee mill, both of which are clad in stainless steel. So obviously a toaster finished in, say, walnut, would clash. The T-FAL is finished in steel.)

So anyway, there I am in Home Outfitters and there is a display model of the T-FAL toaster sitting right on the shelf in front of me. Life is good. At this point, a saleslady (who in a few minutes will have told herself to never, ever again walk up to a customer and ask, “Can I help you?”) asked me, “Can I help you?”

Pointing to the display model of the toaster, I said, “Can you tell me how much that costs?” Little did I realize I had just launched a storewide search that would, in short order, make Jason’s quest for the Golden Fleece seem like the annual White House children’s Easter egg hunt. The toaster, we discovered, was the only appliance on the whole shelf lacking a shelf-mounted price tag. Nor did it have a visible “SKU number” (that’s the code number usually found in little digits beside, above or below the bar code).

Eventually, after a good 15 minutes of looking, she informed me that not only could she not tell me the price, she was unable (because of the absent SKU) to tell me if any were actually in the store. Finally, she drew in two other employees who, after ten minutes’ searching of their own, both came back with the information that neither of them could tell me the price or if there were any left in the store (3 employees X their collective hourly wage X 15 minutes. Since it was Sunday, I won’t include my normal waiting fee.)

Another few minutes passed while one of the searchers actually seized the toaster and marched it over to (I assume) a manager because he came back with it, presented it like a Japanese salesman offering a business card, and solemnly announced, “He said we can let you have this one for $40.00.”

The next few phrases, I hasten to add all went no further than my own mind. What I actually said will follow.

What I thought was, “You mean to tell me you have just tied three staff people in knots looking for the answer to (what I thought was) a pretty straightforward question – How much does it cost?; you can find neither a price nor a new one in the box – (To emphasize: you have just told me you have no idea in hell what this thing costs) – and you are pitching a random number to me as a favour??? What you’re really saying is, ‘Please, will you just go away?’ Right??”

That’s what I thought. What I said: “Thanks, but I really prefer a new one in the box, with all the warranty cards and instructions included.”

He responded, “Right, I understand.” And back to the shelf went their “bargain”.

The day may come when the sad little T-FAL toaster, eventually taken home by a sympathetic Home Outfitters employee, causes an Antiques Roadshow appraiser to light up with a sparkling smile and an, “Oh my! You have an early millennial T-FAL electric toaster in beautiful condition… but of course because you have no provenance, it’s only worth $40.00. A pity, because with an owner’s manual, I would definitely have recommended to you that you insure it for, oh… say, $250,000.”

And I will laugh most merrily, watching along with the rest of my bunkmates in the Old Age barracks.

= = = = = = = = = =

Finally, recently I popped in to a lighting store in Ottawa in search of a bulb to replace a burned out one in a wall light we had purchased there months earlier. (Rather than even try to find a replacement bulb anywhere else, I decided to go right to the source.)

The bulb was a small one with two little wire loops protruding from the bottom – the contact points with the electrical source in the fixture.
It actually looked quite a bit like the flashbulbs I used to have to buy about a century and a half ago to use with my Kodak Brownie Starmite.

There wasn’t a mark on the burned-out bulb to tell me what brand it was, or its size, or even its brightness. So no one should be surprised to hear that, after explaining that I was looking for a replacement for the burned out bulb I had brought with me, the clerk behind the counter held it up, looked closely at it and asked,

“What watt?”

“What?”, I replied. (Of course I did.)

Then we both realized how idiotic the previous utterings had just sounded and started laughing.

To make a long story short, she was actually able to call up our purchase of the fixture on their computer – despite its having been several months ago. With a quick cross-reference to the make and model, she turned up precisely one bulb that went with it. And they had several in stock, sitting right under the cash register.

After I marvelled at the speed of her ability to discover exactly the bulb I needed, I bought two and as I paid, I said, “Thank goodness, I thought we were going to get into Abbott and Costello’s ‘Who’s On First?’ there.”

“Who?” she said.

I stifled a massive urge to respond, “Yes,” dreaming that she would then say, “What?” to which I would reply, “No, he’s on second.”

“Abbott and Costello,” I replied.

Blank.

Have you ever tried to explain “Who’s on first?” to someone who has never heard of the routine, or never even heard of Abbott and Costello?

I don’t recommend it. Because when you try to explain it, not only does it not sound even the least bit funny, it swiftly comes to sound as if you, the explainer, are just one psychiatric examination away from a Royal Ottawa Hospital room where the door locks are on the outside.

After spluttering away for a bit trying to elucidate the unexplainable, wishing desperately for another customer to come along so she could exit gracefully from having to listen to me for even one more second (“And the name of the guy on third is ‘I Don’t Know’... hahahahaha”), finally I said, “Do you have the internet at home?” “Of course,” she replied. “Well when you go home after work, just go to You Tube and search 'Who’s on first?' Trust me; you’ll laugh.”

And feeling very, very old, I took my new bulbs, bid her adieu and slunk off in search of enlightenment elsewhere. Knowing full well that seeking out Abbott and Costello had probably vaulted right up there with drawing smiley faces on her toenails as her priorities after work.

Until la prochaine.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

A story in two parts

Part 1: “I admire your honesty.”

Recently, I opened a savings account that actually offers a moderately attractive interest rate – it’s at President’s Choice and is one of the non-grocery services offered by the Loblaws people about which I have no complaints. (The other is the ready availability of some excellent Ontario wines that are in their in-store Vintages locations, saving the need for a separate trip to the liquor store.)

A simple concept, PCF (President’s Choice Financial) reduces “banks” essentially to kiosks in their grocery stores staffed by one or, at most, two knowledgeable people. PCF levies no fees on all the ordinary little week-to-week banking transactions such as cheque-writing and bank machine withdrawals, which other banks use to make the obscene levels of profit that their investors and shareholders like but the average depositor, with low-maintenance service needs, loathes.

A few months ago Loblaws decided, with very little fanfare, that no longer will they require a signature on grocery purchases under $100 that are made with a credit card. And recently, little signs have appeared at all the checkout stations touting this “service” and adding the apparently encouraging assurance, “With no loss of security”.

Needless to say, this left me more than a little baffled because how, I wondered, can the elimination of the one remaining personal i.d. verification – my signature – maintain any protection against the fraudulent use of my card, were I, for example, to drop it on the way out of the store and have it fall into the hands of a less than scrupulous stranger?

My new account application required an in-person appearance. (That’s another story – the online process requires you to use your Social Insurance Number as i.d. If you wish to use any other piece of i.d., you have to appear in person. I greatly prefer not to use my SIN for this sort of thing. And the nice thing about Canadian law is that you cannot be compelled to use it for anything other than Government of Canada services, which was the original intent of that particular piece of i.d.)

Anyway, I thought that since I was actually meeting a real person face-to-face, I figured I’d seek an explanation. And by the time I was half a dozen words into my question, it was obvious she knew exactly where I was going because this knowing “Here comes another one” smile appeared on her face. Obviously I am not the first person to ask about this, because her reply was issued with all the confidence of someone who not only has memorized the store’s policy talking points on this issue, she clearly has been called upon more than once to employ them in order to answer just this question.

As it turns out, Loblaws – not to mention the credit backers – have a damned peculiar definition of “security”. Because what she told me was, if a bank is faced with a claim of fraudulent use of its credit card, and if the billed amount is less than $100 and if there is no signature, then the bank, by law, has to accept the borrower’s claim and cancel the billing. (No I don’t know what law that’d be. I’m just passing along what I was told by someone who at least projected an air of knowing what she was talking about.)

When she had completed this explanation, I paused for a few seconds while it sank in, then looked at her and said, “Do you realize you’ve just told me a way to get free groceries for the rest of my life?” She laughed – a little nervously – and said, “Maybe for a month or two at most. If they detect a pattern, they’ll cancel the card.”

*Phew* I really feel better about that. (Let’s just say that if the day comes when I see “Loblaws Baghdad Market*: Falafel: $99.00” on my monthly bill, someone’s going to get a call, pattern or no pattern.)

* Did you know that if you Google “Loblaws Baghdad Market” (without the quotes), you’ll get (at this writing) 22,600 hits? You do now.

- -

Part 2: “Take it. It’s only money.”

In tandem with opening up a savings account, I wanted to obtain a new credit card, in my name, with a maximum allowable billing of $500. My purpose here is to have a card that I can use for online purchasing, online charitable donations and the like, without causing simultaneous shudders on Wall, Bay and Bond Streets were it to be caught up in some hacker’s driftnetting.

My first query went to the helpful young lady who cheerfully advised me of Loblaws “equal security” no-signature-required policy (above). Sadly, she informed me that they could not issue a second card to me in my own name. Oddly enough, they were quite happily prepared to issue me up to three separate cards, each assigned to someone different, who would share my credit limit. Their thinking here is, of course, “Get the missuz and the kids their own credit cards!” Equally of course, all I had to do was sign a form assuming responsibility for all debts incurred on all the other cards. But issue a second, meager-limit card to me? Nope. Can’t do.

After prowling around a few sites online, I opted to apply for a basic no-fee American Express card. “Basic” meaning Air Miles included, the absolute minimum strip-down I could get on a line of cards that began with double-extra-good-platinum-plus-you-can-buy-a-surplus-aircraft-carrier-no-questions-asked-with-this-baby and gradually slid down the scale to “Basic”, which included Air Miles. Which, as a matter of note, I didn’t even want. I had an Air Miles card once. After a year and a half of using it, I had accumulated enough air miles to roll from the Ottawa Airport’s departure gate to the beginning of their east-west runway.

And if you ever doubted the power and integration of the Internet, consider this: The site promised an evaluation and an answer to my application in 60 seconds. That means they are capable of verifying my i.d. and assessing my financial situation before returning either an approval or rejection in less time than it takes to peel an apple.

It actually took even less than that – about 30 seconds later, Whang! Up popped a box on my screen congratulating me, and cheerfully telling me that a full package, with approved card, would arrive within ten days and with a maximum credit amount of $19,000. (“Please contact us if you wish to increase this amount!”)

I didn’t want to increase the amount. I wanted, in fact, to decrease it by a divider of 38. So I phoned Amex and after wading through a pile of options their helpful voicemail compiler figured would be among the most likely reasons people call (“If you are calling to request a decrease in your monthly limit, press…” was not even on the list. What are the odds?) I finally got to press the “If you would like to speak to a customer representative, press...” button in order to talk to a real person.

Who promptly told me to wait until my package arrived and when I called the number to activate the card, I could request a decreased monthly limit at that time. However, I think that policy is a last-ditch effort to get people to change their minds because when I pressed the question (“But I was just given online approval, so I assume the package is not in the mail already! Can you not request a lower limit on this card?”), I received a swift acquiescence. (“Oh you want to request a lower limit? Well I guess I can do that for you.”)

Turns out their lowest limit is $1,000, but I can live with that.

And the world wonders why so much of the population in capitalist countries is mired in soaring personal debt loads.

Just to put a coda to this story, the day after my contact with Amex, I spun the story out for a co-worker and he told me that he heard people seeking credit are assigned an overall “global” credit limit based on a whack of factors like income, previous borrowing history, etc. If you accumulate several cards whose combined limit approaches that amount, the number of new card issuers who will approve an application from you suddenly begins to shrink dramatically. So if you do apply for a new card and you still have a significant gap between the limit you have, and the limit to which you are entitled according to this credit ranking, you shouldn’t be surprised to discover that a single card provider will all but wipe out that gap by giving you a limit that takes all of your remaining allowable monthly borrowing limit and assigns to it one card – theirs. That way, you’ve maxed out your so-called “global” credit ranking on one card, effectively forcing you to make all your credit purchases on that card simply because you aren’t able to get approval for new cards issued anywhere else.

I don’t know if that’s true, but it sure sounds plausible.


And finally… I don’t know what title to put on this. But here’s the story. Very recently, I actually bought a CD at Starbuck’s – it’s John Fogerty’s new album, Revival (which, come to think of it, he could have named Reviver and placed its name in an endless circle on the cover… Come to think of it even more, I guess “endless circle” is redundant, not to mention kinda stupid when you think of it. But I digress.)

When I got to the cash, in addition to my long double espresso, I slid the CD across the counter and suddenly noticed the price sticker had two prices: one in $US and one in $Canadian. And the Canadian price was $2 more. And this on a day when I’d heard in the news that the loonie actually closed the day ahead of the almighty greenback.

So being the pain in the ass that I am, I asked the kid behind the cash (and it really was a kid; this guy had to still be viewing his 17th birthday on some distant horizon) why that was. To his credit, ho looked me square in the eye and said, “I don’t know.” At which point a helpful older kid – probably the night manager, cause she had to be at least 18 – came over and offered, “I know the reason. It’s because we can’t keep up.”

So being the pain in the ass that I am (or has someone already said that?), I looked at her and tapped the price sticker. “OK, well then how be you sell it to me for the US dollar price and then you’ll be keeping up?” I said. Now they looked at each other, and at that point I said, “Just charge me the Canadian price; it’s not your fault.”

They seemed relieved.

A couple days ago, my wife, who is infinitely wiser than I, told me she was no longer buying books, effective immediately, until the higher “In Canada” price vanishes. As of tonight, I’m joining her in that. For several weeks, I’ve heard countless bleats from publishers trying to explain away the need for pricing in Canadian dollars that is sometimes 30 or 40 per cent above the American dollar price. And yet not once has any of them sounded the least bit credible. The bottom line is that we are at this moment pouring a pool of profit onto a publishing gravy train in this country and if enough of us just say [EXPLETIVE DELETED], maybe they’ll get the hint that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQGXi_7ATag (alternatively, we could all channel Howard Beale.) Wouldn’t that make them think? Wouldn’t it just? Just quit buying books in Canada. And then watch how fast those US and Canadian numbers match up.

- - -

À la next time.