Why is it So Darn Hard to Read Slate.com?

I like Slate.com. I really do. One of my guilty pleasures is reading Emily Yoff's Dear Prudence column every Thursday. It's just that when I move on to the other interesting articles, I have a problem with being pulled out of the story by a combination of links and seemingly random bold print.

So I'm actually complaining about the formatting rather than the content.

I appreciate that the site wants me to know their writers can properly cite references for the statements they make but I view these large swaths of light blue text as an interruption to the reading experience. Take, for example, this article on Afghanistan (and yes I know I'm using a link but it's small and relevant). Five links in nine paragraphs with the average one being 4.5 words long. My inner reader's voice stumbles over these written speed bumps and loses focus on an otherwise well written article.

And just look at this:



What is up with this seemingly random bolding of large portions of text? Do the editors really think I can't pick out the important parts of the article myself? If I've managed to navigate to the tuna story I probably have an interest in reading and understanding what they are reporting so it's unnecessary to be so condescending as to point out the three or four lines that really get to the heart of the story. Especially something written so plainly as "endangers the species". That packs a wallop all by itself.

Maybe that's what irks me. A relatively smart site like Slate shouldn't be so nervous that it must cite a reference for every fact or treat its readers like dufuses who can't understand which arguments or conclusions are important without being bold (See? It's like I don't trust you to understand that this is the point I am trying to make).

Tom Friedman gets Afghanistan Right

Every once in a while you read something that so perfectly encapsulates your feelings on a subject you wonder how the writer can be in such synchronicity with you. That is the case with Thomas Friedman's column today in the New York Times.

Mr. Friedman argues that we should not build up the troop levels in Afghanistan because we cannot want victory there than its citizens. He thinks it's time to reduce our presence and re-think our goals. That perhaps if everyone there had to stand on their own they would reconsider the actions they are taking. In his words, "Let them all start paying retail for their extremism, not wholesale. Then you’ll see movement."

From the piece:

What if we shrink our presence in Afghanistan? Won’t Al Qaeda return, the
Taliban be energized and Pakistan collapse? Maybe. Maybe not. This gets to my
second principle: In the Middle East, all politics — everything that matters —
happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after
we shrink down in Afghanistan, the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake
and bin Laden will issue an exultant video.

And the morning after the morning after, the Taliban factions will
start fighting each other, the Pakistani Army will have to destroy their
Taliban, or be destroyed by them, Afghanistan’s warlords will carve up the
country, and, if bin Laden comes out of his cave, he’ll get zapped by a
drone.

He has a point. The presence of our forces are driving people to act like the Taliban even if they aren't joining the Taliban. They want the foreign invaders gone. The Karzai government only wants us in the country to prop themselves up. If people want democracy they need to work for it and earn it like every other democracy. We cannot keep spilling blood and spending ourselves broke to enforce our will on a country that doesn't seem interested in our way of doing things.

So we should just go.

I hope President Obama is taking so much time to make a decision on Afghanistan because he is considering this option. The United States needs its young people and money right now. This isn't "losing", no matter what the Fox News crowd thinks. This is cutting ourselves loose from a bad deal. I hope the president is smart enough to see this for himself.

Rockin' Railroad

No, not me, the other Mike Prelee.

My Uncle Mike is a world class designer of O scale railroads. I've featured his past efforts, like the Croton Canyon Railroad. "Mr. Mountain", as he is known, is featured in the October/ November issue of O Gauge Railroading with his Red Rock & Roll railroad.

Uncle Mike grew up in the Sharon, PA area but his radio career took him all around the country, eventually landing him a career on New York radio. On trips to the southwest United States he was enamored of the red rocks found in the desert.

He brought this appreciation back east with him and included it when he constructed the Red Rock & Roll railroad. The layout is 9' x 17', 39" high and features five turnarounds, Ross track, 24 switches and TMCC.

Uncle Mike's railroads always incorporate fun with detailed design. Check out the railroad ties being replaced in the Thomas picture or the mariachi band performing at a wedding. It's easy to see that he loves what he does and has a real passion for it.

Issue 3 Treats the Mahoning Valley Like a Red Headed Step Child

Dave Betras has a point about Issue 3. He says it is bad for the Mahoning Valley because Trumbull and Mahoning counties are left out of the development and his reasoning is absolutely correct.

Issue 3 is on the ballot this November 3rd. It would amend the state constitution to allow one casino to be built in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo. The Mahoning Valley has supported gambling initiatives in the past and many people here are customers of gambling locations at Presque Isle, PA and Wheeling, WV. In fact, it will still be shorter to drive to those locations than the casinos in Cleveland and Columbus.

This proposal prevents future casino development from taking place which prevents new jobs from being created in Youngstown and Warren. The casinos in the other four cities could turn them into the Las Vegas's of the midwest but you'll never see development here in our home. The language in the proposed amnedment specifies one casino in each of the four cities. It doesn't even provide for the possibility of future development. These investors want us to let them into the bakery and then lock the door so no one else can taste the cake.

Given our past support of this issue the residents of this area would be correct if they beg off this time. It's an insult to ignore the part of the state that needs the most development. Where are the jobs for us? Where is the investment in our cities? It's not greedy to think that way. Not when we're looking at 15% unemployment. Providing strong opposition to this proposal may get us what we want the next time they try.

Vote no on Issue 3.

CafePress Changes the Rules and it's Bad News for Shop Keepers

I've been a shop keeper with CafePress for a few years now. My Zombie Trip T-shirt and other designs have sold well there and put a little extra coin in my pocket. Alas, CafePress has changed their terms of service and made it harder for shop keepers to be successful.

The original terms were very simple. Users create designs, upload them to the website and set a mark up rate. CafePress sold the item for a base price plus your mark up. If customers liked your design, CP made the base price and the user made the mark up. If you sold enough, you even got a volume bonus. They offered a nice selection of items like T-shirts, mugs, prints, calendars and bags. The site offered free stores or premium stores that shop keepers could pay for. These premium stores were about $60.00 a year and allowed anyone to have their own place on the world wide web.

Life was good. Then CafePress got greedy and a little pissy about how folks played in their sandbox.

First, volume bonuses were eliminated. That nice little bit of "extra" shopkeepers received for selling in excess of $250.00 a month vanished but that wasn't so bad. I was never one of the bigger sellers on the site and only received the bonus a few times. Then, earlier this year, the gloves came off.

CafePress decided that any items sold in their marketplace would garner only a 10% mark up for their shop keepers. Their marketplace are the pages upon pages of designs you see when you search the site. Shopkeepers could still place whatever mark up they like on the items in their store but items sold in the marketplace were only worth 10%. In effect, CafePress was competing against their shop keepers.

This caused quite an exodus of shop keepers to other Print on Demand (POD) sites like http://www.zazzle.com/.

The result of these changes was reduced revenue for shopkeepers. If you were making $5.00 per shirt you would now receive $2.20 if it sold in the CafePress marketplace. That's quite a hit in the wallet for a hobbyist like me and damn near devastating for those who were making a living off their sales.

Earlier today I posted a message in the CafePress forums that rankled their moderators. I noticed that my "Zombie Trip" shirt was selling for $22.00 in the marketplace and $18.99 in my store. I promptly put a message under my products politely informing customers that if they liked my products it was cheaper to buy them in my CafePress store rather than CafePress's marketplace.

I then posted my idea for all the shopkeepers to see in the CafePress forums. The entire thread was promptly removed from the site by a moderator. Usually they just close and lock a thread they don't like but in this case the idea was so dangerous it had to be disappeared. Here's a copy of what they told me:

New Private Topic by RowdyJRT - "Post Removed" 14 October 2009 07:32 AM
------------------------------ I have removed your "idea to direct traffic" post
from the forum. CP pays for the forum and offering ideas on how to "stick" it to
CP isn't appropriate nor is it constructive.

This is an official Moderator action.

Like I said, it's their sandbox. The mods get cranky whenever someone comes up with a work around or gripes about the revenue sharing changes. They love to play the "CP pays for these boards" card. Well, that's okay. Google gives me this one for free.

As someone who paid $60.00 for their store, I thought I would be allowed to voice an opinion or post an idea but apparently not. CP must have forgotten they pay for their forums with the fees I pay them for my store and the profit they make from my designs.

So I have decided to move my store, Rust Belt Pop, to www.zazzle.com/mprelee. They have a nice marketplace, good products, great tools and they treat their shop keepers with respect. I'll keep my CafePress store open through Christmas but after that, I'll be happily selling my little trinkets at Zazzle.

If anyone wanders in from the CafePress forums please feel free to link this around. You certainly won't see it posted there.

And with that I bid you adieu and leave you to your own drama.

Who is Card Member Services and Why are they Calling Our Cell Phones?

I received a call this afternoon on my cell phone from a company claiming they could lower my credit card interest rate. I spoke to a woman named Dorothy who said she worked for a company called "Card Member Services". She insisted on "verifying" my phone number by asking for it repeatedly even though her company had just called me. I ignored her request and asked what her company could do for me.

Dorothy told me her company could get me a lower credit card interest rate if I had at least $4700.00 in debt, an interest rate of at least 14% and still had a good credit score. When I pressed her and asked how they would do this she insisted on verifying my phone number before we went any further. I asked her where the company was located and was told I would have to speak to a supervisor. She put me on hold and no one ever came back on the line.

I've Googled the company and found this entry for a company under that name. Could these be the scoundrels who are calling our cell phones illegally?

Credit Card Scam has a New Number

The people perpetrating the new credit card scam have a new number, (213) 224-2050. These are the folks who want to help you lower your credit card interest rate if only you'll press 1. Oh, they want you to press 1 so badly but you're way to smart to do that.

Possible Solution to the First Energy Light Bulb "Giveaway"

What if these bulbs were "received broken"? Can consumers really be charged for something they didn't order if the item was received in a condition which didn't allow them to be used?

What would happen if thousands of customers called and complained that the bulbs were broken upon delivery and in an "unusable condition"? Would they be replaced? Would the charge be legal?

Heck what if they "weren't received"? How could they prove they gave them to the customer?

Just a little something to think about.

By the way, if you were counting on your elected representatives to do anything about this issue you are going to be disappointed. State Senator Capri Cafaro was interviewed by the Vinidcator and stated she would have preferred First Energy give away coupons for discounted bulbs and encouraged those who want to complain to contact the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel at (877) 742-5622.

That's nice but it's not exactly gathering up a busload of constituents to protest at First Energy offices is it? It sounds like the sort of answer you get from a politician who thinks they should be on the record saying something about an unpopular situation but who isn't going to get involved.

The First Energy Light Bulb Give Away is Stupid

You would think the electric company knows a little about light bulbs and how to use them wisely.

You would be wrong.

According to Cleveland.com, First Energy has a plan to distribute two CFL light bulbs to all of their customers, which includes those served by Ohio Edison, the Illuminating Co., and Toledo Edison. A California company will hang them on customer's doors or mail them out. They are doing this to be compliant with an Ohio state law passed last year that requires utilities to cut their customer's energy use by 22% by 2025.

The catch is that First Energy customers will pay for the 23 watt bulbs with a monthly fee over the next three years. They will be charged .60 cents a month for 36 months for a total of $21.60 for two light bulbs. That charge is being assessed on all customers whether they use the bulbs or not. You can get a six pack of 26 watt bulbs cheaper at Wal-Mart for about $15.00. The outrageous part is that this charge "covers the cost of the bulbs ($3.50 each), their delivery and the delivery of the power consumers would have used if they didn't have them."

There is no benefit to the consumer with this program. If you want to use CFL bulbs, you can buy them cheaper. I've recommended them for years and I have seen a drop in my electric bills but this plan is foolish. This is an case of a company trying to be "green" and compliant with a law but screwing their customers with overpriced junk and fees they have no control over.

If you are served by First Energy I recommend you contact them and complain about the price of the bulbs and the accompnying fees.