Shipping & Handling

What exactly does 'Shipping & Handling' constitute? Shipping is quite understandable - cost of shipping via UPS or FedEx or even USPS. But what exactly is 'Handling'? What do they 'handle'?

When majority of the businesses were brick and mortar and you wanted something packed and shipped to your home, I can understand the 'handling' aspect of it - since it is not their usual thing to do. But how are 'Online retailers - e-tailers' justified in charging its customer 'handling'?

Would you pay Dell a separate 'handling' cost to put that computer of yours in a box and send it to you from Texas? Of course not. That is Dell's business model and the 'handling' is factored into the price.

Amazon offers the ultimate - Free Saver Shipping. If you are not in a rush, your item is shipped to you for free.

Contrast this with some really outrageous e-tailers: ProFlowers (or any of the flower delivery companies for that matter), L.L.Bean. Their merchandise is already higher priced than a department store. And you end up 'shipping & handling' on top of their exorbitant prices. This is a total rip-off.

Quite frankly, your grocery store flowers are more fresh and better than anything you can order online with these guys. And L.L.Bean's merchandise is also mostly 'Made in China' stuff that you can buy anywhere else. And to have to pay 'handling' for a vendor whose business model is mail-order - is simply unacceptable in today's world.

Red Pill, Blue Pill

Over this summer, our President used the red pill, blue pill analogy to bolster his healthcare plan.

I have personally been involved in evaluating these considerations for my own health a few years ago. In fact, I had three choices.

Faced with highly active Crohn's disease, ended up in the hospital with bloody diarrhea 4 times in 6 weeks. My doctor who was treating me for years wanted to perform yet another resection - which may have worked.

I sought a second opinion. And this doctor wanted to treat me just with steroids - the blue pill, would cost just pennies per daily dose and the insurance does not have to pay any of it, as these are fairly cheap.

Frustrated with those options, I sought yet another opinion. And this doctor thought I was too young to resect away my intestine or treat with steroids. He decided to put me on Remicade - the red pill, costs upwards of $5,000 every 8 weeks and administered at the hospital or physician's office.

In all of this, my insurance company did not get between me and my doctors. And the improvement in the quality of life has been incredible.

Under state-run healthcare like the British system, NICE (the agency that sets these thresholds) would have denied this treatment option since it exceeded their arbitrary $20,000 limit for six months.


And now, anyone with basic understanding of how market works knows that, if the blue pill can do everything that the red pill does at a lower cost, there never will be a red pill.


If there is anything that red pill does the blue pill does not, there are probably patients out there who need it, regardless of the cost.


When you paint with such broad strokes as the President and the democrats are doing, the individuals such as me get the stick. The reason the nation is animated over this subject is because when individual rights are threatened for collectivist dogmas, are we still a free country and free people?

Why we are in Afghanistan

We are in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11 attacks and at that time was in Afghanistan with all operational leadership and its training camps. And the then President and commander-in-chief, George W Bush, has vowed solemnly to go after those who caused us harm. And he was not un-serious.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

By all accounts we mounted an effective campaign. None of the "experts" imagined such a swift campaign. We drove both Taliban and Al-qaeda into Pakistan, but out of the civilized parts of Afghanistan (yes, they ended up in some of the caves).

And then president Bush did something else that the "experts" claimed must be done. We outsourced the war efforts to our allies in the NATO. And the situation gotten worse since then. This was the most tragic error.

Contrast this with President Bush's Iraq campaign - the so called "Bush's War". Although we had difficult times, we stayed the course. And through Gen. Petraeus's surge, we came through an otherwise difficult situation. But President Bush did not weaver in his commitment to the people of Iraq and to our troops. By the end of his term in office, he has successfully concluded the campaign - sure, we still have some troops, but the campaign is largely over and Iraqis are firmly in control. But if President Bush had listened to the "experts" - who are mostly his detractors, like he did in the Afghan campaign, Iraq would be in the same mess that we find now in Afghanistan.

Now, we have the most un-serious President in a lifetime. He finds it more important to pitch for Olympics than talk to his General. He wants to tackle "texting while driving" as opposed to war. He is singularly unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait. He just was awarded the Noble Peace prize. He joins the company of the most un-serious Americans before him - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

Drunk Driving

Found out that a co-worker was killed in a head-on collision by a drunk driver over this weekend.

I drink. I drive. But never together in that order - because I know why I drink and that would not go well with the driving part. And for that reason, I limit my drinking to one of 2 places: at home (I do not have to drive at all) or at a restaurant with my family, when I have someone who could drive me home, safely.

May be I am a bit anti-social. I stay out of all after-work drink parties co-workers arrange, primarily because I would have to drive after that and would not want to drink - that would defeat the purpose of the whole party to begin with.

Why this much is not clear to vast majority of the folks out there is a mystery to me. A lot of folks that I know do this as well as speeding - I guess it is the culture.

Ironic that in a liberal state such as Massachusetts, there are no harsh penalties for drunk driving - if it all enforced by the cops. This is not the first such tragedy in the state. Nor is it likely to be the last.

By the way, that drunk driver (in the case of my co-worker) was also high on drugs - survived. And he will live on and drink and drive to kill a few more innocent folks. What a travesty?

Smart Choice

I have been wondering about the explosion of small cars on American roads and started wondering if all these wonderful folks who think they are "green" simply because they are driving these small cars are being taken for a ride. Now I am convinced they are. Look at the chart below: (apologize for the format)

City Highway Length Height Width Weight HP

Honda

Civic 25 36 177 56 69 2630 140

Fit 28 35 162 60 68 2489 117

Civic Hybrid 40 45 177 56 69 2877 110

Toyota

Corolla 26 34 179 58 69 2822 132

Yaris 29 36 151 60 68 2295 106

Prius 51 48 176 59 69 3042 98

Smart 33 41 106 61 61 1808 70

Mini Cooper 28 37 146 55 66 2546 118

Given a choice between Civic and Fit, there is no "green" reason to choose Fit. It is kind-a attractive compared to very plain look of a Civic. But then again I have seen not so hip people driving 'Fit'.

Likewise, in the Toyota space, Yaris is not that much better than Corolla, but that much smaller.

Mini Cooper is cute, but that is not that much "greener".

Smart simply isn't smart choice for American roads - not practical as you sometime or the other have to get on a highway alongside those 18-wheelers. And for that big trade off, what do you get - almost a pittance.

Civic Hybrid is 1st generation hybrid technology. It is obvious that it delivers similar gas mileage pattern as a gas engine.

Prius is the most sensible "green" car. I do not own one, although I considered buying one. And then my cousin drove me 45 miles on a highway - in the greenbelt (I was in the backseat) and it felt terrible. And it is not very clear of the environmental impact when one has to dispose off the battery in 10 years.

So, I think the Smart Choice would be to pick a gas powered mid-sized car like Civic or Corolla and still feel "green".

And ultimately your driving pattern helps with mileage.

Talking heads, including our President, talk about Small Fuel Efficient cars. Shouldn't it simply be Fuel Efficient Cars? As the above data shows small did not provide fuel efficiency. Small cars are practical for those tiny European nations with cramped cities - makes parking easier, getting around tight spots easier. In our fast expansive continent, we drive long distances on open roads and share those roads with massive trucks. I for one don't really like to be roadkill.

I am all for fuel efficient cars, not small cars.

He kept us safe

I still vividly remember that fateful morning. South Station in Boston was packed with thousands of commuters heading back home - midday. And once on the train, hundreds packed into the cars, scared, pained and unable to fathom what just happened - each with their own silent thoughts and prayers. And then 10 days later, coming out of South Station on the way to work, thousands of heads looked up at the airplane taking off from Logan for the first time in all those days. I have never seen so many grown men look up at a plane taking off from Logan. And bumper stickers that said "We Stand United". This is what defined the last 7+ years. And it sure defined his Presidency.

On Nov. 4, 1999, in an interview with Andy Hiller, candidate Bush was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. And he failed to answer 3 of the 4. He was going to be a domestic issues president - running at the tail end of the largest peacetime expansion. He had no intent to be a foreign policy President - despite his father's foreign policy credentials.

Country was still divided over the disputed elections and his first months were lackluster. And then 9/11 happened. The hero of that day and ensuing weeks was Mayor Giuliani, not President Bush.

And since then, President Bush upheld his constitutional duties and his pledge. Due to its very nature, useful intelligence is never released until the statute of limitations runs out. So, it would be a long time before we know what might have been prevented. But it is pretty clear that around the world, terrorists have been very active. It is reasonable to assume that we have been safe largely because of the efforts of our government.

People argue that anyone would have done as good a job. But that is unfair. You can not add or subtract from a President's record. Presidents do not shape events. Rather, events shape the Presidents. Just as Mr. Clinton richly deserves the praise for the largest peacetime expansion, so does Mr. Bush for this 'safety'. Mr. Bush was not prepared for 9/11 - same way as Mr. Lincoln was not prepared for the Civil War. But those events propelled their presidencies to prominence.

Love him or hate him, this much is clear: "He kept us safe". And for that I am grateful to him. And I am proud of his service. God Bless him and everyone who stood by him.

Secretary "Fraud"

The revelations about Mr. Geithner's tax problems is astonishing. Rest of us would be in serious trouble, if not in jail.

Of course, Obama thinks it is a minor issue. Not so fast. I sure hope Senate republicans will hold his feet to the fire.

Not only should this guy not get the Treasury Secretary post, he should also be removed from his NY Fed post as well.